From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V4 #39 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Tuesday, March 12 2002 Volume 04 : Number 039 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/parents and children [Hilary Hertzoff ] Re: b/parents and children ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:48:02 -0500 (EST) From: Hilary Hertzoff Subject: Re: b/parents and children On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, David S. Bratman wrote: > Hilary - > > Whatever point you're trying to make, the one I've been trying to make all > along is that the parents' absence from _what we see of_ Xander's and > Willow's lives is much greater than can be explained by pathological > neglect, because whatever parental problems they have are not that severe, > or not of that kind. (We can see this by contrast with Tara, who really > does have pathological family problems.) This applies not just to the > parents' physically showing up on the screen, but in how much Xander and > Willow talk about them. At least in seasons 1 and 3-date. Which is what I was beginning to suspect...we're talking about two totally different things...or, perhaps we're having two different reactions to the same issue, both of which are equally valid. I agree with you about the fact that parents are less present than they should be in Buffy, but I was trying to tackle the problem with a literary rather than realistic explanation (which is what you seem to be looking for). Yes the parents should have been shown more often; we also should have seen - -more of the teaching staff and less of the principal...we mostly see teachers involved in the plot of the week, who either disappear or die during the course of the storyline - -more of the students, more often; we pretty much have Jonathan and Harmony and Percy standing in for the rest of the student body. - -and has anyone discussed Jesse since the pilot...he's supposed to be such a good friend of Willow and Xander and yet they don't seem to mourn him, and any reminiscences they have are about the two of them with no mention of Jesse. but the reality is that you're not going to fit all of this into a once a week show. A daily soap opera might manage it or perhaps a show where the focus was the friendship between Willow, Xander and Buffy rather than their fight against the forces of evil. Or to put it another way, Joss has to leave time for the fight scene. So I try to explain it away by referring to the literary tradition because I can't find a more realistic way to explain it. And quite honestly, when looked at in a realistic light about half of the books I listed fall apart for the same reason. Hilary Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY - Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:07:32 -0800 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/parents and children Hilary - I am just now on another list discussing a plot complication in a book, where I am trying to argue an "internal" explanation, i.e. one that makes sense in terms of the plot, against people whose sole explanation is "it makes a more exciting story." "Look," I keep saying, "the characters didn't make their choices of action on the basis of what would make a more exciting story. And if the 'external' explanation (the _author_ wanted a more exciting story) is the only one available, the story is to that extent a bad story." However, just because an internal explanation is available doesn't mean it necessarily hangs together. This comes up, for instance, in "plot coupon" fantasies, where the characters have to rush around collecting N magical talismans, and when they finish the set, the Dark Lord collapses automatically. (This plot comes from authors who've read Tolkien, but not very carefully.) If by "literary" explanation, you mean an "internal" one, what I'm trying to say is that the ones you've offered don't seem to me to work, to hang together, and therefore are bad explanations. I don't think internal explanations for this problem, or the other problems you cite, work very well, and they have to be chalked up to the limitations of a weekly TV show. Which is what _you_ keep telling _me_, but it's the point I keep making! Nevertheless there are ways and means of handling this that are within their capacity. References help. One of the charms of the show during the high-school years was precisely that Buffy was a student, she had classes to take and books to read and exams to study for, that had nothing to do with slaying and which made slaying an interference in her life. To demonstrate this, the show dropped in lots of casual references to her classes. They couldn't seem to find the budget to show a teacher who wasn't going to get killed, but this at least helped. I don't think they've done so well in that kind of department since she left high school, though the job is an improvement - there've been some scenes at DoubleMeat, like the meeting with Riley, that didn't have to be there, and even one or two scenes there that didn't advance the plot at all! Which shows that sometimes they can make the effort to put the life in context. Quality in imaginary-world creation depends on depth. One important component of depth is showing that there's _other stuff going on_ than the plot. Even a weekly tv show can convey this if it tries. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V4 #39 ****************************