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).

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.

There have been some cues that Spike feels remorse. I think he's kept a distance between them. When he's gone to touch Buffy, he's often hesitated and/or changed his mind. There's just been too much "I got a soul for you" talk. I don't even know that it's a case of they've told more than shown, but rather simply a case that they've told too much, too often. To be fair, I do think they've shown his devotion to Buffy.

After watching the A&E Buffy Biography last night, I watched Becoming (some of it). When DB is on screen, you can tell with a glance, before he opens his mouth, whether or not he's Angel or Angelus. Now, I generally prefer JM's acting to DB's, but whatever technique DB used (above and beyond things external to him, like wardrobe, make-up, etc.) to distinguish Angelus from Angel is a great example of "showing". In addition, when he does speak, you can tell by his speech that he's evil. (To be fair to JM, it seems plain the writers didn't want there to be a big difference between Soul!Spike and Chip!Spike. I'm just using DB as a showing example.)

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.

I do think this season has been more tell-y than seasons past. But to be fair, they did show us the above. Willow couldn't/wouldn't keep up the barrier between the gang and the Uber-vamp. In the episode you cite, Spike didn't kill the D'Hoffryn minion who tried to assasinate Anya. There are other examples, but I can't think of them.

The conversation here seems to have broken down, because it moved from a too much/acceptable amount discussion to an all-or-nothing. Certainly we were shown things this season. Maybe we were even shown more than told. But I'm in the corner with the people who would break down each episode into acts, scenes and beats, to pull out examples of when they told when they could have shown, if only were weren't so lazy.

Other examples of where showing could have been used to better the execution include: The initiation of Faith/Wood's sex scene in Touched. I didn't sense heat between these two until they were in flagrante delicto. Now I usually sense Faith's heat with everyone. I always understood that Wood wouldn't mind a bit of Buffy. But that scene went from cold conversation to "let's do it", and the episode was weaker for it.

As much as I didn't care for the Anya/Xander pre-sex conversation in Touched, at least I could feel their heat. For that matter, I've felt little heat/interest from Willow, with regard to Kennedy. The one time it really worked for me was early on, when Kennedy was flirting and made a risque comment about whom would sleep where, and Willow got flustered. Given that Aly has shown me when Willow's wanted Xander, Oz, Tara (and in more subtle ways Giles, Faith and Buffy), I am inclined to think it was the writing and/or direction.

The same is true for the Is-it-Giles reveal. It could/should have been written in a way that we saw Xander, Anya and Andrew starting to doubt Giles, rather than have to listen to them have a conversation reiterating everything wonky we'd noticed about Giles, for episodes and episodes.

I imagine that being as old as he is, and having been through all that he has, ending up first with a chip and then a soul must be incredibly disconcerting at best. Before the chip it was all mayhem and S & M and frustration and guilt (sorta) and hoping to be staked. Then after the mother dream and the removal of the trigger and having experienced the 'love' of a 'good woman', spike must be incredibly disoriented. I'm hoping next week's finale will tie up a few loose ends re: his manifestation and pave the way for future adventures more in tune with his new personna.

After watching the A&E Buffy Biography last night, I watched Becoming (some of it).

After watching the Buffy Biography I watched The Prom. I'd forgotten how heart wrenching that episode is.

I'm enjoying both Buffy books I got yesterday (in quite different ways). Buffy on Philosophy has my favorite chapter title of all time: Also Sprach Faith.

Candy-amazing boss indeed. You should take him (or her) with you through life.

Having explained my position (as well as I am able) I'm going to simply ignore all future posts on why the writers have failed this season, as long it is understood that unlike A Man For All Seasons, silence in this case does not indicate consent.

I think at this point I can go on record, unless the series finale blows chunks that I don't think it possibly can (tempting fate? perhaps.), that I can pretty much assign my order of seasons, favorite to least favorite: 3,4,2,7,6,1,5

And now, an attempt at a rationale:

3) I don't think this requires any justification - it was just about perfect. A few weak episodes (I'm thinking Anne and Choices, for example), but only in comparison to the rest of the Season. Even the B/A schmoop didn't bother me, cause I thought they earned it at times (Amends and Enemies)

4) This is probably the most controversial decision, but I think the stand-alones and mini-arcs form 4 rock harder than any other season, and I liked the transition to college (I think one of the most recent weaknesses in the show was losing any sense of an outside world). The initiative arc - well, that's a problem, but even the weakest episodes had killer moments (WTWTA - Anya/Spike mayhem nostalgia, "The only thing we have in common is that we both like your penis", rock-god Giles! or Doomed - "Let's go kill something, for love, and puppies" - paraphrasing badly).

2) Despite the brilliance of the arc, I thought this season had some really weak stand-alones, including my first-ever episode Bad Eggs (shudder). They had their moments as well, but the best eps in 2 were more main arc-centric rather than stand-alone-ish.

7, 6 and 1) These were the toughest calls in terms of ordering preference. I think 1 was finding it's legs, with some wonderful moments, but in retrospect, the number of MOTW episodes hurt rather than helped, and the Master was only good in bits and pieces (it's a good thing he wasn't around for a full season). 6 had decent villians, some brilliant eps, but I thought it spun its wheels far more than this season, so I give 7 the edge. Plus, between Caleb and the parade of greatest hits villians that is the first, I find overall the bad guys are more striking where the Trio were kept comic villians until late in the game, and Willow was held back from big bad-om for too long. Also, it doesn't seem to get commented on just how much fun SMG seems to be having playing the villian this year (since the FE has been Buffy more than anybody else).

That leaves 5). Sigh. I know there was good stuff besides The Body and The Gift, but it all fades into the lameness that was the Bory arc. I didn't even Dawn, and thought even Clare Kramer had her moments (and then she had her other moments - shudder again - and there were NO redeeming moments from Ben), but the structure of the arc threw the whole season out of whack. And Into the Woods, oy! I enjoyed the season while I was watching it, but in retrospect - yikes!

Anyway, my take on de whole shebang!