• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Showing vs. Telling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, you can all beat me up now. :)
 

Steerpike

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

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

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

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

TGNewman

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

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

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

JCFarnham

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

Easy. Give the guy some Reputation points :)


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

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

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

You speak a lot of sense :)
 

Devor

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

That said.... most of the time you should probably be using both. She was overcome with grief. Her eyes hurt and her cheeks were wet, and she could taste the salt of her tears whenever she gasped for breath. She needed her moment to feel before she was asked to be strong.
 
Douglas Adams was the first writer I ever adored and I spent much of my life trying to write exactly like him. :) Eventually I decided to find my own voice, but he'll always be hanging over my shoulder, casting a shadow on pretty much everything I write.

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

kennyc

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

JBryden88

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

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

gavintonks

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

kennyc

Inkling
In the famous words of the Gibbs brothers:

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

Caged Maiden

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

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

Penpilot

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

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

The Din

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

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

The Din

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

Steerpike

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

I don't agree. The majority of the time the advice is given, in my experience, it is given without any apparent consideration to whether it is good or bad, or to what the writer is trying to accomplish. It is simply given because it is easy advice to give. If the person giving it provides some reasoning as to why they think it is more effective in a given instance, then that is a different story.
 
I'll just add that I don't think it is meant literally, 'Show, don't tell.' to me doesn't mean 'ONLY show and NEVER tell'. It is simply a shortened version of age-old (in literary terms) advice, no doubt started by some beleaguered teacher.

It may not be meant literally, but I've seen it taken literally. How else would a new writer take it? If you don't have the proper context to put it in because you're not *given* the proper context to put it in, then you'll use the context that seems logical. The phrase "show, don't tell" implies "always" -- there are no qualifiers in those three words.
 
Here's a high-level example: Say you have a chapter where Something Important Happens, but it requires some setup. You can TELL the reader what he or she needs to know and then get to the Something Important, or you can SHOW the reader what he or she needs to know and then get to the Something Important.

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

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

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

This manifests in two ways:

1. Characters

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

2. Settings/visual imagery

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

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

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

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

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

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

gavintonks

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