Things that take you out of a story....

[shadowkat]

Was thinking about this...in response to two different posts on my flist about fanfic - one was contemplating whether Angel and Spike would discuss the AR scene in Buffy, and the other was about why AU fic doesn't work.

What takes you out of a story?

It's an interesting question. I remember a short story I wrote in undergrad about my grandparents. My grandfather had had three brain tumors removed. I inserted this into the story. But it did not work for one of my classmates who'd read it. She had a relative who died of brain cancer, just one tumor, and felt offended by my story. The three brain tumors felt like overkill to her. It took her out of the story. Short of my bringing in evidence that this was real, which I could have done because it was, it was not real to the classmate.

Which brings up the next question - when does it ruin the story for you? Or does it?

For many people online, the AR or attempted rape sequence in Seeing Red took them out of the story. It wasn't so much that they did not buy the fact that Spike might attack Buffy, but how that sequence was shot. Buffy was shown as being unable to fight Spike off after what amounted to a minor back injury in a graveyard. Considering Buffy fought Spike off with little effort in various episodes, with far greater injuries, including fighting a hell-god, and Angelus, this was difficult to believe. Also Spike attacked Buffy in her bathroom of all places. Entering it much like he might a living room. And we, the audience, had never really entered this room before.
Plus the sequence was shot in black and white, drenched of color, and as if it were in a different show. It, in short, took many viewers out of the story. And with it, their suspension of disbelief. It was difficult after that episode for the viewers to trust the writer, they stopped.

In tv land, this event is often called a "jump the shark" moment. It's when the viewer questions the story being told and finds themselves thrust outside of it. A huge wall suddenly exists between the viewer and the tale. They can no longer escape into it - instead they are critiquing it. Their critical faculties have become engaged and have in effect hijacked their viewing experience. It's no longer enjoyable.

It happens all the time to me with fanfic...I'll be reading along, and suddenly a character does something that just does not work for me. It feels out of character or outside how I viewed or more importantly the canon of the character. I don't mind AU (Alternate Universe) fanfic - it's basically a writer experimenting and you can argue all fanfic goes Alternate Universe at one point or another, but often...characters will do things that either do not make sense within the fabric of the story being told or are so outside what they would have done in the canon or original story that you wonder why the writer is bothering using this character and hasn't created a new one.

Example? A few years back, a group of us wrote a collaborative fanfic on the Fanged Four in Buffy, and our plotter got it into his head that Spike and Angelus should wear dresses to a costume party/ball with the Mayor back in the 1800s, in order to steal some doodad from the Mayor. We fought over this, because many of us weren't sure this worked for the characters. Would Spike and Angelus wear dresses? Was this out of character? Was the funny plot stunt that our "plotter" devised worth making our readers question what we were doing?

It's a valid question. The one thing a writer doesn't want is for the reader to start nit-picking.

Wait, thinks the reader, there's no way that a bullet can hit and kill this character from that angle? Without being a magic bullet. And it's not. So the reader or viewer is spending a great deal of time trying to figure out how the bullet could have hit the character...instead of enjoying the story.

Or...wait, there's no way Gregory House could still be practicing medicine at the same hospital after driving his car into his ex-girlfriend's house or going to prison. I can't buy this.

When does it happen? More importantly, from a writing perspective? How do we avoid it? Not as easy as it sounds. I remember writing a story with a gun. I went online and researched guns, bullets, and what happened when you shot someone. Because I was aware of the problem of throwing a knowledgable reader out of my story. It's a pain when you reader/watcher either knows more than you do about the topic you are writing about, or when they think they know more than you do and have pedantic streak. Be wary of critical readers.

Stephanie Meyer who wrote Twilight got away with a lot - mainly because her novels aren't directed towards a critical audience. They are young adult gothic fantasy romance novels. That audience tends to be more forgiving than the sci-fantasy audience that loves Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (ie. less critical). So it does depend on who the reader or audience is. A daytime soap opera watcher for example isn't going to be hyper-critical of the fact that the innocent guy gets thrown behind bars without due process. But a watcher of the series The Good Wife or NCIS or Breaking Bad - will be. We apply a different level to the medium.

And it is mainly based on experience. Another example? The last episode of the Good Wife had a grand jury hearing, where the prosecutor sort of screwed up royally and got derailed. Some posters didn't see this as realistic. I thought, why not? Didn't you guys watch The OJ Simpson Trial? Or for that matter American Politics? I mean come on. The State's Attorney's Special Prosecutor would get derailed that easily - I've seen it happen in real life, hello, Kenneth Starr? Newt Gingriech? I was bewildered by the reactions in selenak's review on the episode. Because they didn't track with my own real world experience. Doesn't mean they aren't valid. Just that our experiences are vastly different so our reactions are as well. This is also true with Breaking Bad - I was thrown out of the story in S2, and stopped watching. It was no longer real to me. It felt false and cliche based upon my experience. These are examples of how personal experience can affect viewing and pull us out of a story, even though others may have no issues with it - much like the reader of my short story about my grandparents. She was thrown out of the story based on her personal experience, and the assumption that her experience was the only valid thread.

Stories are supposed to pull us into another experience, outside of our heads and into another. Shared experiences. To show us a view or angle that we may never have considered. Not all stories, obviously. But many. That's part of the beauty of stories, I think. That ability to experience something you could not imagine or see a point of view that you never considered. But it's a tricky road to get the reader there - without thrusting them out of the story. Or another way of putting it? Not engaging their critical faculties in such a way that they question your story,
and spend all their time - going, wait a minute, that can't happen. There's no way this character would own a gun. Or there's no way they would tell them that.

I don't know about anyone else? But I've spent hours wrestling with plot-bunnies that don't feel plausible. I want two characters to have a specific conversation -but I realize, wait, there is no way on earth they are going to say these things. It just doesn't work. Example: Can you imagine Spike, a vampire who got his soul after he sexually forced himself on his lover, Buffy, who'd rejected him, telling his vampire brother/mentor/nemesis and rival for Buffy's affections why he'd sought a soul and what caused him to go after one? No. There's no way in hell that Spike would discuss this with Angel. Not willingly. So how do you make it happen? Sometimes? You just can't.

I've seen writers force things to happen between characters or plot-wise to achieve a specific theme. Notably the Buffy comics - which felt at times as if the writer was forcing his characters to play to his tune, instead of letting their story flow organically from their own personalities. In short, free will such as it is in stories was removed from the characters, and they became little more than puppets playing to the writer's thematic whimsy. OR at least that was my perception, your mileage may vary. As a result, I stopped reading the Buffy comics, because I could not buy the story. I was thrust out of it. I've seen this happen in tv shows as well.
Haven't we all? It also happens in novels. You are reading along, enjoying it, then wham - what? that can't happen! They would so not do that! Book goes crashing against the wall, and you feel betrayed by the writer.

So...what takes you out of a story? And how can a writer fix it? Is it even fixable?

Off to bed.

Comments

[sophist.livejournal.com]

I had the same reaction as you did to Seeing Red, but in the 10 years since (wow!) I've kind of convinced myself of the opposite. Here's how I put it once:

The truth is, all television (like all movies) uses stylized conventions which are “unreal” and yet evoke an actual event. Take sex scenes, for example. Even in most movies, the actors aren’t actually having sex. We know this, and yet we’re willing to overlook it and say to ourselves “they’re having sex”. Bullets on TV aren’t real, blood isn’t real, surgery isn’t real, courtroom scenes aren’t real. I could add literally hundreds of examples. At some level, we’re willing to suspend our disbelief and allow the story to take us to the thematic or emotional conclusion.

This factor is even more prominent in the superhero genre, where heroes like Superman, Batman, or Buffy regularly do physically impossible things. Characters use witchcraft and super powers. Those will bother some people; they just can’t get past the “unreality” of it. (Of course, the same is equally true of the appearance of the ghost in Hamlet or of the gods in the Iliad ….) This reaction can often be entirely irrational. For example, I’m a lawyer and it drives me crazy to watch courtroom scenes because I immediately spot the flaws (I’m sure the same is true for surgeons), and that can wreck my enjoyment of the scene. But why should I be perfectly content to watch Superman fly – violating the law of gravity – while being angry if he gets the hearsay rule wrong? It makes no sense.

Anyone who wants to appreciate any show needs to be able to put all these issues aside, just as they put aside “unreal” scenes in every movie, and understand that we’re simply to say to ourselves “they’re having sex” or “that’s magic” or “that’s surgery” even if it doesn’t look real.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Should clarify? The issues related above about the AR scene were a summarization of various comments and posts that I've heard over the years, not necessarily my own views.

That said? What bugged me about the AR - and fascinated me at the same time, and the reason that scene sticks in my head long after the event...is simply this: It was filmed realistically. It's the only scene outside of a few scenes in Normal Again, that lighting, costume design, set design, acting, etc evoke a hyper-real or realitic tone. It is blanched of color. It takes place in a real bathroom.
Buffy is really injured after a fight and fixing a hot bath. Spike isn't wearing his jacket and looks smaller, and isn't wearing makeup or eyeliner. He doesn't look like a vampire. He never goes into vamp face. His attack is not vampiric. When she throws him off he looks horrified. Really horrified (and he was - the actor was terrified of doing that scene).
She's really crying.

It was like suddenly you weren't watching Buffy any longer, instead you were watching Prime Suspect or
Six Feet Under or I don't know CBS News.

I've always been curious why the show-runners chose to do that. The only other time I can think of in the course of the entire series in which they made a similar choice was in Normal Again - which was not jarring and made sense - because they were attempting to show the real world. Why do it here too? It threw me out of the story in how it was edited and shot.

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

I've always been curious why the show-runners chose to do that.

I can only speak from my own viewpoint, but if I were the one directing such a scene, I would have certainly done something similar to what was actually filmed.

As you yourself have commented many times, Buffy is a series with many fantastic elements, sometimes science fiction, sometimes fantasy (as in "magic"), sometimes horror. If I had to generalize, I'd have to say it draws on horror elements more than anything else, and follows the conventions of that fictional genre, be it written word, film, or television.

In the real world women do not get attacked by vampires or demons or other fantasy monsters. Statistically, few get attacked or killed by human criminals, whether psychotic or not. However, millions of women are raped or sexually assulted every year. Not exactly news, but...

If I were a male (which I am, like Whedon), and trying to be sympathetic to this ugly state of affairs, this makes it imperative that I do nothing that might trivialize its seriousness if I am depicting such an act in what passes for "entertainment", even if such entertainment routinely incorporates fantastic elements.

So, I want it to look real. I have my DOP light and shoot the scene to emphasize the "reality". In the real world this is a real horror, not a fantasy one. Buffy is a fictional character, but on many levels she represents real women.

In short, the scene needs to disturb people. Some years ago, when I was contributing a story to the ATPo Angel Season 6 series, I wrote a scene involving a female character that while not a rape scene, did draw on her being sexually harassed/degraded by some military personnel. (The Abu Gharib prison debacle in Iraq had occurred not too long before, was still in public memory, and I based the scene partly on that situation).

After submitting it to the project manager/headwriter, my primary concern was if I had handled it properly-- it was a dark scene, and it had to resonate with the overall story. She posted the scene pretty much without changes, so I suppose it passed muster, but frankly it was creepy even writing it. I did the best I could, trying to hope it would be mostly received with the meaning as intended.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

This is a hard to discuss, because I am of two minds regarding it. While I don't really agree with what you state above, I do think there are good things in the episode.

So, I want it to look real. I have my DOP light and shoot the scene to emphasize the "reality". In the real world this is a real horror, not a fantasy one. Buffy is a fictional character, but on many levels she represents real women.

But here's the thing? It's not conveyed that way. Buffy kicks him off. She is not raped. In reality? She'd have been raped.

The problem with how Seeing Red was written, was in part that it was written from the wrong point of view. Marti Noxon pitched an experience from her own life, where she was involved in an abusive sexual relationship that she wanted to continue, and she forced herself on her male companion. The writers had written themselves into a corner with Spike. They needed Spike to seek a soul to change. But the audience didn't believe he needed a soul (or the vast majority of the audience at any rate). So how do you convince the audience that this character would seek a soul? You have to have the character do something shocking that would upset him and the audience. So Marti bravely suggests an experience she had. They write it from the attacker's pov, but, and here's the ironic part, the experience they are using is one in which the attacker was female. In Marti's experience - the guy kicked her off, she was utterly humiliated and ashamed. This comes across very differently if the attacker were male. (See Faith attack Xander in Consequences if you want an example. Or Buffy attack Spike in Gone.)

So...this, as you state above, incredibly painful experience for many women is not only shown from a male perspective but is also used to motivate a male character to turn his life around. The focus is on Spike. Not Buffy. It becomes all about him. How does that not trivalize the female experience of rape? It's also shot from that male character's pov and we get to see how he handles the situation. Buffy - we never really get much from her perspective. She doesn't really talk about it. He does. The most we get is a conversation between Buffy and another male vampire, who fights with her.

They shoot it in a way that is inconsistent with how both their series are shot. And I'd say that...yes, they were doing it for the reasons you related, except..for the inconsistencies. Angelus - we're told raped Drusilla, but it is shown in the same campy style as everything else. Just as his rape of the gypsy girl is in the episode Darla, which is shown from Darla's perspective. We also see Xander's sexual assault on Buffy in The Pack campy. Domestic Violence? Shown either campy in Beauty and the Beasts or in Dead Things...as well, not that big a deal. Faith's assault on Xander - campy. The biker's comments about rape - campy. And how about Spike's scene with Willow in The Initiative, where date-rape is turned into a comedic routine on impotence? I love that scene, don't get me wrong. But...you can't do all of those scenes in that way, and then suddenly turn around and shoot that scene in Seeing Red in the manner that you have...without making it look like you are going for shock value, and well trivalizing the topic at the same time.

After saying all of this? I don't believe Whedon was going for what you suggest. But rather something else. Remember the theme of the season was "Oh, Grow Up" or "Drop the metaphor - this is REAL"? That's why in Seeing Red - the two worse things that happen - Buffy gets attacked sexually by her lover, and gets shot - are depicted in a realistic manner. Not on campy sets. And with something real - no monsters, no demons. This is real life, folks! While you have to admire the cinematic gimmick - Whedon was good at these sorts of gimmicks, the problem with that gimmick..is it can come across as preachy and take the audience out of the story, which is what happened to me.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I screwed up above - the scene in Dead Things was also shot realistically and was not campy. Sorry about that.

And I should mention - what saved the episode for me and why I do re-watch it from time to time - is the scene between Clem and Spike after he rushes back to his crypt. That scene in my opinion is amongst one of the best written scenes in the entire series, and the best acted, directed, and shot scenes. So much ambiguity. That scene changed the series and made it interesting. It also questions whether a soul is necessary or just a mcGuffin. The very existence of that scene...makes you wonder if Spike needed a soul. And it throws everything we know about Angel up into the air. Brilliant scene.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

I started to say something close to your point about the scene being more about Spike than Buffy, but I deleted it. The question for me about a scene of this importance is, how does this advance *Buffy's* story? And the answer is, as you say, that it doesn't really. The scene isn't about Buffy, it's about Spike. The would-be rapist. That's part of what makes it weird.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

That's why it doesn't work. It's also why I find myself compelled to revisit it and pull it apart. And I think it's also why so many people online reacted so negatively to it. Because Seeing Red...isn't about Buffy at all, it's about the men in her life and their issues with her (well not so much with Buffy really, as with women in general). Warren, Xander, and Spike are the main points of view - if you think about it. And all three are not depicted in the best of lights. Even Xander comes out sort of negatively...and it is through Xander's eyes that we see Warren's violence towards women directly. Lies My Parents Told Me is similar in some respects - it's also about the men in Buffy's life and their issues with her.

And in a way, I guess, you could say it's a commentary on the pulp horror noir genre in general - it does have some twisted views on women. See either Angel or better yet, Supernatural for examples.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Ah, well that's ok because I was one of those who did have that reaction. As I say, I've kind of intellectually convinced myself I was wrong then, but that initial emotional reaction to the episode still makes it not exactly a favorite.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I can't remember what my initial reaction was...and I was so spoiled at the time, that it is hard to know how much of it was a reaction to the fandom. (The boards exploded a week prior, because half the online fandom saw Seeing Red before Entropy.)

Will state, that I do to a degree agree with what I summarized above.
I have mixed feelings. And am of two minds regarding it. Still trying to figure out how to answer atpomn's response below. Which...brings up some delicate issues.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Or rather his response above yours.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

The scene is an interesting contrast to the murder of Jenny Calendar. That was different in every way possible, including vamp face for Angelus.

I think the two scenes served similar purposes at their respective moments in the show, namely to confirm for the viewer that the vampire really is evil. We can argue about the need for this, but my point isn't to rehash the Spike debates from S6. My point is that they made such totally different artistic decisions in the two cases and I still today am not sure why.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The scene that continues to blow my mind is the one that happened after the AR scene, with Spike and Clem in the crypt. We have a vampire who is soulless questioning his own morality, his reason for being. It may be the most interesting scene in the entire series from a psychological and philosophical standpoint. That scene - makes you wonder if Spike needed a soul.

While Passion was admittedly better written than Seeing Red in many respects, that scene between Clem and Spike is a lot more interesting.
It's why I kept engaging in all those fights - because that scene fascinates me to this day.

[atpo-onm.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your detailed reply to me above. It's been at least a few years since I last saw this episode, but your comments regarding POV and the scene with Clem (that I don't recall very well right now) certainly make me want to watch it again sometime soon and re-evaluate. I see what you are saying regarding Spike's POV, but I do recall not having any problems seeing the scene from Buffy's POV either. POV often shifts several times within an episode and I usually just shift along with it.

We have a vampire who is soulless questioning his own morality, his reason for being. It may be the most interesting scene in the entire series from a psychological and philosophical standpoint. That scene - makes you wonder if Spike needed a soul.

Much more recently, in an LJ post about the comics and the resolution of the Season 8 by the destruction of the Seed of Wonder, I noted that IMO, Whedon used the Seed and magic to symbolize religion, and that it might be worthy of considering (in his opinion) what the world would be like without, or with significantly less religion.

Your comments about whether Spike needed a soul or not falls right alongside arguments made by people over whether or not atheists can be moral individuals. I can assure you that according to regularly appearing editorial page letters to my local newspaper, many people in my area strongly believe that such is simply impossible and will not tender arguments to the contrary. Of course, atheist that I am, I beg to differ.

So you could also see the soul dilemma as another analog for religion vs. no religion.

[norwie2010.livejournal.com]

So you could also see the soul dilemma as another analog for religion vs. no religion.

Nietzsche already gave an answer to that 150 years ago. Or, more precisely, Nietzsche said that the "seed" is already broken (in the so-called "Western World"). So, 150 years of experience of living in a world with a broken seed (to stay within the Whedon-metaphor) and what followed directly after Nietzsche...

...and then the over-religious AtS and how that turned out (for the characters, the characterization and the world).

Hm, doesn't really "click" for me in the "soul" vs. "no-soul" dichotomy.

(And maybe that's because Nietzsche really thought about stuff and Whedon only sells stuff. :-P )

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree with norwie here, who does get back to what I was attempting to state in my original post:

1) What throws us out of the story.
and
2) So much of this is subjective -

i.e. if you've read a lot of philosophy, such as Nietzche...Whedon's clumsy attempts could either turn you on, or really turn you off. Just as Nietzche turns some people on and some off, as does Ayn Rand.