Need clarification on "Show don't tell."

[EccentricGentleman]

Something that's been holding me back in my writing activities is the fact that I'm still a little unclear on “show don't tell”

I fully understand what the concept is, when my writing teacher explained it to me he said:

“Don't tell me he is poor, show me the rats!”

Unfortunately I took what he said to literally and spent the next writing exercise trying to avoid telling altogether, by that I mean I tried to write about a moving train without using the words moving or train or anything that directly described anything was happening.

What I'm saying is, I understand “show don't tell” but I don't know where the line is drawn.

This is something from a short story I'm working on, it's about a woman who was overweight all through adolescence but recently became slim and trim and is admiring her reflection.

“Yes she was a little full of herself but why not? What was wrong with the little well-deserved vanity, especially when you have never had a reason to have it before. She recalled the years of aching envy, the impossibly beautiful women she had seen in movies and magazines and telling herself ‘ if I had it I'd flaunt it! ’ And now she had it in spades!”

Is this paragraph telling too much?

 

[The Unseemly]

First off, showing and not telling is little things like:

Tell: "Oops," he said, nervously.

Show: "Oops," he said, glancing up at his mother.

This, I assume, you understand.

Where the line is drawn is altogether a more difficult question. Usually, the best place to tell is in a place you can't show, for example, in dialogue. A person says: "Oh, he was all nervous when he said 'oops'" not "Oh, he glanced up at his mother when he said 'oops'" The former is simply more like something someone would say.

Another place where you can draw the line is when showing becomes ludicrous and not needed, like you mentioned. There's an article on purple prose on the main page. Purple prose is an extremum of showing not telling - you're unnecessarily "showing" long pointless descriptions of things which are simply distracting and annoying.

Is a paragraph of tell too much... That depends what the paragraph is telling. If it's relevant and/or telling about a character's thoughts, then there shouldn't be an issue. If it's irrelevant or info dumpy (info dumps aren't right in some places) then a paragraph might detract from a piece of writing.

I suppose it's simply about knowing when to tell and when not to tell and show. Show is good, but if it's unnecessary or pointless then tell. Tell isn't bad, it's just that show is (for various reasons that I won't go into), on the most part, better and more engaging.

 

[Philip Overby]

We've had multiple threads on this, so you may want to check some of them out for general reference.

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/3220-showing-vs-telling.html

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/writing-questions/3617-show-dont-tell-but-why.html

These may help answer some of your questions.

In regards to your passage, it's hard to judge it out of context. Perhaps proponents of show vs. tell would suggest the following:

1. Instead of telling us she's full of herself, show us by giving her actions like "She sauntered into the room...etc. etc."
2. Instead of telling us "she had it in spades" show us what she has. Does she have a new figure she's proud of? Did she get a major makeover?
3. Have characters react to her. For example:

"Is that you, Belinda?" Richard gasped. "Wow, you look really, really--"

"Amazing?" Belinda gave a sidelong glance at Richard as she tossed him her coat. "Yeah, I know."

This section both shows that others can't believe Belinda looks so different and that Belinda is extremely confident of her new look.

These are just some examples. I'm not a big detractor of telling. Telling has its place. There will always be people who disagree. It's really up to you to find what works for your scene. If you're giving some inner monologue for an important scene, it can work. If most of your novel or story is just telling, then it doesn't give the reader the opportunity to figure out who the characters are and what they're doing because they're constantly being told what to think about them by the author.

Perhaps others will chime in, but I'd take a look at those other threads as well as they have some good opinions both for and against telling.

 

[Steerpike]

As it is normally offered, "show don't tell" is among the worst advice you'll ever get from a reviewer or on a writing forum, and your post above is one example of why. Fact is, you can write a great story with a lot of telling. You can write a great story that is mostly telling. It has been done countless times. You can also write a great story that is largely showing.

The majority of books you see on the shelves include some mixture of showing and telling. It would have been a bad idea for the author to try to go one direction or another entirely. The problem with "show don't tell" as advice is that many people giving the advice don't bother to really look at the passage they are commenting on in the context of the story, or to consider whether showing is better than telling in any given instance. They just say "show don't tell" any time they see telling because it is easy advice to give, whether you know what you're doing or not.

There's no hard, fast rule and no bright line. All it comes down to is what you've done effectively and what you haven't. POV can effect this (first person POV uses 'telling' a lot; a very tight third person POV as in your example may use 'telling' a lot).

Your example is just fine, by the way. It's not too much telling. It's a good example of effective telling in a tight third-person point of view. That's a perfectly valid style of writing. If you're that close into the character's head, you're bound to have more telling.

It all really comes down to what you're trying to do and how you want your story to read.

 

[BWFoster78]

The key, I think, is to understand the reason for the advice and the advantages of each technique.

It is easier, by and large, to engage the reader with Showing rather than Telling because showing puts the reader directly into the story and lets the reader experience the story. Obviously, there are exceptions. You can engage the reader with telling. Again, though, showing makes your job much easier.

My advice to any beginning writing is, "learn how to show." Your writing will be much better for you having learned the technique.

At some point, however, you're probably going to run into the following issues:

1. No matter how much I show, I can't seem to make my writing as clear as I want it.
2. I feel that over-reliance on showing is keeping me too far out of my character's head.

Both these issues can be resolved with judicious use of telling, imo. I have no problem at all with you telling me, as you did above, what's going on in your character's head.

Just remember, don't swing back too far the other way and tell me too much. You still will probably be better off by showing a lot more than you tell.

One final caution: don't show me everything.

If nothing happens between the time the guy gets up and the time he exits the room, don't show me each interstitial step. I don't need to see him rise from the chair and walk and open the door. Summarize the boring stuff!

 

[Penpilot]

I screwed up my personal writing by taking show-don't-tell to the extreme. Beware. Beware. Beware. IMHO story telling is about knowing when to show and knowing when to tell. Sometimes a story requires more telling and other times it requires more showing.

The one thing you should keep in mind is clarity, making sure the reader will understand what's happing. Taken to the extreme show-don't-tell gets silly. Eg. Instead of telling me his eyes were blue, you say they were the fifth color of the rainbow. Yeah... don't do that.

The advice is for example don't say, "He was angry," say "He punched the wall." This is a very basic surface level/ low-level expression of the what show-don't-tell is. Taking your writing teachers advice he's saying describe his conditions of poorness, his ragged cloths, his lack of food, his rat infested house.

Show-don't-tell applies to the way you think about the pieces of a story as well as the story as a whole. Some people talk about themes. Creating scenes that embody those themes and reinforcing them is a form of showing. Don't tell me that greed and hubris is bad. Show me a story about how greed and hubris brings about someone's downfall.

An author that does this really well is Cormac McCarthy. The movies The Road and No Country for Old Men are awesome. Their endings show and sum up the themes of their stories. I'll put the explanation of No Country in the spoiler box below with youtube links to the ending. Recommend watching the movies before reading the spoiler.

Spoiler: No Country for Old Men

No Country for Old Men (9/11) Movie CLIP - You Don't Have to Do This (2007) HD - YouTube
No Country for Old Men (10/11) Movie CLIP - Chigurh's Car Accident (2007) HD - YouTube

The movie explores this question of violence. There's an appearance that violence has gotten worse in recent times. There's a scene where a character is told that there was violence happening long before and there will be more long after. That this isn't a country for old men.

Now at the end, this is illustrated (shown) to us in a very subtle scene. The killer that's been running rough-shot through the whole movie like a force of nature get's t-boned in his car. He gets out and he's pretty messed up, broken arm with a bone sticking out. A couple of kids come riding up and they're "Holly crap are you OK, Mister?" The bad guy offers money to the kid for his shirt. The kid goes, "Heck if you need it, take it." The kid literally gives the guy the shirt off his back. The killer gives the kid the money anyway and walks away as sirens scream in the distance.

This is how I read the scene. The reason why there appears to be more violence is as kids we don't see it, were not aware of it even when it's in front of us. The kids don't see the evil killer. All they see is a man that's hurt and they're willing to do what ever they can to help him. The killer doesn't harm the kids because they're not apart of that violent world yet, but giving them that money brings them one step closer.

This scene encapsulates an idea, a statement. It doesn't tell us it shows it to us by having it play out before our eyes.

Purple prose is an extremum of showing not telling - you're unnecessarily "showing" long pointless descriptions of things which are simply distracting and annoying.

That's not what purple prose is. Purple prose is overly extravagant, flowery prose that draws attention to itself. It may or may not contain reliant information, and it may be showing or telling. See the definition in this wiki entry. Purple prose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Steerpike]

That's not what purple prose is. Purple prose is overly extravagant, flowery prose that draws attention to itself. It may or may not contain reliant information, and it may be showing or telling. See the definition in this wiki entry. Purple prose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of course, reasonable minds may differ on the world "overly." In other words, when does it become too much? It depends on the reader's preferences, and even on the author's intent in terms of style.

For example, I think Peake is great. Certainly, his work is widely recognized as such. Here's a description of his character Flay, which is typical of Peake:

Mr Flay appeared to clutter up the doorway as he stood revealed, his arms folded, surveying the smaller man before him in an expressionless way. It did not look as though such a bony face as his could give normal utterance, but rather that instead of sounds, something more brittle, more ancient, something dryer would emerge, something perhaps more in the nature of a splinter or fragment of stone. Nevertheless, the harsh lips parted. ‘It's me,’ he said, and took a step forward into the room, his knee joints cracking as he did so. His passage across the room - in fact his passage through life - was accompanied by these cracking sounds, one per step, which might be likened to the breaking of twigs.

Or how about this passage from Angela Carter's The Erl-King. She was named one of Britains 50 best writers since the 1940s, won multiple awards, and her work is used in college courses (and not just those directed to literature):

The woods enclose. You step between the first trees and then you are no longer in the open air; the wood swallows you up. There is no way through the wood any more, this wood has reverted to its original privacy. Once you are inside it, you must stay there until it lets you out again for there is no clue to guide you through in perfect safety; grass grew over the track years ago and now the rabbits and the foxes make their own runs in the subtle labyrinth and nobody comes. The trees stir with a noise like taffeta skirts of women who have lost themselves in the woods and hunt round hopelessly for the way out. Tumbling crows play tig in the branches of the elms they clotted with their nests, now and then raucously cawing. A little stream with soft margins of marsh runs through the wood but it has grown sullen with the time of the year; the silent, blackish water thickens, now, to ice. All will fall still, all lapse.

A young girl would go into the wood as trustingly as Red Riding Hood to her granny's house but this light admits of no ambiguities and, here, she will be trapped in her own illusion because everything in the wood is exactly as it seems.

Purple prose? I don't think so, because I don't think the word "overly" applies to either author. Other would certainly disagree. So I take "purple prose" comments in the same way I generally take "show don't tell" comments, which is to ignore them in large part (such as when they're made out of hand, without much apparent thought given). If the commentator has demonstrated she understands what I'm going for and makes the comment in the context of that understanding, then I take a harder look.

 

[BWFoster78]

I screwed up my personal writing by taking show-don't-tell to the extreme. Beware. Beware. Beware. IMHO story telling is about knowing when to show and knowing when to tell. Sometimes a story requires more telling and other times it requires more showing.

I did the same, and it left my writing flat and distant from the POV character. However, I'm glad that I made that particular mistake. The focus on Showing helped my writing get a lot better. Now, I've developed an understanding of when Telling should be used. The combination of the two techniques has made my writing much better, but, had I not went too far to the one extreme, I don't think I'd have gotten so practiced at it.

 

[Penpilot]

And of course, reasonable minds may differ on the world "overly." In other words, when does it become too much? It depends on the reader's preferences, and even on the author's intent in terms of style.

To me Purple Prose is like art. There aren't definite boundaries but when something is squarely on one side or another you can tell. Overly elaborate is only part of the definition of Purple Prose. Purple prose draws attention to itself, meaning it takes the reader out of the story and disrupts the flow. So there is room for elaborate prose that draws you in and doesn't disrupt flow. Here's the full definition form wikipedia

In literary criticism, purple prose is written prose that is so extravagant, ornate, or flowery as to break the flow and draw excessive attention to itself. Purple prose is sensually evocative beyond the requirements of its context. It may also employ certain rhetorical effects such as exaggerated sentiment or pathos in an attempt to manipulate a reader's response.

I did the same, and it left my writing flat and distant from the POV character. However, I'm glad that I made that particular mistake. The focus on Showing helped my writing get a lot better. Now, I've developed an understanding of when Telling should be used. The combination of the two techniques has made my writing much better, but, had I not went too far to the one extreme, I don't think I'd have gotten so practiced at it.

It wasn't the best thing for me because it made my writing worse. I showed an editing class two pieces of my writing. One piece was newer after my "showing" problems and one was older before I went "show" crazy. The consensus of the class was the newer piece was over wrought and hard to engage with, while my older piece was easy to understand and engage with. The time difference between when I wrote the two pieces was 15 years. Since I've stopped worrying about show-don't-tell, I've made more progress with my writing.

 

[Penpilot]

And of course, reasonable minds may differ on the world "overly." In other words, when does it become too much? It depends on the reader's preferences, and even on the author's intent in terms of style.

To me Purple Prose is like art. There aren't definite boundaries but when something is squarely on one side or another you can tell. Overly elaborate is only part of the definition of Purple Prose. Purple prose draws attention to itself, meaning it takes the reader out of the story and disrupts the flow. So there is room for elaborate prose that draws you in and doesn't disrupt flow. Here's the full definition form wikipedia

In literary criticism, purple prose is written prose that is so extravagant, ornate, or flowery as to break the flow and draw excessive attention to itself. Purple prose is sensually evocative beyond the requirements of its context. It may also employ certain rhetorical effects such as exaggerated sentiment or pathos in an attempt to manipulate a reader's response.

I did the same, and it left my writing flat and distant from the POV character. However, I'm glad that I made that particular mistake. The focus on Showing helped my writing get a lot better. Now, I've developed an understanding of when Telling should be used. The combination of the two techniques has made my writing much better, but, had I not went too far to the one extreme, I don't think I'd have gotten so practiced at it.

It wasn't the best thing for me because it made my writing worse. I showed an editing class two pieces of my writing. One piece was newer after my "showing" problems and one was older before I went "show" crazy. The consensus of the class was the newer piece was over wrought and hard to engage with, while my older piece was easy to understand and engage with. The time difference between when I wrote the two pieces was 15 years. Since I've stopped worrying about show-don't-tell, I've made more progress with my writing.


FYI for those interested there's a contest for people to try and write the worst possible opening lines to a novel. There's a purple prose category. 2012 Contest Winners » The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest Enjoy...err... sort of.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I'm going to link a post from another thread because I just talked a lot about this yesterday.

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/sho...cene-im-unsure-word-building-transistion.html

The thing is, balance is important. I wrote an article on how to critique work on my website this afternoon, where I go into showing and telling a little. Here's the link for that too. I actually wrote an opening of a fake novel to illustrate the points, so no one's work came into question. I hope you find it helpful. Caged Maiden – Clothing and costumes for every occasion | "One should either be a work of art or wear a work of art" – Oscar Wilde

 

[Mythopoet]

The key to understanding "Show, don't Tell" is realizing that it was originally advice for screenwriters that was just sort of commandeered by the book industry. Probably to try to convince writers to make their books more like movies.

If you want to write a book that reads like a movie in your head then go ahead with the Show, don't Tell advice. If you don't, like me, then just discard it.

 

[Scribble]

There are many tools in the toolbox. Find the right tool for the job. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

Any more tool metaphors?

 

[Jabrosky]

I agree with everyone who said showing vs telling is best judged on a case-by-case basis. If I recall correctly, the original reason for "show, not tell" is to better immerse readers into a story. That's all well and good if you want to stimulate their senses, but then not every phrase in a given piece of writing has that sensory function. In that light "show, not tell" would work best for descriptive passages.

 

[Scribble]

One of the best tools at your disposal is reading. Pick an author you enjoy, and learn from them. Read their work critically.

I would first read it for pure enjoyment, then go back and read it scientifically, pick it apart. Look at the parts you enjoyed the most, the bits you found tedious and try to figure out what they did that worked (or didn't).

I've done this with Clive Barker, who is probably closest to my dark fantasy tastes. I kept a notebook, and also used sticky notes to tag particular elements: dialogue, action, etc..

 

[wordwalker]

I tend to think of showing and telling as forms of pacing, taken to the word-by-word level. Some bits of description are the important ones that need more oomph, but some are lesser things worth blurring past a little to get to the next good one.

Also related to this is style, consistency. The more a writer gets into the details (and the reader starts to trust that a book just-this-thick will be have only so many plot twists but more color along the way), the more awkward it is if a promising bit gets Told, and vice versa.

Though, I do think many kinds of Telling are off-putting because they're words we recognize as Telling so fast they seem "out of character for a narrative." I have a hard time tolerating words like "angry," "sad," and other emotions' handles, anywhere.

--Except in dialogue, of course.

 

[Scribble]

The only tells that really seem to bother me as a reader are emotion tells.

He/she felt happy/sad/perplexed/angry.

Emotions are experienced as physical sensations, paired with thoughts, and often expressed through a physical response. When the writer does not provide these cues, I feel unconvinced of the emotion, and where there could have been an immersion into the character, I feel cheated of it, and it breaks my belief.

It also bugs me a when the author feels the need to tell me that the character "slammed the door in anger", or "angrily". If there was an argument, and someone slams the door, I get it, you don't have to try to convince me. Just slam the door.

There are certainly very good exceptions to this "rule" I set for my own writing. You can create emotional distance, or ambiguity using emotional tells.

High heeled shoes beat a cold rhythm across the hallway floor. The front door slammed shut.

John felt sad. Or was it relief? Was this the final argument? Maybe he didn't want Mary to come back. He couldn't tell. He didn't want to worry about it. He rolled over, pulling the sheets over his head. A few more hours sleep, he thought.

 

[BWFoster78]

The fact is that the vast majority of newbie writers start out with:

John, a twenty two year old carpenter, was hungry. He went to the story to buy a snack. There was a long line ahead of him so he got frustrated. He pulled out a gun and shot the guy in front of him.

Did you find that engaging or interesting? I didn't, and I've yet to find a newbie author who tells in this manner who is remotely engaging or interesting.

If that passage reflects your writing and you want people to be interested in what you write, you need to learn how to show.

 

[Scribble]

Action tells are different. In my mind, this usually comes in the form of "evil" -ly adverbs.

John ran quickly to the phone. He answered it angrily, yelling into the phone that it was the middle of the night, are they crazy? He walked grumpily back to bed, pulling the sheets over him in irritation.

This kind of sucks. We understand what happens, but we aren't immersed in it. However, adverbs are a good tool! Just one it is recommended that you don't overuse.

John walked into the kitchen. He picked up the large carving knife. It was wet with watermelon juice. He walked back to the stairs and peered between the railing up to the second floor, up to where Mary was sleeping. He tightened his grip on the knife. Bits of pink melon flesh slid off the blade onto the floor. He walked up the stairs, slowly, quietly.

I put two evil adverbs at the end. After all the direct action, I think it works well to take you away from John. He's going to do something terrible, it seems. I don't think he's going up to cut her a piece of canteloupe. The tells create a little distance from John. We were in his head, now we are watching him from slightly over his shoulder. He's being stealthy, he's not hot in passion, that makes it more chilling.

 

[Steerpike]

A timely blog post from author David Farland:

http://www.davidfarland.com/writing_tips/?a=242