his bladder and bowel seem to be completely intact, despite him never going to the toilet once

It's the same magic that healed his leg, and brought him back to life.

The First Evil.

Ted, could you just drop the "no absolute standards" argument? You have made your case that there are no absolute standards.

We are having an aesthetic discussion. It adds nothing to the quality of the discussion to say "Well, that's your opinion". I know that's my opinion. I said it. We can take it as read that anything I said is my opinion.

Would you care to debate the question now?

Ted, I feel like you're deliberately misunderstanding.

Spike throwing the knife *showed* something about his feelings for Buffy, his understanding of her, etc. Xander's speech was about *Riley.* We learned about Riley from someone else talking about him. That's the difference between showing and telling.

Except that Xander's speech really revealed more about Xander (and perhaps in her response Buffy) than about Riley. And that, I would argue, IS showing.

I haven't been feeling the 24 love this year because I find it totally unbelieveable that so much crappy stuff could happen to one person in a 24 hour period, yet his bladder and bowel seem to be completely intact, despite him never going to the toilet once. And yet, I'm still watching.

It is unbelievable. Just like Alias. But damn fun to watch. And he pees during the President/CTU scenes. Or when the audience does (during commercials and Kim scenes.)

Ted, I know you don't like my "tone." I'm trying very hard to doblerize.

But I can, in fact, prove that there is a quantifiable difference between "showing" and "telling."

"Telling" is having a character say "I'm sad," or without words, having the character break down crying.

"Showing" is having the same character in the middle of a scene where they are holding themselves together emotionally, pause and have a breif expression of pain flash over their face when faced with a reminder of their pain, and then contninuing on.

In the second example, you have not made it obvious for everyone to see (ie. telling), you have instead shown it breifly, in a scene which is presumably accomplishing something else.

Any bit of scene or dialog that only accomplishes ONE thing, and does so in a flashy, outward way, is not only "telling" rather than "showing," it's a waste of valuable screen time.

There's been a lot of that going around.

You can disagree with that, and say that it's a matter of subjectivity, and we *will* never agree on this, but that doesn't mean you're correct. There *is* a quantifiable difference between showing and telling, and this season *has* been telling too much.

You can like it if you want. But that doesn't make it as subjective as you would make it out to be.

24 rules. I have enjoyed 24 more than Buffy this year, but Buffy is the better show overall.

There *is* a quantifiable difference between showing and telling, and this season *has* been telling too much.

I agree with much of what you say, but how can "telling too much" not be subjective when you've not provided a definition of "too much"?

Ted, could you just drop the "no absolute standards" argument? You have made your case that there are no absolute standards. We are having an aesthetic discussion. It adds nothing to the quality of the discussion to say "Well, that's your opinion". I know that's my opinion. I said it. We can take it as read that anything I said is my opinion.

But others have been offering their opinion as either fact, or at least more objective. Which obviously puts anyone who disagrees with them at a disadvantage.

As for example:

You can disagree with that, and say that it's a matter of subjectivity, and we *will* never agree on this, but that doesn't mean you're correct. There *is* a quantifiable difference between showing and telling, and this season *has* been telling too much. You can like it if you want. But that doesn't make it as subjective as you would make it out to be.

And you can assert the opposite all you like but it remains an assertion, not a fact. Gravity is a fact-your views of Buffy are not.

Would you care to debate the question now?

I thought I have been, but perhaps I missed the question.

Except that Xander's speech really revealed more about Xander (and perhaps in her response Buffy) than about Riley. And that, I would argue, IS showing.

In that case, we're not making it clear what the aphorism means.

"Show, don't tell" means "Illustrate character within the events of the story, not by having the narrator/character describe it."

There's a nice short writeup here. [link]

Except that Xander's speech really revealed more about Xander (and perhaps in her response Buffy) than about Riley. And that, I would argue, IS showing.

What did it reveal other than that the ME writers are capable of forcing characters to behave uncharacteristically when it suits their purposes? That Xander believes that love is worth giving up your principles? ('Cause the writers really played that part well. Except for the wedding. And the Inca Mummy Girl.)

Frankly, I have a hard time believing that you don't know what the difference between "showing" and "telling" is. Have I told you that I agree with Betsy anywhere in this post? However, you probably realize that by now, don't you? Would this post have been better if I had simply said, "Betsy, I agree with you."?