No, no, no… You’re referring to technology, not physics. Jet pack fuel is just hydrogen peroxide, which probably is something he could have made (assuming the Howells had something silver he could use for a catalyst). I don’t know about keptibora juice specifically, but many tropical plants have medicinal value of some sort, if you know which ones to use. And even a geiger counter could be made from substances which could, in principle, be found on a deserted island, although he’d be awfully lucky to even find a copper vein for the wiring.
Mind, I don’t think that anyone actually would be able to do all the things he does, but that’s not because of any absolute laws of physics preventing it.
May I just say, on the behalf of my compatriots and myself, myself being of the age fourteen, that we have perfectly developed vocabularies, and should, at least the very least, know a simple word like “catatonia”. Thank you.
First Spike hopes Buffy isn’t “brain dead,” which is wrong, she couldn’t be, if she’s breathing without a ventilator. Apparently, to them the symptoms equally match being “pushed into catatonia”. They decide that taking a walk might be good, showing, basically, no understanding of one condition, and barely any about catatonia, which would not be fixed by walking somebody around.
I suggest respectfully neither the script writer, Buffy’s pals, nor you have any clear idea of what the terms mean.
The snappy comeback “It doesn’t take a diploma to see that” is hilarious, since apparently Spike can’t tell the difference between brain dead, catatonia and “unresponsive”. But I must be charitable, after all, the scriptwriter may have been catatonically brain dead while writing.
Bear in mind that I found this gem at random in a very short time. Imagine if I took an hour…
Interesting. So you’ve seen a few episodes of Buffy, and it doesn’t really float your boat. Fair enough–things like this are always subjective anyways. But to say that it is on the same level as Gilligan’s Island is pretty off-base.
First off–I just don’t see the rampant sexuality that you do. In fact, I think that Buffy stands apart from most “teen” shows in that it actually portrays sexual relationships much more realistically than every other program. By basing your opinion on a random sampling of shows, you’ve missed out on one of the show’s most noteworthy qualities: It actually deals with the full repercussions of sexual relationships. Unlike most other shows, on Buffy, the consequences of most sexual encounters are fully explored. Even the most casual of sex (Xander & Faith) can have emotional effects on its participants & their friends (Willow).
An article on Salon praising Buffy’s refreshing take on sex put it best: " In a culture where sex is supposedly all around us and yet true, intense sexuality is in desperately short supply, the show’s openness – its willingness to face up to the messiness and potential danger of sex – is glorious and revelatory."
I’m pretty surprised that you’re so willing to dismiss the quality of the show’s dialog. I think the show is exceptionally well written. Check out this threadthat’s dedicated to some of the best lines. And it’s impressive use of slang has even caught the attention of Verbatim Magazine in an article about “Slayer Slang”: “Buffy the Vampire Slayer is an especially language-conscious television show. The characters are backhanded definers (“Man, that’s like, I don’t know, that’s moxie, or something.”); bemused grammarians (in one episode, Willow struggles to determine whether one should say “slayed” or “slew”), amateur etymologists (”“The whole nine yards”–what does it mean? This is going to bother me all day."); or self-conscious stylists (“Again, so many words. Couldn’t we just say, “We be in trouble? . . . Gone.” Notice the economy of phrasing: “Gone.” Simple, direct.”), whatever the situation demands. "
Just out of curiosity, ** partly_warmer**, what is your favorite television show (besides Gilligan’s Island!). I know that you want to think that Buffy is stupid & shallow, but understand that a lot of intelligent people (many of them on the SDMB!) respectfully disagree…
Thanks, Mr. Frink, I’ll take time to review the articles you’ve cited. But there’s tendency for some “pop” academics to see attainments that aren’t recognized by the artists themselves. Observations that the Beatles were writing in Greek Mixolydian mode: The Beatles hadn’t a clue. So, regarding one of your quotes, I’m not sure misusing the word “moxie” qualifies as invention or just ignorance.
I was comparing Buffy to Gilligan’s Island because I think Gilligan’s Island is POOR. My favorite TV show…hmm…I’m not leaving myself open, here, am I? “The Prisoner” is pretty good. “The Simpsons” are often amusing. I just watched my first episodes of “Young Indiana Jones” and was pleasantly surprised. I own several of the “Yes, Prime Minister” tapes. All of the “Red Dwarf” episodes.
Mr. Visible, my issue is that the Buffy writing is lousy. The scriptwriter doesn’t understand disease, doesn’t care enough to park his butt on the Internet for five minutes to make sure his references are accurate. They’re so far from being accurate, they make him sound like an ignoramus. If he’s intentionally making his characters ignorant, as you suggest (and I doubt, given all his other poor writing habits), it still has the result that what the characters are saying sounds stupid.
The medical mistakes are just part of the overall shabbiness. As I noted, one could take the 5 lines I quoted from the script, put them in many orders, and they’d make equal sense. One can even rearrange the words in some of the sentences (practically at random) and have the effect be the same. Not all the writing is this way, there are other deficiencies, too, like a deluge of sentences with four words and six syllables, at least in the script I’m looking at.
Mess with Hamlet – the dialog goes to pieces, mess with Buffy – you can’t even tell.
Yeah, some episodes of Buffy are awful, and it has some bad points. But I’d say that goes for most things.
Who’s saying these things? I remember willow (most often) often speaking almost incoherently whenever she was nervous. Which she got easily. If Giles talks randomly, then yes, good point.
How about moving her somewhere safe? Sounds like a reasonable course of action to me. Anyway the nearing apocalyptic destruction of the entire world would tend to make most people nervous, and if Willow stumbles a bit it seems reasonable to me.
Well let me see… according to my dictionary: ** Catatonia ** 1. in a state of inertia or apparent stupor often associated with schizophrenia, characterized by rigidity of the muscles 2. in a stupefied or unconscious state
Hmmm… an unconscious state… it sounds like they were using the word correctly to me.
And you accuse Buffy of being unrealistic? I have never heard anyone speak like Hamlet in real life! But seriously, so what if Buffy the Vampire Slayer doesn’t measure up to Shakespeare? After all, who does?
Now personally, I have never gotten so worked up over a television show to become physically ill. Certainly I have never felt sick over dialog that I felt was substandard. It sounds to me as if you are looking for any excuse not to like the show,
Now I could be complete wrong here, but it sounds to me like this is closer to your real reason for not liking the show. First of all, underage sex may be illegal but it DOES happen. I think it is better to address that fact than sweep it under the carpet. Does underage sex invalidate the artistic or entertainment value of say, Romeo and Juliet? Anyway, despite your “subjective impression”, there is very little underage sex in buffy the vampire slayer, as most characters turned 18 some time ago.
I am a big fan of BtVS, but I think you have forgotten a lot of sexual encounters. Giles and Buffy’s mother, Oz and a female werewolf, and Spike and Drusilla (sp?) all definitely had sex. Giles at least came close with Ms. Calendar. Cordelia had some sort of relationship with one of the watchers. It was at least strongly implied that Xander and Cordelia were doing more than just kissing. In “Lovers’ Walk,” it looked like the relationship between Willow and Xander would have been consumated if they had not been interupted.
Well, two paragraphs into your post, and you’ve already blown your credibility. “The show must be stupid! I’ve seen the commercials!” Never mind that the people who make the show are not the same people who assemble the commercials.
Already been addressed, but it should be added that all of the characters have been eighteen for the majority of the show’s run. Buffy herself turned eighteen early in the third season, and the rest of the major characters (Buffy, Xander, Willow, and Giles) didn’t have sex until later in that season, meaning they were all eighteen or very close to it.
“Barely concealed lethal anger” is not one of the character traits I see in Buffy. Although there is a lot of violence in her life, she tends to resent it, rather than revel in it. Despite having to struggle for her life on an almost nightly basis, violence is seldom her first response. Her average encounter with a vampire usually opens with her making witty remarks until the vampire makes the first move. Under stress, she tends to become depressive, not violent. In the scene you quote from later on, Buffy’s sister has just been kidnapped by a Hellgod who wants to use her as a human sacrifice. If “barely concealed lethal anger” is one of her primary motivators, her reaction here would most likely have been to lash out against her friends. Instead, she withdraws totally, blaming herself for not being good enough, despite the fact that she’s the strongest, fastest human on Earth. Until this last season, Buffy has never been violent in her relationships with loved ones. Even her unhealthy relationship with Spike was more about her externalizing her own self-loathing onto a willing partner. To say that Buffy has a “nearly uncontrollable anger” represents a gross failure to comprehend the character’s motivations and actions.
First, I want to point out that A) you are greatly underestimating the vocabularies of teenagers and B) none of the characters in this scene are teenagers. Second, you have failed on an almost epic level to understand what is happening in this scene. We have three people in this scene (assuming I’m remembering it correctly) whose friend, while clearly conscious, is not reacting in any way to outside stimulus. None of the people in this scene have any medical training or knowledge outside what your average college undergrad would have. I think, in that situation, it is entirely reasonable for a lay person to say, “Buffy’s catatonic!” Medically, that may not be the case. And if the show in question was ER, you’d actually have a valid criticism here. The “diploma” reply, while factually inaccurate, is keeping in character with Spike: he’s very sensitive towards appearing dumber or less powerful than the other characters, and consequently is often hostile towards them. His comment has less to do with his knowledge of psychology and quite a bit to do with his relationship with the other characters.
Your point here is what, exactly? B:tVS often plays with word order to achieve more precise shades of meaning. I think it is one of the things that really makes the show. It’s inventive, clever, and interesting. In the medium of television, the biggest challenge is keeping the viewer’s interest. One of the inovative ways B:tVS does this is by playing around with how the characters talk. Having Xander say, “I am so large with not knowing,” requires the audience to pay more attention to understand the meaning, yet at the same time does not so butcher the phrase that it interferes with communication. This is, I think, a pretty neat trick, one that is not as easy to pull off as you seem to think.
But, all of that is moot as that doesn’t describe what you’ve quoted. “I am so large with not knowing” isn’t playing with word order. If it was, then perhaps you could tell us what the “proper” order would be? Thought not. The word order is perfectly straight forward, as can be illustrated with a little substitution: "partly_warmer is full of shit. See? Perfectly straightforward sentence construction. The writer is playing with the functions of the words s/he is using, not their placement in the sentence, the goal being to see how far they can be stretched while still retaining meaning. That you understood what the character meant indicates success. That you did not appreciate what the writer was trying to do, in this instance, says more about your failings than the screenplay’s.
Clearly, you have no understanding what “good writing” entails. One part of it is internal consistency: characters should act the same from scene to scene according to their established personalities. Another part is using language in new ways without obscuring meaning. A third is creating characters or situations that are engaging to the audience. I submit that the scene you quoted does all three, and that your criticisms of the scene do nothing more than highlight exactly what is good about the writing. The characters have no reason to know anything particular about catatonia, its diagnosis, or treatment, and the scene reflects that. The writing plays with language in way that, while apparently over your head, are understood by the majority of the viewers. And while the five lines dialogue you quoted doesn’t reflect why the audience should care about any of these characters, the over-all, multi-episode story arc that the scene is a part of was highly compelling, and built upon interesting and believable characters who have been established,at that point, for more than five years. This is, in fact, excellent writing by any yardstick.
Finally, when it comes to writing for the screen or stage, you have totally failed to understand that the dialogue is a minor part of the writing. Screenplays are about action, not speaking. The key to understanding any character in a screenplay is not by listening to what he says, but by watching what he does. Criticizing five lines of dialogue without context to the action that is happening while the characters speak is like, oh, say, criticizing a TV show based on watching a few of its commercials.
Right, so clearly, she can’t be brain dead. However, it is interesting that earlier you criticized a character for knowing too much about catatonia, and now you criticize one for not knowing enough.
He’s panicking, you dolt. The character doesn’t know jack shit about dealing with catatonia, so his suggestions are supposed to be meritless.
I don’t know. I’ll take your word that it’s verbatim, since I don’t have the resources to double check you. Where’s the site you got this from?
What you are failing to grasp is that there is a subtext to the scene in question. The dialogue itself is, at least in this scene, nothing spectacular. However, the scene is necessary in the context of the show it appeared in to establish how the different characters are reacting to the situation they find themselves in. Willow, by far the smartest character in the bunch, tries to find some sort of medical explanation, and brings up catatonia. Spike, sensitive to the fact that he is not nearly as bright as Willow, responds sarcastically. Chronic loser Xander has no idea what to do and offers useless and contradictory advice. The lines in this scene could be rendered in a different order without losing the meaning, but that’s how this particular scene works: everyone is getting panicky and talking over and past on another. This isn’t really dialogue because the characters aren’t responding to one another. It’s not bad writing, it is in fact excellent writing: all of the characters respond to a crisis according to their long-established, um, characters.
And why should ANY of the characters know that? Of the three conscious characters in the scene, one is in her second year of college, one has no college education at all, and the third received all of his primary education over a century ago. Bad writing would be these characters knowing exactly how to treat a person with a sudden onset of an uncommon psychological illness.
Perhaps not, but you have failed to show how any of this is indicative of bad writing. You have shown that you are every bit as ignorant about what makes good writing as the Scoobies are of clinical psyhcology, but that’s hardly a trick, is it?
You’re right, Spike can’t tell the difference between brain dead, catatonia, and unresponsive. His character is a hundred and twenty year old vampire of average intelligence with no medical training. Why should he be able to tell the difference? I sure as hell couldn’t, and I’ve probably got a better education than he does. The line is humorous for precisely the reason you pointed out: Spike can’t tell the difference, yet he’s so defensive he still tries to respond authoritativly to a situation he knows he is totally unequipped to deal with. At least you recognized that the line was supposed to be funny, although, as always, you’ve completely missed why.
Perhaps you’d care to actually read the opposing viewpoints before you dismiss them? Speaking of ignorance, are you aware that the quote Frink cited does not, in fact, misuse the word moxie?
Well, you’re not entirely hopeless.
Your issue is idiotic and invalid. Understanding of catatonia was in no way necessary to the resolution of that episode. If Willow had said, “I’ll mix up a catatonia cure I learned in physiology class that’ll cure her right away!” and proceeded to do so, that would be bad writing. A character who has no way of knowing better saying, “I think she’s catatonic,” is not bad writing. It’s perfectly reasonable. It may sound stupid to someone who knows better, but again, that’s not bad writing. Every day, real people really say things that are really stupid. A screenplay that reflects that is not itself stupid, but rather, realistic.
Yes, you could rearrange the lines from that partial scene you quoted without losing the sense of the scene. How is that bad? You cannot rearrange that one line you quoted at random and still retain the original meaning. Your little sample proved that, and that wasn’t even vaguely random. I don’t see why a deluge of sentences using the same number of words and syllables is bad writing. In fact, it sounds like it would be exceedingly difficult to write a scene in which every line has the same number of words and syllables. Sounds like the work of a talented and accomplished writer, to me. Care to post that part of the screenplay? I’m curious as to what episode it was from.
Well, now you’ve put your foot in it. Aside from your ignorance about B:tVS, you’ve now shown your ignorance of Shakespeare, as well. Else you’d be aware that any staging of a Shakespearean play requires you to “mess” with the dialogue. Remember when Kenneth Brannagh did his four hour long Hamlet? Know why it was so long? Because this was the first film version of Hamlet that didn’t heavily abridge the text. They almost never do the whole play live, because no one wants to sit in a theatre for that long. Especially not if it’s the sixteenth century, the play ends when the sun sets, and most of the audience couldn’t afford the extra penny to buy a seat cushion. One of the geniuses of Shakespeare was that all of his plays were written so that they could be broken down into component scenes and reassembled differently, so that when you went back to see Romeo and Juliet again, you weren’t watching exactly the same play. I don’t think that the same can be said for Buffy, but if it’s true, my respect for this ground-breaking television show just went up yet another notch.
And, finally, Doubting Robert:
I was mostly focusing on the central four characters, not the supporting cast. I forgot about Giles and Joyce and the hood of the police car, but you could still argue that it doesn’t count: both characters were under the effects of a mind-altering candy bar at the time, and as such were not totally responsible for their actions.
I’m sorry, maybe I’ve never been formally trained in scriptwriting, but what exactly is the matter with a four word/six syllable sentence? So if I looked over a script of say, “The Simpsons” or “Young Indiana Jones”, there won’t be many sentences with that structure???
**
The sexual encounter b/t Giles & Joyce was off-camera, and was only referred to in passing. And we never saw Spike & Dru do anything more than kiss.
They never had sex.
They kissed. Once.
**
No, it wasn’t. In fact, it was plainly stated that they never had sex. Faith was Xander’s first, and Anya his second.
**
Once again…no sex.
I don’t know, Doubting Robert, if you were trying to show how much sex there is in B:tvs, then you’ve done a pretty poor job. All of your examples only show how restrained the show is in it’s portrayal of sex. In not one of your examples do we even see a hint of sex–with the possible exception of Oz & Veruca. We do see them wake up naked together. But all in all, the show isn’t as drenched in sex as some seem to think it is.
Mr. Frink, I had a look at the papers you suggested yesterday, and found them sincere, and quite cultivated. Commenting on them will take some time, and unfortunately, I’m quite occupied this week, so it will be a while.
But answering one comment you just made…
There are many sentences in the Buffy script that are even shorter–I was trying to make a fair statement about average length. As a contrast, look at the average sentence length in a typical SDMB board posting. Also, before anyone goes running to exhaustively count words, I was also referring to the total number of words a person speaks to express their thoughts (the length of uninterrupted, sustained dialog). Again as contrast, it seems to me MrVisible’s parody is amusing partly due to his(correct) decision that natural speeches and sentences are longer and more coherent.
Miller, I could respond to Martin Luther’s 95 theses in shorter order than your (somewhat) coherent, extended commentary.
Suffice it to say, until the weekend when I have more time, that I disagree with almost everything you have said, after reading the first few paragraphs. Your arguments are a combination of willful misreading what I was trying to make clearer, and disingenuous, evasive, repetitive quibbles on tangential issues.
And, finally (until later), attempts to claim that the character’s ignorance about English and medicine is a part of their “deeper” character is purile, self-serving horsecrap. (Author: “Of course my character is incoherent, I MEANT him to be.”)
Fine, baby, (I would answer), you and your incoherent characters find some other ignorant, incoherent people for an audience.
But, in truth, the author is making no such statement as you suggest. He’s just a hack.
joshmaker, you’ve a number of points worth addressing, but let me just touch on my justification for catatonia definition.
The authoritative dictionaries for writers are the Webster’s Third International Dictionary, for American English, and the complete Oxford English Dictionary for British English. The quote you cite is not from either. Yes, I recognize that someone who was reaching for the dictionary at hand might end up with such a definition, but it wouldn’t necessarily be accurate.
In this case, because medical terms are involved, neither of the usual dictionaries is appropriate (by their own admission), since the terms have a particular meaning according to a specialized profession outside the scope of the best English dictionaries. That’s why I provided a medical citation, instead.
I have a basic point: the writer uses words indiscriminately. For him the words: unresponsive, catatonic, brain dead, spaced, “on drugs”, “zoned”, “out to lunch” have the same meaning.
That’s the trade of a hack: get a thesaurus, and randomly change lame, vague vocabulary for something that sounds educated.
As I believe I have been pointing out, this random word substitution can be done by a computer program.
PW: “I have a basic point: the writer uses words indiscriminately. For him the words: unresponsive, catatonic, brain dead, spaced, “on drugs”, “zoned”, “out to lunch” have the same meaning.”
But… he’s writing about teenagers whom, believe it or not, pretty much think the above phrases are pretty much the same. I’m not so far removed from 17 that I can’t remember what it’s like.
Zoned=spaced=out to lunch=on drugs=catatonic. Different phrases meaning the same thing to the (admittedly non-medical) speaker. Why is that so horrible?
While MrVisible might’ve been too passionate in his defense of Buffy, he isn’t incorrect. I think that reading a screen/teleplay by you would be fascinating… all characters knowing all things at all times, regardless of whether it makes sense. Perhaps while Xander is looking at Buffy he can relate what he knew about head trauma’s from his memorizations of the medical texts, while Spike, being an ex-poet, can properly diagram sentences so that embarrasments such as “I’m am so large with not knowing” would never escape Xander’s lips again.
Really. No accounting. As in, word counts and sentence diagramming and word rearranging can’t explain why writing which some consider to be excellent is, by your standards, awful. You’re not going to convince me that a show that has left me sore from laughing and has brought me to tears is bad. Just not going to happen. Sorry.
I don’t understand the need to do so, either. Why continue to denigrate something that you obviously haven’t had much experience with? Anybody can rip apart a paragraph from a script; give me a detailed analysis of the character development from Season 2, with an emphasis on metaphors for adolescence, and I’ll be more likely to listen to you. Because you’ll be more likely to have something significant to say.
Basically, you’re asking me to take your word for it; this series that I enjoy is not the brilliantly written, beautifully acted, masterfully produced ensemble piece I’d thought it was, and is instead unwatchable dreck. Forgive me if I don’t immediately take your word for it.
Instead, I think I’ll agree with the multiple Emmy nominations, the Television Critics Association, and the Viewers for Quality Television. Check out a list of awards and nominations here. Then explain why an episode of Buffy can get nominated for outstanding writing when it’s written by hacks.
MrVisible, I agree on several points. To some degree we have to meet any art on its own terms. I’ll read and watch anything I find entertaining, and damn the critics. (Including awards like the Emmys, which are considerably warped by economics, and passing fads that nobody cares about 20 years later.)
But. I love and enjoy the Beatles (for example, I own a sitar), but I recognize their music is loaded with errors, slight-of-hand technical dubbing to cover problems, etc. Being a great fan doesn’t blind me to the problems with the things they accomplished.
To improve writing requires self-criticism… and criticism of other’s writing.
Yes, I dislike the Buffy writing for subjective reasons, but I objectively demonstrated it was bad for other reasons. When sentences and words can be scrambled, and they make the same amount of sense, then there can’t be very much sense in the first place. When two words are misused and confused, it indicates the user does not understand the words. (It’s marked wrong on the SAT.)
Of course you’ll go on enjoying the show, regardless of my comments. But given your feeling for it, and the quality of your writing, perhaps you could submit a script. (At least I’d enjoy the show more.)
Actually, you haven’t objectivly proven anything except your inability to cogently criticize writing. But forget that. Let’s assume, for the moment, that all of your criticisms were valid. We are still left with your startlingly naive premises: that you can make an accurate judgement on the worth of an hour-long television drama that’s been running for six years by examining the transcript of five lines of dialogue completely devoid of context. There are over a hundred and twenty episodes of B:tVS to date. Figuring that each runs, say, forty minutes, allowing time for commercials and credits. That’s over eighty hours of material. Out of more than three solid days worth of material, your five lines constitute, maybe, three seconds of screen time. You honestly think you can draw a valid conclusion as to the worth of the whole, by looking at that little of it? Not even the actual program itself, but the transcript of the program? How can you honestly believe that any judgement derived from that could be even remotely valid?
Oh, and thanks to your link, I can answer this question now:
The dialogue, as you presented it, sans your faux-witty commentary:
The dialogue, as taken from your cite, stopping at your entirely arbitrary cut-off point (the actual scene continues for some forty or more lines):
So, in fact, you have cut almost half of the lines, truncated all but one of them, and then rearranged their order to suit your purposes. This sort of intellectual dishonesty normally upsets me, but in this case I can’t get terribly worked up, because even with your heavy-handed editing, you still have been unable to bring up single criticism that wasn’t so irrelevant that it bordered on the surreal.
Really, Miller, I have an idea you can do better than this.
I picked a random sample from the script, and was able to tear it to pieces. That suggests that, on the average, I could tear ANY part of the script to pieces. I explicitly said I didn’t preserve the order, and reorganized the lines, to demonstrate that, without consulting the episode, one couldn’t even tell if the scene was complete, or in order. Notice the variety of people who didn’t answer my challenge to answer what parts I had changed?
Watching the whole show is about as necessary as watching ants collect their food for the whole winter.
You know, not many people pay attention to critics who don’t watch the movie, don’t read the book, don’t attend the plays. Why are you bothering, PW? Do you make it a habit to openly criticize that which you publicly claim no knowledge?
