• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Tell, Don't Show

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
As most of you know, I'm a big proponent of Show, Don't Tell. I think, overall, the technique is more engaging.

Obviously, it doesn't work for all cases. My favorite example of when to tell is the transition between scenes. When nothing interesting happens but you want to convey the passage of time and space, telling the reader that the characters traveled to long road to whereever over the next week is much better than chapters of nothing plot related happening.

I think that I took my advice too far in my second draft. By not wanting to tell my reader about my character's emotional state, I created more distance from my character than I wanted.

I'm still on the fence, however. What do you think about something like this:

Dr. Hardin left Tasia in charge until he returned, and the added responsibility added to her nervousness.

It's clearly telling us about her emotional state and the reason for it, and one part of me thinks it's poor technique. On the other hand, I don't want to spend the story space needed to show her nervousness further than I already have; it's just not that important.

Also, I'm more worried about the principle than the actual instance.

Throwing telling phrases like this in seem to bring the reader close to the POV character, but they grate against what I think "proper" technique should be.

I'd love to hear some opinions on the subject.

Thanks!
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
It's perfectly fine. Just about any book you pick up is going to have examples of this. The stylistic choice is determining how much of this to do versus how much showing. Neither approach evidences 'poor' technique, and you can write a perfectly good book using a great deal of telling. As much as people sometimes hate to hear it, it is a stylistic choice and not an issue of right or wrong.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
It's hard to comment on a sentence out of context. There's nothing wrong with telling us that added responsibility added to his nervousness. I think you take "show don't tell" way too literal and absolute. Are we not allowed to write "that made him nervous"? I think that's crazy, especially when you rip the sentence out of context. I could tell you to show us what made him nervous, but I wouldn't say that saying so means this sentence should be scrapped. That could be the next sentence and it would be fine.

Does it flow? Is it relevant? Who is this character and how much do we need to understand him? This is a POV character? Does anything happen while he's in charge? Are readers familiar enough with the position and those responsibilities to demonstrate them, or would they require lengthy introductions all their own? Even if it's telling, and telling is a problem, the answer isn't always showing. For all I know the whole scene should be scrapped or replaced, and telling you to expand it with showing will do you more harm than good.

In short, stop with the rules, look at the story you're trying to tell, and go with your gut.
 

Amanita

Maester
I agree with Steerpike.
In my opinion, a good mixture of both techniques is the best way to go. Long descriptions of people's body language which may or may not tell the reader which emotion the character is feeling aren't always the best path and sometimes take away from the actual plot. This can also cause the reader to feel as if he was standing besides the characters rather than being in their heads.
The term "storyteller" doesn't exist for no reason. Something put into words rather than say moving pictures can't "show" everything. (The last paragraph is my own personal opinion and not something I want to lay into Steerpike's mouth. ;))
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
It's hard to comment on a sentence out of context.

That's a problem that I continually have. I like to discuss theory and philosophy of writing, and most of the respondents don't seem to feel that it's valid to even have a theory or philosophy.

Of course it's impossible to discuss a sentence out of context. That one sentence means nothing to me.

I'd like some input on the technique. There have to be some writers out there who agree that it's okay to develop rules and techniques.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
That's a problem that I continually have. I like to discuss theory and philosophy of writing, and most of the respondents don't seem to feel that it's valid to even have a theory or philosophy.

That's a misreading of the responses. Theories or philosophies are perfectly valid, but one has to realize they are largely person and based on what suits the author's style. If you think there exists one theory that is true to the exclusion of others you are fooling yourself. Sorry if that bothers you.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Of course it's impossible to discuss a sentence out of context. That one sentence means nothing to me.

I'd like some input on the technique. There have to be some writers out there who agree that it's okay to develop rules and techniques.

You don't understand. A discussion of technique and theory requires more than one sentence. Flow and momentum have to build over time. Real theory would require a model, not just a formula.

I also asked a whole bunch of questions about the sentence. They're all relevant, but you haven't addressed them. If you want someone to validate your sentences, I think you should try something else. If you really want an answer to your question, you have to accept that it might get complicated and not look for reasons to ignore the answers you don't like.
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
You don't understand. A discussion of technique and theory requires more than one sentence. Flow and momentum have to build over time. Real theory would require a model, not just a formula.

I also asked a whole bunch of questions about the sentence. They're all relevant, but you haven't addressed them. If you want someone to validate your sentences, I think you should try something else. If you really want an answer to your question, you have to accept that it might get complicated and not look for reasons to ignore the answers you don't like.

I don't want to discuss the sentence. I want to discuss a concept and get past what I used as an example to illustrate which concept I wish to discuss. I don't care about the sentence.

I want to get my readers closer to my POV character emotionally.

Is it more effective to tell the reader what the character is feeling and why?

OR

Is it more effective to show an action and leave the interpretation of the action to the reader?

EDIT: In retrospect: this would have been a better initial post, though the first paragraph wouldn't have made any sense :)
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
BWFoster:

The answer (unfortunately it seems) is that 'it depends.' It depends in part on the style of the writer, and in part on the preferences of the reader. You can take a book like Lev Grossman's The Magicians, which has a lot of telling and is an engaging read and is well done, and you can easily see how taking out that telling and replacing it with showing would have hurt the book. On the other hand, you can find well-written, effective books with very little telling.

On par, you need some of both, and if you want people closer to your POV character, telling is a very good way to accomplish that. If you've been concentrating exclusively on trying to show all the time, then it doesn't surprise me that you feel you've lost some distance. One reason it is good to throw some telling in at times is that not everyone interprets the same words, visual cues, and so on the same. If you're relying solely on showing, then you've got plenty of room for misinterpretation on the part of the reader. Even if the reader is viewing the words or acts correctly but doesn't place as much weight on certain things as you do, then the extent to which they identify a certain emotion with what you are 'showing' can vary. 'Telling' is a short-cut that chops through all of that and lets the reader know, directly, the emotions that are at stake. If it is done well, it can be just as engaging and in many cases it can bridge the gap that is left by showing.

Try writing a scene both ways and see which is more effective.
 
Here's the rub.

You can say this added to her nervousness, but I as a reader will never take your word for it. In fact, I demand every time I read someone telling me something along the lines of "X was a charmer" or "This lead to that" to show me how and why. Even in transition, it can be proven and displayed with ease and gather great attention from the reader.

Example: Dr. Hardin left Tasia in charge until he returned, and the added responsibility added to her nervousness.

Show me a few things out of character for her. She might spill some coffee when someone clears their throat, or drop files when the phone rings. Two or three lines, maybe 10-15 words each, will give more definition to her character and will allow the reader to identify with her. We've all been there, it's low hanging sympathetic fruit.

You must take every chance you can to expand and express your characters. Never leave it to simple telling.
 

srcroft

Minstrel
Show tell etcetc

I don't want to discuss the sentence. I want to discuss a concept and get past what I used as an example to illustrate which concept I wish to discuss. I don't care about the sentence.

I want to get my readers closer to my POV character emotionally.

Is it more effective to tell the reader what the character is feeling and why?

OR

Is it more effective to show an action and leave the interpretation of the action to the reader?

EDIT: In retrospect: this would have been a better initial post, though the first paragraph wouldn't have made any sense :)

It is more effective to show and leave to interpretation. BUT there is more than show or tell.

Tell:
Beth was depressed and sad.
If your reader disagrees based on context you become a narrator who isn't trusted.

Show:
Beth slumped against the wall and lowered her head. Her eyes started to well up with tears.

Dialogue:
"How could this happen to me," she cried.

None of these is sufficient to connect the reader so lets combine and make the context up thorough but not rammed down the readers throat.

Mix:
This had become the worst day ever. Beth slumped against the wall and lowered her head. "How could this happen to me," she cried. Her eyes started to well up with tears.

OK so I told (but didn't give emotion or feeling), I showed action to support the dialogue in context to display the interpretation.

Now the reader can say- She's sad, depressed, hurt, angry--whatever they want. Now as the narrator I get to stay impartial and authentic while the character doesn't get flattened by statements of emotion. One who thing to notice in your words is the use of -LY ending. LY is a cheat it means nothing. sadLY or happiLY--those are fast cheats to express how you define a feeling.

Now rhythm is just as important:
Too much show slows down the novel. Too much tell kills the connection. Dialogue is about the only thing that can take up as much space it is needed.
If you are trying to slow down and intensify, use more show. If your speeding things up and doing page turner content use dialogue and tell. But balance it all and use your technique and authorial voice to add your personality.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Is it more effective to tell the reader what the character is feeling and why?

OR

Is it more effective to show an action and leave the interpretation of the action to the reader?

The better question, the one I'm trying to talk to you about, the one that requires more than a sentence in an example, is when is it better to use one technique over the other, which depends on how does it fit into the overall narrative.

BWFoster, you've asked your question about showing and telling repeatedly across multiple threads over the past few months. If you're only going to ask the same basic question, then as a Moderator I'm going to have to ask that you not open new threads about the topic in the future. There are no rules against necromancy on this forum, and no reason that we should have to repeat the discussion while you look for the answer you want to hear.
 
Last edited:

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
Taking the sentence in question:


Dr. Hardin left Tasia in charge until he returned, and the added responsibility added to her nervousness.

Could this be more engaging for the reader if there was more show & less tell? I would tend to think so.

However, this depends solely on what you the author intend for this sentence. If getting Tasia's nervousness across is of minor concern or just some ambiance type description that really isn't relevant to the story or character development then I would say that telling, in the fashion it is written now, is just fine. Why go into detail if the details are unimportant?

On the other side, if you are trying to establish nervous tendencies as a character trait, or a specific event as something crucial and therefore apt to cause nervous reactions, then I feel it is imperative & crucial to show these through a character's responses.

There are a myriad of reasons why this reaction may be either important to your story or fairly irrelevant. The choice is yours to determine where this depiction lies and then show or tell accordingly.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
Dr. Hardin left Tasia in charge until he returned, and the added responsibility added to her nervousness.

There is a middle ground here, a little show and a little tell. If it were me and I wanted to set this up, I'd do something like this.

Tasia was in charge until Dr. Hardin returned. Her gut knotted at that thought, adding to her nervousness.

If my math is right, the original is 17 words and my humble attempt is 18 words. We get a little show and a little tell, and I don't think any information is lost. We can get rid of the comment about responsibility because being in charge implies responsibility.

Any way, thoughts?
 

Ireth

Myth Weaver
Tasia was in charge until Dr. Hardin returned. Her gut knotted at that thought, adding to her nervousness.

I'm not sure about the effectiveness of that second sentence. It sounds as if Tasia's knotted gut is making her nervous on top of her new responsibilities, when I think you mean to show that the knotted gut is a *symptom* of her nervousness. Just my two cents.
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
From Steerpike:

If you've been concentrating exclusively on trying to show all the time, then it doesn't surprise me that you feel you've lost some distance. One reason it is good to throw some telling in at times is that not everyone interprets the same words, visual cues, and so on the same. If you're relying solely on showing, then you've got plenty of room for misinterpretation on the part of the reader.

I get this. It's helpful. Thanks.

Leif wrote:

You can say this added to her nervousness, but I as a reader will never take your word for it. In fact, I demand every time I read someone telling me something along the lines of "X was a charmer" or "This lead to that" to show me how and why.

See. This was always my stance as well. However, when I did it exclusively by telling, I didn't like the distance created.

EDIT: Meant "showing" not "telling" in that last sentence.
 
Last edited:
I think the real question is how intimate do you want this story to be? Is this a fading in and out, slipping through the cracks of reality story or did you want your reader to be up close and personal?
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
The better question, the one I'm trying to talk to you about, the one that requires more than a sentence in an example, is when is it better to use one technique over the other, which depends on how does it fit into the overall narrative.

So, why don't you tell me when it's better to use one technique over another? Can't the answer be generalized enough to make some statements about it?

Frankly, going into detail in this specific instance doesn't help me a lot. I need to develop an understanding of the issue so that I can apply the technique consistently throughout my work.

BWFoster, you've asked your question about showing and telling repeatedly across multiple threads over the past few months. If you're only going to ask the same basic question, then as a Moderator I'm going to have to ask that you not open new threads about the topic in the future. There are no rules against necromancy on this forum, and no reason that we should have to repeat the discussion while you look for the answer you want to hear.

I take exception with the statement that I've asked a question about showing and telling repeatedly. That is not my recollection at all.

Perhaps you meant that Show vs. Tell is a common topic on the board and that I should have utilized an existing thread? If so, I apologize for any breaking of forum rules. I didn't realize it was a big deal. I've been around here a while now, and this is the first mention of this kind of thing that I've noticed. Maybe I haven't been observant enough.

It certainly seems like there are a lot of threads on repeat subjects. Seemingly, there are a finite number of writing topics, and most threads could be combined into a relatively small number of categories. Can you offer some guidelines on exactly what you're seeking?

I think also that your characterization of me looking for the answer that I want to hear seems like your opinion. The connotation is that I'm not open to hearing something that goes against a preconceived notion. If that isn't what you meant, I certainly will admit to seeking the answer to a specific question and trying to refine the answers to figure out how the responses pertain to that particular topic.
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
I think the real question is how intimate do you want this story to be? Is this a fading in and out, slipping through the cracks of reality story or did you want your reader to be up close and personal?

I have two goals with my writing:

1. Engage the reader - I want you to have a hard time putting my book down. For the time being, I feel pretty good about where I am on this one.
2. Elicit an emotional response - Making the characters relatable is a big part of that. Thus far, I've tried to show actions and leave the interpretation of those actions to the reader. To me, it feels too flat though.

I'm trying to figure out how to change my writing to achieve my goal.

As others have said, I think that I was taking a too strick view of only Show, no Tell. Saying now, however, that I need to do some Telling leads me to some confusion about the appropriate circumstances of when and how much to tell.

Did that answer the question?

I really need to come to an understanding before I go much further in my work.
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
None of these is sufficient to connect the reader so lets combine and make the context up thorough but not rammed down the readers throat.

Mix:
This had become the worst day ever. Beth slumped against the wall and lowered her head. "How could this happen to me," she cried. Her eyes started to well up with tears.

OK so I told (but didn't give emotion or feeling), I showed action to support the dialogue in context to display the interpretation.

I think that this must be the key.

Showing exclusively leaves too much up to the reader.

Telling doesn't prove anything.

So, guidelines would be:

Clearly express the emotion so that there is not doubt in the reader's mind.
Illustrate the effect the emotion has on the character's actions so that the impact is proved.

How does that jive with advice given to me to "filter" more of the environment through the lens of the POV character to provide emotional context?

I think the advice is correct, but I'm not always sure when and how to achieve the filtering. Any guidelines/advice?

Thanks.
 
Top