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?

(Continued nitpick: Talk != Tell. If so, every random action movie would automatically be better than a brilliant Jane Austen adaptation.)

An example of a very talky movie that nonetheless shows rather than tells is Bull Durham. For example, Crash Davis never, ever says, "This game owns my soul and I'll never walk away from it." But the movie shows it in every scene from where he follows up a rant about quitting because he deserves better than to be sent down from triple-A with, "Who do we play tomorrow?" to the bit at the end where he's wondering if he can manage in the show.

t on edit--sorry, wolfram. While I was working on this post someone stopped by to, er, tell me something, so I'm a bit behind the conversation. I'll delete if people would like.

I understand the argument that is being made-I don't agree with it.

I think that it would derail this argument from its endless circle if you focused more on examples, Ted. I mean that instead of saying you disagree that telling has been less effective this season, or that there's been more showing than those of us who have been complaining think, it would be more convincing for me if you would cite effective S7 incidences of showing and/or telling.

I understand the argument that is being made-I don't agree with it.

It's not an argument. It's a commonly accepted standard for fictional works. Arguing it is somewhat like attempting to argue that the Pope is actually an atheist.

I feel like you're being purposefully obtuse about this subject for reasons that baffle me.

What's wrong with "I love you and I've always loved you and when X happened I felt Y"?

It tends to create emotional distance rather than drawing the audience in.

"Katy, you shouldn't be carrying something so heavy." invites the audience to participate. "Katy, I want to protect you" doesn't have any depth -- everything is there in the narration, nothing is implied.

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?

My own complaint is that it is bad writing for any house style. I write fiction, as do Dana, Deb, and Consuela, to name three. Scrappy writes screenplays. Any of us will flinch and say "Yipes, you're right" when an editor says "Show, don't tell." "Show, don't tell" means you've been lazy as a writer.

Oh, and Shakespeare is full of asides, which were deliberately intended to Tell us how the character feels, or how other characters feel. The fact that people forget that, or forget the one-dimensional characters, in favor of the good bits is no different from people who forget the [insert thing you hate here] in Buffy in favor of the [insert thing you like here].