Lee Child debunks writing myths

[Steerpike]

OK, so I really only posted this for the first one (and I may now have to go into hiding from BWFoster ).

Quote: "Child believes the average reader doesn’t care at all about telling, showing, etc. He or she just wants something to latch onto, something to carry them through the book."

I think he's probably right about that. Just hoping to provide a little bit of a different perspective. I do think "show don't tell" is handed out to beginning writers far too readily.

Lee Child Debunks the Biggest Writing Myths | WritersDigest.com

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

My thoughts too - partly. Readers come in all forms. Some will want to be able to envision a scene for themselves. So for them showing is going to be better received. Others want to feel and understand a story - so for them telling, giving the internal angst etc is going to be better received. You've probably got to do both,and never expect everyone to be thrilled.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Haha... I read this article too.

I wondered how long it would be until it made its way here.

Like a lot of opinion articles, I think this one is given in the extreme. I didn't take it as meaning that telling all the time is fine. I understood it to mean that every detail doesn't have to be shown.

I still believe that if a character or object is important to the story then it deserves more show & less tell. If it isn't of great concern then just tell us. Also, when talking about a character's ruminations, telling is fine.

I'd agree that most readers might not care that much while resding a book but I also believe that they'd prefer a more active, showy tale if given a choice.

I'd have to read his work to have a valid opinion though. Anyone read Childs?

 

[Steerpike]

H
Like a lot of opinion articles, I think this one is given in the extreme. I didn't take it as meaning that telling all the time is fine. I understood it to mean that every detail doesn't have to be shown.

I took it to mean exactly this. The problem, as I see it, is that people critiquing often jump on every instance of telling and say "show don't tell." That's not helpful, in my view, because telling might be just fine. The critiquer should make that analysis first.

I'v read a couple of Lee Child's books. They were OK. There are other authors writing that type of thing that are better. I don't remember anything being wrong with his writing, per se, but the character Jack Reacher is so good that he prevails over his foes with little difficulty, at least in the books I read, and that wasn't as interesting to me as books where the MC has to struggle a bit more.

Of course, he's sold a hell of a lot of books, and some of them (not the ones I read) have been award nominees, so maybe I would like some of his stuff better than others.

 

[Steerpike]

You've probably got to do both, and never expect everyone to be thrilled.

Cheers, Greg.

Yes, I think that's it exactly.

 

[Christopher Wright]

Never met the guy but I think I want to kiss him.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

The problem I see is when a writer overlooks an opportunity to characterize an important figure, a meaningful object, or an impact full event.

 

[Claire]

It is interesting what he says about readers wanting the answer to a question. I find that is often what hooks me into a book - there is something going on and I want to know what it is, or why it happened, or who it was, etc. I just finished Wise Man's Fear and I'm dying to know why he's called Kvothe Kingkiller. What's that about? Who did he kill? Why? It is a great story for a lot of reasons, but one of them is certainly that there is this question hanging out there and I want to get to the end to understand it.

I've read other books that were the same way, and it isn't always the "what," but the "how" that intrigues me. I may even know the "what" - it might not be a secret that two people wind up together at the end, but I get caught up in the "how?" I want to know how it goes down, how you get from point A to Z. A question can be a driving force behind the plot, and while it certainly isn't the only thing that makes a story great, it is certainly part of what keeps a reader turning the pages. Works for me, anyway. I have been giving some thought to how that plays out in my own NIP.

 

[BWFoster78]

I will so that, the more I learn about writing, the more discerning of a reader I become. A book used to have to be really poorly written to annoy me. Now, common mistakes irritate me.

Is this a good thing or not? I don't know.

A counterpoint to Mr. Childs: Are we driven more by what the reader wants or by the desire to perfect our craft? I am and always will be my toughest critic.

 

[Steerpike]

A counterpoint to Mr. Childs: Are we driven more by what the reader wants or by the desire to perfect our craft? I am and always will be my toughest critic.

I don't know that the two are mutually exclusive, and I guess opinions are going to widely vary on this one. To me, the attempt to 'show' everything isn't necessarily a perfection of the craft.

 

[Butterfly]

I think Emma Darwin has a great post on her blog about the issues of showing too much.

This Itch of Writing: Are you Showing too much?

 

[Steerpike]

I think Emma Darwin has a great post on her blog about the issues of showing too much.

This Itch of Writing: Are you Showing too much?

Nice one. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Ankari]

I was the average reader two years ago. I did care about excessive telling. I know when telling becomes excessive when I know which paragraphs to skip from the first line. Authors that show too much can also be a bit irritating. How does an author show too much? When the reader needs to whip out a notepad and pen to jot notes about the world from the "showing" passages, then its too much. Steven Erickson, although my favorite author, is guilty of this. I forgive him, though, since his world building is amazing.

Passivity is a relatively new concept to me (since I became serious about writing).

 

[ThinkerX]

I've read some of his 'Reacher' novels. They are certainly gripping enough, some written from first person and others from third,

but I decided against reading more of them because the main character is so dang murderous, and more murderous without apparent consequences.

 

[SeverinR]

I think the new cover article applies here:

Know the Rules. Understand the Rules. Break the Rules.

Know the rules, then know when to break the rules.

I don't think the average reader thinks of rules of story telling, they just like what they read.

 

[Helen]

Like a lot of opinion articles...

Exactly. It's just an opinion.

Show don't tell isn't just a rule somebody made up. It's based on ideas like actions indicate character.

You may not need to do it all the time, but you certainly need to do it often. Just get good at it.

 

[Steerpike]

You may not need to do it all the time, but you certainly need to do it often. Just get good at it.

Also an opinion, of course.

 

[Helen]

Also an opinion, of course.

Of course.

 

[Steerpike]

Of course.

I like to clarify because we have a wide range of experiences here, and part of the problem with so-called "rules" is that they are expounded as absolutes in many cases, which they are not even if in most cases they're good ideas for beginning writers. People who don't have a lot of experience might read language like "have to" or "certainly" and take it literally, thinking it is some absolute of writing. In truth, some people mean it precisely that way when they give the advice, but that really boils down to telling people "you have to write the way I like it" if you want to be good, which is nonsense.