Okay. Here is a question. Does art exist in a vacuum?
I remember starting off one of my college papers with the statement “Art does not exist in a vacuum” and my teacher made some snide comments in the margin about how we could test this theory by putting the Mona Lisa into a rocket ship and shooting it into outer space. All kidding aside, art does not *not* exist in a vacuum. But how much should we let that fact affect our appreciation of it?
We are watching Buffy. We are also watching Angel. A short while ago, in Buffy, there was this fabulous episode called Tabula Rasa, where the whole gang goes under a spell and forget who they are and what they do (fighting demons and vampires, etc.) It’s quite a hilariouos episode, actually, and a good look into everyone’s personalities.
Now, a short while later, there is a fabulous episode on Angel call Spin the Bottle. In this story, a magic bottle causes the whole gang to revert back to who they were at age 17. Of course, they don’t know each other, they know nothing about demons and vampires, and hilarity ensues.
I happen to like both episodes very much, tho I must admit that the first time I saw Spin the Bottle, I was struck by its similarities to Tabula Rasa. For a moment I felt cheated (the same way I always feel cheated when an author pulls the “And then I woke up” card), but in a short while I decided the episode stood on its own, so I just sat back and enjoyed.
Now, Mary has a problem with the Angel episode. She calls it a “cheap rip-off” of Tabula Rasa. I think because of this she is putting up a wall, and not allowing herself to enjoy the episode on its own. So this is my question: if Tabula Rasa did not exist, or if it came *after* Spin the Bottle, would it affect the way we think about Spin the Bottle?
Can a storyline stand on its own, even if it is a “cheap ripoff”? If you don’t know about the “original” will the rip-off automatically seem better, more entertaining, more artistic? And….SHOULD it? Or do we have to view everything in its cultural context?
And how about this: does the fact that one author is responsible for both storylines make their similariy more acceptable or less? If a similar storyline had appeared on…let’s say, Charmed, would it seem worse because the story idea would appear to be “stolen”? Or is it better if one artist repeats their own story ideas? At least it’s not theft, it might just appear they are a bit lazy, running out of ideas.
Mary, I hope to see you respond to this issue. And I also look forward to comments from anyone else who would like to respond to this artistic dilemma!

