Angst...A question

[dlline]

Hey, all you writer types out there, I have a question.

Why is there so much fixation on angst in the work on this board?

To clarify, why do so many of the fics contain angst as the central motivation for many of the main characters? Does the fact that canon W/T stories heavily revolve around coming out issues lead to this phenomenon, or maybe it's just the personality of the authors? Perhaps it's an age/experience issue, or maybe a gender issue, since the bulk of the writers here are female.

Please understand me, I'm not criticising anyone's work, or complaining about angst-driven tales. Far from it. I still read and enjoy most of them. It's just that I'm drawn, as a reader and a writer, toward plots that involve characters who are tormented (for lack of a better word) externally, in the form of psycho killers, Martians, demons, ugly guys named Bob, etc. Why is it so fascinating to work with characters who provide their own torment?

Again, not a criticism. Just something I was wondering about in my ever-busy little brain. Any feedback would be welcome.

Diane

[inlerf]

for me it's easier to write, words flow more lyrically. behind that i think the drive of influencing your readers to reach for the tissue box is amusing, and angst writing is, as said, easier to achieve than comedy. first bitter then sweet and "we must have problems so this is more interesting!" seem to be the rule of thumb for romance; makes both reader and writer go "awww, they're sooo meant to be together!" pretty much i suppose gives you more substance to work with; everyone has gone through something angsty.

[Tujeky]

In a show with a threat so glaringly external as vampires, the thing that struck me and drew me into the show was the characters. Who, with all their flaws and insecurities, still managed to fight this brave external battle.
But no matter the victories, internal issues still remain, and can cause problems of their own. The ep Family is a perfect example of how an unspoken insecurity can manifest itself into a real threat. Willow's magic abuse is another.

It's a univeral truth that we have insecurities and flaws. I think there is a sense of catharsis in watching/reading these issues being explored and dealt with, especially in characters that we regard so highly, even love. It's relatable.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good external threat. And even those can be sometimes metaphorical (Buffy slays her demons, rah rah rah)

I think a bit of both is a combination I look for as a viewer and a reader.

[JustSkipIt]

Interesting question, Diane. I would be interested in your definition as angst as opposed to say, conflict. It seems to me that every story requires conflict (one of the determining factors in being a story).

What are the possible central conflicts?

* Man vs. Man (or in this case man vs. demon or permutations thereof).
* Man vs. Nature (climbing Mount Everest, etc.)
* Man vs. himself

Then you go to the classic stories:

Boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl (replace boy with girl of course).

So now you're faced with a sort of menu approach. I'm writing a story and I want to explore a person and her soul. What is going on in her soul? What conflicts does she face? Is she trying to run a 4:00 mile? Invent a cure for cancer? Leave home successfully? Get an unattainable girl to fall in love with her?

Hmmm. Well, I want the story to go on for a reasonable length of time (not say, meet hot girl, fuck, move in together live forever). So I need a central conflict.

To me Man vs. Man is interesting in its place as is Man vs. Nature but I love Man vs. himself. With the last conflict space the protagonist never leaves the conflict. It is always present. She may go to sleep or get drunk or take drugs or run away but it's always there. She can only solve it or fail to solve it. And that's very real! Even the demons and vampires of canon were just metaphors for relationships. So in the case of what I think you are referring to as angst, it seems to me that we have a central protagonist engaged in some self vs. self conflict and that does seem rather angsty. At some point the protagonist has to resolve or fail to resolve her conflict. What does that take from her? What will it take for her to realize the conflict? To act rather than failing to act?

I find it very fascinating.

Anyway, I’ve babbled and I’m not sure if I’m even answering the question you asked.

The woman from SNL would say, “please discuss…”

[dlline]

Interesting question, Diane. I would be interested in your definition as angst as opposed to say, conflict. It seems to me that every story requires conflict (one of the determining factors in being a story).

Well, let’s just start this by giving my definition of angst. It is a word that comes from the same root as anger or anxiety, and differs in scope from conflict. Angst is much more specific than conflict, and in many cases is a type of conflict. Angst is also usually defined, in my head and several online dictionaries, as self-inflicted conflict. Not that it’s a bad thing. You were actually very close to my definition when you said:

So in the case of what I think you are referring to as angst, it seems to me that we have a central protagonist engaged in some self vs. self conflict and that does seem rather angsty

My basic question started as a request to know why there are so many angsty stories on this board. There are many stories that contain one basic theme, with the following variations:

* Tara loves Willow but can’t tell her (too shy, is a demon, trashy family, etc.)
* Willow loves Tara but can’t tell her (Holy shit… she’s a girl, what will the scoobies think, what about Oz, etc.)
* Tara misses Willow but can’t call her (she chose magic over me, she cast a spell on me, etc.)
* Willow misses Tara but can’t call her (I chose magic over her, I cast a spell on her, who the hell is that new girl, etc.)

You may notice a pattern here. I know it is canon, but the television show explored far more than the internal struggle of the characters. Like Tujeky said above, a combination of internal and external elements makes for a better story. And I will agree that many of the demons were actually metaphors for internal issues, but it was still fun to watch the Scoobies figure out how to make them go poof.

I respect canon, but the conflict in many stories on this board is completely self-inflicted, and truly has little else to do with other characters in the story. There are volumes of this stuff out there, some great, some not, but the basic gist is the same. I guess that’s why I’m so drawn to the uberfic genre. My problem here is not angst specifically, but the fact that we love these characters (or we wouldn’t be here), and that many won’t allow them to grow up, even a little. Change is good and it’s healthy, but many authors continue to let the girls twist in the wind with their original insecurities and readers eat it up, some even complaining that allowing the characters to grow is wrong somehow. That’s my $0.02 on that.

Moving on.

You are absolutely right that conflict is mandatory for any story. Just a point of interest since my g/f is an English teacher; man vs. nature has been expanded to include man vs. technology in our modern world.

Every good story contains conflict. It is essential. It is the treatment of that conflict that makes a story good or bad. Your example “meet hot girl, fuck, move in together, live forever,” is a great definition of an enhanced PWP, and at most is short story fodder. And I completely understand that you are not suggesting that as a plot for a major work. So let’s tweak it a little. Just add some conflict. “Meet hot girl, find out something bad about her, fuck anyway, ask yourself lots of questions, etc.” You could argue that the “ask yourself lots of questions” part is angst, and in my mind, you would be correct. But the conflict here is the “find out something bad about her” part, and how the main character deals with it. If he/she wallows in it alone and can’t seem to move past or around it, it is angsty and I don’t care for it. If he/she seeks assistance by moving outside of themselves, it becomes a much more interesting story simply because, as an author, you introduce something new for the protagonist to react to. It’s really more fun, to cite your alcohol abuse example, if the character gets hammered and spills everything to a dear friend than if he/she whines in their own head and passes out drooling on the sofa.

To me Man vs. Man is interesting in its place as is Man vs. Nature but I love Man vs. himself. With the last conflict space the protagonist never leaves the conflict. It is always present. She may go to sleep or get drunk or take drugs or run away but it's always there. She can only solve it or fail to solve it.

This fascinates me. If you are writing a story about a specific character, which to me is a given, why does that character leave the conflict at all in any of the above scenarios? Even in Man vs. nature, man is still there or else the story is over. To use the example of my own story (see shameless plug below), Tara can save Willow from the bad guy (ending the story) or Tara can fail to save Willow from the bad guy (also ending the story). Thanks to the rules of this board, we all know which scenario will play out, but that’s not the point of the story. It is all about the journey, not the destination.

The conflict in my story has a couple of the above-mentioned scenarios, the most obvious being the bad guy gunning for Willow (man vs. man). To me, that is only part of the conflict of the story. Since the main character of the work is pretty obviously Tara, the basic conflict involves a person removed from her comfort zone and who is then forced to deal with new elements and changes to her very orderly life (man vs. himself). How she deals with this (IMHO) is equally as compelling as her hunt for the bad guy, and the fact that she shares her concerns with both of her friends is far more interesting than if she started drinking and just talked to herself or the cat. That would be angsty.

Anyway, I’ve babbled and I’m not sure if I’m even answering the question you asked.

I get babble. Just look up. As far as my original question, you kind of didn't answer it, but I liked what you had to say anyway.

To quote someone near and dear, "Comments... questions?"

[Hemiola]

Um...just thought I'd mention that Angst is actually a German word meaning "fear". So "aengstlich" = "fearful". For some reason, it seems to have achieved a certain currency in English, but has gone way beyond its basic original meaning. I understand that it now seems to mean something like "existential anxiety" in modern American usage.

[JustSkipIt]

Quote:
Anyway, I’ve babbled and I’m not sure if I’m even answering the question you asked.

I get babble. Just look up. As far as my original question, you kind of didn't answer it, but I liked what you had to say anyway.

Why is there so much fixation on angst in the work on this board?

Ok. I’ll try to answer that and then I’ll ramble generally about conflict and such like that… Of course this is just my wild speculation. I would posit that many of the writers on this board fall into three broad categories of people who have a pretty tight relationship with angst: women, lesbians, and teenagers. Now, that’s a big generalization but I think that each of those groups kind of by definition has a higher level of both internal and external conflict than the average person. No matter how easily or smoothly a person’s coming out is, it is still a voyage of self-discovery and self-revelation. I know very few g/l people who had glorious coming outs both to themselves and to others. Some had ok ones and some never really considered anything else but few people I know had no angst at all. And being a teenager… well it’s kind of all about conflict. It’s part of the psychological process.

Now a slightly less friendly explanation. I’m not sure that every story on this board is the highest level of literature. Heck, they’re not really supposed to be high literature. Some of the works here are beginning writing efforts (and thank God for the receptivity of the Kittens) and some are kind of journal efforts to work through one’s own issues. Not every writer sits down and maps out the story in terms of conflict, characters, plot, climax, resolution, etc. Some just start typing and the angst is what comes out.

Now to continue the discussion in a more discussiony manner…

Angst is also usually defined, in my head and several online dictionaries, as self-inflicted conflict. Not that it’s a bad thing.

Yes, that would agree with my definition of angst too. So I’d agree that it’s most like man vs. himself. Your list of common angsty themes is right on and yes, it gets a bit repetitive but it’s still relevant.

Like Tujeky said above, a combination of internal and external elements makes for a better story.

I think that’s very true and suspect that it will come into play in your current story. There is the man vs. man of Tara/Willow/Bobby(/society) vs. Bad. That’s a very real conflict and one in which people can/may/have died. Then there’s Tara’s internal conflict re: keeping Willow safe, letting herself feel/love, taking another human beings’s life etc. It also seems to me that Police offices, FBI, etc. require their officers to go see the shrink (head rack city, etc.) so they must expect quite a bit of internal angst even for justified shootings.

And in continuing mentioning our stories, I would say that my current offering has very much a man vs. herself theme. Of course, I haven’t said what the central conflict is but at this point, there is no man vs. man. There is no man vs. nature or man vs. technology so it’s really man vs. herself. But I don’t think of it as angsty. Just kind of genuinely deep and thought-provoking (I hope).

Quote:
To me Man vs. Man is interesting in its place as is Man vs. Nature but I love Man vs. himself. With the last conflict space the protagonist never leaves the conflict. It is always present. She may go to sleep or get drunk or take drugs or run away but it's always there. She can only solve it or fail to solve it.

This fascinates me. If you are writing a story about a specific character, which to me is a given, why does that character leave the conflict at all in any of the above scenarios? Even in Man vs. nature, man is still there or else the story is over.

Let’s say it’s a story about climbing a mountain. There’s a part where the climber isn’t to the mountain yet or takes a break at a lodge while waiting to attempt the summit or gets back home. During those times, the conflict itself is on the mountain while the climber is in a chair or a car or whatever. But in man vs. himself, it’s always present. Again referencing Waiting, Tara can be doing artistry or riding her horse or even making love and her conflict is always going to be between her position and responsibilities and her love/lust for Dani/Willow and her reconciliation of those things not to even mention the power she has over Dillow.

Ok, I’m not sure if I’ve said anything more valuable but I’m really enjoying the conversation.

Hemiola – Quite true and I think your current definition is an accurate one.

[dlline]

I would posit that many of the writers on this board fall into three broad categories of people who have a pretty tight relationship with angst: women, lesbians, and teenagers.

I would agree that that is a “big generalization,” but it’s also exactly what I suspected. I’m well aware of the angsty 15-year-old teenage girl, since there’s one in my home frequently. And while she’s proclaimed herself to be bisexual, she has many lesbian friends and the drama level is always high. Coming out is different for everyone, but you are absolutely right about it being a voyage of self-discovery and revelation.

I’m not sure that every story on this board is the highest level of literature. Heck, they’re not really supposed to be high literature.

I get that too. I certainly wasn’t trying to step on anyone’s toes, and I hope that I didn’t. It takes a lot of guts to spill them on a page and post them on an Internet site for the world to see. Especially when you ask for comments. I couldn’t have done it when I was much younger, and I continue to struggle a little with it now. The supportive nature of this board has made things possible for me, and I certainly hope that new writers continue to jump in the deep end and post their work for us to read and enjoy.

So, back to the conflict discussion.

…I would say that my current offering has very much a man vs. herself theme.
… I don’t think of it as angsty. Just kind of genuinely deep and thought-provoking (I hope).

That’s exactly what I noticed, and it certainly is thought-provoking. I agree that it is not angsty, and I think you’ve avoided that by using point of view as a tool to keep the readers guessing. It is very well done. Tara does muse about her current situation, but she doesn’t seem to torture herself with it. I understand that she’s trying to work something out in her own head, but the narrative of the setting and events of the story gives the reader something else to think about rather than just the internal workings of Lady Maclay’s brain.

If you are writing a story about a specific character, which to me is a given, why does that character leave the conflict at all in any of the above scenarios? Even in Man vs. nature, man is still there or else the story is over.

Let’s say it’s a story about climbing a mountain. There’s a part where the climber isn’t to the mountain yet or takes a break at a lodge while waiting to attempt the summit or gets back home. During those times, the conflict itself is on the mountain while the climber is in a chair or a car or whatever.

Ok, this is the part where I get to argue that the conflict is still present, but simply relegated to the background. For example, the character is in a hotel having drinks with her girlfriend, unwinding before the big climb the next day. Why is she in the hotel? Because it’s close to the mountain. Whether they talk about the mountain or not, it is essential to the story, because it is still the reason why the characters are where they are.

I guess the basic point I’m trying to make is this: regardless of the nature of the conflict, it is always present, whether the protagonist is in physical contact with it or not. And this can be any type of conflict. Man versus herself is probably the easiest to define, simply because you cannot physically separate the two. The other forms of conflict, while easy to physically separate, are still essential to move the story along.

In TRF, BAD isn’t present for much of the story, but he is still driving the conflict. W/T met because of him; Tara’s internal conflict is largely motivated by him and her own uncertainty about the nature of his movements. While her concerns are internal (man vs. herself), the force that drives them is still BAD and his actions (man vs. man). The fact that she’s trying to come to terms with the changing nature of her life is important, but how different would everything be if BAD had been apprehended before he ever got to Pittsburgh? Would we still have a story? My guess is that no, we would not. The W/T relationship would have developed (or maybe it wouldn’t), but that’s not the point of the story. Without the continued presence of the external conflict, the fuel that drives much of Tara’s internal conflict would have been diminished to the point that the story would probably just drift off and die. Happy ending, yes, but not nearly as compelling.

Ok, I’m not sure if I’ve said anything more valuable but I’m really enjoying the conversation.

Great big ditto to that. Lots of interesting things to think about and discuss.

[Alcy]

psycho killers, Martians, demons, ugly guys named Bob, etc

Hmm...I think I'm just about the only fic writer that can say I've put Willow and Tara up against every single one of those characters! And in the one fic I've written where there was none of the above, there was angst a plenty in the form of coming out in the 1950s and an abusive father.

I can't put it any better than Debra has explained it above and I share her love of writing Man vs. Himself conflicts. I would say that this is a central theme to all of my writing, no matter who the bad guy is. The writing becomes an exploration of who the character is, how their circumstances have made them, and how they react to choices and situations that are put to them. For me personally, I find it an interesting challenge to take characters that we know so well, and put them into completely non-canon situations.
As you've said above Diane, some writers use fic as a method to get their angst out, just to write and see what comes out. I'm not in that camp, by and large each story is carefully mapped out with a plot and a definite direction. For me a story is one really big arc through a segment of the characters lives which may go through just about every form of conflict you can think of. It often involves huge amounts of angst at times and self-conflict but it always ends up in redemption. The fic, no matter how complex it is, simply becomes an exploration of the path to redemption.
But this certainly isn't to say there aren't challenges in every other method that writers use, comedy being one of the very hardest to pull off...I would love to write something that had people in stitches for the entire duration but the truth is I can't.

Of course, much of the way that people write is tuned to their personality and interests. The setting has a huge influence on how the characters develop and it just happens that 1930s sci-fi, adventure, thriller, film noir etc are worlds that I love in film. Given that I of course cannot produce my own film, fic is the best I can do. and I cant think of anymore enjoyable way to do it than to use two of my favourite and most loved characters. It just happens that these worlds thrive on conflict situations but largely they are situations that we would not come up against in everyday life.

This is a great discussion to have, I love exploring people's motivations for writing what and how they do.

[JustSkipIt]

Diane wrote:

I get that too. I certainly wasn’t trying to step on anyone’s toes, and I hope that I didn’t. It takes a lot of guts to spill them on a page and post them on an Internet site for the world to see. Especially when you ask for comments. I couldn’t have done it when I was much younger, and I continue to struggle a little with it now.

Absolutely. I only started writing in the last five years and putting it out there and asking for feedback is just so… scary so I totally applaud everyone who takes that chance.

My current story: Thanks. Thought-provoking is a good summary of what I’m going for.

Tara does muse about her current situation, but she doesn’t seem to torture herself with it. I understand that she’s trying to work something out in her own head, but the narrative of the setting and events of the story gives the reader something else to think about rather than just the internal workings of Lady Maclay’s brain.

First, I would say that your statement that she doesn’t seem to torture herself is one that would make me go “yet” and then cackle and rub my hands together if I were that type of person (which I kind of am). Second: the setting/plot is interesting but I still posit that they are simply a vehicle for the expression of the main conflict which is man vs. herself. It’s not even so much man vs. society which it could be if she were more aware of what she’s doing or if she had worked out a plan which would defy society. At this point in the story it’s kind of Tara now (man) vs. Tara sitting and waiting (herself).

Ok, this is the part where I get to argue that the conflict is still present, but simply relegated to the background. For example, the character is in a hotel having drinks with her girlfriend, unwinding before the big climb the next day. Why is she in the hotel? Because it’s close to the mountain. Whether they talk about the mountain or not, it is essential to the story, because it is still the reason why the characters are where they are.

Oh. You’re taking us down a very slippery slope of what is part and not part of the conflict. If she’s climbing the mountain tomorrow and that’s the main conflict but she and her girlfriend are having drinks they are only in the hotel room because of the mountain. It’s part of the conflict. What if she goes to the bathroom? Goes to get nail clippers. Checks her e-mail? What about three months ago when she was doing major-fundraising and had to make a speech at a women’s auxiliary group to raise the money to tip the sherpas? What about when she was 12 and came in first in the “All-Illinois under 18 girls 10K” race and thought to herself, “This feels as good as climbing a mountain! I love being a winner!” I mean ok, I can agree that she’s in the hotel room because she’s climbing the mountain but I also think that either EVERYTHING is part of that conflict or only the climbing is part of it. Or maybe there is a central conflict – climbing the mountain – and the secondary conflict – realizing that she can do anything she wants in life including dumping said girlfriend, quitting her soul-numbing job, and joining the peace corps. Actually I really love those type of stories where the protagonist undergoes a physical transformation/challenge and it brings about catharsis and self-actualization in their life. I wish I could remember the name of the book I read about the woman who attempted to hike the Appalachian trail and that lead her change her entire life. Or Road Fever in which the attempt to drive from the tip of South America to the tip of North America is a metaphor for the insanity of life.

I both digressed and babbled there which is quite impressive (or quite unimpressive) I would say.

Then Alcy joined in (yay!).

Lol: yep. You’ve had those conflicts.

I can't put it any better than Debra has explained it above and I share her love of writing Man vs. Himself conflicts. I would say that this is a central theme to all of my writing, no matter who the bad guy is. The writing becomes an exploration of who the character is, how their circumstances have made them, and how they react to choices and situations that are put to them.

First, thanks for the mention. Second, I absolutely agree with your summation of your own work. I haven’t read everything of yours I think (not up to date on R&R) but I think I’ve read most and I feel like you do a very good job of combining an external conflict which is very overt (martians, psychos) and making that only part of the story. It seems that in your stories, the overt conflict (man vs. man (or monster)) is a sort of setting for exploring man vs. herself (Tara learning to open herself and love and trust in Sin City or Willow doing largely the same in CRDM). I think it’s a great format and one that works very well.

It often involves huge amounts of angst at times and self-conflict but it always ends up in redemption. The fic, no matter how complex it is, simply becomes an exploration of the path to redemption.

Yes! You may have just explained in that many words what I see as the difference between “good” and not so great literature. And redemption doesn’t just mean becoming a good person. It means that there is some type of reconciliation for the protagonist at the end of the story. Something at the end is very different from the beginning.

This is a great discussion to have, I love exploring people's motivations for writing what and how they do.

Here, here!

[binky]

As a self-avowed angst-junkie, I’m gonna pop my head in and note that something that’s not said but colors angst in a somewhat negative manner (unfairly, I believe) is this connotation of angst as being not just about self-conflict, but overblown self-conflict. I.e., full-blown hand-wringing, hairshirt-wearing, guilt-ridden, self-flagellation. Take it to its natural conclusion and you get melodrama or, even worse, hysteria (yes, I meant precisely that word), or in relation to fiction, sentimentalism. This board revolving around Willow and Tara fandom (and any that center around pubescent adolescents or females or homosexuals or the compound, teenaged lesbians) makes it a natural focus for melodrama and all its negative connotations of bad art, justly deserved or not. On the one hand, I confess, soap opera is one of those genres I usually try at all costs to avoid. On the other, how much pleasure have I gotten out of Neverland? Or more currently, Lamplight? Or even BtVS or Angel as television? Quality makes a difference, which sounds awful because it’s so easy to be a critic but being a writer, especially the first time you go public, takes so much courage. But awful or not, I’d be lying if I said everything I’ve read here has been worthwhile.

Anyway, as Hemiola pointed out, angst has a technical meaning (in German existentialism originally I think) that’s been thoroughly overtaken by now. I blame Freud, as we all should--though I admit some of this is firmly tongue-in-cheek.

b

[dlline]

Hey again!

I love this discussion. Thanks to Binky for jumping in here and bringing up the exact point that I was trying to make.

...colors angst in a somewhat negative manner (unfairly, I believe) is this connotation of angst as being not just about self-conflict, but overblown self-conflict. I.e., full-blown hand-wringing, hairshirt-wearing, guilt-ridden, self-flagellation. Take it to its natural conclusion and you get melodrama or, even worse, hysteria (yes, I meant precisely that word), or in relation to fiction, sentimentalism.

I'd like to add another word that sums it up for me: hypochondria, that being used to mean the way characters torture themselves, often unfairly, for their own insecurities. To cite my own earlier example, "I can't call her," is simply the character being unwilling to push past their own self-inflicted conflict. I would propose that the issue then becomes "I won't call her because I'm too afraid of what will happen if I do." This is a very different issue (can't vs. won't), and is a trap that I see far too many new authors falling into. Again, I'll be the first to support new authors in their attempts because bleeding on the page is hard, especially when you put it out there for everyone. Like Alcy and Deb, my work does not fall into that category. Everything is planned and mapped out; I know where it's going to end before I get started, which I think is essential for the continuity of a complicated story. The options are much wider for a short, one-off work, and if you simply want a self-musing, train-of-thought fiction, then it's much less difficult to simply write and see where it winds up.

Now, back to the conflict issue. Yes, conflict is essential. Without it, there simply is no story. It is the one basic thing required for a good piece of fiction. Whether or not it appears in every scene does not diminish its role in the overall scope of the work. I do agree with Deb (despite what I said earlier), that not everything that happens in every scene is directly related, the conflict is still the central point of the work. Even if it's not the main focus of a scene, it is still present in the overall picture, and if it's not present, what exactly is the point of the scene?

I would argue here that non-conflict driven scenes, while often fun, are really not necessary to the overall work. The best example of this point is the smut that we all love to read and write. It's fun, it's often a break in the action, but most of the time it's not essential to the conflict. If you can tie the smut to the conflict, it's better, but it is not essential. Chapter 14 of TRF is just your basic bedroom scene, but I tried to use it to establish some basic personality issues of the two characters. Did it do anything to solidify or deal with the conflict issues of the story? Probably not, but based on the responses I received, everyone seemed to enjoy it. The most interesting thing to me is that I used the sex in Chapter 20 as more of a conflict device, and the response was far less enthusiastic. I can only assume from this that people want their smut with no strings attached. Not really central to this discussion, but interesting nonetheless.

Well, I don't know if I've said anything new or remarkable here, but let's just blame that on the stomach flu hangover that I'm fighting right now. I'm interested to see where this goes next.

Diane

[BurningDarkness]

Just a ...well...question really
"amused"

But aren't breaks (ie smut or useless drivel) sort of essential to how well a story is paced?

I don't know, but for most of the stuff I write, I just find it easier to ease people into situations, create bigger surprises and the like if everything sort of eases around everything else. (and that so doesn't make sense)

It's just that the 'not necessary' stuff keeps a degree of normality into things and well...in the theme of this subject, it stops the angst from making it overly melodramatic or completely unbelievable.

....course...that just means you have to know how the story flows and I've seen heaps of great stories destroyed when the writer stuffs up the placing of a 'break' and ultimately destroys the storyline to the point where it's unsalvagable...

"shrugs"
It's up to each person I guess, every writer has their own style sorta thing...

[Sassette]

Hello, everyone ... oh, how I have missed you.

I know that last post on this was >way< back in April, but I hope you all won't mind that I am adding to this topic.

I was looking around Beta Pens because I seem to recall there was a thread or a post around here somewhere that dealt with British education at the college level, and I wanted to see if I could track it down to find out what the main administrator of a British University would be called, but I was distracted by this bright and shiny thread, which just >called< to me. We all know that "angst" is a subject near and dear to my heart.

Let me start out by saying that this has been a really fantastic discussion so far, and many heaps of praise upon JustSkipIt for bringing up the basic types of conflict.

Now, allow me to put forth this thought: fic on this board is so angsty because Willow and Tara are inherently angsty.

Teenagers? Check.
Women? Check.
Gay? Check.

For that matter, so is BtVS the tv show.

Exhibit A: 2nd season of BtVS, from the point where Angel loses his soul because he and Buffy *gasp - whisper voice* ... had the sex ... *normal voice* up to the point Willow resouls him but Buffy has to kill him anyway.

This is angsty melodramatic schlock that is only saved from being unwatchable by good writing and good acting.

Exhibit B: 6th season of BtVS ... an unrelenting, humorless, joyless look at what happens when everyone's lives go to pieces all at the same time.

Still angsty melodramatic schlock, but the writing slipped, and the humor and the loving, supportive relationships between all the Scoobies fell apart so badly that even good acting couldn't save it.

Basically, my point is, that this is fiction written about a show where the internal conflict for the main character revolves around the Unbearable Burden of Slayerness. Now that's angst!

Add in the fact that, as major supporting characters, the idea that Willow and/or Tara are the direct focus and/or drive of Hellmouthy external conflict (Buffy's the hero ... that's how the show works), and the fact that this board is devoted to W/T fic as opposed to Buffy-fic, and angst is the result that remains truest to canon when W/T are the focus of the fic.

This is just what my brain comes up with when I think about the show and the surface of the characters, but when I delve into W/T a little deeper, it's very apparent to me that they are both riddled with Issues with a capital "I".

Both Willow and Tara are plagued with self-doubt due to their fear that they aren't "good" enough, in both senses of the word. Tara fears she isn't morally good, as she has believed her whole life that she had a demon inside of her just waiting to come out (I'm not going to get into the obvious "aftermath of abuse" issues, as it is generally accepted that Tara's childhood was at least emotionally abusive, if not physically abusive, and the ramifications of that are fairly self-evident). Willow, at the same time, fears she isn't good enough, in the quality-sense of the word "good". She fears that, no matter how hard she tries, she will ultimately fail in any area except schoolwork, which is the only place she has any confidence in herself.

Now, A/U fic is a different matter, and in order to remain true to character, a writer has two choices: W/T can work through their Issues in the course of the fic, or the writer can establish, early on, how their lives were different from canon so that they avoided developing some of these Issues in the first place and/or establish that W/T have already worked past them. But even in A/U fic, these Issues cannot be ignored entirely without making the reader feel like they aren't reading about W/T, but two entirely different people who just happen to look like W/T and have the same names.

I believe the original point, though, was really more about >wallowing< than about angst.

I respect canon, but the conflict in many stories on this board is completely self-inflicted, and truly has little else to do with other characters in the story. There are volumes of this stuff out there, some great, some not, but the basic gist is the same. I guess that’s why I’m so drawn to the uberfic genre. My problem here is not angst specifically, but the fact that we love these characters (or we wouldn’t be here), and that many won’t allow them to grow up, even a little. Change is good and it’s healthy, but many authors continue to let the girls twist in the wind with their original insecurities and readers eat it up, some even complaining that allowing the characters to grow is wrong somehow. That’s my $0.02 on that.

The difference between angst and wallowing, to my mind, is specifically that lack of growth. Issues can be dealt with, but there's a difference between W/T dealing with their Issues, learning and growing, and just wallowing in their Issues.

The setting ... which season, A/U or not, the specifics of the A/U ... are the main determinates of whether or not W/T will wallow or grow. I would argue that Tara didn't really >really< grow through her issues until S6, after Family in S5 (because it takes awhile to get over the whole "I'm a demon and inherently evil" thing, and because she spent the latter-half of S5 brain-sucked ... see "angsty melodramtic schlock saved by good acting" above ...), and that Willow's seeming growth in S4 when she went to college was more of a greater ability to appear to "fit in" with her new surroundings than a true resolution of her high school Issues. So, anything written to be set within canon would have to take this lack of growth into account. It's fic set post-show or completely A/U where W/T really have the >opportunity< to grow. Either that, or fics where it goes A/U from canon, where the W/T-centrism of the fic basically means that their growth and the ramifications of that growth are the main split from canon.

Man, this post is getting long ...

I'd also like to throw in my two cents regarding external conflict in W/T fic.

Unless it is societal conflict due to their gayness, their wicca-ness, or their femaleness (thereby making it angsty with the possibility of wallowing), external conflict is inherently problematic for W/T fic.

These are not, by nature, physically oriented characters. They're strong, but Willow's strength is intellectual, and Tara's strength is emotional, and when you delve into the world of actual physical conflict, be it man vs. man or man vs. nature, there are a few things the writer >has< to deal with.

W/T are not Action! characters. If a fic includes Action!Willow or Action!Tara, there has to be a really >really< good reason why these characters, who are generally physically inept, are suddenly spear-wielding badasses (see: Hellebore, in which Tara is, in fact, a spear-wielding badass ... because she's an Amazon, so of >course< she's a spear-wielding badass, which would generally be out-of-character for Tara, but the setup was there to make completely and easily believable).

Basically, it's a bit of a stretch to have W/T meet and beat physical danger. It's not impossible, and I've seen it done, and done well, in a great many fics, but it takes a great setup to include W/T as the main characters in an external conflict and still remain true to the characters.

Unless the external conflict can be overcome by strength of mind or strength of heart, W/T are not inherently believable protagonists. It requires well-planned and well-executed alterations to W/T to give them any other kind of conflict to overcome and have it >work<.

So, to sum up (too late!):

W/T internal conflict = inherently angsty.
W/T external conflict = inherently problematic and hard to pull off.

And now I will go back to trying to track down that answer about what the head of a British College would be called, so I can continue working on my fic in which Willow and Tara spend an inordinate amount of time working through / wallowing in their Issues, and the external conflict consists entirely of the minor matter that Tara has been dead for 300 years.



-Sassette

[Knock yourself out]

Interesting discussion!

However, I'm here to say that the chief administrators of English universities (not British ones because the situation is different in Scotland) are called vice chancellors. Also the terms college and university are not interchangeable here. You would only be at college if you were studying at a college.