What do you guys think of this?

And actually...also this.

Micole, I agree that we can assume those things, but the fact that we have to assume anything here is the problem I see with the writing this season. I thought Anya stayed in Sunnydale because she was afraid of D'Hoffryn's revenge and wanted/needed Buffy's protection. I thought she went to the hospital because she was bored, tipsy, and Andrew mentioned that they could go to the hospital for medical supplies.

And Ted, learning what we did about Xander in the above referenced scene does us very little good if we are supposed to get information about Buffy and Riley. Can you use the above referenced scene to explain why Buffy ran after Riley? I can’t. I am still baffled by it.

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

Wolfram, I understand that conflict can make one uncomfortable, but I'm fascinated by this argument and am interested in watching it come to its natural conclusion. Either folks will agree to disagree, or they will come to an understanding, or they will stomp off in anger to doblerize or never return. The last choice is so very rare.

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.

At which point, you're showing. The fact of the character's lying or being mistaken demonstrates something important about the character. That is action demonstrating character. (Speech can be action, too. It's narration we object to, not speech.)

When you see Clea pat her hair in a mirror while saying "I've never been vain", that is a character moment. When you have Stacia say "Clea's always been vain", that is a far less powerful character moment.

Oh, and my further problems with the speechifying and a lot of this season in general wasn't that it violated "Show, Don't Tell".

Rather, that it violated "For Chrissake move the plot along instead of wasting whole cumulative hours on stuff that could have taken mere minutes to get across to us."

For instance, Anya's long basement speech to the SiTs had no justification except for the visual joke of Andrew drawing on the pad. That scene went on for what seemed like twenty minutes when sixty seconds or less would have sufficed to get a laugh from the audience.

So is it never acceptable for a character to say how they feel?

Yeah, more or less. Simply stating your emotions is good for interpersonal communication, not so good for storytelling.

And in fact, in the best story telling (TV *and* Shakespeare), whenever someone states that they feel an emotion, it is usually exactly the opposite of what they really feel.

But still, stating a feeling is lame and boring. Expressing a feeling is showing, and draws the audience into emotionally.

Regardless...

I think Wolfram's pleas that we end this are also well warranted.

Imma step back from this one for a while, but there is a difference between showing and telling, and yes, it is generally bad form to have your characters talk about how they feel.

Micole, I agree that we can assume those things, but the fact that we have to assume anything here is the problem I see with the writing this season.

Oh no. I wouldn't have assumed that at all till last night, when Anya told us that was why she was staying. I meant that as an example of showing that didn't work, or of too little being shown for us to draw the intended conclusion from the actions themselves.

I thought she went after the supplies because she's in love with noir thrillers, and Andrew hit her wannabe-Lauren-Bacall-on-a-daring-mission kink.

Oh, and my further problems with the speechifying and a lot of this season in general wasn't that it violated "Show, Don't Tell".

Rather, that it violated "For Chrissake move the plot along instead of wasting whole cumulative hours on stuff that could have taken mere minutes to get across to us."

Except that this right here is one of the basic principles of "show, don't tell," balzacq!

(I know, I said I'mma leaving, but I caught this comment and wanted to point out that you hit the "show" nail right on the head.)

(And as Allyson pointed out, this *is* interesting, even with the heated emotions and conflict, and I'mma only step out to doblerize, I be back later)

balzaqc - I think actually those examples are very much examples of when the writers showed, rather than told.

(eta - the above was a cross post with Sean - I'm not piling on you, balzaqc)

Great commentary folks. I have only one ...... that the Buffy/Angel kiss appeared to me to be only one of old friends re-uniting. I didn't get anything really erotic from it. Loved the look on Spike's face at the end. That is all. Looking bitterlysweet forward to next week.

Here's the thing about Buffy and Angel - and I'm not a shipper (though I once came close, but it was long ago, and over the sea...)

You know - when you see them (or I do) that if there was no curse, they'd be together. Yes, they'd fight and shag and everything else Spike said. But if circumstances were different, they'd be on each other like white on rice. So when they kiss, even if it's more friendly in tone (although I got the rising music and the rising...music vibe out of it) - even that tells you much - as opposed to Spike and Buffy's stilted scene in t memfault last week's episode, when they switched positions dependent upon who was talking.

they'd be on each other like white on rice

What the hell does that mean, anyhow?

I mean, white on rice? I've never really gotten that.