Usually, when I'm watching a movie or TV show or reading a book I'm trying to anticipate what plot point is coming next. I'm not sure that's the best way to approach stories—it treats them as puzzles to be solved rather than works of art to be enjoyed. It's not an unreasonable way to approach mystery or suspense stories, where the audience is supposed to try to figure out the answer before the characters, but I find I do it in any story in which secrets are revealed, either to the characters or to the audience. I suppose it's part of the natural interaction between author and audience—the author reveals the truth step by step, and at some point we catch on, say "Aha!", and realize how the story is going to turn out.
Of course, sometimes I guess wrong. Some fact is revealed, I say "Aha!" and run the plot to its seemingly logical conclusion in my mind, but then the true plot perversely turns out to be something else entirely. This is usually for the best, since my bad guesses can be pretty nonsensical. Occasionally, however, after the real story is revealed, I find myself thinking that my bad guess would actually have been better. It's possible this just shows a lack of humility, but I'll let you decide for yourself: here are two examples, one from Star Wars: Episode I and the other from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
The Living Force
In The Phantom Menace the central character is (arguably) Qui-Gon Jin, Jedi Knight. Interestingly, when Qui-Gon refers to the Force, he sometimes refers to it as the "Living Force", a turn of phrase that hadn't been used up to that point in the series. When it became clear that Qui-Gon was the one responsible, in the face of resistance from the Jedi Council, for insisting that Darth Vader (né Anakin Skywalker) be trained as a Jedi, I thought I saw how it was going to transpire. Qui-Gon, you see, was a member of a heretical sect of Jedi that incorrectly ascribed animacy to the Force, unlike orthodox Jedi who believed it to be an impersonal "energy field created by all living things". I figured Qui-Gon was going to instill his belief in the Living Force in Anakin, and somehow this heresy was going to lead the boy astray.
I imagined, in other words, that the cause of Anakin's downfall was theological in nature, and that there was going a be a split in the Jedi something like the Christological splits in the early Christian church, although I suppose the Forceological distinction I was imagining was more like the difference between pantheism and monotheism. In any case, I think it would have added an interesting depth to the setting, relating the Old Republic to the Byzantine Empire: splendid, sophisticated, and declining into chaos. However, from all indications (and I haven't seen RotS yet, so I could be wrong), Lucas has gone in a much more obvious direction. It sounds like Anakin's downfall has more to do with his unfortunate childhood and lack of a father figure than with his understanding of the Force—a standard Hollywood therapy-driven character arc, in other words. Too bad.
Ripper
Here's another example of me jumping to an incorrect plot conclusion, but one in which I think I'm a little more justified in my error. The following is an exchange from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode titled "Halloween". It involves Giles (the geeky British librarian who serves as Buffy's "Watcher"), Willow (one of Buffy's friends), and Ethan Rayne (the villain of that episode, a sorcerer). In this scene, Willow and Giles stumble upon Ethan in the back room of his shop:
Giles: Willow, get out of here now.
Willow: But—
Giles: Now!
[She goes.]
Giles: [quietly] Hello, Ethan.
Ethan: Hello, Ripper.[scene break]
Ethan: What, no hug? Aren't you pleased to see your old mate, Rupert?
Giles: I'm just surprised I didn't guess it was you. This Halloween stunt stinks of Ethan Rayne.
Ethan: Yes, it does, doesn't it? Don't wish to blow my own trumpet, but it's genius. The very embodiment of "be careful what you wish for".
Giles: It's sick. Brutal. And it harms the innocent.
Ethan: Oh, and we all know that you are the champion of innocence and all things pure and good, Rupert. [He turns toward Giles.] It's quite a little act you've got going here, old man.
Giles: It's no act. It's who I am.
Ethan: Who you are? The Watcher, sniveling, tweed-clad guardian of the Slayer and her kin? I think not. I know who you are, Rupert, and I know what you're capable of. [Pauses, then smiles] But they don't, do they? They have no idea where you come from.
Now, if you're like me, the hair on the back of your neck stands up in reaction to this dialog. Holy cats, it sounds like nice, quiet, bookish Giles is Jack the freakin' Ripper! Talk about a revealing a secret—that would really blow the lid off the whole show. Imagine what would happen when the other characters find out he's the first famous serial killer, living on somehow ageless among them. Quite a little act indeed, "old man", considering what he's capable of...
Of course, as you've probably already guessed, it didn't turn out that way. "Ripper" was just the nickname Giles used back in his misspent youth in England, when he played in rock bands and dabbled in black magic. I can see in hindsight that making him Jack the Ripper would have been startling, but it wouldn't have fit into the show very well. After all, Angel was already around to supply us with an immortal former serial murderer cursed to spend eternity trying to atone for his crimes. Another would have been redundant.
But you have to admit, I'm not nuts to have jumped to that conclusion. Go back and read through that dialog again. Doesn't it seem obvious that they're hinting he's not merely a Ripper but the Ripper? It seems to fit too well to be a coincidence, and surely Joss Whedon would have anticipated that's what the audience would think when they heard him called "Ripper". So the question is, did Whedon include it in as a red herring, intending to clear it up a couple of episodes later as he did, or did he actually plan to have Giles be Jack the Ripper, then got cold feet and wrote his way out of it? I've poked around a bit on the web looking for an answer, but I haven't come across one.
[Now playing in my head: "The Disappointed" by XTC]
Wow! I've just watched "Halloween" today. Nice synchronicity.
Even knowing about the rest of the show, this line is still chilling.
However, I never believed that Giles was "the" Ripper, only that he had some gruesome secrets in his past but he had changed (a theme echoed in the next episode, "Lie to me", where we learn about how Angelus drove Drusilla crazy and "dark secrets" are alluded to twice). The last shot of the episode - a grim and determined Giles - fits this hypothesis better.
However, it's a nice set-up for later, when Giles needs to be ruthless (as when he tricks Buffy into powerlessness or opposes the Council).
I have the same tendency to try to anticipate the plot, except when it's very good. Then, I "let myself be surprised".
My Star Wars moment was when Dooku held Obi-Wan prisoner and proposed an alliance. I found the idea so rich with potential. This was a schism that could explain Anakin's fate. Of course, my illusions only lasted five seconds.
Posted by: Stef | May 08, 2005 at 10:24 AM
My wife does just what you do. The guessing-the-ending, not the writing-a-better-one. Drives me kinda nuts, because she's usually right. I just get involved with the characters and let them lead me. It wasn't halfway through 6th Sense she turned to me and said "he's dead, isn't he?" I said "who?" She says "Bruce Willis." I say "...?" I didn't even know what she meant. I spent the next 10 minutes thinking about it, then realized she's right. I missed much of the movie during that 10 minutes, I think.
As for Eps I-III, I have such a hard time listening to the insipid dialogue, I can't think about where the story arc is headed. If what I just said is heresy here, I take it back.
But dang, was Lawrence Kasdan busy? Anyone?
Posted by: eric morse | May 08, 2005 at 06:40 PM
No, no no no no! Jack the Ripper? Giles? Giles' "Ripper" sounds all matey, like "rugger" (ruby), it didn't make me think of Jack the Ripper for a second. However I too propose an alternative Buffy plot. (Spoiler warning) In the very last episode of the last season, they use Willow's magic to turn all the potential slayers into full-blown slayers. It should have been much harder. One slayer dies, another is called...they should have had to kill and revive a slayer (starting with Faith and Buffy) for each new slayer they gained...much more room for dramatic tension and major character carnage...
I can't believe this is the first thing that got me commenting on your weblog...
Posted by: Gillian Russell | May 09, 2005 at 12:34 AM
Must admit I've never been conscious of doing that, but I guess I do. Now that I know I'm doing it, of course, I'll be having much less fun! thanks!
Sandy
Posted by: Sandy | May 09, 2005 at 10:41 AM
My wife does that too, and is usually right.
Tangent: "the Byzantine Empire: splendid, sophisticated, and declining into chaos"... um, if you're talking about the early period of the Christological debates, the empire was in fact "declining" into a period of stability that would last a thousand years. Can we please let go of this automatic association of "Byzantine" with "decaying/decadent/declining"? Splendid and sophisticated I'll go along with.
Posted by: language hat | May 12, 2005 at 08:01 AM