You missed my point, balzacq. What I meant was, the speechifying you spoke of was *telling*. *That's* why you thought it went on too long.

I meant that it was an example of BADNESS. Telling and not showing.

No, you've missed my point... :-) You seem to be equating Bad => Telling in all cases.

If that scene had been Andrew chasing a squirrel and falling down on the lawn for five minutes instead of fifteen seconds it would have been equally bad, with no Telling whatsoever -- in fact, it would have been showing us that Andrew is a klutz. That's nice, now move on already.

The fact that Anya happened to be speaking at the time made no difference at all. In fact, the spoken content of the scene was completely irrelevant to the plot -- again, it didn't show us or tell us anything.

Let's go with the speeches: Spike in Beneath You, Xander in Potential, and Spike in (what was the title, Empty Places?). Or Spike last night for that matter. All contained enormous amounts of subtext beneath the spoken words. They were NOT (imo) just telling us things about the character-they were demonstrating things about them. And in the reactions of those listening, things about others.

Well, it would help to know what things you think were demonstrated. I like the Spike speech in "Beneath You," although I think it went on a little too long; I enjoy a fine Shakespearian madman. It shows me Spike's remorse and selfishness and manipulation by the FE, and it shows me Buffy's horror, guilt, and unwilling sympathy. But then, I have said repeatedly that my problems with the season come post-CwDP. Xander's speech in "Potential," again, I would have edited just a bit shorter, although I think I'm in the minority in that; as I recall, most people here found that an extraordinary speech, giving insight into both Xander and Dawn.

I think you mean the Spike speech in "Touched," since he doesn't have a big speech in "Empty Places," and you're going to have unpack the meaning you see in it for me, since I think it's an overlong retconning bore.

I haven't been told about Spike's redemption and Buffy's growing acceptance-I've witnessed it, from Buffy preparing to stake Spike in Beneath You to Spike holding Buffy through the night in Touched. Spike on the Cross. Buffy's reaction to the news Spike sired Holden. Spike's horror as he realized he was killing again and his recoiling as the FE made him attack Buffy. Spike standing up to FE Drusilla because of his faith in Buffy, and Buffy justifying that faith by rescuing him.etc. etc. etc.

"Etc. etc. etc." is precisely the response that is not helpful. If I saw the same etc. you did, I wouldn't be arguing with you. And I don't appreciate the snippy tone, when I feel I've been nothing but courteous to you. If you think I haven't been, I wish you'd say when and how.

As for the Spike redemption, I don't disagree that this season has given us Spike trying to be a good guy. My problem with it, as I've said before, is that it hasn't shown me enough of Spike being a *bad* guy. It hasn't shown me a struggle. All of the guilt and remorse we saw have been left to the FE's influence; soulled Spike doesn't feel responsible for attempting to rape Buffy or for having spent a year fucking with her mind and trying to drag her down into the dark to stay with him; he gets tortured in a few scenes, but that's not where this show really plays out its consequences.

Instead, it gives me Buffy yelling at Spike and Willow in "Get It Done" that they've been holding back, afraid to use their power. What would have worked a lot better would have been scenes where I *saw* them holding back, afraid to use their power. In "Older and Far Away," an episode I don't even like, I at least get to see that Willow is so afraid to use her power--or so determined to win back her friends and her ex-girlfriend--that she won't use magic even though she and her friends are in mortal danger. I didn't get a single example of that this season, even though Willow's fear of her own power is purportedly a major theme.

Or, to take another example, I believe you're one of the people who has argued that Giles isn't evil, just demoralized by the loss of the Council and/or possibly afraid he'll have to kill Buffy to destroy the First Evil. I think this is a great theory--but I need to see (or really have seen) a Giles scene which supported this grief and panic. That's hard to do for Giles, because he doesn't tend to confide in the Scoobies as equals, but it's still possible: you could show him having acknowledged that Xander or Willow or Buffy have grown up by talking to them honestly about his friends. You could have him mention at key points, in a distant and controlled voice, that that book they need for research is gone--when the Council library blew up. (And ASH could *totally* pull off that grief and desperation with just a look and a pause and a tone of voice; and if you wanted to underline it, you could have an awkward pause as the Core Gang look at each other or avoid looking at each other, unable to deal with Giles' grief.) You could have a scene of Giles alone, with a glass of Scotch, just looking grief-stricken.

You could have one of the Potentials mention *their* Watchers to him, even, since some of them seem to have been trained, and presumably their Watchers were killed by the First. That would kill two birds with one stone, allow Giles to react and the Potential to show some of the grief and desperation behind her panic and graspingness.

No, you've missed my point... :-)

Noooooooooo.... *you've* missed *my* point... ;)

Okay, I think we're not missing each other's points, so much as not quite communicating our meanings to each other. Let's go back and look at your original example.

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.

As it was shown, it was telling. it was telling a bad visiual joke, which came with way too much setup up.

But here's what I meant when I said that you'd hit the "show" nail on the head...

sixty seconds or less would have sufficed to get a laugh from the audience.

Those sixty seconds would have "shown" the joke.

I think part of the problem is that some people are getting tied down in the specific meanings of the words "show" and "tell."

In storytelling, it is possible to "show" with a speech (Buffy has just generally failed to do so this season).

It is also possible to "tell" with only visuals.

What "show, don't tell" means is that "showing" is revealing things through character action (remember: speaking is an action, too) - "telling" is simply stating things for the audience, rather than letting them discover it for themselves (which can be done without speaking).

Weighing in late in the "show don't tell" issue. As a screenwriting teacher and script doctor I hammer away at this endlessly. And I mean endlessly. I agree that it means in its essence that you use action *and dialogue* to reveal things about character. Have someone be angry a lot rather than say "I have a bad temper." The knife throwing is a good example. However, I thought the Xander speech worked as showing, because it told us things about Xander and how his relationship with Anya had changed him that we didn't see before--not only that, we saw him discover it in front of our eyes. And I HATED Riley, BTW. Characters can state their feelings or thoughts directly and it can certainly work dramatically--for example think of Buffy saying "Me" ianswer to what's left. It is a statement of fact, but no less effective for that.

Skipping ahead to see if anyone watched the A & E Biography tonight?

OK - at the risk of stirring up the teapot:

How has Spike showed he's, if not actually redeemed, at least on the path, outside of speechifying.

He has not, to my awareness, remotely attmepted to rekindle romance with Buffy in any deliberate (emphasis on the word deliberate) way, shape or form. I don't mean talking about his soul, I mean talking about trying to get her back as a lover in any form. He may have speechified his response to this in End of Days, but his actions in t memfault - the episode before End of Days showed it.

Also, his absolute, unambiguous horror in the Bronze when he discovered he'd been feeding and siring.

And, most importantly, his absolutely unhesitant rescue of Xander when he realized what was going on. Whether calling Buffy off was the right thing is another issue, but I think it's what was happening to the potentials that spurred it. Given how antagonistic he and Xander have been over the series, I think that speaks volumes.

Oh, and ZNDR'N'SPYK4VR

And, just 'cause I loved it - SO, WHEELCHAIR FIGHT?

Fury and Minear are on the Succubus Club internet radio show, now.

You can email questions to them.

[link]

Allyson, I don't think there is an e-mail address at the klbc.org site. I would think the thesuccubusclub.com site had the address where you can send questions.

What "show, don't tell" means is that "showing" is revealing things through character action (remember: speaking is an action, too) - "telling" is simply stating things for the audience, rather than letting them discover it for themselves (which can be done without speaking).

But it sure sounds like you're arguing that Show = writing you like, and Tell = writing you don't like.

For instance, your distinction between "showing" the visual joke and "telling" the visual joke seems to come down to the difference between giving the audience a brief example and hitting the audience over the head with it. Whereas I believe we were being "shown" that Andrew is a dork and Anya is callous and emotionally clueless, but the scene was bad in that it just went on too long. (Nobody was saying "Andrew's a dork" in lieu of us seeing from his actions that he's a dork.)

Popping in to say that, depending on what happens next week, I may change my OTP to Anya/Xander/Andrew. Or they should at least remake "Three's Company" with that trio.