This might be a newbie question but maybe the group has an opinion on this. We are told a lot that we should show rather than tell -- I get told this by reviewers, probably because my non-fiction writing background leans very heavily towards telling rather than showing. What about phrases that express the internal emotional state of the POV character, though? Is it OK to say "X was shocked" if X is the POV character, rather than having to say "X gasped and stared", or similar?
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Showing versus telling for POV character
- Thread starter Genly
- Start date
When writing, it's about knowing when to show and knowing when to tell. And a lot of it has to do with context. No word, sentence, paragraph, etc. can be taken in isolation. When something works, it's because it's part of a greater whole that works. A paragraph can be written in a way where the last sentence is "I was shocked" and it'll be amazing and impactful. It can also be written in a way where the sentence "I was shocked" leaves much to be desired.
In addition, from the way I view things, there are three levels show vs. tell.
1 - sentence level. This is what you're talking about now. This is the most basic and least important of the three levels. It's still important, but IMHO, way too much attention is given to it and not enough to the following two.
2 - scene level. When your characters have certain skills, traits, and attributes, instead of simply stating them, you show the character displaying those skills, and/or how their certain traits and attributes affect them in their lives. Eg. if you have a bad ass assassin who happens to be very tall and is afraid of snakes, you don't tell the reader they're a bad ass assassin who's very tall and afraid of snakes , you write a scene where they're being a bad ass assassin, and while doing the job, they bump their heads on low hanging ceilings and crap their pants at having to jump over a pit of snakes. Obviously, this is a bit of hyperbole, but hopefully, it illustrates my point.
3 - story level - every story has themes and messages. Often they're deliberate. Sometimes they're not. If you want to deliberately explore certain themes and have something to say, the way the story unfolds must show us these things. If you want the story to explore how evil is self defeating, the story should build up to this, and have instances where these things are on full display. That's something simple. The story can also show the reader something complex and allow them to hopefully understand it. For example, I read this book called Disgrace. It took place in a post-apartheid South Africa. Through the relationships between the characters and how they reacted and interacted, it showed how complex the relationships between the various parties are in that country.
In addition, from the way I view things, there are three levels show vs. tell.
1 - sentence level. This is what you're talking about now. This is the most basic and least important of the three levels. It's still important, but IMHO, way too much attention is given to it and not enough to the following two.
2 - scene level. When your characters have certain skills, traits, and attributes, instead of simply stating them, you show the character displaying those skills, and/or how their certain traits and attributes affect them in their lives. Eg. if you have a bad ass assassin who happens to be very tall and is afraid of snakes, you don't tell the reader they're a bad ass assassin who's very tall and afraid of snakes , you write a scene where they're being a bad ass assassin, and while doing the job, they bump their heads on low hanging ceilings and crap their pants at having to jump over a pit of snakes. Obviously, this is a bit of hyperbole, but hopefully, it illustrates my point.
3 - story level - every story has themes and messages. Often they're deliberate. Sometimes they're not. If you want to deliberately explore certain themes and have something to say, the way the story unfolds must show us these things. If you want the story to explore how evil is self defeating, the story should build up to this, and have instances where these things are on full display. That's something simple. The story can also show the reader something complex and allow them to hopefully understand it. For example, I read this book called Disgrace. It took place in a post-apartheid South Africa. Through the relationships between the characters and how they reacted and interacted, it showed how complex the relationships between the various parties are in that country.
Prince of Spires
Istar
It's always a balance, which is personal to your writing style and preference.
You can't show everything, because it would make your story slow paced and tedious to read. Similarly, you don't want to tell everything because it removes the emotional impact from the story and distances the reader.
Another thing to consider is that not all readers read your "shows" the same way. Your character gasps. Is he shocked? Surprised? Out of breath? Of course, the context will probably make it somewhat clear, but sometimes you want to give your reader a bit of a hand as to what you actually mean.
That said, as a beginning writer, you probably want to show more than you do. On the other hand, it's one of those things that comes with practice and listening to feedback.
You can't show everything, because it would make your story slow paced and tedious to read. Similarly, you don't want to tell everything because it removes the emotional impact from the story and distances the reader.
Another thing to consider is that not all readers read your "shows" the same way. Your character gasps. Is he shocked? Surprised? Out of breath? Of course, the context will probably make it somewhat clear, but sometimes you want to give your reader a bit of a hand as to what you actually mean.
That said, as a beginning writer, you probably want to show more than you do. On the other hand, it's one of those things that comes with practice and listening to feedback.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Right to the point.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
I would echo the sentiments above, but I want to add about this portion:
Yes, that can still be telling.
Mary died in his arms. Bob was sad. <--telling
Mary died in his arms. Tears fell down his face <--showing.
You never really escape into....here I can get away with telling. All the words together make the whole. So, the whole has to inform when telling is enough and showing is not needed, and when showing is needed and telling is awful.
That's why its an art form
Somethings are about the right feel than the science of it.
Yes, that can still be telling.
Mary died in his arms. Bob was sad. <--telling
Mary died in his arms. Tears fell down his face <--showing.
You never really escape into....here I can get away with telling. All the words together make the whole. So, the whole has to inform when telling is enough and showing is not needed, and when showing is needed and telling is awful.
That's why its an art form
Somethings are about the right feel than the science of it.
Fidel
Troubadour
Ah, the eternal “show vs. tell” debate. For internal emotions, a little telling can work, especially if it’s the POV character. Saying “X was shocked” is fine if it’s quick and fits the voice. But if you want to amp it up, mix in some showing, like “X’s stomach dropped, their mind blank except for one thought: What the hell just happened?” Balance is key; don’t overthink it.
Dylan
Troubadour
Not a newbie question at all! "X was shocked" isn’t wrong, but it’s a bit distant, like a narrator summarizing instead of letting the reader feel it. If you want a stronger impact, showing works better ("X’s breath caught. His hands shook"). But sometimes, a simple "X was shocked" is fine, especially if you don’t want to slow the pacing. Balance is key.
