Yhyjyk

I was invited to participate in an anthology of essays about a tv show. I chose an episode based on the Wikipedia summary (since it had been so long since I had watched it), but after I watched it, I felt nothing.

I wrote to the editor and said that I wanted to give up that essay slot to someone who felt more passionate about it. He said that the flatness itself was interesting, and to explore it.

I don't want to make anhedonia and depression contagious, nor do I want to be boring. Any thoughts on how to write about blah-ness in a non-blah way?

Reading is subjective when it comes to what is "blah" and what is "non-blah".

I say go for it, even if you fear that you will write something that you would experience as 'blah'...

Then, when you've written it, go through it and try to figure out which parts you find particularly 'bla-ish', and why that is. What's missing?

Are you slamming the episode without being specific? Is your language vague? Could your opinion/statements be interpreted differently by different readers? Are you comparing it to something which it shouldn't share characteristics with?
Whats off ?

When you've done that, let somebody else read it, and see if they focus on the same areas (don't include your notes, etc.). See if they even agree that it's 'bla-ish'.

Perhaps your tone is completely appropriate for what you are writing. If not, maybe you realize what can improve it. If you do not find out what can change it for the better, maybe you were right in your prejudice regarding your ability to write the essay - at this time. Either way, it's a "win-win", albeit a slightly odd one.

It's rarely the right decision not to try. Not 'never', but rarely.

I used to write movie reviews for my University News Paper and always felt that, if I'm about to give a bad score, I would point to how I would have improved the movie, if I was given the ability to do so. It helps me identify the parts that hurt my head because they were so stupid and challenge me to take the idea trying to be presented, and give credit it was trying to go somewhere, but lacked something to make it go the extra mile it needed to be great. Of course, I do this to things I do like too, so it's how I react to my own negative opinions.

Another option that I love, and you're going to need to really pull all your vocab for this, is to take your bland episode and praise it, rather than pander it. Or at least sarcastically praise it. Mockingly take fan favorite episodes and daring episodes and treat them as if those innovations are humdrum compared to the glorious mediocrity that is your episode. Treat everything you hated as brilliant genius in story form, from the dialog being exquisitely predictable that fans can anticipate every character's response. It is the best episode to of the whole of the series' [insert season it was in] season's run during the period marked by the end of episode [insert episode number immediately preceding this one] and the beginning of [episode number immediately following this one], that aired on [original air date] for the first time. Which is true, if overly narrow. It will always be the best example of an episode of this series with it's episode title.

Perhaps add some damnation with faint praise... like this episode taught an important lesson about how we shouldn't binge watch an entire season of this show... or it was the perfect adventure to make you feel like you had 44 minute nap. Highlights included the brilliantly telegraphed breaks to commercial and it contains the best transition to the end credits in the entire series run.

Specific critiques of the episode will have to be made, but if you didn't enjoy it the first time through, gather some fellow fans and party watch it, and take notes of the snark it's given.

If you'd like a very nice library of examples, I highly recomend a viewing of SFDebris' opinionated reviews. He mostly reviews Star Trek, but just about every show has some appearances. One highlight of his Trek Reviews is that he scores them on a 1 to 10 scale, 10 being the best episode of a particular series and 1 being the worst (actually, he does give exactly one 0 score per series, reserved for an episode so bad, the entire franchise is damaged by association... these are awarded exactly once, and, honestly, if you don't love Trek, don't bother, as they typically tend to rely on you being a Trekie). This scale is also a bell curve, meaning that most episodes are 5 out of 10 and, as mentioned, they are relative to the quality of their series, not all Star Trek Series... what may be a 5 average Deep Space 9 episode could be a 7 or 8 if it was Voyager doing the story. He has a tendency to enjoy the original series, The Next Generation, and Deep Space 9 over Voyager and Enterprise, so his snark in the latter two is often much more apparent. Discovery, I believe, is unrated as the series is currently on going.

I would go analytical on this one. Talk about the missed opportunities, the lack of conflict, what makes you not give a crap about the characters, or the issues being presented, or in fact the resolution of the issue.

If a story falls flat, it is because the ending doesn't make a difference to the reader.

Why doesn't it? Typically because we don't care who won and who lost. The characters were shallow, or superficial, or plain unlikeable (selfish, cruel, uncaring or unfeeling to other characters, etc). and we aren't certain whether a right was wronged, or if a punishment was deserved (in a Karmic sense).

If you felt nothing, figure out why. Where did it go off the rails? When did you stop caring? It is also possible the goal of the episode just seemed puerile or nonsensical, so success or failure are equally puerile.

That is how I would review it, or write an essay about "flat" that I could find interesting to read, and it could be interesting to write and learn something for the future.