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!

Buffy on Philosophy has my favorite chapter title of all time: Also Sprach Faith.

I'm really liking this book, BTW.

Also, it doesn't seem to get commented on just how much fun SMG seems to be having playing the villian this year

Oh yes!

I find increasingly I can't really rank the seasons from best to weakest-they just fall into three groups for me: Amazing (2,3,6), Good (4,5,7) and Okay (1). And even there I waver on 4, which the more I consider it is stradling the border between Amazing and Good (for the reasons you mention).

As for season 5, I like Glory, who is about the only sort of God I can believe in (impossibly vain, petty, and not too bright).

Buffy on Philosophy has my favorite chapter title of all time: Also Sprach Faith.

I'm really liking this book, BTW

Me too. Though "The Girl's Got Bite" has taught me something Buffy and Philosophy never would: namely that AH likes to give head, loves porn, and enjoys going to strip clubs (according to an interview with Playboy quoted by the author). No wonder AD is always smiling in those photos of them together.

bitterchick from last night:

I look back on Season 2 and Angelus killing Jenny Calendar. A conscious decision was made for Angelus to be in vamp face. Why? Because Angelus was committing a horrific act that the audience might not be able to forgive him for. But they knew Angel was coming back and getting his own series. So they chose to do that scene in a way that would allow Angel to come back and be a good guy again.

I might be in the minority here, but I don't want TPTB to use makeup as a method to make a character's actions more palatable. It would be far more interesting, to me, to have had Angelus kill Jenny Calendar in sweet Angel face. I want to be challenged as a viewer, not given the option to say, "oh that was vampface!Angel, this is good Angel.

I'm at a loss trying to figure out what changed between then and now. The only thing I can come up with is that Joss became more and more hands off. Though I hate that reasoning.

Maybe the writers decided to stop being so concerned about the audience's sensibilities, and more about what the character would have done. If Spike was trying to kill/bite Buffy I could see vamp face, but if IIRC, he never vamped out when he was initiating/having sex with her, why would he do it here? And yes I know here it was an attempted rape, which is inherently a violent act, but I'm not sure that evil!Spike thought of it that way.

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.

Noting your silent dissent, I'd just like to offer that maybe this is where the conversation fell apart both yesterday, and when you and I went back and forth over Touched after it aired. Mentioning failures (i.e. things that didn't work for someone) is different from (and less severe a criticism than) labeling the season, the series, the writers or even a specific episode as having failed (implicit in that term is the concept of failure as a whole).

I think people have pretty much expressed mixed feelings on both concept and execution. They've expressed dissatisfaction with elements (e.g. too much tell in the show/tell ratio). I don't see any acknowledgement of that difference in your posts.

(grammar edit)

Ted from this morning:

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..

You go on to disparage this type of opinion posting. I'm sorry, but you are very wrong here. You seem to be saying that it's wrong for a person to look for the reasons why he/she feels something went wrong on the episode. I.e. it would be wrong to blame the writers/actors/director/cinematographer etc. for stuff you didn't like on an episode, solely because liking or disliking an episode is subjective. Well, if we can praise a writer for doing something right that we liked, than we can criticize a writer for doing something wrong that we disliked. It has to go both ways, or our opinions have no value and we're just yesmen and sycophants. Praise or criticism of a writer or writing, or of an actor or acting, is an opinion by definition, no more or less an opinion than your First and Second type opinions. And to say someone should refrain from posting such an opinion is just plain wrong.

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.

Right. I agree with you here. Even Joss himself doesn't have the right to tell you that you have to like his stuff or you have bad taste.

I think we had a healthy discussion about what some people consider good writing, and what some people consider bad writing. Obviously YGW/BWMV. But it's better if we don't tak these things too personally. I have a friend who thinks Sharon Stone's the best female actor in the business. And we're still friends. 'nuff said.