# Tell, Don't Show



## BWFoster78 (Oct 19, 2012)

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

Thanks!


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 19, 2012)

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


----------



## Devor (Oct 19, 2012)

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

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

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


----------



## Amanita (Oct 19, 2012)

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


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 19, 2012)

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



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

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

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


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 19, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


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



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


----------



## Devor (Oct 19, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Of course it's impossible to discuss a sentence out of context.  That one sentence means nothing to me.
> 
> I'd like some input on the technique.  There have to be some writers out there who agree that it's okay to develop rules and techniques.



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

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


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 19, 2012)

Devor said:


> You don't understand.  A discussion of technique and theory _requires_ more than one sentence.  Flow and momentum have to build over time.  Real theory would require a model, not just a formula.
> 
> I also asked a whole bunch of questions about the sentence.  They're all relevant, but you haven't addressed them.  If you want someone to validate your sentences, I think you should try something else.  If you really want an answer to your question, you have to accept that it might get complicated and not look for reasons to ignore the answers you don't like.



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

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

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

OR

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

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


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 19, 2012)

BWFoster:

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

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

Try writing a scene both ways and see which is more effective.


----------



## Leif Notae (Oct 19, 2012)

Here's the rub.

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

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

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

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


----------



## srcroft (Oct 19, 2012)

*Show tell etcetc*



BWFoster78 said:


> I don't want to discuss the sentence.  I want to discuss a concept and get past what I used as an example to illustrate which concept I wish to discuss.  I don't care about the sentence.
> 
> I want to get my readers closer to my POV character emotionally.
> 
> ...



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Devor (Oct 19, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Is it more effective to tell the reader what the character is feeling and why?
> 
> OR
> 
> Is it more effective to show an action and leave the interpretation of the action to the reader?



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



Spoiler: Removed with apologies after double-checking old threads.



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


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 19, 2012)

Taking the sentence in question:


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 19, 2012)

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



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

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

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

Any way, thoughts?


----------



## Ireth (Oct 19, 2012)

Penpilot said:


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



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


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 19, 2012)

From Steerpike:



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



I get this.  It's helpful.  Thanks.

Leif wrote:



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



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

EDIT: Meant "showing" not "telling" in that last sentence.


----------



## Leif Notae (Oct 19, 2012)

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


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 19, 2012)

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



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

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



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



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

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

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

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


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 19, 2012)

Leif Notae said:


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



I have two goals with my writing:

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

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

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

Did that answer the question?

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


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 19, 2012)

> None of these is sufficient to connect the reader so lets combine and make the context up thorough but not rammed down the readers throat.
> 
> Mix:
> This had become the worst day ever. Beth slumped against the wall and lowered her head. "How could this happen to me," she cried. Her eyes started to well up with tears.
> ...



I think that this must be the key.  

Showing exclusively leaves too much up to the reader.

Telling doesn't prove anything.

So, guidelines would be:

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

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

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

Thanks.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 19, 2012)

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



I think you make a good point here.

Is it worth going through the effort to show if it's not important to the plot.  But, if it's not important to the plot, should it then be included at all?


----------



## Ankari (Oct 19, 2012)

I love this exercise.

You use _telling_ for two reasons:

1) To save word count.
2) To make clear to the reader the information you're trying to convey.

You use _showing_ to put the reader as close into the character's thoughts and mind as you possibly can.

To me, _telling_ is like the framework and _showing_ is the flesh.  If find the technique of starting with "Tasia was nervious" then _showing_ how she is nervous throughout the scene to be efficient writing.  

I've also seen authors do the reverse.  You show everything that may enrage a character then write in a line by itself "BWFoster78 took matters into his own hands."

It works.  This is the process of _discovering your voice._


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 19, 2012)

Ireth said:


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



I suck . One more shot at it. 

When Dr. Harding put Tasia in charge until his return, it added to her nervousness, and knotted her gut.



BWFoster78 said:


> So, guidelines would be:
> 
> Clearly express the emotion so that there is not doubt in the reader's mind.
> Illustrate the effect the emotion has on the character's actions so that the impact is proved.
> ...



I think you're always filtering. How much filtering you present to the reader is dependent on the needs of the scene. 

How you describe the environment can reflect a person's mood. If I'm interpreting your question correctly, here's an example that may help. I'm not doing so good with examples today but I'll give it another shot. Let's try a simple diner scene where a guy sitting, eating, and reflecting on his day. 

The black coffee swirled, a vortex tugging on him. Down-Down-Down into darkness. Outside, the rain came down like piss as the banshee waitress cackled, drilling nails into my ears. I stabbed at my greasy eggs and as they hung there at the end of my fork, I thought about cramming them down her ugly craw just to shut her the hell up. Now was not the day to be pissing me off.

Same scene less dark.

I swirled three cubes of sugar into my coffee then sipped. Mmm... sweet. Spring rain came down outside, tapity-tap, tapity-tap, like tiny drums. It was nice to be warm inside. The waitress laughed at a joke then glanced over wearing a pearl smile, checking to see if I needed anything. I didn't. Holding my fork over my sunny-side-up eggs, it almost seems wrong to cut into something so bright and perfect, so I don't. I put my fork down, giving the eggs reprieve, for now. Instead, I sit in the warmth and enjoy the laughter. It didn't matter if I heard the joke or not. It was a good day. 

A little heavy handed, but hopefully it helps. If not. I'm crawling into bed and calling it a day. ;p


----------



## Devor (Oct 19, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


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



You're right, I'm sorry.  I went back and took a look, and you had started far fewer of those threads than I realized when I posted.  I'm sorry for over-reacting and for not checking that before I posted.  I take it back.




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



We've definitely been through this before.  A telling sentence is an "easier" sentence on the reader, if that makes any sense.  You can grasp the point with far less work, and that can have value, especially if the reader has a lot to process.

For starters, a telling sentence can be used to quickly remind the reader of what's happening, to segue into a new concept or wrap up the key takeaways of a scene, especially when there's a lot going on.  One of the reasons showing is often considered "stronger" is because _implied_ content, when understood correctly, is more powerful, but telling can help "catch up" those readers who didn't pick up on the right queues.

The easiness of a telling sentence also means there's more room to insert an author's voice and tone without over-complicating the wording, which can be especially important in some writing styles and in works like a comedy, a first person POV, or a personal reflection (and in turn, transforming a telling sentence into a character's observation might be a good way to improve it).

Telling can be a way to pick up the pace, to skip through time, to cover unavoidable information without beleaguering the reader, or to simplify the book and lower the age range of your target audience.

All in all, the strength of telling is in that same aspect which encourages so many people to tell you to avoid it:  It's just easy and light on the details.  But sometimes that's okay.


----------



## Leif Notae (Oct 19, 2012)

Ankari said:


> I love this exercise.
> 
> You use _telling_ for two reasons:
> 
> ...



Ah, but that's the OTHER rub on this. How well do we know this character up to this point? Where is this line in the work? Do we actually know her or do we think we do? Will this show a small fragment of her mindset (she can't stand being put in charge, she hates being alone, she doesn't like to work, etc) or is this a throwaway moment?

However, no amount of telling will capture an audience more than the subtle showing. Saving wordcount is a silly notion for most (this coming from a flash fiction writer). If you trim anything in a piece, it is pointless telling first.


----------



## Leif Notae (Oct 19, 2012)

Devor said:


> The easiness of a telling sentence also means there's more room to insert an author's voice and tone without over-complicating the wording



But would you not agree there are many times when an author is breaking into their own story to assure you everything is all right or that this did a certain thing, and wouldn't this be more of an impediment or speed bump to the reader? I know you refer to certain formats and I agree with some of it, but it is the same thing with excluding anything except "said" in your writing: you detract from your characters and make them second banana to you, the writer.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 19, 2012)

I still think a lot of the discussion is too absolute. You 'have' to do it this way or that way to create a good connection with your reader, or to have an effective work. I've read too many good stories that are predominantly telling, so I know that's not the case. I still think it falls to the writer's skill set and style. That's going to determine which approach will work best for you. The type of story as well, to the extent it dictates style.


----------



## Devor (Oct 19, 2012)

Leif Notae said:


> But would you not agree there are many times when an author is breaking into their own story to assure you everything is all right or that this did a certain thing, and wouldn't this be more of an impediment or speed bump to the reader?



 . . . y'know, I talked about all that in my last article on the MS homepage, which is linked in my signature.


----------



## Leif Notae (Oct 19, 2012)

Devor said:


> . . . y'know, I talked about all that in my last article on the MS homepage, which is linked in my signature.



I will have to read about it when I get home, thank you.


----------



## Leif Notae (Oct 19, 2012)

Telling can often be a show of poor character development and a misunderstanding of the nature they work as a person as well. I'll use an example.

"X is a charmer, he did this one day" - Read this in a book published in 2010. _First person POV, sci-fi mystery theme_

If you show me how he is a charmer, either by surprising her at work, giving her flowers, speaking the latest romantic alien language and she adores him for it, you tell me two things in this scene. He will always be a charmer. He can charm his way out of anything, and I watched it unfold. When he gets in trouble later, we already feel the tension because we SAW him charm her. We also know she loves romance and loves to be adored. She wants the affection, so when we see him charm her through her eyes, we know he is setting her up and feel far more attached to the con job than if we just read over one sentence saying "X was a charmer."

You set your road work early in the book, and it does all the work for you. You save more time when the scenario comes up again because you've ALREADY done the work a powerless sentence couldn't. 

Now that I have beaten this to death, I believe it is time to accept there are differing POV's here and know my tastes aren't anyone else's. This is why I love you guys and I'm happy I can have these discussions.


----------



## Devor (Oct 19, 2012)

Leif Notae said:


> "X is a charmer, he did this one day" - Read this in a book published in 2010. _First person POV, sci-fi mystery theme_
> 
> If you show me how he is a charmer, either by surprising her at work, giving her flowers, speaking the latest romantic alien language and she adores him for it, you tell me two things in this scene. He will always be a charmer. He can charm his way out of anything, and I watched it unfold.
> 
> ...



I'm going to say one last thing about all this, and then I'll stop.

The thing which pesters me about this conversation is the idea that the two are somehow mutually exclusive, that we're going to pick out every sentence of a certain type and peg it for replacement.  I wouldn't argue that you should _show us_ that the person's a charmer.  But there's nothing wrong with a sentence which reads, "The person was a charmer."  For instance,

_But Jake was always a charmer.  He used to sell knives up and down the coast.  He could sweet talk a drunkard from his whiskey, a miser from his gold, a lass from her maidenhood.  Fred wasn't the least surprised to find Jake asking about his motorcycle._

It's a little cliche but you get the idea.  The sentence "But Jake was always a charmer" is telling, but the sentence works just fine.  Arguably the entire passage is telling, but it's still fine (again, aside from being horribly cliche).  The context doesn't require more than that.  There's no reason to identify the passage and start screaming about it, "Show don't tell," without asking whether that's what needed for the story.


----------



## ThinkerX (Oct 19, 2012)

Then there is 'telling' as in 'story-telling':

the old geezer at the inn recounting his daring escape from Dire Keep, for example.  Clearly he's telling, not showing - and just as clearly, what he has to say could be highly pertinant to the story.


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 19, 2012)

Pacing.

Pacing.

Pacing.

I think that's usually the key-- at least, once you've decided on how important a thing is and how detailed your usual style is, pacing might be the most common reason the thing could be better trimmed down like this while still staying worth mentioning at all. (And maybe *that's* why the choice is so situational.)

And I've got to add, to me almost any Telling of a character's emotions raises a big red flag; feeling might be the central job any character has, so it's the thing I most hate to cheat about if I can help it--especially since so many lazy writers do it.

But there are other angles on this, and I do like some of the exceptions we've seen.


Devor said:


> _But Jake was always a charmer.  He used to..._





ThinkerX said:


> the old geezer at the inn recounting his daring escape from Dire Keep, for example.  Clearly he's telling, not showing - and just as clearly, what he has to say could be highly pertinant to the story.



Both superb examples, either combining Telling with Showing or digging much deeper into the Telling itself.

But mostly it's pacing.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 20, 2012)

I think there's a general consensus that a little bit of telling is okay for clarity.

I guess my question now becomes: do you have any advice on specific techniques for getting closer to the character particularly in regards to getting the reader to feel what the character is feeling?

I think I'm going to reread Midnight Sun right quick and think on Stephanie Meyer's technique.  Regardless of what anyone thinks of her writing in general, I felt for those characters, especially in that part of the story.

Thanks for all the input!


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 20, 2012)

Okay, I think I've figured out my problem: I'm really not filtering enough.

In Midnight Sun, Stephenie Meyer pretty much spends every sentence telling you how Edward feels about what's going on.  I spend page after page describing action with a few thoughts thrown in.

Obviously, I don't want to recreate Twilight.  I'm writing fantasy, not (strictly anyway) teenage romance.  I do think, though, that I need to get closer to the character.

For example:

In my new novelette, I start with Auggie and Benj creeping through the forest in search of a camp of horse thieves.  The action of it is fine, and I've gotten a lot of great feedback on the relationship between the two characters.  However, I give the reader no indication about how Auggie feels about being in the forest sneaking up on a camp of armed men.  Is he frightened, exilerated?  You'd have no clue from reading my text.

So the simple solution to my problem seems to be: filter more emotions into the scene.

I'm still having a bit of a hard time figuring out how, exactly, to do that.  

Take the example scene above.  I want to convey that Auggie, the POV character, is mainly excited about the experience.  He lives for this kind of thing.

Do I do something like:

Auggie's hands trembled in excitement as he chose the perfect moss-covered spot of turf to mask the sound of his footstep.  _This is the life._

This still seems somehow wrong to me.  I think, mainly, because of "in excitement."

So, I guess I figured out what I need to do, but I still need a lot of work on how to do it.

Thanks for listening, and I'd still appreciate any advice.


----------



## Graylorne (Oct 20, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Auggie's hands trembled in excitement as he chose the perfect moss-covered spot of turf to mask the sound of his footstep.  _This is the life._
> 
> This still seems somehow wrong to me.  I think, mainly, because of "in excitement."



Auggie felt his hands trembling as he saw the perfect moss-covered spot of turf to mask the sound of his footstep. _This is the life._

Trembling + this is the life convey excitement rather than fear, so, yes, you don't need to name the emotion. And this way Auggie registers the sensation, that's more personal.


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 20, 2012)

Graylorne said:


> Auggie felt his hands trembling as he saw the perfect moss-covered spot of turf to mask the sound of his footstep. _This is the life._
> 
> Trembling + this is the life convey excitement rather than fear, so, yes, you don't need to name the emotion. And this way Auggie registers the sensation, that's more personal.



That's a great rule of thumb for covering more things than not: 

*Show* something natural that points that way
then if that could be ambiguous, *Clarify* it with a second touch
(and *filter* out those "in excitement" giveaways)


----------



## Ankari (Oct 20, 2012)

I use the Emotion Thesaurus that T. Allen Smith suggested a while back.  This tool gives great body language for the proper emotion you're trying to _show._  The only thing I want to point out is that some emotions share the same body language.  Make sure that you don't depend on this tool as your only way of conveying the intended emotion.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 20, 2012)

> Auggie felt his hands trembling as he saw



I generally try to avoid "felt" and "saw."  

What's the advantage of this over the first version with "in excitement" removed?


----------



## Graylorne (Oct 20, 2012)

My version feels, at least to me, more personal. Also I showed he was exited instead of telling it. Why do you want to avoid perfectly good verbs?


----------



## Ankari (Oct 20, 2012)

I don't like either.  Hands trembling with excitement tells the reader that the warrior is too raw.  He is still new to this kind of work and cannot control his own body while executing his task.

I would show him _savoring_ the execution of his task or his surroundings.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 20, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> That's a problem that I continually have.  I like to discuss theory and philosophy of writing, and most of the respondents don't seem to feel that it's valid to even have a theory or philosophy.
> 
> Of course it's impossible to discuss a sentence out of context.  That one sentence means nothing to me.
> 
> I'd like some input on the technique.  There have to be some writers out there who agree that it's okay to develop rules and techniques.


Why would an artist use a certain color _THERE_? There could be some overly complicated algorithm behind the inclusion of the color that people that have studied and worked with art their entire lives know as a matter of course. It's a weighing of all the components and seeing the lack or need, but to explicitly state the algorithm would require a tome of processes, prerequisites and calculations done on variables. Luckily, with experience, the human brain is sophisticated enough to do this _naturally._ 

In other words, write, write, write away. Eventually you stop thinking so much of rules and algorithms and go along more the route of, "this is how I want this scene to feel" and "this is exactly what I am going for" independent of classic markers and advice such as passive voice, showing vs telling, methods of exposition/background, etc. 

It is worth noting that everyone here is a writer (or wants to be a writer), and so we all are able to think of these things and they are more important to us than the general population. Still, as BWFoster78 just discovered with your Twilight perusal, here is a book that accomplished its goals and did it in a way that you would apparently find repugnant in your own writing. (at least that's what I took away from those posts). 

I use telling and passive voice as sort of a break for the reader. Everything being shown can be exhausting in the same way that eating nothing but vegetables is. Sometimes we want ice cream. One of my read-throughs of my book, I read it aloud. This was great for editing, but well, my book is HEAVY action. Even the emotional action has no punches pulled. I found that if I read more than one or two chapters at a time, the action would get to me and I would be shouting the sentences. I built up this fever-pitch and continued building with only a few respites along the way. Those respites were the in-between scenes, but I didn't want the in-between scenes to have that same intensity as the action did, so I distanced them. 

Still, none of this was intentional at first. It wasn't until later readings that I realized what I was doing then sat back and decided that I accomplished how I wanted the scenes to feel and achieved what I was going for. 

Aside: That's not to say there isn't room for improvement, but frankly, there is always room for improvement. I don't talk to too many writers that cannot nitpick their novel every time they read it. As long as you get rid of obvious errors, stylistic choices will not be noticed by too many readers, and will be despised by even a smaller fraction of those readers.

And that's really the goal I think--to not be noticed. To achieve what you are trying to do without getting in the way of the reader. This is one reason why it is regularly told to beginning writers to show and not tell, because it is very easy to do it badly. Kind of why I tell my math students to change all subtraction into addition by the opposite. Until they are experienced, they can't find their own style of math. 



wordwalker said:


> Pacing.
> 
> Pacing.
> 
> ...



I agree mostly. It's pacing AND feel. Sometimes you want to achieve a different feel. I _like_ narration though. I enjoy not having to work to digest the story, plot, feelings, etc. If you do all show and no tell with your writing (you being anyone reading this), then chances are when I go to read your writing I will be skipping over VAST portions of it, getting lost and confused, going back and looking for key sentences, saying, "OK, wish that would have been clear", and then skipping back ahead. More likely, I'll skip over a bunch of it and not read whatever you wanted me to read about showing, and it wouldn't have been necessary anyway. 

...I also skip reading most descriptions of location and objects unless there is a reason for me to read about them. 

For instance, I like using generic descriptors. My main character has a bastard sword, I don't need to describe its pommel or handwrap or blade. It's a bastard sword. One of the "bosses" has a ridiculous weapon (seen here) and I describe it for the reader because its make-up actually influences the battle. 

Example of cool narration from my childhood: Warcraft 3 Trailer/Game Intro (2002, Blizzard Entertainment) - YouTube

EDIT: Don't know why the above link says "download attachment", I clicked yes and it just took me to the picture, but for those not wanting to do that, it's at apocalypsedesigns.com/art under weapons.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 20, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> My main character has a bastard sword, I don't need to describe its pommel or handwrap or blade. It's a bastard sword.



Well, you might need a little more than that for some people, like me, who have no idea what a bastard sword is or how it's any different than a regular sword.


----------



## Ankari (Oct 20, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Well, you might need a little more than that for some people, like me, who have no idea what a bastard sword is or how it's any different than a regular sword.



This can be shown through the use of the weapon.  It's basically a long sword with a handle long enough to fit two hands if needed (regular long swords are meant to be carried with one hand and the handle is long enough for that purpose).


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 20, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Well, you might need a little more than that for some people, like me, who have no idea what a bastard sword is or how it's any different than a regular sword.



So if I were to use a word you didn't know, say for instance, "assoil" today's word of the day on my e-mail. Would I have a similar obligation to give you the definition?


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 20, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> So, I guess I figured out what I need to do, but I still need a lot of work on how to do it.
> 
> Thanks for listening, and I'd still appreciate any advice.



To filter through a character you have to be in their head AND in their heart. You have to know what's important to them long term and what's important to them right then and there and you have to be feeling it. For me I play pretend. I pretend I'm that person in that moment, then I ask myself 'what am I feeling?', 'what do I see?', 'what do I wan't to do?' etc. 

What gets described is what gets noticed and is important to the character at that moment. What a character notices can speak to their character and their mood. Eg. if a character is staring at a gal's behind and all is as it seems, it's pretty obvious.) 

I've been trying to think of an analogy but in doing that I realized that in essence it puts distance between what I'm trying to communicate too. I realized, simply put, for me, it boils down to this when expressing emotion. Screw craft. Screw the rules. Just tell the truth of the moment using what ever language your character would use. If some of the words they use are adverbs, adjectives, was, that, or any of the other no-no words that we're advised to avoid, so be it.

Sometimes those words are something blunt like 'I lubby you.' other times it can be 'I think you're just swell.' or over the top like 'She was smashingly fantastic. She makes my heart sing like a nightingale.' If that's what a character would say or think, then that's what belongs on the page. To do anything else is to be dishonest.

Craft your words around the truth, not the truth around the words. Because if you do the later, truth gets bent.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 20, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> So if I were to use a word you didn't know, say for instance, "assoil" today's word of the day on my e-mail. Would I have a similar obligation to give you the definition?



I wouldn't say you'd be obligated, but it would be a bit bothersome if I ended up having to look it up just so I could understand what you were getting at. Ankari has a point, context is important. If the context of the word "assoil" is clear enough, then it shouldn't be a problem. It's when you take something out of context that it's confusing.


----------



## Graylorne (Oct 20, 2012)

Well, I can assure you that any word a reader had to look up wouldn't get past my editor. So I'd say unless one is writing for a select group, it's better to use words that are generally known.


----------



## Devor (Oct 21, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> So if I were to use a word you didn't know, say for instance, "assoil" today's word of the day on my e-mail. Would I have a similar obligation to give you the definition?



The Bastard Sword Jon receives in Song of Ice and Fire came with a definition.  I would expect that much with unusual objects.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 21, 2012)

Graylorne said:


> My version feels, at least to me, more personal. Also I showed he was exited instead of telling it. Why do you want to avoid perfectly good verbs?



To me, they're pretty weak verbs.  I prefer verbs that convey action.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Oct 21, 2012)

Okay, I'm not any sort of authority on writing, but here's my two cents...

Verbs are great, as are adverbs... but if you're not pacing right, the whole things doomed before it gets to an agent.  If you show a guy sneaking through a forest, you need to create a tense situation, show nerves (or calm) and get to the real point of the scene.  

By tht same token, when you've got people doing other things, say needing to have a long dialogue, it's better to pace it out with some action.  We can only see someone sipping a goblet so much before we're bored to tears.  In one of my novels, I had two guys talking, a young paladin who's very naive to the ways of the world, and an old hunter.  So while they're talking, they're fishing and then cleaning the fish (it's first draft, don't go nuts):


     The morning air was already warm as the two barefoot men stood on the bank and cast in their lines.  Kael sat and reclined against a tree, his bare back seemingly unbothered by the rough bark.  

     He really was a beast of a man, thought Cedrick as he gently fed out his fishing line.  Cedrick had always been tall, but next to Kael, with his massive barrel chest and muscles on top of muscles, Cedrick felt a bit like a prepubescent boy.  

     Kael sat up and pulled in his line, one hand over the next, until his catch cleared the water.  

     While Kael caught five big fish, Cedrick had had two nibbles on his hook, lost three worms, and caught a crayfish with his big toe.  Not his best showing.

     Kael picked up his line again and said, “What do you say?  Enough for breakfast?”

     Cedrick shrugged.  “I guess so."

     “Let’s get these back to the well then and we can clean them.”

Cedrick grabbed two of the fish and followed the big man.  Kael set a bowl down and pumped some water into it, then pulled a thick sawed log over to sit on.  He offered Cedrick the seat on the step by the pump.  Taking out two knives, Kael handed one to Cedrick and they began scaling the fish.  

     “Cedrick, did you mean all those things that you said about lycanthropy?”

     “Of course I did,” said Cedrick, dropping his fish for the second time.  “Damn slippery things.  I’ve never actually seen a lycanthrope myself, though.”  He put his fish in the bowl of water.

     “Don’t forget to gut it,” said Kael.

     “What?”

     In explanation, Kael took the fish out of the bowl and stuck the knife into its belly.  He carefully slit the fish open and with his thumb and index finger, pulled the creatures innards out and tossed them into the bowl at his feet.  “There you are,” he said, handing the fish back to Cedrick.  “And, see to the rest of those scales, or you’ll be eating that one.”

     Cedrick did as instructed.  

     “I am interested in learning more,” continued Kael, “but have never met anyone else who knows anything about the disease.  Would you teach me?”

     “Teach you?”

     “Zedrina is going to need a couple days to rest her ankle.  It would not be an imposition for you two to remain until she is well enough to walk again.”

     “That’s not what I was concerned about,” said Cedrick.  “Everything I know, I already told you.  My training is as a soldier; it is my mother who is the healer.  I only know what I do about medicine because she often discusses her work at table.  My sister and mother are much more accomplished with the clerical arts than I am.”

     Kael finished the last of the five fish about the same time as Cedrick finished his first.  He stood and took the bowl of guts down to the river, leaving Cedrick to wash the cleaned fish in a fresh bowl.

     “Zedrina,” said Kael returning from dumping the waste, “how long has she been blind?”

      Cedrick shrugged.  “I don’t know, I only met her yesterday.  I don’t know anything about her.”

      “Are you two heading in the same direction, or something, that you’ve ended up traveling together?”

     “I guess.  I met her in the swamp, then we ran for our lives, then I mentioned I was heading to Mist to my friends’ house where I might be able to borrow a horse.... and she said she wanted to go to Mist as well.   She asked if I minded her traveling with me, and I told her I didn’t mind.”

     “How... romantic,” Kael said, smiling.

     “It was nothing of the sort!” Cedrick spluttered.

     “Easy, there,” said Kael, “I only meant that she’s a pretty girl.  I’d have been happy to travel with her too.”

     “I’m a man in service to the gods,” Cedrick said sternly, as if it were explanation enough.

     “Men of god don’t have the ability to see pretty girls?”

     “Of course we can see them,” Cedrick said, wondering whether Kael was toying with him on purpose, “but my motives were pure in accepting her as my travel companion.  I have a duty to see her to safety.  You make it sound like some sort of lustful pursuit, which it most certainly is not.  Those sorts of thoughts would earn me penance and more duties, and my plate is rather full right now, I’m afraid.”

     “Penance?  Duties?  That doesn’t sound like much fun.”  Kael laughed.  “Better keep my thoughts to myself before you have to pray for my damned soul as well.”

    Cedrick sniffed.  “Laugh if you’d like, but the rewards of a holy life outweigh earthly pleasures.”

     Kael grunted, but said nothing more on the matter.


So anyways, the only point I am really trying to make here, is that, rather than having them sit in arm chairs, discussing this thing I need them to discuss, I use a little background action to further the reader's interest in getting to know the two men.  I think this is chapter two or three, so this is a whole new side of Cedrick.  And Kael, we're just meeting.  I use lines of pure show, and lines of pure tell, and mix the two together, in what I hope, is a fairly well-paced passage that makes the reader smile and serves the purpose of relaying what might be terribly boring information.  

There is no one magical formula to achieving your goal, only trial and error, and reading it to see what works and what doesn't.  Could I trim out the fishing to cut words? SURE!  But, do I want to?  Could I have accomplished this whole section using all SHOW? of course I could have, and it might have been twice as long, made the reader pass out from boredom, and been  a confusing mess.  Could I have done a lot of things differently?  Cant we all?  

I think it's important to show what you want to show, and tell what you want to tell.  Pacing and voice are the most important things, and if you mess those things up, you lose your reader.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 22, 2012)

> Still, as BWFoster78 just discovered with your Twilight perusal, here is a book that accomplished its goals and did it in a way that you would apparently find repugnant in your own writing. (at least that's what I took away from those posts).



I wouldn't find it repugnant at all, but I can't use the technique for a couple of reasons:

1. I don't think that fantasy readers would appreciate being that much in the character's head.  The readers have certain expectations in any genre.  I already stray pretty far into the realm of Fantasy Romance, so I need some distance, I think, to bring it back toward epic fantasy.

2. Midnight Sun is the best example I can think of to show how to elicit an emotional response.  Stephenie Meyer filters pretty much ever sentence through Edward's emotions.  However, the book is a special case.  It was written as a thought experiment for her to figure out Edward's POV.  She wasn't worried about world building or character development.  She didn't have to explain anything.  All her readers would know everything about the situation already, so she could focus purely on the emotions.


----------



## Flemming Hansen (Oct 22, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


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


I remember one scene from Les Miserables where Victor Hugo spends four full pages on describing a street. I remember the dread of reading it, thinking "Just get on with the f&%/g story Hugo! 
I often use tell to skip uninteresting part, or to introduce information about an area or a part of history.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 22, 2012)

Graylorne said:


> Well, I can assure you that any word a reader had to look up wouldn't get past my editor. So I'd say unless one is writing for a select group, it's better to use words that are generally known.


I don't think it's too much to expect epic fantasy/sword&sorcery fans to know what a bastard sword is...

...How would yins describe the sword itself? The parts of a sword are not well-known in general. Should I describe what a pommel is before I describe what the pommel looks like? How about the quillons, cross-guard, hilt, ricasso, or other pieces of a sword? There is a line between expanding your vocabulary and being talked down to in order to avoid having your vocabulary expanded. I think someone describing something that I should know what it is (for instance a desk, a pine tree, a tunic, a chalk board, etc) crosses the line into being talked down to (unless done as a stylistic choice--where you can basically get away with anything). 



Devor said:


> The Bastard Sword Jon receives in Song of Ice and Fire came with a definition.  I would expect that much with unusual objects.


That was a bit of a special case since it is one of the "super-awesome metal" swords (can't remember what the material was, but since it is a "SPECIAL" sword, its description is necessary regardless); also, I believe it emphasized/highlighted that Jon himself was a bastard, hence the bastard sword.


----------



## Leif Notae (Oct 22, 2012)

All right, I'll chime in once more (not to stir any pots, but to respond in general to something I read):

When you look at/write a script, there are only three aspects they can use. Setting, actions, and dialogue. They use these to dictate pacing without telling, back loading, or info-dumping. There is nothing more frustrating than hearing someone say "I can't use these to pace out my story, I must tell them everything about this." Movies do it all the time. 

Yes, we aren't writing scripts. You know what, we'll have to start soon. Competing with entertainment options that are "right here, right now" and "sucks you in and won't let go" will always trump the action of reading. Period. Would you rather read ten pages of that musty old book or watch a ten minute laughfest on the Tube of You?

This is where more action, showing, and "doing" is taking over. You might have gotten away with it when there was one theater and the television irradiated your everything, but nowadays we are losing a battle for entertainment.

So yes, get in there are start pacing with your settings, actions, and dialogue. Let your reader get lost in the world because when you do it right, they don't need you to hold their hand and tell them what is going on or how the magic works or why this king has blue hair for the last twenty years. People have more imagination than you think, it's time to start trusting them with your actions.

/soapbox

I love you all.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 22, 2012)

Leif Notae said:


> Yes, we aren't writing scripts. You know what, we'll have to start soon. Competing with entertainment options that are "right here, right now" and "sucks you in and won't let go" will always trump the action of reading. Period. Would you rather read ten pages of that musty old book or watch a ten minute laughfest on the Tube of You?



TV and Movies do not IMHO auto-trump reading. There will always be people who want to watch a film over read a book and the opposite is true too. I have friends who really don't watch TV or Movies but are constantly reading. Books and Movies are two different mediums, each with their strengths and weaknesses. There are things a book can do that movies just can't. That's why some great books can't be translated into movies and TV. 

Other factors come into play too. I can either wait a couple of years for the next Hunger Games movie to come out or I just pick up the book and read. The opposite can be true too. Sometimes it takes years for the next book to come out vs. a few months for the next season.



> This is where more action, showing, and "doing" is taking over. You might have gotten away with it when there was one theater and the television irradiated your everything, but nowadays we are losing a battle for entertainment.



I disagree. I don't think there's a swing either way. There are just more choices out there for Movies and TV as well as books. With the explosion of ebooks, small press, and independent publishing, readers have way more choice now just as Movie and TV watchers have more choice too. There's a lot of static out there and IMHO it's just harder to find the signal now days. I wonder what the ratio of books being published vs the number of TV progrms and movies being produced is? My guess would be that books being produced in various forms out numbers TV and Movies.



> So yes, get in there are start pacing with your settings, actions, and dialogue. Let your reader get lost in the world because when you do it right, they don't need you to hold their hand and tell them what is going on or how the magic works or why this king has blue hair for the last twenty years. People have more imagination than you think, it's time to start trusting them with your actions.



Well it depends. If you're going to solve problems with magic then you better darn well explain it's rules and how it works otherwise the reader will wonder why can't they solve every problem with magic. Telling the reader why the king has blue hair could be a worthless detail or it may be incredibly important depending on if it's important to the plot.  Yes, you shouldn't have to hold the reader's hand all the way through but you shouldn't be vague and opaque either.


----------



## Devor (Oct 22, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> I disagree. I don't think there's a swing either way.



There's a real documented swing happening right now, but it's away from TV/Film and towards Internet/Gaming.  I'm not aware if it's really affecting books.  If anything, I think books as an industry are doing well because TV and Film adaptations regularly draw more people into reading.


----------



## Graylorne (Oct 23, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> I don't think it's too much to expect epic fantasy/sword&sorcery fans to know what a bastard sword is...



I wasn't responding to the bastard sword but to your example of 'assoil' and the use of difficult words in general. 

And no, I don't think fantasy fans know what a bastard sword is, precisely. And most of them won't care, either. It's a sword.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Oct 23, 2012)

Well I''m doomed then!  HAHA!  I give me reader credit for loads of things, and if they don't get it, I hope they are smart enough to look something up and learn a little.  This makes me wonder whether my subtle style might be an unwelcome thing in this art.

When I write, I'm more inclined to put a shiavona in my swordsman's hands that a generic longsword.  Oh well... I do what I like, and hope my readers would enjoy what I do.


----------



## Graylorne (Oct 23, 2012)

Yes, the problem is, that when you're regularly published, you don't always have that freedom. I've had many a discussion with my editor, sometimes he wins, sometimes I, but in the end you can't disregards all his suggestions, not if you want to stay published. It's in your contract.


----------



## VanClash (Oct 23, 2012)

I come across this problem a lot when I am writing. I don't know where I draw the line, because I like writing in first person and I write a lot of moments where the character is just thinking, and I don't know if some of the things I write in those moments are to 'telly'.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 23, 2012)

> Competing with entertainment options that are "right here, right now" and "sucks you in and won't let go" will always trump the action of reading. Period. Would you rather read ten pages of that musty old book or watch a ten minute laughfest on the Tube of You?



I don't know about trends, but, given the choice between a good movie and a good book, I'd choose the book any day.


----------



## Guru Coyote (Oct 23, 2012)

Maybe reading a book is fun because a book can do what a movie can't... it can explain things (tell). So why must we compete with visual storytelling by restricting outselves to the same limited toolset? Why not compete by dooing what the movie can't 

I think this discussion is important to have anyway, regardless of how much show or tell we actually use. The key is to be AWARE of the differences and to know when to use which. This current topic has highlighted some of those nicely.


----------



## brokethepoint (Oct 23, 2012)

I have found this thread quite interesting, it seems that I have been drilled to show, show, show, on so many different fronts.  But honestly I believe that if done right telling is just as effective and can produce a wonderful work of art.

"In a hole in the ground there lived. . ."


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 23, 2012)

brokethepoint said:


> I have found this thread quite interesting, it seems that I have been drilled to show, show, show, on so many different fronts.  But honestly I believe that if done right telling is just as effective and can produce a wonderful work of art.
> 
> "In a hole in the ground there lived. . ."



You've been the recipient of probably the single most over-used and harmful piece of advice on writing forums. Every writing forum you go to you will see "show don't tell" regurgitated like a mantra, with not an ounce of analytic thought behind it. Fiction is a combination of show and tell, and a good work of fiction can lean very heavily in either direction. You should ignore advice that tells you it has to be one way or the other, or any other writing advice that states there is only one way for you to write.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 23, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> You've been the recipient of probably the single most over-used and harmful piece of advice on writing forums. Every writing forum you go to you will see "show don't tell" regurgitated like a mantra, with not an ounce of analytic thought behind it. Fiction is a combination of show and tell, and a good work of fiction can lean very heavily in either direction. You should ignore advice that tells you it has to be one way or the other, or any other writing advice that states there is only one way for you to write.



The key seems to be figuring out exactly when to show and when to tell and when to use a combination.

Honestly, when I read a beginner's work and it's:

Jim is a good guy.  He's six feet tall with brown hair.  He likes to drink beer.  (And obviously this is an exaggerated example, but not by much)

It simply does not draw me in.  Showing does.

More discussion of the advantages of showing and the advantages of telling has a lot of value.  I think the conclusions reached in this thread are fantastic:

If you tell the reader what the character is feeling, the reader won't truly believe you.  You have to show it to gain immersion.  However, showing leaves too much open to the reader's interpretation.  You need to tell for clarity.  Therefore, an ideal approach seems to be to mix the two.

I'll say it again, though: Newbie writers, in my opinion, tend to tell way too much.  Their writing improves greatly when they learn to show.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 23, 2012)

Guru Coyote said:


> Maybe reading a book is fun because a book can do what a movie can't... it can explain things (tell). So why must we compete with visual storytelling by restricting outselves to the same limited toolset? Why not compete by dooing what the movie can't
> 
> I think this discussion is important to have anyway, regardless of how much show or tell we actually use. The key is to be AWARE of the differences and to know when to use which. This current topic has highlighted some of those nicely.



I think the main advantage of a book is that it can put us in the character's head.  The reader experiences what the POV character does in a way that a movie can't replicate.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 23, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> You've been the recipient of probably the single most over-used and harmful piece of advice on writing forums. Every writing forum you go to you will see "show don't tell" regurgitated like a mantra, with not an ounce of analytic thought behind it. Fiction is a combination of show and tell, and a good work of fiction can lean very heavily in either direction. You should ignore advice that tells you it has to be one way or the other, or any other writing advice that states there is only one way for you to write.



I agree...with a caveat.

We need to understand why the Show Don't Tell advice has become so prominent. We as beginning writers have a natural tendency towards telling narrative. It's how we grow up, telling verbal stories. In the written word, showing is not so innate. We need to learn to show to draw people into our characters... To connect them physically & emotionally. Once that is understood, the two techniques can be used together for more effective written tales.

Simply due to the over-telling that is so common with beginning writing, I don't think that the Show Don't Tell guideline is overused. It's necessary to be mindful of the pitfalls of not showing. Yes, we can discuss examples where total telling is impactful. I'm not trying to argue against the use of telling. It has it's place. For my writing (and reading preferences) I lean heavily towards the value of showing. In my opinion, good showing will connect me and make me feel more a part of the story than any amount of telling will or ever could hope to do.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 23, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> The key seems to be figuring out exactly when to show and when to tell and when to use a combination.



I don't feel there's anything exact about it or any model or formula that we can apply. In my mind it's all about feel. At this point in my writing it's not even much of a conscious choice anymore. Showing and telling have become habit, style, and authorial voice.


----------



## Ankari (Oct 23, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'll say it again, though: Newbie writers, in my opinion, tend to tell way too much.  Their writing improves greatly when they learn to show.



I think the biggest problem with newbie writers is _what_ they tell and not _how much_ they tell.  Some (and I include myself) are not against telling in _any amount._  The final conclusion is how you use the technique effectively to tell your story.

Just an example, _telling_ is found in most ancient literature.  I've *never* reread any modern book.  I have reread _The Iliad_, _Odyssey_ and _The Histories_ (I admit, a long time ago).  These are classics that use extreme amount of _telling._


----------



## Guru Coyote (Oct 23, 2012)

Maybe it's important for newbie writers to learn to "Show, don't tell" in the same way that a master painter might ask a student to paint a portrait using only one color. There is enormous learning and growth potential in an exercise in arbitrary creative limitation. So, only being "allowed" to show and never tell will train the writer in the use of this tool.
But once that tool is mastered, it becomes one tool in a toolbox.

So maybe the next step after "Show, don't tell" would be "Only tell" for a while. Or better even, write tow separate versions of the same text. ONe with only Show and one with only Tell.

And note: I am talking "writing exercises" here. Not finished texts.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 23, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I don't feel there's anything exact about it or any model or formula that we can apply. In my mind it's all about feel. At this point in my writing it's not even much of a conscious choice anymore. Showing and telling have become habit, style, and authorial voice.



That's great for you.

It doesn't, however, help someone trying to learn.  The more we can analyze the why and how of writing, the easier it is to teach the methods we derive.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 23, 2012)

Guru Coyote said:


> Maybe it's important for newbie writers to learn to "Show, don't tell" in the same way that a master painter might ask a student to paint a portrait using only one color. There is enormous learning and growth potential in an exercise in arbitrary creative limitation. So, only being "allowed" to show and never tell will train the writer in the use of this tool.
> But once that tool is mastered, it becomes one tool in a toolbox.
> 
> So maybe the next step after "Show, don't tell" would be "Only tell" for a while. Or better even, write tow separate versions of the same text. ONe with only Show and one with only Tell.
> ...



There's value in your suggestion.

Writing is a hugely complex endeavor.  Trying to focus on a small portion and master it makes a lot of sense.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 23, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> That's great for you.
> 
> It doesn't, however, help someone trying to learn.  The more we can analyze the why and how of writing, the easier it is to teach the methods we derive.



If you look past your initial thought, it could help learning. The point being, after you put something into practice over & over, it can become natural, not something that has to be considered. There comes a point where over-analyzing becomes counterproductive to an art form. My comment was not made to start a forum thread battle, merely to point out that once a concept like Show Don't Tell is understood, and can be effectively put into practice, then it can become a matter of "feel" where the author is exercising style.

I don't see the problem with stating that point. It's certainly relevant to the topic.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 23, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> That's great for you.
> 
> It doesn't, however, help someone trying to learn.  The more we can analyze the why and how of writing, the easier it is to teach the methods we derive.



As someone that went to school for art, switched gears and became a mathematician, and am now pursuing a career in writing, I think I can comment on this rather effectively. Creativity and, more importantly, entertainment, does not follow strict rules. It seems like you want to be a technically perfect writer, but I think that is not only something we should not aspire to, but even something that we should aspire not to be. It's like in Once and Future King--Galahad was "perfect", but he was a dick. Don't be a Galahad. Be better: be human--it's more interesting. 

Not that there's anything wrong with knowing the rules--it helps knowing what you're breaking. 



T.Allen.Smith said:


> If you look past your initial thought, it could help learning. The point being, after you put something into practice over & over, it can become natural, not something that has to be considered. There comes a point where over-analyzing becomes counterproductive to an art form. My comment was not made to start a forum thread battle, merely to point out that once a concept like Show Don't Tell is understood, and can be effectively put into practice, then it can become a matter of "feel" where the author is exercising style.
> 
> I don't see the problem with stating that point. It's certainly relevant to the topic.



I agree on all points.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 23, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> The more we can analyze the why and how of writing, the easier it is to teach the methods we derive.



I think this is true, generally speaking, but the topic is also subject to over-analysis, to a writer being overly self-conscious about rules and advice, and in the process losing the unique voice that she brings to the art. There should be a balance, in my view, and exactly where you strike the balance also depends on your goals. If you're trying to write more or less generic fiction that people can buy, read quickly, and forget about, you're going to swing heavily to one end of the spectrum. If your concern is solely artistic and the embodiment of your work as your own unique artistic expression, you're going to swing to the other side. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle. Literature as a whole would be much the worse for it if we were all at the same place along that spectrum.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 23, 2012)

Went back to your "true" original post to try to get back on target. 



BWFoster78 said:


> I want to get my readers closer to my POV character emotionally.
> 
> Is it more effective to tell the reader what the character is feeling and why?
> 
> ...


In terms of getting readers closer to your characters, it is better to tell, unless there is something they can relate to in the actions--in which case they will just substitute their feelings. But even then, it won't be getting them closer to your characters, it will be getting them to treat your characters like an extension of them. 

I think of characters' thoughts and emotions as an entire setting almost. If you have stoic characters especially, how else will we know what's beneath the surface? And if there are thoughts or emotions that they have that would tell me something that influences the plot, then I will be actively mad at you/the author if they are held back for the benefit of showing instead of telling.

My "rule" is: show what you can, but tell the rest. I don't think you should go through contortions to show everything when telling works. 

I think the idea of showing instead of telling is primarily there to keep people's attention. As someone that has ADHD, if the crap you're showing me is being shown just to show me something instead of telling me, I'd rather just be told.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 23, 2012)

And I'll summarize Wikipedia's article on this (the article in full)

Ernest Hemingway's original "Iceberg Theory":
If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water.​
Modifier 1, by James Scott Bell:
Sometimes a writer tells as a shortcut, to move quickly to the meaty part of the story or scene. Showing is essentially about making scenes vivid. If you try to do it constantly, the parts that are supposed to stand out won't, and your readers will get exhausted.​
Modifier 2, by Orson Scott Card et al:
"showing" is so terribly time consuming that it is to be used only for dramatic scenes. The objective is to find the right balance of telling versus showing, action versus summarization. Factors like rhythm, pace, and tone come into play.​


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 23, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think this is true, generally speaking, but the topic is also subject to over-analysis, to a writer being overly self-conscious about rules and advice, and in the process losing the unique voice that she brings to the art. There should be a balance, in my view, and exactly where you strike the balance also depends on your goals. If you're trying to write more or less generic fiction that people can buy, read quickly, and forget about, you're going to swing heavily to one end of the spectrum. If your concern is solely artistic and the embodiment of your work as your own unique artistic expression, you're going to swing to the other side. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle. Literature as a whole would be much the worse for it if we were all at the same place along that spectrum.



I think we all know where I fall on the issue of creating "art."


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 23, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think we all know where I fall on the issue of creating "art."



Yes, but luckily it is not a viewpoint shared by everyone.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 23, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Simply due to the over-telling that is so common with beginning writing, I don't think that the Show Don't Tell guideline is overused.



I slightly disagree on this because of one point, and I speak from personal experience. Show-don't-tell can be very damaging to a young writer if they're not ready to comprehend what it really means, so they don't know when to stop themselves from overdoing it.

This was me. I wrote pages and pages of absolute vagueness thinking I was doing the right thing but I wasn't. Nothing made sense because it had no context, because I couldn't just tell someone the context of something or anything. The reader had to figure it out for themselves. There were times where I stopped to think of a way to show the color blue or that something was round. I couldn't just tell the reader. Yes, it got pretty absurde. IMHO I would have been better off not hearing of the concept until much later. Sure I was mostly telling in my early writing but compared to my over showing, at least it made sense.

I've since shown some of my 'telling' writing to someone and they made the comment that the prose had honesty in it compared to some of my later over thought out over written and rewritten stuff. They said they could connect with the telling prose.

I used to think that big over showing frak up was unique to myself, but I've found out it's not. I've seen instances of it in every writing class I've taken and every writing group I've been in.

My two cents.


----------



## mpkirby (Oct 23, 2012)

I think the ultimate of show don't tell is the Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brien.  The ultimate in never telling your reader anything, but show, show, show.  In particular his use of naval dialogue and descriptive texts is sometimes overwhelming.  Sometimes he uses "tell" to get into the head of the characters.

It can absolutely be difficult.  Another (more recent) example is Neal Stephenson's Anathem.  He invents an entire world/vocabulary and does a pretty good job of integrating it into the story in a way you can figure it out even if you don't cheat and look at the appendix. (you know you are in deep when you need an appendix to read a fiction book 

Perhaps like so much else in writing it is about balance.  Show the reader something, use dialogue, and tell them if it makes sense.  Forcing show into dialogue can sometimes come across as artificial (like the character that is "new" to the area and makes the main character explain everything in dialogue).

Mike


----------



## Leif Notae (Oct 23, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> TV and Movies do not IMHO auto-trump reading. There will always be people who want to watch a film over read a book and the opposite is true too. I have friends who really don't watch TV or Movies but are constantly reading. Books and Movies are two different mediums, each with their strengths and weaknesses. There are things a book can do that movies just can't. That's why some great books can't be translated into movies and TV.
> 
> Other factors come into play too. I can either wait a couple of years for the next Hunger Games movie to come out or I just pick up the book and read. The opposite can be true too. Sometimes it takes years for the next book to come out vs. a few months for the next season.
> 
> ...



Then we will have to agree to disagree. I see what I see, you see what you see and we will coexist in our worlds. Thank you for your input.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Oct 24, 2012)

If I were to offer a single piece of advice to a brand new writer, it would have nothing to do with either "show" or "tell".  

Write, write, write.  When you write, and keep writing, you begin to learn it all.    

Couldn't the problem most new writers have, be as easily summed up in the fact that for their first project, they have taken on a multi-volume series in a world they created, with an endless possibilities?

I mean, it's riding the Tour de France before your training-wheels are off, and there's no other way to slice it.  "Tell" is newbie-ish, fine.  But, "Show" is confusing and distracting, by that same token, ie. IF IT'S DONE BADLY.  My problem with trying to be technically perfect, is that I cut up a novel, then cut it up again, and then hung it from the world tree nine days and nights... and it still isn't any wiser than it was before.  I spent so much time dissecting everything, I IGNORED some fatal flaws in the plot.  I see this all the time when I read for other people; writers so concerned with sticking to a theory, that they forget to do the fact-checking, edits for consistency, develop a unique tone, and a number of other very problematic things which ruin a reader's experience.

Anyone can take a decent story, write it out, and tell or show (or any combination of those), a story.  Where you really begin to separate the wheat from the chaff, is in execution, reader reaction, and immersion.  These are subtle things, and very difficult to teach.  Just as there are no true "rights" there are no "wrongs" when you execute well.  

I wish we had a thread for people to just show their technique a little, with some lessons for new writers who are struggling with a particular issue.  For me, it was editing.  I spent a year editing, and pretty much wasting my time, because I was working on all the wrong things.  I think some of these lessons are just really hard to learn without one-on-one help, and I'm genuinely thankful to my critique partners who have helped me overcome and persevere.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 24, 2012)

> I spent a year editing, and pretty much wasting my time, because I was working on all the wrong things. I think some of these lessons are just really hard to learn without one-on-one help, and I'm genuinely thankful to my critique partners who have helped me overcome and persevere.



I think it's almost impossible to do a full edit by yourself (for me at this point in time anyway).  There are simply too many things to consider.  Feedback from beta readers is absolutely essential to move forward.


----------



## Chime85 (Oct 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think it's almost impossible to do a full edit by yourself (for me at this point in time anyway).  There are simply too many things to consider.  Feedback from beta readers is absolutely essential to move forward.



I completely agree with this. No matter how much you try, you can never be 100% objective with your own works. What you believe is clear as day, might be a little ambiguous to another. With beta readers, they have a more objective view, enabling them to see some red flags you would otherwise miss.

x


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 24, 2012)

I also agree 100%.

This becomes plain obvious the first time you have more than one reader reviewing at the same time. Sometimes their views are polar opposites on the same passages.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think we all know where I fall on the issue of creating "art."



I'm not aware of this...?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 24, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> I'm not aware of this...?



Assuming I'm not missing sarcasm, this may have been established before your joining the forum.

My desire is to tell a story, not to create art.  Steerpike and I (and others) have went round and round on this and similar issues for a long time.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 24, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> I'm not aware of this...?



All fiction should be generic and lifeless, interchangeable such that it may have been written by any person, or by committee. Never try anything bold or unexpected


----------



## Ankari (Oct 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> My desire is to tell a story, not to create art.  Steerpike and I (and others) have went round and round on this and similar issues for a long time.



Oddly, you and Steerpike live less than 30 minutes from each other.  I'm surprised you haven't met for coffee in some verdant valley cafe and discussed your opposing ideas of art and technique like true Californian hippies.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 24, 2012)

Perhaps we should sometime, though miles in LA can equate to much more time than the distance would typically indicate.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 24, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Oddly, you and Steerpike live less than 30 minutes from each other.  I'm surprised you haven't met for coffee in some verdant valley cafe and discussed your opposing ideas of art and technique like true Californian hippies.



We like to poke fun at each other. I like BWFosters style of writing; I read and enjoy books that are done that way. I'm just glad it's not all there is. I wouldn't want to see any style become all there is.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Perhaps we should sometime, though miles in LA can equate to much more time than the distance would typically indicate.



I don't know how close you are to Pasadena, but if you like book stores check out Vromans some time. Lots of authors do signings there.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 24, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> We like to poke fun at each other. I like BWFosters style of writing; I read and enjoy books that are done that way. I'm just glad it's not all there is. I wouldn't want to see any style become all there is.



Truthfully, I'm still "discovering" my style.

Steerpike seems much more accepting (though that's not exactly the word I'm looking for) of differing styles than I am, though I don't know if that's even the right concept.  

I've always had a low tolerance for things that annoy me and have found that a lot of things do just that.  If something is written in present tense, I'd have a hard time even reading it whereas Steerpike, I think, finds that viewpoint hard to understand.

On the other hand, if writing:

a) doesn't annoy me
b) is clear
and
c) makes me feel something

I'm actually quite accepting.  Take the Twilight series and the bad portions of WoT and SoT (until Omen Machine.  That's where I drew the line).  I enjoyed all those despite documented flaws.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 24, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't know how close you are to Pasadena, but if you like book stores check out Vromans some time. Lots of authors do signings there.



Next time we go to the flea market, I'll try to swing by there.  I live in Corona.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Assuming I'm not missing sarcasm, this may have been established before your joining the forum.
> 
> My desire is to tell a story, not to create art.  Steerpike and I (and others) have went round and round on this and similar issues for a long time.



It wasn't sarcasm, thanks for clarifying! I want to do both, and it depends on the story which takes the lead. 



Steerpike said:


> All fiction should be generic and lifeless, interchangeable such that it may have been written by any person, or by committee. Never try anything bold or unexpected



Thanks for clarifying! So you take the opposite viewpoint?


----------



## Caged Maiden (Oct 24, 2012)

I think the best part about having crit partners you share work with regularly, is that you begin to know each other personally, and develop a rapport that allows for more honesty.  That speeds up the crit process, as far as skipping comments which pertain to personal style and the like, because you're learning the other person's style, and can therefore point out things inconsistent with their personal style, while ignoring things that might be your personal preference, but DO fit in with the person's style.  Please don't hold that run-on sentence against me haha.  I just tried to be clear, and I'm not sure I managed.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 24, 2012)

> So you take the opposite viewpoint?



Not really, but I think that Steerpike is honest, if a little hyperbolic, in the way it's perceived.  I think I come across as wanting to develop a system of writing.

In reality, I'm more taking an analytical approach to writing.  I believe that certain techniques achieve specific results.  I'm searching to understand the techniques, how to use them, and when to use them in order to achieve the result that I want.

That approach leaves little room for improvising, which, I think, people feel is important for writing as an artform.

EDIT: Steerpike's comment also refers to the fact that I support a school of thought that says the writer should be invisible in order to let the story speak for itself.  The contrasting view is that authors should have a unique voice.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 24, 2012)

Caged Maiden said:


> I think the best part about having crit partners you share work with regularly, is that you begin to know each other personally, and develop a rapport that allows for more honesty.  That speeds up the crit process, as far as skipping comments which pertain to personal style and the like, because you're learning the other person's style, and can therefore point out things inconsistent with their personal style, while ignoring things that might be your personal preference, but DO fit in with the person's style.  Please don't hold that run-on sentence against me haha.  I just tried to be clear, and I'm not sure I managed.



True dat.  After having a particular comment about technique ignored a dozen times, I tend to give up and not mention it again.  Or, as much, anyway.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Oct 24, 2012)

Well... I think it's the crit partner's duty to try their very best to help their partner, but you can only do what you can do.  If you are working with someone with a vastly different style, say, constantly switching POV or something, and you mention it, and they ignore it, saying they like it that way... you have done your job, and I think it's alright to just move on to other things you CAN help with.  Some stylistic choices really rub me the wrong way, but then, that's art.  Everyone has to realize their own vision, and all you can do is be honest and say, "This jumping back and forth between people's heads is distracting to me as a reader, I'd strongly urge you to either stay in one head consistently, or write in third omniscient," or whatever.  

This is one of the reasons I seek out crit partners who are peers, people at about the same place in their journey that I am in mine.  Nothing feels worse than torturing someone with mad skills with your raw manuscript full of grammar errors and bad pacing... well perhaps critting for someone who is offended by every comment.  That feels pretty bad too, like you're just being mean-spirited, rather than trying to give true insight, impartially.

Anyways, I have already mentioned how fortunate I feel for the people who have read for me, and I wish that sort of luck on everyone who truly wants to improve as a writer.  I've grown in leaps and bounds since I started reading for other people, and have been able to apply a lot of my comments to my own work, as well as having several sets of fresh eyes on books I'd rather like to stab in the face, I've read them so much.  

Critique partners are a wonderful resource, and the more you develop that relationship, the more help you can be to each other.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 25, 2012)

I think it's also useful to have some beta readers who are not writers. 

I've noticed that my peers tend to look for things to find fault with.  Readers, on the other hand, only comment on the things that really bug them.  Having both perspectives is helpful to determine if the writer viewpoint is really that important.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 25, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think it's also useful to have some beta readers who are not writers.
> 
> I've noticed that my peers tend to look for things to find fault with.  Readers, on the other hand, only comment on the things that really bug them.  Having both perspectives is helpful to determine if the writer viewpoint is really that important.



I couldn't agree more. Readers lacking technical writing knowledge are just as valuable as those who are writers themselves. As writers, we can tend to become more wrapped up in our ideas of what good writing should look like. Readers, lacking writing experience, tend to read for the story itself while still maintaining the ability to discern what doesn't work for them (if you've chosen the readers well).


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 25, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I couldn't agree more. Readers lacking technical writing knowledge are just as valuable as those who are writers themselves. As writers, we can tend to become more wrapped up in our ideas of what good writing should look like. Readers, lacking writing experience, tend to read for the story itself while still maintaining the ability to discern what doesn't work for them (if you've chosen the readers well).



I think it is a good idea as well, though I think it is possible to do both. If someone wants me to read something they wrote as a "reader" and not as a "writer," I can do that for them. I read books all the time as a reader, after all.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 25, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think it is a good idea as well, though I think it is possible to do both. If someone wants me to read something they wrote as a "reader" and not as a "writer," I can do that for them. I read books all the time as a reader, after all.



I believe that you can based on what I've read of your thoughts on these forums. Admittedly though, I sometimes have issues distancing myself from my own writing preferences when reading the work of others. Being in two live crit groups though, it's something I'm working on,trying to establish a balance. This is why I think it's important for authors to say upfront what they are looking for in the critiques they will receive.

Does this count as a complete thread derail now?... Lol


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 25, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think it is a good idea as well, though I think it is possible to do both. If someone wants me to read something they wrote as a "reader" and not as a "writer," I can do that for them. I read books all the time as a reader, after all.



I attempt to do both, but I probably fail most of the time.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 25, 2012)

> Does this count as a complete thread derail now?... Lol



Since I'm the OP and I had the original question answered a LONG time ago, I think it's fine.

Back to that topic: I added a bunch of emotion to my revised draft, and I think it's a much better story now (if anyone wondered).


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 25, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Back to that topic: I added a bunch of emotion to my revised draft, and I think it's a much better story now (if anyone wondered).



That's really the most important thing! Our changes should make the story better.


----------



## Weaver (Oct 25, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think it's also useful to have some beta readers who are not writers.
> 
> I've noticed that my peers tend to look for things to find fault with.  Readers, on the other hand, only comment on the things that really bug them.  Having both perspectives is helpful to determine if the writer viewpoint is really that important.



I have trouble finding beta readers who aren't writers and yet can talk/write at all about _why_ they like or don't like something.   Getting detailed feedback out of fellow writers is hard enough; getting it out of readers is nigh impossible.  I agree, though, that having feedback from someone who is only reading for the story and doesn't give a rodent's backside about the technical stuff (as long as it doesn't interfere with enjoyment of the story) is tremendously helpful.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 25, 2012)

Weaver said:


> I have trouble finding beta readers who aren't writers and yet can talk/write at all about _why_ they like or don't like something.   Getting detailed feedback out of fellow writers is hard enough; getting it out of readers is nigh impossible.  I agree, though, that having feedback from someone who is only reading for the story and doesn't give a rodent's backside about the technical stuff (as long as it doesn't interfere with enjoyment of the story) is tremendously helpful.



None of my non-writer beta readers can tell me why something doesn't work.  That's not their job.  

Whenever they make a negative comment about a passage, no matter what that comment is, I know that there is a problem with that passage.  It's my job to figure out the problem and fix it, not theirs.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Oct 26, 2012)

I use non-writer beta readers, unfortunately, they haven't been very helpful.  I sent 11 chapters of a novel to one, and her only comment was ,"It's not too hard to read."

Hmm... did you maybe like a character?  Hate one?  Think my plot was interesting?  Were you turning pages like mad, or forcing yourself to finish?  

While I appreciate people who are enthusiastic to help a friend, or something, I have gotten almost no useful information from beta readers who I know personally, though not well.  I'd rather put my trust in perfect strangers at this point.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 26, 2012)

Caged Maiden said:


> I use non-writer beta readers, unfortunately, they haven't been very helpful.  I sent 11 chapters of a novel to one, and her only comment was ,"It's not too hard to read."
> 
> Hmm... did you maybe like a character?  Hate one?  Think my plot was interesting?  Were you turning pages like mad, or forcing yourself to finish?
> 
> While I appreciate people who are enthusiastic to help a friend, or something, I have gotten almost no useful information from beta readers who I know personally, though not well.  I'd rather put my trust in perfect strangers at this point.



Yeah, those people are no help.

You need non-writers who are willing to actually make some comments.  I have a couple of guys who do just that.  There will be long stretches of writing with no comments whatsoever.  Then, when they do bring something up, I know that the section has a flaw.  It allows me to focus on it until I figure out the problem.

This is as opposed to writer beta readers who rarely let a paragraph pass without some kind of "issue."  Those critiques are good too, but it requires a lot more effort to determine if I really need to address the comments.


----------



## SeverinR (Oct 26, 2012)

Show, don't tell is a guideline, not a rule.
There are very few iron clad rules outside of grammar and punctuation.
If you hear of a writing rule, usually the first thing mentioned is _____ _______ used it in their best selling book and people.  If even one author broke the rule and it sold, then it is not a rule, but a guideline.

What book have you read that didn't "tell" at all during the whole story?
It is an overpowering spice, best used in moderation or it will taint the story, but it is a spice that can be used to add some flavor.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 26, 2012)

I'm not so sure grammar and punctuation are ironclad. Read some Joyce, or more recently Cormac McCarthy (for the latter, look at the lack of punctuation for dialogue).


----------



## SeverinR (Oct 26, 2012)

I thought that when I wrote it, but there are school teachers that would disagree. 
But as you said using my "rule", if you can say a best selling author broke the rule, is it an iron clad rule or just a guideline?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 26, 2012)

I understand that words have meaning and that choosing the correct word is important, especially to writers.  However, I don't find the following response all that helpful.

OP: Hey, I'm struggling with how to best apply a writing rule/technique.
Guy at the End: You shouldn't call it a rule.

This seems to be the default answer when I seek an in depth conversation of how and when to use techniques.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 26, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I understand that words have meaning and that choosing the correct word is important, especially to writers.  However, I don't find the following response all that helpful.
> 
> OP: Hey, I'm struggling with how to best apply a writing rule/technique.
> Guy at the End: You shouldn't call it a rule.
> ...



Well you didn't like us saying "it depends". If you want to go more in-depth with what you are trying to achieve and how you feel that you are reaching it versus not reaching it, then by all means do so and we can try to help. It seemed, I think to most of us, that you wanted to break your "rule" but didn't want to break it because it was a "rule". 

At least that's how it seemed to me.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 26, 2012)

Anytime someone proposes a perfectly good piece of writing but then says they are dissuaded from using it because of a 'rule,' a discussion of the so-called 'rules' is natural. At best, some of the 'rules' are to help rank amateurs from common mistakes plaguing writers at the very beginning of their efforts. Beyond that, a writers own good sense of her writing should be the guiding principle, not a set of rules.

When you look at writing books, I think most of them frame "rules" more as guidelines. Also, the example of successful, published fiction writers trumps what is in a writing book. There is an old saying: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach." That's not a swipe at teachers; I've been one myself and will be again. There is a similar saying about editors being frustrated writers who never found the success they wanted in writing. I've been an editor as well, and I'm not slamming them, either. But I think it is instructive to look at the shelves of books on how to write and ask yourself how many of them are written by very successful authors. A few are; many are not. If someone is telling you how to be a wonderful, successful writer, and they haven't done it themselves, that's worth keeping in mind.


----------



## Nbafan (Oct 26, 2012)

Personally, I don't see a problem with occasionally telling the reader about a characters emotions. I prefer to describe them but there are always exceptions. That being said, I feel that the sentence could be a little better by removing the and and revising the second part after the comma.


----------

