FORESHADOWING

[Scott]

Exercise extreme caution when mentioning incidents or events that clearly foreshadow future plot developments. As vandergraafk noted in the Charmed Cafe:

"Let's be careful how we bandy about foreshadow here. Unlike a novel, foreshadowing, as several of you are using it here, is difficult to declare. If Shannen had not been fired, Prue would not have died, and there would have been no foreshadowing of Prue's death in P3H20. That's the whimsy of TV. Anything outcome is possible. You get what the network, the producers and the writers wish you to get. Everything is foreshadowed and nothing is foreshadowed.

In a novel, one can talk about foreshadowed events and pin them down precisely because the the plot is fixed. One can then go back and identify comments made prior to the unfolding of dramatic moments and suggest that these foreshadow events to come. And, to the extent that the writer chose to foreshadow a pending plot twist or development by dropping hints earlier in the novel, then these represent a conscious choice on the part of the writer to incorporate plot elements that foreshadow subsequent events.

One cannot make this claim about TV drama. The events of P3H20 only appear as if they foreshadow what is to become because of the bizarre events that unfolded at the end of season 3. There was no conscious effort to incorporate foreshadow elements into the script at that time. At best, one can argue that the script writers mined the past for plot lines that could be used to maintain continuity. That is, since Sam had already been introduced not only as Patty's whitelighter, but also as an object of affection in order to help Piper understand that the difficulties she was experiencing with Leo were not unique, the writers could use this nugget to set a backstory for the emergence of Paige. That way continuity is maintained and the rest of us can buy into Charmed Again.

Now, foreshadowing may appear in Charmed, but only as a conscious decision on the part of the script writers to lay an egg, as it were, that they will hatch sometime soon. But, in the cases discussed so far, I think we are abusing the term foreshadowing here."

[Scott]

Reality Bites took up the cause of those seeing evidence of foreshadowing in P3H20, but also commented on the use of foreshadowing in general. In the Charmed Cafe, it was noted that:

"It doesn't seem as if the majority of us think P3H20 foreshadows Prue's death or Paige's arrival. When I referenced the episode, I was merely stating that with the existence of the episode we were able to gain Paige as a replacement character. If P3H20 had not existed the only plausible and believable way to continue Charmed would have been for a new actress to take on the role of Prue Halliwell. Had that occurred, I'm not so certain fans would have taken to a "new Prue", which may have left us with only four seasons of Charmed.

However, I do believe that there is UNINTENTIONAL foreshadowing of the death of Prue, and the possibility of a fourth sister in episodes such as "Death Takes A Halliwell" and more subtly in "The Fourth Sister" and "When Bad Warlocks Go Good". However, maybe the more correct and fitting phrase that needs to be used here is that these subtle references to Prue's death and Paige's existence are merely coincidental.

When using the phrase foreshadowing I don't think it's wrong to think that the writers for Charmed unintentionally presented certain indications and/or suggestions of certain events beforehand. Charmed, for the moment, is a completed story. Like finished novels, as vandergraafk states, Charmed's plot is now fixed.

Therefore, from the perspective of a viewer (paralleled to that of a reader), who is knowledgeable of the story told from beginning to end, why can't we "talk about foreshadowed events and pin them down precisely because the the (sic) plot (of Charmed) is fixed." Whether they were intentional or unintentional foreshadowings, with a completed project like Charmed, we can look back and say event G happened just like event C hinted it possibly could have!"

[Scott]

Whitelightertony added:

"I just have a hard time believing that, even back during Season 1 or Season 2, it never occurred to them that one of their lead actresses might choose to depart the show at some point down the road.

I think "P3H20" was a composite product of: A.) the desire to show more of Patty's backstory; B.) a device to parallel the Patty/Sam and Piper/Leo relationships; C.) a way to give depth to Prue's fears; and, last but not least; D.) a way for the writers to give themselves a storyline loophole in the event that either Shannen, Holly, or Alyssa left the show at some point.

Especially with Shannen's history, I can't imagine that the possibility never crossed Burge's/Kern's/Spelling's minds at some point."

[Scott]

In the Charmed Cafe, vandergraafk replied:

"Perhaps I am being too technical. However, I do advise caution when bandying about the word foreshadow. For example, I can readily accept the first three points that whitelightertony adduces in order to "frame" P3H20. Point 4 is a bit of a stretch. It would be interesting to learn whether the writers planted that at the time or whether Brad Kern and company mined the past in order to arrive at a device that could both maintain continuity and allow the introduction of a new, family related character. The difference is technical and subtle, but important nonetheless.

As for Realitybites's comment, the major difference perhaps between TV as fiction and literature as fiction is that in the realm of TV I, as viewer, have a semi-real time perspective as the plot unfolds. As viewer, I am not privy to the writing process prior to the airing of an episode. Nor am I aware of where the series already is with respect to already shot, but unaired episodes, or blocked, but unfinished episode shoots. At best, I can compare this to the writing of serialized stories that occasionally today: witness the Sunday New York Times Magazine where serial stories are a regular feature. Before the advent of TV and radio, these were a staple of most newspapers and magazines. Now, they are a rare and, dare I say, dying breed.

For a standard literary feature, I know very little about what the author has done, is doing or plans to do with respect to a given work of fiction. Unless I am a sounding board - a reader of the work in progress - I have virtually no clue about the entire creative process. That may change afterwards if the author chooses to reveal on his or her own the process as he or she experienced it. It can also change if the author leaves extensive drafts that come available to the public during the author's lifetime or posthumously. Some writers, Kafka for example, were determined to erase all traces of draft editions, unpublished manuscripts, etc. Fortunately, he was thwarted by a friend who defied Kafka's specific instructions. How paltry would our understanding be without these additional texts?

Unfortunately, given the collective nature of the writing process, despite the assignment of a "principal" writer, we are likely to remain unaware of what went on unless someone, such as Mr. Kern, in response to a specific question, perhaps posed by Charmed Magazine, reveals what lies behind the curtain."