Showing vs. Telling

[gavintonks]

true but the question that remains is who is the arbiter of too much? it is a bunch of readers who accept it over the ones who do not as at the end of the day most sales are word of mouth that really make the book exceptional

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

I recently finished a book called 'Galapagos', which was pretty much scifi, and to be honest, it was almost all telling. The story bounced around between what was told, and the only thing that really kept me reading was two things, the narrator kept mentioning what humans would be like in a million years, and the curiosity of how the narrator might know all this. There was no connection with any of the characters told about, only a small one with the narrator. In it's way, it worked...but only barely. The constant teasers of the million years is the only reason I didn't drop it. So, you can pretty much tell an entire story and make it work, but if it had been much longer, I would have given up on it.

It's difficult to enjoy a story you have little interest in. Tricks to keep the readers curiosity only carry you so far, and you end up needing more tricks to keep it going. Or you can show the characters and give the reader something they can associate with and care about and not have to keep at the tricks.

The problem most new writers have is not knowing how to write a good story. They then do the same things we all usually do when starting out and after most of us learned how to write decently, it then gets difficult to re-explain how to not bore the reader to death by telling everything. If I'm going to take the time to critique a story, I see no reason not to be honest about it. I've don't my share of complaining about wot and harry potter. What both of those stories have that worked was good storytelling. It was good enough to surpass the annoyances of over description and occasional excess of adjectives/adverbs. This leads more to the point I tend to hold to of telling good stories, if you can do that, much more will be overlooked and forgiven.

 

[Steerpike]

I recently finished a book called 'Galapagos', which was pretty much scifi, and to be honest, it was almost all telling.

Again, this demonstrates how subjective things are and one reason why it is bad to give absolute advice like show don't tell in a vacuum. I like Galapagos, as I like most of what Kurt Vonnegut has written, and yes, he does use a lot of telling in some of his works.

 

[Kelise]

I simply can't read a book that's basically all telling rather than showing. It's boring and gets annoying after a while - we shouldn't be told what a character is or isn't, we should get to know them after a while, otherwise it simple isn't interesting to read. Telling, when it becomes shoving facts down the author's throat, is very, very poor writing.

There are instances of telling that are simply writing - those aren't what I'm talking of. Some parts are told as simple narrative or scene description and are fine.

 

[Steerpike]

I simply can't read a book that's basically all telling rather than showing. It's boring and gets annoying after a while - we shouldn't be told what a character is or isn't, we should get to know them after a while, otherwise it simple isn't interesting to read. Telling, when it becomes shoving facts down the author's throat, is very, very poor writing.

I think that's overly broad. If someone can pull off an entire book with telling, that's fine with me. I see no reason to discount it out of hand, or to simply call it poor writing. There are poor writers that tell and poor writers that show. Good writers can do either of them.

I doubt many people would consider Vonnegut a "very, very poor" writer. Modern library lists Slaughterhouse Five as number 18 among the 100 best novels. It is in good company. Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby is number 2. My quarrel with the list is that Nabokov's Lolita, which ranks number 4, should be number 2 ahead of Fitzgerald (and if you haven't read Lolita you should ).

 

[The Dark One]

I've only scanned this excellent thread so others may already have made my points...sorry.

Obviously the answer comes down to the right balance of showing and telling (within the context of your story). It's down to your judgment as to how the right balance is struck, and you acquire that judgment with experience and gradually acquiring confidence in your own voice.

I also think this is another reason why you must plot before you pants. If you know what information you want to convey to the reader in a scene before you write it, it is so much easier to show. If you're pantsing then you don't know what info you're conveying and may not even know when the scene is over! How can you possibly show when you don't know what you're showing?

My other point would be this: don't ever tell the reader what they ought to feel. Manipulate their feelings by the actions and words of the characters and the impact that has on other characters.

 

[Kelise]

I think that's overly broad. If someone can pull off an entire book with telling, that's fine with me.

Fair enough - I suppose I should say I've yet to enjoy a book that's telling rather than showing - though I'm sure there are some out there.

Though of course, you don't notice it all the time if it's working. So it's possibly I have and simply haven't noticed. I've read Slaughterhouse Five and enjoyed it quite a bit, so there we go. I didn't remember thinking he was telling rather than showing at all.

I'm yet to read The Great Gatsby and Lolita, however.

 

[JCFarnham]

I'm yet to read The Great Gatsby and Lolita, however.

The thing with Gatsby and pretty much all of Fitgerald's writing is if you only read the surface you will be bored. It's all about allusions to the classics, metaphors to parallel the American dream, etc. etc. If someone doesn't enjoy it that much, I often wonder whether they read it right. And yes, you can be a poor reader just like you can be a poor writer.

If you can delve deeper... well I enjoyed it haha

 

[Kelise]

The thing with Gatsby and pretty much all of Fitgerald's writing is if you only read the surface you will be bored.

I've read some of his other work and enjoyed it, just not Gatsby as of yet. Though I have it marked down for this year some time.

Classics do generally have to be read on a different level than say, recent fantasy. And now I think we're getting off topic - could be an interesting discussion to run elsewhere? Though no idea what to call it.

 

[JCFarnham]

I've read some of his other work and enjoyed it, just not Gatsby as of yet. Though I have it marked down for this year some time.

Classics do generally have to be read on a different level than say, recent fantasy. And now I think we're getting off topic - could be an interesting discussion to run elsewhere? Though no idea what to call it.

Reading well? haha

Since I've said my bit on this discussion, I'll simply bow out now and not derail any further.

 

[Steerpike]

Lolita is awesome.

Ulysses was first on the list, of course. I'd have to go back and look to see where it falls on showing versus telling. I can't remember.

 

[Writeking]

its all about finding the perfect balance between the two

 

[Chessie]

My other point would be this: don't ever tell the reader what they ought to feel. Manipulate their feelings by the actions and words of the characters and the impact that has on other characters.

Yes! This is perfect! This is why I find the emotions thesaurus so darn valuable. Its all right to write feelings in here and there, such as 'bla bla bla' Mary said, worried. But to write in Mary doing something with her body that shows she's worried is much better. There is a subtle--yet big--difference between showing and telling. Having balance between the two is a nice goal, though I think its possible to train yourself to show more and pick up when you're telling too much.

 

[wordwalker]

Agreed, feeling is the absolute worst thing you can Tell. Any words like "was angry" strike me as a cop-out, unless it's a major point you can give a multipronged description like "He stared... how COULD she... he clenched the table... he'd never been so angry." --No, even there it just weakens the description.

Other things are worth Telling sometimes. Emotion, only if it's far far removed from the moment.

 

[BWFoster78]

Agreed, feeling is the absolute worst thing you can Tell. Any words like "was angry" strike me as a cop-out, unless it's a major point you can give a multipronged description like "He stared... how COULD she... he clenched the table... he'd never been so angry." --No, even there it just weakens the description.

Other things are worth Telling sometimes. Emotion, only if it's far far removed from the moment.

I think it depends on the goal.

Event: The tires screeched as Paula drove away.

Character reaction:

If I want my reader to experience my character's emotion -

Joe punched his fist through the window pane.

If I want my reader to understand my character -

She made Joe so angry, always taking offense at the smallest excuse. All he'd asked was if she bought anything at the mall. That upset her? Really?

Is one of those two approaches "better?" Either, or both, can be a valid choice.

This approach combines telling and showing:

Joe punched his fist through the window pane. She always took offense at the smallest excuse. All he'd asked was if she bought anything at the mall. That upset her? Really?

 

[Devor]

My other point would be this: don't ever tell the reader what they ought to feel. Manipulate their feelings by the actions and words of the characters and the impact that has on other characters.

I just wanted to note this bolded detail of The Dark One's quote. What the reader feels and what the character feels are not always the same thing. I sometimes - sometimes - have even felt that the character's feelings can even get in the way of the reader feeling the same moment. Anyways it's an important distinction to note.

 

[Steerpike]

I just wanted to note this bolded detail of The Dark One's quote. What the reader feels and what the character feels are not always the same thing. I sometimes - sometimes - have even felt that the character's feelings can even get in the way of the reader feeling the same moment. Anyways it's an important distinction to note.

Yes, the reader should definitely draw her own conclusions. I like books that incorporate unreliable narrators, and I even do a bit of that in my own writing, where the character's emotional reactions may certainly be different from what the reader experiences, and even the narrator's factual statements can't be taken at face value but require further examination.