• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Showing vs. Telling

Actually, The Wheel of Time only really failed on being unnecessarily descriptive. Jordan was quite good at conveying characters' personalities by showing rather than telling.
 
I feel confident in asserting that there are virtually no readers, anywhere, who prefer being told about a character's personality, rather than being shown it.

You see it all the time in humor.

Humor thrives on telling. I hate to rely on an old standby, but 90% of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is telling. All of the footnotes are telling. And it's funny because of the distance and detachment it creates, not in spite of it. Arthur and Ford are about to cast out into space to die a horrible death, and then suddenly "The Guide has this to say about space..."

And yes, there are times when you will want to tell an audience that a character is sad, or agitated, or curious, or frightened, or whatever, and move on -- one line, communication, and then off to the point. And the reader will shrug, say "OK," and move off to the point with you. You do lose an opportunity to provide depth of character, but writing is often a trade off between opportunities.

And again, I'm not suggesting telling is appropriate all the time, for every circumstance. The desire to teach writer's to "show" is good, because showing is the harder skill, and telling is over-used. But it's the wrong way to teach it.
 
Last edited:

JCFarnham

Auror
It is funny we have all the advice about good writing and I have taken up some older work and now wheel of time, it is so filled with every cliche on what weare advised not to do that I wonder if the acceptance of English is based purely on the level of book sales

Here, here. Though this should definitely be read as no one wants their work to read like what the vast majority of people don't like.

It seems to me that its Human nature to be against something, it could be anything, doesn't matter, it exists to allow ourselves an easily obtained feeling of uniqueness. So, Whenever I read a critique on a piece of writing I keep in mind that everyone is slightly different in some way. Perhaps one person has had the misfortune of reading a whole slew of books where certain techniques (prologue, stylist breaking of "rules", etc) have been done badly. In the future that person is going to want to try and avoid that kind of writing, whether or not any specific example of those tools uses them well. You however may have a higher tolerence for that kind of thing.

This is where problems arise with advice giving, and this is why I think it would be nicer for every one if things were phrased "personally I prefer this, because ..." rather than "this is ____, you should do _____". The tone of authority in there isn't helping any one. Not really. Confidence is one thing but we are after all talking about people opening up their souls for people to peer inside and tear apart.

After a certain incident in the showcase forums recently, I'm beginning to wonder whether it's at all possible to give completely unbiased, objective feedback.

One thing is certain, if I post anything in Showcase I'm prefacing the thread with "By critiquing this piece of work you are hereby entering into a contract where by we agree to that disagreements on style, etc. happen and where ever possible comments should be phrased in such a way as to avoid the automatic gain saying, or superiority of opinion inherent in giving feedback."

Maybe ....

Haha
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
When telling a story, it is better to demonstrate that something has a particular attribute, rather than simply stating that it has that attribute. (Why is it better? I'll get into that below.)

Maybe that's okay for the work on the whole, but Show, don't Tell, gets pushed down to the line edit all the time, especially in amateur critique groups. When you're deconstructing specific sentences, being locked into that phrase can do a lot of harm, not just by stretching out unimportant aspects of the work, but by adding needless and excessive criticism for the author. I don't think this thread is so much about the advice as given by an English class so much as it is about the advice given by would-be critics and support groups.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
There are any number of great books that have a lot of telling, including telling about things like character's personalities, feelings, and the like. It all comes down to determining what is important in any given instance rather than relying on something as an absolute rule. Thus, when the advice is given as an absolute rule instead of as a result of consideration of the work and what the author is trying to do, it is not helpful.

If you want books as examples, look at Roberto Bolaño's masterpiece 2666, or his book The Savage Detectives. Both prize-winning novels published within the last 15 years or so.

I recently read Rudolfo Anaya's book Bless Me, Ultima, which is also an award-winner and also uses a lot of telling.

John Cheever, one of the best American short stories writers of the modern generation, used a fair amount of telling when he deemed it appropriate. If I remember correctly, Joyce does a fair amount of it in his stories collected in Dubliners.

Doesn't Fitzgerald start The Great Gatsby with a fair amount of telling, and continue it throughout?

Kerouac, in On the Road starts by introducing the reader to Dean Moriarty, and most of what we learn about Dean initially is through telling, with bits of dramatization and 'showing' interspersed within.

In any event, you can name authors who do very little telling as well, but the point is you can weight the scale of showing versus telling however you like, so long as you are effective, and the admonition "show don't tell,' given in a vacuum and without context, is of no use to the beginning (or the experience) writer.
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
OK, you can all beat me up now. :)

Right cross. Left hook. Jab to the stomach.

Seriously, I see the point you're making but couldn't resist adding my two cents:

In writing, the ends justify the means. If you can write passively while telling and keep the reader interested, you did exactly right. However, you chose a long row to hoe. It's much easier to keep the reader engaged with an active style and by showing them. In my opinion, if you create a brilliantly crafted piece full of characters with rich voices but the reader is bored to tears, you've failed no matter how artistic or true to the characters you were.

That didn't really have much to do with your post, just wanted to use the soapbox for my own purposes for a sec. Now on to the topic:

Telling is appropriate sometimes. A great example is between scenes. You show the characters actions during a scene; you tell the reader what happens until the next scene starts; and then you show again.

If I make a comment when critiquing that you need to show instead of tell, it's probably because I felt the writing started to get boring. However, if you have a question, I don't think it's ever a bad idea to politely ask the person who made the comment to elaborate.

Overall, though, unless you have Douglas Adams' talent for humor, you're probably better off showing.

One final point: when you post a piece for critique, you're opening yourself up for all kinds of comments. You need to respect the people who took the time to give their opinions, but it's your work. You are the only one who can make the decision on what's best. I don't care is the most talented author in the universe gives you a piece of advice. If you don't think it works in your story, disregard it.
 
Overall, though, unless you have Douglas Adams' talent for humor, you're probably better off showing.

There is a certain amount of truth to this in general. Writer's often point out that other writers do what they're trying to do successfully, and pointing out that you're "not that guy" (or lady) is pertinent. On the other hand, if you don't try for that level of excellence you will never get there.

I admire Adam's gift at writing comedy. I don't write it at his level (and I've been trying for more than 16 years!) but when I swing for the bleachers I'm aiming in his direction.
 

JCFarnham

Auror
Man, maybe that's why I always found The Great Gatsby to be so boring ;)

Though I feel compelled to say "but didn't he do so well", or something like that, I also feel compelled to say success doesn't account for personal tastes, after all certain fiction franchises are ridiculously successful and "well recieved" but not all of us can stand them.

Maybe Im weird in my enjoyment of Fitzgerald and his contemporaries? I know the modernist and post modernist movements aren't for everyone. :p
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I know a lot of people who like Fitzgerald. Really, this just underscores that "show don't tell" is more reflective of personal tastes than anything and should be treated as such. Instead it is handed down as though it is always the correct advice, regardless of context. It is an easy statement for the reviewer to make, but if it is just thrown about without analysis, that should be taken as evidence the reviewer does not know what he is doing.
 
I don't think the author is wrong, necessarily. I just think the author is taking that example and holding it up as something that fits every situation the writer finds him(her)self in, which is what I disagree with.
 

gavintonks

Maester
I think it is the ability to craft the words that they work, and that the story flows and is not bogged down by large amounts of he did this and then they did that
 
I know a lot of people who like Fitzgerald. Really, this just underscores that "show don't tell" is more reflective of personal tastes than anything and should be treated as such. Instead it is handed down as though it is always the correct advice, regardless of context. It is an easy statement for the reviewer to make, but if it is just thrown about without analysis, that should be taken as evidence the reviewer does not know what he is doing.

Ultimately, it's about whatever you can get away with, but for a new writer, you have no idea what you can get away with yet; and so unless you have the personal expertise to know when to show and when to tell, you're better off erring on the side of showing.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
Ultimately, it's about whatever you can get away with, but for a new writer, you have no idea what you can get away with yet; and so unless you have the personal expertise to know when to show and when to tell, you're better off erring on the side of showing.

Respectfully, I have to disagree... sort of. To me, it depends on how new the writer is. From my personal experience and my experiences with new writers, it's hard enough for new writers to get down a straight-forward, coherent story with conflicts that take a character from A to B without there being confusion. Sometimes what they write isn't really a story, it's just a description, a summary of some cool idea, or snippets of images that don't form anything.

If you hand a new writer a tool like show-don't-tell or any writing tool, and they don't really understand it, it becomes another potential monkey wrench that can be tossed into their writing gears. IMHO new writers should focus on the basic mechanics of getting an understandable story on the page first before worrying about gussying it up and making it dazzle and pop.
 

gavintonks

Maester
I have gone through that learning curve and find the process of writing is creating an info dump, fleshing it into dialogue them looking for the emotion and making your characters live, you learn the shortcuts once you have done the long hand. I think many authors of 20 years ago would not be published today as reader acceptance styles have changed so much. Authors I enjoyed 30 years ago I find tedious reading now.
I also made the mistake of passive instead of active, it is a lot to hold into your head and being on the coal face you tend to miss the wood for the trees. I have put a lot of my work out for crit on random crit site and critters and people can be rough. However if you are serious about polishing and making your piece the best it can be then you listen to what they say. The best is people who love it and others who hate it as then you know you are onto something.
The problem with criticism is you are asking people to look deliberately for faults, and this puts people into a different reader mindset, you need to disengage the "this is my work>" syndrome and just see it as a fresh pair of eyes, and decide what you want the piece to be.
However if 10 people say the same thing then you should know you have a problem. It takes a long time to use the perfect words and a lot of what you write needs energy, we sometimes do not wish to impart that energy and it tells in the final work. Van Gogh work sells for millions as he painted his life into his works and died for them, we should expect no less of our writing - it must be the best it can be - we are not writing books we are writing entertainment for readers - we need them engaged thrilled and entertained and enjoying a journey while they read our words, ego should be removed from the equation of crafting entertainment first and foremost
 

gavintonks

Maester
Have we asked ourselves what made the world resonate with harry Potter that turned his creator into a billionaire?
so many people write and so much is published and so little grabs so many, it is like Titanic I refuse to watch it because it is so popular, then that dreadful clone of every sci fi book that made billions avatar as each segment came on there was dragons of pern, 2010 space odyesey etc so our work only lives if it is read, and if reading is a chore then no one reads it, so the objective is keeping the reader reading at any cost
 

Ivan

Minstrel
I think the original point of the phrase was to prod writers away from the tendency to tell too much, giving a bunch of dry rambling that doesn't let the reader see the characters in action. Inevitably people misunderstand and overzealously apply a piece of good advice to make it a piece of bad advice.
 
Top