This and that and the other thing..

[shadowkat]

1. Amazed I made it to work today without a)getting killed by a bus, or reaming said bus with my cane, b)getting knocked over by several pedestrains, not giving in to the temptation to trip said pedestrains with cane, c) injuring hip attempting to sit on train next to annoying woman who felt the need to take up six seats...and not clobbering said woman with cane. And who says life is not an obstacle course?

2. Ah, the bowling match above my head has stopped finally. They must be taking a lunch break.

3. Lost rocked last night. (Well it did if you ignore the whole island storyline which has become incredibly convoluted.) The Lock story though - highly satisfying. Particularly the small bits with Ben in them. The Sawyer story thread...was okay. May or may not write a review. selenak
already has in case you are interested. The other thing that rocked was Big Bang Theory - which made me giggle throughout, I think it was re-run.

4. Was reading that fic Imitation of A Man last night - yeah, I know, still.
Don't ask me why, but there's something about it I must find compelling. It is well written in places. And the feminization of Spike and masculation of Buffy that I find fascinating, particularly since I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the writer appears to be unaware of it. Spike's clearly in the traditional female role here (not traditional in the sense of cooking, etc - but in how relationships are traditionally presented in literature and media) while Buffy's in the traditional male. (Generally speaking in most novels and media - men usually aren't in talking about their feelings, while women are. Men more action oriented, women more into talking/communicating. As evidenced by 85% of the tv shows currently on the air.) Anyhow when my Kindle couldn't access basic web last night to get the next chapter, I found myself scrolling through the comments to amuse myself. And one of the author (darkapple)'s comments truly befuddled me. A true WTF moment. The author stated and I'm doing this from memory, so wording may be slightly off - "what I love most about Spike is he brings no baggage to his love, his love is so pure, so absolute, there's no baggage, just pure love". Uhm okay. What??? Seriously - WTF??? There are days in which I feel as if we are on separate planets or dimensions in our interpretations/communications. Can writers be this unaware of what they are doing? I'm guessing so. Or maybe I'm just misreading the thing? Both are equally possible.

5. Definitely have a stress fracture. Doc seems to think it was caused by my massive hike home from church - which was you know, 40 blocks. 40 blocks is the equivalent of a half a mile maybe a mile. Hardly massive. The man clearly drives everywhere. With any luck will get a boot by the end of the week or weekend at the latest.

Comments

[rahirah]

I think the main problem I had with the ending was that... SPOILER SPACE
;

;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
I thought it took a lot of balls to have Buffy stake Vamp!William. But I couldn't buy the imprinting on rabbits thing; it seemed like a deus ex machina. If she'd introduced the possibility earlier, or something... I dunno. But regardless, we get to the climactic scene, and the villain basically tells Spike that Buffy's done what she did because she was tricked and lied to and lacked crucial information. If she'd had that crucial information, she might well have acted differently.

So what motivation does Spike have to go evil? NONE. The villain's just confirmed to him that Buffy's not as unforgiving as it seemed. If the villain had just kept his mouth shut and let Spike think that Buffy had staked William knowing that he was no danger to humans, then Spike's choice to stick with her would have meant a great deal more.

All that said, there were more things I liked about the story than not, and I'd certainly rec it to someone looking for long plotty Spuffy, with the caveat that the characterization may not be everyone's cup of tea.

[candleanfeather.livejournal.com]

Word to what you said about the end and I see the eye of the expert at work here (I hadn't even thought about the little problem in the climatic scene).

I'm very ambivalent, for me the things I dislike win, but I recognize the amount of work put into this story and its real potential. So I wouldn't discourage anybody from reading it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Well the spoiler got me to continue reading - even though I was very close to calling it quits last night. I'm currently on the chapter - where Buffy has a) found a drunken Spike and b) evidence in the newspaper linking Spike to the Whitechapel murders.

I'm struggling with her characterization of Spike and William - as almost exaggerated versions of the hopeless romantic trope who spends 85% of his time grousing, nobody loves me, nobody wants me, I might as well go out in the garden and eat worms. It's a trope that is not limited to 19th century literature (unfortunately), although is fairly prevalent in it, hence the reason - I tend to dislike 19th century literature. ;-) Anyhow, as a result, my sympathy is a bit too slanted towards Buffy here...which I'm guessing is not the writer's intent? (shrugs)
But yet, the plot continues to intrigue me.

[candleanfeather.livejournal.com]

"Well the spoiler got me to continue reading " :-)

It's one of the problem I had too. The extreme preoccupation with the sordid aspects of William's life (wow, it's very long to say, in French we have a word for that "misérabilisme"). I always had to remember that yes such dire situations are possible. What annoyed me the most with that, is that it isn't done for a social study but to force the reader sympathy towards William. The sympathy should arise more naturally.
As for the end, I don't want to anticipate but I'm not sure you'll appreciate Buffy's characterization either.

Do you know the French litterature of the 19 th century. Romantism wasn't as important in France as it was in countries like United Kingdom or Germany. I can rec you three major novel writers whose major interest was in the study of their society: Stendhal (1783-1847), Balzac (1799-1850), Zola (1840-1902).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Do you know the French litterature of the 19 th century. Romantism wasn't as important in France as it was in countries like United Kingdom or Germany. I can rec you three major novel writers whose major interest was in the study of their society: Stendhal (1783-1847), Balzac (1799-1850), Zola (1840-1902).

Oh, yes! I read Stendhal's The Red and The Black in high school - devoured it actually. Much prefer French 18th, 19th and Early 20th Literature to English. Voltaire's Candide (read in French), Les Liasons Dangereux - the original version - much better than Richardson's Clarissa. The English are frightfully prudish.

And something tells me I'd prefer Victor Hugo to Dickens.

What annoyed me the most with that, is that it isn't done for a social study but to force the reader sympathy towards William. The sympathy should arise more naturally.

Exactly. There is a very fine line between eliciting sympathy and forcing it. There's equally a fine line between showing and telling. I'm at the point in which I want to kill William just to put him out of his misery. I'm also not sure what is expected of Buffy here? Is she supposed to sweep in and save him from his sorry lot? After having died, come back, struggled with her mom's death, raising her sister, and getting a job, and slayage/saving everyone? In comparison - William actually has it pretty good. He just has to take care of himself.

He's incredibly pathetic. The writer has read too many penny dreadfuls (19th Century and Early Twentieth Century pulp romances that focused on dire situations) - which is what this reminds me of.

[candleanfeather.livejournal.com]

"The writer has read too many penny dreadfuls (19th Century and Early Twentieth Century pulp romances that focused on dire situations) - which is what this reminds me of." It's a strong probability.

By the way, do you know Diderot? A philosopher of the Lights, an author of the Encyclopedia. A brilliant writer and a warm and playful mind. He's one of my favourite author. Try if you want Jacques le Fataliste et son maître, La religieuse, Le Neveu de Rameau, Le paradoxe sur les comédiens...

And now I'm going to wish you a good afternoon (night, for me)

[angearia.livejournal.com]

I'd certainly rec it to someone looking for long plotty Spuffy, with the caveat that the characterization may not be everyone's cup of tea.

I started reading and was fairly impressed, but the story lost me when Buffy didn't hesitate at drinking Spike's blood. Her characterization in that moment in particular had me questioning if I wanted to read such a lengthy work that I'd be reading with an eye for the ways I disagreed with how the characters were portrayed at crucial intervals.

Maybe it's just me, but I have trouble reading Buffy fic with my typical immersion now that I've started writing it myself. Not that I'm saying I do things better by any means and I often find myself reading fic and being envious of turns of phrase or plot execution. But the one thing that's my main trigger is characterization--voice and actions and thought process. If it doesn't jibe with what I believe about the show, I find myself rewriting aspects or arguing with the story as I read. And I find myself becoming an unwilling beta rather than an avid reader. I suppose it's the one area that I have confidence (or arrogance, I suppose) in how I perceive canon and divergences in fic irritate me, perhaps even more so when the story as a whole is deftly written because the characterization is one of the most important aspects of fanfic to me.

You're right that it wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, but I can definitely see how many might enjoy it.

[rahirah]

It really depends for me. I mentioned in one of Shadowkat's earlier post on this topic that I've got categories that I file fic in as regards to characterization. There's authors who write the characters really, really close to the way I see them. I can read a story by them and say "That's my Buffy and Spike!" Then there are authors who write them fairly close, most of the time, but differ from my take in some ways. I can read a story by them and say "That's a Buffy and Spike." I may raise an eyebrow here and there, but I'm not thrown completely out of the story. Then there are the ones where I'm pretty sure we watched different TV shows. *g*

If a writer has a good prose style, good pacing, good plotting, good dialogue, etc., I tend to be a little more forgiving of characterization I don't agree with, particularly if I can see the author's logic, and their characterization is consistent within the context of their story. There are lots of very well-regarded fan authors that fall into this category for me - Herself, Peasant, K. J. Draft, Nan Dibble, many others. I could pick characterization nits with their stuff, but they're good enough writers that I enjoy their stories anyway, even though I may mutter, "Buffy wouldn't do that," every now and then.

ETA: I think this is something which is particularly apt to happen to writers who write long series - the longer a series goes on, the greater the potential for the characters to diverge from 'pure' canon characterization. (I would bet that for a lot of readers, I fall into this category myself.)

I'm actually rather curious as to why Darkapple used the whole re-siring thing at all, because IMO the story would have worked perfectly well without it. I'd have thought she was just a claiming fan, but she said she wasn't.

[angearia.livejournal.com]

the longer a series goes on, the greater the potential for the characters to diverge from 'pure' canon characterization.

That's really interesting. Though it does leave me to wonder how far a character actually can change. I mean, yes we obviously do change over the course of our lifetime but it's amazing how we stay essentially the same. Our core character is fixed in many ways. I think the one main area with the greatest divergence comes from how we perceive others and have sympathy for other people's plights. But that in general there's a natural baseline for our personalities and we tend to skew to one extreme or the other in terms of deep moods and influences. That our experiences take an already natural trait (e.g. Buffy's solo shouldering of responsibility) and take it to an extreme depending upon our experiences (Buffy becoming more hardened and cut off over the years that she fights as a Slayer).

(I would bet that for a lot of readers, I fall into this category myself.)

Right and as you say, in that case what's most important is that the characterization lines up in your own work.

I'm actually rather curious as to why Darkapple used the whole re-siring thing at all, because IMO the story would have worked perfectly well without it. I'd have thought she was just a claiming fan, but she said she wasn't.

I'm now imagining the story without the re-siring... I think it might have worked better for my view of Buffy's character if the claiming/re-siring hadn't happened. It diverges a bit for me that Buffy would start thinking in such vampiric terms; or was that explicitly made the point? That Buffy felt her own demonic side growing (the way she feels she came back "wrong") in Season 6 and decided to embrace that and her relationship with Spike in demonic terms? I could buy into that. But it didn't seem like Buffy was embracing a dark, perhaps demonic side of herself (thought I can't remember exactly). The re-siring seems like the demonic fast-forward version of what Buffy actually did in Season 7 in Slayer terms when she brought Spike into her home and defended him to her friends and family.

I do like how thought-provoking this fic is becoming now. I might have to give it another shot when I have the time to devote to it.

[rahirah]

Though it does leave me to wonder how far a character actually can change.

I'm not sure it's really a matter of the characters changing or not, per se. I think it's simply that the longer you write a character, the more it becomes yours. If you're writing a long series, inevitably, the action is going to diverge from canon, and once it does, what happens next will depend more and more upon the themes and tropes that you find important and satisfying to write about. If someone likes writing about how we are all essentially alone, then they're going to make story decisions that tend to leave their protagonist alienated and lonely even when surrounded by friends. If someone likes writing about father/son relationships, then they're going to make story decisions that put their characters into those relationships, either literally or metaphorically. And so on. The longer you write a story, the more it becomes about what's important to you, and the less it becomes about what's important to Joss Whedon.

(And I don't think that's a bad thing at all. Canon is important to me as background - if I were writing a story set in new York, I'd research New York. If I'm writing something set in the Buffyverse, I research the Buffyverse, and where research fails try to make my extrapolations 'fit.' But I don't want to re-tell Joss's stories. What would be the point? Joss already told them.)


ETA: Although I think that the way experience changes our basic traits can produce enormous differences in the way we react to new experiences. I've got one WIP where I'm writing half a dozen alternate universe versions of Buffy - one close to comics canon, one who is working for Wolfram & Hart, one who's a vampire, one who caught the helicopter and married Riley, one who's living with Angel in a post-apocalyptic world, and so on. They're all Buffy, but their experiences have been very different. It's really interesting playing with the commonalities and the differences.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm actually rather curious as to why Darkapple used the whole re-siring thing at all, because IMO the story would have worked perfectly well without it. I'd have thought she was just a claiming fan, but she said
she wasn't.

Oh, I can answer this one - since I just read the chapter in the story in which the purpose for the resiring is more or less explained.

Buffy believes that by resiring Spike she can make him good. That she can control him. Make sure he doesn't hurt anyone. Like retraining a dog that has been trained to kill people, not to - is perhaps the best analogy. Or rather the parent-child relationship. It underlines a couple points that the writer is attempting to make in the tale: 1) that we cannot be held accountable for the actions of others. They make their own choices. Granted our choices may influence, inspire, or motivate theirs - but their choices are still their own. (eg. Parents can't control their kids.) 2) chip or resiring isn't what keeps Spike from killing. He can kill with either. Neither controlled him. What keeps him from killing is sheer willpower or choice not to kill. To go against the demonic nature.
3) Buffy's guilt - we are going back to Katrina's death. Buffy blames herself for Katrina. She blames herself for everyone Angel or Spike kills. Or even Warren abuses. Because she believes that she can stop them. It's the superhero motif or again the mother/father view - I can stop them. What they do is my fault. 4) We do have free choice. Our actions are not predetermined by a soul - demonic or otherwise.

And there's the whole vampire theme - ie - vampires circumvent death by sucking the life essence of the living. And Buffy's sucking of Spike's blood, in a sense makes her vampiric - the idea of living off of his love for her, and giving nothing in return (may be the metaphor the writer is going for here). I have difficulty buying this metaphor - since we're talking about someone who has literally bent over backwards to give Spike the benefit of the doubt, traveled to another dimension and timeline, and saved his life, when every instinct is telling her to kill him.

The story appears to be an in depth examination of the themes surrounding that alley sequence in Dead Things.