7.22: Chosen & excerpt from The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand
Not only was Ayn Rand's writing and approach astonishingly clear, it has also proved helpful in identifying the elements within literature with which I am already familiar. Her calling into question of very specific stylistic devices and drawing constrasts between others addressed suspicions I have long held concerning some works of literature I have come across. I loved the part where she cites an imaginery situation in which a writer describes a hero as "'virtuous,' 'benevolent,' 'sensitive,' 'heroic,'" but he "does nothing except that he loves the heroine, smiles at the neighbors, contemplates the sunset and votes for the Democratic Party" (pg. 67)—it took me back to being a 13-year-old, frustrated all over again after reading The Scarlet Pimpernel because, while the hero is praised for his bravery and brilliant disguises, the reader is not privy to any of the facts, so it would appear that he doesn't really DO anything in the whole novel. Then, on top of that, I saw through his "brilliant disguise" at the end, and I know I personally hate when I guess the ending. I realize this was a very popular style at the time Baroness Orczy was writing, but nevertheless, COME ON! I appreciated having that, and other problematic issues in literature, addressed so clearly in Ayn Rand's book.
Looking at "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer," I can now more easily see the solidity of each of these ingredients, and their unlikely but wonderful compatibility. The show's identity stems naturally from the culture surrounding it (the words diverse and eclectic come to mind), and this aura should be embraced rather than dismissed. Because of its point of origin (aka, America, even California, in the 20th century, extending over the brink of the 21st) I really find the theme, plot, characterizations AND style of BtVS to be well-mixed, exceptionally clever and undeniably cool.
Now, according to AGB:
The theme of BtVS: everyone must take a stand in the neverending, universal battle between good and evil.
The plot-theme of BtVS: the fate of the world lies in the extraordinarily capable hands of a beautiful, fashionable Californian girl.
I watched most of the television-spot feature, "Television With a Bite," and in one of the first cuts from an interview with Joss Whedon, he mentioned that he wanted to create a show with an explicitly feminist mission. After viewing almost the entire show, I am quite clear on the fact that HIS brand of "feminism" is not hand-in-hand with that of the "femi-Nazi" (i.e. Buffy's own wardrobe and emphatically NOT anti-male outlook), and in general, the result is a type of feminism of which most women should approve. Very basically, despite the historical patriarchal view of women, women are strong and should stand alongside men, not behind them—not that I would exactly call Buffy herself an updated suffragette with kung-fu skills.
In "Chosen," when Willow is able to call up the magic of the scythe to empower all the potential Slayers all around the world and we see the inspirational montage of all the girls all over the world who suddenly share in the power of the Slayer, it's as though Whedon had put everything—everything he wanted to say with "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer"—into that one concept and scene. I personally did find it to be quite emotional.
While looking at the facts and not at the actual show itself, the "recently gay" Willow could be viewed as a slight upset to the balance. I saw evidence of Whedon's excellent planning and writing skills there for sure: viewers were eased with the utmost care into her initial relationship with Tara. Whedon mentioned that when they actually came out and said that "Willow is in love with Tara," they started getting hate emails and such—but I didn't view the situation as such an upset. For one thing, we HAD already seen evidence (especially with the vampire Willow in "Doppelgangland"), and for another, I can't help but admire his sense for tact and stopping just immediately before taking something farther than necessary. I am, personally, certainly not interested in seeing two girls making out (in fact, I can't stress how incredibly dull I find it), but the slow buildup of the whole issue and relationship was the perfect approach. Even the initial rather awkward humor about their relationship (aka, Joyce after an unsuccessful date asking Willow and Tara if they ever just thought about "giving up on men" altogether, after which they exchange looks, or Dawn at the beginning of Season 5 writing about the spells Willow and Tara do together) was handled well. I think that Whedon's influence on such a touchy subject was very necessary to the show and was quite obvious.
The second scene, the rewritten one, struck me as weak and sophomoric. (I mean, I could have written it.) There is such a weighty subtext, filled with unspoken words and ambivalent but strong emotions, in the actual book version. We are humans; we must express ourselves through creativity. We write, paint, draw, sculpt; we make movies or TV shows, we act, we make up stories. Rand had written the scene as a dialogue between these two men, and if these characters were as important as they seem to the structure of the novel, they never would have spoken in such basic terms. People with emotional baggage don't usually express themselves with the childlike clarity found in the second version; they say much with their silences, they skirt around the facts. Rand called the the rewritten one "humanization" of a character. That comes into play, I think, on two separate levels. Here, Rourk is so much more straightforward and apparently innocuous, while before, his boredom with Keating's struggles, so palpable is comes across several times as contempt, appeared as a multi-layered threat. He is a completely different person here, and so made the scene a completely different scene. On the other hand I find that to pare a work of art down to its bones, to its merest necessities, is to rob it of its inherent humanity. The beauty of creativity may not be found in excess, but it certainly is not found in scantiness. Although sometimes it is true that "Less is more," I hold more often hold to the phrase that "It is better to have too much than too little."
That phrase is only true, however, if there is something actually there, as Rand goes on to point out. Of these two New York scenes, Spillane's, which was one of nothing but visual and action-based evidence and Wolfe's, which was one of which was atmospheric description, I found them both to be just examples of incredibly different writing styles. I never would have thought of "comparing" them, quality-wise, which is almost what she seemed to do; I presume that she hasn't got the highest opinion of Thomas Wolfe's writing style. However, the different styles just come across in different moods. I would have to read the whole novel in both cases to give an actual opinion. I liked Wolfe's vocabulary, because of my own natural inclination toward longish strings of adjectives and adverbs, but the action and pace of Spillane's was like a breath of fresh air. I understand her argument that Wolfe "has said nothing," but I think reading somebody like Marcel Proust every once in a while is nice for the needed moments of un-focused-ness in life.