# Show, Don't Tell - But Why?



## Telcontar (May 30, 2012)

For everyone of us who has felt the red mist descend upon hearing the old saw, here is yet more information about _why_ it is, in fact, good advice.

I often help writers work through the difference between showing and telling, and until now I have usually said that one method is simply more elegant than the other. Turns out, there might be even more to it... though I'd gonna read up more on the science behind it before I take it as truth.


----------



## Christopher Wright (May 30, 2012)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Damn it all. This is a pet peeve of mine.

"Show, Don't Tell" is horrible advice as a generalization.

"Show, Don't Tell" is excellent advice when a writer is telling when showing works better, but *there are times when telling is better.*

Telling is usually better when you're going for the joke rather than the emotional payoff. Telling is usually better for communicating the stuff you want the reader to know before you move on to the important bits (as long as you keep it short). Telling is absolutely necessary when you're intentionally creating distance between the reader and the story, and there are times you want that.

I'm not saying Showing is bad. And the urge to overtell is is a legitimate problem that every single new author has, because telling is easier. But "Show Don't Tell" is a phrase I hate so much I will immediately ignore any time it is used in a critique, without exception, world without end, Amen, Amen. Too broad, too nonspecific, with immediate advantages but damaging to a writer in the long run, and ultimately something a writer will have to *unlearn.*

OK, sorry, I didn't mean to show up and rant all over your thread. This is just one of those things for me. I'll shut up now...


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

Yeah, I'm with Christopher. I think 'show don't tell' is good advice when the person giving it has thought it through and is presenting it in the right circumstances. The problem with 'show don't tell' is that it is often generic advice that critiquers throw out because it is easy to say and can be used somewhere in almost any critique. It is bad advice, when handled that way. Just because someone is telling doesn't mean you should automatically tell them to show. The telling might be appropriate.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 30, 2012)

I think the "show, don't tell" rule really applies to description. When you are describing things I believe that it's always better to show because it evokes the senses of the characters or their reaction to stimuli.
Of course we as authors have to tell readers information at some points. However, as difficult as it can sometimes be, showing information through character action or reaction is always better that just telling the reader. It adds to story immersion & can help a reader identify with a character.
I don't know why an author would ever want to reduce the level of immersion for a reader.


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 30, 2012)

I completely disagree that 



> "Show, Don't Tell" is horrible advice as a generalization.



If a novice writer shows too much, they are in danger of not having a work that is nuanced enough.

If a novice writer tells too much, they wind up with a work that is unreadable.

Show, dont tell will work for you the vast majority of the time.  As with any rule, it's okay to break it as long as you a) know you're breaking it, b) understand the consequences of breaking it, and c) accept those consequences as less than the benefits in the particular situation.  Unless you can meet those three criteria, follow the rule!


----------



## Hans (May 30, 2012)

We already had a thread about this: http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/3220-showing-vs-telling.html
Might be worth a look before restarting the discussion with the same arguments.


----------



## Devor (May 30, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:


> Telling is usually better when you're going for the joke rather than the emotional payoff. Telling is usually better for communicating the stuff you want the reader to know before you move on to the important bits (as long as you keep it short). Telling is absolutely necessary when you're intentionally creating distance between the reader and the story, and there are times you want that.



I agreed with you before Christopher Wright, and I still do.  This is all true, and I could probably add to the list.  More importantly to me, I think "Show, don't tell" is often used obnoxiously during critiques and can itself be lazy when it comes to advice-giving.  (It's also hypocritical, since the person very seldom _shows_ you how to do it better...)

Still, all of these you've listed are fairly advanced writing techniques when a lot of people are just trying to get through their first draft.  Telling is done all the time as _filler_ just to get through a narrative, so in that context, I do think it is still generally a good tactic - one of those "rules" given to newbies, meant to be broken when you know what you're doing.

So I guess what I mean is, I appreciate the reminder that the advice is often taken too far and that it can be bad advice in certain circumstances, but I also thought Telcontar's post was pretty useful.


----------



## Ankari (May 30, 2012)

I can only think of a handful of situations where telling is the preferable method than showing.  If a critique simply states "That's telling, use showing"  then I would agree that its obnoxious.   If, however, the commenter gives an example of how you _could_ use showing instead of telling, then its a valid comment.

I'm new to this game, so take what I say with a grain of salt.  There is another thread that asked "How much facial description should I use."  The response was a couple descriptive words, maybe a few.  The reasoning is that the reader will conjure their own image of the character.  They will bond with the character as they will fill the missing pieces with _their_ ideal characteristics.  

Showing is the same.  How a character feels, how they react, how the perceive the world around them should be shown to the reader.  It allows for the (hopeful) stimulated imagination to fill in the holes.  The reader then forms a world of their own, with your words as stimulants.  Isn't that what we want?  Each reader finds their own aspect of the world we've decided to share to love.

Another point is that the point of view you've decided to take may limit your options.  A first person point of view with portions of telling may seem disjointed.  With FPOV the character can only know so much.  Third person limited is the same, or close to it.  From what I can put together, that is why authors are incorporating the use of so many characters with POV.  George RR Martin, Robert Jordan, and Steven Erickson use a vast cast of characters to portray their world to the reader.  They could have opted to use more telling and cut down their cast if they wanted to, but wanted their readers to experience their world.

Again, I'm new to this game.


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 30, 2012)

yeah I agree.  Showing is good in a poignant scene.  Subtle looks, a hand set lightly on an arm, a clenched jaw, etc., etc.  But there's no reason you must show everything.  Some people love the phrase so much, I begin to winder whether they really want to read a novel with 10k extra words of detail in it.  I mean, if every time my character touches something I need to show an emotional response to it... well I just can't do it, and I KNOW you can't read it.  

While I agree, phrases like: "She was angry with him.  How could he treat her with such disrespect?" ought to read more like: "He turned his back, leaving her alone on the floor.  She took off her shoe and threw it, hitting him square in the back.  'You bastard!  How can you be so cruel?'"

Obviously we get more from her angry actions than being told she's angry, but there's just so many parts of  book where less is more. I think when people hear this advice over and over, it just creates a situation of confusion, especially for new people.  It would be LOADS more helpful if people took the time to pick at one line and show how to SHOW where it is important to do so.


----------



## Telcontar (May 30, 2012)

Heh heh, I was not expecting such a reaction. Whatever we feel about the phrase itself, it never hurts to learn more. my main point was to bring that article to our general attention, not necessarily to start another discussion on the subject.


----------



## Christopher Wright (May 30, 2012)

Yeah, sorry about that...


----------



## SeverinR (May 31, 2012)

Telling is the Spicy mustard of writing.
A little is good, but to much over powers the dish.
(two posts about food in a row...is it lunch time yet?)


----------

