Torchwood Travesty - What she said
I just read this reply by loveslashangst to a comment on her story CHILDREN OF EARTH, DAYS FOUR AND FIVE, IN THE STYLE OF MOVIES IN FIFTEEN MINUTES. If you want to feel a bit better about the whole thing, you could do worse than to read this scything take on the story. Take a squint at it here. The comments and replies, alone, are worth reading.
The comment stated: You win for this, if only because you made me laugh.
Erm.... slight disagreement though. I agree that the whole Death Scene was for Angst purposes... but... not necessarily pointless angst? Er. I was thinking stuff about Hero archetypes and necessary (but regretted, obviously) losses and sacrifices and suchlike re: Jack's character development.
HUG!!!
loveslashangst 's reply mirrored my feelings so well - and much more coherently than I can manage, even now - that I've copied it here:
I think Jack has had quite enough pain and grief and misery in his life. That's what offended me about the way the producers (including RTD) defended CoE. They said they had to break Jack a little more to drive him away.
WTF?!
2000 years buried alive is pain enough. Having to deal with his own psychopathic brother was enough. Constantly losing people he loves is enough. The way that Ianto wantonly dies (and as a result of Jack's being a half-cocked, unprepared moron, no less) just seemed contrived to me, much like the old device of raping the heroine to make her sympathetic -- it's forcing emotion down my throat. Ianto doesn't need to die. Ianto's death does nothing to advance the plot. Ianto's death could've been avoided with just a bit of common sense and preparation.
Jack KNEW what the 456 were. He'd dealt with them before. There's no excuse for him to go in, guns blazing, without a real plan. That's not emotion and drama, that's just piss-poor leadership, especially when you keep in mind that while Jack is immortal, he's always leading a team of people who could die. Not to take that into account is just irresponsible.
Hero archetypes: Heros face real ordeals and challenges. Ianto's death wasn't an ordeal, it was an accident. A stupid accident. Moreover, Jack learnt nothing as a result of it. He still ran away. He still gave up. He still did horrible things. He still went emo about them instead of changing his behaviour.
And as for character development? Jack HAS no character development on the show. JB himself says he never worries about backstory or consistency, instead playing each scene as a scene, only worrying about what that director happens to want on that day. RTD and the other writers seem hell bent that every time Jack has forward motion (as in the development and deepening of his relationship with Ianto at the start of S2) we need to break them down and knock everything back to square one. It's an episodic approach to everything, and is a really bad idea made all the more unpalatable because now -- after losing whole teams and the former loves of his life -- one man's death is supposed to "break" Jack. I love Ianto. I love the relationship between Jack and Ianto, but Ianto is neither his first love nor his last, and to make it anything else is to lose perspective.
Worse, the Death Scene didn't even have a decent "I Love You." If you're playing for angst, why not twist the knife? Instead, Jack comes across as self-centered and unable to show any real emotion. His denial gets in the way of his compassion, even as Ianto begs him for some kind of reassurance that their relationship meant SOMETHING to Jack. It's cruel, and a disservice to Jack's character when it's been apparent time and again that he IS capable of loving deeply and truly, and faithfully in his own way.
Just my two cents.
All I would add to that, right now, is that it is - despite acclamations to the contrary by people for whom, apparently, the fast-moving drama worked to hide all the gaping plot-holes - just piss-poor writing. James Moran, on his blog, bleated about being "professional writers" - a shame the writers didn't bring professional standards to the plotting of this travesty of a story.
Finally, in answer to another comment, because again she says it better than I did in the previous paragraph:
And you can quote me on this: only an amateur kills off characters because he doesn't know how to resolve their conflicts. It's a classic newbie blunder. I deal with it frequently as a judge and writing mentor. If you can't resolve the situation without wanton slaughter: 1)you're 14 and just learning how to write or 2) you're an amateur who's just learning how to plot or 3) you're an immature writer masquerading as a "master", who will get his arse handed to him by Hollywood, where they don't LIKE sad endings.
The comment stated: You win for this, if only because you made me laugh.
Erm.... slight disagreement though. I agree that the whole Death Scene was for Angst purposes... but... not necessarily pointless angst? Er. I was thinking stuff about Hero archetypes and necessary (but regretted, obviously) losses and sacrifices and suchlike re: Jack's character development.
HUG!!!
loveslashangst 's reply mirrored my feelings so well - and much more coherently than I can manage, even now - that I've copied it here:
I think Jack has had quite enough pain and grief and misery in his life. That's what offended me about the way the producers (including RTD) defended CoE. They said they had to break Jack a little more to drive him away.
WTF?!
2000 years buried alive is pain enough. Having to deal with his own psychopathic brother was enough. Constantly losing people he loves is enough. The way that Ianto wantonly dies (and as a result of Jack's being a half-cocked, unprepared moron, no less) just seemed contrived to me, much like the old device of raping the heroine to make her sympathetic -- it's forcing emotion down my throat. Ianto doesn't need to die. Ianto's death does nothing to advance the plot. Ianto's death could've been avoided with just a bit of common sense and preparation.
Jack KNEW what the 456 were. He'd dealt with them before. There's no excuse for him to go in, guns blazing, without a real plan. That's not emotion and drama, that's just piss-poor leadership, especially when you keep in mind that while Jack is immortal, he's always leading a team of people who could die. Not to take that into account is just irresponsible.
Hero archetypes: Heros face real ordeals and challenges. Ianto's death wasn't an ordeal, it was an accident. A stupid accident. Moreover, Jack learnt nothing as a result of it. He still ran away. He still gave up. He still did horrible things. He still went emo about them instead of changing his behaviour.
And as for character development? Jack HAS no character development on the show. JB himself says he never worries about backstory or consistency, instead playing each scene as a scene, only worrying about what that director happens to want on that day. RTD and the other writers seem hell bent that every time Jack has forward motion (as in the development and deepening of his relationship with Ianto at the start of S2) we need to break them down and knock everything back to square one. It's an episodic approach to everything, and is a really bad idea made all the more unpalatable because now -- after losing whole teams and the former loves of his life -- one man's death is supposed to "break" Jack. I love Ianto. I love the relationship between Jack and Ianto, but Ianto is neither his first love nor his last, and to make it anything else is to lose perspective.
Worse, the Death Scene didn't even have a decent "I Love You." If you're playing for angst, why not twist the knife? Instead, Jack comes across as self-centered and unable to show any real emotion. His denial gets in the way of his compassion, even as Ianto begs him for some kind of reassurance that their relationship meant SOMETHING to Jack. It's cruel, and a disservice to Jack's character when it's been apparent time and again that he IS capable of loving deeply and truly, and faithfully in his own way.
Just my two cents.
All I would add to that, right now, is that it is - despite acclamations to the contrary by people for whom, apparently, the fast-moving drama worked to hide all the gaping plot-holes - just piss-poor writing. James Moran, on his blog, bleated about being "professional writers" - a shame the writers didn't bring professional standards to the plotting of this travesty of a story.
Finally, in answer to another comment, because again she says it better than I did in the previous paragraph:
And you can quote me on this: only an amateur kills off characters because he doesn't know how to resolve their conflicts. It's a classic newbie blunder. I deal with it frequently as a judge and writing mentor. If you can't resolve the situation without wanton slaughter: 1)you're 14 and just learning how to write or 2) you're an amateur who's just learning how to plot or 3) you're an immature writer masquerading as a "master", who will get his arse handed to him by Hollywood, where they don't LIKE sad endings.