# Show, don't Tell...How do you do it?



## Androxine Vortex (Sep 10, 2012)

I've heard many people on this forum say "show don't tell" when it comes to describing things and giving detail. I've noticed that in my stories I tent to "tell" a lot. I will be in the middle of telling the actual story and then I will have to kind of pull-over and give the reader some background info. Not necessarily an info-dump but it never looks good when I go back and reread it. But there are some parts in books where it seems you have to give the reader some background info that could be crucial to understand. Anyone care to help me out with this and better explain it to me?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 10, 2012)

Regarding incorporating background into the story so that it doesn't appear like an infodump:

You need to practice the art of misdirection.  The problem arises when, lets say, the heroine is going to use a letter opener to kill the bad guy.  You have to mention the letter opener, obviously.  How you do it is the important thing.  Typically, you'd probably think to show her opening a letter with it and going on.  The reader thinks, "Oh, that's going to be important later."

Instead, focus on the letter opener as a symbol of something else.  Her noticing the letter opener leads into her thinking about a former lover who wrote her letters.  This way, the reader thinks you put it there for an entirely different reason, and the use at the end comes as a surprise.

This isn't exactly what you asked, but it's the same concept.  Think about each detail you add to your story.  What is the reader's likely expectation regarding that detail?  How can you subvert that expectation to surprise them?  By adding subtlety and layers to your writing, you'll feel that it's less predictable.

Another word of advice: most of the time when you feel you have to explain something about the background, you really don't.


----------



## yachtcaptcolby (Sep 10, 2012)

Often this applies to emotions and attitudes. Don't just say someone's angry; show him stomping around, breaking stuff, and screaming. Don't just say someone's uncomfortable; describe his sweaty palms or a nervous tic that suddenly manifests.


----------



## gavintonks (Sep 10, 2012)

avoid they did this and then they did that

engage your characters through the pov that is why you have one

Then look at the action through dialogue and interaction of your characters as if you were describing it in real life

John walked into the forest
John walked into the forest, his clothes blended perfectly with the autumn leaves I would not have noticed if it were not for the deer I was hunting
I saw john walk into the forest
John was furtive tonight and kept looking over his shoulder when he entered the forest as usual tonight
"Jane," I whispered why is John walking into the forest?" 
John had no idea when he walked into the Forrest how many eyes were watching him
"here comes John." the mouth below the eyes whispered, "pass it along if hissed," the voice dripped with hunger and he was to be lunch.

You have to explore what engages the reader and makes you want to read more and find out why and what John was doing instead of telling us what John has just done or is doing


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Sep 10, 2012)

Here's an example from my WIP

Mogruk did not mind being sent off to hunt. In fact, it thrilled him and he felt that it was the only time he was at peace. He was not the greatest of hunters but the joy of killing and the stimulating hunt indulged him. He recalled that one time he killed a lone wolf in these woods many years ago. It's pelt was still wrapped around his loins. Unconsciously, he traced the small scar on his forearm that the wolf had given him with it's razor sharp claws. But having scars to an orc was an honorable thing. They were trophies of your battles and meant that you were victorious. It also meant that you've got a good story to tell later around the fire when everyone is drunk.

I wanted to let the reader know that Orcs view having scars as honorable and was accepted in their society. Is this fine though?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 10, 2012)

> Mogruk did not mind being sent off to hunt.



This is a telling passage and is not needed.  Let Mogruk's actions show that he enjoys hunting.  Have him caress his spear (or whatever).  Have him lovingly mend his camo outfit.  Show him existing in the hunt as a man at complete peace with his surroundings.  You get the point. 



> In fact, it thrilled him and he felt that it was the only time he was at peace. He was not the greatest of hunters but the joy of killing and the stimulating hunt indulged him.



See my comments above.  You seem to feel the need to tell the reader everything about your character.  If you show him acting, the reader will come to these conclusions (or draw their own).  The reader doesn't need to know he's a bad hunter to experience the hunt with your character.  If you show someone more skillful or show the others making fun of his ability, they will come to understand that he's not good.  That's much better than you telling him.  

Question: Do you realize that these sentences are telling?  If so, that's a good first step.  If not, tell me and I'll see if I can help.

Advice: For each of these sentences, ask yourself "how can I show this to the reader instead?"



> He recalled that one time he killed a lone wolf in these woods many years ago. It's pelt was still wrapped around his loins. Unconsciously, he traced the small scar on his forearm that the wolf had given him with it's razor sharp claws.



This is much better.  You're showing him tracing a scar which leads to remembering.  I'd take it a step further and start the first sentence with: The feel of the pelt wrapped around his loins transported him back to the time he killed a lone wolf.  He traced...



> But having scars to an orc was an honorable thing. They were trophies of your battles and meant that you were victorious. It also meant that you've got a good story to tell later around the fire when everyone is drunk.



This is also telling but, IMO, is more acceptable.  Why you ask?  My thinking is that you want to reveal character through action.  Any facts about your character need to be brought out through demonstrations.  It's more acceptable, on the other hand, to reveal facts about the society though telling.  It's not ideal, granted, but it's much better than doing the same with a character.  After all, to reveal everything about a society through demonstation may take up far to much space than is warranted.  Alway, though, consider trying to show these details if you can work them into a scene.


----------



## Lorna (Sep 10, 2012)

Some of it's good but some parts still stand out as telling. 



> Mogruk did not mind being sent off to hunt. In fact, it thrilled him and he felt that it was the only time he was at peace.



Here you're telling the reader what Mogruk's emotions are rather than describing how he feels. I don't know Mogruk so wouldn't know how to describe his emotions exactly, but to me the thrill of the hunt sounds like a release from some kind of inner pain. Could you describe this thrill in terms of his physical sensations ie. blood racing, pulse lifting as well as the lifting of the burden of his inner conflict and desire for peace? 



> He was not the greatest of hunters but the joy of killing and the stimulating hunt indulged him.



What about killing brings Morgruk joy? What kind of anticipation is he feeling? Does he lust for the chase, for the blood, does he enjoy watching slaughter? What kind of indulgence is he seeking? Thinking through these questions will provide more concrete depcitions of Morgruk's emotions.



> He recalled that one time he killed a lone wolf in these woods many years ago. It's pelt was still wrapped around his loins. Unconsciously, he traced the small scar on his forearm that the wolf had given him with it's razor sharp claws.



This is really good. Here I'm seeing into looking into Morgruk's mind. I'm observing his memory and seeing him trace his scar. 



> But having scars to an orc was an honorable thing. They were trophies of your battles and meant that you were victorious. It also meant that you've got a good story to tell later around the fire when everyone is drunk.



I like what you're doing here. Could you make it less telling by re-working these as Morgruk's thoughts. Describe his sense of honour in his scars, his feelings of victory, the complements of his fellows and the story telling.


----------



## Ireth (Sep 10, 2012)

> But having scars to an orc was an honorable thing. They were trophies of your battles and meant that you were victorious.



If you wanted to take it a bit further yet, you could combine this with the previous sentence. "Unconsciously he traced the small scar left where the wolf had clawed his forearm -- proof that he had emerged victorious from the fight." Or something like that. You may not want to, and that's fine too.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 10, 2012)

> > *Mogruk did not mind* being sent off to hunt.
> 
> 
> This is a telling passage and is not needed. Let Mogruk's actions show that he enjoys hunting. Have him caress his spear (or whatever). Have him lovingly mend his camo outfit. Show him existing in the hunt as a man at complete peace with his surroundings. You get the point.



I agree with trying to show more than tell, but sometimes it's needed.  In this case, showing Mogruk enjoying the hunt is great, except that we wouldn't know it's actually not something he is supposed to enjoy.  Not the bold words.  He doesn't mind it, that means that most people _do mind it._  This is a good example, in my opinion, of a case where telling is acceptable and necessary.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 10, 2012)

The phrase is missing a word. It should be "Show don't tell... sometimes." Its application can be very nebulous. The most simple application is with emotion. Like mention above, instead of saying Fred was angry, you can say Fred threw a frying pan across the room. But sometimes if your prose around sets it up just right the phrase Fred was angry can be very powerful too. 

One of the lessons I learned about writing is sometimes it's perfectly fine to tell, knowing when is the true skill. It's all very story dependant. For example, do you show the journey of your characters between say two cities or do you just tell and summarize it? Both are perfectly valid options, but you have to think about what the story needs. If the journey doesn't reveal anything important, it's probably better to just skip it.

But there are other applications to the concept.  For example if you have fast running zombies in your world, don't have a character saying we have fast running zombies, have your characters encounter them. OR if you're trying to express a theme or message, don't have your characters just monologue about it. Find a way to express it in a scene and through your character interactions. Here's a example from a move I just rewatched, No Country for Old Men. Small spoiler alert. 

The movie explores this question of violence. There's an appearance that violence has gotten worse in recent times. There's a scene where a character is told that there was violence happening long before and there will be more long after. That this isn't a country for old men. 

Now at the end, this is illustrated (shown) to us in a very subtle scene. The killer that's been running rough-shot through the whole movie like a force of nature get's t-boned in his car. He gets out and he's pretty messed up, broken arm with a bone sticking out. A couple of kids come riding up and they're "Holly crap are you OK, Mister?" The bad guy offers money to the kid for his shirt. The kid goes, "Heck if you need it, take it." The kid literally gives the guy the shirt off his back. The killer gives the kid the money anyway and walks away as sirens scream in the distance.

This is how I read the scene. The reason why there appears to be more violence is as kids we don't see it, were not aware of it even when it's in front of us. The kids don't see the evil killer. All they see is a man that's hurt and they're willing to do what ever they can to help him. The killer doesn't harm the kids because they're not apart of that violent world yet, but giving them that money brings them one step closer. 

This scene encapsulates an idea, a statement. It doesn't tell us it shows it to us by having it play out before our eyes.  


Now as for relating back story. To me, it's less about show not tell, than know then tell. What I mean by that is know when you can reveal back story and know how much you can reveal it so it feels natural. If a character meets an old friend, it's perfectly fine to reveal a little of their history and any sort of conflict they have because of that history. How much you reveal right then and there is dependant on relevant it is to the present situation. Generally the less relevant the less you need to reveal.

I'm finding it a bit hard to articulate further, but I'd suggest peeking at one of your favorite authors and study one of their chapters. See how they handle these things.

Hopefully this helps a bit. Sorry for being so long winded.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 10, 2012)

OP,

Anytime you have a Show Don't Tell thread, you're going to have someone post saying that sometimes it's okay to tell.

At this point in your learing of the craft, I'd say that learning how to show is much more important than learning when to show.  Once you really understand the difference and what each method does for the reader, you can make informed decisions on when to show and when to tell.  For now, I think that you will find your writing much more engaging if you do more showing and less telling.

The paragraph as you had it is not likely to pull the reader in.  A scene in which you have good emotion and tension in which you show these things will engage the reader and make them feel closer to your character.

Hope this helps clear up any confusion.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 10, 2012)

Ankari said:


> I agree with trying to show more than tell, but sometimes it's needed.  In this case, showing Mogruk enjoying the hunt is great, except that we wouldn't know it's actually not something he is supposed to enjoy.  Not the bold words.  He doesn't mind it, that means that most people _do mind it._  This is a good example, in my opinion, of a case where telling is acceptable and necessary.



I think the way that he expressed it was not engaging.  Period.

Is it possible to include that sentence as a part of an engaging piece.  Probably.

I'm not sure the reason for the quibble.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 10, 2012)

Androxine Vortex said:


> Here's an example from my WIP
> 
> Mogruk did not mind being sent off to hunt. In fact, it thrilled him and he felt that it was the only time he was at peace. He was not the greatest of hunters but the joy of killing and the stimulating hunt indulged him. He recalled that one time he killed a lone wolf in these woods many years ago. It's pelt was still wrapped around his loins. Unconsciously, he traced the small scar on his forearm that the wolf had given him with it's razor sharp claws. But having scars to an orc was an honorable thing. They were trophies of your battles and meant that you were victorious. It also meant that you've got a good story to tell later around the fire when everyone is drunk.
> 
> I wanted to let the reader know that Orcs view having scars as honorable and was accepted in their society. Is this fine though?



Overall I don't think this is bad at all. You slipped in that bit bit of back story about killing a lone wolf nicely and I think you got your point across in a natural manner. 

I disagree that the first sentence is too telling. It actually does a lot of work. It establishes that Mogruk didn't necessarily go on the hunt voluntarily. He was told to, suggesting he's not one of high rank and possibly weak. It also reveals that he kind of likes hunting although it may not be his thing, which as we're told later it isn't. I think it's fine.

Also I think the second sentence about the joy of killing isn't bad either. You could expand on what the stimulation of the hunt does to him, but as is, it's simple and straightforward and establishes who Mogruk is quickly. We're in his head right now, which is fine, but don't stay inside his head too long. There has to be a balance between exploring the internal and the external world.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 10, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think the way that he expressed it was not engaging.  Period.
> 
> Is it possible to include that sentence as a part of an engaging piece.  Probably.
> 
> I'm not sure the reason for the quibble.



Because removing the "telling" portion in the first sentence changes the impact of the paragraph.  Again, I do champion the efforts of showing.  I do commend you and everyone else who is helping the OP learn what is telling and how to correct it.  I don't agree with piecemeal advice.

You gave him detailed, awesome feedback on the way to identify and transform telling into showing.  Why not write a couple extra sentences and point out to the OP that even though something (like the first sentence) is telling, it's OK because it sets up a contrast.

A book that is all show and no tell will come off as a bit murky.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 10, 2012)

I liked the initial sentence. I think it works well, and accomplishes the things Ankari noted above. You know Mogruk is hunting, the phrasing tells you he is alone, it also tells you he may be unusual in his attitude toward hunting. It also tells you that he is under the authority of someone who told him to go hunt, because he was 'sent.' That's not a bad load to be borne by nine words. (EDIT: Good points, Penpilot; great minds and all  ).

It is not an uncommon way of opening a piece. I dislike teaching something incompletely, with a mind to fixing it later (e.g. we'll teach you to show all the time, and then later teach you how to know when to tell). Writers should understand from the beginning that every piece will be a mixture of showing and telling, and what's more they have to determine for themselves the proper balance between the two. It's not like either telling or showing is "incorrect" in and of itself. They are both perfectly acceptable ways to write. Good writers can use telling predominantly and write a good story. Good writers can also use showing predominantly.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 10, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Because removing the "telling" portion in the first sentence changes the impact of the paragraph.  Again, I do champion the efforts of showing.  I do commend you and everyone else who is helping the OP learn what is telling and how to correct it.  I don't agree with piecemeal advice.
> 
> You gave him detailed, awesome feedback on the way to identify and transform telling into showing.  Why not write a couple extra sentences and point out to the OP that even though something (like the first sentence) is telling, it's OK because it sets up a contrast.
> 
> A book that is all show and no tell will come off as a bit murky.



Truthfully, I have a hard time seeing how you can use that first sentence effectively.  Maybe you can.  

If I were the author, I'd would try to work the detail he provided into the work and show his reactions.


----------



## gavintonks (Sep 10, 2012)

First off what or who is the pov?

"Mogruk, go and get something to eat," The old woman screeched at him,"What do the gods feed us, she stumbled and feigned a kick at his backside,>' they all laughed, He smiled, he did not mind being sent off to hunt. He jogged down the path with his weapons, clean and ready for use, his mind now at peace with the world. he drew in a deep breath, almost a sigh of contentment.
I am sure they send me to hunt for practice, probably would starve if they relied on me only, he though a little more seriously. His prize hunted wold pelt reminded him a it had grown a bit stiff and chaffed his leg as he ran."need to get another." he shouted to the forest, this time he will prepare get better, it was a reminder of how long since he had caught and killed anything.

He thought of the tooth scar and now that bloody would was getting its own back on him, will have a chaffing scar as well, he was so used to moving the pelt for better comfort now. Well at least the elders had tease him about the tooth, calling it a thorn snag, they were proud of him.

Well at least he had a story and a scar for naming day, he needed another more exciting one though if he was going to be named the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.............
good luck with your story


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I liked the initial sentence. I think it works well, and accomplishes the things Ankari noted above. You know Mogruk is hunting, the phrasing tells you he is alone, it also tells you he may be unusual in his attitude toward hunting. It also tells you that he is under the authority of someone who told him to go hunt, because he was 'sent.' That's not a bad load to be borne by nine words. (EDIT: Good points, Penpilot; great minds and all  ).
> 
> It is not an uncommon way of opening a piece. I dislike teaching something incompletely, with a mind to fixing it later (e.g. we'll teach you to show all the time, and then later teach you how to know when to tell). Writers should understand from the beginning that every piece will be a mixture of showing and telling, and what's more they have to determine for themselves the proper balance between the two. It's not like either telling or showing is "incorrect" in and of itself. They are both perfectly acceptable ways to write. Good writers can use telling predominantly and write a good story. Good writers can also use showing predominantly.



Regardless of what you like and dislike and what good writers can do, I truly believe that the OP, who earlier today posted saying that he is discouraged with his writing efforts, would be better off trying to learn how to show.  I think he'll find his piece more engaging and will thus be more encouraged by his efforts.

The OP also said in the title: Show, don't tell... how do you do it?

I'm doing my best to do just that: teach him how to show.  Is it really helpful to him at this point in time to get into the same argument again about when to show and when to tell?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 10, 2012)

gavintonks said:


> First off what or who is the pov?
> 
> "Mogruk, go and get something to eat," The old woman screeched at him,"What do the gods feed us, she stumbled and feigned a kick at his backside,>' they all laughed, He smiled, he did not mind being sent off to hunt. He jogged down the path with his weapons, clean and ready for use, his mind now at peace with the world. he drew in a deep breath, almost a sigh of contentment.
> I am sure they send me to hunt for practice, probably would starve if they relied on me only, he though a little more seriously. His prize hunted wold pelt reminded him a it had grown a bit stiff and chaffed his leg as he ran."need to get another." he shouted to the forest, this time he will prepare get better, it was a reminder of how long since he had caught and killed anything.
> ...



See.  This is much more interesting than the original paragraph.  It drew me right in.

Good job using that sentence, btw.  I like it the way you worked it in.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 10, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm doing my best to do just that: teach him how to show.  Is it really helpful to him at this point in time to get into the same argument again about when to show and when to tell?



I think part of teaching someone to show is teaching them when to do it as well as how. Knowing when to do it, or not to do it, or when either choice will serve you, is part of the 'how.' You can certainly show instead of tell, here. There's nothing wrong with that approach. But there's nothing wrong with mentioning, as well, that it is OK to tell. That's the nature of a discussion thread, and I don't see a problem with divergent viewpoints being shown.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 10, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> See.  This is much more interesting than the original paragraph.  It drew me right in.
> 
> Good job using that sentence, btw.  I like it the way you worked it in.



But the tone changed.  I don't want to mince ideas with you (although I am, so go ahead) but the image I got of the scene from the POV's writing was darker, more serious.  In Gavintonks version it's a bit comical.  I even think of Mogruk as a wussy in Gavintonk's version.  I mean, an old woman is feigning a kick to Mogruk's backside. 

If someone does something right, do we untrain that person to do something else?  I think that the OP's version was a bit telling, but a few changes in his choice of words would preserve _his_ tone and keep it from being overly telling.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 10, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> See.  This is much more interesting than the original paragraph.  It drew me right in.



But this isn't Androxine's story, is it? It's Gavin's story.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 10, 2012)

I'll just share the first paragraph to a well known book by a very well known writer. I think it parallels a little of what A. Vortex did. On the surface, it's all telling, but the subtext shows a lot more. It's not always about starting off at a 100mph.



> Shadow had done three years in prison. He was big enough, and looked don't-****-with-me enough that his biggest problem was killing time. So he kept himself in shape, and taught himself coin tricks, and thought about how much he loved his wife.



One last note. IMHO any writing 'rule' taken to the extreme is a dangerous thing and has the potential to screw up one's writing, whether that's showing or telling.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 10, 2012)

@Penpilot:

That's a good book


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Sep 10, 2012)

Thank you for all the responses! First off let me point out that the previous paragraphs had Mogruk hunting a deer and failing to kill it on his first shot and took a second try to get it (that also shows that he isn't a great hunter) and that this excerpt is not the opening to my novel, though it is close to the beginning.  Also, the last paragraph went into detail about how in orcish culture, different warriors were sent into the woods to hunt and once they returned with their kill then they would be welcomed back at their tables to feast and drink. That's why the next paragraph opened with, "Mogruk did not mind being sent off to hunt."

Actually the main part of this that i had though I had wrong was the section about him tracing his scar because then it jumps off to describe how orcs view their scars and it isn't really about the MC anymore. I didn't know that I really messed up on the initial part. I am new at this way of thinking/writing and I still am having a little bit of trouble with this. There's a lot of you saying you likw it and others who say you don't. I think i have an understanding on show and tell though I don't see how I could write the first sentence as a "show." i already did kind of show that he isn't a good hunter in the previous paragraph but I am now kind of explaining it further. This is the first time you meet the MC and I wanted to just give some short info about him.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 10, 2012)

Androxine:

You just have to get comfortable with your own voice and figure out the style of writing that works for you. That style may even change from story to story, so in many cases it is about figure out which style is best for your story. BWFoster is right in the sense that he is expressing a preference for a certain kind of writing. Some other readers will share that preference, some will not. I think you should be guided largely by your own voice and your own sense of the story. If you're worried that you have to show more to write a good story - you don't. But if you want to show more and are concerned about how to best go about it, then I suggest looking at the advice throughout this thread and practice a few different versions of that same scene to see what you end up with.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Sep 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Androxine:
> 
> You just have to get comfortable with your own voice and figure out the style of writing that works for you. That style may even change from story to story, so in many cases it is about figure out which style is best for your story. BWFoster is right in the sense that he is expressing a preference for a certain kind of writing. Some other readers will share that preference, some will not. I think you should be guided largely by your own voice and your own sense of the story. If you're worried that you have to show more to write a good story - you don't. But if you want to show more and are concerned about how to best go about it, then I suggest looking at the advice throughout this thread and practice a few different versions of that same scene to see what you end up with.



Well I understand Show don't Tell a little bit more now. Instead of saying that Jake was a good fighter, describe how he expertly parried his opponents attacks. I just don't see how I can rewrite the first bit into a more "show" style. The actual scene that involved the hunting was done in a paragraph or two before the excerpt I posted so that would have shown he wasn't good. And this is the first time the reader gets to know the main character so I wanted to tell him/her about Mogruk.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 11, 2012)

It's all about balancing your work, learning *what* to show and *what* to tell.

Show too much, and showing the wrong things means the story can become lost in progress, muddied, if you like. Showing too much can draw out unnecessary points and events which will slow down your pace, your plot, and can throw out your structure. E.g, showing backstory, rather than telling it - how to show it is the difficult part. Do you want to actually put the characters into the backstory and go through the writing out of nightmare, dreams and flashbacks? Too many of these are confusing, jarring, makes the order of events jump around too much, in an illogical order to really make sense - unless that is what you want. IMO It's better, and more concise and clearer to tell the backstory events, and to show the current emotions and hopes, or regrets surfacing out of those memories.

Tell too much and your prose become lifeless, emotionless, a list of events without any reader immersion, but sometimes the telling is required to get your point across. e.g if you have characters travelling from place to place over a number of weeks, you really don't want to show every rut and hole in the road. You do want to show their emotional and physical status before the journey, and then also the effects of the arduous trek after it, how it has ground down their emotions, worn their shoes, lightened their load, etc.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 11, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think part of teaching someone to show is teaching them when to do it as well as how. Knowing when to do it, or not to do it, or when either choice will serve you, is part of the 'how.' You can certainly show instead of tell, here. There's nothing wrong with that approach. But there's nothing wrong with mentioning, as well, that it is OK to tell. That's the nature of a discussion thread, and I don't see a problem with divergent viewpoints being shown.



From my point of view: I offer up suggestions on how to improve the OP's writing.  Then you and others pipe up with: no, it's okay to tell.  

If you honestly believe that the OP's example paragraph was good, then I guess I don't have a problem with it.  I'd just say that we have widely different tastes on what is good.  If you didn't believe that the paragraph was good, I don't understand how your post was supposed to be helpful.  All you seemed to be saying was that "hey don't listen to this guy who is trying hard to help you.  Oh, btw, I don't really have anything else to add." 


From my perspective, I thought the paragraph was not engaging and that it needed a lot of help.  I tried to help.  

If the OP learns how to do three things - how to show, how to add tension, and how to add emotion - I think he'll find that his writing is much closer to where he wants it to be.  What exactly is the problem with trying to teach him how to show?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 11, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> But this isn't Androxine's story, is it? It's Gavin's story.



Yes, it is Gavin's story.

The point is to show Androxine an example of how it could be written.  

To be honest, I don't think Androxine, from the example paragraph that I read, is at the point where he needs to be concerned as much with his story as he should be concerned about learning better how to write.  That is what Gavin and I seem to be doing.  The rest of you seem to be just trying to criticize those who are trying to help.

Example of writing question thread:

OP: Hey, I need help on how to do this.

Me: Make the piece more active.  Try to get rid of was.  Show more to engage the reader.

Steerpike: There are no rules in writing.  

Again, I'm not sure how your response helps the OP.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 11, 2012)

Androxine Vortex said:


> Thank you for all the responses! First off let me point out that the previous paragraphs had Mogruk hunting a deer and failing to kill it on his first shot and took a second try to get it (that also shows that he isn't a great hunter) and that this excerpt is not the opening to my novel, though it is close to the beginning.  Also, the last paragraph went into detail about how in orcish culture, different warriors were sent into the woods to hunt and once they returned with their kill then they would be welcomed back at their tables to feast and drink. That's why the next paragraph opened with, "Mogruk did not mind being sent off to hunt."
> 
> Actually the main part of this that i had though I had wrong was the section about him tracing his scar because then it jumps off to describe how orcs view their scars and it isn't really about the MC anymore. I didn't know that I really messed up on the initial part. I am new at this way of thinking/writing and I still am having a little bit of trouble with this. There's a lot of you saying you likw it and others who say you don't. I think i have an understanding on show and tell though I don't see how I could write the first sentence as a "show." i already did kind of show that he isn't a good hunter in the previous paragraph but I am now kind of explaining it further. This is the first time you meet the MC and I wanted to just give some short info about him.



Androxine,

If you've already shown the reader this information, then the problem is that you need to trust them to have picked up on it.  IMO, the cardinal sin of any writer is to show something and then think he needs to explain what he just showed.  I can forgive a lot of stuff in a book, but that will make me put it down faster than almost anything else.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 11, 2012)

As I said above, I thought the initial sentences posted were fine.  A lot of good books start in that fashion (an example of that was provided). In this case, it isn't the opening of the story. 

No one said there is anything wrong with teaching him to show. The opposite is true.  However,  some of us have differing views on how to go about it and what the balance should be. The thing is,  your point of view appears to be that there is one right way to write and that it is your way. Sorry,  but that is nonsense and it leafs to this kind of post, the upshot of which appears to be that if you post advice in a thread anyone with a differing view should simply shut up.  That's not how a writing forum works. I like reading your advice, even if I'm not always in agreement. You can't take the fact that people have differing viewpoints personally.  Even a cursory examination of the bookshelves in a store will show a wide range of styles and approaches to writing fiction. There is a lot of subjectivity here and you have to expect that to play out in any community of writers. The best someone can do when posting for advice is to sift through the various viewpoints offered for the one that speaks to them most. If the OP wants to adopt your style entirely, that's fine with me. But it isn't his only option.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 11, 2012)

I agree with the sentiment that most writers should lean heavily towards showing and not telling wherever possible. Some authors may be able to get away with more telling but as a writer and reader, that doesn't work for me.  

Each of us can only speak to what works for us so I'll do the same. My biggest gripe on this issue rests with the description of action and reaction. It bothers me when an author tells me someone is scared when instead they could describe their breathing or excited when I could experience a quickening heartbeat. I cringe when I read "He swung the sword" when I'm longing to see how it was done. 

Keying on external, as well as internal, physical reactions of a POV (or those the POV notices) makes the writing come alive. Without these types of descriptions, it almost always comes of dry and flat.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 11, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> As I said above, I thought the initial sentences posted were fine.  A lot of good books start in that fashion (an example of that was provided). In this case, it isn't the opening of the story.
> 
> No one said there is anything wrong with teaching him to show. The opposite is true.  However,  some of us have differing views on how to go about it and what the balance should be. The thing is,  your point of view appears to be that there is one right way to write and that it is your way. Sorry,  but that is nonsense and it leafs to this kind of post, the upshot of which appears to be that if you post advice in a thread anyone with a differing view should simply shut up.  That's not how a writing forum works. I like reading your advice, even if I'm not always in agreement. You can't take the fact that people have differing viewpoints personally.  Even a cursory examination of the bookshelves in a store will show a wide range of styles and approaches to writing fiction. There is a lot of subjectivity here and you have to expect that to play out in any community of writers. The best someone can do when posting for advice is to sift through the various viewpoints offered for the one that speaks to them most. If the OP wants to adopt your style entirely, that's fine with me. But it isn't his only option.



I guess my problem was that you seemed to be disagreeing with me without offering solid advice to the OP.

His post, to me, indicated that he felt that his writing needed work.  I agreed and tried to offer helpful hints.

I felt like you then came in and said: don't listen to this other guy and then stopped without giving any advice to the OP.  If I'm wrong in my impression, I apologize, but that's the way it came across to me.


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 11, 2012)

I think this is another one of those "writer's rules" where only writers notice this.  Maybe some readers notice it subconsciously?  I think in general, this rule is almost always the best route.  The purpose of this rule is that readers want to be immersed in the story.  Even in everyday conversation, I notice I'm less interested if someone says:

"Dude, my mom is mad."

I'm more interested if someone says:

"Dude, my mom just busted out the back window of my dad's car with a crowbar."

Saying, "mom is mad" could mean any number of things.  Showing that she busted out a window with a crowbar shows a whole new level of "mad."  

I think even if you're showing, that doesn't necessarily mean the writing is always going to be more interesting.  However, if your story is captivating enough, readers aren't going to notice if you "tell" every so often.  And even if they do, they probably won't care.  Of course there are different levels of readers that are thrown off by these kind of things, so you have to be careful you're not telling so much that the reader can't feel the story in any meaningful way.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 11, 2012)

> I think this is another one of those "writer's rules" where only writers notice this.



Phil, 

In concept, I disagree with you on this one.  There is a definitive reason for the Show, Don't Tell rule.  Showing engages the reader.  Too much telling will definitely turn off your audience.

On a more microscale, I agree with what you say here:



> However, if your story is captivating enough, readers aren't going to notice if you "tell" every so often. And even if they do, they probably won't care.



If, overall, you do a great job of showing and engaging the reader, it's not going to kill you if you "tell" even when you should have shown.

I don't mean to imply that you have to always "show."  There are many instances where telling is definitely better and instances where it's a pure stylistic choice.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 11, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Too much telling will definitely turn off your audience.



I don't necessarily agree with this as a categorical statement. A good story can be told almost entirely through telling. Whether this statement is true or not is going to be highly dependent on the audience.

As for my purpose in this thread, it wasn't simply to contradict your advice. Ankari and Penpilot had already made posts about the show versus tell distinction, and demonstrated that differently people view the same passage in a different manner. My point was simply to reinforce that idea to Androxine, and to tell him that he's going to have to discover what works best for him and what is in accordance with his own style. That's something we all have to do. If he wants to go with 99.9% showing, that's fine by me. If that's his style of writing, great. But he shouldn't feel that he has to do so in order to produce a good story. I don't like to see authors being given imperatives when it comes to matters of style, that's all. My comments are meant to demonstrate only that there are other ways of approaching the problem, not that there is anything wrong with your way should anyone decide that's the one that suits them.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 11, 2012)

Steerpike,

Here's how I'm interpreting your viewpoint:

There is not right or wrong way to write.  However you do it will possibly attract some kind of audience somewhere.  Therefore, just write however you want.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Sep 11, 2012)

Let me say first off that I am writing this from my phone and it has a nasty habit of messing up long text. Thank you to everyone who has replied your advice is always appreciated. I can see How telling too much can be a problem but it doesn't seem like its something you have to do. Sort of like with speech tags you could go through an entire novel with just saying he said and she said. It might get very repetitious but you could do that. I can definitely see how showing give much more flavor too your story. I took a look at other parts of my story and noticed I sometimes show and tell. I might say something like HE SWING HIS SWORD IN A DOWNWARD ARC, CLEAVING THE MANS HEAD. I told that he was swinging his sword and showed how he did it. I agree with things that both BW and and Steerpike have said and some things I disagree with. But even if I get advice I don't fully agree with it still gives me a new perspective too look through. I believe that is the story engaging for the reader then these little things won't be too much a problem. So in a sense I agree with steerpike that writing and reading is all preference.but I also believe that tyring to show moor will add more color. BW, how you would have written the parts that I had that you didn't agree with? And again I'm sorry if my phone messed up my typing it is very difficult and fir some reason I can't control the cursor and go back and edit anything.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 11, 2012)

> BW, how you would have written the parts that I had that you didn't agree with?.



I'll give it a shot.



> Mogruk did not mind being sent off to hunt. In fact, it thrilled him and he felt that it was the only time he was at peace. He was not the greatest of hunters but the joy of killing and the stimulating hunt indulged him.



The point of showing is to put us inside the character's head.  Filter what is happening through him so that we can feel what he's feeling.  It gives the reader a compass for how they should interpret events.

Think about writing about the American War of Northern Agression.  You'd have a very different viewpoint if you wrote from the perspective of a yankee vs. a southerner.  

I don't have any idea about your character beyond what the paragraph that you've written tells me.  I know he's been sent to hunt, that he's not good at it, and that he enjoys killing.  Keeping these things in mind:

Morgruk trampled through the brush scattering birds and rabbits in all directions.  He hefted the fifty pounds of his club and tossed it at the nearest game.  The weapon crushed a sapling to the ground as the rabbit scampered away.  

See, this shows the reader that he's not a very good hunter.  

Later, after building up tension by making him desirous of blood and having him repeatedly deprived of it, I'd show him killing something by blind luck and reveling at the blood and the sensation of the kill.  I'd also probably show an initial scene where he's being ordered to hunt to establish his standing in the hierarchy of orcs.  

Just some thoughts.  As others have stated, though, this is my story, not yours.  I hope the example helps.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 11, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> There is not right or wrong way to write.  However you do it will possibly attract some kind of audience somewhere.  Therefore, just write however you want.



I think that may be correct as a general statement, with the caveat that whatever approach you take, you have to do it well. The proof of this is that you can quite readily identify published and successful works that run such a wide range of approaches to how to write that it is hard to argue that a writer can't do X successfully. Barring some extreme hypotheticals that we would probably both come up with, I'd say it is correct that there is not one correct approach to fiction writing to the exclusion of others. I'd also say that trying to pigeon-hole all new writers into a single approach ignores the natural differences and talents of new writers, and pushes them all toward a rather generic, interchangeable style (which I don't think is good for literature on the whole).


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 11, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think that may be correct as a general statement, with the caveat that whatever approach you take, you have to do it well. The proof of this is that you can quite readily identify published and successful works that run such a wide range of approaches to how to write that it is hard to argue that a writer can't do X successfully. Barring some extreme hypotheticals that we would probably both come up with, I'd say it is correct that there is not one correct approach to fiction writing to the exclusion of others. I'd also say that trying to pigeon-hole all new writers into a single approach ignores the natural differences and talents of new writers, and pushes them all toward a rather generic, interchangeable style (which I don't think is good for literature on the whole).



How about this:

There is a generally accepted set of techniques advocated by professional editors and the gatekeepers to traditional publishing.  These "rules" are spelled out in numerous articles, books, and blog posts and are fairly uniform.  If you wish for your writing to be considered by the above-referenced group to be professional quality, it is important that you conform to these techniques.

If you wish to create art and explore the development of your own voice, you may find these rules stifling.  It is possible for you to create works of great merit without using these techniques.

If you choose to follow the path of self discovery, you risk having your work be criticized out of hand as being unprofessional.  Further, since these rules were developed by people whose jobs it is to sell books, it's likely you're risking limiting your potential market by ignoring these techniques.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 11, 2012)

No, I still don't agree with that first paragraph. I can point you to traditionally-published books that violate these so-called rules, including debut works by authors. And they were considered professional and purchased by professional editors and agents and made it onto the shelves. So clearly any statement that says to get X you have to do Y in terms of technique is false. You might look at it in terms of likelihood, because techniques are harder to do well than others, but to say you have to conform to be considered of professional quality is simply not true.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 11, 2012)

> No, I still don't agree with that first paragraph.



I don't understand your argument.

I wrote:



> There is a generally accepted set of techniques advocated by professional editors and the gatekeepers to traditional publishing. These "rules" are spelled out in numerous articles, books, and blog posts and are fairly uniform. If you wish for your writing to be considered by the above-referenced group to be professional quality, it is important that you conform to these techniques.



I have read any number of books on the subject.  They all say the same thing.  I haven't seen one book written by a professional editor that espouses your viewpoint.  

My paragraph says that professional editors advocate specific techniques.

I don't understand how that is not considered a fact.  There are literally hundreds of books that offer the advice in some manner of following the rules.

Just because some books have been published that break some or other of these rules does not mean that the rules are invalid or imply advocating breaking the rules.  Every. Single. Book. on the subject says the same thing - follow the rules!

If you don't follow the rules, you're breaking the advice of these professionals.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 11, 2012)

Your book says that if you want your book to be accepted as professional quality by professional editors, you have to conform. That is demonstrably false. If you want to limit it to a set of editors who will only consider it professional if it conforms (assuming they exist) then you'd have a true, albeit circular, statement (e.g. to be considered as professional by editors who only consider X professional, then you have to do X; that's self-evident, but it isn't all that informative and I wonder how many such editors there are).

I realize it is important to you that there is one right way to write fiction. I'm not sure why that is, but the idea is an absolute fiction in and of itself


----------



## Aosto (Sep 11, 2012)

I think this has gone slightly off track, but I want to throw in my opinion. Writing is an art. Art doesn't conform to one set of rules. A Van Gough is not a Leonardo. I think some aspects need to be there, but in the end if your story is good and readable, people will buy it. A publisher could hate that you tell to much. But they could enjoy the story and believe others would as well.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 11, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Your book says that if you want your book to be accepted as professional quality by professional editors, you have to conform. That is demonstrably false. If you want to limit it to a set of editors who will only consider it professional if it conforms (assuming they exist) then you'd have a true, albeit circular, statement (e.g. to be considered as professional by editors who only consider X professional, then you have to do X; that's self-evident, but it isn't all that informative and I wonder how many such editors there are).
> 
> I realize it is important to you that there is one right way to write fiction. I'm not sure why that is, but the idea is an absolute fiction in and of itself



It's not a book; it's every book on the subject that I can find written by a professional.

You have people who are technical experts on a subject saying: I've spent my entire life in this profession, and this is what I've found - following this advice will improve your writing.  

Then you have people on this forum saying: No, there's no right or wrong way to do it.  Just write and whatever crap you produce will be fine because it's art.

No, it isn't fine.  I've seen a lot of writing that is anything but fine.  All those writers would do well to learn the rules.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 11, 2012)

I think that is true, Aosto. I also find it unlikely that many (if any) of the professional editors and authors who write books on writing would insist that their way is the only way to write. Noah Lukeman, for example, has a very good book on writing called "The First Five Pages." In his later book, "The Plot Thickens," which as you might surmise covers plot, he mentions the fact that some popular books give the appearance that there is one correct way to approach things. He says that despite this, *"[t]here are no steps, paths, no things you must do, and no things you cannot do. This is not a book of rules and mandates. I would be wary of any such book."* That's coming from precisely the sort of person BWFoster is referring to, and I suspect if you could gather all of those other editors into a room and press them on the issue they'd admit that, yes, you can take a variety of approaches, so long as you do it well.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 11, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> No, it isn't fine.  I've seen a lot of writing that is anything but fine.  All those writers would do well to learn the rules.



Your opinion. It isn't shared by everyone, nor should it be. Of course anyone can point of examples of books that didn't follow the rules and were a disaster. You are pointedly ignoring the existence of those that didn't follow them and were a success, and it only take one of those to refute the "absolute" nature of your contentions.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Sep 11, 2012)

Look guys I just wanted some help, that's all. You don't need to debate like this; it's obviously just going back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. I think I got what I needed from both of you so thank you for helping. If I have any other questions I hope that the *both* of you can give me some more helpful tips.


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 11, 2012)

Just for reference:

I read about 30 pages of 50 Shades of Grey.  Yes, I did it.  I'm pretty sure it broke most if not all of the rules of writing somewhere along the way.  That is one of the reasons it's so controversial.  A lot of people lament that it is not a well-written book.  Yet, it makes a ton of money.  And yes,  I know making a ton of money isn't reflective of good writing, but in this case the readers (I'm assuming of which haven't read a single book on writing) didn't care if all the rules were being broken.  

So in that case, I support Steerpike's opinion.  There is no specific, set it stone way to write and be successful.  Quality and a book's worth are in the eyes of the beholder.  

However, I support BW's opinion that following the industry standard is 99 percent of the time a good idea.  Not all good fiction is written following this standard, but I'd say a large portion of it is.  

I think Steerpike is saying there are always exceptions and ways to skirt the rules if you know what you're doing.  And I think BW is saying follow the rules if you're first starting out and you'll be better off.  

Long story short:  show and don't tell most of the time and you'll be safe.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 12, 2012)

> I realize it is important to you that there is one right way to write fiction.



This is not an accurate statement.  I am searching to define my own writing style.  I do not seek to impose, in its totality, that style on others.



Steerpike said:


> Your opinion. It isn't shared by everyone, nor should it be. Of course anyone can point of examples of books that didn't follow the rules and were a disaster. You are pointedly ignoring the existence of those that didn't follow them and were a success, and it only take one of those to refute the "absolute" nature of your contentions.



I'm really glad that most people don't share your viewpoint on this.

When I first went to my writing group, the people there took the time to share their expertise and tell me what I was doing wrong.  Because they did this, my writing improved.  It improved greatly and quickly.  

If the people in my writing group had shared your viewpoint, my writing would have take another decade to reach the level its at now, that is if I didn't just give up completely due to lack of progress.  I'm just trying to do what others have done for me: help them improve their writing.

Isn't that why people post on this forum?  To get help?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 12, 2012)

BWFoster: You are entitled to your personal opinion of what is helpful and what is not. I think your one-size fits all solution is not good for authors, beginning or otherwise. That's my viewpoint. I have no problem with your expression of your view, or with the expression of viewpoints that differ from either one of ours. As it happens, most of the members of this community are fine with the expression of varying viewpoints.

For some reason, you take disagreement on writing issues personally. I'm sorry that you insist on doing so. A writing forum like this one has, as a strength, an exchange of ideas. Not everyone is going to agree with you, or with me, or with any other single member of the forum. It's time to come to grips with that and deal with it, rather than turning a point of disagreement with you into a personal debate.

If you look back at the course of this thread, you'll see that you offered advice, as did Ankari and Penpilot. Then you felt the need to refute their advice with a general post, and then post specifically to Ankari asking him why he was quibbling with you. Then, I made a post generally on the topic, not quoting you or mentioning you in any way, and referring only to Ankari. Then you quoted my post and started arguing with it.

Don't get me wrong - I'm fine with that. I'd probably sit and debate on a thread all day, except it seems to wear on other users (as we can also see from this thread). 

I get that you think your way is right. I think my way is right, and everyone else here thinks the same about their own views on how to go about writing. I also get that you for whatever reason you have a hard time stomaching disagreement. All I can say to that is that if you are involved in a community of writers, you need to get over it. Instead of arguing back specifically with every person who gives advice different from your own, just give your advice and move on. That's my suggestion. At least until such a time as you are able to handle the idea of opposing points of view.

In any event, the particular debate here appears to have run its course. You may continue it on your own, if you wish.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 12, 2012)

My opinions as an outsider to the argument:

Although I agree with you BWF on steering the beginning writers strongly towards a sense of show, I do feel that you rail against any position that opposes your advice. 

The beginner should be allowed to experience differing viewpoints and choose which works best for them (or a composite of advice) without suffering through arguments designed to force them into a particular way of thinking. No one, especially artists, respond well to absolutes.

This is not meant as an attack on you. I think your advice and opinions are extremely valuable and well thought out. But i have to ask you...Do you really want to stifle opposing opinions? Knowing that some may choose not to respond may well rob the community of an equally valuable viewpoint, something all could benefit from...even you.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 12, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I think your advice and opinions are extremely valuable and well thought out.



I agree with this statement, and I think it is an important thing to keep in mind.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Sep 12, 2012)

I'd like to weigh in and offer a similar situation.  There are people with strong opinions regarding diet as well, and some, strongly argue the benefits of eating vegan, vegetarian, or low-carb.  Personally, if I asked a question, "How can I eat helathier?" I'd be offended when one peoson wrote back telling me about how being Vegan is the only way to go, and if I chose to eat outside the boundaries of their well-documented style, I'd be inviting cancer, diabetes, and obesity, as though opening the door.

I think this is what has happened above.  Everyone has a style which works for them, and though right now, all the cook books (or even books on how to edit you work) are leaning  one direction, that doesn't mean there is not room for another opinion.  

Let's put it frankly, people write books to make money.  If I was writing a cook book (or a book on how to edit your writing), I'd be a fool to go against the acceptable current trend.  I mean, who would buy my book?  

Same thing here.  BW is not wrong in offering us the benefits of a vegan diet (just my comparison, to hopefully alleviate tension about writing issues which have sparked confrontation), because for him, it works, he loves it, and he wants to share it.  Could many people benefit from it? ABSOLUTELY!  

But, there is nothing wrong with meat-eaters weighing in and telling what works for them.  There are health benefits to a low-carb diet as well.  

In reality, in diet as well as art, I think balance should be your first goal.  We only live once, people, treat yourself to a bit of indulgence once in a while, and if you end up with something that makes you happy, great.  It might need work to please others as well.  Not everyone writes with the ultimate goal of being published.  Some people do it for their own benefit, and if they want to improve their writing (by their own standards, or the professional standards set by publishers), then they should be able to gather information from any relevant source and apply it as necessary.  

To anyone who found my diet analogy offensive in any way, I apologize.  I studied nutrition and merely used it as a comparison to hopefully alleviate the tension derived from using writing techniques as arguments.  I find it helpful to use comparisons, because people re less attached to other labels than they are the ones they apply to themselves regarding writing styles.  Okay, I've practically written a novel here, so I'm going to stop, but my final note is: ALL WRITING STYLES HAVE MERIT!  and even if the OP needs to show more, he doesn't necessarily need to do it in every single sentence to be successful in increasing his impact.  THANKS to everyone who helped out a new writer.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 12, 2012)

> Do you really want to stifle opposing opinions?



Not at all.  I actually thought that Steerpike and I were debating our opinions during this thread.  

I do get kind of vehement about my viewpoint, obviously, but I thought that we were having an exchange of ideas.  If that's not how it was perceived, I'm sorry for the confusion.  

I had planned to let the matter drop after Steerpike's post saying this: 



> I'd probably sit and debate on a thread all day, except it seems to wear on other users (as we can also see from this thread).



Since we now seem to be debating the debate, I figured I'd respond.

Obviously, Steerpike and I have a philosophical difference.  Personally, I've found our exchange enlightening.  Though I still disagree just as vigorously, I understand the nature of that difference better now than I did.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 12, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Obviously, Steerpike and I have a philosophical difference.  Personally, I've found our exchange enlightening.  Though I still disagree just as vigorously, I understand the nature of that difference better now than I did.



I always find the discussions interesting and enlightening, and even if I am in disagreement on some philosophical issue, you clearly put a lot of time and thought into your posts and they're incredibly valuable to the community as a whole, so I'm glad there are no hard feelings. It is sometimes hard to tell when you're just posting back and forth in a forum.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 12, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I always find the discussions interesting and enlightening, and even if I am in disagreement on some philosophical issue, you clearly put a lot of time and thought into your posts and they're incredibly valuable to the community as a whole, so I'm glad there are no hard feelings. It is sometimes hard to tell when you're just posting back and forth in a forum.



Yeah.  Sorry if I gave the impression that I was upset.  

I enjoyed our conversation.

Thanks.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Sep 13, 2012)

Well I'm glad you guys have no hard feelings, I really couldn't tell if you were just debating or angrily arguing lol. I was about to call the police because I thought a fist fight would have broken out...

911 what is your emergency?

Yes there is a fight going on and I need you to intervene!

Where is the fight?

On a forum. One is near L.A. and the other is in R'lyeh. Hurry!

XD


----------



## Jabrosky (Sep 14, 2012)

My reviewers have told me I have a problem with telling too. It's not that I don't try to show; in fact, I'm actually reluctant to explicitly state characters' emotional states (e.g. "she felt sad" or "he enjoyed this") precisely because it sounds too telly. I think my issue is that I'm not sure what I must show versus what I can safely tell.

For example, I don't like going into depth about my characters' backstories, because I feel that delays me from the story's central conflict. I want to get to the Inciting Incident as soon as possible. However, sometimes I wonder if I should spend more time setting things up and showing the characters' backstories. I realize there is the solution of writing the main conflict first and then adding the setup later, but as a linear thinker I have a hard time writing scenes out of order.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 14, 2012)

> I'm actually reluctant to explicitly state characters' emotional states (e.g. "she felt sad" or "he enjoyed this") precisely because it sounds too telly.



I think that your attitude on this is a good thing.



> For example, I don't like going into depth about my characters' backstories,



To me, this sounds like a good thing as well.



> My reviewers have told me I have a problem with telling too.



What are you trying to accomplish in the sections where your reviewers are telling you this?



> I want to get to the Inciting Incident as soon as possible.



Again, probably a good thing.



> However, sometimes I wonder if I should spend more time setting things up and showing the characters' backstories.



Probably not.  I think that characters are revealed through their actions, not through backstory.  Also, consider this: backstory is much more impactful when the reader already knows the character.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Sep 14, 2012)

Here's a link to a short passage I'd love some advice on.  I was going to post it here, since it is on topic, but I didn't want to detract from the original passage, since I think we are still waiting for him to post more.

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/5415-dont-tell-me-show-me.html


----------



## BWFoster78 (Sep 14, 2012)

Caged Maiden said:


> Here's a link to a short passage I'd love some advice on.  I was going to post it here, since it is on topic, but I didn't want to detract from the original passage, since I think we are still waiting for him to post more.



I didn't see the link.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Sep 14, 2012)

sorry, haha in th 30 seconds it took me to make the post and come back and edit it, you hit the thread.  Thanks for your enthusiasm!  link coming   HEHE I wrote this post for you BW, I'm very interested in seeing what you would do to show what I'm trying to tell   THANKS in advance!


----------



## Jabrosky (Sep 14, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> What are you trying to accomplish in the sections where your reviewers are telling you this?


IIRC, the most common complaint is a pacing one; I may have a lot happening in a passage but say relatively little about it. It's hard to explain without examples though.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 14, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> IIRC, the most common complaint is a pacing one; I may have a lot happening in a passage but say relatively little about it. It's hard to explain without examples though.



Can you give a couple of examples? It's hard to comment otherwise.I will try, but you may find the advice rather generic. These are the guidelines I try to follow for my writing:

1) Adverbs. These tend to indicate places where you ate telling. Examine your adverbs for places where you are telling and replace with showing. Precise verbs & descriptors work better than weak adverbial modifiers.

2) To be verbs. Words like "was" not only can indicate the use of passive voice but can often be telling. To say "The dog was fat" is telling. Describing the physical features and movements in greater detail you can show the reader that the dog is fat.

3)  Action. Is this a character's action in the present story? If yes, then make all efforts to show. Simply saying "He swung the sword" is boring and worse than boring, it's vague. Show me exactly what the character did so I know how the weapon was swung. 

4) Description. Is the item or person being described important to the story? If so, try to paint a picture of the features with words without just coming out and telling us what it/they look like. To limit length you can be brief or telling with elements that are only present for texture and ambiance. A character in the book for window dressing or just to fill a background role may not need much description. Also, look through the POVs eyes. Just try to describe what they see. If they notice something worth writing about at any length, it's likely important enough to deserve description.

That's the basics for me... There are other points in the "show don't tell" philosophy but if you can stick to the 4 above whenever possible, it will improve your work. You mentioned pacing as a problem at the end of your post. Description needed for proper showing will make your work heavier in word count and it can slow down the cadence of the language. Breaking the longer description with shorter sentences & quick dialogue can help to vary pacing. Likewise, a passage that tells too much can also deliver a monotone cadence because it doesn't offer any longer description. In this case the writing is all shorter and curt.

Hope this helps.

EDIT: Some of the above points were expounded upon in edit for greater clarity.


----------

