Show and Tell

[Harbinger]

I was reading on this topic and found an article that says if you find 'was' in a sentence you most likely are telling instead of showing. To my horror a word search on my recent scene turned up several cases of 'was'. This is something most probably struggle with at some point and I 'was' wondering how I can avoid this pitfall in my writing and how others make sure they are showing and not telling.

[Jess A]

Hmm. I've seen published writers who have this setback as well. Jean Auel goes too far in her descriptions in The Plains of Passage. It's common in first-person too.

Perhaps the best way to avoid it is to have certain points about your world, culture and characters' pasts (etc) explained through the actions and events in the story - instead of having blocks of description about things. Also, some things aren't really necessary and should be left to the readers' imaginations. Certain hints and tips clue people off and build a better picture than blocks of description about the religion or lore.

I am trying to think of the best way to explain this. A very basic example would be the sudden knowledge that dragons or something exist in the world because your character encounters one, not because you said early on 'dragons were very common in -world name here-'. It becomes an active action scene which pushes the plot forward rather than a paragraph about dragons when the dragons themselves never show up elsewhere.

Sorry if this makes no sense - I'm in a hurry as I'm expecting company shortly

[Devor]

I read on this topic and found an article that says if you find 'was' in a sentence you most likely are telling instead of showing. To my horror a word search on my recent scene turned up several cases of 'was'. Most probably struggle with this at some point. How can I avoid this pitfall in my writing and how do others make sure they are showing and not telling.

I don't mean to make fun of you. I'm hoping that it helps to see how much you're using a passive voice even right now (of course, it doesn't matter here). I had the same problem a few years ago and had to deal with it myself.

[Steerpike]

Keep in mind that the broad advice of "show don't tell" isn't always the greatest. Fiction generally encompasses a combination of both, and there are times when it is more effective to "tell" and times when it is more effective to "show." I would not go through a work and look at every instance of "telling" and flag it as wrong without further analysis.

[Benjamin Clayborne]

"Show, don't tell" means don't tell us that something has a characteristic; show us that thing having that characteristic.

If you've got a character who's dashing, don't say "He's dashing," show him doing something dashing. If you've got a tribe of bloodthirsty killers, don't just tell us they are, show them doing something bloodthirsty.

However, you don't have to show them doing it. A character in your story who relates past events is still showing it to you (even if it's filtered through that character's memories/personality). Characters who warn your protagonist about the tribe of bloodthirsty killers who live in the mountains, and describe some of the horrible things they've done, that's perfectly fine (although it's better if the reader gets to see some of this firsthand, too).

"Was" is more about the passive voice, not about "show, don't tell." And frankly, there's nothing wrong with using the passive voice when describing things. "There was a bucket by his feet." There's nothing wrong with that. You could say "A bucket sat by his feet," except the bucket isn't doing anything, it isn't moving, so either one is equally meaningful, and a bucket doesn't have to feel active.

People, however, should be described with the active voice as much as possible. "Bob was at the foot of the stairs." No, Bob stood at the foot of the stairs, or lounged, or rested, or waited.

[Phil the Drill]

I've read lots of books that use the passive voice and active voice together. It's almost impossible not to use it just a little bit. I think if a writer tells good enough stories, I don't pay attention to the sentence structures as much. Good writers can blend different types of sentences seemlessly.

And another thing about adverbs. People say not to use them either, but one of my favorite writers, China Mieville, uses them liberally (adverb) in Perdido Street Station. So again, if the story proves good enough, then don't worry so much with the passive vs. active argument.

[Ravana]

People, however, should be described with the active voice as much as possible. "Bob was at the foot of the stairs." No, Bob stood at the foot of the stairs, or lounged, or rested, or waited.

Actually, that isn't a question of passive voice, it's a question of imprecise vocabulary. The second just says a lot more than the first does. Both are active—"was" is the main (and only) verb: it is not serving as an auxiliary to anything.

Any guide that tells you to eliminate "was" (or any specific word) probably isn't worth the paper it's printed on. (I suspect I could have left "probably" out of that sentence, but I didn't want to risk the chance there might be an exception somewhere. ) "Was" happens to fall into three different favorite hate categories for most guides: as a vague, imprecise verb, when it appears as the main one rather than as an auxiliary; as an indicator of passive voice; and as a common component of complex tenses ("He was going to the store" vs. "He went to the store"—though more often the problem is more along the lines of "He had been going to the store," when "He was going to the store" is what's intended: sometimes you need progressive tenses, after all). Which is why lazy guides will tell you to look for "was": it will inevitably occur as an auxiliary at times, even if it never shows up as a main verb or as part of a passive construction… so they're guaranteed a way to make you feel inferior, without needing to know the first thing about your actual skill level. What they should tell you to look for is all instances of "be," "have," "do," and modal verbs ("can, could, shall, should, may, might, must, ought, will, would"), so that you can clean up all of the unnecessary occurrences, replacing vagueness with greater detail and leaving complex tenses (and, yes, passives) only where they're appropriate. (I'd also add "go + [infinitive]" constructions to the list, though "go" is not considered an auxiliary verb; it's still frequently an indicator of unnecessary complexity… and where occurring as the main verb, is almost always replaceable with a more specific one.)

For that matter, passive voice is not limited to appearances of "was": the form of "be" is dictated by the tense being used ("History is written by the victor"; "Dinner will be served at eight."), so it makes a lousy guideline anyway. (Though please not "A lousy guideline is made by it"! )

Conversely, anybody who slavishly eliminates all occurrences of complex tenses and passive voice will never see publication, because his writing will sound like it was written by a mediocre fourth-grader. (Worse, one from an American public school… no, that's not quite right: they can't write complete sentences at all.) There are definitely good reasons to limit the appearance of both, as overuse leads to excess verbiage without contributing anything to the work—at best, if not detracting from it in terms of pacing at least. The key here is "over"use… and the trick is figuring out what constitutes that. Which no style guide can tell you.

Same with adjectives and adverbs: try removing all of them and see how flat your writing comes out. But if you can accomplish the same task with a more precise verb, do so, and leave the adverb(s) off. (For a good comparison, try reversing the process some time: put at least one—or more than one—adverb in front of every verb. It won't take long to realize why they're such favored targets. The same works with adjectives, though they get less flak overall.)

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Consider me schooled ;-)

[Telcontar]

Yeah, not sure if something so simple as tracking the word 'was' is a useful rule.

It's something that is easy to identify once you have a good grasp on what it is. Benjamin put it well above. It also has to do with trusting your reader to get what you mean - if you don't think they'll get it, then you're not portraying it well enough. Let me try a threefold example:

Bad, completely telling:

"Ben was cruel."
We know Ben is cruel, but in the most boring way possible.

Better, showing a little:

"Ben held Carl still, and laughed."
Sorta works, but not entirely clear. No doubt context would help it along, but still lots of room for improvement.

Best, showing exactly what we mean:

"Ben twisted Carl's arm behind his back, laughing at the little man's struggle to free himself."
This illustrates that Ben is laughed at holding Carl against his will, a pretty cruel thing to do. We never use that word, but if we asked the reader 'Is Ben cruel?" they'd probably say yes.

I probably shouldn't muck up the issue at hand, but I'll also say that "Show, don't tell" is rule of thumb, not a law of writing. You want to avoid it, but sometimes it is necessary (or at least allowable). However, until you can explain why and when it is necessary to tell instead of show, you're better off steering clear of it.

[ShortHair]

I would add that passive voice is just that, a phrase that presents information but has no sense of movement. Ideally, you want your reader to feel like s/he is riding a roller coaster. From the first sentence to the last, make your story a thrill ride with loops and curves and dropoffs, highs and lows, screaming to make it stop and screaming for more when it's over. Every sentence should pull the reader onward.

By definition, passive voice has no subject, no actor doing something. You're leaving out a key part of the sentence. If you find yourself using passive voice, ask yourself why. Are you hiding something from the reader? Are you presenting information without moving the story forward? Are you papering over something you haven't quite defined or decided? Can you incorporate the information in an action performed by a suitable character? Can you say the same thing with a straightforward, active-voice, declarative sentence? Most importantly, do you want to sound like an article in a medical journal?