Tell, Don't Show

[BWFoster78]

Could this be more engaging for the reader if there was more show & less tell? I would tend to think so.

However, this depends solely on what you the author intend for this sentence. If getting Tasia's nervousness across is of minor concern or just some ambiance type description that really isn't relevant to the story or character development then I would say that telling, in the fashion it is written now, is just fine. Why go into detail if the details are unimportant?

On the other side, if you are trying to establish nervous tendencies as a character trait, or a specific event as something crucial and therefore apt to cause nervous reactions, then I feel it is imperative & crucial to show these through a character's responses.

There are a myriad of reasons why this reaction may be either important to your story or fairly irrelevant. The choice is yours to determine where this depiction lies and then show or tell accordingly.

I think you make a good point here.

Is it worth going through the effort to show if it's not important to the plot. But, if it's not important to the plot, should it then be included at all?

 

[Ankari]

I love this exercise.

You use telling for two reasons:

1) To save word count.
2) To make clear to the reader the information you're trying to convey.

You use showing to put the reader as close into the character's thoughts and mind as you possibly can.

To me, telling is like the framework and showing is the flesh. If find the technique of starting with "Tasia was nervious" then showing how she is nervous throughout the scene to be efficient writing.

I've also seen authors do the reverse. You show everything that may enrage a character then write in a line by itself "BWFoster78 took matters into his own hands."

It works. This is the process of discovering your voice.

 

[Penpilot]

I'm not sure about the effectiveness of that second sentence. It sounds as if Tasia's knotted gut is making her nervous on top of her new responsibilities, when I think you mean to show that the knotted gut is a *symptom* of her nervousness. Just my two cents.

I suck . One more shot at it.

When Dr. Harding put Tasia in charge until his return, it added to her nervousness, and knotted her gut.

So, guidelines would be:

Clearly express the emotion so that there is not doubt in the reader's mind.
Illustrate the effect the emotion has on the character's actions so that the impact is proved.

How does that jive with advice given to me to "filter" more of the environment through the lens of the POV character to provide emotional context?

I think the advice is correct, but I'm not always sure when and how to achieve the filtering. Any guidelines/advice?

Thanks.

I think you're always filtering. How much filtering you present to the reader is dependent on the needs of the scene.

How you describe the environment can reflect a person's mood. If I'm interpreting your question correctly, here's an example that may help. I'm not doing so good with examples today but I'll give it another shot. Let's try a simple diner scene where a guy sitting, eating, and reflecting on his day.

The black coffee swirled, a vortex tugging on him. Down-Down-Down into darkness. Outside, the rain came down like piss as the banshee waitress cackled, drilling nails into my ears. I stabbed at my greasy eggs and as they hung there at the end of my fork, I thought about cramming them down her ugly craw just to shut her the hell up. Now was not the day to be pissing me off.

Same scene less dark.

I swirled three cubes of sugar into my coffee then sipped. Mmm... sweet. Spring rain came down outside, tapity-tap, tapity-tap, like tiny drums. It was nice to be warm inside. The waitress laughed at a joke then glanced over wearing a pearl smile, checking to see if I needed anything. I didn't. Holding my fork over my sunny-side-up eggs, it almost seems wrong to cut into something so bright and perfect, so I don't. I put my fork down, giving the eggs reprieve, for now. Instead, I sit in the warmth and enjoy the laughter. It didn't matter if I heard the joke or not. It was a good day.

A little heavy handed, but hopefully it helps. If not. I'm crawling into bed and calling it a day. ;p

 

[Devor]

I take exception with the statement that I've asked a question about showing and telling repeatedly. That is not my recollection at all.

You're right, I'm sorry. I went back and took a look, and you had started far fewer of those threads than I realized when I posted. I'm sorry for over-reacting and for not checking that before I posted. I take it back.

So, why don't you tell me when it's better to use one technique over another? Can't the answer be generalized enough to make some statements about it?

We've definitely been through this before. A telling sentence is an "easier" sentence on the reader, if that makes any sense. You can grasp the point with far less work, and that can have value, especially if the reader has a lot to process.

For starters, a telling sentence can be used to quickly remind the reader of what's happening, to segue into a new concept or wrap up the key takeaways of a scene, especially when there's a lot going on. One of the reasons showing is often considered "stronger" is because implied content, when understood correctly, is more powerful, but telling can help "catch up" those readers who didn't pick up on the right queues.

The easiness of a telling sentence also means there's more room to insert an author's voice and tone without over-complicating the wording, which can be especially important in some writing styles and in works like a comedy, a first person POV, or a personal reflection (and in turn, transforming a telling sentence into a character's observation might be a good way to improve it).

Telling can be a way to pick up the pace, to skip through time, to cover unavoidable information without beleaguering the reader, or to simplify the book and lower the age range of your target audience.

All in all, the strength of telling is in that same aspect which encourages so many people to tell you to avoid it: It's just easy and light on the details. But sometimes that's okay.

 

[Leif Notae]

I love this exercise.

You use telling for two reasons:

1) To save word count.
2) To make clear to the reader the information you're trying to convey.

You use showing to put the reader as close into the character's thoughts and mind as you possibly can.

To me, telling is like the framework and showing is the flesh. If find the technique of starting with "Tasia was nervious" then showing how she is nervous throughout the scene to be efficient writing.

I've also seen authors do the reverse. You show everything that may enrage a character then write in a line by itself "BWFoster78 took matters into his own hands."

It works. This is the process of discovering your voice.

Ah, but that's the OTHER rub on this. How well do we know this character up to this point? Where is this line in the work? Do we actually know her or do we think we do? Will this show a small fragment of her mindset (she can't stand being put in charge, she hates being alone, she doesn't like to work, etc) or is this a throwaway moment?

However, no amount of telling will capture an audience more than the subtle showing. Saving wordcount is a silly notion for most (this coming from a flash fiction writer). If you trim anything in a piece, it is pointless telling first.

 

[Leif Notae]

The easiness of a telling sentence also means there's more room to insert an author's voice and tone without over-complicating the wording

But would you not agree there are many times when an author is breaking into their own story to assure you everything is all right or that this did a certain thing, and wouldn't this be more of an impediment or speed bump to the reader? I know you refer to certain formats and I agree with some of it, but it is the same thing with excluding anything except "said" in your writing: you detract from your characters and make them second banana to you, the writer.

 

[Steerpike]

I still think a lot of the discussion is too absolute. You 'have' to do it this way or that way to create a good connection with your reader, or to have an effective work. I've read too many good stories that are predominantly telling, so I know that's not the case. I still think it falls to the writer's skill set and style. That's going to determine which approach will work best for you. The type of story as well, to the extent it dictates style.

 

[Devor]

But would you not agree there are many times when an author is breaking into their own story to assure you everything is all right or that this did a certain thing, and wouldn't this be more of an impediment or speed bump to the reader?

. . . y'know, I talked about all that in my last article on the MS homepage, which is linked in my signature.

 

[Leif Notae]

. . . y'know, I talked about all that in my last article on the MS homepage, which is linked in my signature.

I will have to read about it when I get home, thank you.

 

[Leif Notae]

Telling can often be a show of poor character development and a misunderstanding of the nature they work as a person as well. I'll use an example.

"X is a charmer, he did this one day" - Read this in a book published in 2010. First person POV, sci-fi mystery theme

If you show me how he is a charmer, either by surprising her at work, giving her flowers, speaking the latest romantic alien language and she adores him for it, you tell me two things in this scene. He will always be a charmer. He can charm his way out of anything, and I watched it unfold. When he gets in trouble later, we already feel the tension because we SAW him charm her. We also know she loves romance and loves to be adored. She wants the affection, so when we see him charm her through her eyes, we know he is setting her up and feel far more attached to the con job than if we just read over one sentence saying "X was a charmer."

You set your road work early in the book, and it does all the work for you. You save more time when the scenario comes up again because you've ALREADY done the work a powerless sentence couldn't.

Now that I have beaten this to death, I believe it is time to accept there are differing POV's here and know my tastes aren't anyone else's. This is why I love you guys and I'm happy I can have these discussions.

 

[Devor]

"X is a charmer, he did this one day" - Read this in a book published in 2010. First person POV, sci-fi mystery theme

If you show me how he is a charmer, either by surprising her at work, giving her flowers, speaking the latest romantic alien language and she adores him for it, you tell me two things in this scene. He will always be a charmer. He can charm his way out of anything, and I watched it unfold.

. . . .

You set your road work early in the book, and it does all the work for you. You save more time when the scenario comes up again because you've ALREADY done the work a powerless sentence couldn't.

I'm going to say one last thing about all this, and then I'll stop.

The thing which pesters me about this conversation is the idea that the two are somehow mutually exclusive, that we're going to pick out every sentence of a certain type and peg it for replacement. I wouldn't argue that you should show us that the person's a charmer. But there's nothing wrong with a sentence which reads, "The person was a charmer." For instance,

But Jake was always a charmer. He used to sell knives up and down the coast. He could sweet talk a drunkard from his whiskey, a miser from his gold, a lass from her maidenhood. Fred wasn't the least surprised to find Jake asking about his motorcycle.

It's a little cliche but you get the idea. The sentence "But Jake was always a charmer" is telling, but the sentence works just fine. Arguably the entire passage is telling, but it's still fine (again, aside from being horribly cliche). The context doesn't require more than that. There's no reason to identify the passage and start screaming about it, "Show don't tell," without asking whether that's what needed for the story.

 

[ThinkerX]

Then there is 'telling' as in 'story-telling':

the old geezer at the inn recounting his daring escape from Dire Keep, for example. Clearly he's telling, not showing - and just as clearly, what he has to say could be highly pertinant to the story.

 

[wordwalker]

Pacing.

Pacing.

Pacing.

I think that's usually the key-- at least, once you've decided on how important a thing is and how detailed your usual style is, pacing might be the most common reason the thing could be better trimmed down like this while still staying worth mentioning at all. (And maybe that's why the choice is so situational.)

And I've got to add, to me almost any Telling of a character's emotions raises a big red flag; feeling might be the central job any character has, so it's the thing I most hate to cheat about if I can help it--especially since so many lazy writers do it.

But there are other angles on this, and I do like some of the exceptions we've seen.

But Jake was always a charmer. He used to...

the old geezer at the inn recounting his daring escape from Dire Keep, for example. Clearly he's telling, not showing - and just as clearly, what he has to say could be highly pertinant to the story.

Both superb examples, either combining Telling with Showing or digging much deeper into the Telling itself.

But mostly it's pacing.

 

[BWFoster78]

I think there's a general consensus that a little bit of telling is okay for clarity.

I guess my question now becomes: do you have any advice on specific techniques for getting closer to the character particularly in regards to getting the reader to feel what the character is feeling?

I think I'm going to reread Midnight Sun right quick and think on Stephanie Meyer's technique. Regardless of what anyone thinks of her writing in general, I felt for those characters, especially in that part of the story.

Thanks for all the input!

 

[BWFoster78]

Okay, I think I've figured out my problem: I'm really not filtering enough.

In Midnight Sun, Stephenie Meyer pretty much spends every sentence telling you how Edward feels about what's going on. I spend page after page describing action with a few thoughts thrown in.

Obviously, I don't want to recreate Twilight. I'm writing fantasy, not (strictly anyway) teenage romance. I do think, though, that I need to get closer to the character.

For example:

In my new novelette, I start with Auggie and Benj creeping through the forest in search of a camp of horse thieves. The action of it is fine, and I've gotten a lot of great feedback on the relationship between the two characters. However, I give the reader no indication about how Auggie feels about being in the forest sneaking up on a camp of armed men. Is he frightened, exilerated? You'd have no clue from reading my text.

So the simple solution to my problem seems to be: filter more emotions into the scene.

I'm still having a bit of a hard time figuring out how, exactly, to do that.

Take the example scene above. I want to convey that Auggie, the POV character, is mainly excited about the experience. He lives for this kind of thing.

Do I do something like:

Auggie's hands trembled in excitement as he chose the perfect moss-covered spot of turf to mask the sound of his footstep. This is the life.

This still seems somehow wrong to me. I think, mainly, because of "in excitement."

So, I guess I figured out what I need to do, but I still need a lot of work on how to do it.

Thanks for listening, and I'd still appreciate any advice.

 

[Graylorne]

Auggie's hands trembled in excitement as he chose the perfect moss-covered spot of turf to mask the sound of his footstep. This is the life.

This still seems somehow wrong to me. I think, mainly, because of "in excitement."

Auggie felt his hands trembling as he saw the perfect moss-covered spot of turf to mask the sound of his footstep. This is the life.

Trembling + this is the life convey excitement rather than fear, so, yes, you don't need to name the emotion. And this way Auggie registers the sensation, that's more personal.

 

[wordwalker]

Auggie felt his hands trembling as he saw the perfect moss-covered spot of turf to mask the sound of his footstep. This is the life.

Trembling + this is the life convey excitement rather than fear, so, yes, you don't need to name the emotion. And this way Auggie registers the sensation, that's more personal.

That's a great rule of thumb for covering more things than not:

1. Show something natural that points that way
2. then if that could be ambiguous, Clarify it with a second touch
3. (and filter out those "in excitement" giveaways)

 

[Ankari]

I use the Emotion Thesaurus that T. Allen Smith suggested a while back. This tool gives great body language for the proper emotion you're trying to show. The only thing I want to point out is that some emotions share the same body language. Make sure that you don't depend on this tool as your only way of conveying the intended emotion.

 

[BWFoster78]

Auggie felt his hands trembling as he saw

I generally try to avoid "felt" and "saw."

What's the advantage of this over the first version with "in excitement" removed?

 

[Graylorne]

My version feels, at least to me, more personal. Also I showed he was exited instead of telling it. Why do you want to avoid perfectly good verbs?