Using Narrative to Discuss Character Pasts

Honestly there could be any number of effects. The questions I ask myself when writing any scene are: What am I trying to achieve? What's going to happen in this scene? Why does it matter? What part does it play in the whole story? Then, when you have an objective you can look at your toolkit. Flashbacks are often used to reveal relevant information about the past; the strength of the flashback is that on a practical level we understand and/or judge characters based on patterns of appearance and action, which of course includes behaviors of the past. Sometimes, though, a line so condensed as "he was suckled by a bear and raised by a bobcat" can be used for comedic effect, to characterize the voice of the narrator, add depth to the mood, reveal an important plot component etc.

As for me, in fairly linear narratives, I use full-scene flashbacks very sparingly, and tend toward trying to express the analeptic idea / action / theme in as few words as possible -- like a sentence or two.




AMC

Can be done, but you reeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllly need to be careful. You can get into "As you know, Bob," dialogue real fast with this kind of stuff.

caw

Telling can be effective when used sparingly because it conveys a lot of information fast, often while contributing humor or otherwise setting the mood of the story for the reader.

But in general, beginnings are something that gets finely tuned after the first draft is completed, there's no point worrying about the actual words used before that point.

DwayneA said:

"Kelly was born in Montana, and grew up in the snow county. His friends often said that he was suckled by a bear and raised by a bobcat."

This is "telling" from what I know about showing and telling.

Why does the author sometimes do this? What is the purpose of using telling to reveal character pasts?

Click to expand...

It also reveals something about the narrator. Out of all of the character's attributes, the narrator has chosen to tell you about those attributes in particular. Out of all of the ways to tell you about the character, the narrator has chosen those words in particular. Those choices tell you not only about the character being described, but about what the narrator pays attention to, and (sometimes) about what the character wants you to pay attention to.

Dale

This doesn't particularly answer your question, but you might find it interesting. Near the bottom she answers a question about when it's best to tell rather than show http://pubrants.blogspot.com/2010/01/opening-pages-cont_27.html

Telling in third-person narrative is expected. The person is, after all, a storyteller. It is how and what you tell that is important. In first person, it's harder to pull off as there is normally no credible reason for the narrator giving a character's history.

Frankly, I can't seen why people get their knickers in a twist from a little "telling" in a novel. It's usually the quickest way to get from A to B or anywhere else.

The 'telling' does have voice, but this can be a pro or a con. Once you put some voice into a line, it is more difficult to erase.

The idea is not to have zero telling. The idea is to have a balance of showing and telling that is compelling and effective.

"Telling" is a fast and effective way of getting some information across, quick. Then the plot can move forward.

Now, if everything is "tell" then it's going to be really boring.

If everything is "show," it's going to be a very, very long book. I mean, it will take at least a scene or two, at least, to show us ""Kelly was born in Montana, and grew up in the snow county. His friends often said that he was suckled by a bear and raised by a bobcat."

Now, if everything is "tell" then it's going to be really boring.

Click to expand...

Have you read Borges?




AMC

I come from the camp of tell me less and show me more. That's what I prefer in a book, so that is how I write. If I read that opening line about Kelly in a book, I'd put it back on the shelf.

Telling happens all the time in books, but that doesn't mean it makes for great reading at this point in time. The classics do a lot of telling. Many of the main stream authors Tom Clancy and Stephen King pop to mind, also do it. Does that mean it makes for a great book? Not really. Does it mean that publishers will be put off by it? Probably not. There is plenty of telling going on out there, but those aren't the books I prefer to read, and I can't imagine that I am in that small of a minority of readers.

When I find a book that really strikes me as great, it usually doesn't have a whole lot of telling in it. I then read everything by those authors, because their style is what I like.

But do I only read showy books? No. I do read classics and modern books that do have more telling parts, but most are one read wonders.

bluebell80 said:

I come from the camp of tell me less and show me more. That's what I prefer in a book, so that is how I write. If I read that opening line about Kelly in a book, I'd put it back on the shelf.

Telling happens all the time in books, but that doesn't mean it makes for great reading at this point in time. The classics do a lot of telling. Many of the main stream authors Tom Clancy and Stephen King pop to mind, also do it. Does that mean it makes for a great book? Not really. Does it mean that publishers will be put off by it? Probably not. There is plenty of telling going on out there, but those aren't the books I prefer to read, and I can't imagine that I am in that small of a minority of readers.

When I find a book that really strikes me as great, it usually doesn't have a whole lot of telling in it. I then read everything by those authors, because their style is what I like.

But do I only read showy books? No. I do read classics and modern books that do have more telling parts, but most are one read wonders.

Click to expand...

Pretty much all third person books are basically tell so I'm not sure what your problem is. Oviously you wouldn't have the Kelly bit as an opening line but as part of a third-person narrative, I don't have a problem.

1st person is really where you get tell vs. show problems. The negative definition of 'tell' needs to be removed; it's often used to mean unsubtle prose that dictates to the reader. But show can be longwinded convoluted prose that doesn't particularly work- both tell and show can be badly done but they aren't innately bad.

This is the way I see it, ymmv:

There are no rules in writing. It is either good, or bad, and even that varies based on the reader.

There is no magic formula that you can use, no "2xTell/Showx8=good."

How much you show or tell is a matter of your style, talent and voice, and those things will either be good or they will be bad.

However, there is such a thing as making mistakes of too much of one thing or another before you find your writing legs, but those go away on their own as you practice, learn and discover your talent. Assuming you have one. And even for those things, there are no rules. Your unique talent/voice will emerge, and it will dictate how much you show, how much you tell, etc.

I used to think that you had to make a clear distinction between dialogue and narrative, but then I tried to read Cormac McCarthy.

DwayneA said:

"Kelly was born in Montana, and grew up in the snow county. His friends often said that he was suckled by a bear and raised by a bobcat."

This is "telling" from what I know about showing and telling.

Click to expand...

You can't "show" this because it didn't happen (assuming it's set in reality). The effect you achieve here can only be achieved by telling. Telling tends to be boring and info dumpish, so if you're going to do it, this is the way to do it. Make it funny. Good work.

I try to only show the bits that are entertaining to read. With telling you can skip the boring bits. I'm sure your reader will be grateful. Never skip showing stuff that will excite your reader. Never. That'll just piss them off.

Lady Ice said:

Pretty much all third person books are basically tell so I'm not sure what your problem is. Oviously you wouldn't have the Kelly bit as an opening line but as part of a third-person narrative, I don't have a problem.

Click to expand...

Ummm....don't think you need to get all snarky about it. I don't think I have a problem, other than the sample sentence that was mentioned. It's bad. If that is in the third person narrative, then the rest of the narrative would be written similarly and I wouldn't read it. I'm an extremely tough critic, not just on other's work, but my own.

While I think perfection is an unattainable goal, writers can still strive to achieve it. I know a good book when I read it, and I can judge a book by it's first few pages, just like I can analyze a person's personality type within the first few minutes of a conversation. It's just a matter of observation and rational analysis. A book that would have that type of sample sentence anywhere in the text would imply that the rest of the novel is just as poorly written and not something I'd want to read.

1st person is really where you get tell vs. show problems. The negative definition of 'tell' needs to be removed; it's often used to mean unsubtle prose that dictates to the reader. But show can be longwinded convoluted prose that doesn't particularly work- both tell and show can be badly done but they aren't innately bad.

Click to expand...

I disagree totally. While in first person you get more internal insight into the MC's head, and it gives you a better chance to show events through the MC's eyes, many writers of first person fall into telling just as often as third person pov.

On the other hand, third person pov writers can show more than tell in their writing, and they can show it from many different angles and points of view, so you actually get a much larger sweeping effect of your mental motion picture camera of each situation.

Sometimes telling something is next to unavoidable, though most times it could be avoided. Conversely, showing doesn't have to be convoluted or wordy, it can be concise and to the point in the same number of words that telling could be. Many things that are told could also be cut from the story altogether and the story would survive and maybe even be better.

But showing or telling, it doesn't matter much if the writing isn't good. Good writing is the first part of the battle, finding the balance between showing and telling is the next battle. And I'm sure there is some math geek out there who could analyze well written books (per my judgment of a well written book) and find a mathematical formula for why it works and how much showing there is to telling. I think everything in life can probably be broken down to a mathematical equation.

Actually, looking over the sentence, it isn't really telling. 'His friends said' gives us an impression of how he is perceived by others. It may not be the most wonderful sentence in the world, but it's valid enough. Could you have shown that information?

It would greatly depend on the story itself. Plunking down a fact, Kelly was born in Montana snow country, unless this is paramount to the story, probably doesn't even need to be said. If it has some amount of impact on the story, and it is not obvious through the initial setting of the story where Kelly is from, then it could be weaved into the story, without making it a telling statement.

That sentence is basically an info-dump type of sentence. It is telling us where Kelly is from, and how his friends perceive him. Why not cut the where he was born part and show through his behavior why his friends might think he was suckled by a bear, whatever that means, hearty I guess, and raised by a bobcat...not really sure what kind of word picture those two things are painting for me. I can't picture it.

I would rather see his behavior than be told what others think about him. I'd rather hear his friend make this comment to him, the suckled by a bear/raised by a bobcat, and have examples of his behavior to justify the opinion, and give it meaning.

I've read a lot of bad writing that has been published. Just cause it's published doesn't make it good.

Doctors make the worst patients.