Let's Talk about Show Don't Tell

[Heliotrope]

By the way, did you like the scene?

I did like the scene.

I didn't want to conflate what I saw as two different uses of the word. I did want to show readers that Chat Noir felt sad, but on the actual tactical level there was a lot of telling involved in doing so.

bingo.

And this is exactly where the "show, don't tell" advice gets tripped up. What I've seen is that a writer (usually newer writer) on forums will get his or her hands on this advice and go crazy with it. Someone will post something like the snippet you posted above and ask for a critique.

The new writer, all armed in his "show don't tell knowledge" will start highlighting sentences left, right, and centre saying "this is telling. Show this instead," without any thought to the bigger picture. Without asking what the point of the scene was. Without considering what the goal of the writer was for that scene.

In my mind, Show and tell have to do with the big picture stuff. The structure of the scene. The point of the scene. The larger, over arching goals of the scene. Not the tiny incidental lines. HOW you show that goal is up to you. You may "tell it" lol. But you are still showing what you need to show.

I think it is this double meanings of the words that confuses people.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Show don’t tell isn’t simple, it just looks that way, in part because it is story-telling, not story-showing. Showing in print really only takes place in graphic novels, comics, or other related media. Advertising. I have seen so many people bicker amidst the weed of SdT that I finally settled on my own way of looking at it.

Disclaimor: When I’m writing or editing I never think of show or tell. Ever. Never have.

My basic principle for what is and isn’t showing is simple in the micro: Does it paint a picture? But of course, it really isn’t that simple. It’s the level of detail that folks will often consider for whether it is show or tell, hence the “showing with style” comment. Let’s say you write this.

James stood and stared as a car driven by Bob squeeled around the corner without stopping for a red light.

James said, “That bastard needs to die.”

Well, there is sort of a picture there, yeah? But in a vaccuum it will likely be labeled “telling”. Why? Because it’s not much of a picture. This leads to telling with style...

The glass packs of the canary yellow Mustang rumbled down Fifth Avenue, and roared to life as the lights turned red. The driver howled and gave James the bird as tires squealed through the turn.

James said, “That bastard needs to die.”

#2 paints a more vivid picture, and would go read unmarked by “show don’t tell”. I hope.

A macro example has at least three levels, and a typical situation might go a bit like this. You are starting book 2, and the core of the events take place 5 years after the end of book 1.

#1= Pure Telling — It’d been five years since the Battle of Five Forks and today was the first time Francesca had seen LeRoy clean and oil his revolvers since that bloody day. They’d married and brought five chidlren into the world together in peace, but the look on his face now reminded her of their haunting, bloody past.

#2= Blended or partial showing— Francesca slipped through the cabin’s front door with a smile on her face and an arm full of flowers, but the smell of solvents and oil dropped her lips to a frown. She tossed the bouquet onto the table at the sound of a wire brush and strode into the living room. LeRoy sat hunched over his pair of Remington revolvers, which had sat stowed and unused in the sock drawer since the Battle of Five Forks. Five years of peace to build a home and family.

LeRoy turned, his expression dour. “Why, Mrs. Levington. You’re early.”

Junior trotted through the door, the eldest of their three children, and almost four years old.

#3 Pure Showing= You kick book 2 to book 3 and spend book 2 writing the entire story of the five years, heh heh. Or 150 pages, whatever.

 

[Devor]

In my mind, Show and tell have to do with the big picture stuff. The structure of the scene. The point of the scene. The larger, over arching goals of the scene. Not the tiny incidental lines. HOW you show that goal is up to you. You may "tell it" lol. But you are still showing what you need to show.

From where I'm standing, I think you might possibly be the only person who interprets it that way.

 

[Heliotrope]

From where I'm standing, I think you might possibly be the only person who interprets it that way.

Nope. Penpilot sees it that way too. Lots of courses I have taken also present it that way. (which why it is useful to get out and take courses or go to workshops instead of reading questionable advice on the internet.)

 

[Svrtnsse]

The advice of "show, don't tell" was one of the first writing rules I came across. The other one was "don't use passive voice." I learned both of these rules here on the forum and they had a lot of impact on how I developed as a writer.

I'm probably still doing way too much showing in my stories, but I'd like to think I've curbed the worst of it. Thing is, I kind of enjoy writing in a showing way. It feels good to me.

I looked at the discussion in this thread, and either I'm too unfocused to really get into it, or it's a bit above my head as far as theory goes. I didn't have the energy/focus to read all of the posts (no offense intended).

What I get though, is that the advice of show don't tell is a lot more complex than it would seem at first. There are times when it can be applied, and there are times where it's better ignored.

I've written a lot about descriptions, and about how I try to show things to my readers when I write. A point I try to make a lot is that any image the reader creates on their own in their mind is a lot stronger to them than anything I can describe in words. I also focus on the importance of first impressions and how long it takes to make one.
Keeping this in mind it's quite easy to give the reader a vivid image without wasting too much time describing details.

What I haven't thought much about is when it's better to tell than to show.

In Emma's Story I got around this by swapping between to different narrative voices. One is all show and is mainly used for conversations and other important events. The other voice uses a lot more telling, and moves the story from one "important event" to the next. It was fun to write, but I don't think I could apply that to every single story.

Apart from that, it's only just recently I've started reflecting on overuse of showing. I bumped into an article on "good telling" a while back (I shared it in a thread), and I thought a little about it at the time, but got distracted and forgot about it.

I'm sure I've been doing way too much showing in the past, but I like to believe I've reached the level where I can recognise that something I'm describing just isn't relevant and doesn't need to be added. I guess that's a step in the right direction.

 

[skip.knox]

One problem I have with the phrase is it pretends to a dichotomy. The words are just words. What we say about them is an abstraction of the direct experience. This is fine; it's how we talk about story. But that phrase implies that there is showing, which is wholly separate from telling, and together they represent all there is to narrative. I don't really buy that. As others have noted, it can easily lead a writer (or editor) into looking at the prose in these mutually exclusive terms, driving out all nuance and subtlety, and forcing the writer into a false choice. Bang that drum loud enough and the writer begins to get tone deaf.

That's not to say there's no there there, but I look at it more in terms of distance. If the words create too much distance, I start to lose the reader. This most often happens when I myself am too distant during the writing. Especially with emotions, when I'm not fully engaged I find myself using labels--"he was baffled"--over descriptions. It happens in other description as well. Crowds filled the marketplace. I'll write that because I'm headed on to the next thought or sentence and am not fully *in* the marketplace. On a rewrite, I may decide the crowd and the marketplace weren't really important and will drop the sentence. Or, if they are important, a few phrases may suffice. Or I may have to describe actually traversing the space, complete with noises, smells, and encounters.

The only place where I can imagine a show-don't-tell comment being useful is if I and my editor have agreed on it as a kind of shorthand. As advice to novice writers one will never meet, I'm too aware of the damage it can do.

 

[Heliotrope]

kind of shorthand

This is the way I see it too. Like a "universal language" so we can know what we are talking about... however, it is so nuanced and convoluted it wouldn't matter anyway. The problem, as I see it, is that it has sort of distilled down to mean a singular thing, and lost all it's nuance. When that happens it makes for cut and dry editing, which is a problem IMO.

Crowds filled the marketplace. I'll write that because I'm headed on to the next thought or sentence and am not fully *in* the marketplace. On a rewrite, I may decide the crowd and the marketplace weren't really important and will drop the sentence

This is how I work too. Weeding out what needs to be there. If it does, I expand. If it doesn't, I cut.

 

[skip.knox]

That's why I mentioned an editor. I could see such terms being used between two individuals, or even within a crit group, if they were of long acquaintance. It becomes less useful as it becomes more anonymous, and downright harmful when it appears on those pestilential blog lists.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

That's why I mentioned an editor. I could see such terms being used between two individuals, or even within a crit group, if they were of long acquaintance. It becomes less useful as it becomes more anonymous, and downright harmful when it appears on those pestilential blog lists.

Yeah, it could easily be defined for a writing group... Most times I think it would be more accurate to say “more show” than show don’t tell.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Oh yes, totally forgot... Chat Noir and Ladybug, fun stuff! My daughter watched that show on Netflix, so I enjoyed this piece. It is well written, and I suspect it works for the TA and genre. At least it does for me.

Another side point: A poorly written show will probably get called out for “show don’t tell” faster than a well-written tell, LOL.

 

[Penpilot]

For clarity, I thought I'd share an example of what I consider showing. There's bits of telling, but what matters is what that telling shows. Please excuse some of the heavy handedness. It's just something I came up with on the fly.

Lathias pushed into the brothel. He immediately noticed a thief glancing at the medallion around his neck. It was bronze, but he kept it so polished that many mistook it for gold.

A wench came up to him and brushed a finger over the scar on his cheek. “A big soldier’s scars makes me quiver,” she said.

The thief thought Lathias was distracted and tried to lift the medallion from his neck. Lathias caught the thief’s hand in his grip.

He’d carried the medallion 1000 miles across the Rauch desert. When his war barge sunk, he’d swallowed it, so it wouldn’t be lost to sea. When he was captured at the Battle of Far Reach and the medallion was taken from him by a Major, he escaped, hunted the bastard across the battlefield, and strangled him as he slept to take it back.

He wouldn’t let garbage like this thief take his mother’s gift from him.

Lathias sneered at the pleading thief and squeezed, breaking every finger in the little rat’s hand. When he left home, his mother called him her sweet faced angel and made him promise to return the medallion to her untarnished. Nothing would stop that from happening. Nothing.

This shows the following:

It show what type of person Lathias is now.
It show what type of person Lathias was.
It show what he's been through.
It show how much the promise to his mother means to him.
It show that Lathias has broken his promise.
It show that he doesn't realize he's broken the promise.

I do some of this by telling the reader details, and I do some of it by showing actions. To me, this is what scene and story level showing involves.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I can see where you’re going with the “show” here, a larger sense show, but I’d call it telling, almost straight out. Not bits. This isn’t a criticism, telling is just fine.

For clarity, I thought I'd share an example of what I consider showing. There's bits of telling, but what matters is what that telling shows. Please excuse some of the heavy handedness. It's just something I came up with on the fly.



This shows the following:

It show what type of person Lathias is now.
It show what type of person Lathias was.
It show what he's been through.
It show how much the promise to his mother means to him.
It show that Lathias has broken his promise.
It show that he doesn't realize he's broken the promise.

I do some of this by telling the reader details, and I do some of it by showing actions. To me, this is what scene and story level showing involves.

 

[Devor]

Nope. Penpilot sees it that way too. Lots of courses I have taken also present it that way. (which why it is useful to get out and take courses or go to workshops instead of reading questionable advice on the internet.)

This is interesting, because we go about planning our scenes in a very similar way. Only the language is different. Where you use "get through the plot stuff as quickly as possible" I use "tell".

Where you use "Establish that Chat Noir has really given up on pursuing Ladybug" I would say "Show that Chat Noir has given up on pursuing ladybug."

Seriously, the only thing different is semantics.

This is what I don't understand, though. How are you using telling in this context?

It's true I wanted to get some information across - a quick explanation of why the two kwami dropped in pain in the previous scenes so I can set up a future villain - but having drafted many scenes now for this fanfiction, I think it may be the first time one of my goals was a flat out info drop. If we're going to categorize our scene goals on a show-or-tell dichotomy, that just seems needlessly limiting to me.


((edit))

By the way, I'm not avoiding the other threads you've started, Heliotrope, but five is just too many at once for me.

 

[Heliotrope]

If we're going to categorize our scene goals on a show-or-tell dichotomy, that just seems needlessly limiting to me.

Yeah, I don't see how it is limiting? Some stuff I have to breeze through quickly, like how much time has passed (like the American Gods example), or how she got dressed and ate breakfast, or how she got to school... that is stuff I can tell. I don't need to show her sitting at the table eating breakfast. I can just tell the reader "After shoving cheerios in my face and throwing on some pants, I left for school." Other stuff I know I want to spend more time on because it is important to the plot or the development of the character arc. That is the stuff I have to take my time with and show.

I don't see it as limiting. I see it as being specific about how I'm crafting my story. I am picking and choosing what moments are pertinent, and which moment are not.

So my chapter outline might look like:

- get to school.
- Show how devastated she is at missing the contest.
- introduce best friend. Show her skill at gymnastics.

 

[Devor]

Yeah, I don't see how it is limiting? Some stuff I have to breeze through quickly, like how much time has passed (like the American Gods example), or how she got dressed and ate breakfast, or how she got to school... that is stuff I can tell. I don't need to show her sitting at the table eating breakfast. I can just tell the reader "After shoving cheerios in my face and throwing on some pants, I left for school." Other stuff I know I want to spend more time on because it is important to the plot or the development of the character arc. That is the stuff I have to take my time with and show.

I don't see it as limiting. I see it as being specific about how I'm crafting my story. I am picking and choosing what moments are pertinent, and which moment are not.

I don't still don't understand - before I listed three goals for a scene, and you said this is where we're discussing show vs. tell. But I wouldn't list "explain that she had breakfast" as a scene goal. I wouldn't think about that at all except in the question of, "Ohh, I need something here about breakfast to keep the flow going" and then, "does this read right?" Whether it's showing or telling, again, is on that tactical, micro-level (and frankly, I don't really care if it's showing or telling).

I'm asking about this double meaning of the phrase you were talking about earlier. Okay, most scene goals can be described as show the readers that this is happening. Okay. But I don't understand how telling is a part of that or why it would've been in any way useful to write "Tell readers about the kwami backstory" instead of the more descriptive and in my mind more useful (and actionable, if you want to get into the science behind good to-dos......), "Get through the kwami stuff as quickly as possible."

Again, simple question, I get where show can have a double zoomed-out scene goal meaning, but I don't understand it for tell, and I don't understand why we would even want it to??

 

[Heliotrope]

Again, simple question, I get where show can have a double zoomed-out scene goal meaning, but I don't understand it for tell, and I don't understand why we would even want it to??

I don't think you have to? When planning there is no reason why you would have to put in the "tell" parts, unless you are a crazy detailed plotter like me. But there is seriously no reason at all why you would have to.

Where it might come up in this context would be like Skip suggested... Let's pretend I was doing a critique for a friend. They started the story with an action packed scene of a guy going to rescue a girl. He goes on and on about how much he loves this girl... but it is all him telling me this. He may be telling in great detail, but I have never actually been "shown" the relationship with the girl. I'm just expected to take the narrator's word for it that the relationship is there. As a critique partner, I might suggest to the writer that I didn't feel a connection to the relationship. I felt like I was supposed to take it for face value, but actually, if they had included a previous scene "showing" the relationship it might offer more substance to the scene. If I could see the two lovebirds doing something together... having fun, laughing, sharing a joke, in a previous scene, I might be more invested in her rescue.

So the language, in that context, is valuable in those sorts of situations. I find this with my own writing a lot. I write a scene a few chapters in and I realize I'm "telling" the reader stuff and expecting them to just believe it. I think... Hmmmmm, It would be better if I showed the relationship earlier. It would give this scene more depth.

 

[Heliotrope]

A concrete example I have of this is with a partner I have who had a great scene about a woman who was protecting a young girl. The woman was at a party, and to protect the girl had her locked up in a bedroom. The MC went on and on, telling, the reader about all the horrific things that would happen to the girl if she were to be allowed at the party. It was a decent scene. There was a lot of emotion. It definitely showed the writer's goal, that the woman looks after the girl... but as a reader I was expected to take the words of the MC at face value. I was expected to simply believe what she was telling me because she was telling me. It didn't sit right. My partner and I decided to explore showing it instead. So the writer had the girl sneak out and come down to the party. Well, the shit hit the fan. All the stuff the woman was afraid of happened... right infant of my reader eyes. This gave the MC much more credibility, and it showed me WHY she had to protect the girl, instead of just telling me.

 

[Hallen]

This isn't a contest -- it's not one verses the other. Writing is difficult and how you decide to portray the story to the reader is your choice. Some ways are more readable and immersive than others. Showing and telling is just a way to think about how you present the world to your reader.

If you can get the reader to immerse themselves in your characters and your world, then it's working.

What typically does not work is to leave out so much detail that the world and characters come off very flat.

What I see a lot from new writers is the lack of anything but description and explanation of character actions/reactions. It does make the writing stiff and generally boring.

Jack worked hard as he completed digging the hole.
or
Jack's hands ached and his back burned. The heavy clay held so much water that each shovelful was becoming torture. Two more feet to go.

Either way can work depending on the situation. The more "telling" form certainly speeds up the pace and that can be very important in certain situations. But, the more "showing" form allows the reader to experience the situation from the perspective of the character.

In either case, they are just tools to use.

 

[Devor]

I don't see it as limiting. I see it as being specific about how I'm crafting my story. I am picking and choosing what moments are pertinent, and which moment are not.

So my chapter outline might look like:

- get to school.
- Show how devastated she is at missing the contest.
- introduce best friend. Show her skill at gymnastics.

Okay, let's go for another scene.

Below is the first-half of a scene before the one I posted above. Adrien (who is really Chat Noir) is second guessing whether it was a mistake to ask his friend Marinette out and try and move on from Ladybug (yes, the girl he mentioned taking out in that scene... was her. Those heroes nowadays and their crazy secret identities.).

Ladybug sat in a blue chair on the theater balcony, at ease in a way that wasn’t, offering a pleasant half-smile without committing an ounce more of her joy to the moment. She looked straight ahead, her hands and face oddly still, her eyes curious and calm.

“So Chat Noir is a huge flirt,” Alya’s voice came slowly, and Ladybug nodded in turn. “Does he flirt with all of the girls or just with you?”

Ladybug halfway rolled her eyes and then giggled. “You’d have to ask him that.”

“Did you ever ask him to stop?” Alya asked.

“Chat Noir’s flirting annoys me to pieces,” Ladybug began with a light groan. But then she blushed, and her voice became warm. “It’s also really sweet. Fighting these villains could be a nightmare, and Chat Noir keeps it light and fun. That means everything to me. I wouldn’t ask him to change at all.”

Adrien paused the video and threw the remote into his couch.

Ladybug wouldn’t ask him to change at all. His flirting is really sweet, keeps things light and fun –means everything to her. She had said all of that to Alya in a public interview, but Alya was still certain that Ladybug would break his heart.

“Is Alya seeing something here that I’m not?” Adrien asked the question aloud to his room. The light rustling of a cheese wrapper answered him. “Plagg? Plagg, get out of the trash can and talk to me.”

”Ohhhh. How should I know?” Plagg groaned, flying out of the trash with a small piece of tinfoil dropping from his mouth and falling back into the can beneath him. “You’ve watched it eleven times now. You’re hopeless.”

“Come on, Plagg,” Adrien told him. The kwami wasn’t always upfront with his advice, but Adrien had nobody else he could turn to when it came to Ladybug. “You’re like ten thousand years old. You must have learned something about romance by now.”

“Fine…” Plagg said. He flailed his hands about with sarcasm as he went on. “One-time only, because you’re not going to like it. Are you sure you want it?”

No, between Alya’s scathing question, the kwami’s change in attitude, and Adrien’s own growing doubts, he suddenly wasn’t sure he wanted to hear more pessimism for the day. “Tell me, Plagg.”

“Fiiiine.” Plagg crossed his arms and frowned. “Forget about whether or not she likes your bad come-ons. There’s only one thing that matters.” Plagg flew right in front of Adrien’s face and looked him in the eye. “You’ve been throwing yourself at Ladybug for over a year now, Adrien, and she’s still saying these things to Alya, not to you.”

Alya has the guts to ask, Adrien wanted to counter, but the remark died in his heart. He could feel his heart sinking. If he wasn’t so tense his hands might have been shaking. Plagg was right, and that was it. He had been partners with ladybug for over a year and he still knew nothing about her.

She probably knew even less about him.

He used to try, but their secret identities got in the way. There were too many questions that they just had to ignore. How did you know that name? What are you doing here so quickly? Horrificator just sealed off the entire school building and you were already inside? Some questions you just didn’t ask. Some clues you just didn’t follow. He forced himself to ignore and forget them. More than wanting to know her identity, he wanted her to trust him with it. So she put up a wall and he respected it. He kept clear of the line.

Maybe he kept too far from that line. Their partnership was solid and growing stronger by the week. They saved each other’s lives, they saved Paris, and they had fun doing it. But on a personal level they stagnated a long time ago. He didn’t know her name, her age, her favorite color, whether she was dating, or had siblings, or had hobbies, or what she wanted to do with her life. He stopped asking, and she never offered. And he made excuses for it.

But then she told Alya in an interview that his flirting meant the world to her. That wasn’t secret identity stuff. That was cat and bug. She took this tidbit of truth about their relationship, the kind of information that he craved so desperately from her, and she handed it to Alya, not to him.

Was that it? Was that one fact the proof he was looking for that he didn’t have a chance with her – that she was going to break his heart? That it was time to move on? He hated this kind of guesswork.

(the scene goes on from here..... but that's enough.)

My goal for this scene was to get across the following:

- Adrien is and has always been kind of desperate for information about whether Ladybug likes him or not.
- After all this time they still don't know each other at all.
- Adrien has always been heading towards this heartbreak.

I want that second point to come across even though it isn't true. Marinette's scene was focused on this point, too, so later in other scene when she thinks, "Marinette knew the boy at her side....", it was a small but obvious hint that they're both totally wrong about this.

Okay, sorry, I know that was a lot of reading. But here's the main point:

Where it might come up in this context would be like Skip suggested... Let's pretend I was doing a critique for a friend. They started the story with an action packed scene of a guy going to rescue a girl. He goes on and on about how much he loves this girl... but it is all him telling me this. He may be telling in great detail, but I have never actually been "shown" the relationship with the girl. I'm just expected to take the narrator's word for it that the relationship is there. As a critique partner, I might suggest to the writer that I didn't feel a connection to the relationship. I felt like I was supposed to take it for face value, but actually, if they had included a previous scene "showing" the relationship it might offer more substance to the scene. If I could see the two lovebirds doing something together... having fun, laughing, sharing a joke, in a previous scene, I might be more invested in her rescue.

The thing is, my goals for this scene and every scene are usually consistent, omni-present goals based on how I want the characters to think and feel, and in turn, how I want the readers to think and feel. They are things that flow and develop through the scene from the start to the finish. I don't have a point to make and a choice on whether to show it or tell it; I have to hit the same point repeatedly in a way that flows throughout the scene and builds up the reader's emotional experience. At every sentence I am thinking about all of these scene goals. Adrien is desperate for information, so he watches, and rewatches, the one interview where Ladybug mentions it, because that's what a desperate person does. He begs the only person he can talk to to tell him what he thinks. And so on.

It doesn't matter to me whether I have to show or tell - and if someone critiqued me that way, I would think they missed the whole point. Either the emotion is coming across or it's not - and if it's not, I probably have to rethink the whole scene, not nitpick it for the telly parts.

 

[Heliotrope]

It doesn't matter to me whether I have to show or tell - and if someone critiqued me that way, I would think they missed the whole point. Either the emotion is coming across or it's not - and if it's not, I probably have to rethink the whole scene, not nitpick it for the telly parts.

No, the is not what I'm saying. What I'm talking about is not nitpicking for the telly parts. I could care less about the telly parts. I'm talking about big picture goals.

Let's pretend you didn't put the TV into your scene. Instead you had Adrien sitting around moping about Ladybug. He has a long winded monologue about how he is desperate for information on her. He is doing a whole lot of telling the reader about how much he likes her and how much he wants to know stuff about her.

As a reader I will sit back and think... okay... So I'm expected to just "believe" that you want information about her, but you are sitting around on you butt doing nothing. So you are telling me one thing, but showing me another.

Then you rewrite the scene. You think.... how can I show this? How can I show him desperate for information? Eureka! He will be watching her on TV! Great idea! Great way of showing his need for information!

So it is not a nitpicky thing. It is about really thinking about the best possible way to show the goal. In the examples I gave above they were "telling" the reader "this is really important!" but they hadn't thrown the TV in. They had missed the showing part.