Walking Dead, Books, and how Sam and Diane on Cheers Ruined the Buffy/Spike realtionship

[shadowkat]

1. Well they finally killed off Shane. Although that was weird, since neither Shane nor Randall appeared to be sick or bitten by the Dead, so how did they become Walking Dead after they got killed? Does everyone become Walking Dead now - when they die?

They are finally killing off some of the cast, which had gotten a bit unwieldly.

Nice ironic twist that Rick kills Shane, whose become a murderous monster, and Carl kills him a second time when he becomes a Walking Dead Zombie. And the actor playing Shane managed to become the creepiest zombie yet.

Guessing next week - we'll get more cast members killed off? Would make for a cheaper and easier to write series. I don't care - just keep Daryl and Andrea alive, I like them. Herschel can go, so can Carl, and Lori for that matter.


2. Dead tired and somewhat lethargic today. Dragging through it. Also haunted by
that book I finished this past weekend, Fault in Our Stars. It's sticking in my head. I can't become obsessive about it - it's a self-contained novel. There's no more story. Just be an exercise in frustration. But it does play with your head in odd ways. In some respects, I think John Green manages to say what Whedon and to a degree RT Davies attempted in their works, but in a much clearer and more profound and emotionally moving manner. The universe begs to be noticed. The world wasn't built for us, we were built for it. And humans have a tendency to scar the world in horrible ways when they are busy trying to be superheroes or leaving a legacy. This theme brought home to me again tonight - while watching the news, which I seldom do...because, well, have you watched the news lately? Tonight's lead story was about a deranged US solider who went house to house in Afghansitan executing women, children and families. And not to be outdone, they told me about how the US servicemen had urinated on dead Afghans three weeks ago, then burned the Koran. Plus the soliders in this specific unit had either killed people at home after their tour of duty or killed civilians in Afghanistan. In their drive to become heroes after 9/11 they've become monsters...a cautionary tale right out of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness...what's that phrase? If you look into the abyss it looks back into you?
OR the problem with fighting monsters is you become one yourself? No good can come from doing evil? And my mind drifts back to Fault in Our Stars...about the boy who
wants to die fighting - fisticuffs and bullets, not fighting his own body. And the girl who asks why - that would be better?

Like I said it's a book I keep flipping over and over in my head at the oddest times.

3. Flirted with the idea of picking up the latest Buffy comic at the comic book store, but it was not a serious flirt, little more than a raising of eyebrows..I seriously doubt the comic or the comic book store noticed. From what I've read of the reviews it sounds like Andrew Chambliss and Whedon learned everything they ever wanted to know about writing a romantic relationship from 1980s sitcoms (specifically Sam and Diane on Cheers)/detective shows (such as Moonlighting and Remington Steel) and possibly Marvel comic books.



In the 1980s and 1990s romantic detective show and workplace sitcom, the guy and the girl endlessly flirted. The guy had it bad for the girl. He would pursue her. She'd ignore him. Finally they'd sleep together. She'd deny it meant anything. Or he would. One or the other. He would tell her he loved her. She'd be in denile. Or it was the other way around. They'd come thisclose to being on the same page and revealing their deep undying affection for each other - but some stupid thing would interrupt it - if a sitcom - some ex-lover or friend would pop up at the wrong time and stop them. If a detective show? A Dead body. It was highly frustrating. After a while I caught on to the writers - "oh, you're going to drag this out to see how long you can keep the audience in suspense and coming back for more..I get it." First it is "will they or won't they kiss?" Then "will they or won't they have sex"? Then "will they or won't they declare their love for each other?" Then "will they or won't they get married?"
And the last bit? Spoiler: NEVER happens. Actually we're lucky if we make it to the declare their love part. In the 1960s-1970s, they did the declare their love bit first and worked their way up to the kiss, and they sex never happened. We live in more enlightened times now, we get the sex first and we're lucky if we make it to the declare their love bit.

But a few shows did attempt to break this cycle. Cheers not only had Sam and Diane sleep together, Sam proposed marriage, and Diane even imagined a life with him, before she took off on a lucrative book deal. (Shelly Long left for a lucrative movie career which bombed, but who knew at the time?) In Moonlighting - Maddie and David sort of slept together, then the show became weirdly surreal, she'd be on it, no he would, she disappeared, he mourned her absence, to this day I'm still not sure what exactly happened because I finally gave up and watched something else. (Cybill got pregnant and left, then Bruce Willis wanted out for a lucrative movie career and he couldn't stand Cybil). Remington Steele - same thing happened, Laura slept with Steele, he took off (Pierce Bronsan wanted out to pursue a lucrative movie career and he could not stand his co-star), she got a new partner, I gave up on the series, I came back - she sort of ended up with him in his Irish Castle. But by that point, who cared. TV writers and networks decided in their ultimatum wisdom that what killed these three series was putting the leads together, not the fact that the actors wanted to pursue movie careers who hated their co-stars. (Which was the truth.)

Or as Whedon stated to the Onion in a recent interview:

First of all, if you don't feel afraid, horror show not good. We learned early on, the scariest thing on that show was people behaving badly, or in peril, morally speaking, or just people getting weird on you—which, by the way, is the scariest thing in life. In terms of not giving people what they want, I think it's a mandate: Don't give people what they want, give them what they need. What they want is for Sam and Diane to get together. [Whispers.] Don't give it to them. Trust me. [Normal voice.] You know? People want the easy path, a happy resolution, but in the end, they're more interested in... No one's going to go see the story of Othello going to get a peaceful divorce. People want the tragedy. They need things to go wrong, they need the tension. In my characters, there's a core of trust and love that I'm very committed to. These guys would die for each other, and it's very beautiful. But at the same time, you can't keep that safety. Things have to go wrong, bad things have to happen.

He's said this in other ways as well. "What ruined Cheers was Sam and Diane got together!" So basically, we have Cheers to blame for this! Well, Cheers and Moonlighting, Remington Steel, and several others I can't think of at the moment. (Although I disagree with Whedon and his brethern (he's not alone, JJ Abrahams, Rock O'Bannion, Ron Moore and RT Davies also see the world through this strange haze) - I didn't think Sam and Diane getting together ruined Cheers, nor is Sam and Diane all I think about when I think about Cheers. In retrospect, I rather liked Sam and Woody, Sam and Carla, and Fraizer/Diane and Lilith. Although my favorite character was the magician named Harry.

I call this particular television trope: writers dangling a proverbial piece of chocolate in front of their audience - oh, look, see, how great this is...but I'm not going to give it to you yet, you have to watch the next episode! Whoops...no, I mean next week's episode. No, next week's! I promise, we'll resolve it by the end of the year! And after about three years of this, you begin to wonder why you are still watching this stupid tv show. The writer is never going to deliver on the goods, they are just going to tease you indefinitely. And stupid you are going along with it.

Now, here's the thing - that novelists know, which is that it is possible to write tragedy without teasing the reader for 250 pages. You can actually put the characters together, have them declare their love for each other, and have one die tragically...and satisfy the reader. Yes, shocking, but possible.

I personally found the Sam and Diane relationship on Cheers to be an exercise in frustration. Same with Moonlighting and Remington Steel. And no, all the tension in the series did not disappear the moment they got together. It disappeared before then, during the constant will they or won't they dance. Seriously you'd think the entire series was just about whether they'd get together or not. A good writer can create dramatic tension and sexual tension without relying on gimmicks. That - is how you can tell the difference between a good writer and an average one. Look at the Good Wife or how about Parenthood and Friday Night Lights? Or The Wire - which created excellent male/female relationships.

As much as I loved Farscape, I agree with Ben Browder and Claudia Black who bemoaned the writers insane insistence on keeping the leads apart, and all the cartwheels they did to break them up in order to keep up the "romantic tension". It was unrealistic and silly in places. Buffy? It was fun for a bit, then I got bored of the Angel/Buffy angst and just wanted the two characters to move on already. Buffy/Spike entertained me up until the damn comics. It had gotten old. A bit too much like a daytime soap opera - in daytime soaps, characters get together, they have a wild romance, they are happy, then the writers get bored and break them up over some stupid thing, usually one or the other is presumed dead or goes nuts, then skip a year or so, they come back to life and we start the whole thing all over again. Farscape did it over the course of four years. They'd get together, one character either went nuts or died, then they'd come back, and we'd start the process again. Battlestar Galatica did it with Starbuck and Apollo. RT Davies did it with Doctor Who and Rose Tyler. And Stephen Moffat subverted the trope in a humorous fashion with River Song and Doctor Who - who are together back to front. They are happy off-screen in a weird eternal loop-de-loop. Meanwhile the true ship Rory and Amy are happy together off and on-screen throughout. Moffat doesn't appear to have any problems writing sexual tension between happy couples.

I've read stories where the romance ends tragically, but it works. Because they get together, they are allowed to be happy for a while, and we're allowed to enjoy it. See Doctor Who and River Song for an example. Or Amy and Rory, who do endure a tragedy, and in some respects a far more touching one because it is far less predictable.

We all know the inevitable will happen, one or both will die. But that happens to everyone. All life ends in tragedy. That's a given. Teasing the audience...will they or won't they...forever and a day, gets a bit dull. We've all seen it before. After a while you just want to smack the dang writer upside the head and say, okay just shit or get off the pot. Otherwise I'm going to wander over here and watch this tv show instead. Audience's tend to have a short attention span. And there are writers now who don't need a carrot or gimmick to get their viewers to tune in.

Same thing goes for comic books.

At any rate this is a lengthy way of explaining why I no longer care about the Buffy/Spike relationship, it's more or less the same reason I stopped caring about the Buffy/Angel one or any of the relationships in that series. Least you think I'm being too hard on Whedon, he's not the only one who does this, as explained above.
It's quite popular amongst a group of male genre and sitcom writers. Women writers, oddly, don't do this as much. I've noticed Julie Plec is less into the teasing the audience forever trope. Shondra Rhimes doesn't do it at all. And Jane Espenson didn't do it on Caprica. Nor does Stephen Moffat for that matter.

So if the will they or won't they trope annoys you too? Not that hard to avoid apparently.

Comments

[wildtiger7.livejournal.com]

Farscape completely destroyed my tolerance for any sort of drawn out will they/won't they sort of thing between two characters. I hate it, especially knowing that there are far less examples of how these complicated relationships play out than the tension of getting there.

[ann1962]

I'm going to miss Shane. Horrible guy, but at least he was action oriented, kept the story moving. And he's an amazing actor. He could go from sensitive to hellish in a blink. I hope to see him in other stuff asap.

I remember being irritated by Sam and Diane, much more so than in by the two in Moonlighting. I found Moonlighting funnier, so maybe that was why. I rolled my eyes often while watching Cheers, and after a while stopped watching.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I believe on Remington Steele, they got married so that he could have a green card... then she ran off with that other guy because it wasn't a 'real' marriage and...well... look, another guy. (Brosnan lost his shot at being Bond over this. That was when it went to Timothy What's-his-name).

Then in the final movie of the week, the week, they revealed that the guy who had raised him actually was his father, his real name actually was 'Harry' and they headed upstairs to consummate...

not that I was suckered into following any of that or anything. ;)

(Never did care about Sam and Diane. Enjoyed the show. But honestly, I liked Sam and Rebecca better... and yet was anything but bothered that no one ended up with anyone.)

I also always resent people name checking Moonlighting as going off the rails because the couple consummated. Bull! It went off the rails because everything turned awful. The writing was awful. The story was awful. The situation the characters were in was awful. It all went to hell because the story sucked.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Whedon's insight may be one he came up with on his own, but it's not a new one. Adam Smith said much the same thing 250 years ago. For all I know it's older than that; star-crossed lovers, Aeneas and Dido, etc.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Except the Greeks did it better.

American television writers (and a few Brits)
like to call this star-crossed lovers...but seriously Romeo and Juliet? They got together, they NEVER broke up. It wasn't a will they or won't they tease.

It was boy falls for girl, boy kills girl's cousin, girl forgives boy, they get married and have sex, boy leaves town to avoid the cops and sends word for her to follow him, girl gets conscripted into an arranged marriage by her parents, girl fakes her own death and sends word to boy that she did so, wires get crossed and boy gets word that girl is dead and commits suicide, girl wakes up and unable to live without boy, kills herself too.

As opposed to...

Girl falls for boy, they kiss, she discovers he's not quite right, she forgives him, they have sex, he loses his soul turns evil due to a curse, tries to destroy the world, as she's about to kill him he gets his soul back, she has to kill him to save the world, he comes back
to life, she forgives him, but they can't be together because hello curse, so he decides to leave, but no maybe he'll stay, he does leave, no wait he comes back, no he goes...until girl dies, no wait she survives...they try again, damn pesky curse, both move on and basically do the exact same thing with different partners, until they or rather the writers grow bored of the different partners or one of the different partners dies or leaves, then boy shows up on girls doorstep and tries to start things up again, she doesn't turn him down - sort of says, well, I'm with so and so at the moment, but who knows...and we start again. That's not star-crossed - that's two people who can't make up their mind and a lazy writer who has no new ideas.

I have to give Cheers credit - they had girl and boy get together, almost get married, girl left boy standing at the atler, and never came back until the final episode, where it was made clear that she was right to leave him because they would have driven each other insane.

You can do tragedy and horror quite well without the tease. Shakespeare did. As did the Greeks. But American genre television writers for some unexplanable reason like to go the comic book/daytime soap route - will they won't they? Oh wait they will - we'll get them together. No wait we'll break them up. No they are together. On some soaps? The characters have literally been married 5 different times to the same person. Meanwhile on cop buddy shows? It's will they or won't they become a couple for ten seasons. LOL!

There's something to be said for evolving characters and closing story arcs and starting new ones, instead of just recylcing the same one ...

Cheers is ironically closer to the Greeks and Shakespeare. It had "closure".

[sophist.livejournal.com]

Here's how Adam Smith phrased in his Theory of Moral Sentiments (I'm quoting my post on Innocence):

Smith notes that we never empathize with lovers entirely because we never have the desire to form the same attachment they do. We form our own attachments, of course, but not with the same person as others do. Though their love will seem perfectly reasonable to them, it can never appear in the same light to us because we aren’t in love with the same person. Smith goes on:

“But though we feel no proper [empathy] with an attachment of this kind, though we never approach even in imagination towards conceiving a passion for that particular person, yet … we readily enter into those high hopes of happiness which are proposed from its gratification, as well as into that exquisite distress which is feared from its disappointment. It interests us not as a passion, but as a situation that gives occasion to other passions which interest us: to hope, to fear, and to distress of every kind. …

Hence it is that, in some modern tragedies and romances, this passion appears so wonderfully interesting. It is not so much the love … which attaches us …, as the distress which that love occasions. The author who should introduce two lovers in a scene of perfect security, expressing their mutual fondness for one another, would excite laughter, and not sympathy. If a scene of this kind is ever admitted into a tragedy, it is always, in some measure, improper, and is endured not from any sympathy with the passion that is expressed in it, but from concern for the dangers and difficulties with which the audience foresee that its gratification is likely to be attended.” [Slightly edited for readability.]

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ah. I see. Thanks. Hadn't read Adam Smith.

I think that scene only worked once in Buffy.
Whedon's mistake was the attempt to constantly revisit it...to the extent that it eventually lost well all of its interest.

I don't think it's a scene or trope that works in endless repetition. By S3, it was just silly.

[liliaeth]

One of the reasons I like Nick and Juliette's relationship on Grimm so much is that they never even started up on the will they won't they storyline. They take a longterm relationship and see how it deals with the stress of Nick's new situation. I find that far far more interesting than having her be some women he only just met and whose only storyline would be whether she finally gets together with him or not.

It's also one of the reasons I loved Peter's marriage in Spider-Man so much, because it finally freed them both up. giving him the chance to interact with female characters without this instantly turning them into 'potential love interest' and turning her into an actual character, rather than a prize for him to attain. (which is one of many reasons I utterly despise Gwen Stacy.)

As for Shane, they should have killed him off at the finale of last season. Keeping him around made the story of Lori's pregnancy all about Shane and Rick, instead of about Lori and Rick, which annoyed the hell out of me.

I liked it much better in the comics where Carl killed Shane, not zombie Shane, but living Shane, when Shane attacked his dad. I also really like the idea that they're all already infected. (it's where the name of the comic came from, as in, they are all the Walking Dead, it's just that some of them still have their minds. I really really love Carl in the comic, and I wish they gave Andrea and Glenn more to do, instead of all the focus that has been given to Shane who didn't interest me at all.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

oh I thought it was Moonlighting, not Cheers, that convinced writers everywhere that the stars should never hook up....
Definitely X-Files furthered that too....

I'm always waiting for the show that let's people get together in the sure knowledge that most people screw up their relationships ('happily ever after' isn't really a thing for most of us).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No, it was Cheers. Although some writers and critics cite Moonlighting. Both are silly examples.
Cheers - actually got better after Diane left and went up in ratings. Moonlighting went off the rails due to the uneven writing and casting issues. It had zip to do with the romantic relationship. X-Files is another great example of the waffle bit.
Genre writers, particularly male geeky genre writers, seem to like to do the waffle for some reason.

I'm always waiting for the show that let's people get together in the sure knowledge that most people screw up their relationships ('happily ever after' isn't really a thing for most of us).

There's quite a few shows that do that actually.
Grey's Anatomy is to a degree. Breaking Bad does.
Mad Men certainly did. Friday Night Light's shows the spectrum. Six Feet Under is another example.
The UK's Being Human sort of did it.

The Good Wife also does a little of it. It has a divorced couple.

The better calibre television series actually does depict that type of relationship. Or at least tries to. Although daytime soap operas do it too...so there's that.

[agnes-bean.livejournal.com]

The will they or won't they trope annoys me because I think it's an excuse for writers to be lazy.

If your characters getting together ruins your show, you, the writer, are not doing a good job. As you say, there can be interesting conflict between people who are dating and getting married. Or the people who are together can have interesting conflict with the rest of the world.

Parks and Rec is a great example. Andy and April got together and married within about a season of first hitting it off. A season later, their plots are still fantastic, because the writers find creative ways to use them either individually or as a couple. Same with Leslie and Ben, who have had plenty of drama around their relationship without being will they/won't they. Currently I think the writers are doing a fantastic job using the main plot -- Leslie running for office, Ben being her campaign manager -- to drive interesting (and funny) conflict within the relationship without even making it about whether or not they can be together.

Listen, I like UST as much as the next person; I love a slow burn relationship buildup, so I generally won't complain if it takes a couple a season or two to really get together. But once they do? Keep them together. There's a reason people who keep breaking up and getting together don't normally work out in the long run in real life; why should it be different in fiction?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Exactly, there are shows on tv who don't do it.
Actually Community, The Office and Parks & Recreation all sort of circumvented that trope.
Community had the Sam/Dian couple - Britt and Jeff sleep together in the first season and break up.
The Office - let Pam and Jim get married and have a baby.

It's actually a 1980s/1990s trope. Most modern series don't do this any longer...because audience's don't have the patience. HIMYM is losing their audience because they keep doing it and annoying their audience in the process. Castle is equally beginning to annoy. I think Bones finally gave in and put Booth and Bones together (I read they were having a baby and buying house...but I don't watch, so don't know). House did put them together, but then jumped the shark.

Not everyone does the waffling.

[flameraven.livejournal.com]

Agreed on all points, and probably why I like the Stephen Moffat seasons of Doctor Who so much. I don't really get involved in romance or shipping anyway (to be honest, I prefer shows that don't focus on these things, or keep them sidelined) but if you have to have it, I'd rather not see so much waffling. Get the characters together or don't, but don't go back and forth forever.

I was never very fond of Rose anyway-- I can accept that the everygirl damsel-in-distress character was useful in introducing the show back to a new audience-- but once she was gone and then RTD kept bringing her back because she was his favorite character...even breaking the rules of the universe to do so, it was really annoying. I much prefer Amy/Rory, which is a relationship that has had to weather real, horrifying challenges and is stronger for it, and River/Doctor, which has the appropriate amount of weirdness that a relationship with a time traveler would have... although more importantly, River is not in awe of the Doctor. That was probably my major issue with previous companion/Doctor ships... they are terribly unequal. The Doctor is the one with all the resources and the girl is just along for the ride. There's a much nicer balance with River where they're both constantly keeping each other on their toes. And as you said, they get to be mostly happy together, even if that part is largely offscreen.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I don't really get involved in romance or shipping anyway (to be honest, I prefer shows that don't focus on these things, or keep them sidelined) but if you have to have it, I'd rather not see so much waffling. Get the characters together or don't, but don't go back and forth forever.

Probably a wise move. Because in television, particularly genre tv, you get a lot of waffling. It's not as prevalent in non-genre television series. Parenthood, Grey's Anatomy,
The Wire, The Sopranoes, Friday Night Lights,
Mad Men...tend to be a bit more straight-forward.

And not all genre tv writers fall into this trap. Stephen Moffat doesn't. Nor does Toby Whithouse of Being Human.

I try not to do romantic shipping for series that clearly do, do it. Doesn't always work.
If a romantic pairing hits my kinks or buttons, I'm gone. No matter how idiotic the writing is.;-)

I much prefer Amy/Rory, which is a relationship that has had to weather real, horrifying challenges and is stronger for it, and River/Doctor, which has the appropriate amount of weirdness that a relationship with a time traveler would have... although more importantly, River is not in awe of the Doctor. That was probably my major issue with previous companion/Doctor ships... they are terribly unequal. The Doctor is the one with all the resources and the girl is just along for the ride. There's a much nicer balance with River where they're both constantly keeping each other on their toes. And as you said, they get to be mostly happy together, even if that part is largely offscreen.

Very much agree. It's why the last two seasons 5 and 6 are my favorites. I also have a fondness for S4, up to a point, because it isn't a romantic pairing, but Donna is so unequal to the Doctor, and when she does become he's equal - the writer makes it impossible for her to survive without having her memory wiped of all her adventures - which was sort of cringe-inducing. Doctor Song is much more interesting choice and her tragic sacrifice which ironically happens at the beginning of their relationship at least the beginning for him and the end for her is far more interesting.

[flameraven.livejournal.com]

Ugh, Donna. I liked her as a companion and I mostly like S4 but I do not rewatch it much because of that finale. It just makes me want to throw things at the screen. Between the ridiculous omg-Daleks-yet-again and the massive crossover... really, there are a lot of fun moments, and I was on board... until they decided to erase all her character development rather than killing her outright. I would have been okay with Donna's death, if that had saved the universe. It would have been sad, but at least it would have meant something. But instead the Doctor just took away the person she'd become while she was begging him not to. It was really upsetting, made all Donna's growth useless, and it just makes me angry at the writers.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yep, you've expressed my issues with S4 as well. The finale didn't work for me either. But I, like you, wasn't a fan of Rose either. Nor did I buy how they kept bringing her back. So the combination of Rose and what they did to Donna, bugged me.

It would have worked better if they let Donna die. The memory wipe didn't work. It was like killing the character and reverting her back to the life and existence she hated at the same time. She had no choices.
He made them for her.

[flameraven.livejournal.com]

She had no choices.
He made them for her.

Exactly. This is what angers me so much, and what makes me kind of hate Ten more as a character. I understand that it's part of his issues that he can't let people go-- he couldn't let River "really" die, he couldn't let Donna die physically either. But he's unable to acknowledge that by avoiding that death, he brings much worse things to people. Ten wasn't really able to admit fault in anyone--not in himself, not in the Time Lords-- and in trying to avoid admitting that he was fallible or his people were fallible, he made everything worse.

Which Moffat obviously has realized, as he's spent the last two seasons having Eleven admit, over and over, that he's not really a good person and that he ends up hurting more people than he helps. A lot of episodes drive this home, but probably most painful was "The Girl Who Waited." Hard as it was to watch, I was glad that the Doctor seemed to have gotten the message and come to himself enough to let Amy and Rory leave, as they were, and set them up with a good life before some other horrible fate could befall them.

Of course, there's still a few episodes yet before they "officially" leave the series, so anything could happen, but I like that Moffat has been moving the Doctor into a character who seems to be trying to admit and fix his mistakes, rather than the god who waltzes in and demands praise when he hasn't really helped the situation entirely.

[fishsanwitt]

Great post!

I feel this way about Castle. Stop teasing already.

[caliente-uk.livejournal.com]

I finished "The Fault in Our Stars" today and it was everything that you and green_maia said it would be and more. I know exactly what you mean when you say this book gets inside your head, because it has taken up residence inside my brain and I can't let it go. And yet, having said that, I can't really explain the reasons why it resonated so much with me. All I know is that this book moved me in a way not many books do. I think the last book that moved me on a similar level was "Grace Williams Says it Loud" (by Emma Henderson) that I read last year.

I can't thank you and Maia enough for recommending "The Fault in Our Stars" to me. It's a beautiful and thought-provoking story that will stay with me for a long time to come.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

You're welcome ;-)

I've been thanking green_maia profusely. That book is amazing. It's taken up residence in my brain. I feel like I know Hazel Grace Lancaster and Augustus Waters and Issac. I can see them vividly. They are real flesh and blood characters. And what they said...resonates.

It's such a beautiful and uplifting story...yet tragic too. So much there...

Really love that book. Tempted to buy it in hard-back, right now just own the e-book edition.

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

I'm completely with you on point #3. I hate prolonged UST, and any form of storytelling that consists of dragging out a situation long after its natural progression should have occurred. And like you pointed out, it's not like couples can't be together and still have stories happening to them. Amy and Rory on DW, as you mentioned. Abby and Connor on Primeval. Stefan and Elena on Vampire Diaries. Tommy and Tuppence in Agatha Christie's novels - not to mention Dorothy Sayers' Busman's Honeymoon, with Peter and Harriet finally married.

Interestingly, with Moffat, even when he did the Moonlighting thing, in Press Gang, he put Spike and Lynda together mid-season 2 and then had an on-again/off-again rather than a will they/won't they. And his next big show had the main characters getting together in the very first episode.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I hate prolonged UST, and any form of storytelling that consists of dragging out a situation long after its natural progression should have occurred.

Exactly. Spike and Buffy actually worked really well up to a point, but then the UST got redundant and I kept wanting to smack the writer - get to the point already!

And not to single out Whedon, there's novelists who do the same thing. Jim Butcher is starting to irritate me, as is Kim Harrison. And I gave up on Janet Evanouivich about six-seven novels back.
So it's not limited to television writers like Whedon, Chris Carter, JJ Abrhams, Ron Moore...there's also a few novelists who do it.

But as you point out in your response there's also novelists who don't. Along with tv writers. Although
I'm not sure about Vamp Diaries - they got that whole Damon/Elena/Stefan love triangle going on, which can be equally annoying. (The writers apparently ship Damon/Stefan (platonically) ).

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

IDK about the love triangle - Damon may see it that way, but it wasn't until the season 3 breakup that Elena started paying him any attention back. So before that, it was a pretty lopsided triangle (and a large part of season 1 was both of them vying for Stefan's attention). So while it has its irritating moments, the pacing is quite good for the most part and nowhere near as annoying as, say, the Jack/Kate/Sawyer triangle on Lost. (Though I love how that was concluded.) While TVD has its problems, what I love best about it is that stuff HAPPENS all the time; it hardly ever drags things out.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It's hard to tell on TVD. The books went with Damon/Elena apparently.
And it could go either way at this point.

I'm not shipping Elena. So...not invested, thankfully. I find Caroline more interesting. ;-)

But, you are right, regardless - the plotting is better paced. Things happen quickly. We don't get bogged down in angst or episodic monsters of the week which happened a lot with Buffy and LOST. With TVD it's full throttle serial. And lots of rapid fire plot twists.

The Jack/Kate/Sawyer thing got on my nerves too, although I didn't ship Kate or Jack, and only shipped Sawyer. Actually Lost and TVD are similar in this respect. I don't ship either Stefan or Elena, just Damon (because the actor is hilarious and does insane things with his eyes). So..I never cared what happened to Jack and Kate, I was only worried about Sawyer. LOL! And I adored Juliet/Sawyer - they actually were the only ship I had on that show besides Ben/John (I think it was John, forget the name of the character Terry O'Quinn played.)

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

I don't ship Elena either, but when something features heavily into a show, it helps when it's not just treading water. And while I think the marketing features the triangle heavily, the show was quite content showing Elena and Stefan as a settled couple for quite some time.

The flipside of this would be Once Upon a Time, where Mary Margaret/David is the obvious couple and yet they've dragged it out in a way that makes both of them seem like assholes.

Juliet/Sawyer is the pairing I didn't know I wanted until it happened. Their reunion still makes me all mushy inside.

[beloved-77.livejournal.com]

I agree that yanking the audience's chain only works for so long. You need the build up of tension, but if there's no release, you're just left frustrated and unfulfilled(I did not mean that to sound sexual, I swear). There's absolutely no reason why a TV couple cannot get together and still have drama. Real couples have tons of drama. :-P And, like you said, there's always the option of a tragic death, kinda like Willow and Tara.

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

Picked up The Fault in Our Stars earlier today and just finished it. Great read - funny, snarky, full of wisdom and a true voice.

Thanks for the recommendation.