It's been a while since I saw Sleeper, but thanks Wenda, yes.

I remember his reaction to what went down at the Bronze, and I remember him asking Buffy to stake him, but I didn't remember that he'd actually called her to fess up.

I also remember him volunteering to leave town. I remember Buffy stopped him, but I never read that as a "love" thing on her part, at least not one she was sure of. As far as Buffy has been concerned, I don't think she's ever known, or been portrayed to know, exactly how she feels about Spike (since he got a sou), no matter what she says to anyone else about it. Which I think is legitimate, given their whole history (I mean, does Seeing Red automatically counterdict what happened in Intervention? I don't know, and I get the feeling that's how we're supposed to read it - and by "it" I mean the whole tangled history).

Anyway, it's late - I need to get to bed.

I know everybody is probably sick of this topic by now but to use another good example of showing not telling from the season finale of Angel

In Home, the scene between Connor and Angel in the mall could be regarded as telling. Angel tells Connor he loves him. Connor finally tells Angel "You let him get me." This is telling, right? Except that it's not. Why not? Because for about 22 episodes previous to this scene neither Angel nor Connor has discussed any of these issues; all we've seen is Connor's anger and Angel's regret in practically every interaction that they've had. Virtually nothing was spoken. So when the telling comes (in beautifully natural dialogue) it's not actually telling. It's the cathartic resolution to everything we've been shown. Everything that's been under the surface. Buffy hasn't done this lately.

Tim is the boogie master of Show, Don't Tell.

NO ONE Shows like Tim Motherfucking Minear. No one.

Young Goddard is coming close. But Minear...

Blows. Me. Away.

Young Goddard is coming close.

Please don't kill me.

But don't you think (Seriously, don't kill me, please) that he's just a smidge overrated? That scene in Selfless where they finally bring up Xander's lie seemed to me a prime example of telling not showing. See also: All of Dirty Girls.

But don't you think (Seriously, don't kill me, please) that he's just a smidge overrated? That scene in Selfless where they finally bring up Xander's lie seemed to me a prime example of telling not showing. See also: All of Dirty Girls.

Well, I actually liked Dirty Girls (it was quick, and it made me laugh, and hey, I watched it in good company both times). I don't think Xander's lie was telling not showing, because, like the example from Home, it was something that had been there, in the back of her mind, for five years. I'm saddened that it turned out to be a nod to continuity and was simply dropped, like so many things from the first half of the season.

I don't think Xander's lie was telling not showing, because, like the example from Home, it was something that had been there, in the back of her mind, for five years. I'm saddened that it turned out to be a nod to continuity and was simply dropped, like so many things from the first half of the season.

I'll have to see it again (I haven't watched it since it aired.) I don't think he's horrible, just uneven. I liked most of Selfless and CwDP but I thought LMPTM and Dirty Girls were pretty lackluster.

I'll have to see it again (I haven't watched it since it aired.) I don't think he's horrible, just uneven. I liked most of Selfless and CwDP but I thought LMPTM and Dirty Girls were pretty lackluster.

LMPTM was the weak link. It violated the already existing canon WRT to the trigger and basically was another of those motherfucking move the plot along eps. Sad, because Fury and Goddard can both do better than a cheap Anne Rice rip off, so it's a shame they got stuck with the assend of the plot device. I think that, spoiler ho that I am, the early "BOO HISS!" WRT Dirty Girls meant that anything that aired was bound to be better than the spoils made it out to be.

Dirty Girls had some nice bits, esp. the Faith/Buffy.

LMPTM is the episode that made me go no mail on a bunch of groups when the spoilers came out, but still somehow lived down to expectations.

Yes, I'm up much too early.

I'm going to try one more time to explain myself and what might be termed my overall critical philosophy.

I've been reacting to what I see in SOME posts (not MOST, some) as a four stage process.

First: I don't like the scene/episode/season. This is completely unobjectionable-you like something or you don't.

Second: I didn't like it because I think a. that was out of character or b. the jokes fell flat or c. the plot was full of holes or d. the moral was heavyhanded etc. etc. Again, absolutely unobjectionable-this board would serve little purpose if we didn't explain our reasons for liking or disliking.

And now we head into what I (personally) consider muddier waters.

Three: Since I don't like something it is bad. If it is bad it represents a failure on the part of the writers (or actors, directors etc.). Conjecture is then offered on why they did a bad job: they have senioritis, Joss is not involved enough, Joss is too involved, it's Marti's fault, JM is overacting etc..

Followed sometimes (by no means always) by Four: Since it is bad, anyone who doesn't recognize this objective fact either has bad taste, or less perjoratively but still with authority, doesn't mind telling rather than showing etc.

The problem with 3 and 4 is that they implicitly-and more problematically sometimes explicitly-convert the subjective judgements of 1 and 2 into objective facts. 1 and 2 leave open lots of room for disagreement and debate. And perhaps, though rarely, changing minds. 3 and 4 are different: to argue 3 (where to place the blame for something being bad) you already have to accept the premise that it IS bad. And 4 of course implicitly stifles debate, since it is the opinions of those who disagree that are the target.

1 and 2 don't need to be couched as opinions since that is inherently what they are (though I often do include an imo in mine to emphasize their subjective nature). 3 and 4, unless they are explicitly couched as opinions, are another matter (again, imo). Unless explicitly couched as subjective judgements, 3 and 4 are invitations for agreement only, and automatically exclude those who disagree. (Again, you can't argue why X was bad if you thought X was good.) And 4, when presented explicitly, is rather arrogant and rude. (This IS true whether you like it or not.)

Maybe I have bad taste. And maybe I don't understand showing vs, telling, or have a higher tolerance for telling. OR maybe my views of what is good, or what constitutes showing vs. telling are simply different than yours. I could be wrong(assuming there is an objective standard here that would give the word meaning). But in that case, so could you.

And I've no doubt by the way that I've crossed the line on 3 and 4 myself from time to time, which may make me a hypocrite but I prefer to think simply reveals me to be flawed. I certainly should not, for example, have used the word "infuriates" in reference to Allyson's use of the term lazy writing (which btw, as I took it at the time, falls under 3 above) because that word is so loaded as to fall under 4.

Anyway, I can't and don't expect anyone to adopt my philosophy and go, "Hey, I'm violating Ted's rule number 3 so I better change my post." That isn't my point in writing this-I don't expect ANYONE to adopt it, or change their posting style here as a result. I'm simply trying to make clear where I'm coming from, since I (clearly) haven't up to this point.

Well personally, my tastes are so eclectic that I rarely expect anyone to even follow my reasoning as to why I like or dislike this or that. And often I find that my criticism are prompted more by my moods than my objectivity. So I just muddle along, agreeing or disagreeing and figure it will all balance out sooner or later.

FWIW

t on edit

I've been up all night trying to download some FF .... so ignore me

I've been up all night .... so ignore me

Sorry-I can't ignore someone who is making sense. :)

LMPTM was the weak link. It violated the already existing canon WRT to the trigger and basically was another of those motherfucking move the plot along eps

Whereas I saw it as a key episode in terms of characerization not plot-for Wood, for Buffy, but of course most of all for Spike. Spike's ability to kill Wood-and his choice not to (for the moment)-was when I felt Spike had finally grown up. And I felt a strange pride for Spike- strange because I don't have anything to with this, I'm just a watcher (small w).