They Keep Killing Sam

(Sorry. I don't even watch Torchwood. But I sort of liked that ep title.)

But. Seriously. WTF is it with fic writers and killing Sam recently? Seems like it's the new big fad. Which is kind of odd - as well as kind of fitting - seeing as how the lad's *already* dead! I mean, is it even still possible for him to die in 1973? *g*

Actually, it's kind of a continuation of an older trend I've noticed. There's a tendency in the fandom to take Sam's physical predicaments and transpose them from 2006 to 1973. There's a lot of fic in which Sam gets physically hurt really badly in 1973, up to and including going into a coma(!), apparently. And now there's a lot of fic in which Sam dies in 1973.

It's fairly easily explained, really: the fic writers want the angst of ill/injured!Sam and comatose!Sam and recovering!Sam and dying/dead!Sam, but to get the right kind of kick out of it they need people to relate to Sam when he's ill/injured/comatose/recovering/dying/dead. It's all about the people who love Sam reacting to what's happening to him; it's not so much about Sam himself. The aim is a mixture of warm, fuzzy feelings and cathartic pain; the taste is bittersweet. And since Maya, Sam's mum, his aunt and assorted unknown friends, colleagues and relatives are too abstract (or, perhaps more importantly, simply aren't Gene) fic focusing on Sam being injured, comatose, recovering, dying etc. in 2006 just won't do the trick for most writers and readers. The thrill is in seeing the 1973 crowd, and mostly Gene, react, seeing them care, seeing them grieve - because they are the people the writers and readers relate to and are invested in. Hence, Bad Stuff has to happen to Sam in 1973.

In short: most of the angst in LoM fandom is tinged in shades of hurt/comfort - because it's all about suffering revealing the ways people care about/for each other.

Whereas what I'm interested in is how suffering changes people's outlook on life and the world in a larger sense, how it changes relationships in subtle and radical ways, how it changes people's sense of who they are and how they relate to other people and the world - etc. The point is that, while there is a relationship component here as well, it's not the main focus - the main focus is in the sense of self, in identity.

(But what about Starving on the Jump Down, you ask. How is that dealing with identity and all the stuff you listed above? True - it isn't. But it's not the 'warm and fuzzy'(1), relationship-centred kind of deathfic, either. It's not about confirming, even in loss, a relationship the reader believes in and is invested in; it's about showing losses that tend to go forgotten.)

(1) I know not all deathfics have that 'warm and fuzzy' component - deathfic involving unrequited relationships can be sort of bitter. Still, even with those there tends to be a sense of mutual caring of some sort, some sort of connection, and ultimately that connection is what the deathfic is about. Starving..., though, is about a lack of connection.

*

Speaking of dead protagonists. To complement my writing that frelling useless essay/paper/thing about An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge recently (not really - it's just a coincidence, really) I just bought Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman.

Any other texts with dead protagonists I should know? *g* (I know there are a few movies - Jacob's Ladder, Abre Los Ojos... anything else?)

Comments

(Sorry. I don't even watch Torchwood. But I sort of liked that ep title.)

Eh, s'okay. When I watched the Torchwood episode I knew the title was familiar from somewhere else. There was an Avengers episode titled "They Keep Killing Steed" in the 60's so it wasn't "new" on Torchwood.

I mean, is it even still possible for him to die in 1973?

I haven't seen the show, but I'd guess so. I mean it sounds like dead or not he has some sense of himself in 1973. That sense dies he dies, or at least as far as the characters the writers care about are concerned.

(I know there are a few movies - Jacob's Ladder, Abre Los Ojos... anything else?)

There's the American film classic Sunset Boulevard that Andrew Lloyd Webber eventually turned into a musical. From the wiki for the original movie the musical will be a film next year. The original film is a classic film noir done in 1950. It was nominated for 11 Academy Awards, won 3. It was included among the first films selected for preservation in the National Film Registry, and ranked number 12 on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 best American films of the 20th century. :D The role Kevin Spacey won his Best Actor Oscar for in American Beauty is one where his dead character tells the story of the end of his life. The book I know about, from it's having been the "it book" for a while and from hearing Peter Jackson is making the film adaptation, is The Lovely Bones. Heck, since you mentioned Torchwood I'd say the episode "Random Shoes" fits the category. Not the Suzie ep because she was actually resurrected for the story. "Random Shoes" however is centered on and narrated by a character we know was killed in a hit and run before the beginning of the episode.

Yeah, actually I know about those.

Orhan Pamuk's novel My Name Is Red also has a dead narrator. I think this is actually not so rare a literary 'trick'. Sunset Boulevard and American Beauty - and My Name Is Red, too - are a bit different from The Third Policeman, Abre Los Ojos and Jacob's Ladder, though, as they're not really about life after death, or the illusion of life after death (as in the case of the Bierce story) but simply employ a 'dead' character as a narrator for events before that character's death.

(And Life on Mars technically doesn't belong with all these at all, as it's not really about a dead protagonist from the beginning. Still, Manchester 1973 seems like a place somewhere between life and death there, so it sort of fits anyway.)

(And then there's stuff like Dead Like Me, too... which is about life, after death, but in the real world.)

The Lovely Bones qualifies, though. Maybe I should read that. I'm kind of interested in different depictions of the/an afterlife - possibly because I don't believe in one, and also because I'm writing at least one, at the moment. What I'm most interested in, though, are books and stories and movies and TV shows in which whatever reality their protagonist finds themselves in eventually turns out to be some kind of life after death, i.e. texts in which this is a surprising revelation at the end.

Oh, I just remembered. Iain Banks' The Bridge probably also fits the bill. And, of course, Philip K. Dick's UBIK.

Re: Yeah, actually I know about those.

What I'm most interested in, though, are books and stories and movies and TV shows in which whatever reality their protagonist finds themselves in eventually turns out to be some kind of life after death, i.e. texts in which this is a surprising revelation at the end.

Ah, can't give you much help with those as I don't like them. The "big surprise" always seems to me at best a limp explanation for a whole lot of unpleasant surreal crap, or a nasty "pull the rug out from under you" ending to what was otherwise a fun story. I lost interest in ever seeing Life on Mars once I heard it had a "surprise" ending.

Oh, LoM doesn't have a surprise ending.

Really. Just a stupid one. *g* (My icon was made in protest against that ending.)

(Unless you want to count "Everything is pretty much exactly what you thought it was"...

as a surprise ending, that is - which I guess you could, at a stretch, in a text that tries so hard, for such a long time, to pretend there's some kind of mystery involved.)

Re: (Unless you want to count "Everything is pretty much exactly what you thought it was"...

...in a text that tries ... to pretend there's some kind of mystery...

Mmh, makes it sound like it has the "unpleasant surreal crap" that drains any fun out of the story before you get to the "limp explanation" that's suppose to make you feel better about it's having pretended to some kind of mystery. But then I'm prejudiced. ;)

Re: (Unless you want to count "Everything is pretty much exactly what you thought it was"...

Well, I like surreal. Not that LoM is particularly surreal, except for ep 2.05. But the problem with LoM isn't that it's surreal (or not). And the problem is not even, really, that it pretends to mystery when really all the explanations are perfectly obvious from day one. The *real* problem with LoM is that in the last moment, it replaces logical character development with poorly motivated wish fulfilment.

And not just any kind of wish fulfilment but...

wish fulfilment with morally disgusting results at which we're supposed to cheer (and most of the fandom did, and still does).

Re: (Unless you want to count "Everything is pretty much exactly what you thought it was"...

Well, I like surreal.

It isn't as if I have a complete dislike of surreality. I watched Farscape faithfully from the very beginning, and Entertainment Weekly refused to consider it one of the greatest sci-fi series in the last 25 years because of there being muppets present. The thing is there are three things I require to enjoy surreality --
1) There has to be some basic reality for contrast. Most of the time Crichton was an... anchor. However surreal the world around him was, however surreal his own life got he was still the kid from Carolina.
2) The surreality has to amuse me -- not aggravate or depress me. I thought Curly was funny for a while, but eventually all he did was get on my nerves. Once he got on my nerves it wasn't entertaining.
3) The overall story has to be good. It does no good for the surreality to be used amusingly and in moderation if the overall story is crap. Farscape held me because it had a well written story.

Re: (Unless you want to count "Everything is pretty much exactly what you thought it was"...

>1) There has to be some basic reality for contrast. Most of the time Crichton was an... anchor. However surreal the world around him was, however surreal his own life got he was still the kid from Carolina.

Well, Sam's reality of 2006 is to 1973 what John's Earth was to the Uncharted Territories.

>2) The surreality has to amuse me -- not aggravate or depress me. I thought Curly was funny for a while, but eventually all he did was get on my nerves. Once he got on my nerves it wasn't entertaining.

Who is Curly??

>3) The overall story has to be good. It does no good for the surreality to be used amusingly and in moderation if the overall story is crap. Farscape held me because it had a well written story.

I agree. And LoM kind of frelled up in that department - annoyingly so, because for the most part, it did really, really well. It only dropped the ball in the last episode.

Re: Oh, LoM doesn't have a surprise ending.

*cough*

Technically *two* stupid endings...

Yeah...

And I guess you could say it was a bit of a surprise *how* stupid it all turned out. I mean, considering the quality of what came before... *g*

Re: Yeah...

Absolutely...

;)

Ooops, overlooked part of your comment somehow...

>>I mean, is it even still possible for him to die in 1973?

>I haven't seen the show, but I'd guess so. I mean it sounds like dead or not he has some sense of himself in 1973. That sense dies he dies, or at least as far as the characters the writers care about are concerned.

Well, but he's not dead for most of the show, and during all that time - when he isn't dead yet, that is - it's always heavily implied that if he dies in 1973, he also dies in 2006, and vice versa. Only, eventually he dies in 2006 *and* ends up in 1973 permanently, which makes 1973 the official afterlife, kind of, as least as far as Sam Tyler's concerned - and can you die in the afterlife?

Re: Ooops, overlooked part of your comment somehow...

...can you die in the afterlife?

Sounds like that question only matters if the writers are clearly stating that their stories are set post Sam's eventual in canon death. If they are set before his canon death then they are simply AU's where Sam dies on the fanfic writer's time-line rather than on the show's. Of course if they are stating the stories are set post Sam's canon death, then the question of what's going on does come up. It's possible to die in the afterlife, depending on the afterlife you can spend eternity or until you reach Nirvana doing it. I'd imagine if the focus is on the relationships of the '73 characters to Sam the question of whether in "dying" Sam is being reborn, or progressing to the next circle of Hell, isn't on the writers' minds. It's Sam's problem.

Re: Ooops, overlooked part of your comment somehow...

The important thing to remember is that, in any given situation, some of us wilfully ignore canon completely and work in a '1973 is real' scenario, thereby rendering this question null and void.

Re: Ooops, overlooked part of your comment somehow...

Good points, both of you.

@ beccadg: I tend to take it as given that fic written after the airing of 2.08 and set in 1973 is set after 2.08 in the show's chronology unless expressly stated otherwise, but you're right, of course. That doesn't have to be the case.

It's interesting, isn't it, that some people apparently, even if they did like the ending, still think it's more fun to play with the situation as it was *before* 2.08...

@ lozenger8: I admit it, I have too much respect for canon - even canon I despise - and I tend to assume everyone does. But, of course, that assumption is kind of stupid.

The wild, tenacious LoM fan stalks through the undergrowth, intent on its prey...

I'd say it's a phase. Someone wrote a fic that resonated --- which just happened to have Sam dying. A few others liked it, and thought, 'how can I replicate that?'

Many of us do it - that's where writing comes from.

And yes, it is about hurting Sam in a place where people care about him and he cares about them - emotional wrenching and all that. But it's not beyond canon, either - Bad Stuff happens to Sam in his Nirvana all the time. That's one of the reasons it's a stupid ending.

Oh, I wasn't saying it was beyond canon -

certainly not. I just found the concentrated 'wave' of deathfics we had recently (caused mainly by that 50 - or was it 30? - deathfics challenge recently, as I'm aware) a bit funny, and thought it demonstrated something about angst in LoM fandom in general. But yeah, I do understand how fanfic trends develop and so on. And I have to admit this wasn't the most original and perceptive meta ever. More like stating the obvious, really. Hey, I'm good at stating the obvious. *g*

Haven't read the meta yet - will adjust this comment accordingly when I have.

They had Sam in a kind-of-coma in the show, in the Trumpton episode (but then again, that was 2006 docs messing his drugs about, so...not what you were talking about). I haven't been reading any LoM fic really recently, so I don't know what you're talking about but...I can kind of figure why people write it, and pretty much agree with what you said. However, I have nothing else of great import to say about it, so I'll shut up.

But. You just spoilt the entire book by mentioning the dead protagonist in The Third Policeman ;) No, seriously, you're not supposed to know he's dead till the end of the book (by the way, have read, good book, if a little annoying in places. I thought there were some good ideas in it, but I'm not entirely sure if I "got" it, if you see what I mean? I read it 'cause of Lost. LOL. Is An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge any good?).

The Third Policeman

Sorry! I sort of assumed that was common knowledge (maybe not quite as common as "Luke, I'm your father", but certainly well-known enough in circles who know a bit about literature and Flann O'Brien); I've sort of known about that ever since the book first appeared on my radar...

Re: The Third Policeman

Nah, it's OK. It probably is common knowledge, but I only knew because I'd looked up the wikipedia entry when I was looking up that and Owl Creek because I was coming up with a conspiracy theory about Lost, lol. I didn't know anything about Flann O'Brien prior to that, which probably explains why I didn't know.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound...uh...well, didn't mean to sound like I was telling you off or anything.