# Show and Tell



## Harbinger (Dec 7, 2011)

I was reading on this topic and found an article that says if you find 'was' in a sentence you most likely are telling instead of showing. To my horror a word search on my recent scene turned up several cases of 'was'. This is something most probably struggle with at some point and I 'was' wondering how I can avoid this pitfall in my writing and how others make sure they are showing and not telling.


----------



## Jess A (Dec 7, 2011)

Hmm. I've seen published writers who have this setback as well. Jean Auel goes too far in her descriptions in _The Plains of Passage_. It's common in first-person too. 

Perhaps the best way to avoid it is to have certain points about your world, culture and characters' pasts (etc) explained through the actions and events in the story - instead of having blocks of description about things. Also, some things aren't really necessary and should be left to the readers' imaginations. Certain hints and tips clue people off and build a better picture than blocks of description about the religion or lore. 

I am trying to think of the best way to explain this. A very basic example would be the sudden knowledge that dragons or something exist in the world because your character encounters one, not because you said early on 'dragons were very common in -world name here-'. It becomes an active action scene which pushes the plot forward rather than a paragraph about dragons when the dragons themselves never show up elsewhere.

Sorry if this makes no sense - I'm in a hurry as I'm expecting company shortly


----------



## Devor (Dec 7, 2011)

Harbinger said:


> I *read* on this topic and found an article that says if you find 'was' in a sentence you most likely are telling instead of showing. To my horror a word search on my recent scene turned up several cases of 'was'. *Most probably struggle with this* at some point*.  How can I* avoid this pitfall in my writing and how *do* others make sure they are showing and not telling.



I don't mean to make fun of you.  I'm hoping that it helps to see how much you're using a passive voice even right now (of course, it doesn't matter here).  I had the same problem a few years ago and had to deal with it myself.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 8, 2011)

Keep in mind that the broad advice of "show don't tell" isn't always the greatest. Fiction generally encompasses a combination of both, and there are times when it is more effective to "tell" and times when it is more effective to "show." I would not go through a work and look at every instance of "telling" and flag it as wrong without further analysis.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 8, 2011)

"Show, don't tell" means don't tell us that something has a characteristic; show us that thing having that characteristic.

If you've got a character who's dashing, don't say "He's dashing," show him doing something dashing. If you've got a tribe of bloodthirsty killers, don't just tell us they are, show them doing something bloodthirsty.

However, you don't have to show _them_ doing it. A character in your story who relates past events is still showing it to you (even if it's filtered through that character's memories/personality). Characters who warn your protagonist about the tribe of bloodthirsty killers who live in the mountains, and describe some of the horrible things they've done, that's perfectly fine (although it's better if the reader gets to see some of this firsthand, too).

"Was" is more about the passive voice, not about "show, don't tell." And frankly, there's nothing wrong with using the passive voice when describing things. "There was a bucket by his feet." There's nothing wrong with that. You _could_ say "A bucket sat by his feet," except the bucket isn't doing anything, it isn't moving, so either one is equally meaningful, and a bucket doesn't have to feel active.

People, however, should be described with the active voice as much as possible. "Bob was at the foot of the stairs." No, Bob _stood_ at the foot of the stairs, or lounged, or rested, or waited.


----------



## Philip Overby (Dec 8, 2011)

I've read lots of books that use the passive voice and active voice together.  It's almost impossible not to use it just a little bit.  I think if a writer tells good enough stories, I don't pay attention to the sentence structures as much.  Good writers can blend different types of sentences seemlessly.

And another thing about adverbs.  People say not to use them either, but one of my favorite writers, China Mieville, uses them liberally (adverb) in _Perdido Street Station_.  So again, if the story proves good enough, then don't worry so much with the passive vs. active argument.


----------



## Ravana (Dec 8, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> People, however, should be described with the active voice as much as possible. "Bob was at the foot of the stairs." No, Bob _stood_ at the foot of the stairs, or lounged, or rested, or waited.



Actually, that isn't a question of passive voice, it's a question of imprecise vocabulary. The second just says a lot more than the first does. Both are active–"was" is the main (and only) verb: it is not serving as an auxiliary to anything. 

Any guide that tells you to eliminate "was" (or any specific word) probably isn't worth the paper it's printed on. (I suspect I could have left "probably" out of that sentence, but I didn't want to risk the chance there might be an exception somewhere.  ) "Was" happens to fall into three different favorite hate categories for most guides: as a vague, imprecise verb, when it appears as the main one rather than as an auxiliary; as an indicator of passive voice; and as a common component of complex tenses ("He was going to the store" vs. "He went to the store"–though more often the problem is more along the lines of "He had been going to the store," when "He was going to the store" is what's intended: sometimes you need progressive tenses, after all). Which is why lazy guides will tell you to look for "was": it will inevitably occur as an auxiliary at times, even if it never shows up as a main verb or as part of a passive construction… so they're guaranteed a way to make you feel inferior, without needing to know the first thing about your actual skill level. What they _should_ tell you to look for is all instances of "be," "have," "do," and modal verbs ("can, could, shall, should, may, might, must, ought, will, would"), so that you can clean up _all_ of the _unnecessary_ occurrences, replacing vagueness with greater detail and leaving complex tenses (and, yes, passives) only where they're appropriate. (I'd also add "go + [infinitive]" constructions to the list, though "go" is not considered an auxiliary verb; it's still frequently an indicator of unnecessary complexity… and where occurring as the main verb, is almost always replaceable with a more specific one.)

For that matter, passive voice is not limited to appearances of "was": the form of "be" is dictated by the tense being used ("History is written by the victor"; "Dinner will be served at eight."), so it makes a lousy guideline anyway. (Though please not "A lousy guideline is made by it"!  )

Conversely, anybody who slavishly eliminates _all_ occurrences of complex tenses and passive voice will never see publication, because his writing will sound like it was written by a mediocre fourth-grader. (Worse, one from an American public school… no, that's not quite right: they can't write complete sentences at all.) There are definitely good reasons to _limit_ the appearance of both, as overuse leads to excess verbiage without contributing anything to the work–at best, if not detracting from it in terms of pacing at least. The key here is "over"use… and the trick is figuring out what constitutes that. Which no style guide can tell you.

Same with adjectives and adverbs: try removing _all_ of them and see how flat your writing comes out. But if you can accomplish the same task with a more precise verb, do so, and leave the adverb(s) off. (For a good comparison, try reversing the process some time: put at least one–or more than one–adverb in front of every verb. It won't take long to realize why they're such favored targets. The same works with adjectives, though they get less flak overall.)


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 8, 2011)

Consider me schooled ;-)


----------



## Telcontar (Dec 8, 2011)

Yeah, not sure if something so simple as tracking the word 'was' is a useful rule. 

It's something that is easy to identify once you have a good grasp on what it is. Benjamin put it well above. It also has to do with trusting your reader to get what you mean - if you don't think they'll get it, then you're not portraying it well enough. Let me try a threefold example:

Bad, completely telling: 

_"Ben was cruel."_
We know Ben is cruel, but in the most boring way possible. 

Better, showing a little: 

_"Ben held Carl still, and laughed."_
Sorta works, but not entirely clear. No doubt context would help it along, but still lots of room for improvement.

Best, showing exactly what we mean:
_
"Ben twisted Carl's arm behind his back, laughing at the little man's struggle to free himself."_
This illustrates that Ben is laughed at holding Carl against his will, a pretty cruel thing to do. We never use that word, but if we asked the reader 'Is Ben cruel?" they'd probably say yes.

I probably shouldn't muck up the issue at hand, but I'll also say that "Show, don't tell" is rule of thumb, not a law of writing. You want to avoid it, but sometimes it is necessary (or at least allowable). However, until you can explain _why_ and _when_ it is necessary to tell instead of show, you're better off steering clear of it.


----------



## ShortHair (Dec 8, 2011)

I would add that passive voice is just that, a phrase that presents information but has no sense of movement. Ideally, you want your reader to feel like s/he is riding a roller coaster. From the first sentence to the last, make your story a thrill ride with loops and curves and dropoffs, highs and lows, screaming to make it stop and screaming for more when it's over. Every sentence should pull the reader onward.

By definition, passive voice has no subject, no actor doing something. You're leaving out a key part of the sentence. If you find yourself using passive voice, ask yourself why. Are you hiding something from the reader? Are you presenting information without moving the story forward? Are you papering over something you haven't quite defined or decided? Can you incorporate the information in an action performed by a suitable character? Can you say the same thing with a straightforward, active-voice, declarative sentence? Most importantly, do you want to sound like an article in a medical journal?


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (Dec 8, 2011)

Telcontar said:


> "Ben twisted Carl's arm behind his back, laughing at the little man's struggle to free himself."[/I]
> This illustrates that Ben is laughed at holding Carl against his will, a pretty cruel thing to do. We never use that word, but if we asked the reader 'Is Ben cruel?" they'd probably say yes.



And here I thought Ben was a nice guy... I guess you never can tell.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 8, 2011)

Elder the Dwarf said:


> And here I thought Ben was a nice guy... I guess you never can tell.



It's all an act. Soon, when my minions have unearthed the Amulet of Yendor, I will crush this world and all its puny inhabitants!

**cough**


----------



## Ravana (Dec 8, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Consider me schooled ;-)



Hee hee. But that's what we're all here for, eh? 

(One of the reasons that might have seemed passive–apart from simple lack of "activity"–is that turning that sentence into an actual passive would push it so far from acceptable English that it would never even occur to you to do it: "At the foot of the stairs was being by Bob.")

The most appropriate use of passive voice is not to "hide" something from the reader: it's to change the focus from the subject to the object, by moving the object into subject position. Consider the sentence "History is written by the victor." The active version is "The victor writes history." But in doing this, you lose the focus on "history"–which, in this case, is where you want it: it's history you're talking about, not victors. Likewise, "Dinner will be served at eight [by us]": the important thing is the dinner, not who's serving it: "We will serve dinner at eight" may work, but it loses something by putting the focus in a different position… and especially if the speaker is a butler, or even a maitre 'd, the focus should not be on the actor, but on the object: for such people, the passive would be routine.

The other main use of passive–albeit a fairly recent one, in terms of popularity–is indeed to "hide" something… usually responsibility. The paradigm example is "Mistakes were made." Really? By whom? Not a good usage when engaging in descriptive writing; perfectly acceptable in dialogue–often more appropriate than active voice, depending on who's speaking.

Even in terms of "pulling the reader along," the passive can still be appropriate… say, where the main character is the person being acted upon. "They beat him black and blue" doesn't really have much of an advantage over "He was beaten black and blue"–especially if the character doesn't know who "they" are in the first place. Doubly so if the character doesn't have clear memories about how it happened (this will probably involve a change to past perfect: "They had beaten…/He had been beaten…"). If the character is continually being placed in positions where he is patient rather than agent, this can be an effective way of conveying his helplessness… as long as you don't overdo it.

[By the way, that last sentence involves a passive: the active version would begin "If [circumstances] continually place the character in positions," etc. You tell me which you like better, which has the more appropriate focus.]

Still, yes, the advice to "ask yourself why" you're using passive at a given point is good: you should always have a reason. On the other hand, that applies to _everything_ you do in writing, not just passive voice. Every word should have a reason for being there. Which is also why simple tenses are favored over complex ones, and why excessive modifiers–adverbs in particular–receive the criticism they do: in both cases, there is often no reason for the more verbose version. But where you do have a reason, and you think it a good one, leave it as is. And it is just as legitimate to ask yourself why you're using _active_ voice at a given point: it too should have a reason, not just be a "default mode." Usually this reason will be because it's by far the best way to say what you're saying… doesn't mean you shouldn't ask yourself the question. You could surprise yourself once in a while.

-

As for the "show, don't tell" part, you (and Telcontar) are absolutely correct… basically, it comes down to using more precise vocabulary, and allowing action and detail to perform the work for you. I could actually make one extra "show" modification to Telcontar's final example, in fact–because it still includes a "tell."

- Ben twisted Carl's arm behind his back, laughing _*as* the little man struggled_ to free himself.

Saying "laughing *at*" is still telling the reader something–it's telling the reader why Ben is laughing. "Laughing *as*" (or "while": "as" sounds better to me, though) will convey the same thing to most readers, of course… but it is pure "show": it only involves what a witness would be able to see. And it gives the author the opportunity to turn Ben into a real bastard if someone asks him what he's laughing about, and he gives a completely nonsequitur answer: "Oh, I was just thinking about this joke I heard the other day… you know the one where two nuns, an architect and a giraffe walk into a bar?" In other words, he isn't laughing about Carl's pain: he isn't even giving it a passing thought. Now _that's_ nasty.

That's the biggest point I've seen in discussions about "telling": when it involves internal dispositions, and especially when it involves those of characters whose thoughts the reader shouldn't have access to. "Bob was angry" is terrible if Bob's internal dialogue never shows up; at a minimum, this should become "Bob seemed [appeared, etc.] angry"–and even that's pretty weak. Why does Bob seem angry? What is it about Bob that makes you think he's angry? Is it because his face is red, he's shouting, spittle is flying from his mouth, and he's beating the tar out of you? Okay, yeah, I can see where you might think he's angry at that point. Is it because his hands are in his pockets and he's whistling "Do Not Forsake Me, Oh My Darlin'"? Uhm… maybe if I knew Bob well enough to know that he never puts his hands in his pockets unless he's incredibly tense, and never whistles except when he's about to do something he (or more likely someone else) is going to regret; otherwise, not so much. On the other hand, if you establish that behavior pattern, all you have to do in the future is mention that Bob starts whistling, and the reader will know that all hell is about to break loose. But _telling_ the reader that Bob is angry? No. Even if Bob _is_ the focal character and the reader _does_ have access to his thoughts, you can still be more effective by walking the reader through Bob's actions and reactions, rather than making a bare statement about his anger.

The most acceptable common appearance of "telling" is when it involves background information. Even then, try to have it arise from the flow of the story as much as possible, to minimize the amount of exposition you end up with. Where it's unavoidable, keep it; just start by seeing what can be worked in elsewhere. (Or, for active fans: "what you can work in elsewhere."  ) Can it appear as part of a story that's being told, something that's being read, in conversation? (_Without_ starting with "As you know…"! Active: "story that Y is telling [to X], something that X is reading.…") Can it appear as an answer to a question asked by the focal character? (Active: "a question the focal character asks?") Can it appear topically, as the need for the reader to know something arises, perhaps as a reaction by the character to new information? ("Jim had always been told that dragons died out long ago…": perfect for working in that little piece of background while Jim is staring at one. Active: "[They/everybody/accepted wisdom] had always told Jim.…" Yuck.) And so on. 

-

[By the way, if anybody knows a joke about two nuns, an architect and a giraffe walking into a bar, do share. I don't. Apart from one that ends with the bartender saying "What is this, some kind of joke?" at least.  ]


----------



## Reaver (Dec 8, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> It's all an act. Soon, when my minions have unearthed the Amulet of Yendor, I will crush this world and all its puny inhabitants!
> 
> **cough**



(Shakes his asthma inhaler vigorously and inhales deeply.) Just kidding Ben.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 13, 2012)

Hope nobody minds if I bump this thread. It has some great stuff here.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 13, 2012)

I feel the need, as presumably the most strident opponent of “was” on the board at the moment, to comment.

I take exception to making a blanket statement that “you shouldn’t pay attention to the a list that tells you to eliminate “was.”  If we're talking about a list proclaiming “10 Things You Should Never Do If You Want To Ever Have Any Possibility Of Having Your Work Published” and one of the items is “Use was,” then the statement is probably spot on.  If the list is “10 Things Beginning Writers Should Stop Doing In Order To Improve Their Writing,” not so much.

By far, the three biggest mistakes I see made by beginning writers are:

1.	Telling instead of showing
2.	Being too passive
3.	Overusing was

If you’re a beginning writer, I’d much rather tell you: 

1.	Stop telling
2.	Make all your writing active
3.	Eliminate was

Eventually, that beginning writer is going to advance up the learning curve and need to learn nuance, when to tell, when to be passive, and when to use was.  For now, it’s my considered opinion that your writing will sound better and be more impactful if you follow those three rules.

In order to appease those who hate blanket statements and want more nuance, let’s address the OP’s question a little more.  Take the example of Benjamin’s bucket, though I’m changing the location to the floor instead of by the feet.  Is it okay to use it or not?   Truthfully, I can’t say.  There’s no context.

Here are two examples of where “the bucket was on the floor” may be appropriate.

Example 1 – You need to indicate the past location of the bucket in dialogue.

The wife’s glare burned a hole through the spot between his eyes.  “Why is the bucket on the ceiling?”

“I don’t know, dear,” the hapless husband said.  “The bucket was on the floor when I left.”

Example 2 – You need to talk about the bucket’s existence but don’t want to overuse “exist.”

The Story of Nothingness

In the beginning, the bucket was on the floor, in that there was a thing called a bucket and a place called a floor.  Then came thought.  Those things that thought, existed.  The bucket didn’t think, and, poof, it disappeared.  The floor didn’t think, and, poof, it disappeared.  Those that did think called themselves beings and reveled in their existence.  Soon, though, the beings realized they had no bucket in which to place the things that also no longer existed.  They realized that they, in fact, had no place in which to exist.  Existing without things or a place grew boring, so they left.  That’s how Nothingness was formed.

I’m sure you can come up with thousands of other examples where use of that phrase is perfectly acceptable.  Where is it not, however?

Let’s say that you’re writing the Ultimate Fantasy Novel ™.  It’s absolutely crucial to your plot that the location of the bucket be related to the reader as clearly existing on the floor.  You write:  The bucket was on the floor.  I come along and tell you: No!  A thousand times no!  For the love of God, man!

So, you go back and edit your work.  This time you write: The bucket sat on the floor.  You’re quite proud of yourself.  That bucket is now active.  It’s sitting instead of existing.  I go back and tell you: No!  A thousand times no!  For the love of God, man!

What should you do?

The bucket is on the floor does nothing for you or your plot.  It’s a statement where the author is telling the reader the location of a prop.  How is that interesting?  Does it develop character?  Does it advance the story in time or space?  No!

How about something like:

Bob tripped over the bucket after walking in the door.  

Now I say: Awesome!  That bucket is really doing something for you now.  Unless contextually your people are walking in the air or on walls, you established the physical location of the bucket on the floor.  Even better, you’ve hidden the fact inside a sentence so it’s not so glaringly obvious that you’re pointing out the fact.  You’re also giving us some action and suspense.  Is Bob okay?  Is he going to fall?  Will he get concussed and fall into a coma.  I don’t know.  There are so many possibilities.  You’re also telling me something about Bob.  Contextually, he could be clumsy or distracted or have bad vision.  

Isn’t accomplishing all that so much better than just telling me where the bucket is?

Hope this helps!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 13, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:
			
		

> By far, the three biggest mistakes I see made by beginning writers are:
> 
> 1.	Telling instead of showing
> 2.	Being too passive
> ...



As far as the numbered list goes, I'd say "Being too passive" & "Overusing was" are kinda the same deal.

The use of "was", and it's various forms, can be telly but to me it's more a concern of passive sentence structure.


----------



## ShortHair (Jul 16, 2012)

To illustrate the point, an anecdote. Just last night I wrote a paragraph to start a scene. I immediately realized I had told the reader something when I could have shown it. I proceeded to write a long passage in which I showed the reader what happened, along with a couple of other points I wouldn't have considered otherwise, a bit of extra characterization, and a splash of color. Which would you rather have--one dry paragraph of telling or a compelling narrative of showing?

And yes, it was important to the plot.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 16, 2012)

Shorthair,

It depends.  

In general, showing is better, but you do have to summarize sometimes.  The decision of which to use involves the flow of your novel.  I don't think anyone is going to be able to tell you as an absolute to use one way or the other.  It's a judgment call that you have to make.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 16, 2012)

As a general rule for new writers (it took me years to figure this out), you should always show the action in place of "was" passive description, whenever you can. HOWEVER, the more skilled you get, the more you can play around with these rules. One thing I like to do is use a passive narrator, as if it was the POV character viewing it. Here is an example: _what kid of idiot leaves a bucket in front of a door?_, thought Sam. It was there, waiting to upend the next unsuspecting fool to burst in. He knew he should to move the bucket, but the promise of a good laugh was far more tempting. 

Maybe this isn't the best example, but in keeping with the bucket theme.... anyway, I am using a passive narrator to show events through the eyes/mind of a POV character. To me, this can work if its done correctly. Hopefully it does, because I am using it now and then in my novel. But this isn't something a fresh, inexperienced writer would want to try.


----------



## ShortHair (Jul 23, 2012)

An update to my anecdote. Not particularly germane to the thread, but it shows how writing works sometimes.

That wonderful scene where I showed instead of told? Cut. Xed out. Gone. It showed something too plainly, something I want the reader to see but not the narrator.

The scene before that one I had put off writing. Then inspiration struck. Use the action in the new scene to make the point from the previous scene, thus occupying the narrator's attention. Meanwhile, put the other point in the background so the narrator misses it, but the reader doesn't.

Now I have to start the next scene with a different description, different subplot, different characters. Challenge accepted!


----------



## Addison (Jul 24, 2012)

Having "was" in your story isn't going to kill it. There's an article in Writer's Digest which discussed this. True it's important to show your story so readers are engaged. So they can be with the characters in the forbidden mountain or whatever. But that doesn't mean to cut your telling down to next to zero. As they said when you write a book "You are _telling_ a story. That's why they're called storytellers not story showers. Kids ask their parents to tell them a story, not show them a story." You just have to balance it out, and their is a subtle way to show while you tell. Or show without the reader really knowing it. True there is appealing to the five senses: touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing. But there are others, thought, dialogue, action. Show a character balling their fists in anger, don't touch on the pain in their palms from their fist. Be creative but remember, you're still telling a story.


----------



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

Addison said:
			
		

> As they said when you write a book "You are telling a story. That's why they're called storytellers not story showers. Kids ask their parents to tell them a story, not show them a story."



For this reason, I believe it's important to stress showing. It's natural for us to tell a story. New and more experienced writers will often lean towards a tendency to tell. It's unlikely for an author to look at a completed scene and think "that's too much showing. I should tell more." However, it's common to realize a scene is telling too much. That's why this topic is so highly stressed.

Because of this, teaching an inexperienced writer to concentrate on showing is usually a good strategy. I don't believe I've ever looked at a new writer's work an though "that's too showy". An experienced writer, in contrast, is making conscious decisions on when and where to use telling as a tool that benefits the story. They understand the concept to a degree that allows this "rule" to be broken for effect.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2012)

Addison said:


> Having "was" in your story isn't going to kill it. There's an article in Writer's Digest which discussed this. True it's important to show your story so readers are engaged. So they can be with the characters in the forbidden mountain or whatever. But that doesn't mean to cut your telling down to next to zero. As they said when you write a book "You are _telling_ a story. That's why they're called storytellers not story showers. Kids ask their parents to tell them a story, not show them a story." You just have to balance it out, and their is a subtle way to show while you tell. Or show without the reader really knowing it. True there is appealing to the five senses: touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing. But there are others, thought, dialogue, action. Show a character balling their fists in anger, don't touch on the pain in their palms from their fist. Be creative but remember, you're still telling a story.



I've found it really difficult to tell a story without using "was" once in a while. I've been agonizing over this passive narrator thing as I'm getting deeper into my own book. And I agree, it is not a bad thing to use it once in a while. Sometimes a simple "she was tired" is enough, without having to show the reader how her eyelids drooped and how she slumped in the chair. Like everything else, it DEPENDS on the context.

I'm reading Storm of Swords again (book 3 of Song of Ice and Fire), and last night I paid close attention to how George R.R. Martin uses a passive narrator. And he used "was" quite often. His telling and showing were in balance. I never felt like the narrator knew too much, and I never felt overwhelmed with excessive showing. "Was" isn't always bad.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> For this reason, I believe it's important to stress showing. It's natural for us to tell a story. New and more experienced writers will often lean towards a tendency to tell. It's unlikely for an author to look at a completed scene and think "that's too much showing. I should tell more." However, it's common to realize a scene is telling too much. That's why this topic is so highly stressed.
> 
> Because of this, teaching an inexperienced writer to concentrate on showing is usually a good strategy. I don't believe I've ever looked at a new writer's work an though "that's too showy". An experienced writer, in contrast, is making conscious decisions on when and where to use telling as a tool that benefits the story. They understand the concept to a degree that allows this "rule" to be broken for effect.



Exactly. Showing is an important rule of thumb for new writers, who lack the patience to let the story/characters play everything out. Experienced writers will figure out on their own when to show, and when to tell, and can balance these effectively.


----------



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

I agree Jon. Trying to eliminate "was" from your writing isn't necessary.

Furthermore, there are instances where "was" is a better word to use than another. Specifically this is true where the sentence emphasis should be on another word (let's say a verb) & not the subject of the sentence.

Example:

"The creature laughed."

OR

"It was laughing."

Both say the same basic thing. However, the 1st sentence focuses attention, to a greater degree on "creature". The 2nd focuses on "laughing". Same idea.... Different feel.

It solely depends on where, you the writer, wants to place emphasis. The point in guarding against "was" is to ensure you're making conscious choices and not just writing from habit or lacking depth (also to guard against passive voice, which incidentally, can also be used as a tool).


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 24, 2012)

Here you go, everything you need to know about the word 'was'.

This Itch of Writing: Have you heard the one about "was"?


----------



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

Butterfly said:
			
		

> Here you go, everything you need to know about the word 'was'.
> 
> This Itch of Writing: Have you heard the one about "was"?



Nice link Butterfly. Thank you.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 24, 2012)

You're welcome.


----------



## Shockley (Jul 24, 2012)

I suggest picking up a copy of The Great Gatsby, that seminal American novel, and seeing how many times 'was' pops up.

 Spoiler: At least four times a page. At the very least. 



 There are people out there who are overly worried about the actual 'craft' of writing. I am one of those people, but I'm more lenient when it comes to showing and telling. As long as the work flows and the story is good, telling is just fine.


----------



## ShortHair (Jul 24, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Trying to eliminate "was" from your writing isn't necessary.
> 
> Furthermore, there are instances where "was" is a better word to use than another. Specifically this is true where the sentence emphasis should be on another word (let's say a verb) & not the subject of the sentence.
> 
> ...



Actually, the second example uses a progressive verb form. The first example indicates a single action, one laugh that begins and ends during the course of the sentence. The second indicates that the action is continuous, that the laughing could have begun before that point and could continue after that point.

In some cases there's no real distinction. "The rain fell" and "The rain was falling" say the same thing because we expect rain to be a continuous action.


----------



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

ShortHair said:
			
		

> Actually, the second example uses a progressive verb form. The first example indicates a single action, one laugh that begins and ends during the course of the sentence. The second indicates that the action is continuous, that the laughing could have begun before that point and could continue after that point.
> 
> In some cases there's no real distinction. "The rain fell" and "The rain was falling" say the same thing because we expect rain to be a continuous action.



I don't disagree.

I was just trying to point out that the structure or choice of wording can place emphasis on different parts of a sentence. For most purposes those sentences accomplish essentially the same thing. "The creature laughed" doesn't necessarily imply that the laugh is a singular act. If I said "I laughed" that can mean I went "Haha!" but it would be just as accurate as a description of "Hahahahaha Hahahahaha!".

"It was laughing" does imply that the laugh was continuos. I'll give you that.

In your example, "The rain fell" & "The rain was falling" - I feel the emphasis on "rain" in the first & "falling" on the second. My only point was to draw attention where "was" can be used as a tool for a certain effect.


----------

