- Thread starter
- #41
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Let's Talk about Show Don't Tell
- Thread starter Heliotrope
- Start date
Okay.... so if I was looking at mopey, whiny Adrien, I would simply say that I probably wasn't trying to do enough with the scene, and needed to focus more on the characters' actions, and may need to bring another element into the scene like another character so that there's more going on (the next line after I cut the scene, his father enters the room), unless I had somehow managed to achieve mastery over the whiny teen monologue (even I'm not that bold).
The thing is, I went into the scene already thinking, "She did an interview on the show and they didn't show any of it. I want to flash back to it, and this is a perfect place for it. What did she say about him? How can I make it extremely flattering, but still feel platonic, just to mess with him?" If I didn't already have this element sitting on my itching-to-use hotplate, and I tried to show his feelings instead of telling them, I'm not sure where that would've taken me. But I don't believe it would've taken me very far. My instincts - add another element, focus on actions, find something that can hold the emotion in suspense - probably would've led me to a scene where he has a friend over (Nino) and is trying to talk in code, "How do you know if a girl likes you? How do you know if she... doesn't like you," creating a bunch of confusion and tension because he's hiding the fact that he's talking about Ladybug. I can't separate my instincts to figure out where "Show don't tell" would've led me - but I don't think it would've led me someplace that strong.
But at this point, where is the "don't tell" part of the advice? And this still feels, to me, like..... a remedial lesson on narrative. "Show me something, don't just have the character sit there talking about it." I mean, no, you don't want to have a character who just sits there monologuing, but certainly we can give better advice than "Show me something, here."
- Thread starter
- #43
Yeah, I can’t speak to how that conversation would go, I was just pointing out how thinking about showing instead of telling works in the context of that big picture, scene planning stuff, not just the small scale line by line stuff.
It may seem remedial. I still have moments where I realize I didn’t show as well as I could have. I relied too much on the reader to just “believe me” when I told them something. So maybe I’m still remedial. But that is how I find the terms useful. Large scale, scene planning level.
It may seem remedial. I still have moments where I realize I didn’t show as well as I could have. I relied too much on the reader to just “believe me” when I told them something. So maybe I’m still remedial. But that is how I find the terms useful. Large scale, scene planning level.
Gurkhal
Auror
Excellent topic! I've also been wrestling with the question of how much to show instead of telling and the discussion has provided some good insight into this.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as a put down. I said before that if somebody finds it helpful they should ignore me, and I meant that.
I've got to look at it from two perspectives - is it useful to me? It feels weaker to me than the strategies I already employ. And, would I find it useful in teaching or coaching or helping others? I wouldn't. I find "don't tell" confusing and "show something" to be unhelpful. I try to look for more specific advice.
- Thread starter
- #46
I have found it helpful for critique for a few reasons, but this may be specific to my method of critiqing. My philosophy on crits has evolved significantly over the past few years.
I believe that stories should be a curation of carefully chosen scenes and symbols that build upon each other to deliver on a (hopefully) impactful and satisfying ending. Because of this, I don't believe in giving specific advice because:
1) Until I know the story in its entirety, I don't know what is crucial information and what isn't. This is why I've actually backed away from offering any advice other than "I like this" or "I don't get it" to my current crit group. Until I know the whole story, I have no idea if the scene is valuable to building up to, and delivering on, the ending. If a crit partner sends me a snippet, or a chapter, out of context and says "Is the dialogue weak?" My response will be "I have no clue, because I don't know how it fits into the big picture." I will no longer offer any specific advice until I read an entire manuscript, start to finish, first.
2) Even after I have read a manuscript from start to finish, I still avoid specific advice. I used to do it, and it was pointless. Party because it isn't my story, and I have no right to say what should go where. And partly because the author has a better idea of what their theme is, and what their goal is, than I do, and when left to their own devices almost always come up with a better idea than I could. What I can give is broad "feelings". I "felt" that this was a bit telly for me. I "felt" like I was expected to believe the narrator, but I didn't feel there was a good reason to. Perhaps try to think of a way of showing this more concretely. Consider using a symbol here to ground the reader in something real."
But, that is just my own personal philosophy on critiquing. It is not my job to do line by line crits. I offer large picture thoughts, and general, broad advice, and let the writer fill in the gaps themselves.
Malik
Auror
There's no hard and fast on this. There's a time and a place for both. The key is understanding each to the point where you can recognize when you're doing which, and then using them when they're appropriate for what you're trying to do. Fledgling writers get wrapped around the axle because they don't know the difference, and it's one of those things that's like pornography: you know it when you see it.
I don't want to turn this into a You Must Go To School To Write thing (edit and spoiler: you don't), but an innate understanding of the difference between showing and telling is one benefit of a formal education in writing. A good writing course will do exercises on exactly this: "This week, you will write a scene telling, then rewrite the same scene showing." And then at the end of the week, your professor tears everyone's writing apart and explains who screwed it up, and who got it right, and how, so that you never get it wrong again. The same goes for voice, narrative, imagery, allegory, passive vs. active, etc. You learn what these things are, and then you just know. Trying to explain any of it with two or three rules that everybody can understand is like trying to explain to a virgin why sex is so fun.
Case in point of when to use which: I have a torture scene in The New Magic that's serious nightmare fuel; one of these things that you hope your mother doesn't read and that halfway through crafting it makes you wish you'd used a nom de plume. I was writing it in detail over a few pages but it was just getting too damned gruesome and excessive--"gritty fantasy" is just so passe--so I cut it down to two, one-sentence paragraphs at the end of the chapter. It's clearly telling, not showing, but it's purposeful telling. It's much more powerful, because:
I don't want to turn this into a You Must Go To School To Write thing (edit and spoiler: you don't), but an innate understanding of the difference between showing and telling is one benefit of a formal education in writing. A good writing course will do exercises on exactly this: "This week, you will write a scene telling, then rewrite the same scene showing." And then at the end of the week, your professor tears everyone's writing apart and explains who screwed it up, and who got it right, and how, so that you never get it wrong again. The same goes for voice, narrative, imagery, allegory, passive vs. active, etc. You learn what these things are, and then you just know. Trying to explain any of it with two or three rules that everybody can understand is like trying to explain to a virgin why sex is so fun.
Case in point of when to use which: I have a torture scene in The New Magic that's serious nightmare fuel; one of these things that you hope your mother doesn't read and that halfway through crafting it makes you wish you'd used a nom de plume. I was writing it in detail over a few pages but it was just getting too damned gruesome and excessive--"gritty fantasy" is just so passe--so I cut it down to two, one-sentence paragraphs at the end of the chapter. It's clearly telling, not showing, but it's purposeful telling. It's much more powerful, because:
- It's still dark as shit; the concept is enough to make GRRM blanch.
- It comes in out of left field, so you're as surprised by it as the character is.
- It's unseeable; you don't see it coming, so you can't say, "Ew," and skip ahead several pages. It's almost a jump-scare.
- It leaves the details up to the reader's imagination, which is always worse.
- The pacing on it is the same as the sex scenes, which fade to black after a few lines in the same manner, and I'm a sucker for resonance through parallel construction.
Last edited:
>Until I know the story in its entirety, I don't know what is crucial information and what isn't
Yep. Me2
>it isn't my story, and I have no right to say what should go where.
But not this. It's not my story, agreed. But I can and should say what worked for me and what didn't, *and why*. That's not a matter of rights, it's a responsibility. The author has asked for feedback; by implication, for feedback they can use. I as an author don't know what to do with "I liked this".
Later in the paragraph Heliotrope explains further. She offers suggestion rather than dictum. I'm ok with that. Here again, with a crit group that has worked together, sometimes terseness edges over into bluntness, but everyone in the group understands you're just being brief. I'm more careful when working with strangers. It's one thing to tell a friend they absolutely should not wear those pants. It's quite another to say it to a casual acquaintance who asks if they look okay. I'm guessing I lean a little harder on specificity. But that's why you find yourself a group of trusted critics rather than just one voice.
Or you find the perfect editor. Good luck with that. Finding the right editor makes the dating scene look like kindergarten.
Yep. Me2
>it isn't my story, and I have no right to say what should go where.
But not this. It's not my story, agreed. But I can and should say what worked for me and what didn't, *and why*. That's not a matter of rights, it's a responsibility. The author has asked for feedback; by implication, for feedback they can use. I as an author don't know what to do with "I liked this".
Later in the paragraph Heliotrope explains further. She offers suggestion rather than dictum. I'm ok with that. Here again, with a crit group that has worked together, sometimes terseness edges over into bluntness, but everyone in the group understands you're just being brief. I'm more careful when working with strangers. It's one thing to tell a friend they absolutely should not wear those pants. It's quite another to say it to a casual acquaintance who asks if they look okay. I'm guessing I lean a little harder on specificity. But that's why you find yourself a group of trusted critics rather than just one voice.
Or you find the perfect editor. Good luck with that. Finding the right editor makes the dating scene look like kindergarten.
Hallen
Scribe
I think that there are many stylistic choices a writer can make. This is especially true if you are using strong themes in your stories.
However, if you are using 3rd person close, or first person, there is a certain point where the character becomes a narrator describing the world rather than living in the world. When that happens, your readers will most likely start feeling a distance between the character and the world.
I think it's really as simple as that. If your stories fall flat because readers cannot connect to your world or characters, then chance are, you are telling the reader what to think, rather than showing them the world.
That's a bit different than the traditional "show, don't tell" admonition because you can "tell" as long as it aligns with your viewpoint, your character's personality, and your writing style.
When a reader asks themselves, "how does Jack know that Jill is mad?", then you have probably failed.
Or, you read a passage and our POV character has just identified a thief, as in a previous example, but how does the character know it's a thief? Well, obviously, the character noticed something. Not showing or telling the reader how the character noticed that it was a thief robs the reader of the thrill of being a character who has the awesome skills this character obviously has.
Leaving out detail and the reasons behind something is the form that is the "telling" part of "show, don't tell". But, it's really not a good word to use since so many people say it's story telling, therefore it's always telling. Maybe that's true, but it misses the point. I see it as a shortcut to an end state. It's great for outlining, but can make a story seem sterile and disjointed.
Imagine a Sherlock Holmes who never explained to Dr. Watson how he knew that the suspect was innocent. Sherlock becomes very boring and does not become the archetype for virtually every other detective in the history of writing and movies if we do not know how he did it. We love Sherlock because he notices all these little things that normal people will never notices. Sherlock often just told Watson how he knew. Doyle obviously didn't go through some painstaking process of showing the reader everything that Sherlock notices as it happened. So "telling" is OK, depending on the situation, as long as it connects the reader to the characters, the world, and the story.
However, if you are using 3rd person close, or first person, there is a certain point where the character becomes a narrator describing the world rather than living in the world. When that happens, your readers will most likely start feeling a distance between the character and the world.
I think it's really as simple as that. If your stories fall flat because readers cannot connect to your world or characters, then chance are, you are telling the reader what to think, rather than showing them the world.
That's a bit different than the traditional "show, don't tell" admonition because you can "tell" as long as it aligns with your viewpoint, your character's personality, and your writing style.
When a reader asks themselves, "how does Jack know that Jill is mad?", then you have probably failed.
Or, you read a passage and our POV character has just identified a thief, as in a previous example, but how does the character know it's a thief? Well, obviously, the character noticed something. Not showing or telling the reader how the character noticed that it was a thief robs the reader of the thrill of being a character who has the awesome skills this character obviously has.
Leaving out detail and the reasons behind something is the form that is the "telling" part of "show, don't tell". But, it's really not a good word to use since so many people say it's story telling, therefore it's always telling. Maybe that's true, but it misses the point. I see it as a shortcut to an end state. It's great for outlining, but can make a story seem sterile and disjointed.
Imagine a Sherlock Holmes who never explained to Dr. Watson how he knew that the suspect was innocent. Sherlock becomes very boring and does not become the archetype for virtually every other detective in the history of writing and movies if we do not know how he did it. We love Sherlock because he notices all these little things that normal people will never notices. Sherlock often just told Watson how he knew. Doyle obviously didn't go through some painstaking process of showing the reader everything that Sherlock notices as it happened. So "telling" is OK, depending on the situation, as long as it connects the reader to the characters, the world, and the story.
- Thread starter
- #50
Yeah, I wasn't clear enough on that. I have some pretty in depth convos with my partners that can go on for pages and pages of emails or very lengthy skype conversations. I definitely say what worked and what didn't, and "why" I "felt" it didn't. but I tend to avoid detailed instructions on "how" to fix it. I find most writers will come up with their own, amazing ideas, that actually tie into the greater theme of the work, on their own.
When I give broad advice like "This seems to me to be a structural issue. Maybe if you showed the character's goal slightly earlier on..." I tend to get more of an open conversation with my partners, tossing ideas back and forth on how that might look, and where it might go, and how they might tie it in... or they come up with something else fantastic.
I wouldn’t sell that side of yourself short. Not too long ago you gave me advice on my opening scenes, suggesting that I reorder them some for a better effect.
I didn’t see it myself, but you were absolutely correct & I plan on implementing your ideas in the next (and final) draft.
- Thread starter
- #52
Ha! Thanks T.Allan. I just added that edit to my post, lol!
When I give broad advice like "This seems to me to be a structural issue. Maybe if you showed the character's goal slightly earlier on..." I tend to get more of an open conversation with my partners, tossing ideas back and forth on how that might look, and where it might go, and how they might tie it in... or they come up with something else fantastic.
When I give broad advice like "This seems to me to be a structural issue. Maybe if you showed the character's goal slightly earlier on..." I tend to get more of an open conversation with my partners, tossing ideas back and forth on how that might look, and where it might go, and how they might tie it in... or they come up with something else fantastic.
I agree with this 100%.
Mythopoet
Auror
My opinion on this subject is simply that I tend to enjoy stories more when the author knows how to use telling to their advantage and doesn't rely on an excess of showing. For instance I just read Beauty by Robin McKinley which consists mostly of telling. I also enjoy reading classic fantasy which often includes more telling than showing. It's not always done well, but just like anything, when it is done well it is highly enjoyable to me. On the other hand, I have a very hard time immersing myself in most newer fantasy books because it seems to me that newer authors rely too much on showing. I encounter a lot of new books that, to me, read like they are trying to be movies and I very much dislike that. I would like my movies to be movies and my books to be books. Each should use their medium to their advantage without trying to be like the other.
So, for me, I dislike the phrase "Show, Don't Tell". Partly because it is extremely simplistic and not all new writers have the ability to see past the generalization. (In my experience most new writers are just so eager to please anyone who is a so-called "expert" in the publishing industry that they will go to great lengths to incorporate any pithy advice they see on industry blogs and this one shows up everywhere.) Partly because I strongly believe not all readers like stories that rely strongly on eliminating telling in favor of showing and most people who dispense this advice ignore that. They tend to take it for granted that "showing" is simply the best method of storytelling and telling should only be used in extreme moderation. (Well, almost all writing advice tends to ignore that different readers like different kinds of storytelling.) This leads to very, very few new fantasy books being written with a storytelling style that appeals to me. (And thus I seek refuge in the classics.)
I think it would be far better if instructors and advice givers understood and taught that showing and telling are just two different kinds of storytelling and neither is objectively better than the other. Writers who enjoy stories with lots of showing should learn how to best utilize that method. Writers who enjoy stories with lots of telling should learn how to best utilize that method. And the writing community needs to stop pretending all readers are the same and there are objectively better ways of telling stories.
So, for me, I dislike the phrase "Show, Don't Tell". Partly because it is extremely simplistic and not all new writers have the ability to see past the generalization. (In my experience most new writers are just so eager to please anyone who is a so-called "expert" in the publishing industry that they will go to great lengths to incorporate any pithy advice they see on industry blogs and this one shows up everywhere.) Partly because I strongly believe not all readers like stories that rely strongly on eliminating telling in favor of showing and most people who dispense this advice ignore that. They tend to take it for granted that "showing" is simply the best method of storytelling and telling should only be used in extreme moderation. (Well, almost all writing advice tends to ignore that different readers like different kinds of storytelling.) This leads to very, very few new fantasy books being written with a storytelling style that appeals to me. (And thus I seek refuge in the classics.)
I think it would be far better if instructors and advice givers understood and taught that showing and telling are just two different kinds of storytelling and neither is objectively better than the other. Writers who enjoy stories with lots of showing should learn how to best utilize that method. Writers who enjoy stories with lots of telling should learn how to best utilize that method. And the writing community needs to stop pretending all readers are the same and there are objectively better ways of telling stories.
This is running into a different topic, I think. Again, I was only saying that "show" is too vague and "not tell" is confusing, and that I think most of us can find something more helpful than that.
I don’t think anyone here has stated that telling is wrong & you must show to please readers.
If anything, each contributor has stated a need for balance & a recognition that both telling & showing are effective tools.
If anything, each contributor has stated a need for balance & a recognition that both telling & showing are effective tools.
- Thread starter
- #57
Me too. I don't think it is remedial. I really do think it is something that happens a lot more than would like to admit, even in our own writing.
- Thread starter
- #58
I agree with this, as personal taste. I don't think it is wrong to write like that. I know a lot of people (myself included) who have very much enjoyed books written that way. But I tend to appreciate books that have a stronger narrative voice than the third person close narrative we see so often now. I love Kurt Vonnegut because it feels like he is telling the story, not showing it through a character. I loved that about Hemingway too.
And this is where I think the terminology get's murky. I like that I get to hear Vonnegut, or Hemingway "tell" the story... but when they do that, even when they are "telling" me... they know exactly what scenes, imagery, metaphors, symbols, and characters to "show" for maximum impact. This is why, for me, I use it to describe how scenes and goals are "shown", not the word choices or the POV the writer uses to make that happen.
This is where, I feel, "show, don't tell" has gotten confused. If we look at Vonnegut or Hemingway, or even Tolkein and say "It is telling. It is wrong." And we look at GRRM and say "this is showing, it is right", then I don't think we are really using the terms for all they are meant to be. We are narrowing them into only representing voice, or style. Both styles show, and both styles tell. You have to look at the big picture way the story is presented and get away from limiting the terms to just referring to voice or POV.
Oh god, it's all so convoluted, lol.
Last edited:
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Opps. somehow I posted in the wrong thread... Sorry. I'll probably get back to this one, but there is a lot of reading to do to catch up.
Mythopoet
Auror
The terminology is definitely murky.
One of the things about the whole subject that makes me laugh is that so many people condemn "exposition" as "telling" but in its strictest sense "exposition" is the act of "exposing" something and to "expose" means to reveal or make something visible. In fact, exposition IS showing. Which is why the distinction seldom makes actual sense and attempts to create examples of the difference often fall flat. You almost have to go out of your way to write badly to craft an example of what people seem to mean by "telling". And among people who dole out this advice there is often little enough agreement on what it means beyond generalities.
David Farland on his writing advice blog has talked about how "Show Don't Tell" makes sense if you're making a movie and thus need to tell the story visually. But it makes much less sense when you're writing a book which is not a visual medium. Your goal is to make the reader experience the story, but since the story only becomes fully formed in the imagination of the reader and the imagination is by no means restricted to visual input. And yet, it does seem that most people instinctively think about writing out actions that could (if this were happening in real life) be seen with the eyes when they talk about "showing". This has led to a trend for "cinematic" writing, or writing your story as if you were a camera lens recording what you see.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that "cinematic" writing is wrong, in itself. But it does feel, in my opinion, like a crutch. Writers start relying on it and never learn how to tell stories in any other way. And this leads to a shortage of books that appeal to readers like me. So, in the end, I do feel that this advice ends up crippling many writers. Writers who perhaps like the same kinds of stories I do, but get inundated with poor explanations (or no explanations) of "show don't tell" and feel that they have to follow the advice if they want a chance in the industry. I can't help feeling that without such shallow, over simplified advice there would be more writers who would feel freer to write in the way that they really want to.
Similar threads
