How to show, and in doing so, tell

[blacbird]

The "Show, don't tell" dictum surfaces with great regularity here, and never without somebody being mystified by it. Tonight, in bedtime reading, I came across an example of how a great writer does it, worth passing on as an example. It's also a great example of limited third-person POV, and damn good straightforward unpretentious narrative prose. This is from an obscure, posthumously-published, and excellent novel by Philip K. Dick, The Man Whose Teeth Were All Exactly Alike

From the kitchen drifted a sound that Leo Runcible knew well. A pan, on the burner, unattended, had begun to go dry. Soon the contents would boil off, and the expensive steel pan, with its copper bottom, part of a set, would be ruined. Janet had already ruined the new tea kettle; she had the habit of filling it, turning the knob to high, and then going into the bathroom and taking a long meditative bath, during which she read a book. Sometimes she drove down to town and shopped, leaving a pan of eggs hardboiling on the stove; and once she had even left the electric oven, mounted in the wall, on broil. He had gotten home to find the house filled with the reek of burning wood; the wall itself had begun to char.

He set down his newspaper. Where had his wife gone? A tinkle. She was fixing a drink.

You, dear reader, now know everything you need to know about the state of Leo and Janet's marriage. The story can proceed.

caw

[Willowmound]

No one could beat Dick for titles.

[ccv707]

I'd have to agree, but Dick's books almost never maintained their original titles when they were published. More often than not, the publishers picked their own title. A good example is Dr. Bloodmoney, which was meant to cash-in on the recent (at the time) critically acclaimed Dr. Strangelove. One of his former wives have claimed that he commented on not being able to write good titles. However, I believe Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said was his own.

Love PKD though, one of a all-time favorites. And a great example.

[justAnotherWriter]

"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", IMO, is the best title of all time. It's like a one line poem...deep, engaging and philosophical. "Blade Runner", on the other hand, is a lame title that sounds cool and means nothing.

I think the quote above is an excellent example not only of how to manage show vs. tell, but that the "rule" about show and don't tell is bogus. The only rule is write well, then you can do anything you want. No amount of rules will turn poor writing into good writing.

[seun]

You, dear reader, now know everything you need to know about the state of Leo and Janet's marriage. The story can proceed.

caw

Exactly right. That's a great example of how to show a relationship.

[SPMiller]

I would have written that in a completely different way. But then, it's 2009 and I'm not PKD.

[Straka]

good example and I love PKD. When I was younger I would have never thought to write a post-WWII "what if" with the axis winning from the perspective of an antiques dealer.

[Rushie]

I think the quote above is an excellent example not only of how to manage show vs. tell, but that the "rule" about show and don't tell is bogus.

Not sure I get what you mean here. The example is showing, not telling. Telling would be "She keeps getting drunk and almost burning the house down."

I wouldn't say the rule is bogus. The problem is when people think the rule applies 100% of the time. It doesn't. There are times when it is appropriate to tell. The problem is when you tell too much - this distances your reader from the character. The way Dick wrote the quoted paragraph, you are deep inside Leo's head, experiencing the problem just as he experiences it. If Dick had told instead of shown about Janet's mess ups, you would be an outsider observer. That's why blacbird talks about this being such excellent limited 3rd. It gives you intimacy with the character. If for some reason you don't want such intimacy for a scene, then it might be more appropriate to tell, not show.

So you're right, rules should be broken at times. But if you understand rules in the context in which they are given and for the reasons they exist, you can see why they make sense. In general, you do want the reader to identify with the character, so "show don't tell" is usually good advice.

Rules aren't some schoolmaster standing over you with a ruler. Don't be anti-authority about it. Take them for what they are. Rules won't make a good writer, but breaking all the rules of good writing all the time sure might make a writer no one wants to read.

Also, if you turn off the burner without immediately removing the pot and let it cool in place, it will weld itself to the coils. And, when all the water is gone from boiling eggs, they will explode. I know this from having done it several times myself. Except I'm no drunk, I'm just daffy.

[Parametric]

And, when all the water is gone from boiling eggs, they will explode. I know this from having done it several times myself.

I've always wondered if this was an urban legend. I've boiled eggs dry on many an occasion, and they usually get black where they've burned onto the bottom of the pan, but they've never actually exploded. Are we talking big dramatic bystander-decapitating explosions, or sort of cracking and falling apart?

(Er ... off topic?)

[justAnotherWriter]

Not sure I get what you mean here. The example is showing, not telling. Telling would be "She keeps getting drunk and almost burning the house down."

The example is most certainly telling and not showing. The narrotor is telling us about his wife and the kinds of things she used to do. Your example is also telling, using different words and a different style, but is the same thing.

I wouldn't say the rule is bogus. The problem is when people think the rule applies 100% of the time. It doesn't. There are times when it is appropriate to tell. The problem is when you tell too much - this distances your reader from the character. The way Dick wrote the quoted paragraph, you are deep inside Leo's head, experiencing the problem just as he experiences it. If Dick had told instead of shown about Janet's mess ups, you would be an outsider observer. That's why blacbird talks about this being such excellent limited 3rd. It gives you intimacy with the character. If for some reason you don't want such intimacy for a scene, then it might be more appropriate to tell, not show.

You're essentially agreeing with my point, that the only rule is to write well. Anything can work if done well, and nothing will work if done poorly.

[Rushie]

I've always wondered if this was an urban legend. I've boiled eggs dry on many an occasion, and they usually get black where they've burned onto the bottom of the pan, but they've never actually exploded. Are we talking big dramatic bystander-decapitating explosions, or sort of cracking and falling apart?

(Er ... off topic?)

Not bystander decapitating. The shell isn't strong enough to allow the pressure to build that high. "Sudden bursting" is probably more accurate. I wouldn't get my face down there without eye protection though for fear of shell fragments. One time I heard "pop, pop, pop" from the kitchen and couldn't figure out what on earth was making the sound. I went in the kitchen and found them all messy and busted up in the dry pan. I have developed a theory. Often eggs develop microcracks that release pressure as you bring them to a boil. You can sometimes see streams of bubbles coming out of one. Sometimes the shell actually cracks a little before they're done. In this case the pressure won't increase enough. I think it all has to do with how cold they are when you start, the age of the egg, how fast the water comes to a boil, or some such.

[backslashbaby]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushie
Not sure I get what you mean here. The example is showing, not telling. Telling would be "She keeps getting drunk and almost burning the house down."

The example is most certainly telling and not showing. The narrotor is telling us about his wife and the kinds of things she used to do. Your example is also telling, using different words and a different style, but is the same thing.

Could someone do a bit with it showing, then? I'm not sure I completely see it. [Of course, since this is a good way to do telling, that is probably why I can't see how it's not showing].

I do see that we aren't actually 'following' the wife, and that must be another part confusing me. Would that always be telling?

Aaaack ;)!

[blacbird]

To me, the salient point of this piece of narration is its concentration on what is being done, or has been done, rather than on what characters are thinking. We wind up knowing exactly what Leo is thinking about Janet, through his recalled observations, without ever having a single interpretative thought explicitly expressed.

For me, it's a vastly more effective method of narration than reading something like:

God, my wife Janet has become a drunken slob, Leo thought.

caw

[Straka]

The example is most certainly telling and not showing. The narrotor is telling us about his wife and the kinds of things she used to do. Your example is also telling, using different words and a different style, but is the same thing.

I believe it's about layers of telling. Obviously the author is telling us about the things Leo's wife by listing off examples of the things see does. But PKD could have written:

"Leo's wife always left the stove on because she drinks too much and that is one reason why their marriage sucks."

That telling that is more a statement that good writing. The example paragraph is more complex, offering up examples and thus creates a story that a reader so more likely to remember. Also there are insinuations that are not written, like perhaps their marriage does suck, that is left to the reader's interpretation. I think that is where the showing comes in.

Just my 2 cents

[Barrett]

Let me see if I get the difference in showing and telling...

Showing-
When Frank walked in the door, his first thought was that the blotch was a mudstain. It wasn't until he stood next to it and listened to the red drops pat-pat-patting on the carpet that he understood what he was seeing. He pulled himself up the stairs, tumbled up, and wailed a question to God when he saw what was left of Anne.
He was still screaming questions when the police arrived.

Telling-
When Frank saw the bloodstain, he dashed upstairs and found his wife murdered. He screamed at the sight.

These aren't great writing in my opinion, but do they illustrate the difference? Am I getting it?

[Mr. Anonymous]

Don't get me wrong, this is very well written, but IMO, the bolded is telling.

From the kitchen drifted a sound that Leo Runcible knew well. A pan, on the burner, unattended, had begun to go dry. Soon the contents would boil off, and the expensive steel pan, with its copper bottom, part of a set, would be ruined. Janet had already ruined the new tea kettle; she had the habit of filling it, turning the knob to high, and then going into the bathroom and taking a long meditative bath, during which she read a book. Sometimes she drove down to town and shopped, leaving a pan of eggs hardboiling on the stove; and once she had even left the electric oven, mounted in the wall, on broil. He had gotten home to find the house filled with the reek of burning wood; the wall itself had begun to char.

He set down his newspaper. Where had his wife gone? A tinkle. She was fixing a drink.

[justAnotherWriter]

I believe it's about layers of telling. Obviously the author is telling us about the things Leo's wife by listing off examples of the things see does. But PKD could have written:

"Leo's wife always left the stove on because she drinks too much and that is one reason why their marriage sucks."

If he did, he would never have gotten published and we wouldn't know his name. :)

I hear what you're saying, but it's still telling. Good telling, appropriate telling, masterful writing...but telling nonetheless.

[Mr. Anonymous]

Let me see if I get the difference in showing and telling...

Showing-
When Frank walked in the door, his first thought was that the blotch was a mudstain. It wasn't until he stood next to it and listened to the red drops pat-pat-patting on the carpet that he understood what he was seeing. He pulled himself up the stairs, tumbled up, and wailed a question to God when he saw what was left of Anne.
He was still screaming questions when the police arrived.

Telling-
When Frank saw the bloodstain, he dashed upstairs and found his wife murdered. He screamed at the sight.

These aren't great writing in my opinion, but do they illustrate the difference? Am I getting it?

I think both cases are showing, you're just being more specific in the first one. The way I understand showing versus telling is that showing is immediate whereas telling takes us out of what is happening NOW.

IE

"Jake was very good looking."

That is telling.

However, instead of explicitly saying this, we can show Jake is good looking by the way people interact with him. A not-so-elaborate example of this would be his girlfriend saying, in dialogue, "You look so cute today!" to which Jake would respond, "Just today?" etc etc etc...

[backslashbaby]

I agree that whatever it's using, it works :D

@Barrett - I'm going to answer this, and someone will have answered it much better before I get this posted, but c'est la vie ;)

I can say that:
"He pulled himself up the stairs, tumbled up, and wailed a question to God when he saw what was left of Anne."

is showing. And that a telling version could be something like this:
"He went up the stairs and screamed when he saw that Anne had been murdered."

Past that, I'm starting to confuse myself. Like looking at a word too long and entirely not believing how it's spelled.

[Rushie]

The example is most certainly telling and not showing. The narrotor is telling us about his wife and the kinds of things she used to do. Your example is also telling, using different words and a different style, but is the same thing.

Perhaps then I misunderstand your definition of "show". You think it only can be dialogue? I was under the impression it could be action. We are given specific actions Janet commits. She ruins the tea kettle, she burns the wood around the oven. We are not told that she is irresponsible, forgetful and dangerous, we are shown these things. We deduce them... from her acts.

Likewise we are never told she has a drinking problem, we are shown this when Leo hears her mixing a drink. The fact that he hears tinkling and knows immediately it means she is drinking shows us that this must be a habit of hers.

What am I missing here? I thought blacbird was giving us an example of "show don't tell"... is it the reverse? Is blacbird saying this is an example of "tell don't show"?


You're essentially agreeing with my point, that the only rule is to write well. Anything can work if done well, and nothing will work if done poorly.That is not at all what I said. I said good rules make sense. And if you're going to break them you better have a good reason. If you write well you will already be obeying good rules for the most part, even if you don't realize you're doing it.

Example: A rule for the murder mystery genre is you better tell your reader who the killer is. Your writing could be the best drama ever put to paper but if you end it without telling me who the killer is I will throw it in the garbage and you better believe I won't buy another from you. Could someone some day get away with not revealing the killer? They probably already have, like I said, rules aren't 100% but it's not a risk most authors will take.

[Rushie]

I think the confusion here is that some of us believe "showing" means a scene in real time. Others believe "showing" can be a narrative summary, if what you are summarizing are actions, not descriptions.

Example:

"He was a dangerous man, ready to go off at any moment."

That was definitely telling.

Now, is the following telling too? Or is it showing?

"He carried a sawed off shotgun everywhere he went. He cussed at every other car on the road as if they were obstacles existing only to annoy him."

You get the strong idea that he's dangerous and potentially could go off in rage, but I didn't TELL you that exactly, I showed it through his actions. But they aren't one real time scene they're a summary of everywhere he goes, every time he drives.

But if you want to define "showing" as having to be a scene in real time, particularly one with dialogue, then you'd have to write it like this:

"Get out of the way you moron!" he shouted at the car that had stopped in front of him. He fingered the butt of the sawed off shotgun that he always had with him, "Fucking idiots all deserve to die."

Okay that is definitely showing. It's a definition thing I guess.

[Kathleen42]

Hijacking thread to say that am reading "Self-Editing for Fiction Writers" and the book's chapter on show vs tell is really well done.

[justAnotherWriter]

Perhaps then I misunderstand your definition of "show". You think it only can be dialogue? I was under the impression it could be action. We are given specific actions Janet commits. She ruins the tea kettle, she burns the wood around the oven. We are not told that she is irresponsible, forgetful and dangerous, we are shown these things. We deduce them... from her acts.

But you're not shown these things, you are told them. I'm sure it can be done, but I'm too tired to think of a way to show things that happened in a story's past without flashbacks. And dialogue is certainly not the only way to show things, in fact dialogue can be the worst way to tell things.

The awkward way to change some of the telling to showing would be:

From the kitchen drifted a sound that Leo Runcible knew well. A pan, on the burner, unattended, had begun to go dry. Soon the contents would boil off, and the expensive steel pan, with its copper bottom, part of a set, would be ruined. He rushed to the kitchen to turn off the flame, sparing an irritated glance at the collection of ruined cookware piled in this week's recylce bin. Next to the bin was the empty can of paint he had used to cover up the charred wall from when Janet had left the electric oven on broil before falling asleep in front of the television.

This is still partly telling, but there is more showing than before, so I think it's enough to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

This is simple example of telling:

Bob walked up to the tank and examined the treads. Sometimes they would find mangled body parts, sometimes other interesting items. Mostly he was just looking for signs of a tread decoupling, which if uncaught would lead to hours of grueling work retreading the infernal machine.

Finding a piece of lodged debris, he reached for the toolkit with a sigh and a muttered curse.


The same thing with showing:

Bob walked up the tank and examined the treads, noticing a slight misalignement near one of the lead wheels. A piece of mangled shell casing had lodged into the crevise between adjoining treads and would soon force them apart if not removed immediately.

"Balls," Bob swore as he reached for the toolkit. "I hate this f#^#ing place."

[Rushie]

"Balls," Bob swore as he reached for the toolkit. "I hate this f#^#ing place."

Whoops, I didn't block out my expletive like you did, ha ha ha, that I was writing the same time you were. I think we're on the same page here, it all boils down to whether we're doing a scene in real time or not.

[CheshireCat]

IMO, the example given is pretty much all telling, because nothing is happening in front of the reader. We're being given the MC's musings, but not being actually shown the actions he's thinking about. (Well done, as others have said, but it is telling rather than showing.)

I can say that:
"He pulled himself up the stairs, tumbled up, and wailed a question to God when he saw what was left of Anne."

is showing. And that a telling version could be something like this:
"He went up the stairs and screamed when he saw that Anne had been murdered."


No, both are showing. Telling would be something like: "Joe was stricken with grief and shock when his wife was murdered."

Showing is happening before the reader, so "he wailed a question to God" and "screamed when he saw" show us his shock and grief.

He was angry = telling.

His fists clenched and his mouth tightened into a thin line = showing.

She was frightened = telling.

Her heart pounded and she couldn't seem to breathe except in tight little gasps = showing. (Though that example could cover more emotions than fear.)

[backslashbaby]

Quote:
I can say that:
"He pulled himself up the stairs, tumbled up, and wailed a question to God when he saw what was left of Anne."

is showing. And that a telling version could be something like this:
"He went up the stairs and screamed when he saw that Anne had been murdered."

No, both are showing. Telling would be something like: "Joe was stricken with grief and shock when his wife was murdered."

Showing is happening before the reader, so "he wailed a question to God" and "screamed when he saw" show us his shock and grief.

He was angry = telling.

His fists clenched and his mouth tightened into a thin line = showing.

She was frightened = telling.

Her heart pounded and she couldn't seem to breathe except in tight little gasps = showing. (Though that example could cover more emotions than fear.)

Ah, yes, yes, yes. Thank you, and I apologize to Barrett! My telling example is really showing - just very bad showing :D

[justAnotherWriter]

Whoops, I didn't block out my expletive like you did, ha ha ha, that I was writing the same time you were. I think we're on the same page here, it all boils down to whether we're doing a scene in real time or not.


I only blocked it out because I thought it might be censored. :)

I think the more we think about showing vs. telling the more we confuse ourselves (at least I do!), but yeah, I think we're on the same page.

[Barrett]

No worries, Backslash.

If anything, I'm filled with the empowering notion that I seem to be a show writer far more than a telling writer.

Very cool.

Now watch - I'll probably get published, become highly successful and read thread after thread here complaining that all I do is tell, tell, tell!

[Rushie]

IMO, the example given is pretty much all telling, because nothing is happening in front of the reader. We're being given the MC's musings, but not being actually shown the actions he's thinking about. (Well done, as others have said, but it is telling rather than showing.)



Underlined part... I just figured out why we're confused. It's a flashback, or rather a few mini-flashbacks strung together. He is remembering scenes that show how Janet is. He's not remembering whole complete scenes, but the actions of the remembered scenes are distilled. This is neither showing NOR telling. It's a flashback.

Showing is playing out actions and dialogue in real time as they happen. Telling is the author giving descriptions of how a person is, either himself or through the mind or eyes of a character. A flashback is a scene rendered either through the memory of a character or through an authorial section. The large paragraph (except for the first two sentences) is condensed flashbacks of prior events. The character isn't telling us Janet is irresponsible any more than the author is... he is flashing back to prior scenes where Janet showed us her irresponsibility.

[brokenfingers]

I find this thread very telling.

[Barrett]

Yeah, it's showing...

[Rushie]

From the kitchen drifted a sound that Leo Runcible knew well. A pan, on the burner, unattended, had begun to go dry. Soon the contents would boil off, and the expensive steel pan, with its copper bottom, part of a set, would be ruined.

Showing

Janet had already ruined the new tea kettle; she had the habit of filling it, turning the knob to high, and then going into the bathroom and taking a long meditative bath, during which she read a book.

Flashback of one or more times Janet had done this

Sometimes she drove down to town and shopped, leaving a pan of eggs hardboiling on the stove;

Flashbacks of several times she has done this

and once she had even left the electric oven, mounted in the wall, on broil. He had gotten home to find the house filled with the reek of burning wood; the wall itself had begun to char.

Flashback of one particularly bad incident

He set down his newspaper. Where had his wife gone? A tinkle. She was fixing a drink.

Showing

There ya go... 2 showings and 3 flashbacks of showings. No telling here. That's my final story and I'm sticking to it. :D

[Mr. Anonymous]

I disagree. I don't think those qualify as flashbacks. The story is still going on in the present. We aren't being taken to the past. We're just being told what happened in the past.

xP

[IdiotsRUs]

The difference is subtle

The difference between the author telling ( 'he was fed up with his wife being a lush') or the character telling ( the flashbacks / character telling what happened in teh past). If it's the character telling, it's forgiveable IMO, because it's filtered through his POV and therefore the telling shows you, from his standpoint, what is wrong with his marriage, and also shows you something about him too.

[SPMiller]

I don't know what followed that bit in the story, but seems clear where I'd take it: I'd show the protag rushing into the kitchen to deal with the pan. Does he like buying new cookware? Then, while he's taking care of that, he notes specific details that remind him past incidents. Immediately thereafter, he confronts his drunk wife.

Instead, PKD just has him sitting with his newspaper, passively musing on the past. The poor dear casually, gently sets down his newspaper. What a boring loser of a "hero". Form rejection on the first paragraphs. Next?

[Willowmound]

Discussions like this make me want to tear off my eyelids and eat them.

[IdiotsRUs]

I don't know what followed that bit in the story, but seems clear where I'd take it: I'd show the protag rushing into the kitchen to deal with the pan. Does he like buying new cookware? Then, while he's taking care of that, he notes specific details that remind him past incidents. Immediately thereafter, he confronts his drunk wife.

Instead, PKD just has him sitting with his newspaper, passively musing on the past. The poor dear casually, gently sets down his newspaper. What a boring loser of a "hero". Form rejection on the first paragraphs. Next?

Doesn't the fact that he doesn't rush off to do something about it tell you something about him though? Like he's past caring?

[SPMiller]

Doesn't the fact that he doesn't rush off to do something about it tell you something about him though? Like he's past caring?Sure, but I'm past caring about him before he even gets a chance at building my sympathy. That's the problem.

<-- not in PKD's audience

[backslashbaby]

Discussions like this make me want to tear off my eyelids and eat them.

^^^ Showing. I'm pretty sure.




:D This discussion helped me get things straighter. Thanks!

[HelloKiddo]

From the kitchen drifted a sound that Leo Runcible knew well. A pan, on the burner, unattended, had begun to go dry. Soon the contents would boil off, and the expensive steel pan, with its copper bottom, part of a set, would be ruined. Janet had already ruined the new tea kettle; she had the habit of filling it, turning the knob to high, and then going into the bathroom and taking a long meditative bath, during which she read a book. Sometimes she drove down to town and shopped, leaving a pan of eggs hardboiling on the stove; and once she had even left the electric oven, mounted in the wall, on broil. He had gotten home to find the house filled with the reek of burning wood; the wall itself had begun to char.

He set down his newspaper. Where had his wife gone? A tinkle. She was fixing a drink.


"You, dear reader, now know everything you need to know about the state of Leo and Janet's marriage. The story can proceed."

This paragraph doesn't blow my mind. It's not bad, but I wouldn't choose it as a superb of example example of showing/telling. I don't know all I need to know about the marriage. Is she insane? A drunk? Doing this on purpose to annoy him? Unusually clumsy and forgetful but otherwise normal? I know little about either of them from this paragraph.


Here is what I consider a superb balancing of showing/telling, taken from Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte (p. 187):

But I was not jealous: or very rarely;--the nature of the pain I
suffered could not be explained by that word. Miss
Ingram was a mark beneath jealousy: she was too inferior to excite the
feeling. Pardon the seeming paradox; I mean what I say. She was very
showy, but she was not genuine: she had a fine person, many brilliant
attainments; but her mind was poor, her heart barren by nature: nothing
bloomed spontaneously on that soil; no unforced natural fruit delighted
by its freshness. She was not good; she was not original: she used to
repeat sounding phrases from books: she never offered, nor had, an
opinion of her own. She advocated a high tone of sentiment; but she did
not know the sensations of sympathy and pity; tenderness and truth were
not in her. Too often she betrayed this, by the undue vent she gave to a
spiteful antipathy she had conceived against little Adele: pushing her
away with some contumelious epithet if she happened to approach her;
sometimes ordering her from the room, and always treating her with
coldness and acrimony.(Sorry about the formatting)

Wonderfully done, I think. She mostly tells about Ingram with limited showing, but the way she says it is so complete we understand exactly what Jane means and how she sees the character. Proof: Sometimes tell is better than show.

And it does double duty. As she tells us about Ingram she shows us a lot about herself.

[rugcat]

I think getting hung up on what precisely is telling and what is showing is more an academic exercise than anything else.

The important thing to me about that paragraph is that it reveals, quite neatly, what type of character the woman is and how the Leo feels about her without ever directly referring to how either of them feels. To me, this is absolutely about showing, but don't lose sight of the fact that whatever you want to call it, it's very good writing.

[HelloKiddo]

I think getting hung up on what precisely is telling and what is showing is more an academic exercise than anything else.

I agree. To aggravate the situation, we often disagree with each other regarding what constitutes showing/telling!

The important thing to me about that paragraph is that it reveals, quite neatly, what type of character the woman is and how the Leo feels about her

I just don't see what the rest of you guys are seeing. She burns stuff a lot and he knows it. That is all I get from this paragraph. Noting more.

[blacbird]

I think getting hung up on what precisely is telling and what is showing is more an academic exercise than anything else.

The important thing to me about that paragraph is that it reveals, quite neatly, what type of character the woman is and how the Leo feels about her without ever directly referring to how either of them feels. To me, this is absolutely about showing, but don't lose sight of the fact that whatever you want to call it, it's very good writing.

Exactly. The major emphasis is on people doing stuff, and observations thereof, not on people thinking stuff. A major stumbling block I see in far too many manuscripts I've read is overemphasis on thought, at the expense of activity, internalization rather than externalization. Far too many inexperience writers spend far too much verbiage directly relating character's thoughts rather than revealing them through observational detail, the way Dick does in the example cited. I probably should have titled this thread a little differently.

caw

[Ken]

... really nothing to add, here.
Just strikes me as a cool passage.
Will have to pick up a few by PDK.
Read one, once :-)

[blacbird]

As an information aside, because several people have expressed an interest in PKD as a result of this example, the novel cited (The Man Whose Teeth Were All Exactly Alike) is not an SF novel. It's a standard, though Dickian, mainstream realistic novel. Dick got commissioned by Harcourt Brace to write such novels in the late 1950s, and duly produced ten of them; Harcourt refused to publish any. I believe Teeth was the last of that group. Only one of these ten manuscripts (Confessions of a Crap Artist) saw publication during Dick's lifetime, somewhere in the mid-1970s. When Dick died at the age of 53 in 1982, following a stroke, he left a big pile of manuscripts and unfinished material behind. Several small publishers have arranged through his estate to bring some of these works into posthumous publication, but they can be hard to find. Other titles now published among the "realistic" novels include In Milton Lumky Territory, Humpty Dumpty in Oakland, Mary and the Giant, and Puttering About in a Small Land. At least a couple of the manuscripts known to have been written have apparently been lost.

caw

[CheshireCat]

Underlined part... I just figured out why we're confused. It's a flashback, or rather a few mini-flashbacks strung together. He is remembering scenes that show how Janet is. He's not remembering whole complete scenes, but the actions of the remembered scenes are distilled. This is neither showing NOR telling. It's a flashback.

Showing is playing out actions and dialogue in real time as they happen. Telling is the author giving descriptions of how a person is, either himself or through the mind or eyes of a character. A flashback is a scene rendered either through the memory of a character or through an authorial section. The large paragraph (except for the first two sentences) is condensed flashbacks of prior events. The character isn't telling us Janet is irresponsible any more than the author is... he is flashing back to prior scenes where Janet showed us her irresponsibility.

I disagree that a flashback is something other than telling or showing; it's going to be one or the other -- or parts of one and the other. It's a simple matter to slip into a flashback and yet have action happening before the reader's eyes; it doesn't matter that the action is in the past, just that it happens, that action takes place before the reader's eyes.

All that said, what a lot of writers have to get past, IMO is the notion that telling is always a Bad Thing. Sometimes telling is the perfect way to convey the necessary information, and sometimes it isn't.

I agree. To aggravate the situation, we often disagree with each other regarding what constitutes showing/telling!

I just don't see what the rest of you guys are seeing. She burns stuff a lot and he knows it. That is all I get from this paragraph. Noting more.

The difference is simply that he's sitting there thinking about what's happening, but doesn't get up and walk into the kitchen and actually see food and pots being ruined. He is telling the reader what he surmises is happening in the next room, based on what has happened in the past -- which he also tells us.

It's not a bad scene, and does indeed say a lot about the couple and their problems. And framing it so that it showed more than it told would not necessarily improve it.

Exactly. The major emphasis is on people doing stuff, and observations thereof, not on people thinking stuff. A major stumbling block I see in far too many manuscripts I've read is overemphasis on thought, at the expense of activity, internalization rather than externalization. Far too many inexperience writers spend far too much verbiage directly relating character's thoughts rather than revealing them through observational detail, the way Dick does in the example cited. I probably should have titled this thread a little differently.

caw

It's definitely a common trait in new writers, IMO and in my experience. The writer is so intent on making certain we, the readers, understand what the character is thinking and feeling they fail to trust us to see what's important without having everything painted red or repeated six times. :) And, of course, they don't trust themselves to make sure we don't need things painted red and repeated six times before we get it ...

[blacbird]

All that said, what a lot of writers have to get past, IMO is the notion that telling is always a Bad Thing. Sometimes telling is the perfect way to convey the necessary information, and sometimes it isn't.

There's also a vast yawning gulf in narrative effectiveness between having a narrative character "telling" some portion of the story, and having the author "telling" the reader what emotions the characters are experiencing. The latter is a form of stage-direction, a kind of emotive info-dump that constitutes lazy writing and nearly always can be done better.

caw

[CheshireCat]

There's also a vast yawning gulf in narrative effectiveness between having a narrative character "telling" some portion of the story, and having the author "telling" the reader what emotions the characters are experiencing. The latter is a form of stage-direction, a kind of emotive info-dump that constitutes lazy writing and nearly always can be done better.

caw


Very true.

And though I despise "rules" in writing, I would venture to say that when it comes to the emotions of the characters, it's almost always better to show the reader what's being felt rather than tell them. Or, at the very least, that there's a balance tilted more toward showing than telling.

Now. Have we thoroughly confused things in the Battle of Show Versus Tell?

:D

[blacbird]

Now. Have we thoroughly confused things in the Battle of Show Versus Tell?


Not for anybody paying attention.

caw

[Dawnstorm]

Exactly. The major emphasis is on people doing stuff, and observations thereof, not on people thinking stuff. A major stumbling block I see in far too many manuscripts I've read is overemphasis on thought, at the expense of activity, internalization rather than externalization. Far too many inexperience writers spend far too much verbiage directly relating character's thoughts rather than revealing them through observational detail, the way Dick does in the example cited. I probably should have titled this thread a little differently.

I feel the need to point out that what you're calling "observational detail" is really "selective memory" in a passage the PoV-character spends blaming somebody. It's not that you're wrong; it's that we need to season your post with this:

If it's the character telling, it's forgiveable IMO, because it's filtered through his POV and therefore the telling shows you, from his standpoint, what is wrong with his marriage, and also shows you something about him too.

It seems to me, the passage works because we've just the right amount of information. They buy expansive kitchen ware (I'm not sure how fancy an electric stove in a wooden wall was, back then), but they can't or won't afford a maid to help out? I sense a hint of keeping-up-with-the-Joneses...

I'm primed for Janet's perspective, now.

***

Great example of good writing regarding the balance of subjectivity and information.

And this thread is also a great example of why I wouldn't shed a tear if "show, don't tell" were never mentioned again. It's easier to make sense without these terms. Less risk of misunderstanding.

[motormind]

I cam imagine why that passage by Dick confuses people. The author effortlessy flips back and forth between showing and telling, with a slight nudge toward the former--as happens in most good stories.

[vox]

Here's my newbie $.02: It seems to me that by its very nature, all writing is "telling", but the skillful author sometimes chooses to "tell" the reader things that reveal more than what the words themselves say, which then becomes "showing".

I'd even venture to say (I'm a newb, so I'm allowed a little reckless abandon, aren't I) that there are times when "Jack was angry" could be completely appropriate and not at all requiring of any more detail. It hinges on the context and what the author needs for that sentence to accomplish.

OK, I'll pipe down and continue lurking now :)

[Rushie]

Here's my newbie $.02: It seems to me that by its very nature, all writing is "telling", but the skillful author sometimes chooses to "tell" the reader things that reveal more than what the words themselves say, which then becomes "showing".


I think you are on to something. Maybe it's not such a clear line either, but there is a spectrum moving from more showing to more telling:


1. "He tried to pull my hands off the yoke, I raised an arm and pushed him. He punched, missed, and we fell onto the controls. The cockpit tilted and the windshield filled with ground. The engine slid into a high pitched scream."

2. "He tried to wrest control away from me, but, fighting, we fell onto the yoke and pushed it forward. We headed nose first toward the ground."

3. "He attacked me and I lost control of the plane. We went into a dangerous nose-down attitude."

4. "He tried to take over the airplane and caused it to go into a nosedive."

5. "He's a crazy sonovabitch. Because of him, we almost crashed."


We go from showing to telling in steps, and we can see how you move from intimacy to distance by degree. Maybe it's not all black and white. 1 is definitely show. 5 is definitely tell. But between 2 and 4, where is the dividing line? When I first learned about the show not tell "rule", this was my confusion: aren't I telling everything? It's a story, not a drawing. You're not talking about show or tell you're talking about how to tell. With close involvement using the five senses? Or with second hand distance? Don't give me show vs tell nonsense just tell me to put the reader into closer contact with the action/character.

[vox]

I may have missed something along the way, but I'm thinking that "show don't tell" has less to do with adding details to a particular scene and more to do with using details about one thing to show us a truth about something else. For instance, the text in the original post TELLS us about pots and pans and baths and ovens, but it SHOWS us something about the wife and the marriage. We also have insight into the husband as well by his reaction or lack of one. Lots of ground is covered by telling us about post and pans and stuff. Does that make sense? If it were just about details in a scene, you could go crazy trying to describe every little detail in realistic glory at the expense of moving the story along. Of course, I think you could probably also go overboard with showing, too. Beat around the bush too much and the reader may start screaming "get to the point, already!" Well, I'm rambling now... (oops, that was a TELL, wasn't it?) :)

[blacbird]

For instance, the text in the original post TELLS us about pots and pans and baths and ovens, but it SHOWS us something about the wife and the marriage. We also have insight into the husband as well by his reaction or lack of one. Lots of ground is covered by telling us about post and pans and stuff. Does that make sense?

Perfect sense, and exactly the reason I posted the thing in the first place. I just wish I had expressed this as well as you did.

caw

[vox]

Why, thank you! I'm just glad I actually got what you meant and wasn't just spouting useless nonsense, which is my forte, BTW.

Also...LOVE the Zevon references in your profile info. I'd like to meet your tailor!

[Lyra Jean]

I've always wondered if this was an urban legend. I've boiled eggs dry on many an occasion, and they usually get black where they've burned onto the bottom of the pan, but they've never actually exploded. Are we talking big dramatic bystander-decapitating explosions, or sort of cracking and falling apart?

(Er ... off topic?)

They kind of pop and then catch fire.

[blacbird]

I'd like to meet your tailor!

You better stay away from him. He'll rip your lungs out, Jim.

But he's just an exciteable boy.

caw

[Ken Schneider]

Not sure I get what you mean here. The example is showing, not telling. Telling would be "She keeps getting drunk and almost burning the house down."

Bolding mine.

We don't actually know if that's why she is forgetful in this passage/ Drinking.

But it's okay to think for yourself why she would do this.
My first thought was alzheimers. But, when he wrote this that diease wasn't in the forfront of society's mind.

I thought it was a masterful show and tell passage.

[unicornjam]

I'd even venture to say ... that there are times when "Jack was angry" could be completely appropriate and not at all requiring of any more detail.

And you're correct. There are times when that is completely appropriate.

[FOTSGreg]

1. "He tried to pull my hands off the yoke, I raised an arm and pushed him. He punched, missed, and we fell onto the controls. The cockpit tilted and the windshield filled with ground. The engine slid into a high pitched scream."

That's still telling. It's stilted, clumsy (sorry), and underappreciative of the reader's ability to imagine things happening. Try something like this (and this is clumsy and first-drafty so not perfect)...

He grabbed for the yoke and I threw a punch his way. We crashed into the controls and I felt my stomach lurch. I looked up. The ground loomed directly ahead of us through the canopy. I heard the engine pitch higher into a death scream.

Still clumsy. Still not descriptive enough or active enough, but way better IMNSHO.

[FOTSGreg]

He grabbed for the yoke and I threw a punch his way. We crashed into the controls and I felt my stomach lurch. I looked up. The ground loomed directly ahead of us through the canopy. I heard the engine pitch higher into a death scream.

Try #2 - Maybe a little better...

I grabbed for his arm as he tried to grab the yoke. He fell forward and we crashed into the controls. I felt the plane lurch, roll into a dive. I looked up through the canopy. The ground loomed frighteningly close. I heard the engine pitch up into a death scream."

[vox]

You better stay away from him. He'll rip your lungs out, Jim.

But he's just an exciteable boy.


Ah, but it's nothing that can't be handled with lawyers, guns and money.