So, what? The people around him would have been better off without Xander having been born? Seems like a pretty shitty thing to show a guy who just died.

If somebody _insists_ on seeing the truth and then doesn't like it, I don't see how that's anybody's fault.

Ah, poor Xander, all you did was mess things up by merely existing. Something beginning with S to not be you.

Nancy and Marcie. Hmm, a whole new version of the White Hats. Not to mention the passing reference to the ominous Harris house...

Thanks for writing

1. The Harris house.
If you've seen the Harris family (in 'Hell's Bells'), would you want to knock on their door to ask for help?

2. The White Hats
I guess that means you're recognised (I didn't know how obvious this would be) that 'Nancy Blaisdell' is intended to be the same as the Nancy of 'The Wish', about whom so little is revealed. I figured that if she were in a different grade it might help explain why nothing is otherwise seen of her, and if she and Larry were relatives it might help explain how they were together in the White Hats.

I usually like Xander as a character, but this one is making me facepalm. Still, if this Xander's grown and matured even past the canon one, and died a hero's death and all, I think you're overplaying the arrogance and egocentric nature of his character. It's like you've regressed him to his S1/S2 level of maturity. Following then, Xander was, if anything, underestimating himself and growing as a character.

RESPONSE: No, when I said that I usually liked him, I meant both his good and bad characterizations, just that the way he was acting in this story wanted me to hit him upside the head with a clue-by-four. I'm fine with more obscure characters popping up (the only Buffy character I generally find myself disliking generally being Angel, who I only liked in his own series).

I just meant that despite whatever characterization you were selecting for Xander, it seemed like you were forcing him to regress rather than taking the more mature version (who, despite gains in maturity and humility, gained all new flaws) and using his flaws to power the story.

You make a valid point, which merits consideration. I agree, actually, that the interpretation I'm giving of Xander's character is assailable, but I also think there's more that can be said in defence of it. I'm not sure, though, that I can do the subject justice in a review comment. Perhaps it needs a different forum to be discussed properly.

There are a couple of incidental points I can make here, though.

One is that I don't write characters to be liked or to be disliked, and I don't read according to whether I like or dislike characters, either. Some of the most dislikeable characters are the most fun to read about--for me. If you don't like reading about characters you dislike, and if you take a dislike to these characters, this may not be your cup of tea, which is fair enough.

Also, this is a story about a Buffyverse _without_ Xander. If it's not obvious yet then it should become clearer as the story moves along that other characters, as perhaps might naturally be expected with a major character removed, are going to play a larger part. So far, I know, you've been seeing a lot of Xander, as the basic premise is established, but later you'll be seeing less of him and more of others. Of course, it's possible that you will not like them (or what I've done with them), either.

FURTHER COMMENT ON 'RESPONSE': (When I said you'd see more of 'other characters', I didn't just mean ones who play minor parts in canon; the site-generated statistics page for the story is already telling me that the most prominent character in it is Buffy.)

In my view, although Xander has important learning moments in the series, even in the later seasons the obnoxiously clueless aspect of his character manifests from time to time. But also, in my view, his responses so far in this story do have at least partial justification. Clarence has told him that this is not an exact parallel to the film (_It's A Wonderful Life_), but that is still the only reference point he has, and the point in that film was to show George Bailey how he'd made a positive difference to the world. Also, the only point of reference he has for the characters he's seeing is what he knows of them from his own experience.

Besides (especially since the set-up is that he can't intervene in any way), it's funnier and more interesting if he gets some things wrong.

Lastly, you may perhaps feel as this continues that Xander is not the only character who's getting an occasional gentle tap with a clue-by-four.

Very nicely done. I understand the lack of beats to set the tone (though I agree that they would make for easier reading.) I fear that Xander will be deeply dissappointed at his importance to the timeline. It will be interesting to read what the changes will be, who will step upto the plate.

Thanks for writing

I get a baaaaad feeling about this for some reason...

I should note that the below review from Kevin Schultz shouldn't be taken as "This is horrible!" More likely, it's intended as constructive criticism for a good writer with a concept that COULD be great. At least, that's how I see it.

Oh, me too. I would hardly expect somebody to do so detailed a response without seeing something of interest to respond to.

Hm.... a couple of thoughts:

1. The paragraphs where the angel speaks are too long - that is, it's nothing but talk, without any interruptions. I ended up reading maybe the first sentence or two, then skipping down to the next section. Recomendation - throw in some 'beats' - actions or movements that break up the flow of the dialog, and allow the reader to digest what they just read. Beats also can be used to move the plot forward, which brings us to....

2. Characterizing language is decent enough - however, the dialog itself is a bit flat. That is, it's obvious that this is mainly expository setup dialouge. You're managing to characterize and provide exposition (ie, doing at least two things simultaneously), which is good - but you're not establishing any sort of central dramatic conflict, which is important to do in the first couple pages of a story.

3. There doesn't seem to be any sort of dramatic conflict at all - that is, I'm not really interested in what happens next, as its already been established that Xander is dead, and is OK with being dead. (In contrast, in the original movie, the angel is trying to convince someone not to commit suicide - and that's an interesting piece of drama.) And because I can't figure out why I should care about the characters, there's no real action in this section. And by action, I mean "speech or other activity which directly drives the central dramatic conflict forward."

So, while I think I understand where you're going with this, and what you're going to do - I can't really bring myself to empathize with the characters involved. There is nothing the central chracter is trying to do in order to achieve their goals, there's nothing in the way of achieving those goals, and there is no penalty for failure should they fail to do so. (Desire + Danger = Drama). As such, this is pretty much a negative character study (ie, we end up understanding the character by examining what their LACK of character would entail), rather than a story. And while that sort of thing is important for an author to do in order to understand the character more, it's not IMO particularly interesting to read about.

EDIT - OK, went back and re-read the story. Turns out the last paragraph or so does have a bit of dramatic conflict. (I had ended up skipping it due to point #1). However, even in looking back on that, I can't bring myself to care: the ultimate reason Xander is asking to see the alternative timeline seems to be "idle curiosity". That's not enough for me to continue reading. He doesn't seem to care deeply about wanting to know, he immediately is given access to his desire, and the consequences of having his desires met ("you may not want to know") are reasonably and immeidately brushed aside (he's dealt with apocyalypes - he's got the emotional fortitude to deal with it.) What he does is reasonable and completely above the board, and as such there isn't any serious emotional/physical cost or danger associated with it. In other words - it's not good fodder for drama.

In thinking how this could possibly be a an interesting story for me, you'd have to essentially show that the world is consistently BETTER off with Xander not being in it - this playing against his casual dismissal of the danger. Otherwise, there's no real question of whether or not Xander's desires would be met (ie, no drama.) Which would certianly be an interesting take on this story, but it doesn't sound like you're going in that direction.

Thanks for the careful analysis.

The omission of beats from Clarence's speeches may not be effective the way I intended it to be, but it is intentional and for effect. Other characters' dialogue will have beats. There won't be as many long expository speeches after this, either, from Clarence or from anybody else.

More generally, this first chapter is not as representative of what is to come as the second chapter. The titles of both ('Establishing Shot' and 'Fade In') are intended to be indicative (I considered calling this first chapter 'Overture').

Also, although I aim as far as possible to make what I'm writing comprehensible without reference to the original, I assume that a fanfic is most likely to be of interest to those who do know the original, some of whom may therefore be intrigued by speculation about a Buffyverse minus Xander. Of course, if you're not interested in that in general, or in my specific ideas about it (which I acknowledge you have yet to see), that's fair enough.

As for the direction I'm going in, the second chapter should appear soon.