3x09, "The Small Dark Movie of Your Life"

[tylik]

It seems we're discussing two pretty different approaches to fiction - on the one hand, the aesthetic in which everything that is shown, and everything that happens is in direct support of the story that is being told. (If you've made a point of mentioning a gun on the mantlepiece, etc. etc.)

And then there's realism, where a lot of what happens is disjointed and random, or so it seems much of the time. (Connie Willis does some really interesting things in this space, though often in the support of classical storytelling in the end.)

Maybe we need a ratings system? Waivers? Kleenex delivery?

[jimsmyth]

It seems we're discussing two pretty different approaches to fiction - on the one hand, the aesthetic in which everything that is shown, and everything that happens is in direct support of the story that is being told. (If you've made a point of mentioning a gun on the mantlepiece, etc. etc.)

And then there's realism, where a lot of what happens is disjointed and random, or so it seems much of the time. (Connie Willis does some really interesting things in this space, though often in the support of classical storytelling in the end.)

Maybe we need a ratings system? Waivers? Kleenex delivery?

Interesting thoughts.


I'll be over here on the I-Just-Have-All-This-Kleenex-Because-It-Was-On-Sale Bench if anybody needs me.

[TheIslander]

Got to read pts 1 and 2 before heading off on a three night cruise around the Galapagos.
Reading pt 3 on returning without having notices the date on pt 1 and was therefore sure that the recent LJ postings meant all would be fine since the story was probably taking place last year.
Thanks guys, you sure helped make this an unforgettable trip!!

[BeatriceEagle]

Okay, basically what I'm saying is this.  So, you've got a character that you're invested in, that the author has spent a lot of time making sure you care about, and he dies.  And nothing comes of it--the other characters are sad, they grieve, but the rest of the story plays out exactly as it would have otherwise, and it doesn't affect anything in terms of making the story more realistic (you know, characters have to die in climactic battles, etc.) or exacting a price for a risk or stupid decision.  All that the character's death really accomplishes is to make you and the characters cry.  To be clear, that is the only case I'm talking about here.

If that works for you, that's awesome.  To me, it makes me feel like I was cheated out of a cool character.  But since in the end, that just comes down to personal preference, I guess there's not a lot of point debating it.

Please forgive me if I am being hopelessly dense in what I'm about to ask, OK?

This is clearly a thing you feel strongly about, and I'm wondering what story or stories bugged you in this particular way. (I'm figuring it's not this one, or at least not yet, because you're waiting to see it all unfold; please correct me if I misunderstood that.) 

I ask about the specifics because I'm getting confused by the generality of the argument, and I think I am missing something important about what you're saying. (Probably because I don't know any writer I respect who would ever kill off a character "just because they could," so I tend to lump that sort of thing under "bad writing" and scathe it equally with other authorial blunders.)

I'm definitely not talking about Daphne's death in particular.  I'm upset by that because I like Daphne and I don't want her to die, but not because I feel in any way that it's bad writing.  I loved the episode, and I don't yet know how things are going to unfold.  But somebody said something earlier about killing characters to prove that characters can die, to remind us as readers that it's a possibility.  And that usually--not always--irritates me, because I know that authors can kill characters.  I don't really need to be reminded.

And the thing is, death is of course senseless in real life.  People die for no reason, with no explanation and no purpose.  But one of the things that separates fiction from reality--besides, you know, not being real--is that someone is making it up, and someone gets to decide what happens and what doesn't.  And I don't think it's unreasonable to want those decisions to be made to some end, particularly when they regard a character that the author has tried hard to make me care about.

Basically, I think I agree with your last statement, and that I'm the one at fault here for saying things wrong.

(I can't think of any specific examples that aren't potential spoilers for people who are still reading/watching.)

Edit:  My original point, way back when, is that I think that it's reasonable to speculate as to the purpose behind Daphne's death--because it's fiction, and usually there's a purpose in fiction.  Whether you think the purpose is "marker of a grand Anomaly conspiracy" or "get Hafidha out of Idlewood" or whatever.

[tylik]

*small voice* Because Hafidha getting out of Idlewood is of course a good thing, right?

[jennygadget]

Partly because of this ep and because of the latest ya kerfluffle, one of the quotes that has been going around in my head a lot lately is G K Chesterton's

Fairy Tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.

I feel like a lot of people here are trying to justify Daphne's death in terms of TPTB needing us to understand that dragons are real, even in SU world. Or that, because it exists here it must exist there too.  Or, maybe just that the team needs to be tossed around to move the plot along, or something. And really, considering the fact that it was Daphne that died, how she died, and who told us how she died (meaning Sol, not Leah :p), that seems like the most plausible explanation at this point; that she had to die - and it had to be her - not because of who she is or how her personal story needs to go, but because of her relationship to everyone else. (which, yeah...not going there)

dwg made a point of presenting SU as something different from pulp fiction and Bear made reference to SU (or this ep at least) as a war story and not a fairy tale. So it may be, for me, that the issue is that I thought I was reading fiction and not literature; fantasy, not war stories dressed up in the language of science fiction. (Or, at least, a different balance of the fantasy/science fiction than what we apparently are getting, as of this latest ep.)  And that's not really anyone's fault, and it doesn't say anything in particular about anyone's writing skills (which I still have much admiration for), but it has left me feeling like I lost a lot more than just a character I really liked.

In terms of what Daphne's death actually means to the team - loss of friendship, absence of coping mechanisms, loss of hope, and really almost a loss of self - this isn't something that I, personally, need to be reminded of. Especially in a medium that makes it extremely difficult to have some control over when I am reminded of this fact of life. Because I think that is also part of what makes fiction more than true, the ability to not take in more than you are ready for - because that control lets you absorb things instead of just defending against them. I was chatting with coworkers the other day, and one of them was taking about getting to a certain point in a book, and putting it down and walking away for a week because they were just that mad. Technically, you could do that with SU, but...that means losing out on some of what makes SU what it is, and it means losing the community too, to a certain extent.

I actually got into SU specifically because it spent so much time showing me that these particular dragons can be vanquished, and the community here helped with that as well. But now I am left not just feeling like I thought I was reading one story, when then it turns out I was reading something completely different, I'm also left wondering which will be worse in terms of having my coping mechanisms ripped away - losing the ability to put the book down, or no longer being a part of all this. And I'm not really certain that "losing the ability to put the book down" is the better choice.

[Lioness]

Please forgive me if I am being hopelessly dense in what I'm about to ask, OK?

This is clearly a thing you feel strongly about, and I'm wondering what story or stories bugged you in this particular way. (I'm figuring it's not this one, or at least not yet, because you're waiting to see it all unfold; please correct me if I misunderstood that.) 

I ask about the specifics because I'm getting confused by the generality of the argument, and I think I am missing something important about what you're saying. (Probably because I don't know any writer I respect who would ever kill off a character "just because they could," so I tend to lump that sort of thing under "bad writing" and scathe it equally with other authorial blunders.)

I'm definitely not talking about Daphne's death in particular.  I'm upset by that because I like Daphne and I don't want her to die, but not because I feel in any way that it's bad writing.  I loved the episode, and I don't yet know how things are going to unfold.  But somebody said something earlier about killing characters to prove that characters can die, to remind us as readers that it's a possibility.  And that usually--not always--irritates me, because I know that authors can kill characters.  I don't really need to be reminded.

And the thing is, death is of course senseless in real life.  People die for no reason, with no explanation and no purpose.  But one of the things that separates fiction from reality--besides, you know, not being real--is that someone is making it up, and someone gets to decide what happens and what doesn't.  And I don't think it's unreasonable to want those decisions to be made to some end, particularly when they regard a character that the author has tried hard to make me care about.

Basically, I think I agree with your last statement, and that I'm the one at fault here for saying things wrong.
[...]

Ah! I was just about to say something very similar. How about we split the fault fifty-fifty and then throw both halves in the compost for recycling into mulch for new ideas?

I went and found an old .sig of mine from the mid-nineties that might illustrate how much I agree with you. It was from a rant I did on so-called "realistic fiction" once:

The insistence upon certain forms of "realistic" fiction
is the compulsion to turn gold into lead
because lead is more familiar.

What I was aiming at was encapsulating a whole bunch of arguments, including one for my strong dislike of fiction whose aim seems to me to be to leave a person feeling cynical, hung-over emotionally, and more prone to helplessness and despair than before they read that story.  Kind of a surfeit of psychological lampreys, as it were. Live ones. Um, I think my mental images are getting out of hand here, so I'll go put these lampreys in proper containers, but I do agree that we probably agree, and are irked by many of the same things in literature.

[BeatriceEagle]

Please forgive me if I am being hopelessly dense in what I'm about to ask, OK?

This is clearly a thing you feel strongly about, and I'm wondering what story or stories bugged you in this particular way. (I'm figuring it's not this one, or at least not yet, because you're waiting to see it all unfold; please correct me if I misunderstood that.) 

I ask about the specifics because I'm getting confused by the generality of the argument, and I think I am missing something important about what you're saying. (Probably because I don't know any writer I respect who would ever kill off a character "just because they could," so I tend to lump that sort of thing under "bad writing" and scathe it equally with other authorial blunders.)

I'm definitely not talking about Daphne's death in particular.  I'm upset by that because I like Daphne and I don't want her to die, but not because I feel in any way that it's bad writing.  I loved the episode, and I don't yet know how things are going to unfold.  But somebody said something earlier about killing characters to prove that characters can die, to remind us as readers that it's a possibility.  And that usually--not always--irritates me, because I know that authors can kill characters.  I don't really need to be reminded.

And the thing is, death is of course senseless in real life.  People die for no reason, with no explanation and no purpose.  But one of the things that separates fiction from reality--besides, you know, not being real--is that someone is making it up, and someone gets to decide what happens and what doesn't.  And I don't think it's unreasonable to want those decisions to be made to some end, particularly when they regard a character that the author has tried hard to make me care about.

Basically, I think I agree with your last statement, and that I'm the one at fault here for saying things wrong.
[...]

Ah! I was just about to say something very similar. How about we split the fault fifty-fifty and then throw both halves in the compost for recycling into mulch for new ideas?

I went and found an old .sig of mine from the mid-nineties that might illustrate how much I agree with you. It was from a rant I did on so-called "realistic fiction" once:

The insistence upon certain forms of "realistic" fiction
is the compulsion to turn gold into lead
because lead is more familiar.

What I was aiming at was encapsulating a whole bunch of arguments, including one for my strong dislike of fiction whose aim seems to me to be to leave a person feeling cynical, hung-over emotionally, and more prone to helplessness and despair than before they read that story.  Kind of a surfeit of psychological lampreys, as it were. Live ones. Um, I think my mental images are getting out of hand here, so I'll go put these lampreys in proper containers, but I do agree that we probably agree, and are irked by many of the same things in literature.

My favorite kind of argument is the kind where you realize that you actually agreed all along.  *g*

[Mike Foxtrot Hotel]

*small voice* Because Hafidha getting out of Idlewood is of course a good thing, right?

I guess it depends on how she gets out...

[DavidG]

*small voice* Because Hafidha getting out of Idlewood is of course a good thing, right?

Ultimately I think it depends on whether Bug gets out with her!

[glinda_w]

Makes me wonder also, if, later on, she and Chaz do the Escape to Witch Mountain thing... or try to... or...

[txanne]

But, again, where is Witch Mountain in this scenario? They'd both have to be really far gone to think the Puppetmaster was a good idea.

[DavidG]

dwg made a point of presenting SU as something different from pulp fiction and Bear made reference to SU (or this ep at least) as a war story and not a fairy tale.

Expanding on my point, the pulpier end of the market writes to a formula, intended to please the reader without ever really challenging them or drawing them out of their comfort zone. Now make no mistake, I like that kind of book just fine. But the books I tend to admire most and savour the memory of reading, are the ones that push the boundaries in some fashion, that throw away the formula, drag us outside our comfort zone or whatever, and it seems to me that SU does precisely that. When we talk about ECR, we're really talking about being dragged out of our comfort zones.

Now look at the three season ending set-pieces we've had so far (and for this purpose I'm including the spillover into the start of the next season, because the climax of Unicorn Evils is part and parcel of the S2 season ender): S1: Refining Fire, Chaz is tortured almost to death and spends months recovering, with some psych/character changes as a result, I'm not certain harder is the right word, but he is stripped down towards some essential core of Chazness mentally as much as physically. S2:Not Alone/Unicorn Evils: Hafidha is manipulated into going off the reservation, Chaz is forced into a situation in which he has to seriously consider killing himself and Hafidha. Over the course of S3 Hafidha's situation forces him into taking on a leadership role that at times supplants that of Reyes. S3: Small Dark Movie: Daphne dies and Chaz is the one who has to confirm that with the Mirror, and what that does to him psychologically remains to be seen. There are two distinct constants, a character in mortal peril, and the effects of that peril on Chaz, both through the initial negative impact, and ultimately through the character growth that results.

Two things come out of that, the first is that continued threats of mortal harm that never actually come to anything are a ticking narrative time-bomb - how long can the heroes keep beating the odds before the audience decides the threat isn't real after all - if you keep showing us Uncle Vanya's shotgun then eventually you're going to have to use it. The second is that Chaz is gradually being honed into a sharper and sharper blade, and we need to look at Daphne's death as part of that process, and a part whose consequences we don't yet know, never mind understand.

(I think we also need to look at the mythological side of the story here, Chaz is Coyote, Coyote sometimes gets his message across by failing in his apparent aims. So maybe we should question everything we think we know and wonder what the real lesson might be.)

As for Fairy Tales, the originals were frequently bloody, it's only the Victorian Bowdlerization that leads us to see them in a fluffy-bunny light. And sometimes the best the fairy tale can offer is only half a victory, Demeter's rescue of Persephone from Hades and the resulting seasons being the classic example. If I can paraphrase Chesterton, Fairy Tales shouldn't just teach us that the dragon can be slain, but that there may be a price in blood to buy the opportunity for the slaying. Enkidu had to die to drive Gilgamesh to take on death itself. Ultimately I'm not convinced that fairy tales and war stories lie so very far apart.

[jeffy]

But, again, where is Witch Mountain in this scenario? They'd both have to be really far gone to think the Puppetmaster was a good idea.

Ah, but what if a frame shift could make the (hypothetical) Puppetmaster's ultimate goals (whatever the hell those might be) look worthy and important enough to justify the means? (Yeah, that's an awfully big frame shift for our heroes, but the Bug may have turned Hafs vigilante. How much farther would this be?)

*stops running, looks down, sees open air. Falls.*

[txanne]

Jeffy...I see your point, but I'm not sure I buy it. Whether that's because your point is inaccurate, or because I can't handle the truth, is left as an exercise for TPTB, who still owe me lots of chicken.

TRM, I miss Angry Kitteh a really lot.