On the one hand I disagree that we learnt much about Dawn’s character in the first four episodes between her introduction and the reveal about her origins.
I never said that we learnt much about her background, but we did learn a lot about who she was as a person - though, granted, "irritating younger sister with a penchant for getting into trouble and cereal free gifts" pretty much sums up a lot about not-under-pressure young Dawn.
I never said puns, but... Dawn being jealous of Buffy is hardly new; that was half her arc in s7.
Since then she’s only had one scene but one that lets slip she’s not been spending her whole time in Scotland with Buffy but for part of it at least has been studying on some campus where she met Kenny.
In other words, the same thing she said in #1.
If it wasn’t Kenny then what has Dawn been up to and I’m still interested in who Kenny is and the fact that everyone but Dawn is suddenly au fait with thricewise knowledge.
Then I'm happy for you. I, as previously stated, can't be bothered to care what happened with an unseen character off-screen. It's a bit like speculating on exactly what Buffy and the Immortal had for dinner on their first date. And if the not-shown Kenny is not actually the reason, but something else we haven't seen either... same thing. I want to see characters do stuff, not see them deny having done stuff I never knew about in the first place. To take one example; the similar storyline in "Surprise"/"Innocence" worked so well because we'd been following Buffy and Angel for over a year, we knew exactly what they meant to each other, and the cruelty of the situation hit all the more harder for it. If the series had started two episodes later and we'd been told that Buffy slept with a vampire and he went evil, it wouldn't have been nearly the same thing - especially if we never even got to see Angel/Angelus on screen. Metaphors only work if you actually show them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-26 11:13 pm (UTC)I never said that we learnt much about her background, but we did learn a lot about who she was as a person - though, granted, "irritating younger sister with a penchant for getting into trouble and cereal free gifts" pretty much sums up a lot about not-under-pressure young Dawn.
I never said puns, but... Dawn being jealous of Buffy is hardly new; that was half her arc in s7.
Since then she’s only had one scene but one that lets slip she’s not been spending her whole time in Scotland with Buffy but for part of it at least has been studying on some campus where she met Kenny.
In other words, the same thing she said in #1.
If it wasn’t Kenny then what has Dawn been up to and I’m still interested in who Kenny is and the fact that everyone but Dawn is suddenly au fait with thricewise knowledge.
Then I'm happy for you. I, as previously stated, can't be bothered to care what happened with an unseen character off-screen. It's a bit like speculating on exactly what Buffy and the Immortal had for dinner on their first date. And if the not-shown Kenny is not actually the reason, but something else we haven't seen either... same thing. I want to see characters do stuff, not see them deny having done stuff I never knew about in the first place. To take one example; the similar storyline in "Surprise"/"Innocence" worked so well because we'd been following Buffy and Angel for over a year, we knew exactly what they meant to each other, and the cruelty of the situation hit all the more harder for it. If the series had started two episodes later and we'd been told that Buffy slept with a vampire and he went evil, it wouldn't have been nearly the same thing - especially if we never even got to see Angel/Angelus on screen. Metaphors only work if you actually show them.