I think there's some sort of an air that this shouldn't happen, that fiction isn't for this, that the writer did something wrong by evoking a deep grief, that this is *bad*. The reaction that you've been betrayed by the creator, that they've done something wrong...that's the part that gets me the most.

Ah, I see what you're saying. And I agree -- the creators of fiction don't have any responsibility to treat their characters gently, and we, the consumers, have to expect that we might get our hearts broken. That said, I'm guessing most people understand that, hyperbolic expressions of emotion notwithstanding. I'd be surprised if the person you quoted *actually* felt personally betrayed by Joss, but I think it's pretty common -- especially in a place like Mark Watches -- to use expressions like that in order to get those feelings across. (I hope, anyway, that it's mainly hyperbole...)

The reaction that you've been betrayed by the creator, that they've done something wrong...that's the part that gets me the most.

I don't think I've ever felt *betrayed* by the choices a creator of fiction has made (that seems like a very extreme reaction), but I think I've had reactions of "No! What they did was wrong!" And maybe there's a subtle gradation between "I don't like what they did," and "What they did was wrong," and maybe I actually fell more on the "I don't like what they did" side of the fence. But I would have said at the time, for instance, that killing off Superboy in whatever-the-hell Crisis (Infinite?) was wrong, and it affected me like a gut punch.

In retrospect, it's more that I just vehemently disliked it, and it wasn't objectively "wrong," per se. But it felt "wrong" at the time.

the creators of fiction don't have any responsibility to treat their characters gently, and we, the consumers, have to expect that we might get our hearts broken. That said, I'm guessing most people understand that, hyperbolic expressions of emotion notwithstanding.

And this is the other side of it. I get it -- other people's fictional toys are are going to do stuff/have stuff happen to them that I am not going to like. And I understand that.

I have read enough people who say they'd like to get Sera Gamble fired that I don't have any confidence that enough people make that distinction.

The degree of personal anger at Joss's decision to kill Wash, or RTD's to kill Ianto--I love those two guys, and may even think they were the wrong decisions in that the stories told after their deaths will be poorer for their absences, but I don't think either writer was wrong to do what he did, nor that there was any sort of relationship or understanding in place that could be betrayed.

It's also possible that hyperbole is a method of communication that I just don't get, but to even *go there* with most of the suggestions about communicating their displeasure in ways that have any real-world impact in excess of a polite conversation? Leaves me perplexed.

That's seriously what fanfiction is for--making the characters do what you want. I think it's a privilege to have other people manipulate the characters, and the rewards I reap from it is balanced with the constant awareness that it could go a way I find distasteful any moment. It's a continual understanding. That tension enriches everything. It's like gambling for your paycheque instead of knowing exactly how much you get every month.

The highs feel higher, but it's not like I have to make rent, you know?

Now, see, I was angry about Tara's death, angry enough to post to TWoP about it. But I never felt like it was.... inappropriate for Joss to have written it, like there was a personal betrayal.

But I wasn't a gay person living in a time when Tara was one of the few positive depictions of a lesbian on a nationally syndicated program.

I was, and while I was horrified by her death it was horror within the context of the narrative, not outrage that the writer would go there.

It's really interesting to see the reactions of other people watching for the first time, who also appear to be pretty unspoiled. Because right now, they know that Angel exists, but they have no idea how that's supposed to work, with Angelus being totally and utterly awful right now.

I don't think I've ever felt *betrayed* by the choices a creator of fiction has made (that seems like a very extreme reaction), but I think I've had reactions of "No! What they did was wrong!"

I did kind of feel that way about Larry McMurtry. I was invested in a character in Lonesome Dove and then in the sequel he went and killed the character off-screen! And it was an important character. But he wanted to clear the decks so he took one of the central dynamics of the first book and threw it away.

Actually, that's exactly how I felt about killing off Newt off-screen in Alien3. Same thing. It wasn't driven by narrative but a kind of expediency that disregarded the previous emotional investment that they'd asked for.

Holy shit. Those characters have the same name.

Interestingly enough I have seen Alien 3 and not this Lonesome Dove thing. So I am spoiled by your oddly white fonted post.

Movies and television are less likely to make me crave purity of story. There are so many meta considerations who knows what makes it to the screen. The writers may intend one thing, the directors another, the actors capable of something else, and then the shots in the truck were unusable so that part of the story had to be thrown away. Whether or not someone died because the showrunner wanted it that way or the actor didn't sign up for the sequel, or whatever. I can barely buy into half the outrage.

There are so many meta considerations who knows what makes it to the screen.

This. Particularly one I don't see mentioned much, TIME. We sit here with all our leisure time devoted to dissecting the story or the performances, and the writers and actors have such a limited period to come up with it..... If you listen to the commentaries and such, there's a lot of places they say, basically, "We ran out of time and just threw shit together." Sometimes it works (Hello, "Conversations with Dead People") and sometimes it just doesn't.

That's one reason I can never get behind saying, if they'd done it THIS WAY, everything would have been better. (And I realize I'm saying this in the presence of authors of a "Spiral" rewrite.) It's just so hard getting something even halfway decent to the screen, I can't feel comfortable doing anything beyond pointing out where it didn't work FOR ME.

I feel lucky to have been able to listen to actors and directors go off the record with what they might have wanted to do, in contrast to what we saw.

I can rail against someone's intentions when I can't see any way there was something material that got in the way of the decision (like you'll never convince me The Show didn't think Spike should try and rape Buffy), but there's a definite limit to me even knowing where to point the finger when something changes canon in a way that displeases me.

I have seen so much internet screaming and kvetching when I know more about why it went down that way, and they people they want to draw and quarter are the wrong people entirely. I try not to be hypocritical (I certainly don't succeed, it's impossible, but I try, and hard) knowing that.

I wonder, if Joss had sat down to write a book of the story of Buffy, where he would have gone. If he had no boundaries of cost or FX or acting limitations, what would we have gotten? And what would we have gotten without fan feedback, and amazing acting performances, and writer's room collaboration and killer stunt choreography...who even knows?