Tell, Don't Show

[Ankari]

I don't like either. Hands trembling with excitement tells the reader that the warrior is too raw. He is still new to this kind of work and cannot control his own body while executing his task.

I would show him savoring the execution of his task or his surroundings.

 

[Zero Angel]

That's a problem that I continually have. I like to discuss theory and philosophy of writing, and most of the respondents don't seem to feel that it's valid to even have a theory or philosophy.

Of course it's impossible to discuss a sentence out of context. That one sentence means nothing to me.

I'd like some input on the technique. There have to be some writers out there who agree that it's okay to develop rules and techniques.

Why would an artist use a certain color THERE? There could be some overly complicated algorithm behind the inclusion of the color that people that have studied and worked with art their entire lives know as a matter of course. It's a weighing of all the components and seeing the lack or need, but to explicitly state the algorithm would require a tome of processes, prerequisites and calculations done on variables. Luckily, with experience, the human brain is sophisticated enough to do this naturally.

In other words, write, write, write away. Eventually you stop thinking so much of rules and algorithms and go along more the route of, "this is how I want this scene to feel" and "this is exactly what I am going for" independent of classic markers and advice such as passive voice, showing vs telling, methods of exposition/background, etc.

It is worth noting that everyone here is a writer (or wants to be a writer), and so we all are able to think of these things and they are more important to us than the general population. Still, as BWFoster78 just discovered with your Twilight perusal, here is a book that accomplished its goals and did it in a way that you would apparently find repugnant in your own writing. (at least that's what I took away from those posts).

I use telling and passive voice as sort of a break for the reader. Everything being shown can be exhausting in the same way that eating nothing but vegetables is. Sometimes we want ice cream. One of my read-throughs of my book, I read it aloud. This was great for editing, but well, my book is HEAVY action. Even the emotional action has no punches pulled. I found that if I read more than one or two chapters at a time, the action would get to me and I would be shouting the sentences. I built up this fever-pitch and continued building with only a few respites along the way. Those respites were the in-between scenes, but I didn't want the in-between scenes to have that same intensity as the action did, so I distanced them.

Still, none of this was intentional at first. It wasn't until later readings that I realized what I was doing then sat back and decided that I accomplished how I wanted the scenes to feel and achieved what I was going for.

Aside: That's not to say there isn't room for improvement, but frankly, there is always room for improvement. I don't talk to too many writers that cannot nitpick their novel every time they read it. As long as you get rid of obvious errors, stylistic choices will not be noticed by too many readers, and will be despised by even a smaller fraction of those readers.

And that's really the goal I think--to not be noticed. To achieve what you are trying to do without getting in the way of the reader. This is one reason why it is regularly told to beginning writers to show and not tell, because it is very easy to do it badly. Kind of why I tell my math students to change all subtraction into addition by the opposite. Until they are experienced, they can't find their own style of math.

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.

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

But mostly it's pacing.

I agree mostly. It's pacing AND feel. Sometimes you want to achieve a different feel. I like narration though. I enjoy not having to work to digest the story, plot, feelings, etc. If you do all show and no tell with your writing (you being anyone reading this), then chances are when I go to read your writing I will be skipping over VAST portions of it, getting lost and confused, going back and looking for key sentences, saying, "OK, wish that would have been clear", and then skipping back ahead. More likely, I'll skip over a bunch of it and not read whatever you wanted me to read about showing, and it wouldn't have been necessary anyway.

...I also skip reading most descriptions of location and objects unless there is a reason for me to read about them.

For instance, I like using generic descriptors. My main character has a bastard sword, I don't need to describe its pommel or handwrap or blade. It's a bastard sword. One of the "bosses" has a ridiculous weapon (seen here) and I describe it for the reader because its make-up actually influences the battle.

Example of cool narration from my childhood: Warcraft 3 Trailer/Game Intro (2002, Blizzard Entertainment) - YouTube

EDIT: Don't know why the above link says "download attachment", I clicked yes and it just took me to the picture, but for those not wanting to do that, it's at apocalypsedesigns.com/art under weapons.

 

[Ireth]

My main character has a bastard sword, I don't need to describe its pommel or handwrap or blade. It's a bastard sword.

Well, you might need a little more than that for some people, like me, who have no idea what a bastard sword is or how it's any different than a regular sword.

 

[Ankari]

Well, you might need a little more than that for some people, like me, who have no idea what a bastard sword is or how it's any different than a regular sword.

This can be shown through the use of the weapon. It's basically a long sword with a handle long enough to fit two hands if needed (regular long swords are meant to be carried with one hand and the handle is long enough for that purpose).

 

[Zero Angel]

Well, you might need a little more than that for some people, like me, who have no idea what a bastard sword is or how it's any different than a regular sword.

So if I were to use a word you didn't know, say for instance, "assoil" today's word of the day on my e-mail. Would I have a similar obligation to give you the definition?

 

[Penpilot]

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.

To filter through a character you have to be in their head AND in their heart. You have to know what's important to them long term and what's important to them right then and there and you have to be feeling it. For me I play pretend. I pretend I'm that person in that moment, then I ask myself 'what am I feeling?', 'what do I see?', 'what do I wan't to do?' etc.

What gets described is what gets noticed and is important to the character at that moment. What a character notices can speak to their character and their mood. Eg. if a character is staring at a gal's behind and all is as it seems, it's pretty obvious.)

I've been trying to think of an analogy but in doing that I realized that in essence it puts distance between what I'm trying to communicate too. I realized, simply put, for me, it boils down to this when expressing emotion. Screw craft. Screw the rules. Just tell the truth of the moment using what ever language your character would use. If some of the words they use are adverbs, adjectives, was, that, or any of the other no-no words that we're advised to avoid, so be it.

Sometimes those words are something blunt like 'I lubby you.' other times it can be 'I think you're just swell.' or over the top like 'She was smashingly fantastic. She makes my heart sing like a nightingale.' If that's what a character would say or think, then that's what belongs on the page. To do anything else is to be dishonest.

Craft your words around the truth, not the truth around the words. Because if you do the later, truth gets bent.

 

[Ireth]

So if I were to use a word you didn't know, say for instance, "assoil" today's word of the day on my e-mail. Would I have a similar obligation to give you the definition?

I wouldn't say you'd be obligated, but it would be a bit bothersome if I ended up having to look it up just so I could understand what you were getting at. Ankari has a point, context is important. If the context of the word "assoil" is clear enough, then it shouldn't be a problem. It's when you take something out of context that it's confusing.

 

[Graylorne]

Well, I can assure you that any word a reader had to look up wouldn't get past my editor. So I'd say unless one is writing for a select group, it's better to use words that are generally known.

 

[Devor]

So if I were to use a word you didn't know, say for instance, "assoil" today's word of the day on my e-mail. Would I have a similar obligation to give you the definition?

The Bastard Sword Jon receives in Song of Ice and Fire came with a definition. I would expect that much with unusual objects.

 

[BWFoster78]

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?

To me, they're pretty weak verbs. I prefer verbs that convey action.

 

[Caged Maiden]

Okay, I'm not any sort of authority on writing, but here's my two cents...

Verbs are great, as are adverbs... but if you're not pacing right, the whole things doomed before it gets to an agent. If you show a guy sneaking through a forest, you need to create a tense situation, show nerves (or calm) and get to the real point of the scene.

By tht same token, when you've got people doing other things, say needing to have a long dialogue, it's better to pace it out with some action. We can only see someone sipping a goblet so much before we're bored to tears. In one of my novels, I had two guys talking, a young paladin who's very naive to the ways of the world, and an old hunter. So while they're talking, they're fishing and then cleaning the fish (it's first draft, don't go nuts):


The morning air was already warm as the two barefoot men stood on the bank and cast in their lines. Kael sat and reclined against a tree, his bare back seemingly unbothered by the rough bark.

He really was a beast of a man, thought Cedrick as he gently fed out his fishing line. Cedrick had always been tall, but next to Kael, with his massive barrel chest and muscles on top of muscles, Cedrick felt a bit like a prepubescent boy.

Kael sat up and pulled in his line, one hand over the next, until his catch cleared the water.

While Kael caught five big fish, Cedrick had had two nibbles on his hook, lost three worms, and caught a crayfish with his big toe. Not his best showing.

Kael picked up his line again and said, “What do you say? Enough for breakfast?”

Cedrick shrugged. “I guess so."

“Let’s get these back to the well then and we can clean them.”

Cedrick grabbed two of the fish and followed the big man. Kael set a bowl down and pumped some water into it, then pulled a thick sawed log over to sit on. He offered Cedrick the seat on the step by the pump. Taking out two knives, Kael handed one to Cedrick and they began scaling the fish.

“Cedrick, did you mean all those things that you said about lycanthropy?”

“Of course I did,” said Cedrick, dropping his fish for the second time. “Damn slippery things. I’ve never actually seen a lycanthrope myself, though.” He put his fish in the bowl of water.

“Don’t forget to gut it,” said Kael.

“What?”

In explanation, Kael took the fish out of the bowl and stuck the knife into its belly. He carefully slit the fish open and with his thumb and index finger, pulled the creatures innards out and tossed them into the bowl at his feet. “There you are,” he said, handing the fish back to Cedrick. “And, see to the rest of those scales, or you’ll be eating that one.”

Cedrick did as instructed.

“I am interested in learning more,” continued Kael, “but have never met anyone else who knows anything about the disease. Would you teach me?”

“Teach you?”

“Zedrina is going to need a couple days to rest her ankle. It would not be an imposition for you two to remain until she is well enough to walk again.”

“That’s not what I was concerned about,” said Cedrick. “Everything I know, I already told you. My training is as a soldier; it is my mother who is the healer. I only know what I do about medicine because she often discusses her work at table. My sister and mother are much more accomplished with the clerical arts than I am.”

Kael finished the last of the five fish about the same time as Cedrick finished his first. He stood and took the bowl of guts down to the river, leaving Cedrick to wash the cleaned fish in a fresh bowl.

“Zedrina,” said Kael returning from dumping the waste, “how long has she been blind?”

Cedrick shrugged. “I don’t know, I only met her yesterday. I don’t know anything about her.”

“Are you two heading in the same direction, or something, that you’ve ended up traveling together?”

“I guess. I met her in the swamp, then we ran for our lives, then I mentioned I was heading to Mist to my friends’ house where I might be able to borrow a horse.... and she said she wanted to go to Mist as well. She asked if I minded her traveling with me, and I told her I didn’t mind.”

“How... romantic,” Kael said, smiling.

“It was nothing of the sort!” Cedrick spluttered.

“Easy, there,” said Kael, “I only meant that she’s a pretty girl. I’d have been happy to travel with her too.”

“I’m a man in service to the gods,” Cedrick said sternly, as if it were explanation enough.

“Men of god don’t have the ability to see pretty girls?”

“Of course we can see them,” Cedrick said, wondering whether Kael was toying with him on purpose, “but my motives were pure in accepting her as my travel companion. I have a duty to see her to safety. You make it sound like some sort of lustful pursuit, which it most certainly is not. Those sorts of thoughts would earn me penance and more duties, and my plate is rather full right now, I’m afraid.”

“Penance? Duties? That doesn’t sound like much fun.” Kael laughed. “Better keep my thoughts to myself before you have to pray for my damned soul as well.”

Cedrick sniffed. “Laugh if you’d like, but the rewards of a holy life outweigh earthly pleasures.”

Kael grunted, but said nothing more on the matter.


So anyways, the only point I am really trying to make here, is that, rather than having them sit in arm chairs, discussing this thing I need them to discuss, I use a little background action to further the reader's interest in getting to know the two men. I think this is chapter two or three, so this is a whole new side of Cedrick. And Kael, we're just meeting. I use lines of pure show, and lines of pure tell, and mix the two together, in what I hope, is a fairly well-paced passage that makes the reader smile and serves the purpose of relaying what might be terribly boring information.

There is no one magical formula to achieving your goal, only trial and error, and reading it to see what works and what doesn't. Could I trim out the fishing to cut words? SURE! But, do I want to? Could I have accomplished this whole section using all SHOW? of course I could have, and it might have been twice as long, made the reader pass out from boredom, and been a confusing mess. Could I have done a lot of things differently? Cant we all?

I think it's important to show what you want to show, and tell what you want to tell. Pacing and voice are the most important things, and if you mess those things up, you lose your reader.

 

[BWFoster78]

Still, as BWFoster78 just discovered with your Twilight perusal, here is a book that accomplished its goals and did it in a way that you would apparently find repugnant in your own writing. (at least that's what I took away from those posts).

I wouldn't find it repugnant at all, but I can't use the technique for a couple of reasons:

1. I don't think that fantasy readers would appreciate being that much in the character's head. The readers have certain expectations in any genre. I already stray pretty far into the realm of Fantasy Romance, so I need some distance, I think, to bring it back toward epic fantasy.

2. Midnight Sun is the best example I can think of to show how to elicit an emotional response. Stephenie Meyer filters pretty much ever sentence through Edward's emotions. However, the book is a special case. It was written as a thought experiment for her to figure out Edward's POV. She wasn't worried about world building or character development. She didn't have to explain anything. All her readers would know everything about the situation already, so she could focus purely on the emotions.

 

[Flemming Hansen]

As most of you know, I'm a big proponent of Show, Don't Tell. I think, overall, the technique is more engaging.

....


I'd love to hear some opinions on the subject.

Thanks!

I remember one scene from Les Miserables where Victor Hugo spends four full pages on describing a street. I remember the dread of reading it, thinking "Just get on with the f&%/g story Hugo!
I often use tell to skip uninteresting part, or to introduce information about an area or a part of history.

 

[Zero Angel]

Well, I can assure you that any word a reader had to look up wouldn't get past my editor. So I'd say unless one is writing for a select group, it's better to use words that are generally known.

I don't think it's too much to expect epic fantasy/sword&sorcery fans to know what a bastard sword is...

...How would yins describe the sword itself? The parts of a sword are not well-known in general. Should I describe what a pommel is before I describe what the pommel looks like? How about the quillons, cross-guard, hilt, ricasso, or other pieces of a sword? There is a line between expanding your vocabulary and being talked down to in order to avoid having your vocabulary expanded. I think someone describing something that I should know what it is (for instance a desk, a pine tree, a tunic, a chalk board, etc) crosses the line into being talked down to (unless done as a stylistic choice--where you can basically get away with anything).

The Bastard Sword Jon receives in Song of Ice and Fire came with a definition. I would expect that much with unusual objects.

That was a bit of a special case since it is one of the "super-awesome metal" swords (can't remember what the material was, but since it is a "SPECIAL" sword, its description is necessary regardless); also, I believe it emphasized/highlighted that Jon himself was a bastard, hence the bastard sword.

 

[Leif Notae]

All right, I'll chime in once more (not to stir any pots, but to respond in general to something I read):

When you look at/write a script, there are only three aspects they can use. Setting, actions, and dialogue. They use these to dictate pacing without telling, back loading, or info-dumping. There is nothing more frustrating than hearing someone say "I can't use these to pace out my story, I must tell them everything about this." Movies do it all the time.

Yes, we aren't writing scripts. You know what, we'll have to start soon. Competing with entertainment options that are "right here, right now" and "sucks you in and won't let go" will always trump the action of reading. Period. Would you rather read ten pages of that musty old book or watch a ten minute laughfest on the Tube of You?

This is where more action, showing, and "doing" is taking over. You might have gotten away with it when there was one theater and the television irradiated your everything, but nowadays we are losing a battle for entertainment.

So yes, get in there are start pacing with your settings, actions, and dialogue. Let your reader get lost in the world because when you do it right, they don't need you to hold their hand and tell them what is going on or how the magic works or why this king has blue hair for the last twenty years. People have more imagination than you think, it's time to start trusting them with your actions.

/soapbox

I love you all.

 

[Penpilot]

Yes, we aren't writing scripts. You know what, we'll have to start soon. Competing with entertainment options that are "right here, right now" and "sucks you in and won't let go" will always trump the action of reading. Period. Would you rather read ten pages of that musty old book or watch a ten minute laughfest on the Tube of You?

TV and Movies do not IMHO auto-trump reading. There will always be people who want to watch a film over read a book and the opposite is true too. I have friends who really don't watch TV or Movies but are constantly reading. Books and Movies are two different mediums, each with their strengths and weaknesses. There are things a book can do that movies just can't. That's why some great books can't be translated into movies and TV.

Other factors come into play too. I can either wait a couple of years for the next Hunger Games movie to come out or I just pick up the book and read. The opposite can be true too. Sometimes it takes years for the next book to come out vs. a few months for the next season.

This is where more action, showing, and "doing" is taking over. You might have gotten away with it when there was one theater and the television irradiated your everything, but nowadays we are losing a battle for entertainment.

I disagree. I don't think there's a swing either way. There are just more choices out there for Movies and TV as well as books. With the explosion of ebooks, small press, and independent publishing, readers have way more choice now just as Movie and TV watchers have more choice too. There's a lot of static out there and IMHO it's just harder to find the signal now days. I wonder what the ratio of books being published vs the number of TV progrms and movies being produced is? My guess would be that books being produced in various forms out numbers TV and Movies.

So yes, get in there are start pacing with your settings, actions, and dialogue. Let your reader get lost in the world because when you do it right, they don't need you to hold their hand and tell them what is going on or how the magic works or why this king has blue hair for the last twenty years. People have more imagination than you think, it's time to start trusting them with your actions.

Well it depends. If you're going to solve problems with magic then you better darn well explain it's rules and how it works otherwise the reader will wonder why can't they solve every problem with magic. Telling the reader why the king has blue hair could be a worthless detail or it may be incredibly important depending on if it's important to the plot. Yes, you shouldn't have to hold the reader's hand all the way through but you shouldn't be vague and opaque either.

 

[Devor]

I disagree. I don't think there's a swing either way.

There's a real documented swing happening right now, but it's away from TV/Film and towards Internet/Gaming. I'm not aware if it's really affecting books. If anything, I think books as an industry are doing well because TV and Film adaptations regularly draw more people into reading.

 

[Graylorne]

I don't think it's too much to expect epic fantasy/sword&sorcery fans to know what a bastard sword is...

I wasn't responding to the bastard sword but to your example of 'assoil' and the use of difficult words in general.

And no, I don't think fantasy fans know what a bastard sword is, precisely. And most of them won't care, either. It's a sword.

 

[Caged Maiden]

Well I''m doomed then! HAHA! I give me reader credit for loads of things, and if they don't get it, I hope they are smart enough to look something up and learn a little. This makes me wonder whether my subtle style might be an unwelcome thing in this art.

When I write, I'm more inclined to put a shiavona in my swordsman's hands that a generic longsword. Oh well... I do what I like, and hope my readers would enjoy what I do.

 

[Graylorne]

Yes, the problem is, that when you're regularly published, you don't always have that freedom. I've had many a discussion with my editor, sometimes he wins, sometimes I, but in the end you can't disregards all his suggestions, not if you want to stay published. It's in your contract.