David, you've managed to both eloquently and precisely, articulate exactly why I'm a Whedon fan.

At the end of the day, it isn't about the situations (okay, except of course for that unwholesome thing for vampires I'm pretty sure I was infected with by Frank Langela back in the day) that keep me interested. I can find heros and antiheroes thick on the ground. (Ivanhoe? I'm lookin' at you)

But it IS the metaphoric world illustrated by a lyric and language that is of, and not of my time. That is what transports me. The definition of 'escapism'. I could live in those worlds. (Sometimes I'd prefer to, truth be told. I only wish people in my world spoke nobly.)

---

t's a taste thing, though. My sister likes Buffy well enough, but can't watch it because of the way they speak. I can't see her ever getting to like Firefly, since it's much more alien.

I know it can be a barrier to entry, but my experience with literary canon suggests that works which are linguistically distinct -consciously/artfully so - are more likely to endure.

He did it with Fray, too, though much less (in a proportionate sense) than with the Buffyverse or Firefly. It's a fine line to walk, actually, in making a story set in a different setting use a language that's slightly altered. You need to not lose the viewer/reader with unfamiliar language, while still providing enough to give a sense that, yes, this IS a different world, whether it's set in the future or it's contemporary but in a very different setting. Farscape did that pretty well, I think.

And actually, IIRC, Mad Max (the Thunderdome one) did pretty well at that, too.

---

David, you've managed to both eloquently and precisely, articulate exactly why I'm a Whedon fan.

For me, it's that and the porn.

What?

---

You need to not lose the viewer/reader with unfamiliar language, while still providing enough to give a sense that, yes, this IS a different world, whether it's set in the future or it's contemporary but in a very different setting. Farscape did that pretty well, I think.

This is something I'm struggling with, in my book, right now. It's a yonks-and-yonks-and-yonks ago historical, but it's not set in an English speaking country. I need it to sound other, but still sound right.

---

This is so interesting. I understand that it's a taste thing. There are people in my life who don't like anything in the Jossverse, or NYPD Blue or, or even Shakespeare (cretons!) because they don't "get it." "Why do they have to talk funny?"

These same folks invite me to watch things like Snatch and Britcoms so that I can translate for them.

What, I wonder, constitutes the difference between those who are willing (nay, compelled to) enter into a different world via its language and those who are turned off by a different world because of its language?

In my work, I specifically target people's use of words and expression of belief through their language to identify and solve problems. It's the ones who simply. can't. be. okay. with someone else not speaking the same words with the same meanings that never seem to improve.

Huh. Never before have my vocations and avocations come together in such an interesting way. This could be useful. Go watch "The Message" and call me in the morning." Only partially kidding.

And speaking of that, I gotta go to work.

Huh. This could be very interesting.

---

My sister has never lived in the US. That might be part of her resistance. Her barrier to entry is that much higher into Americana. She's passably fluent in three languages (well, passable in two, excellent in one), so it's not that she's not willing to parse the alien for entertainment.

What's clever or familiar or enchanting to us is twee and work to her.

---

What, I wonder, constitutes the difference between those who are willing (nay, compelled to) enter into a different world via its language and those who are turned off by a different world because of its language?

I don't know. But I did learn in the Great Literary Thread kerfuffle that many people think that the only purpose of language is to be transparent and Tell The Damn Story. That clarity is the highest aspiration of prose. That a writer's style is mostly like window dressing. Whereas for me, a writer's style is the writing.

(These are not polar opposites in opinion, and many folks were at varying points along the spectrum in their preference.)

---

My sister likes Buffy well enough, but can't watch it because of the way they speak.

I refused to watch Buffy for an age because of the language. It didn't strike me as being rich and flexible; it struck me as lazy comedic writing. All whatever-y this, and blank-girl that.

---

or even Shakespeare (cretons!)

People who don't like Shakespeare are pork spread?

---

Well THAT's embarrassing. Here I am, whinging about language and I prove that loving words does not mean I can spell them. Pork spread? That's a new one for me. Thanks for the edification Frank! (of course, I meant to say 'cretIn."

And ita, I'm totally busted on the non-Ameri-centric view. I wasn't even considering non-English or other language speakers.

While apt to have to dash any second now, as soon as my client arrives, I'm firmly in David's corner around the writer's style being as great deal of the writing. Gracious, I read Dave Egger's first book simply because the style kept me hooked...LONG after the substance had left me by the roadside.

And while I really do understand the folks who don't want to enter into say, the Buffyverse due to the language, what I don't understand is the anger-inducing aspect of the 'different.'

Dang...doorbell. Gotta go make a living.

---