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].

This thread is very much beginning to resemble it's title in tone. And that's not necessarily a good thing.

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.

In a written work, I can see that. In a staged work, I think it's all about the acting.

ETA: Note that the speaker doesn't have to be a Reliable Narrator. A character saying they feel X when we haven't seen it previously may mean that they're lying to the other character, or to themselves.

I think I've had about all the condescension I care for.

Quite frankly, that goes in the reverse, too, Ted. You've been a little condescending yourself.

I will concede that this argument is cyclical and crazy-making, but I will not concede that my point is invalid.

If there were now quantifiable descriptors of "showing" versus "telling," it would be pointless to ever encourage beginning writers to show instead of tell.

What do you guys think of this?

And actually...also this.