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."?

Sigh.

Next week, after the episode, remind me SOMEONE that I had a Really Cool Epiphany That's Probably Me Reading Too Much Into Things.

Okay.

Another example of showing not telling, using words this time.

And it's been a week, so NO WHITEFONT!!! HAHAHAHA.

Ahem. From the pen of the master himself:

-----

WESLEY It's done.

He looks back to her. She smiles sadly. Poor Wesley.

LILAH Look in the drawer.

He looks at her, confused. Then he looks to --

ANGLE - the filing cabinet. The file is back in the file pouch -- unburned. Wesley's hand slides it up to see her name, "Morgan, Lilah" there again.

Wesley looks back to her.

LILAH Flames wouldn't be eternal... if they actually consumed anything.

He looks at her, powerless to change her fate.

LILAH But it means something that you tried.

-----
On the surface, this TELLS you just that Lilah's contract is made of unholy asbestos, Batman. But watching the scene, how it was filmed, how it was acted, you see Tim & Co. SHOW you with a twist to the gut that Wesley's feelings for Lilah were behind his decision to take the tour. You SEE the desperation in his eyes change to satisfaction as it burns, SEE the sadness and fondness and sympathy on hers as she realizes she has to break it to him that there's nothing he can do to make things right, and you SEE the tenderness on her face and hear it in her voice when she says "Look in the drawer."

This wasn't a talky scene. It wasn't wordless, but it SHOWED rather than TOLD what the characters were feeling. I mean, it's causing me physical pain from the emotional impact just thinking about it. It has power.

Gravity is a fact

"Don't get me started." t /Phoebe

Another example of talking, not showing, from last night:

Anya telling Andrew that, gee, she actually kinda likes humanity, when not one single thing since "Selfless" has shown us she feels that way.

Note, also, that a lot of the telling in that scene is in the stage directions. The writer is telling the *actor* how to play the scene; he isn't telling the audience how to interpret it.

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."

I think I've had about all the condescension I care for. I understand the argument that is being made-I don't agree with it. By that definition Shakespeare is a supremely incompetent writer, for what are his plays but endless "telling." Ah, but tv and film are different mediums than the stage. Well yes-but one of the things I most admire in Buffy is that comparisons to Shakespeare are not ridiculous.

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.)

For starters that Xander is a Romantic, that he was feeling guilty about his behavior towards Anya, amd that he identified with Riley. In the context of Xander's own later behavior (I fail to see how Inca Mummy Girl is relevant) it could be said to be hypocritical, but then that is also revealing. Speeches are not just what the words say-but who says them, how they are said, and in what context. And in that sense they can be showing as much-or more-than they are telling. (Harold Pinter's entire career is based on that.)

Justkim, presumably (a) Anya staying in Sunnydale and (b) raiding the hospital for supplies were supposed to show us that--but I agree that it's not terribly effective showing, since the writers had to underline it with the telling/the speeches explaining it.

Ted, your last posting made it clear that you don't understand the aphorism.

[edit]

Sure. If by telling you mean "speaking" and showing you mean "not speaking" you are obviously correct, but that seems a not very useful tautology.

"Show, don't tell" doesn't mean "Don't talk". It means that you illustrate character by demonstrating it, not by describing it.

Shakespeare has patches of narration, sure. But the parts people remember are things like Andrew Aguecheek's one glorious line "I was adored once", which, all by itself, brings pathos to a one-dimensional character. That's showing.

So is it never acceptable for a character to say how they feel? Or how they think another character feels? What's wrong with (for instance), "I love you and I've always loved you and when X happened I felt Y"?

Or is your (plural) complaint that such statements are out of character or violate (your take on) canon/continuity or atypical for the house style of ME writing?

Because that's different from Show = Good, Tell = Bad. And it seems to me that there's a big grey area between the two.

I thought the speechifying this season was intended to Show us that PeterPrinciple!Buffy didn't have a clue as to how to really be a leader, but fell flat due to indifferent acting, not because the speeches were per se an example of bad writing.

May I humbly suggest that we end this Show/Tell debate? Please?