# Showing vs. Telling



## Christopher Wright (Apr 26, 2012)

This isn't so much a question as it is a post intended to generate discussion.

It is my opinion that the phrase "show, don't tell" is one of the single most over-used and unhelpful pieces of advice people give new writers. It will, in fact, *HURT* a new writer's development because it over-simplifies a very important and *COMPLICATED* set of decisions a writer will have to make when writing a story that requires exposition.

It is, in fact, a plea to editors and experienced writers to stop and think before they say that, because it might improve a specific piece of writing, but it will, in general, make the recipient's writing *worse*.

Before you reach for the flame-thrower, read the rest of this post. 

It's not that "telling" isn't a problem -- it is, in fact, a problem. New writers fall back on telling because it's easier than showing. It's easier to write "she was overcome with grief" than it is to actually describe the grief, even when showing the character grieve will be more effective. And that's really how this piece of advice came about -- new writers tell *so much* that somewhere along the line it became easier to simply say "never do this!"

Except that the advice is wrong. "Showing" and "telling" are both tools. There are times when you need to show, there are times you need to tell. Learning when to do which is difficult, especially since the default setting for writers appears to be "tell..." but not knowing when to tell can ruin your story.

The advantage of showing is that it provides the reader a more visceral, emotional impact with the character, or the scene. But that advantage can also be a disadvantage, because it requires the reader to get more involved in that scene, and as such it might distract the reader from what you really want them to focus on.

Here's a high-level example: Say you have a chapter where Something Important Happens, but it requires some setup. You can TELL the reader what he or she needs to know and then get to the Something Important, or you can SHOW the reader what he or she needs to know and then get to the Something Important.

If you *tell* the reader, 9 times out of ten you'll devote two paragraphs to delivering the information, the information is delivered, then you move on to the important bit, and the important bit remains important. If you *show* the reader... 9 times out of ten "showing" requires more words because you have to convey the images, the actions, the _details_ of the event in order to communicate what's going on. And after you get through all that, suddenly you have a scene that is competing with the reason you introduced the information in the first place. And you really don't want your setup competing with your delivery.

Telling works very well for setting up a show. It generally works better than using a show to set up a show. And readers will tolerate exposition as long as its going somewhere.

Another example, a big one, is writing humor. Showing is very good for conveying emotion, but a lot of humor requires holding emotion at an arms length in order to make it funnier. Most of the funniest parts of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is in the footnotes, or in the sections that quote the guide -- and those are all situations where the author is telling the reader something instead of showing it.

To grossly oversimplify, you show when you want to draw the reader in, you tell when you want to push the reader back a bit -- and sometimes you do want to push the reader back a bit. It's a tactical decision, and a hard one to make, but the writer needs to know all the tools that are available, and that no tool is appropriate for every situation.

Telling: if all you do is tell, it makes a book boring. It's harder for a reader to identify with characters when all you do is tell.

Showing: if all you do is show, the reader will get lost, because they're being forced to construct EVERYTHING in the story, ALL THE TIME. "Making the reader work for it" sounds satisfying, but to misquote Neil Gaiman, "the reader is not your bitch."

None of this is to say that people giving advice shouldn't point out when a writer needs to show instead of tell. This is what makes this particular discussion so difficult, because over-use of tell is a big problem with new writers, and even people who have been writing a long time slip back into it because it's so darn easy. But, and this is my (long, rambling) point, teaching it by using a phrase that implies that you should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever tell will be detrimental to a new writer in the long run.

OK, you can all beat me up now.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 26, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:


> It is my opinion that the phrase "show, don't tell" is one of the single most over-used and unhelpful pieces of advice people give new writers.



You sold me right here. I've said the same thing for some time on various writing sites, and yet you continue to see this bad advice spouted as gospel, particularly by beginning writers who find it easy to repeat.

I agree with the rest of your post as well. Any stock advice, whether it is show don't tell or what have you, is useless unless the person given the advice has analyzed it in context and made a determination as to whether it would really make the writing better. Most of the time that doesn't happen. The reviewer just says "Oh, you're telling here. You need to show." Well...no. Maybe the telling is more effective.

Is there a way to +1 this post? Or make it sticky? Seriously.


----------



## TGNewman (Apr 26, 2012)

Its a very well put point here, and I would say a combination of the two, showing and telling is needed. From my experience the two used together make for a better piece.

I would say the main problem about this 'advice' is that it makes new writers nervous, and over analysis there work where it isn't needed.

Christopher Wright, very well put, I tip my cap to you.


----------



## JCFarnham (Apr 26, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Is there a way to +1 this post? Or make it sticky? Seriously.



Easy. Give the guy some Reputation points 


You're right Christopher, so right. In fact that post is more or less exactly what I was trying to impart to you in your showcase excerpts. On face value something may seem like an info-dump, but sometimes info just needs to be dumped. Do that, get on the with good bit. Good advice.

The main problem with advice giving amongst amateur writers, well any kind of writer, is that its so easy to repeat (with confident gusto). Remember back in school when you were told "I before E, except after C", then perhaps were told the additional "Except when it sounds like Bee"? Well, just so happens that hasn't be taught of a good number of years now, and frankly good riddence. That addage never made my life any easier. A similar thing can be said for "show, don't tell". Some where along the line it was good advice but its become so popular that even when it doesn't help, its quickly offered.

@Christopher: I also love how you, like me continually reference Douglas Adams. Good man haha. I've recently been reading through the 5 books of the Hitchhiker's series and have noticed just how many of these so called rules of good writing that he breaks. Arthur is painfully underdeveloped until book four. He changes tense willy-nilly when ever he feels like it. Drops plot threads. Picks them up. Sends them in triplicate, buries them, digs them up ... etc., etc. And yet, my friends, and yet! How ever did he successfully get this rubbish on the radio if what we're told is true about how one should go about writing.

You speak a lot of sense


----------



## Devor (Apr 26, 2012)

Telling can be great because it's "easy" reading for the reader, and there's points in the story where that has value.  If you rip a sentence out of context and say, "This sentence would be stronger if you show instead of tell," they might usually be right.  But in context, every sentence can't and shouldn't be "strong."  In general, the most important parts of the scene should stand out with stronger language, and will sometimes need easier language to set it up or close it out.

That said.... most of the time you should probably be using both.  _She was overcome with grief.  Her eyes hurt and her cheeks were wet, and she could taste the salt of her tears whenever she gasped for breath.  She needed her moment to feel before she was asked to be strong._


----------



## Christopher Wright (Apr 26, 2012)

Douglas Adams was the first writer I ever adored and I spent much of my life trying to write exactly like him.  Eventually I decided to find my own voice, but he'll always be hanging over my shoulder, casting a shadow on pretty much everything I write.

But to caveat, I want to stress that I'm not trying to say "over-telling" isn't a problem. It's a huge problem because it's incredibly easy to do (I still do it and have to catch myself or rely on others to spot it), and a lot of times what the editors and commenters are trying to do -- get the writer to use showing in a situation where showing will make the scene much, much better -- is spot-on. My complaint is that they do it by (perhaps unintentionally) nuking telling from orbit, which encourages some to adopt a policy of "never tell the reader anything."


----------



## Christopher Wright (Apr 26, 2012)

That's a good point, Devor. You can mix them and allow your scene to do things that using only one or the other wouldn't let you do.


----------



## kennyc (Apr 26, 2012)

I agree with the "most harmful advice" and it certainly negatively affected me in my writing even until recently when I've seen many speak out against this advice and go on to explain exactly what the issue is and how it should work -- in particular, this topic is very well in Chapter 5 - "Why You Need to Show and Tell" of *The Making of a Story* by Alice LaPlante an excellent book chock full of great detailed examples on all writing topics, types and styles.


----------



## JBryden88 (Apr 26, 2012)

My creative writing class (of which I will be attending in two hours) has taught me that sometimes? Sometimes showing too much is almost like... a violation of sorts. A violation of personal space. Leave enough for interpretation. Same with telling. Sometimes, you need to show JUST ENOUGH and tell JUST ENOUGH, but never go overboard with either.

I know for a fact I have a problem with showing and telling at times. Namely because my reflex is to tell. This is especially true in between dialogue, or in moments leading up to dialogue. Actions are another story altogether.


----------



## gavintonks (Apr 26, 2012)

nice thread at the end of the day one must ask does it work, does it keep your reader engaged? what keeps the pace and tension going in your story. considering we only have words to use.


----------



## kennyc (Apr 26, 2012)

In the famous words of the Gibbs brothers:

*It's only words, and words are all
I have to take your heart away*


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 26, 2012)

Thank you for this post.  This is something I struggle with every day.  When I look back at years-old work, I see the errors I'm betting most people make in their first drafts, when ideas are coming in rapid succession and you are fighting to get the words on a page before they flit away into nonexistence never to be found again, but fear of the idea-sucking void aside, people should be conscious of readability when they edit.  I know for a fact I'd benefit from a line-by line sort of critique to learn these lessons, because I feel pretty capable when I critique other people's chapters, but on my own I am like a bumbling idiot.  Because I am connected to the characters and know the stories so well, I'm almost lost trying to consider what a first-time reader will WANT to know or find important (or boring).  It's indeed a delicate balance, and sometimes when I read an old unedited manuscript, I find myself rolling my eyes, saying _I'll come back to that later_ then I just move on.

An interesting side-note:  When I'm speaking, I am clear, concise, and quite capable of making my point.  When I'm writing, I find the more thinking I do, the further I fall down the spiral of self-doubt and futility.  Is that normal?  Is that the secret to good writing?  Just stepping back and editing in moderation?  Or is it working closely with first-time readers willing to give a thorough honest critique?


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 26, 2012)

I can honestly say I was a victim of this. When I go back and read some of my old stuff, it's showing everything to the point of being vague. There are a lot of words on the page but they don't seem to be saying much of anything.. 

In hindsight, I think it would have been better to just tell my brains out because at least it would have made sense. What do you guys and gals think?


----------



## The Din (Apr 26, 2012)

The advice is given a lot because it's good advice, pure and simple. Wish I'd listened to it back in extension english, would have saved me a lot of redoing. Sure, if every wanna-be critic started spouting it merely to announce their sophistication it would be annoying, but 9.5 times out of 10 the work benefits from the change. To ask for help and then complain about the advice given strikes me as disrespectful. If you get it a lot from many different people, then it might just be the writing that needs a second look and not the people trying to help. 

Don't mean to step on any toes, but this is a discussion after all, and so far it's a somewhat one-sided one.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Apr 26, 2012)

The advice to show when showing is more effective is good advice.

The advice to ONLY show and NEVER tell is bad advice.


----------



## The Din (Apr 26, 2012)

I'll just add that I don't think it is meant literally, 'Show, don't tell.' to me doesn't mean 'ONLY show and NEVER tell'. It is simply a shortened version of age-old (in literary terms) advice, no doubt started by some beleaguered teacher.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 26, 2012)

The Din said:


> Sure, if every wanna-be critic started spouting it merely to announce their sophistication it would be annoying, but 9.5 times out of 10 the work benefits from the change.



I don't agree. The majority of the time the advice is given, in my experience, it is given without any apparent consideration to whether it is good or bad, or to what the writer is trying to accomplish. It is simply given because it is easy advice to give. If the person giving it provides some reasoning as to why they think it is more effective in a given instance, then that is a different story.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Apr 27, 2012)

The Din said:


> I'll just add that I don't think it is meant literally, 'Show, don't tell.' to me doesn't mean 'ONLY show and NEVER tell'. It is simply a shortened version of age-old (in literary terms) advice, no doubt started by some beleaguered teacher.



It may not be meant literally, but I've seen it taken literally. How else would a new writer take it? If you don't have the proper context to put it in because you're not *given* the proper context to put it in, then you'll use the context that seems logical. The phrase "show, don't tell" implies "always" -- there are no qualifiers in those three words.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 27, 2012)

> Here's a high-level example: Say you have a chapter where Something Important Happens, but it requires some setup. You can TELL the reader what he or she needs to know and then get to the Something Important, or you can SHOW the reader what he or she needs to know and then get to the Something Important.
> 
> If you *tell* the reader, 9 times out of ten you'll devote two paragraphs to delivering the information, the information is delivered, then you move on to the important bit, and the important bit remains important. If you *show* the reader... 9 times out of ten "showing" requires more words because you have to convey the images, the actions, the details of the event in order to communicate what's going on. And after you get through all that, suddenly you have a scene that is competing with the reason you introduced the information in the first place. And you really don't want your setup competing with your delivery.



This (and most of what's in this thread, I'm sorry to say) isn't at all what show vs. tell is about. The show vs. tell thing can be succinctly described as follows:

*When telling a story, it is better to demonstrate that something has a particular attribute, rather than simply stating that it has that attribute.* (_Why_ is it better? I'll get into that below.)

This manifests in two ways:

*1. Characters*

Readers become more attached to, and emotionally invested in, characters whose personality is revealed by their actions. Characters whose personalities are dictated to us are not interesting. This is incredibly important and, the overwhelming majority of the time, is what's meant by "show, don't tell." I feel confident in asserting that there are virtually no readers, anywhere, who prefer being told about a character's personality, rather than being shown it.

*2. Settings/visual imagery*

(This one's much, much less important.) If you always merely state that something is fancy or large or impressive, it's going to read kind of dry. No one's really fond of Robert Jordan's tendency to over-describe everything, but a complete lack of descriptive details about something can make your writing flavorless. This can almost be seen as a linear scale, from 0 to 100. 0 would be "no description of anything" and 100 would be "excessively elaborate descriptions of every person, dress, chair, sword, building, and horse in sight."

The fundamental, unavoidable problem here is that some readers are annoyed if you go outside the range 10-30 and some readers are annoyed if you go outside the range 60-80, meaning that you cannot possibly fully please everyone. So pick a range and stick with it (for a particular story, anyway).

*Beyond those two,* there are a number of exceptions (or rather, unrelated cases):

* Backstory is just that: *back*story. It's not the current story. It's background information, and there's no reason you can't compress it by making some declarations about what happened, because readers don't expect to read ten paragraphs of "show"-style backstory when what they're interested in–or _should_ be interested in, if you did your job correctly–is the story you're telling now.

As an example, it's not a problem to simply state, "Twenty years ago, Lord Smith invaded and conquered Capital City at the head of an army of Tharkavian berserkers." It's history, it's not what the current story is about, and unless the details are important, we don't need more than a short sentence about it. Of course, too much dry backstory in a row will bore and confuse readers, which is why you generally find it intertwined with the POV character's perception or opinion of the backstory being conveyed; but this has nothing to do with show vs. tell.

* Characters talking to other characters is not automatically "telling" either. Having character A recount a story to character B, which demonstrates (that is, shows) that character C is a selfish jerk, is not "telling." The reader is still being _shown_ why character C is a jerk, it's just being done by way of an in-character anecdote instead of a direct narrative scene.


----------



## gavintonks (Apr 27, 2012)

It is funny we have all the advice about good writing and I have taken up some older work and now wheel of time, it is so filled with every cliche on what weare advised not to do that I wonder if the acceptance of English is based purely on the level of book sales


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 27, 2012)

Actually, _The Wheel of Time_ only really failed on being unnecessarily descriptive. Jordan was quite good at conveying characters' personalities by showing rather than telling.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Apr 27, 2012)

> I feel confident in asserting that there are virtually no readers, anywhere, who prefer being told about a character's personality, rather than being shown it.



You see it all the time in humor.

Humor thrives on telling. I hate to rely on an old standby, but 90% of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is telling. All of the footnotes are telling. And it's funny because of the distance and detachment it creates, not in spite of it. Arthur and Ford are about to cast out into space to die a horrible death, and then suddenly "The Guide has this to say about space..."

And yes, there are times when you will want to tell an audience that a character is sad, or agitated, or curious, or frightened, or whatever, and move on -- one line, communication, and then off to the point. And the reader will shrug, say "OK," and move off to the point with you. You do lose an opportunity to provide depth of character, but writing is often a trade off between opportunities.

And again, I'm not suggesting telling is appropriate all the time, for every circumstance. The desire to teach writer's to "show" is good, because showing is the harder skill, and telling is over-used. But it's the wrong way to teach it.


----------



## JCFarnham (Apr 27, 2012)

gavintonks said:


> It is funny we have all the advice about good writing and I have taken up some older work and now wheel of time, it is so filled with every cliche on what weare advised not to do that I wonder if the acceptance of English is based purely on the level of book sales



Here, here. Though this should definitely be read as _no one wants their work to read like what the vast majority of people don't like_. 

It seems to me that its Human nature to be against _something_, it could be anything, doesn't matter, it exists to allow ourselves an easily obtained feeling of uniqueness. So, Whenever I read a critique on a piece of writing I keep in mind that everyone is slightly different in some way. Perhaps one person has had the misfortune of reading a whole slew of books where certain techniques (prologue, stylist breaking of "rules", etc) have been done badly. In the future that person is going to want to try and avoid that kind of writing, whether or not any specific example of those tools uses them well. You however may have a higher tolerence for that kind of thing.

This is where problems arise with advice giving, and this is why I think it would be nicer for every one if things were phrased "personally I prefer this, because ..." rather than "this is ____, you should do _____". The tone of authority in there isn't helping any one. Not really. Confidence is one thing but we are after all talking about people opening up their souls for people to peer inside and tear apart. 

After a certain incident in the showcase forums recently, I'm beginning to wonder whether it's at all possible to give completely unbiased, objective feedback. 

One thing is certain, if I post anything in Showcase I'm prefacing the thread with "By critiquing this piece of work you are hereby entering into a contract where by we agree to that disagreements on style, etc. happen and where ever possible comments should be phrased in such a way as to avoid the automatic gain saying, or superiority of opinion inherent in giving feedback."

Maybe .... 

Haha


----------



## Devor (Apr 27, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> *When telling a story, it is better to demonstrate that something has a particular attribute, rather than simply stating that it has that attribute.* (_Why_ is it better? I'll get into that below.)



Maybe that's okay for the work on the whole, but Show, don't Tell, gets pushed down to the line edit all the time, especially in amateur critique groups.  When you're deconstructing specific sentences, being locked into that phrase can do a lot of harm, not just by stretching out unimportant aspects of the work, but by adding needless and excessive criticism for the author.  I don't think this thread is so much about the advice as given by an English class so much as it is about the advice given by would-be critics and support groups.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 27, 2012)

There are any number of great books that have a lot of telling, including telling about things like character's personalities, feelings, and the like. It all comes down to determining what is important in any given instance rather than relying on something as an absolute rule. Thus, when the advice is given as an absolute rule instead of as a result of consideration of the work and what the author is trying to do, it is not helpful.

If you want books as examples, look at Roberto BolaÃ±o's masterpiece _2666_, or his book _The Savage Detectives._ Both prize-winning novels published within the last 15 years or so.

I recently read Rudolfo Anaya's book _Bless Me, Ultima_, which is also an award-winner and also uses a lot of telling.

John Cheever, one of the best American short stories writers of the modern generation, used a fair amount of telling when he deemed it appropriate. If I remember correctly, Joyce does a fair amount of it in his stories collected in _Dubliners._

Doesn't Fitzgerald start _The Great Gatsby_ with a fair amount of telling, and continue it throughout?

Kerouac, in _On the Road_ starts by introducing the reader to Dean Moriarty, and most of what we learn about Dean initially is through telling, with bits of dramatization and 'showing' interspersed within.

In any event, you can name authors who do very little telling as well, but the point is you can weight the scale of showing versus telling however you like, so long as you are effective, and the admonition "show don't tell,' given in a vacuum and without context, is of no use to the beginning (or the experience) writer.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Apr 27, 2012)

> OK, you can all beat me up now.



Right cross.  Left hook.  Jab to the stomach.

Seriously, I see the point you're making but couldn't resist adding my two cents:

In writing, the ends justify the means.  If you can write passively while telling and keep the reader interested, you did exactly right.  However, you chose a long row to hoe.  It's much easier to keep the reader engaged with an active style and by showing them.  In my opinion, if you create a brilliantly crafted piece full of characters with rich voices but the reader is bored to tears, you've failed no matter how artistic or true to the characters you were.

That didn't really have much to do with your post, just wanted to use the soapbox for my own purposes for a sec.  Now on to the topic:

Telling is appropriate sometimes.  A great example is between scenes.  You show the characters actions during a scene; you tell the reader what happens until the next scene starts; and then you show again.

If I make a comment when critiquing that you need to show instead of tell, it's probably because I felt the writing started to get boring.  However, if you have a question, I don't think it's ever a bad idea to politely ask the person who made the comment to elaborate.  

Overall, though, unless you have Douglas Adams' talent for humor, you're probably better off showing.

One final point: when you post a piece for critique, you're opening yourself up for all kinds of comments.  You need to respect the people who took the time to give their opinions, but it's your work.  You are the only one who can make the decision on what's best.  I don't care is the most talented author in the universe gives you a piece of advice.  If you don't think it works in your story, disregard it.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Apr 27, 2012)

> Overall, though, unless you have Douglas Adams' talent for humor, you're probably better off showing.



There is a certain amount of truth to this in general. Writer's often point out that other writers do what they're trying to do successfully, and pointing out that you're "not that guy" (or lady) is pertinent. On the other hand, if you don't try for that level of excellence you will never get there.

I admire Adam's gift at writing comedy. I don't write it at his level (and I've been trying for more than 16 years!) but when I swing for the bleachers I'm aiming in his direction.


----------



## JCFarnham (Apr 27, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Doesn't Fitzgerald start _The Great Gatsby_ with a fair amount of telling, and continue it throughout?



Indeed, the entire backstory of the narrator I fear


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 27, 2012)

Man, maybe that's why I always found _The Great Gatsby_ to be so boring


----------



## JCFarnham (Apr 27, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Man, maybe that's why I always found _The Great Gatsby_ to be so boring



Though I feel compelled to say "but didn't he do so well", or something like that, I also feel compelled to say success doesn't account for personal tastes, after all _certain_ fiction franchises are ridiculously successful and "well recieved" but not all of us can stand them.

Maybe Im weird in my enjoyment of Fitzgerald and his contemporaries? I know the modernist and post modernist movements aren't for everyone.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 27, 2012)

I know a lot of people who like Fitzgerald. Really, this just underscores that "show don't tell" is more reflective of personal tastes than anything and should be treated as such. Instead it is handed down as though it is always the correct advice, regardless of context. It is an easy statement for the reviewer to make, but if it is just thrown about without analysis, that should be taken as evidence the reviewer does not know what he is doing.


----------



## JCFarnham (Apr 27, 2012)

Here's a view from a respected professional who is all for "show, don't tell": SHOW ME A STORY | Fantasy Author's Handbook

Just to provided the other side of the argument so to speak...

I'm still on the "not always the case, in and out with fashion" side, naturally.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Apr 27, 2012)

I don't think the author is wrong, necessarily. I just think the author is taking that example and holding it up as something that fits every situation the writer finds him(her)self in, which is what I disagree with.


----------



## gavintonks (Apr 27, 2012)

I think it is the ability to craft the words that they work, and that the story flows and is not bogged down by large amounts of he did this and then they did that


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 27, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I know a lot of people who like Fitzgerald. Really, this just underscores that "show don't tell" is more reflective of personal tastes than anything and should be treated as such. Instead it is handed down as though it is always the correct advice, regardless of context. It is an easy statement for the reviewer to make, but if it is just thrown about without analysis, that should be taken as evidence the reviewer does not know what he is doing.



Ultimately, it's about whatever you can get away with, but for a new writer, you have _no idea_ what you can get away with yet; and so unless you have the personal expertise to know when to show and when to tell, you're better off erring on the side of showing.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Apr 27, 2012)

But Benjamin, if you don't try, how do you ever develop the skills to get there?


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 27, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Ultimately, it's about whatever you can get away with, but for a new writer, you have _no idea_ what you can get away with yet; and so unless you have the personal expertise to know when to show and when to tell, you're better off erring on the side of showing.



Respectfully, I have to disagree... sort of. To me, it depends on how new the writer is. From my personal experience and my experiences with new writers, it's hard enough for new writers to get down a straight-forward, coherent story with conflicts that take a character from A to B without there being confusion. Sometimes what they write isn't really a story, it's just a description, a summary of some cool idea, or snippets of images that don't form anything.

If you hand a new writer a tool like show-don't-tell or any writing tool, and they don't really understand it, it becomes another potential monkey wrench that can be tossed into their writing gears. IMHO new writers should focus on the basic mechanics of getting an understandable story on the page first before worrying about gussying it up and making it dazzle and pop.


----------



## gavintonks (Apr 28, 2012)

I have gone through that learning curve and find the process of writing is creating an info dump, fleshing it into dialogue them looking for the emotion and making your characters live, you learn the shortcuts once you have done the long hand. I think many authors of 20 years ago would not be published today as reader acceptance styles have changed so much. Authors I enjoyed 30 years ago I find tedious reading now.
I also made the mistake of passive instead of active, it is a lot to hold into your head and being on the coal face you tend to miss the wood for the trees. I have put a lot of my work out for crit on random crit site and critters and people can be rough. However if you are serious about polishing and making your piece the best it can be then you listen to what they say. The best is people who love it and others who hate it as then you know you are onto something.
The problem with criticism is you are asking people to look deliberately for faults, and this puts people into a different reader mindset, you need to disengage the "this is my work>" syndrome and just see it as a fresh pair of eyes, and decide what you want the piece to be.
However if 10 people say the same thing then you should know you have a problem. It takes a long time to use the perfect words and a lot of what you write needs energy, we sometimes do not wish to impart that energy and it tells in the final work. Van Gogh work sells for millions as he painted his life into his works and died for them, we should expect no less of our writing - it must be the best it can be - we are not writing books we are writing entertainment for readers - we need them engaged thrilled and entertained and enjoying a journey while they read our words, ego should be removed from the equation of crafting entertainment first and foremost


----------



## gavintonks (Apr 28, 2012)

Have we asked ourselves what made the world resonate with harry Potter that turned his creator into a billionaire?
so many people write and so much is published and so little grabs so many, it is like Titanic I refuse to watch it because it is so popular, then that dreadful clone of every sci fi book that made billions avatar as each segment came on there was dragons of pern, 2010 space odyesey etc so our work only lives if it is read, and if reading is a chore then no one reads it, so the objective is keeping the reader reading at any cost


----------



## Ivan (Apr 28, 2012)

I think the original point of the phrase was to prod writers away from the tendency to tell too much, giving a bunch of dry rambling that doesn't let the reader see the characters in action. Inevitably people misunderstand and overzealously apply a piece of good advice to make it a piece of bad advice.


----------



## gavintonks (Apr 28, 2012)

true but the question that remains is who is the arbiter of too much? it is a bunch of readers who accept it over the ones who do not as at the end of the day most sales are word of mouth that really make the book exceptional


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Apr 28, 2012)

I recently finished a book called 'Galapagos', which was pretty much scifi, and to be honest, it was almost all telling.  The story bounced around between what was told, and the only thing that really kept me reading was two things, the narrator kept mentioning what humans would be like in a million years, and the curiosity of how the narrator might know all this.  There was no connection with any of the characters told about, only a small one with the narrator.  In it's way, it worked...but only barely.  The constant teasers of the million years is the only reason I didn't drop it.  So, you can pretty much tell an entire story and make it work, but if it had been much longer, I would have given up on it.

It's difficult to enjoy a story you have little interest in.  Tricks to keep the readers curiosity only carry you so far, and you end up needing more tricks to keep it going.  Or you can show the characters and give the reader something they can associate with and care about and not have to keep at the tricks.  

The problem most new writers have is not knowing how to write a good story.  They then do the same things we all usually do when starting out and after most of us learned how to write decently, it then gets difficult to re-explain how to not bore the reader to death by telling everything.  If I'm going to take the time to critique a story, I see no reason not to be honest about it.  I've don't my share of complaining about wot and harry potter.  What both of those stories have that worked was good storytelling.  It was good enough to surpass the annoyances of over description and occasional excess of adjectives/adverbs.  This leads more to the point I tend to hold to of telling good stories, if you can do that, much more will be overlooked and forgiven.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 28, 2012)

Lord Darkstorm said:


> I recently finished a book called 'Galapagos', which was pretty much scifi, and to be honest, it was almost all telling.



Again, this demonstrates how subjective things are and one reason why it is bad to give absolute advice like show don't tell in a vacuum. I like _Galapagos_, as I like most of what Kurt Vonnegut has written, and yes, he does use a lot of telling in some of his works.


----------



## Kelise (Apr 28, 2012)

I simply can't read a book that's basically all telling rather than showing. It's boring and gets annoying after a while - we shouldn't be told what a character is or isn't, we should get to know them after a while, otherwise it simple isn't interesting to read. Telling, when it becomes shoving facts down the author's throat, is very, very poor writing.

There are instances of telling that are simply writing - those aren't what I'm talking of. Some parts are told as simple narrative or scene description and are fine.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 28, 2012)

starconstant said:


> I simply can't read a book that's basically all telling rather than showing. It's boring and gets annoying after a while - we shouldn't be told what a character is or isn't, we should get to know them after a while, otherwise it simple isn't interesting to read. Telling, when it becomes shoving facts down the author's throat, is very, very poor writing.



I think that's overly broad. If someone can pull off an entire book with telling, that's fine with me. I see no reason to discount it out of hand, or to simply call it poor writing. There are poor writers that tell and poor writers that show. Good writers can do either of them. 

I doubt many people would consider Vonnegut a "very, very poor" writer. Modern library lists _Slaughterhouse Five_ as number 18 among the 100 best novels. It is in good company. Fitzgerald's _The Great Gatsby_ is number 2. My quarrel with the list is that Nabokov's _Lolita_, which ranks number 4, should be number 2 ahead of Fitzgerald (and if you haven't read Lolita you should  ).


----------



## The Dark One (Apr 29, 2012)

I've only scanned this excellent thread so others may already have made my points...sorry.

Obviously the answer comes down to the right balance of showing and telling (within the context of your story). It's down to your judgment as to how the right balance is struck, and you acquire that judgment with experience and gradually acquiring confidence in your own voice.

I also think this is another reason why you must plot before you pants. If you know what information you want to convey to the reader in a scene before you write it, it is so much easier to show. If you're pantsing then you don't know what info you're conveying and may not even know when the scene is over! How can you possibly show when you don't know what you're showing? 

My other point would be this: don't ever tell the reader what they ought to feel. Manipulate their feelings by the actions and words of the characters and the impact that has on other characters.


----------



## Kelise (Apr 29, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think that's overly broad. If someone can pull off an entire book with telling, that's fine with me.



Fair enough - I suppose I should say I've yet to enjoy a book that's telling rather than showing - though I'm sure there are some out there.

Though of course, you don't notice it all the time if it's working. So it's possibly I have and simply haven't noticed. I've read Slaughterhouse Five and enjoyed it quite a bit, so there we go. I didn't remember thinking he was telling rather than showing at all.

I'm yet to read The Great Gatsby and Lolita, however.


----------



## JCFarnham (Apr 29, 2012)

starconstant said:


> I'm yet to read The Great Gatsby and Lolita, however.



The thing with _Gatsby_ and pretty much all of Fitgerald's writing is if you only read the surface you _will_ be bored. It's all about allusions to the classics, metaphors to parallel the American dream, etc. etc. If someone doesn't enjoy it that much, I often wonder whether they read it right. And yes, you can be a poor _reader_ just like you can be a poor writer.

If you can delve deeper... well I enjoyed it haha


----------



## Kelise (Apr 29, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> The thing with _Gatsby_ and pretty much all of Fitgerald's writing is if you only read the surface you _will_ be bored.



I've read some of his other work and enjoyed it, just not Gatsby as of yet. Though I have it marked down for this year some time.

Classics do generally have to be read on a different level than say, recent fantasy. And now I think we're getting off topic - could be an interesting discussion to run elsewhere? Though no idea what to call it.


----------



## JCFarnham (Apr 29, 2012)

starconstant said:


> I've read some of his other work and enjoyed it, just not Gatsby as of yet. Though I have it marked down for this year some time.
> 
> Classics do generally have to be read on a different level than say, recent fantasy. And now I think we're getting off topic - could be an interesting discussion to run elsewhere? Though no idea what to call it.



Reading well? haha

Since I've said my bit on this discussion, I'll simply bow out now and not derail any further.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 29, 2012)

Lolita is awesome. 

Ulysses was first on the list, of course. I'd have to go back and look to see where it falls on showing versus telling. I can't remember.


----------



## Writeking (Oct 3, 2013)

its all about finding the perfect balance between the two


----------



## Chessie (Oct 3, 2013)

The Dark One said:


> My other point would be this: don't ever tell the reader what they ought to feel. Manipulate their feelings by the actions and words of the characters and the impact that has on other characters.



Yes! This is perfect! This is why I find the emotions thesaurus so darn valuable. Its all right to write feelings in here and there, such as 'bla bla bla' Mary said, worried. But to write in Mary doing something with her body that shows she's worried is much better. There is a subtle--yet big--difference between showing and telling. Having balance between the two is a nice goal, though I think its possible to train yourself to show more and pick up when you're telling too much.


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 3, 2013)

Agreed, feeling is the absolute worst thing you can Tell. Any words like "was angry" strike me as a cop-out, unless it's a major point you can give a multipronged description like "He stared... how COULD she... he clenched the table... he'd never been so angry." --No, even there it just weakens the description.

Other things are worth Telling sometimes. Emotion, only if it's far far removed from the moment.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 3, 2013)

wordwalker said:


> Agreed, feeling is the absolute worst thing you can Tell. Any words like "was angry" strike me as a cop-out, unless it's a major point you can give a multipronged description like "He stared... how COULD she... he clenched the table... he'd never been so angry." --No, even there it just weakens the description.
> 
> Other things are worth Telling sometimes. Emotion, only if it's far far removed from the moment.



I think it depends on the goal.

Event: The tires screeched as Paula drove away.

Character reaction:

If I want my reader to experience my character's emotion -

Joe punched his fist through the window pane.

If I want my reader to understand my character -

She made Joe so angry, always taking offense at the smallest excuse.  All he'd asked was if she bought anything at the mall.  That upset her?  Really?

Is one of those two approaches "better?"  Either, or both, can be a valid choice.

This approach combines telling and showing:

Joe punched his fist through the window pane.  She always took offense at the smallest excuse.  All he'd asked was if she bought anything at the mall.  That upset her?  Really?


----------



## Devor (Oct 3, 2013)

The Dark One said:


> My other point would be this: don't ever tell *the reader* what they ought to feel. Manipulate their feelings by the actions and words of the characters and the impact that has on other characters.



I just wanted to note this bolded detail of The Dark One's quote.  What the reader feels and what the character feels are not always the same thing.  I sometimes - sometimes - have even felt that the character's feelings can even get in the way of the reader feeling the same moment.  Anyways it's an important distinction to note.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 3, 2013)

Devor said:


> I just wanted to note this bolded detail of The Dark One's quote.  What the reader feels and what the character feels are not always the same thing.  I sometimes - sometimes - have even felt that the character's feelings can even get in the way of the reader feeling the same moment.  Anyways it's an important distinction to note.



Yes, the reader should definitely draw her own conclusions. I like books that incorporate unreliable narrators, and I even do a bit of that in my own writing, where the character's emotional reactions may certainly be different from what the reader experiences, and even the narrator's factual statements can't be taken at face value but require further examination.


----------

