Now, obviously, the writer of the paragraphs above has no grasp of how to use the English language to communicate effectively. The words may make sense, but the paragraphs above have no actual meaning. He also demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge about science, particularly physics.
I could take the words of one of the sentences, rearrange them randomly, and they could mean anything I want them to.
There’s enough disrespect to be distributed equally.
There’s enough equality to be distributed disrespectfully.
There’s equality to be distributed disrespectfully enough.
Disrespect enough distribution to be equally there.
See? Any computer program could do that. Except possibly Microsoft Word…
So, partly_warmer, is that a fair way to evaluate your writing? After all, I picked a random sample of your posts, and was able to tear them apart. Why should I bother reading what you’ve actually written?
Okay, once again, you didn’t tear anything to pieces, except your credibility. Even if you had, all you would have proved is that you found a weak scene in one episode of a long running series. No one here is arguing that every minute of every show is solid gold. And finally, are you on crack? Seriously, have you been hitting the rock before you post? No? Maybe you should start; it’d save us from inanities like, “I… demonstrate[d] that, without consulting the episode, one couldn’t even tell if the scene was complete, or in order.” WTF kind of a test is that supposed to be? Here’s three lines from a random scene from a random play by Shakespeare, in random order:
Now, can you tell me what’s going on in this scene? No? Gosh, Shakespeare must be a hack writer then!
Thanks for giving us the context to those lines, Miller. Now that scene makes much more sense, and take Partly’s argument down a few more notches.
Partly, I’m afraid we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. Your method for assessing the quality of a work is so far removed for mine, and almost everyone else’s, that it’s almost incomprehesible to me.
Most people enjoy shows like this because of their emotional impact. We get to know these character, care about them, are jubilant over their triumphs, and despondent about their setbacks. And Buffy in particular stands out for its clever, inventive storytelling–even going to the extremes of an episode almost devoid of dialog, to an musical episode.
T.V. critic Joyce Millmanraves about the quality of the showmuch better than I can: "Every episode is special, every episode is momentous, every character matters, every feeling, big or small, is meaningful. On “Buffy,” stuff happens – things change, people change, people die, and sometimes, arming yourself with a big pointy stake just won’t do you any good…But what’s truly extraordinary about “Buffy” is how the show keeps moving forward, how its characters continue to evolve."
Yet those aspects are no indicators of quality to you, Partly. Instead you go about judging a show by picking one random episode and analyzing whether characters correctly use the medical-dictionary definition of specific terms, and how many syllables are in each line. Seems like you’re getting so overlyanalytical that you’re missing the big picture.
Hmm. Well, I hate to jump in on this gangbang of partly_warmer, but I just want to reiterate that we, the Buffy lovers, seemingly have no idea about what your complaint with the show actually is. You say the writing’s bad, okay, but you haven’t really given us a reason that it is. I’m sorry, but the fact athat you can reorganize the words in a sentence doesn’t make the sentence bad. Word order is something that every, good or bad, writer pays attention to. If you disagree with their choice, that’s fine, but criticizing someone based on the fact that they could have made another choice is nonsensical. Honestly, look at something like (to pick one of my favorite books) The Sound and the Fury. The first section of the book is written from the perspective of a man who doesn’t share our sense of cause-and-effect, sequential time. Practically the whole section could be jostled around at random and still make mostly the same amount of sense. Does this mean it should be, or that Faulkner is a hack (You start calling Faulkner a hack, and we’re gonna have trouble!)? No. See, this is an inane criticism of a book, just as it’s an inane criticism of a T.V. show.
Characters don’t need to be medical experts, especially when they’re not. The writer may know the precise medical meaning of “catatonia,” but the characters do not necessarily. In fact, knowing the characters as we do, it would be completely out of character for one of them (except possibly Willow) to correct the misstatemtent.
Anyway, all these points have been raised and you’ve steadfastly ignored them, so there’s no reason to think that you will heed them now. My point is merely that you seem to think that you have “teared to shreds” a bit of a Buffy script, and no one else seems to agree.
Partly, I think you’re beating a dead horse here, my friend. I also think this thread is getting bogged down.
Nobody is saying you don’t have the right to your opinions, and nobody is telling you that you have to watch or like the show. I have personally been bothered by some of the things you’ve said (mostly the bit about the characters not having in-depth medical knowledge. Why would they? Do you, in your vast medical knowledge have any idea how many mistakes they make on ER?), but I don’t want to take the argument any farther.
Out of curiosity, do you actually write? If so, I’d be interested in reading some of your work to see just how characters speak and interact with each other. Assuming they are supposed to be normal people and not deities with vast knowledge on every topic. That would get a bit dull, I think.
I’d like to add that you can’t tell the worth of a tv show, book or play by listing a few flaws in individual scenes or lines of dialog. How many holes could you pick in e.g. Hamlet? The ending’s stupid; large parts of the plot depend on bizarre coincidence and supernatural machinery; most of the characters are insufficiently motivated; there’s a good deal of ambiguity about e.g. if Hamlet is really mad; and as has already been pointed out, you can hack half of the dialog out and it still makes sense. The worth of a literary work is decided by looking at its qualities, and considering the overall form, not trying to nit-pick faults.
Well, if you must nit-pick, at least do it with the wit and thoroughness of Mark Twain: http://users.telerama.com/~joseph/cooper/cooper.html but I don’t think even he proves the worthlessness of Fenimore Cooper.
I pointed out that the writing on a TV show was so lousy that it was equivalent of a computer program spitting out words at random.
The fans of that program invested considerable energy explaining they liked the show. Ok, so what.
Various rants have claimed one couldn’t be “fair” to Buffy without seeing all the episodes. Ridiculous. One has to read all of Shakespeare or Faulkner to make an estimate of how good the writing is?
Now that all the uncritical “Fans of beating off in front of Buffy” have had a chance to express themselves…
Considering how poor your comprehension skills are when it comes to watching TV, I am not surprised to see that your reading comprehension skills are equally lacking. Otherwise you would have recognized the difference between saying you cannot accurately judge an entire show based on a fragment of a scene and saying you have to watch every single episode of the show to criticize it.
The amusing thing is, your argument actually improves when you fall back on the ad hominems. Doesn’t make you look half as stupid as when you’re babbling about how many syllables each line has.
Some kind of ulterior motive here. You start off in the Pit, you make a baseless accusation against a show you haven’t really watched (one with a large enough fan base so you’ll get lots of responses), you make the same accusation repeatedly regardless of people’s replies, claim you don’t have enough time to read supporting material…
I didn’t intend this to be 100% flame, I wanted to talk about the problems with Buffy’s art. Given that the thread is only engendering hostility, there doesn’t seem much point.
I’m not being offensive to the folks who’ve answered this thread. I’ve appreciated your comments.
But the problem with your arguments, partly-warmer is that they are all based on incredibly minute details. Everyone has pointed out to you that the use of the word “catatonic” is exactly how it is commonly used, yet you still seem to think that’s a defect in the writing.
Yes, you do have to watch several episodes of this show in order to judge it’s quality. It’s the vivid depiction of the characters, and how they grow & change over the series that is what gives Buffy such high praise. I just think that your position is rather simpleminded.