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.

Jeebus, I'm turning into a sap in these late days. Launch is currently playing me a very bad 13-minute live version of "Free Bird", which is something I'd normally hit the ban button on before it was even done buffering -- but every time I go to do so, I think "butbutbutbut Giles played that song."

And then I get a little sniffly. Especially when I realize that Giles did it much better. And not for 13 minutes.

would it be wrong of me to want to marry hayden at this point? This has summed up the problems I've had with the show. I still love it...but there is disappointment...much like my family.

Woo hoo! Except my wife would probably object.

I made my point at the end of the last Buffy thread about why it's ok for people to consider some works of art as better than others in the context of Western culture. I think my point still holds water.

And then I get a little sniffly. Especially when I realize that Giles did it much better. And not for 13 minutes.

Imagine how great a 13 minute ASH version would be. I bet you'd listen to that whole thing.

I made my point at the end of the last Buffy thread about why it's ok for people to consider some works of art as better than others in the context of Western culture. I think my point still holds water.

Oh, like a well, baby.

Like a freaking well.

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.

Then I can only say that I either failed to make myself clear or you misread me (or both). But I'm not sure I can explain myself any better than I have. (But maybe what follows will help.)

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.

Not exactly no. It depends how it is presented. The thing is, if the debate is framed as "We all agree this sucks so let's debate why" then those of us who don't think it sucks are automatically excluded, and end up standing on the side going, "But...but..."

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.

I don't disagree-it does work both ways. But people are much more likely (I find) to emphasize the subjective nature of their views when praising than when being harshly critical.

And on a related point, I also find that the conjecture on what went wrong often seems to be grounded in nothing in particular. What is the evidence (for example) the writers are slacking off like seniors at the end of high school as someone suggested? Well, that the season isn't as good as previous seasons. But that converts a subjective opinion (this season isn't as good) into an objective fact (the evidence for senioritis). It is a logical bait and switch-to go Python, "It don't work."

Likewise, we can probably agree that it is better to show than to tell, but we are still left with a subjective judgement which constitutes which. If I read subtext into a speech that reveals a layer not directly expressed in the words, that is an example of "showing" but if you don't then for you it becomes "telling." Which of us is right?

All of which is fair game until I'm told that I don't understand the difference between showing and telling, or if I do that I must have a higher tolerance for telling. Or in general if I like this season I must not mind sloppy writing. It couldn't be I have a different view of what constitutes sloppy? Maybe I WAS told rather than shown Spike's evolution this season. Maybe-but maybe I'm right in my views and the other person is wrong. I don't mind disagreement at all-but I do insist on being left enough room to stand on. And in some FEW cases I didn't feel that was being granted (not to me specifically, but to those of us who are mostly enjoying the season).

It is also quite possible in the heat of argument I didn't grant others room to stand on-in which I was equally wrong and apologize (as I already did specifically with Allyson).