Tell, Don't Show

[VanClash]

I come across this problem a lot when I am writing. I don't know where I draw the line, because I like writing in first person and I write a lot of moments where the character is just thinking, and I don't know if some of the things I write in those moments are to 'telly'.

 

[BWFoster78]

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?

I don't know about trends, but, given the choice between a good movie and a good book, I'd choose the book any day.

 

[Guru Coyote]

Maybe reading a book is fun because a book can do what a movie can't... it can explain things (tell). So why must we compete with visual storytelling by restricting outselves to the same limited toolset? Why not compete by dooing what the movie can't

I think this discussion is important to have anyway, regardless of how much show or tell we actually use. The key is to be AWARE of the differences and to know when to use which. This current topic has highlighted some of those nicely.

 

[brokethepoint]

I have found this thread quite interesting, it seems that I have been drilled to show, show, show, on so many different fronts. But honestly I believe that if done right telling is just as effective and can produce a wonderful work of art.

"In a hole in the ground there lived. . ."

 

[Steerpike]

I have found this thread quite interesting, it seems that I have been drilled to show, show, show, on so many different fronts. But honestly I believe that if done right telling is just as effective and can produce a wonderful work of art.

"In a hole in the ground there lived. . ."

You've been the recipient of probably the single most over-used and harmful piece of advice on writing forums. Every writing forum you go to you will see "show don't tell" regurgitated like a mantra, with not an ounce of analytic thought behind it. Fiction is a combination of show and tell, and a good work of fiction can lean very heavily in either direction. You should ignore advice that tells you it has to be one way or the other, or any other writing advice that states there is only one way for you to write.

 

[BWFoster78]

You've been the recipient of probably the single most over-used and harmful piece of advice on writing forums. Every writing forum you go to you will see "show don't tell" regurgitated like a mantra, with not an ounce of analytic thought behind it. Fiction is a combination of show and tell, and a good work of fiction can lean very heavily in either direction. You should ignore advice that tells you it has to be one way or the other, or any other writing advice that states there is only one way for you to write.

The key seems to be figuring out exactly when to show and when to tell and when to use a combination.

Honestly, when I read a beginner's work and it's:

Jim is a good guy. He's six feet tall with brown hair. He likes to drink beer. (And obviously this is an exaggerated example, but not by much)

It simply does not draw me in. Showing does.

More discussion of the advantages of showing and the advantages of telling has a lot of value. I think the conclusions reached in this thread are fantastic:

If you tell the reader what the character is feeling, the reader won't truly believe you. You have to show it to gain immersion. However, showing leaves too much open to the reader's interpretation. You need to tell for clarity. Therefore, an ideal approach seems to be to mix the two.

I'll say it again, though: Newbie writers, in my opinion, tend to tell way too much. Their writing improves greatly when they learn to show.

 

[BWFoster78]

Maybe reading a book is fun because a book can do what a movie can't... it can explain things (tell). So why must we compete with visual storytelling by restricting outselves to the same limited toolset? Why not compete by dooing what the movie can't

I think this discussion is important to have anyway, regardless of how much show or tell we actually use. The key is to be AWARE of the differences and to know when to use which. This current topic has highlighted some of those nicely.

I think the main advantage of a book is that it can put us in the character's head. The reader experiences what the POV character does in a way that a movie can't replicate.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

You've been the recipient of probably the single most over-used and harmful piece of advice on writing forums. Every writing forum you go to you will see "show don't tell" regurgitated like a mantra, with not an ounce of analytic thought behind it. Fiction is a combination of show and tell, and a good work of fiction can lean very heavily in either direction. You should ignore advice that tells you it has to be one way or the other, or any other writing advice that states there is only one way for you to write.

I agree...with a caveat.

We need to understand why the Show Don't Tell advice has become so prominent. We as beginning writers have a natural tendency towards telling narrative. It's how we grow up, telling verbal stories. In the written word, showing is not so innate. We need to learn to show to draw people into our characters... To connect them physically & emotionally. Once that is understood, the two techniques can be used together for more effective written tales.

Simply due to the over-telling that is so common with beginning writing, I don't think that the Show Don't Tell guideline is overused. It's necessary to be mindful of the pitfalls of not showing. Yes, we can discuss examples where total telling is impactful. I'm not trying to argue against the use of telling. It has it's place. For my writing (and reading preferences) I lean heavily towards the value of showing. In my opinion, good showing will connect me and make me feel more a part of the story than any amount of telling will or ever could hope to do.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

The key seems to be figuring out exactly when to show and when to tell and when to use a combination.

I don't feel there's anything exact about it or any model or formula that we can apply. In my mind it's all about feel. At this point in my writing it's not even much of a conscious choice anymore. Showing and telling have become habit, style, and authorial voice.

 

[Ankari]

I'll say it again, though: Newbie writers, in my opinion, tend to tell way too much. Their writing improves greatly when they learn to show.

I think the biggest problem with newbie writers is what they tell and not how much they tell. Some (and I include myself) are not against telling in any amount. The final conclusion is how you use the technique effectively to tell your story.

Just an example, telling is found in most ancient literature. I've never reread any modern book. I have reread The Iliad, Odyssey and The Histories (I admit, a long time ago). These are classics that use extreme amount of telling.

 

[Guru Coyote]

Maybe it's important for newbie writers to learn to "Show, don't tell" in the same way that a master painter might ask a student to paint a portrait using only one color. There is enormous learning and growth potential in an exercise in arbitrary creative limitation. So, only being "allowed" to show and never tell will train the writer in the use of this tool.
But once that tool is mastered, it becomes one tool in a toolbox.

So maybe the next step after "Show, don't tell" would be "Only tell" for a while. Or better even, write tow separate versions of the same text. ONe with only Show and one with only Tell.

And note: I am talking "writing exercises" here. Not finished texts.

 

[BWFoster78]

I don't feel there's anything exact about it or any model or formula that we can apply. In my mind it's all about feel. At this point in my writing it's not even much of a conscious choice anymore. Showing and telling have become habit, style, and authorial voice.

That's great for you.

It doesn't, however, help someone trying to learn. The more we can analyze the why and how of writing, the easier it is to teach the methods we derive.

 

[BWFoster78]

Maybe it's important for newbie writers to learn to "Show, don't tell" in the same way that a master painter might ask a student to paint a portrait using only one color. There is enormous learning and growth potential in an exercise in arbitrary creative limitation. So, only being "allowed" to show and never tell will train the writer in the use of this tool.
But once that tool is mastered, it becomes one tool in a toolbox.

So maybe the next step after "Show, don't tell" would be "Only tell" for a while. Or better even, write tow separate versions of the same text. ONe with only Show and one with only Tell.

And note: I am talking "writing exercises" here. Not finished texts.

There's value in your suggestion.

Writing is a hugely complex endeavor. Trying to focus on a small portion and master it makes a lot of sense.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

That's great for you.

It doesn't, however, help someone trying to learn. The more we can analyze the why and how of writing, the easier it is to teach the methods we derive.

If you look past your initial thought, it could help learning. The point being, after you put something into practice over & over, it can become natural, not something that has to be considered. There comes a point where over-analyzing becomes counterproductive to an art form. My comment was not made to start a forum thread battle, merely to point out that once a concept like Show Don't Tell is understood, and can be effectively put into practice, then it can become a matter of "feel" where the author is exercising style.

I don't see the problem with stating that point. It's certainly relevant to the topic.

 

[Zero Angel]

That's great for you.

It doesn't, however, help someone trying to learn. The more we can analyze the why and how of writing, the easier it is to teach the methods we derive.

As someone that went to school for art, switched gears and became a mathematician, and am now pursuing a career in writing, I think I can comment on this rather effectively. Creativity and, more importantly, entertainment, does not follow strict rules. It seems like you want to be a technically perfect writer, but I think that is not only something we should not aspire to, but even something that we should aspire not to be. It's like in Once and Future King--Galahad was "perfect", but he was a dick. Don't be a Galahad. Be better: be human--it's more interesting.

Not that there's anything wrong with knowing the rules--it helps knowing what you're breaking.

If you look past your initial thought, it could help learning. The point being, after you put something into practice over & over, it can become natural, not something that has to be considered. There comes a point where over-analyzing becomes counterproductive to an art form. My comment was not made to start a forum thread battle, merely to point out that once a concept like Show Don't Tell is understood, and can be effectively put into practice, then it can become a matter of "feel" where the author is exercising style.

I don't see the problem with stating that point. It's certainly relevant to the topic.

I agree on all points.

 

[Steerpike]

The more we can analyze the why and how of writing, the easier it is to teach the methods we derive.

I think this is true, generally speaking, but the topic is also subject to over-analysis, to a writer being overly self-conscious about rules and advice, and in the process losing the unique voice that she brings to the art. There should be a balance, in my view, and exactly where you strike the balance also depends on your goals. If you're trying to write more or less generic fiction that people can buy, read quickly, and forget about, you're going to swing heavily to one end of the spectrum. If your concern is solely artistic and the embodiment of your work as your own unique artistic expression, you're going to swing to the other side. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle. Literature as a whole would be much the worse for it if we were all at the same place along that spectrum.

 

[Zero Angel]

Went back to your "true" original post to try to get back on target.

I want to get my readers closer to my POV character emotionally.

Is it more effective to tell the reader what the character is feeling and why?

OR

Is it more effective to show an action and leave the interpretation of the action to the reader?

In terms of getting readers closer to your characters, it is better to tell, unless there is something they can relate to in the actions--in which case they will just substitute their feelings. But even then, it won't be getting them closer to your characters, it will be getting them to treat your characters like an extension of them.

I think of characters' thoughts and emotions as an entire setting almost. If you have stoic characters especially, how else will we know what's beneath the surface? And if there are thoughts or emotions that they have that would tell me something that influences the plot, then I will be actively mad at you/the author if they are held back for the benefit of showing instead of telling.

My "rule" is: show what you can, but tell the rest. I don't think you should go through contortions to show everything when telling works.

I think the idea of showing instead of telling is primarily there to keep people's attention. As someone that has ADHD, if the crap you're showing me is being shown just to show me something instead of telling me, I'd rather just be told.

 

[Zero Angel]

And I'll summarize Wikipedia's article on this (the article in full)

Ernest Hemingway's original "Iceberg Theory":

If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water.​

Modifier 1, by James Scott Bell:

Sometimes a writer tells as a shortcut, to move quickly to the meaty part of the story or scene. Showing is essentially about making scenes vivid. If you try to do it constantly, the parts that are supposed to stand out won't, and your readers will get exhausted.​

Modifier 2, by Orson Scott Card et al:

"showing" is so terribly time consuming that it is to be used only for dramatic scenes. The objective is to find the right balance of telling versus showing, action versus summarization. Factors like rhythm, pace, and tone come into play.​

 

[BWFoster78]

I think this is true, generally speaking, but the topic is also subject to over-analysis, to a writer being overly self-conscious about rules and advice, and in the process losing the unique voice that she brings to the art. There should be a balance, in my view, and exactly where you strike the balance also depends on your goals. If you're trying to write more or less generic fiction that people can buy, read quickly, and forget about, you're going to swing heavily to one end of the spectrum. If your concern is solely artistic and the embodiment of your work as your own unique artistic expression, you're going to swing to the other side. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle. Literature as a whole would be much the worse for it if we were all at the same place along that spectrum.

I think we all know where I fall on the issue of creating "art."

 

[Steerpike]

I think we all know where I fall on the issue of creating "art."

Yes, but luckily it is not a viewpoint shared by everyone.