Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
#2 is true for sure, but it’s not the whole story when you study what what writing instructors procaim to be show, don’t tell. But it is a major and accurate point.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
"Show don't tell" and why it annoys me.
- Thread starter MauEvig
- Start date
Somewhat tangential, but not big enough for its own thread. When trying to show, it's also important not to over-show. It's good fun to come up with evocative expression and clever similes, but the can also distract from what you're trying to say. I'm currently revising a story, and I came across the following sentence:
There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a bit bland. My character in this case is a young woman, who's a bit of a punk to begin with, and who's just been through a lot. The reader is already aware of that, but I'm mentioning it here for context. She's beaten up, covered in dirt and blood, and her clothes are in tatters.
Since I'm revising, and since I'm not in a rush, thought maybe I could come up with something a little more colourful. It resulted in this:
That's great.
It sums up my reference description in a few words, it's a little bit quirky, and it hits a whole lot of association triggers to put images in the mind of the readers.
Actually, that's a problem. It's a bit too evocative. It pulls the mind away from the story, and puts the focus on the idea that someone might organise a miss mosh pit pageant, and on where something like that might take place, and what kind of music they'd listen to. It's just too much.
The original version just says she doesn't look too good, and really, that's fine, so I left it like that.
Sure, she'd win no beauty contest, but [...]
There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a bit bland. My character in this case is a young woman, who's a bit of a punk to begin with, and who's just been through a lot. The reader is already aware of that, but I'm mentioning it here for context. She's beaten up, covered in dirt and blood, and her clothes are in tatters.
Since I'm revising, and since I'm not in a rush, thought maybe I could come up with something a little more colourful. It resulted in this:
Sure, she looked like a Miss Mosh Pit Pageant winner, but [...]
That's great.
It sums up my reference description in a few words, it's a little bit quirky, and it hits a whole lot of association triggers to put images in the mind of the readers.
Actually, that's a problem. It's a bit too evocative. It pulls the mind away from the story, and puts the focus on the idea that someone might organise a miss mosh pit pageant, and on where something like that might take place, and what kind of music they'd listen to. It's just too much.
The original version just says she doesn't look too good, and really, that's fine, so I left it like that.
- Thread starter
- #23
MauEvig
Minstrel
That's a good point, I think some of the "showing" aspects can be distracting. Plus some odd imagery can come to mind when you think of "mosh pit pageant" my mind might go to a heavy metal concert rather than someone who is tattered and dirty, but that's my two cents.
I think for now I'm going to try to push through Sky Kingdom and worry about how it sounds after I edit it. Then I'll have my editor give it a go. Yes I do plan to fine comb it myself first before I submit it to my editor for the final editing. I want to make sure it's in tip top shape before I submit it to a publisher.
Honestly if a publisher tells me I have to toss my entire manuscript, I'll either go to another publisher or just say heck with it and self publish. This story is getting published one way or the other, and I've already started over without ever finishing it so.
I think for now I'm going to try to push through Sky Kingdom and worry about how it sounds after I edit it. Then I'll have my editor give it a go. Yes I do plan to fine comb it myself first before I submit it to my editor for the final editing. I want to make sure it's in tip top shape before I submit it to a publisher.
Honestly if a publisher tells me I have to toss my entire manuscript, I'll either go to another publisher or just say heck with it and self publish. This story is getting published one way or the other, and I've already started over without ever finishing it so.
The phrase is missing a word. It should be "Show don't tell... sometimes." Its application can be very nebulous. The most simple application is with emotion. Like mention above, instead of saying Fred was angry, you can say Fred threw a frying pan across the room. But sometimes if your prose around sets it up just right, the phrase Fred was angry can be very powerful too.
One of the lessons I learned about writing is sometimes it's perfectly fine to tell, knowing when is the true skill. It's all very story dependant. For example, do you show the journey of your characters between say two cities or do you just tell and summarize it? Both are perfectly valid options, but you have to think about what the story needs. If the journey doesn't reveal anything important, it's probably better to just skip it.
To me there are three levels to showing vs telling.
The first level is what I described above about Fred throwing a frying pan.
The second is what I call scene/chapter level show vs telling.
Let's say you have this badass character. A telling approach could be you have other characters talk about them, build them up until the character shows up and at that point you have to show what they're capable of, and it has to pay off the build up. Now you can do this without the telling part, too. You can just have the character display their skills. You design a scene that allows the character to show their stuff ,whether that's combat skills, intelligence, obscure knowledge about the history of vacuums. BUT there has to be a point to showing these things. They must be important to the story to be taking up stage time. This is where you make that choice between showing or telling. Telling could be just flavoring the world so to speak. Whatever you show should mean something.
And third, there's story level showing. This gets at what you're trying to say with your story. Everything that happens in the story supports the theme/message you're trying to convey. It's like a grand argument for a certain view point. A lot of times it's something simple, like good will always triumph because evil is overconfident. Or it can be exploring more complex ideas.
Here's a example from a move I just rewatched, No Country for Old Men. Small spoiler alert. Also this is how I'm interpreting the movie. Someone else may watch it and come away with a completely different take.
With that said, from my perspective, the movie explores this question of violence. There's an appearance that violence has gotten worse in recent times, but has it? Or is it just our perception of it. 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. To me, it's kind of saying that only the young can face and stomach the truth of what's happening in the world. That old men are just tired of what they see and just walk away from the fight. And basically, that's what the sheriff protagonist does. They retire.
Now at the end, the point is illustrated (shown) to us in a 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 on their bikes and they're "Holly crap are you OK, Mister?" The bad guy offers money to the kid for his shirt, so he can hide his injuries. 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 bloody 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 or much of darkness in the world. 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 whatever 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 to seeing things as they are.
This end scene encapsulates what the story is about. It doesn't tell us it shows it to us by having it play out before our eyes, and we have to draw the conclusion. There's no grand end monologue telling us what everything means.
my2cents.
One of the lessons I learned about writing is sometimes it's perfectly fine to tell, knowing when is the true skill. It's all very story dependant. For example, do you show the journey of your characters between say two cities or do you just tell and summarize it? Both are perfectly valid options, but you have to think about what the story needs. If the journey doesn't reveal anything important, it's probably better to just skip it.
To me there are three levels to showing vs telling.
The first level is what I described above about Fred throwing a frying pan.
The second is what I call scene/chapter level show vs telling.
Let's say you have this badass character. A telling approach could be you have other characters talk about them, build them up until the character shows up and at that point you have to show what they're capable of, and it has to pay off the build up. Now you can do this without the telling part, too. You can just have the character display their skills. You design a scene that allows the character to show their stuff ,whether that's combat skills, intelligence, obscure knowledge about the history of vacuums. BUT there has to be a point to showing these things. They must be important to the story to be taking up stage time. This is where you make that choice between showing or telling. Telling could be just flavoring the world so to speak. Whatever you show should mean something.
And third, there's story level showing. This gets at what you're trying to say with your story. Everything that happens in the story supports the theme/message you're trying to convey. It's like a grand argument for a certain view point. A lot of times it's something simple, like good will always triumph because evil is overconfident. Or it can be exploring more complex ideas.
Here's a example from a move I just rewatched, No Country for Old Men. Small spoiler alert. Also this is how I'm interpreting the movie. Someone else may watch it and come away with a completely different take.
With that said, from my perspective, the movie explores this question of violence. There's an appearance that violence has gotten worse in recent times, but has it? Or is it just our perception of it. 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. To me, it's kind of saying that only the young can face and stomach the truth of what's happening in the world. That old men are just tired of what they see and just walk away from the fight. And basically, that's what the sheriff protagonist does. They retire.
Now at the end, the point is illustrated (shown) to us in a 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 on their bikes and they're "Holly crap are you OK, Mister?" The bad guy offers money to the kid for his shirt, so he can hide his injuries. 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 bloody 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 or much of darkness in the world. 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 whatever 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 to seeing things as they are.
This end scene encapsulates what the story is about. It doesn't tell us it shows it to us by having it play out before our eyes, and we have to draw the conclusion. There's no grand end monologue telling us what everything means.
my2cents.
Last edited:
Prince of Spires
Istar
One thing I realized about the "show don't tell" line is that it's also very dependent on the audience you're writing for. I read a story for my kids each night as I put them to bed (they're 2 and 4) and kids stories are all tell and no show. If someone is angry then you write it out. A 4 year old will not understand subtle hints about emotions or similes that are used in showing. If you want your audience to know what's going on you'd better tell them. It also keeps a story a lot shorter.
As you move up age groups you can start telling more. Both because your audience better understands what's going on and also because the story itself can be longer.
As you move up age groups you can start telling more. Both because your audience better understands what's going on and also because the story itself can be longer.
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
This is true, YA does more telling (which includes a broader use of -ly adverbs) than I can stomach, LOL. I think emotional telling in children’s stories and MG is also far more common, as you say, and it would be interesting to write a children’s book on emotions where on one pag you do the show and ask the child what the emotion is, and then flip the page for the tell version. One, it’d be interesting as an experiment, and two, it might just help with reading comprehension outside of just “what happened” and three, it might make for better readers and writers down the road.
Hexasi
Scribe
Amen. I would say more, but I believe most of what I would be able to contribute to this thread has already been said. Very thorough, guys.
All good points here, well expressed. I'm going add only this.
>The key is balance and showing when needed.
Small disagreement here. The key is learning how to tell when it's needed. That learning process can be incredibly long. Can, in fact, be something that gets learned in new ways with every story one writes. It's not like we figure it out and then do it right from then on. There's no Great Secret to be found, only practice, practice, practice.
>The key is balance and showing when needed.
Small disagreement here. The key is learning how to tell when it's needed. That learning process can be incredibly long. Can, in fact, be something that gets learned in new ways with every story one writes. It's not like we figure it out and then do it right from then on. There's no Great Secret to be found, only practice, practice, practice.
The StoryWeaver
Minstrel
When writing flash fiction telling is often the better way to move the story in a limited space - and throw in the occassional show to break things up. Generally in most of my writing I aim for balance between the 2.
Kasper Hviid
Sage
I'm also on the autism spectrum, and I try to think of both showing and telling as tools in my toolbox, both with their uses. Here's a bit where we do a little more telling than showing...
Lana slid off of his belly to sit beside him on the bed and had to admit her own mental hamster was getting a workout. Close? If he was close to something she really was running out of time, becoming pressured from more than one side. A chill swept over her that had nothing to do with the October afternoon. She was going to have to start taking risks or face failure. And failure was the one thing she could not face. Only success now stood between her and the things that made death a luxury.
She needed more information than Senán alone could provide. She needed inside the glamour and iron that cloaked Moore Investments.
She was terrified.
And one where we use an actual metaphor! lol
Taking a moment, Winter rotated her wrist, watching for the tell-tale pulsing in the flow of blood that meant she was in real trouble. Of course, it had been so long that if an artery had been severed she would have never made it home, and she should have done this in Karen’s yard... but better late than, well, late. Rivulets of blood rose and trailed lazily down to drip chrysanthemums into the clear water, but the ooze remained steady. The goblin had missed her arteries.
As an autistic person, for me it's a matter of practice. Of learning to see my writing as a visual medium and then running with the images until it actually makes good writing. Of learning to slip into the skins of others (empathy) and living their lives through their eyes. It's not easy, but it's doable.
Lana slid off of his belly to sit beside him on the bed and had to admit her own mental hamster was getting a workout. Close? If he was close to something she really was running out of time, becoming pressured from more than one side. A chill swept over her that had nothing to do with the October afternoon. She was going to have to start taking risks or face failure. And failure was the one thing she could not face. Only success now stood between her and the things that made death a luxury.
She needed more information than Senán alone could provide. She needed inside the glamour and iron that cloaked Moore Investments.
She was terrified.
And one where we use an actual metaphor! lol
Taking a moment, Winter rotated her wrist, watching for the tell-tale pulsing in the flow of blood that meant she was in real trouble. Of course, it had been so long that if an artery had been severed she would have never made it home, and she should have done this in Karen’s yard... but better late than, well, late. Rivulets of blood rose and trailed lazily down to drip chrysanthemums into the clear water, but the ooze remained steady. The goblin had missed her arteries.
As an autistic person, for me it's a matter of practice. Of learning to see my writing as a visual medium and then running with the images until it actually makes good writing. Of learning to slip into the skins of others (empathy) and living their lives through their eyes. It's not easy, but it's doable.
I don't like the advice to show not tell. I think it's too simple, and in my opinion it's always bad advice if it focuses on "don't." The real skill we're talking about here is narrative pacing. When do you stop and explore the moment and when do you jump through it? We don't need to see the character's every movement, or to have an emotional narrative monologue about how the character felt about pricking her finger. But you do need to give readers the opportunity to sink into the big moments. Sometimes it's not enough for a reader to understand with their head, you want them to feel it right alongside the character.
When I review my writing, or critique somebody else's, one of the big things I'm looking for is a gap in the narrative. By that I mean a place where a big moment gets glossed over, and I didn't get a chance to feel what I needed to feel. Spotting them is hard, and filling them can be challenging. But doing so will improve your writing dramatically.
It depends on the context, but there's a good chance "Ralph was angry" would be one of those moments. If Ralph is the POV character, I want to feel that rage bubbling up inside. Of course, if he's angry that his mom gave the last of the mini wheats to his brother instead of him (I have four kids...) then maybe the internal monologue isn't all that necessary after all.
When I review my writing, or critique somebody else's, one of the big things I'm looking for is a gap in the narrative. By that I mean a place where a big moment gets glossed over, and I didn't get a chance to feel what I needed to feel. Spotting them is hard, and filling them can be challenging. But doing so will improve your writing dramatically.
It depends on the context, but there's a good chance "Ralph was angry" would be one of those moments. If Ralph is the POV character, I want to feel that rage bubbling up inside. Of course, if he's angry that his mom gave the last of the mini wheats to his brother instead of him (I have four kids...) then maybe the internal monologue isn't all that necessary after all.
Prince of Spires
Istar
I've recently come across two things that helped my thinking regarding this.
One is a lecture by Brandon Sanderson: Brandon Sanderson - 318R - #7. In the first 10 or so minutes he talks about this and the difference between concrete and abstract writing (in relation to show vs tell).
The second is the idea of detail. In the end, all writing is telling (it's storytelling after all). It's all about the level of detail you add to a scene or a sentence. Sometimes, a table can be just a table. But at another time you want a table with a red and white checkered tablecloth and a little candle on top, cutlery laid our for two guests and Barry White playing in the background.
The first is an abstract prop, just something standing to fill an otherwise empty space, which will look different to all readers, the second sort of sets the scene and will look a lot more similar to readers.
One is a lecture by Brandon Sanderson: Brandon Sanderson - 318R - #7. In the first 10 or so minutes he talks about this and the difference between concrete and abstract writing (in relation to show vs tell).
The second is the idea of detail. In the end, all writing is telling (it's storytelling after all). It's all about the level of detail you add to a scene or a sentence. Sometimes, a table can be just a table. But at another time you want a table with a red and white checkered tablecloth and a little candle on top, cutlery laid our for two guests and Barry White playing in the background.
The first is an abstract prop, just something standing to fill an otherwise empty space, which will look different to all readers, the second sort of sets the scene and will look a lot more similar to readers.
To paraphrase the old saw, a rule is not responsible for the people who follow it.
It's a perfectly sensible rule. A good many beginning and even many experienced writers will describe (tell) a scene without drawing in (show) the reader. Examples abound. "Show don't tell" is a handy three-word comment your editor can make without having to explain in detail (and without running up your bill). It's convenient shorthand in crit groups.
When I see the rule criticized, it's rarely from someone who has written a novel free of showing, all telling, and who then say see, I did it without this rule so the rule is nonsense. Rather, it's from people who criticize the rule as if the rule also said "follow this instruction blindly." It doesn't. Nor do I know anyone who does follow it blindly.
I also see criticisms from folks who are sort of objecting to rules in general. I'm in sympathy with them, as a rule, generally speaking. But the protest is overblown. And unending, to judge by the Similar Threads section beneath as I write this post. And that in itself is telling, ain't it?
I wonder if this topic comes up so much in part because social media encourages endless rehashing of topics as new people come into the realm (and we do seem to keep making new people), and in part because so much more raw material gets out in public view. In the olden days, early drafts (where the show don't tell sin is most often committed) were seen by no one or by an editor. Now they can be seen by thousands. Could be some other factor, though. You just can never tell. I'll show myself out.
It's a perfectly sensible rule. A good many beginning and even many experienced writers will describe (tell) a scene without drawing in (show) the reader. Examples abound. "Show don't tell" is a handy three-word comment your editor can make without having to explain in detail (and without running up your bill). It's convenient shorthand in crit groups.
When I see the rule criticized, it's rarely from someone who has written a novel free of showing, all telling, and who then say see, I did it without this rule so the rule is nonsense. Rather, it's from people who criticize the rule as if the rule also said "follow this instruction blindly." It doesn't. Nor do I know anyone who does follow it blindly.
I also see criticisms from folks who are sort of objecting to rules in general. I'm in sympathy with them, as a rule, generally speaking. But the protest is overblown. And unending, to judge by the Similar Threads section beneath as I write this post. And that in itself is telling, ain't it?
I wonder if this topic comes up so much in part because social media encourages endless rehashing of topics as new people come into the realm (and we do seem to keep making new people), and in part because so much more raw material gets out in public view. In the olden days, early drafts (where the show don't tell sin is most often committed) were seen by no one or by an editor. Now they can be seen by thousands. Could be some other factor, though. You just can never tell. I'll show myself out.
Yes, to be fair my criticism of the rule is on three points:
- It's often misused in critiques, where it's used as a catch all phrase and wielded like a sledgehammer.
- I feel that focusing on "don't" with any kind of technique teaches people to stay off the bottom but not reach for the top.
- A lot of times what's called for by "show" is a deeper character voice, which can look a lot like "telling," so that the wording of the advice often isn't accurate.
But if someone interprets the phrase in a way that's useful to them, that's great, don't let my naysaying get in the way. You don't need to nitpick the things that create a good writing vibe for you.
When I look at my own work or someone else's, I find it tremendously more useful to look for the "emotional gaps" in the narrative. I've never had someone come back and complain over it the way I've seen people fight when given the advice to "show not tell," and I find that I'm not nitpicking a phrase so much as looking for a richer emotion, for more from the writing and the writer. It offers a writing challenge, "fill the gap here," instead of a criticism, "you're telling here."
I went for "other opinion" because I think it is silly to make a rule of this. You can tell a story, you can show a story, you can weave between both, and yet all three options can work. Wherever someone institutes a rule, there will be another who will succeed flamboyantly in breaking that rule.
This being said, I think it is beneficial for new writers to follow "show don't tell" at least for a while, because in my opinion the showing aspect is the part that is least natural for most people and therefore needs to receive proper attention. Once you've learned how showing works, you can tell it to shove off if you so desire.
This being said, I think it is beneficial for new writers to follow "show don't tell" at least for a while, because in my opinion the showing aspect is the part that is least natural for most people and therefore needs to receive proper attention. Once you've learned how showing works, you can tell it to shove off if you so desire.
- Thread starter
- #37
MauEvig
Minstrel
Haha, I never noticed that before or realized I was using metaphors in my own speech.
Guys, thanks for your advice. When editing comes up I'll definitely come back to this thread for reference.
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
Not sure how don’t is the focus, “show” is the key to the advice, and although the word is perhaps inaccurate by its common definition, the saying has its root in a legit concern. But it is advice, not a rule, unless one wants to expand to make the rule “Show don’t tell during an important bit:” If a writer gives important paragraphs the short shrift then its likely they deserve being called out.
The biggest problem with “rules/advice” is not the particular rule/advice, but people’s understanding of it. Which also includes those who critique with said rule/advice, as they are often to blame for building the confusion.
[QUOTE="
- I feel that focusing on "don't" with any kind of technique teaches people to stay off the bottom but not reach for the top.
[/QUOTE]
The biggest problem with “rules/advice” is not the particular rule/advice, but people’s understanding of it. Which also includes those who critique with said rule/advice, as they are often to blame for building the confusion.
[QUOTE="
- I feel that focusing on "don't" with any kind of technique teaches people to stay off the bottom but not reach for the top.
[/QUOTE]
"Show don't tell" is easy advice to throw out in the critique. That's why we see it so much. Often it is given without the necessary thought; it's throw-away advice.
A good story can be use practically any balance of "show" versus "tell." The trick is to make the story effective, however you balance the two techniques. Beginners often lean heavy into "telling" in ineffective, dull ways, and that is part of what leads to the "show don't tell" advice. If you're more inclined toward telling, it may be worthwhile to try out a first person point of view. People sometimes find it easier to maintain engagement while doing a lot of telling if there is a compelling first person voice to hang on to.
As with other "rules" of writing, "show don't tell" shouldn't be taken as prescriptive, despite coming across that way. It functions best as a reminder of something to be aware of when writing.
A good story can be use practically any balance of "show" versus "tell." The trick is to make the story effective, however you balance the two techniques. Beginners often lean heavy into "telling" in ineffective, dull ways, and that is part of what leads to the "show don't tell" advice. If you're more inclined toward telling, it may be worthwhile to try out a first person point of view. People sometimes find it easier to maintain engagement while doing a lot of telling if there is a compelling first person voice to hang on to.
As with other "rules" of writing, "show don't tell" shouldn't be taken as prescriptive, despite coming across that way. It functions best as a reminder of something to be aware of when writing.
FifthView
Vala
Ha, I saw this thread and immediately thought of that lecture. Then I spent about twenty minutes trying to find that lecture again, which I did, and then found you'd posted the link here already.
Sanderson's ideas about "the pyramid of abstraction," as expressed in that video and during other lectures, seem a great place to start for anyone who wants to understand why telling can be so boring to a reader compared to showing. It's often a difference between abstraction and concrete realities. Plus, learning how to show without spending too long doing so—finding the right, or precise words rather than a long string of descriptions, for instance—can help limit some of the more negative effects on pacing of showing. (I.e., you can show a lot without spending too much time describing.)
[Pyramid of abstraction discussion starts about 7:40 in that video. The video's worth watching all the way through, imo, especially as he runs an exercise using "PROMS" to develop some characters.....]
Last edited:
