Show, dont tell...

[__VeNoM__]

I'm sure you've all heard the writer's saying "show, don't tell" many times before.
But how many of us know exactly where to draw the line between showing and telling?

The reason I've started this thread is lately I've been confused as to what works best. I've entered into around seven short story competitions already, but no result. I keep thinking that the content is fairly strong, and I've had people agree with me most of the time, but I don't seem to be able to satisfy the judges. Seeing's as I'm relatively new to short story competitions, only been entering them for about a year and three quarters, I'm just not sure whether the judges want me to show, tell or do both?

I've been working on a short story for a couple of weeks now and it's finished, I'm just touching up on it, but I've gone and risked including show and tell. I've got great (and honest) responses from people I know but I'm still wondering whether I did the right thing or not.

It's a deep story, something I don't do very often and I think it needs both. I was just wondering if anyone with more short story competition success could tell me what the judges really want in relation to the subject.

Cheers.

[Birol]

I feel there's a deep flaw in the 'show, don't tell' mantra.

Yes, it is an axiom because there is truth in it, but new writers are not told what it means. It is presented as an all-or-nothing approach, as if all telling is always wrong and showing never is, but there are times when you do need to tell, to use narrative and exposition, in order to provide information quickly, that if presented by showing, or revealing, the information would be dull and boring and slow the story down too much.

As for when to show and when to tell? That is more subtle and, as with many things, there are no hard and fast answers. Each writer must just do what feels right to him or her. With time and experience, the knowledge of what works and what doesn't will come.

[__VeNoM__]

You know what, that was more useful than you think. Thanks Birol.

If anyone else wants to voice their opinions on the subject, I think they should as I know it's an issue for all writer's.

[alleycat]

Birol's reply is pretty much the same comment I would have made.

ac

[__VeNoM__]

Okay, looking for other writer's opinions on the subject. It not only helps me, but I'm sure it could help some of you.

[Birol]

What can I say, Venom? Occasionally I almost know what I'm talking about. ;)

[__VeNoM__]

lol

[Anaparenna]

I agree with Birol as well, and would go so far as to say if you know the axiom, and are actively considering its place in your own work (as well as studying it in others' works), then you're probably on the right road. All you need at that point is the afore-mentioned time and experience -- and maybe a few of those personal "ah ha!" moments we all get from time to time. :)

I think the more difficult issue is with new writers who aren't aware of it and again, as Birol mentioned, aren't often given concrete examples of what it is. That, in my opinion, takes a good critique partner or mentor who can point out specific examples and drive the point home. (Or, a lot of critical reading and a good message board.)

[alleycat]

You might want to consider expanding your question, Venom. Perhaps there is some other areas of your writing that is not satisfying the judges (I don't know that there is since I've never read any of your work; and it might just be that the competition level is high in the contests you've entered). For example, many times when I read a story by someone who hasn't been writing long, the writing is "flat" (sometimes almost to the point of plodding) whether they are "showing" or "telling".

Just a thought.

ac

[__VeNoM__]

lol, so you want to read one? Although I may have said I was new, I really meant I'm new to writing for competitions. I've already finished an 80,000 word novel and working on 8 others currently, one is a quarter finished and it will be a 100,000+ word novel by the end. I've written over twelve short stories already and a lot in between so although I'm new in that I haven't been writing properly for much longer than two years, I don't think I'm at the flat stage anymore. Oh and don't think I'm trying to be defensive or anything, I'm just giving you some idea of my experience. See I find, it doesn't really matter how long you've been doing something (Given that it's over two years), what matters most is how often you do it during that time. I worked every night and some nights I would write 7,000+ words on a novel that I was really enjoying working on. Then of course there are those days when I need music to motivate me while writing.
lol Alleycat, I think you could be trusted if you read one of my short stories...I'll send one to you if you l like, then we will have a better understanding of where I'm going wrong and more importantly what your take is on what the judges want...(sigh) long sentence.

[JAlpha]

Venom,

I have won and been asked to judge a number of writing contests, and your question about what judges are looking for is a good one :)

Most writing contests use a criteria sheet for judging purposes, especially when there are multiple judges. Even in the case of a single judge, there are many many things that make one story stand out above the rest--the show don't tell adage is just one example of the time-honored criteria for developing a story with "winning" potential.

As one example of a criteria sheet I have used for judging, you might want to look at the checklist I have posted in another area of the AW cooler. http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10225

For me, the key to winning writing contests has been relentless
revision work :Headbang: addressing a multitude of story crafting points.

[__VeNoM__]

JAlpha, that is extremely useful, thanks.

Perhaps you could have a look at one of my stories and make notes on the side where you find necessary.
To be honest, in this situtation, I don't think there is a better contender for a critique than a judge. I'll be sending this one in early next year, so there is no major rush, but seeing's as I didn't even get shortlisted last year, I want to take it to them and win this time round.

Let me know, cheers.

[alleycat]

lol, so you want to read one? Although I may have said I was new, I really meant I'm new to writing for competitions. I've already finished an 80,000 word novel and working on 8 others currently, one is a quarter finished and it will be a 100,000+ word novel by the end. I've written over twelve short stories already and a lot in between so although I'm new in that I haven't been writing properly for much longer than two years, I don't think I'm at the flat stage anymore. Oh and don't think I'm trying to be defensive or anything, I'm just giving you some idea of my experience. See I find, it doesn't really matter how long you've been doing something (Given that it's over two years), what matters most is how often you do it during that time. I worked every night and some nights I would write 7,000+ words on a novel that I was really enjoying working on. Then of course there are those days when I need music to motivate me while writing.
lol Alleycat, I think you could be trusted if you read one of my short stories...I'll send one to you if you l like, then we will have a better understanding of where I'm going wrong and more importantly what your take is on what the judges want...(sigh) long sentence.
Oops, I wasn't implying that your writing was flat; only that I've seen that a lot with newer writers (and I certainly still have problems with my own writing). I was just thinking that if you were already fully aware of the maxin of "show, don't tell" that maybe it was some other problem area that was affecting how you were placing in the contests you were entering.

I'd be glad to read one of your stories and give you a personal opinion; I don't claim to be a writing expert however. Just let me know.

ac

[Jenny]

I'm lazy, so to me "show, don't tell" is a good reminder that I (as writer) should do the hard work of visualisation rather than dumping 99% of the task on the reader. Instead of telling the reader "Nancy was angry", I show them Nancy running out of the room, standing on the back veranda and screaming, maybe she even pounds the veranda railing.

Actually, my biggest problem isn't writing style or description (though I hate it, description, that is) but plot. James Ritchie said something once about plot being the biggest weakness for new writers, and he sure got that right with me. So, I guess, before you send in your story, ask if you've drawn out the tension; more than that, have you ratcheted it up?

[__VeNoM__]

lol not a problem, I'll send one soon.
I don't want you getting the wrong idea or anything, I wasn't at all angry, just thought that telling you my experience might give you a better idea on what to look for. The only reason I brought up the show, dont tell mantra, when it could be anything else is some of the feedback I've been getting from other writer's has given me the impression that I don't show enough. I think I am now though, and it's only lately that I'm experimenting with using show and tell and after you and JAlpha read one of my latest scripts I should know whether I've dealt with the problem, or whether it needs more work.
Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, he he.

[__VeNoM__]

Thanks Jen. More things to consider are always helpful.

[Zoiks_Online]

New writers seem to fall into the habit of telling and not showing. For example, "He is fat." Instead of showing that he is fat, making the reader decide if he is. For example, "He pulls through the fast food drive thru every day for lunch. He orders the same thing, a number 2, super sized with a large Coke. With correct change, he drives up to the window, saying hello to the teen at the window. After, instead of hitting the gym, he falls into a food coma only to wake up feeling more tired than he actually is." Even though it's not said, the reader can imagine this out of shape man who needs to lose weight.

As for showing and not telling, I never try to just tell. If I do tell, then I show it afterward. For example, "He is fat. He pulls through the fast food drive thru every day for lunch. He orders the same thing, a number 2, super sized with a large Coke. With correct change, he drives up to the window, saying hello to the teen at the window. After, instead of hitting the gym, he falls into a food coma only to wake up feeling more tired than he actually is."

This probably didn't answer anything. But, I just described my neighbor to you. R-r-r-roah!!!

[__VeNoM__]

New writers seem to fall into the habit of telling and not showing. For example, "He is fat." Instead of showing that he is fat, making the reader decide if he is. For example, "He pulls through the fast food drive thru every day for lunch. He orders the same thing, a number 2, super sized with a large Coke. With correct change, he drives up to the window, saying hello to the teen at the window. After, instead of hitting the gym, he falls into a food coma only to wake up feeling more tired than he actually is." Even though it's not said, the reader can imagine this out of shape man who needs to lose weight.

As for showing and not telling, I never try to just tell. If I do tell, then I show it afterward. For example, "He is fat. He pulls through the fast food drive thru every day for lunch. He orders the same thing, a number 2, super sized with a large Coke. With correct change, he drives up to the window, saying hello to the teen at the window. After, instead of hitting the gym, he falls into a food coma only to wake up feeling more tired than he actually is."

This probably didn't answer anything. But, I just described my neighbor to you. R-r-r-roah!!!

lol, funny.

Thanks for the help, Zoiks...the thing is after reading your reply, I think you write a lot like me in that area, although the only difference is, when I feel I need to show, I dont do it in any order, for example after you tell, like you do.

I think from now on, for the benefit of the writer's with the same problem, everyone should reply by telling us their our own style like Zoik did, and we can judge which we think works best from there.

Hey just an idea...

[pdr]

In case this helps anyone, some of my writing students found the following useful as they struggled with 'show don't tell'.

'When you are telling (writing) the story you are showing it to the reader.'

[__VeNoM__]

In case this helps anyone, some of my writing students found the following useful as they struggled with 'show don't tell'.

'When you are telling (writing) the story you are showing it to the reader.'

Good advice, but do you think you could elaborate?

[JAlpha]

JAlpha, that is extremely useful, thanks.

Perhaps you could have a look at one of my stories and make notes on the side where you find necessary.
To be honest, in this situtation, I don't think there is a better contender for a critique than a judge. I'll be sending this one in early next year, so there is no major rush, but seeing's as I didn't even get shortlisted last year, I want to take it to them and win this time round.

Let me know, cheers.

Venom,

You can PM me the first 500 words of your story--honestly, that's all I will need to see in order to determine if you have a piece that is a serious contender for a writing contest. Also, have you considered posting your piece in the the Share Your Work Forum?

[__VeNoM__]

Too risky, I wanted to send you the whole piece. It's only around 1900 words. Hey it's up to you though, right now I'm just transfering it from laptop to PC.

[JAlpha]

Too risky, I wanted to send you the whole piece. It's only around 1900 words. Hey it's up to you though, right now I'm just transfering it from laptop to PC.

Risky :Shrug:

[__VeNoM__]

lol sent...let me know what you think. Thanks again.

[pdr]

'When you are telling (writing) the story you are showing it to the reader.'

So my students - who are usually film buffs or keen TV watchers - hear this statement and begin to understand that 'show' means make a moving picture for the reader. They must write as if they are a camera and select their shots and describe them as they happen. (But they do understand that happen = action) We discuss their takes on this then they go away and write the rough first draft of the story's beginning. Usually around two pages.

If they have understood the analogy they will have tried to tell their story by showing what happens. We come together, read their work and discuss what makes a good opening. Impact! Then we look for examples of showing and they begin to explore the difference between showing through lots of adjectives, adverbs and static descriptions and showing through using the one perfect word or action. We check out active and passive verbs.

They go away, rewrite and write on to the mid point of their story. Doing this most of them usually find that showing is more than 'picturing' the action. It's letting the reader learn the story through the character's actions and reactions. We re-read and discuss. They discover how using the five senses and the character's inner thoughts help show the readers what is happening. They rush off to rewrite and finish their stories.

Hopefully by the time they finish most of them understand that for a writer 'showing not telling' isn't just about making pictures it's about the letting the reader 'see' the story through the actions, reaction, speech and behaviour of their main character.

The sad fact is that as a writer you only learn to understand 'Show not Tell' by actually writing lots of stories.

If you have had judges grizzling 'show don't tell' at you it might help to look at the story again and strengthen your character's inner thoughts, actions and reactions.

[__VeNoM__]

Excellent response and very useful, cheers.

[__VeNoM__]

'When you are telling (writing) the story you are showing it to the reader.'

So my students - who are usually film buffs or keen TV watchers - hear this statement and begin to understand that 'show' means make a moving picture for the reader. They must write as if they are a camera and select their shots and describe them as they happen. (But they do understand that happen = action) We discuss their takes on this then they go away and write the rough first draft of the story's beginning. Usually around two pages.

If they have understood the analogy they will have tried to tell their story by showing what happens. We come together, read their work and discuss what makes a good opening. Impact! Then we look for examples of showing and they begin to explore the difference between showing through lots of adjectives, adverbs and static descriptions and showing through using the one perfect word or action. We check out active and passive verbs.

They go away, rewrite and write on to the mid point of their story. Doing this most of them usually find that showing is more than 'picturing' the action. It's letting the reader learn the story through the character's actions and reactions. We re-read and discuss. They discover how using the five senses and the character's inner thoughts help show the readers what is happening. They rush off to rewrite and finish their stories.

Hopefully by the time they finish most of them understand that for a writer 'showing not telling' isn't just about making pictures it's about the letting the reader 'see' the story through the actions, reaction, speech and behaviour of their main character.

The sad fact is that as a writer you only learn to understand 'Show not Tell' by actually writing lots of stories.

If you have had judges grizzling 'show don't tell' at you it might help to look at the story again and strengthen your character's inner thoughts, actions and reactions.

Great response.

[Jamesaritchie]

There are times to show, and times to tell. Show is almost always the right choice. You tell when something really isn't important enough to show, or when the scene is simply a retelling of previous action.

It's seldom possible to go wrong with show. The real problem comes when new writers don't understand the difference between show and tell. Show can be subtle, and tell can be descriptive.

The thing to remember is that if readers aren't seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and feeling what you write, your writing isn't going to please very many people, judges included.

[trumancoyote]

New writers seem to fall into the habit of telling and not showing. For example, "He is fat." Instead of showing that he is fat, making the reader decide if he is. For example, "He pulls through the fast food drive thru every day for lunch. He orders the same thing, a number 2, super sized with a large Coke. With correct change, he drives up to the window, saying hello to the teen at the window. After, instead of hitting the gym, he falls into a food coma only to wake up feeling more tired than he actually is." Even though it's not said, the reader can imagine this out of shape man who needs to lose weight.

I do this almost every day, too, and I'd like to think I'm skinnier than most.

[__VeNoM__]

There are times to show, and times to tell. Show is almost always the right choice. You tell when something really isn't important enough to show, or when the scene is simply a retelling of previous action.

It's seldom possible to go wrong with show. The real problem comes when new writers don't understand the difference between show and tell. Show can be subtle, and tell can be descriptive.

The thing to remember is that if readers aren't seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, and feeling what you write, your writing isn't going to please very many people, judges included.

Good point James, but the only problem I can find with that, is why you would bother writing anything when...

something really isn't important enough to show.

Why include it at all. Good point though.

I do this almost every day, too, and I'd like to think I'm skinnier than most.

lol truman, that's a worry.

[Birol]

Quote:
something really isn't important enough to show, or when the scene is simply a retelling of previous action.


Why include it at all. Good point though.

Sometimes, you have to create a bridge from Point A to Point B to move the story along. What happens between Point A and Point B isn't important, but you have to have a brief transition or else you risk confusing the reader and/or losing the flow of the story.

As for retelling, I can immediately think of two very good reasons to do this. The first possibility is you have to retell it in order to refresh the reader's memory, so they don't have to flip back to the previous scene. Just a line or two to recall the events in their mind. This would happen most often in longer works. (What constitutes a longer work, I leave for you to determine.) The second possibility is that one character is bringing another character up to speed.

For instance, we were with Character A when the building blew up and they barely escaped with their life. We felt their panic when they discovered the bomb, knew their fear as they realized they couldn't possibly get everyone out in time, heard the explosion, felt the shards of brick and glass cutting into their flesh. Later, when they are kneeling on the ground, panting for breath, bleeding from various small cuts, Character B runs up and says, "What happened? Are you okay?" Rather than rehashing, everything that just occurred, the writer simply says something like, "In between ragged breaths, Character A told Character B about the bomb and the explosion. When he was done, Character A leaned forward and kissed the pavement."

[__VeNoM__]

First of all, there was nothing wrong with that respone full stop. Nice example too.

About the retelling, I never had a problem with it (in fact I use it all the time), I was merely pointing out the fact that if something isn't worthy of "showing" then why worthy of "telling"? Retelling aside...

[Jamesaritchie]

Good point James, but the only problem I can find with that, is why you would bother writing anything when...



Why include it at all. Good point though.



lol truman, that's a worry.

Sometimes you have to include briges/transitions, or just a mention of past events that the story needs for structure, but that aren't part of the action. Telling often works best for these things.

I do think you can get very technical about when to show and when to tell, and probably be right in doing so, but I also believe that "feel" is important, and the more you write, the more you just do what "feels" right.

It works this way with me, at least. The longer I'm a writer, the more I use show or tell automatically, and at places where I wouldn't have done so in the past, and I do so just because it feels right.

[__VeNoM__]

Sometimes you have to include briges/transitions, or just a mention of past events that the story needs for structure, but that aren't part of the action. Telling often works best for these things.

I do think you can get very technical about when to show and when to tell, and probably be right in doing so, but I also believe that "feel" is important, and the more you write, the more you just do what "feels" right.

It works this way with me, at least. The longer I'm a writer, the more I use show or tell automatically, and at places where I wouldn't have done so in the past, and I do so just because it feels right.

That's definately true, I'm just starting to get that feel these days after just over 2 years.

[_AnT1c_]

Sometimes you have to include briges/transitions, or just a mention of past events that the story needs for structure, but that aren't part of the action. Telling often works best for these things.

I do think you can get very technical about when to show and when to tell, and probably be right in doing so, but I also believe that "feel" is important, and the more you write, the more you just do what "feels" right.

It works this way with me, at least. The longer I'm a writer, the more I use show or tell automatically, and at places where I wouldn't have done so in the past, and I do so just because it feels right.

There's a lot to be said for the occasional telling, such as a faster pace, or higher, more direct impact. Showing is a great tool for writers, but personally I can't stand being told somthing is wrong simply because it is telling rather than showing. I have been writing for several years, and have experienced some success in short story competitions, and to me, it really comes down to what reads and sounds the best. Generally I find it is best to show, but if showing reads awkwardly, tell. If telling is too direct and dry, make the effort to show. It works for me, anyway.

[Jamesaritchie]

There's a lot to be said for the occasional telling, such as a faster pace, or higher, more direct impact. Showing is a great tool for writers, but personally I can't stand being told somthing is wrong simply because it is telling rather than showing. I have been writing for several years, and have experienced some success in short story competitions, and to me, it really comes down to what reads and sounds the best. Generally I find it is best to show, but if showing reads awkwardly, tell. If telling is too direct and dry, make the effort to show. It works for me, anyway.

Well, if showing reads awkwardly, my first choice would be to rewrite the show. There's never a need for show to read awkwardly. If it does, poor writing is the problem, not the fact that it's show.

[Birol]

I think it depends on what is meant by reading awkwardly, James. It could read awkwardly or forced or slow if it's not right for the story, if you're trying to provide more information than is really needed.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think it depends on what is meant by reading awkwardly, James. It could read awkwardly or forced or slow if it's not right for the story, if you're trying to provide more information than is really needed.

True enough. But I think anything can be written brilliantly, whether needed or not. But on the whole, I think you're right. If it really isn't needed, that's probably the time to use tell.

[__VeNoM__]

I just think there are times when show is needed and when tell is needed, simple as that. Just because show isn't needed, it shouldn't mean tell is. Often I find, if show isn't needed, nothing is needed, so why bother with anything at all?
I am all for tell but in modern short story writing, which is the issue on this thread, I think (the judges) want tell to be kept to a bare minimum. If you feel you need it and your story can't do without it, I don't see any reason not to use it.
I'd have to say though, I think SS writing has become far too "show, don't tell" conscientious, which is why I started this thread in the first place. I mean, for years, some of the most successful authors have told, particularly with fantasty, and it's had a great result, given that they have show to back it up where necessary. My point is, I think these days, particularly with writing competitions, there is too much theory, and writing, which is meant to come from the "soul" is analysed far too much. That's just my humble opinion.

[pdr]

The problem with a short story is that it is just that - short. If you don't use enought 'show' to give the reader a good 'picture' of the main character and the events of the story then you have wasted valuable words. You can't waste a word in a short story by robbing the reader with telling what happens instead of letting the reader 'see' and 'feel' what happens.

For a judge - even if s/he only reads the short list stories - the story that stands out is one that makes a personal impact on hir emotions/feelings/thoughts. It is highly subjective. Writing that 'shows' generally has more impact.

You have some great Oz literary magazines and journals. Why don't you start marketing those stories to them. If you receive feedback and they also say 'show don't tell' then you're going to have do a bit of re-writing.

[Jamesaritchie]

I mean, for years, some of the most successful authors have told, particularly with fantasty, and it's had a great result, given that they have show to back it up where necessary. My point is, I think these days, particularly with writing competitions, there is too much theory, and writing, which is meant to come from the "soul" is analysed far too much. That's just my humble opinion.

I think some tell is necessary, but in all honesty, I haven't noticed much tell in successful fantasy novels. At least none of the fantasy writers I read use any more tell than is absolutely necessary, which isn't much. Then again, I read only half a dozen or so fantasy writers on a regular basis.

But I will say this. Part of the problem with tell is that too many writers make tell passive. Or if not passive, then flat and boring. Tell doesn't have to be passive, and it doesn't have to be flat. Even tell should use active language whenever possible. Active verbs can make tell read much like show, and can make all the difference.

[Zoiks_Online]

Well, if showing reads awkwardly, my first choice would be to rewrite the show. There's never a need for show to read awkwardly. If it does, poor writing is the problem, not the fact that it's show.

Sometimes it's OK to have it read awkwardly. Tom Spanbauer refers to it as "burnt tongue." It's "a way of saying something, but saying it wrong, twisting it to slow down the reader. Forcing the reader to read close, maybe read twice, not just skim along a surface of abstract images, short-cut adverbs, and clichés." This supports the eventual action you DO want the reader to get.

[Jamesaritchie]

Sometimes it's OK to have it read awkwardly. Tom Spanbauer refers to it as "burnt tongue." It's "a way of saying something, but saying it wrong, twisting it to slow down the reader. Forcing the reader to read close, maybe read twice, not just skim along a surface of abstract images, short-cut adverbs, and clichés." This supports the eventual action you DO want the reader to get.

Interesting. But if a writer does that to me once too often, I stop reading and look for another book.

[johnnysannie]

Amen to that! If something reads too awkwardly, whether it's a newspaper article, something in a magazine, or fiction, I give it up.

[Birol]

I agree with James and Johnnysannie.

[PeeDee]

I believe it was William Strunk who said that when it comes to writing, you can do anything you want...but unless you are sure of doing well, it is best to adhere to the rules.

I think this is pretty smart advice. Telling is useful, just like an adverb is useful or a long and winding recap is useful. That is to say, it's useful sparing, it's useful when you're aware that you're using a risky technique, and it's useful when you have the eyes to look at it and say "What about it? Is it interesting? Or does it stumble?"

I've used methods of telling successfully in past stories, over the past 10-ish years of heavy writing I've been doing. I've also used it very badly. Usually, I find myself telling if I don't connect with the characters, or I'm writing a scene that's laid out in my head, but I don't find a spark when I start writing it. Mostly when I'm tired, but it happens otherwise.

I tried to scrounge up a short story I wrote a few years back called "Mary Pretends," which was a grimly disturbing look at a peaceful, sunny day in the life of the young child Mary. It was a dark story. It was also almost entirely "told" rather than shown because in order to show, I would have had to give away the one key piece of information that, from Mary's point of view, we (the readers) did not have which would in turn make the whole story make sense. If I had shown, I would have left this out, and I didn't want to do that. It's perilous to tell, but it's far beyond perilous to lie to the reader. Remember the adage that if a gun goes off in act 3, it must be shown on the mantel in act 1. This is showing.

Plus, I got to tell the story in a voice that see-sawed between happy and innocent, and a slight twist on the same voice which made you think that yes, Mary is happy...but there is something not right in this picture. It's the sense of unease that I use telling to evoke.

(*grumble*....wish I could find the story, would love to post it and show...*grumble*)

My suggestion is, be aware of when you show and when you tell. When you do something a bit more tricky like telling a story rather than showing it, pay careful attention when you give it to whatever readers to seek your first input and thoughts from. Dont' necessarily tell them that's what they're reading for ("In this story I tell a lot of stuff, I don't show. What do you think?" rather than asking that, see if they say anything. If anyone says "It feels too much like you're just...telling...me this story," then you may have a problem. If no one says a word on the matter, it may be just fine.

er...I babbled, sorry. Nothing makes me chattier than talking about writing. :) Hope it's vaugely useful.

[__VeNoM__]

PeeDee I believe it was William Strunk who said that when it comes to writing, you can do anything you want...but unless you are sure of doing well, it is best to adhere to the rules.

I think this is pretty smart advice. Telling is useful, just like an adverb is useful or a long and winding recap is useful. That is to say, it's useful sparing, it's useful when you're aware that you're using a risky technique, and it's useful when you have the eyes to look at it and say "What about it? Is it interesting? Or does it stumble?"

I've used methods of telling successfully in past stories, over the past 10-ish years of heavy writing I've been doing. I've also used it very badly. Usually, I find myself telling if I don't connect with the characters, or I'm writing a scene that's laid out in my head, but I don't find a spark when I start writing it. Mostly when I'm tired, but it happens otherwise.

I tried to scrounge up a short story I wrote a few years back called "Mary Pretends," which was a grimly disturbing look at a peaceful, sunny day in the life of the young child Mary. It was a dark story. It was also almost entirely "told" rather than shown because in order to show, I would have had to give away the one key piece of information that, from Mary's point of view, we (the readers) did not have which would in turn make the whole story make sense. If I had shown, I would have left this out, and I didn't want to do that. It's perilous to tell, but it's far beyond perilous to lie to the reader. Remember the adage that if a gun goes off in act 3, it must be shown on the mantel in act 1. This is showing.

Plus, I got to tell the story in a voice that see-sawed between happy and innocent, and a slight twist on the same voice which made you think that yes, Mary is happy...but there is something not right in this picture. It's the sense of unease that I use telling to evoke.

(*grumble*....wish I could find the story, would love to post it and show...*grumble*)

My suggestion is, be aware of when you show and when you tell. When you do something a bit more tricky like telling a story rather than showing it, pay careful attention when you give it to whatever readers to seek your first input and thoughts from. Dont' necessarily tell them that's what they're reading for ("In this story I tell a lot of stuff, I don't show. What do you think?" rather than asking that, see if they say anything. If anyone says "It feels too much like you're just...telling...me this story," then you may have a problem. If no one says a word on the matter, it may be just fine.

er...I babbled, sorry. Nothing makes me chattier than talking about writing. :) Hope it's vaugely useful.

So Basically, you think telling can work? Good suggestion though, to be aware of when you show and when you tell. Some people have that problem and they race through the story trying to meet a deadline, but realise it had no chance of winning in a SS comp as it wasn't descriptive enough and doesn't paint a picture for the reader. In other words, there was no show.
The thing is though Pee, your short story "Mary Pretends" sounds as if it worked, and you said it was basically just telling.
The way I see it, this is a good example of when to show and when to tell. As William Strunk said, "when it comes to writing, you can do anything you want...but unless you are sure of doing well, it is best to adhere to the rules." Although it may leave out a couple of things, I've definately seen worse advice.

[PeeDee]

I think that William Strunk and E.B. White's "The Elements of Style" is an important book to read, if not necessarily follow to the letter. It's also fun to then read Stephen King's "On Writing" and look at him interpreting it.

If you want to to tell, tell. See how it works. Just be aware that it may very well not. Something else I've encountered in various stories throughout the years (my own and other people's equally) is that the first draft will just tell, whereas the second draft will really show. That's fine. You're nailing your story down in the first draft, but since you're still discovering your characters, your story, your pace, your tone, etc. you wind up "telling" the story in a form that could easily be boiled down into "Notes On StoryTitle." But as you write it, you gain little insights into your character, into your world. You realize things are grim, your guy has a sense of humor but it's bleak, and your tone for the story is frantic, scared, and not at all happy to be talking about these events. Lo and behold, the second draft comes around and you're writing with style, with dialogue, and you're showing.

One interesting writer to read on this matter is Harlan Ellison. If you can get your hands on "The Complete Ellison" or, heck, any short stories of his, read them for pleasure fifteen times or so, then go back and look at how he writes it. He will just tell you a story and it'll break your heart. Then, next, he'll show you a beautiful story so aptly, you feel like you're looking into a window.
(And then he'll swear in a delightfully crusty way at you until your ears are bleeding, but that's neither here nor there.)

What a cool subject. I've been stewing about this all night.

[__VeNoM__]

I think some tell is necessary, but in all honesty, I haven't noticed much tell in successful fantasy novels. At least none of the fantasy writers I read use any more tell than is absolutely necessary, which isn't much. Then again, I read only half a dozen or so fantasy writers on a regular basis.

But I will say this. Part of the problem with tell is that too many writers make tell passive. Or if not passive, then flat and boring.

Okay, maybe I didn't make myself clear James. More than anything I was just trying to get the point across that for years, novelists have used much more tell than they do now and they were still best seller's. Even today, author's use a fair amount of tell in some of their books, but recently I think there's been this misconception that show is everything in a short story. I know that's the way where I come from anyway. There's too much emphasis on it, and you can just know that while reading your story, the judges will be looking for show as close to number one criteria. If they can't find enough of it...the actual story, which was once the point in the first place, is forgotten or neglected.

And James, about fantasy writer's, if you read them enough, you begin to see that the book goes through stages, eg: a lot of show and descriptive wordage at first, then they often go into a narrative phase where the author talks about the history of the setting...and this can go on for a fair while in some fantasy books, or at least the ones I've read.
Put it this way, every fantasy book I've read has followed the sequence I just mentioned. And going back to my first point, I just think that there is far more show these days than tell and in short story's, "tell" as almost been outlawed.

Tell doesn't have to be passive, and it doesn't have to be flat. Even tell should use active language whenever possible. Active verbs can make tell read much like show, and can make all the difference.

No arguments here, good point.

[PeeDee]

I agree, with regards to fantasy writing. My wife enjoys it quite a lot, so I've always tried to delve in, but with little success. Robert Jordan and Terry Goodkind are particular bothers for me (I could talk about Goodkind's writing for hours, and my bloodpressure would riiiiise...) but it happens so much, I wind up stepping away from fantasy again.

Then there's fantastic works of fantasy like "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell" by Susanna Clarke. Incredible book. Stephen King's Dark Tower series (say what you will for the storyline) does a good job with the world, the characters, and moving the storyline along...and I think that's partially because he came from horror first, where if you bog down the reader in details, he's too bored and brain-dead to be properly scared when your Clown comes out of the gutters.

Good fantasy, for me should read almost like poetry. That's why Tolkien works. That's why, when Bradbury does fantasy (he did little, but he did some) it reads smoothly. It should flow and ebb, it should border on being a ballad sung by some bard in distant lands, years ago. I read that without hesitation. However, if the middle 600 pages of your book read like an encyclopedia entry, I don't know what to do with your bricklike book except perhaps stun a burglar with it. :D

[pdr]

Look at these two quotes of yours from your last two post VeNoM please.

'it wasn't descriptive enough and doesn't paint a picture for the reader. In other words, there was no show.'
AND
'...a lot of show and descriptive wordage at first,...'

I am reading you correctly? You seem to think that 'Show' is bits of pretty description and painting pictures.

I will repeat myself again:

'...that showing is more than 'picturing' the action. It's letting the reader learn the story through the character's actions and reactions.'
AND
'...for a writer 'showing not telling' isn't just about making pictures it's about the letting the reader 'see' the story through the actions, reaction, speech and behaviour of their main character.'

Until you take that on board you will be doing the young male writer's classic trick which is to gallop along telling the story without letting the reader experience it. Until you see that the plot is only one part of what a reader wants from a story you will be telling and not showing.

[__VeNoM__]

I haven't got time for a big response PDR, but I do understand show, and yes I knew and have known for some time what the difference between show and tell is. When I said 'it wasn't descriptive enough and doesn't paint a picture for the reader," that was just a simple example of what show can involve. Don't worry, I know that show is giving the reader the ability to "learn the story through the character's actions and reactions."
Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, I don't often proof read my posts, but I also know that it isn't simply about descriptive words and painting a picture for the reader...I used it as an example simply because they are all part of show. As a basic rule for show (which I have researched before), the reader has to be able to picture what is going on, which is where I brought in the example of show painting a picture for the reader...
Sorry if I was confusing. Need more sleep.
Bottom line, I do understand show and tell as much as any writer who's been writing as long as I have, but what I couldn't do properly was know where to draw the line and more importantly, what the judges in SS comps are looking for in relation to this topic.
lol, you made me write a big response anyway.

[__VeNoM__]

One more thing PDR, perhaps you would like to read a snippet of some of my work, that way we could lay it to rest.

[__VeNoM__]

lol, there's one thing I overlooked PDR.

Until you take that on board you will be doing the young male writer's classic trick which is to gallop along telling the story without letting the reader experience it. Until you see that the plot is only one part of what a reader wants from a story you will be telling and not showing.

lol, number one, what gives you the impression I'm a young male? For all you know, I could be a thirty year old guy that likes snowboarding and life on the edge. I mean that is where you got the idea isn't it?

Number two, I don't gallop along telling the story without letting the reader experience it. No one who has ever read my work has said this, I was just looking for some assistance on this site, which appears to be full of very intelligent and experienced writer's on a couple of areas regarding SS competition's.

Until you see that the plot is only one part of what a reader wants from a story you will be telling and not showing.

lol thanks for the advice, I enjoyed this debate.

[Jamesaritchie]

Look at these two quotes of yours from your last two post VeNoM please.

'it wasn't descriptive enough and doesn't paint a picture for the reader. In other words, there was no show.'
AND
'...a lot of show and descriptive wordage at first,...'

I am reading you correctly? You seem to think that 'Show' is bits of pretty description and painting pictures.

I will repeat myself again:

'...that showing is more than 'picturing' the action. It's letting the reader learn the story through the character's actions and reactions.'
AND
'...for a writer 'showing not telling' isn't just about making pictures it's about the letting the reader 'see' the story through the actions, reaction, speech and behaviour of their main character.'

Until you take that on board you will be doing the young male writer's classic trick which is to gallop along telling the story without letting the reader experience it. Until you see that the plot is only one part of what a reader wants from a story you will be telling and not showing.

Show, of course, is both painting pictures, AND protraying character action and reaction is the right way. I do find that most yuou writers fail the tell test with character action and reaction. Painting good description seems to come more naturally.

A large part of character action and reaction drifts over into active versus passive writing. Too many new writers use passive writing to protray character action and reaction. Active writing tends to take care of show where this is concerned, but many new writers have a real problem understanding the difference between active and passive.

[maestrowork]

I think someone once said: "Action is story."

Show vs. tell basically means: don't tell me he's angry, show me. Don't tell me he's sad, show me. Don't tell me she's beautiful, show me. Don't tell me Hurrican Katrina is devastating, show me.

Of course, there are times when you just have to tell. To know how to show and tell is the art of writing stories. To strike a good balance is mastery.

The key here is to pull the readers into your story, and keep them there. Show vs. tell is merely a tool to do just that.

Show is always more interesting and evocative than tell.

[PeeDee]

I don't think that show can be used alone, apart from tell, nor the other way around. They complement each other. Sometimes.

If you had a very impressive scene destroying someone we'd built up an interest in, followed by what we hope would be a moving death scene (I'm being sparse; fill in your favorite death scene here.) The directly after, you could end it with, "And he was dead."

This is telling. It's minimalist. It's the trick of the camera pulling back from the scene that just broke our heart.

...BUT it's not necessarily useful. We have just seen, previously, that this character we love has been shot through the heart, has fallen into our main character's arms, his eyes have fluttered shut, his breathing has faded. We know he's dead, dont' we? Sure we do. Which-case, putting "And he was dead," goes from being minimalist to being redundancy.

There's probably a reason there are scads and scads of books out there about writing. It's messy stuff. I figure, write anything you like, any way you like, so long as it feels good while you're doing it. Just be fully aware that all of it is sacrificial to the good reading experience. If your artsy death scene loses the reader, consistently, then it doesn't matter how much you love it. Kill it.

I think when pdr was referring to young male writer, he meant a writer who writes for young males, as in Tom Swift, "choose your own adventure," Hardy Boys, that sort of thing. Though I think the comparison may pale when you look at some of the impressive writers currently turning out YA fiction; Eoin Colfer (butchered his name!), J.K. Rowling, Clive Barker, Daniel Handler, etc. Still, I get his point.

[__VeNoM__]

Show, of course, is both painting pictures, AND protraying character action and reaction is the right way. I do find that most yuou writers fail the tell test with character action and reaction. Painting good description seems to come more naturally.

A large part of character action and reaction drifts over into active versus passive writing. Too many new writers use passive writing to protray character action and reaction. Active writing tends to take care of show where this is concerned, but many new writers have a real problem understanding the difference between active and passive

As of about six months ago, I had that problem. Good response.

[__VeNoM__]

I think someone once said: "Action is story."

Show vs. tell basically means: don't tell me he's angry, show me. Don't tell me he's sad, show me. Don't tell me she's beautiful, show me. Don't tell me Hurrican Katrina is devastating, show me.

Of course, there are times when you just have to tell. To know how to show and tell is the art of writing stories. To strike a good balance is mastery.

The key here is to pull the readers into your story, and keep them there. Show vs. tell is merely a tool to do just that.

Show is always more interesting and evocative than tell.

Exactly. And to strike a good balance is mastery. But do you think anyone can ever be perfect in knowing when/how to show and tell?

[__VeNoM__]

If you had a very impressive scene destroying someone we'd built up an interest in, followed by what we hope would be a moving death scene (I'm being sparse; fill in your favorite death scene here.) The directly after, you could end it with, "And he was dead."

I learnt to do this through Matthew Reilly, and I only ever use it to leave the reader knowing that a character is dead...then it turns out later that they had a way of escape etc when another main character meets up with him/her days later...I just think (and so do another few million readers) that it leaves a reader wondering whether that main character could be dead or not...It's also a change from the usual James Bond scenario, where he escapes directly after being caught, same with Harry Potter.
Both are good books/movies however.
Anyway I think it's a useful technique, but it should be kept to a bare minimum, like swearing...if you do it too often it loses meaning.

I don't think that show can be used alone, apart from tell, nor the other way around. They complement each other. Sometimes.

I agree.

[pdr]

or they'll be spat back!
Insert silly smiley thing here to know I'm joking.

Don't have much time to spend on message boards so there's usually a lag in my replies.

Seriously Pete, pdr are the initials of my name and I'm actually female and no, I wasn't talking about one who writes for young men!

My comment about young male writers is something I've discovered for myself. In one life I'm an English prof and in another life I teach writing skills to writers. I have done so for years and dealt with many young men and so feel free to make a few generalisations knowing that they are generalisations.

I said: Until you take that on board you will be doing the young male writer's classic trick which is to gallop along telling the story without letting the reader experience it.

Young male writers at the beginning of their writing career often have difficulty learning to balance their plot with all the other necessary story ingredients. Often their stories tell an exciting tale but at the expense of their characters and they don't allow the reader to experience what is happening. They are nearly all 'tell'.

If you re-read what I wrote you will see I did not say VeNoM was a young man I said he would be doing the young man's trick. He sounds male, he may be young, I don't know. He certainly was not insulted by my comments. He's Oz, and they are not noted for reticence and he's a near neighbour so I don't think he's upset. If I'd wanted to get up his nose I'd have asked him who won the Bledisloe and the Tri Nations? Then ducked!
And hey! If VeNoM is thirty that looks young to me at my great age.

Sure I'll read a story VeNoM. And crit it nicely for you as I would do when I'm judging Short Story Comps. As I usually charge $50 an hour to do this I'll expect you to pay me by NOT making comments about the NZ cricket team and I won't ask who lost the Ashes either.

Meanwhile if you are concerned about winning short story comps I have a writer friend who does this often but she has a rigorous method for doing so. If you'd like to know what she does reply to this post and I'll try to get all the information condensed to send to you or post here.

[__VeNoM__]

or they'll be spat back!
Insert silly smiley thing here to know I'm joking.

Don't have much time to spend on message boards so there's usually a lag in my replies.

Seriously Pete, pdr are the initials of my name and I'm actually female and no, I wasn't talking about one who writes for young men!

My comment about young male writers is something I've discovered for myself. In one life I'm an English prof and in another life I teach writing skills to writers. I have done so for years and dealt with many young men and so feel free to make a few generalisations knowing that they are generalisations.

I said: Until you take that on board you will be doing the young male writer's classic trick which is to gallop along telling the story without letting the reader experience it.

Young male writers at the beginning of their writing career often have difficulty learning to balance their plot with all the other necessary story ingredients. Often their stories tell an exciting tale but at the expense of their characters and they don't allow the reader to experience what is happening. They are nearly all 'tell'.

If you re-read what I wrote you will see I did not say VeNoM was a young man I said he would be doing the young man's trick. He sounds male, he may be young, I don't know. He certainly was not insulted by my comments. He's Oz, and they are not noted for reticence and he's a near neighbour so I don't think he's upset. If I'd wanted to get up his nose I'd have asked him who won the Bledisloe and the Tri Nations? Then ducked!
And hey! If VeNoM is thirty that looks young to me at my great age.

Sure I'll read a story VeNoM. And crit it nicely for you as I would do when I'm judging Short Story Comps. As I usually charge $50 an hour to do this I'll expect you to pay me by NOT making comments about the NZ cricket team and I won't ask who lost the Ashes either.

Meanwhile if you are concerned about winning short story comps I have a writer friend who does this often but she has a rigorous method for doing so. If you'd like to know what she does reply to this post and I'll try to get all the information condensed to send to you or post here.

lol where to begin...

First of all, the majority of aussies don't care about rugby, infact it's mostly just the QLD'ers. Me personally, not a care in the world.

Now to cricket...
Well the way I see it, we have held the ashes for sixteen years...so I think we should stay away from there. Not only this but we've been the world number 1 for some time now. Hmm, the only reason I didn't mention the NZ cricket team is that I think you could be helpful.
Being an english prof and SS judge, I think I would have to be a Kiwi to say no.

Okay in all seriousness now. I like NZ'ers and certainly plan to go there one day.
Well I've replied, and I'm definately interested in what your friend does. Thanks for thinking of it.

Now...down to business. I only said.
I think I would have to be a Kiwi to say no.

as a result of this little Freudian slip here...

and I won't ask who lost the Ashes either.

lol it's been fun.

[pdr]

Agreed, VeNoM. That was fun! Nothing like a bit of Trans-Tasman banter! I think we baffled our American hosts into a stunned silence.

Here are a few handy hints for winning the larger and major short story competitions.

1. KNOW your competition.
This means you have read all the small print and understand who is organising the comp and why.

This affects the type of story that will win. E.g. A Red Cross comp will choose something different from a literary luminary's comp.

2. READ all the previous prizewinners.
You can usually find a website or prizewinners' book with the winning stories. Careful study and analysis of the winning stories is very helpful.

It's no use entering a comp if you can't write the style of story that wins.

3. KNOW the rules.
This is so obvious yet so many writers ignore it. Many competitions have a few quirky rules. E.g. Paperclips and not staples or two cover sheets with all your details.

Failure to do these things is not following the rules and disqualifies your story.

4. KNOW what the competition wants in the way of a short story.
In the advertising for the competition the organisers will say what they are looking for in their winner. It may be something like: 'We hope to offer writers a chance to write cutting edge experimental work.' Or it could be: 'We are looking for readable literary work in the style of xyz.'

Take it on board. If you hate xyz's writing or don't write experimental stuff then don't enter.

5. KNOW thejudging system.
Are the stories read by a short listing committee and then selected for a short list for a judge or judges to read?

You are aiming for the short list. It is easy to achieve when there is more than one judge. Perhaps you want to limit your entries to comps with several judges?

Does one judge read them all?

This type of competition depends very much more on one individual's personal tatste.

Is there a panel of judges who read them all?

Again you have a better chance with a group doing the choosing and here your professional presentation will give you an edge.

6. RESEARCH your judge or judges.
Who are they? What do they write? What have they chosen before in other competitions? What have they written as their judges' comments for other competitions?

Read some of their short stories. Study and analysis their comments and writing to give you an understanding of what they like.

7. PRESENTATION
If you've done all the study don't let yourself down with sloppy presentation.
This means perfect grammar where it's needed, spelling and appearance.
Good crisp white paper. Nice sharp black print, a standard professional font in a good readable 12 or 13.

8. ORIGINALITY
Competitions are where the original/unusual plot and characters really give you an edge.
Think about it. The judge(s) face(s) a lot of reading. What makes an impact is something that is different from all the others.
This is where knowing your judge's preferences can really help. Give hir a story on a topic s/he likes but with such a different take on the idea that the judge is delighted.

9. BUT...
None of this works unless you have written what you feel is your best short story and entered it in a competition that fits you and your work.

[PeeDee]

Seriously Pete, pdr are the initials of my name and I'm actually female and no, I wasn't talking about one who writes for young men!

My comment about young male writers is something I've discovered for myself. In one life I'm an English prof and in another life I teach writing skills to writers. I have done so for years and dealt with many young men and so feel free to make a few generalisations knowing that they are generalisations.

I said: Until you take that on board you will be doing the young male writer's classic trick which is to gallop along telling the story without letting the reader experience it.

Young male writers at the beginning of their writing career often have difficulty learning to balance their plot with all the other necessary story ingredients. Often their stories tell an exciting tale but at the expense of their characters and they don't allow the reader to experience what is happening. They are nearly all 'tell'.

If you re-read what I wrote you will see I did not say VeNoM was a young man I said he would be doing the young man's trick. He sounds male, he may be young, I don't know. He certainly was not insulted by my comments. He's Oz, and they are not noted for reticence and he's a near neighbour so I don't think he's upset.

Er, puzzled me a bit there. I'm sure pdr is in fact your initials (mine are pdt, if that helps any :) ) And I don't believe I stated that you were a male yourself, oung or otherwise. For that matter, I don't necessarily think that VeNoM happened to be one way or another. Honestly hadn't occured to me. What I got out of your comment was that you were referring to stories written for young males (such as the references I made). If you meant otherwise, apologies. I calls 'em as I sees 'em, but I am sometimes squinting. :D

[PeeDee]

By the by, I meant to add that I just printed out your list up there, pdr, and put it in one of my reference folders. Fine advice. Good stuff.

G'night.

[__VeNoM__]

Agreed, VeNoM. That was fun! Nothing like a bit of Trans-Tasman banter! I think we baffled our American hosts into a stunned silence.

lol...it's about time they were silent. Seen the amazing race?

Just kidding.

I'll get straight to the point. This I know already...

1. KNOW your competition.
This means you have read all the small print and understand who is organising the comp and why.

This affects the type of story that will win. E.g. A Red Cross comp will choose something different from a literary luminary's comp.

2. READ all the previous prizewinners.
You can usually find a website or prizewinners' book with the winning stories. Careful study and analysis of the winning stories is very helpful.

It's no use entering a comp if you can't write the style of story that wins.

3. KNOW the rules.
This is so obvious yet so many writers ignore it. Many competitions have a few quirky rules. E.g. Paperclips and not staples or two cover sheets with all your details.

Failure to do these things is not following the rules and disqualifies your story.

4. KNOW what the competition wants in the way of a short story.
In the advertising for the competition the organisers will say what they are looking for in their winner. It may be something like: 'We hope to offer writers a chance to write cutting edge experimental work.' Or it could be: 'We are looking for readable literary work in the style of xyz.'

Take it on board. If you hate xyz's writing or don't write experimental stuff then don't enter.

8. ORIGINALITY
Competitions are where the original/unusual plot and characters really give you an edge.
Think about it. The judge(s) face(s) a lot of reading. What makes an impact is something that is different from all the others.
This is where knowing your judge's preferences can really help. Give hir a story on a topic s/he likes but with such a different take on the idea that the judge is delighted.

This I know, but don't utilize enough...

6. RESEARCH your judge or judges.
Who are they? What do they write? What have they chosen before in other competitions? What have they written as their judges' comments for other competitions?

Read some of their short stories. Study and analysis their comments and writing to give you an understanding of what they like.

7. PRESENTATION
If you've done all the study don't let yourself down with sloppy presentation.
This means perfect grammar where it's needed, spelling and appearance.
Good crisp white paper. Nice sharp black print, a standard professional font in a good readable 12 or 13.


It's also very hard to get any information on small time judges.

This I don't...

5. KNOW thejudging system.
Are the stories read by a short listing committee and then selected for a short list for a judge or judges to read?

You are aiming for the short list. It is easy to achieve when there is more than one judge. Perhaps you want to limit your entries to comps with several judges?

Does one judge read them all?

This type of competition depends very much more on one individual's personal tatste.

Is there a panel of judges who read them all?

Again you have a better chance with a group doing the choosing and here your professional presentation will give you an edge.

It's something that is hard to find out, but I suppose where there is a will there is a way.

Cheers for the help.

[cattywampus]

Whew! I don't have time to read all the posts in this thread, so at the risk of duplicating someone, I'll say this about "show, don't tell," which belongs more to publishers than writers.

Readers do not want to be told that the character is loyal/brave/stupid/ friendly, etc., they want to SEE the character doing loyal/brave/stupid/friendly acts. Let the characters demonstrate their qualities on the page.

Readers don't appreciate being told what to think, believe, accept or reject; it insults their intelligence. One reader may interpret a character's act as stupid, while another believes she acted reasonably, but that's okay and part of the appeal of fiction. That is why we are told: "What is left out is just as important as what is put in."

Another thing that insults readers' intelligence is jabberwocky, which I define as one character saying to another, "Well, Slim, as you know, we have now arrived in Tombstone..." blah, blah. Show the reader the sign, something - anything else. Three-quarters of talk in novels could be beneficially cut, IMO.

Hope this helps. If it doesn't, you'll get your money back.

[_AnT1c_]

Well, if showing reads awkwardly, my first choice would be to rewrite the show. There's never a need for show to read awkwardly. If it does, poor writing is the problem, not the fact that it's show. Of course there is always room for improvment in the way somthing is writen, whether it be showing or telling, but my argument is, in some cases, the very act of trying to show somthing can slow the pace of a story, making the reader stumble unnecessarily. You're right that the "show" itself need not read awkwardly, but even the most elequently written peice of showing can be awkward in the wrong circumstances.

[Jamesaritchie]

Of course there is always room for improvment in the way somthing is writen, whether it be showing or telling, but my argument is, in some cases, the very act of trying to show somthing can slow the pace of a story, making the reader stumble unnecessarily. You're right that the "show" itself need not read awkwardly, but even the most elequently written peice of showing can be awkward in the wrong circumstances.

True enough, and there are times when tell should be used over show. But those times are rare, and almost never occur with action, or with description. Tell, when needed, usually comes in dialogue.

Longer isn't always slower. Just the opposite. Tell takes fewer words, but often reads slower than show, depsite this. As often as not, the best way to speend up a piece of writing is to make it longer, not shorter.

And I honestly don't think I've ever seen a case when show slows the pace of a story, or makes a reader stumble. Bad writing does this, not show or tell.

[cattywampus]

I agree with James. There are times when tell trumps show, and can be handled verbally. There are also times when tell trumps show, i.e. when a lot of ground can be covered through a sentence or two: "They crossed the river that night, and after a hard morning's ride arrived in Glastonbury." If nothing of note happened during this ride - relevant to the plot or storyline - there is no need to elaborate.
If a writer will think of their plot/storyline in terms of scenes, and outline these carefully to include speech and action, the narrative separating the scenes can usually be told. Of course these narrative transitions can include speech/action but the transition should be handled as briefly as possible.

A word about description: many writers seem to think that the more details they pile on (in the purplest prose!) their descriptive passages, the better. Just the opposite is true. Confine your description to a few sentences of plain language: "He led them through a dark room that smelled heavily of raw onions to a large hall painted in shades of green." The "telling" detail is the one that reverberates in the reader's mind. I have long used the example: "He was the kind of man who would spend a pleasant half-hour in the bathroom, removing the hairs in his nose." Especially for a minor character, that tells you all you need to know about the guy. That's a telling detail. "It looked like a house that would attract ghosts."

Another word about description: there should be sensory information (sight, sound, smells, touch, sensation (hot, cold, pain, etc.), (have I left any out?) on every page. If your characters are alive, they are always conscious of these things, even if on a subliminal level. Sensory information puts the reader in the scene, allows them to experience it as deeply and vividly as the character did.

That's enough for now. Thanks for reading.

[Elwyn]

I've heard the show and tell stuff before, but never knew really what was being discussed. After reading these posts, I'm sure I've got the concept - fingers crossed.

Don't say he's stupid, show by his actions he's stupid. Correct?

However, I'd like to use dialog to prove someone's "really" stupid - or fat, or bald, or even a genius.

So, do I (finally) understand this show and tell stuff correctly?

[Birol]

Correct, Elwyn. Also, dialogue is part of showing, as long as it's not "as told to Bob" type dialogue.

[Jamesaritchie]

I've heard the show and tell stuff before, but never knew really what was being discussed. After reading these posts, I'm sure I've got the concept - fingers crossed.

Don't say he's stupid, show by his actions he's stupid. Correct?

However, I'd like to use dialog to prove someone's "really" stupid - or fat, or bald, or even a genius.

So, do I (finally) understand this show and tell stuff correctly?

Sounds like you've got it. You can show someone is stupid through his actions, or through his comments.

[Jamesaritchie]

I agree with James. There are times when tell trumps show, and can be handled verbally. There are also times when tell trumps show, i.e. when a lot of ground can be covered through a sentence or two: "They crossed the river that night, and after a hard morning's ride arrived in Glastonbury." If nothing of note happened during this ride - relevant to the plot or storyline - there is no need to elaborate.
If a writer will think of their plot/storyline in terms of scenes, and outline these carefully to include speech and action, the narrative separating the scenes can usually be told. Of course these narrative transitions can include speech/action but the transition should be handled as briefly as possible.

A word about description: many writers seem to think that the more details they pile on (in the purplest prose!) their descriptive passages, the better. Just the opposite is true. Confine your description to a few sentences of plain language: "He led them through a dark room that smelled heavily of raw onions to a large hall painted in shades of green." The "telling" detail is the one that reverberates in the reader's mind. I have long used the example: "He was the kind of man who would spend a pleasant half-hour in the bathroom, removing the hairs in his nose." Especially for a minor character, that tells you all you need to know about the guy. That's a telling detail. "It looked like a house that would attract ghosts."

Another word about description: there should be sensory information (sight, sound, smells, touch, sensation (hot, cold, pain, etc.), (have I left any out?) on every page. If your characters are alive, they are always conscious of these things, even if on a subliminal level. Sensory information puts the reader in the scene, allows them to experience it as deeply and vividly as the character did.

That's enough for now. Thanks for reading.

This reminds me of somethinga writer friend of mine says. "A good writer paints a tree, and lets the reader paint the forest."

[__VeNoM__]

Readers don't appreciate being told what to think, believe, accept or reject; it insults their intelligence.

And there it is... It's my belief that often whether or not you win, get shortlisted or whatever in any SS, this can be the decider. They are judges afterall...and the reality is, you are not writing for your average reader. In fact I think you would probably benefit to think of judges, not as readers, but simply as judges. It's a mistake I have made (and learned from).

[_AnT1c_]

And there it is... It's my belief that often whether or not you win, get shortlisted or whatever in any SS, this can be the decider. They are judges afterall...and the reality is, you are not writing for your average reader. In fact I think you would probably benefit to think of judges, not as readers, but simply as judges. It's a mistake I have made (and learned from). Too right VeNoM, short story competitions are just that, competitions. If you want to win them, you have to write in a way that is going to win them. In many respects, these competitions are a proving ground, where success gives you the credentials and experience to take your writing further, where ever that may be for you. Certainly if you aim to get published, you have to sell yourself as an auther who can write what will be read. Less 'popular' forms or styles of writing certainly have their value, but publishing is a commercial buisiness, and short story competitions are often part of this. If the trend is that telling is considered poor writing, then success probably depends on following that trend (had to get show and tell into this post somehow!), as much following trends can be a pain.

[Jamesaritchie]

Too right VeNoM, short story competitions are just that, competitions. If you want to win them, you have to write in a way that is going to win them. In many respects, these competitions are a proving ground, where success gives you the credentials and experience to take your writing further, where ever that may be for you. Certainly if you aim to get published, you have to sell yourself as an auther who can write what will be read. Less 'popular' forms or styles of writing certainly have their value, but publishing is a commercial buisiness, and short story competitions are often part of this. If the trend is that telling is considered poor writing, then success probably depends on following that trend (had to get show and tell into this post somehow!), as much following trends can be a pain.

I believe "show" is considerably more than just a trend. Show has always been the mark of good writing, always been what readers wanted and responded to.

Following trends is generally the worst way to succeed as a writer. Following what has proven to be good writing over generations is a better way to go, and show has been around for as long as fiction itself.

By and large, however, I think 99% of all the short story competitions out there are a huge waste of time and energy, even if you win them. Worthwhile short story competitions are pretty rare, though they do exist, and a writer should be extremely selective in choosing which contests to enter.

[__VeNoM__]

I believe "show" is considerably more than just a trend. Show has always been the mark of good writing, always been what readers wanted and responded to.

Following trends is generally the worst way to succeed as a writer. Following what has proven to be good writing over generations is a better way to go, and show has been around for as long as fiction itself.

By and large, however, I think 99% of all the short story competitions out there are a huge waste of time and energy, even if you win them. Worthwhile short story competitions are pretty rare, though they do exist, and a writer should be extremely selective in choosing which contests to enter.

lol. Have you got a personal vendetta against _AnT1c_ James?

Anyway, these days I show so much that I occasionally overdo adjectives (which I have recently discovered) is possible.

Following trends is generally the worst way to succeed as a writer.

It may be a hard road to take, but I would imagine it works for some. After all, the only thing that matters for all of us is what the judges want in a modern short story.

Up until this post, I haven't found any real fault in any of your responses James. They have all been relevant and well explained.
I like "A good writer paints a tree, and lets the reader paint the forest."

It's something to remember if you're ever out of form or unable to write for a while.

However, this response.

By and large, however, I think 99% of all the short story competitions out there are a huge waste of time and energy, even if you win them.

I completely disagree. From what I would gather and from what I have read regarding how to publish, any win is a credit booster and any story that you write will add to your experience, knowledge and skill. Particularly if you win one - you are getting added confidence. And if there is one thing that I know for a fact, it's that higher confidence always triumphs over lower in anything and everything.

There is one other point that I would like to make. When a publisher is sifting through a near infinite number of proposals and/or manuscripts, I doubt very much that they will take the time to research on every short story competition that the reader succeeded in. This is why I believe strongly in the name of the short story competition being a big factor in a winner.
Then of course, you have your well knowns. Wannabbe. The Age Short Story competition etc. (These are known for Australians)

I think they are a win-win.

James, I think you should try and see _AnT1c_'s point of view on some things, as I know _AnT1c_ personally and can vouch for his ability.

[pdr]

VeNoM, for us in the Southern Hemisphere short story competitions are valuable. We have nationally recognised ones that can give a writer a boost.
We don't have so many markets and our short story competitions are recognized as a useful way for writers to be recognised.

In the USA it isn't the same and apparently there are quite a few scams. There are also many more short story markets.

[Mike Coombes]

As usual, I'm on the Ritchie bandwagon. Following trends generally means writing to this week's formula, contributing to the new generic.

There are, currently, only two writing contests I'd consider entering. There are many hundreds more that I'd run a mile from - paying to enter a contest where I've never heard of the mag, organisation, judges, etc. seems like a waste of my time and money. And the kudos of winning a contest nobody else has heard of are miniscule.

More prestigious are the awards you can't enter yourself for; Pushcarts, etc.

[mesh138]

Any book you read about writing will tell you to show and not tell. They pound this into your head. It stressed me out in the beginning too, but eventually it becomes natural. While writing a story, you type, "He was hungry," but then you stop yourself, go back, and change it to: He rubbed his stomach and looked pensively at the refrigerator. After a while, it becomes natural and you can pick when it's right to tell instead of show. If you take the rules as truth, it can wear you down. Like reading the writers magazines, don't believe everything they say in there. Take pieces that make sense and forget the rest. After all, it's your voice you're working on perfecting.

[__VeNoM__]

VeNoM, for us in the Southern Hemisphere short story competitions are valuable. We have nationally recognised ones that can give a writer a boost.
We don't have so many markets and our short story competitions are recognized as a useful way for writers to be recognised.

In the USA it isn't the same and apparently there are quite a few scams. There are also many more short story markets.

That's extreme capitalism for ya. Gotta love Australia.

As usual, I'm on the Ritchie bandwagon.

lol. If it's a bandwagon, then you're probably not interested in what we have to say anyway. I can sympathise to the fact that with all the scams etc, American SS writer's would have a tough time finding work.

I mean I thought it was bad, but not this bad. Our respective countries are very different in this area.

After a while, it becomes natural and you can pick when it's right to tell instead of show.

Already been mentioned, but it's always good to reiterate.

[__VeNoM__]

Getting back to the original topic, I'm coming to realise that there are times when show doens't work, no matter how you try and put it. This seems to be where tell comes in most, other than retelling.

I just noticed this while reading over one of my drafts the other day.

[pdr]

Hello again VeNoM,
Yes, sometimes you have to tell but don't make it a habit!
P.S.
you've missed a PM re your crit.

[__VeNoM__]

Hello again VeNoM,
Yes, sometimes you have to tell but don't make it a habit!
P.S.
you've missed a PM re your crit.


lol, I saw the PM weeks ago. I haven't recieved another one from you in at least two weeks so I'm not sure which one you mean.

Been watching the cricket Pdr? If you have you'll see that the ashes was a mistake, and we will reclaim them next time. We've gone and dominated the (rest of the) worlds best in a matter of short matches.

Just to keep this thread going for people's benefit, I think people should start giving examples of show don't tell, first in the telling version, than in the showing. Just an idea.

[Demonica]

Anyone familiar with the musical "My Fair Lady"? Eliza Doolittle has a song that she sings addressed to her blue blood but effete admirer, Freddy . that run through my head anytime someone says "show me!" Here are the lyrics. All you have to do is imagine Eliza Doolittle as your reader.

Words! Words! Words! I'm so sick of words!
I get words all day through;
First from him, now from you!
Is that all you blighters can do?
Don't talk of stars burning above;
If you're in love, Show me!
Tell me no dreams filled with desire.
If you're on fire, Show me!
Here we are together in the middle of the night!
Don't talk of spring! Just hold me tight!
Anyone who's ever been in love'll tell you that
This is no time for a chat!
Haven't your lips longed for my touch?
Don't say how much, Show me! Show me!
Don't talk of love lasting through time.
Make me no undying vow. Show me now!

Sing me no song! Read me no rhyme!
Don't waste my time, Show me!
Don't talk of June, Don't talk of fall!
Don't talk at all! Show me!
Never do I ever want to hear another word.
There isn't one I haven't heard.
Here we are together in what ought to be a dream;
Say one more word and I'll scream!
Haven't your arms hungered for mine?
Please don't "expl'ine," Show me! Show me!
Don't wait until wrinkles and lines
Pop out all over my brow,
Show me now!

[__VeNoM__]

lol, thanks demonica.

[pdr]

Be like that! (Silly smiley thing which I can't get to work inserted here!!!!)

Nope, missed the cricket, only get discussions after the event here in Japan.

[__VeNoM__]

lol, you're still in Japan?

[Magna]

I'm sure you've all heard the writer's saying "show, don't tell" many times before.
But how many of us know exactly where to draw the line between showing and telling?

The reason I've started this thread is lately I've been confused as to what works best. I've entered into around seven short story competitions already, but no result. I keep thinking that the content is fairly strong, and I've had people agree with me most of the time, but I don't seem to be able to satisfy the judges. Seeing's as I'm relatively new to short story competitions, only been entering them for about a year and three quarters, I'm just not sure whether the judges want me to show, tell or do both?

I've been working on a short story for a couple of weeks now and it's finished, I'm just touching up on it, but I've gone and risked including show and tell. I've got great (and honest) responses from people I know but I'm still wondering whether I did the right thing or not.

It's a deep story, something I don't do very often and I think it needs both. I was just wondering if anyone with more short story competition success could tell me what the judges really want in relation to the subject.

Cheers.

There is a good article in the month before lasts 'Writers Digest' on what contest judges look for. I'm at work right now so I can't dig it out, but I'll try to find time when I get home, and list some of the points it makes.

[__VeNoM__]

Good on ya mags, that'd be great.

[Optimus]

I didn't read all the comments in this thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating something that has been previously stated here.

I think too many writers (on the internet, especially) don't understand the "show, don't tell" rule, where it came from, and what it means.

Henry James is sometimes credited with saying, "Here is the advice I try to follow; Show, don't tell." (This is rather ironic due to the fact that James once wrote a novel entirely in narrative prose). Of course, the "show, don't tell" phrase has been around in some form since the time of Euripides.

It's a tool designed/intended to help people when writing dramaturgy, not necessarily novelistic writing. Dramaturgy, as you know, is the type of writing intended for the stage or screen. "Show, don't tell," means not to write anything that can't be seen on stage or by the camera. Theatrical writers have many more restrictions in format and structure than do novelists, one of the most important being that nothing should be written than can't be seen (on screen).Therefore, no introspection, no "Mark thought this was a perilous decision" or any other such narrative statements of internal action, very little prose, very leanly/tightly written narrative (the less the better), etc. which are all elements contained in/organic to novels and short stories.

However (and unfortunately), many editors/writers out there have latched onto this phrase and toss it around like the ambrosia of dilettantes, partly because they don't fully understand what it means in the first place and how it doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) even really apply to novels/short stories, and partly because they want novels/short stories to be more "exciting," "visual," and "fast-paced." This has a lot to do with the influence of our contemporary media (movies, TV shows, other things which have affected our collective attention span).

If an editor or contest judge for a fiction contest (novels/short stories) says to "show, don't tell" in regards to a novel or short story, it should tell you two things:

1) That person is an idiot and doesn't even understand why a dramaturgical device doesn't/shouldn't automatically apply to novelistic literature, and is just regurgitating some buzz phrase they heard someone else say, who also doesn't realize it came from theatrical writers and

2) They're basically telling you to make your writing more exciting and visual. Less narrative, more action. Or, it could just be a nice way of telling you that they don't like your writing or it isn't up to the standards they're looking for. Characters aren't well-developed, story structure is poor, concept isn't compelling, stakes aren't high enough, etc. It might just be their way of saying, "I can't go out tonight. I have to wash my hair."


I don't write novels or short stories, but if the state of affairs in literature is becoming such that novels need to be more "visual," then that is a sad state, indeed, which eschews the very thing which made the great novels/novelists of the past so...well...great. I'm glad that there are still the Kurt Vonneguts of the world out there fighting this trend.

However, it would behoove all novelists to study dramaturgy and its structure (which, isn't necessarily all that different from what Campbell describes in "Hero of a Thousand Faces"). Understanding the nuance of that type of writing can only improve your own stories, no matter what format (dramatic or novelistic) they're written in.

Anyway, that's just my two and a half cents.

[__VeNoM__]

I didn't read all the comments in this thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating something that has been previously stated here.

I think too many writers (on the internet, especially) don't understand the "show, don't tell" rule, where it came from, and what it means.

Henry James is sometimes credited with saying, "Here is the advice I try to follow; Show, don't tell." (This is rather ironic due to the fact that James once wrote a novel entirely in narrative prose). Of course, the "show, don't tell" phrase has been around in some form since the time of Euripides.

It's a tool designed/intended to help people when writing dramaturgy, not necessarily novelistic writing. Dramaturgy, as you know, is the type of writing intended for the stage or screen. "Show, don't tell," means not to write anything that can't be seen on stage or by the camera. Theatrical writers have many more restrictions in format and structure than do novelists, one of the most important being that nothing should be written than can't be seen (on screen).Therefore, no introspection, no "Mark thought this was a perilous decision" or any other such narrative statements of internal action, very little prose, very leanly/tightly written narrative (the less the better), etc. which are all elements contained in/organic to novels and short stories.

However (and unfortunately), many editors/writers out there have latched onto this phrase and toss it around like the ambrosia of dilettantes, partly because they don't fully understand what it means in the first place and how it doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) even really apply to novels/short stories, and partly because they want novels/short stories to be more "exciting," "visual," and "fast-paced." This has a lot to do with the influence of our contemporary media (movies, TV shows, other things which have affected our collective attention span).

If an editor or contest judge for a fiction contest (novels/short stories) says to "show, don't tell" in regards to a novel or short story, it should tell you two things:

1) That person is an idiot and doesn't even understand why a dramaturgical device doesn't/shouldn't automatically apply to novelistic literature, and is just regurgitating some buzz phrase they heard someone else say, who also doesn't realize it came from theatrical writers and

2) They're basically telling you to make your writing more exciting and visual. Less narrative, more action. Or, it could just be a nice way of telling you that they don't like your writing or it isn't up to the standards they're looking for. Characters are well-developed, story structure is poor, concept isn't compelling, stakes aren't high enough, etc. It might just be their way of saying, "I can't go out tonight. I have to wash my hair."


I don't write novels or short stories, but if the state of affairs in literature is becoming such that novels need to be more "visual," then that is a sad state, indeed, which eschews the very thing which made the great novels/novelists of the past so...well...great. I'm glad that there are still the Kurt Vonneguts of the world out there fighting this trend.

However, it would behoove all novelists to study dramaturgy and its structure (which, isn't necessarily all that different from what Campbell describes in "Hero of a Thousand Faces"). Understanding the nuance of that type of writing can only improve your own stories, no matter what format (dramatic or novelistic) they're written in.

Anyway, that's just my two and a half cents.

A very organised and well constructed response Optimus. Did you already know the "show, don't tell" background? Or did you have to do a little research first?

And your dead right about "show, dont tell" not applying to novelistic literature. That's why I just want my credits so that I can move on to the real stuff. Some short story writing has been fun though. There's just this...

is just regurgitating some buzz phrase they heard someone else say, who also doesn't realize it came from theatrical writers

Especially here in Australia...The majority of short story judges are to quote one of my earlier posts "too 'show, don't tell' conscientious."
This frustrates me as placings can be lost based solely on this.
And, like I said earlier, the overall story gets neglected.

Makes you wonder why it happened...

[Optimus]

I write screenplays (well...I attempt. It's for now a hobby as I'm a student and have sold nothing yet), so I know a little of the history just from studying screenwriting.

However, I appreciate good novelistic writing and I think it's sad that some of the distinctiveness of that art is getting watered-down and lost for the sake of an increasingly unsophisticated public.

[__VeNoM__]

I think it's sad that some of the distinctiveness of that art is getting watered-down and lost for the sake of an increasingly unsophisticated public.

That's right, but it's also frustrating that today, short story judges can't think for themselves. For example: I have entered a short story competition that has actually layed out each criteria needed, and the points allocated to that particular criteria. That's all good, but surprise, surprise, "show, don't tell" was way up with originality etc. It was worth the highest amount of points that you can get for any given criteria.

I mean, go back to traditional methods if we have to...But this has got to change.

[pdr]

G'day VeNoM, thank you Optimus. That was a really meaty look at Show don't Tell from the drama/film point of view. I learned a lot.

BUT as far as fiction goes Show don't Tell is used to try and teach writers that the majority of readers today can't put up with long passages of explanation by a writer. They want (because of their experiences with film, TV and theatre) to be 'inside' the main character and experience/feel what that character does. This means that saleable, prizewinning writing today has to show the character doing things not tell the reader about the character doing things. It means that rather than have a writer say that the main character sees John and Jane Smith as an overweight couple, the writer would chose effective words to show how the main character sees them as being overweight.

I didn't know, V, that your Oz short story competitions had become so mechanical! Try our NZ ones. All you need to write is arty-farty pretentious 'literahary' crap about the 'deep dark underbelly of New Zealand'. Though I will say last year's Katherine Mansfield winner was a rare gem but then Owen Marshall wasn't the judge!!!!

If you want writers' credits VeNoM why not send your stories out to magazines? You've heaps of good ones in Oz that you can submit to.

[__VeNoM__]

If you want writers' credits VeNoM why not send your stories out to magazines? You've heaps of good ones in Oz that you can submit to.
Seeing's as I don't often focus on these, do you think you could post a few?

Just at the moment, I'm not so sure I'll have time to do any major research on it. If you already know some, I may as well get them from you.

P, you might find it nice to know that I am using your techniques (the ones from the crit) in every piece I do from now on. With these (and others that I have learned over the years), I am starting to produce some really strong stories.

Cheers.

[pdr]

P, you might find it nice to know that I am using your techniques (the ones from the crit) in every piece I do from now on. With these (and others that I have learned over the years), I am starting to produce some really strong stories.


Yes, it is nice to know. Thank you for the compliment!

Am just moving off from Japan and all market books are packed up and away. Tell me what genre and I'll do my best to pick my brains and past records. Do you get the 'Writer's News'? There's a good Oz market page in there every month. Are you a member of your state's FAW? Good to join. Their mags are full of markets too and their FAW centre is usually in the State's main city. You can ring 'em or e-mail them. Do you have a copy of the Oz Writers' Markets Yearbook? Queensland FAW put that out now I believe.
I've just read your PM and sent a reply. As My PMs don't seem to be reaching the recipients at all I wondered if you'd received the message?

[__VeNoM__]

Tell me what genre and I'll do my best to pick my brains and past records.

Just go into my profile and you'll find your way to that.

Are you a member of your state's FAW?

Effectively, yes. I have someone who is, but I get all of the details etc.

I've just read your PM and sent a reply. As My PMs don't seem to be reaching the recipients at all I wondered if you'd received the message?

I haven't got it yet, but there has been a lag on the site lately. I'm sure it'll be corrected soon.

[Optimus]

BUT as far as fiction goes Show don't Tell is used to try and teach writers that the majority of readers today can't put up with long passages of explanation by a writer. They want (because of their experiences with film, TV and theatre) to be 'inside' the main character and experience/feel what that character does. This means that saleable, prizewinning writing today has to show the character doing things not tell the reader about the character doing things. It means that rather than have a writer say that the main character sees John and Jane Smith as an overweight couple, the writer would chose effective words to show how the main character sees them as being overweight.


Yeah, that's what it means in dramatic writing, as well, which is where the term/idea really comes from (James' quote not withstanding). Which was my point. Dramaturgy has crept into novelistic writing due to the influence of the media (movies, TV, etc.) which has created a shorter, more unsophisticated attention span in the novel-reading audience.

However, "show, don't tell" has come to be used in the literary world as an all-encompassing panacea for crappy writing (much the same way as it has always, unfortunately, been used in the world of dramatic writing). A large problem with much novel writing today isn't the fact that they don't "show" things in their narrative, it's that they write crappy, overly thick, unengaging narrative.

Word choice (particularly verb choice) is a different matter entirely from "show, don't tell." Unfortunately, the current "buzz" with "show, don't tell" is that it is a cure for crappy narrative.

It's not.

The real problem is voice. Many writers can't seem to find theirs, or the one they find/have isn't very entertaining/engaging. Voice involves all of the "show, don't tell" aspects, but also is heavily reliant on word-choice in narrative. So, when an editor or contest judge says, "show don't tell" as some sort of panacea for crappy writing, I think it might be a bit misleading.

You can change a description from saying that two people are fat to describing them more visually, but if your word choice is poor, and your writer's voice is poor, then all the visual writing in the world will still not save your story.

So, I think that it's unfortunate that the buzz is about "show, don't tell," (which seems to be used for lack of a better term) because that might not be the actual problem in many cases, but judges and editors don't know how to articulate it better than just the automatic, robotic response of saying, "Show, don't tell."

Word choice and voice are much more important.

[William Haskins]

i just stumbled into this thread. good stuff, especially lori and opty.

do carry on.

[pdr]

'...that the buzz is about "show, don't tell," (which seems to be used for lack of a better term) because that might not be the actual problem in many cases, but judges and editors don't know how to articulate it better than just the automatic, robotic response of saying, "Show, don't tell."'

You're right Optimus, as a judge I've used 'Show don't Tell' for dull, flat boring stories in a competition. There isn't time judging to critique as well. In most comps an entrant pays for the critique but judges who like to help often scrawl a few words on an entry and 'Show don't Tell' is shorthand for boring and dull.

BUT there is a place in modern writing for showing more than telling. We are visual people now and writers need to use the show in their writing. In some cases it is better and more immediate. For new writers who start with a simple 'this happened and then this and then that' kind of story they need to learn how to 'Show' to make a better story. Voice, word choice and avoiding the passive come after they can handle Show don't Tell.

[__VeNoM__]

Wise words.

[William Haskins]

BUT there is a place in modern writing for showing more than telling. We are visual people now and writers need to use the show in their writing.

tomorrow is a new modern. there might "be a place" for it, but writers don't "need to use" anything in their writing to conform to what they consider their era to be.

[brokenfingers]

Show don’t tell is great advice – but often misunderstood. I think the best aspect a writer can use this is in characterization. Many times new writers don’t utilize everything available to them to bring a character out for a reader.

Too many new writers want to tell the reader what the character is like. They find ways to tell the reader what color hair he has, what color eyes, how tall, whether they’re good-looking or not etc.

Or they have the character go into a deep internal monologue to try and give the reader a sense of the character which is really just another way of telling.

In the best books I’ve studied, the author never really comes out and says anything about the character. By the end of the first chapter, the reader may not know what color hair the character has or how tall or what color eyes, but the reader is left with the feeling that they Know the character. Because the author placed his character in such a way that his actions and words defined him. In essence the character showed himself to the reader – through action.

It could be in the choice of car they drive or whether they even drive or not or carpool or walk or take a bus. The clothes they wear, the food they eat, the way they walk. Is their apartment clean or messy? House or loft? Sportscar or luxury car. How they respond to what other people say. Polite, courteous or arrogant, loud? Do they say "noce doggie" or do they say "get away ya lil' bastard!"

A good author will show their responses to other stimuli around them and their responses to other people through both actions and dialogue. A good writer can define his character without even having the character utter a word or without one piece of internal dialogue or authorial intrusion!

This leaves the reader knowing the character without realizing the author has actually manipulated them and fed the info piecemeal. At the end, the reader has their own unique picture of the character (internalized them) and identifies with them(hopefully).

That’s why, though many here decry character sheets etc, I think they are very useful. Yes, in the rough draft let your characters tell you who they are, let them naturally evolve. But once it’s time to fine-tune, take all the attributes you’ve discovered about your character and find ways to expose your readers to them without coming out and actually telling them.

It takes a little more time and a little more creativity but I feel it’s more than worth it in the end. The reader will be left feeling like they got to “know” the character naturally (just like if they met someone in real life) instead of a wooden character who’s just a recited list of stats.

So at least when it comes to characterization – Show, don’t tell.

[Jamesaritchie]

Drama actually is nothing modern, and it wasn't Tv or movies that changed this aspect of novels. Drama is far older than novels. It is, in fact, the oldest form of storytelling, and "show, don't tell" was the order of the day long, long before the first novel was ever written.

It's a serious mistake to think that narrative prose doesn't need show, and isn't far better written in show. Henry James was a master of show in narrative prose. Short stories and novels need show every bit as much as any stage play, any movie, or any TV show, and the best show very often comes in the form of narrative prose.

Moderns readers love long passages of narrative prose as much as any readers ever have, and once a writer proves his worth, the longer the novel, and the more narrative prose, the better it usually sells.

A judge who says you need "show, don't tell" isn't an idiot, he's the one judge you'd better listen to because he's the judge most like pro agents and pro editors.

Word choice, and active verb choice is not a matter separate from show. Whether or not you show instead of tell is most often determined by word choice and verb choice. Shoe isn't one thing, it's half a dozen things, all working together to let the reader see the story and the characters as he reads. The reader should see what's going on, whether it's characterization, description, or narrative prose.

"Show, don't tell" should be at or near the top of any good judge's list of criteria, I don't care if the year is 2005 or 1825.

Of course much writing has other problems that show can't fix. But lack of show is a problem in and of itself, and will fix much that's wrong with a good number of stories. You can't say that because show doesn't fix some problems, show itself isn't a good thing.

And, of course, if the judges aren't pro editors, pro agents, or pro writers, pleasing them generally means you aren't going to please agents and editors when you start submitting stories.

Show doesn't water anything down, and doesn't show a lack of sophistication. Nor is show some modern fad brought about by TV and the movies. It's been around since the first writer, has been influenced since the plays of the Greeks and Romans, and has always been used by the best writers.

Tell is important, and any story of any length is probably going to require some tell. But show is also extremely important, and short stories and novels need it just as much as any movie. This has always been the case.

I'm starting to think the real problem is that too many don't really know the difference between show and tell. Oh, they can tell when it's a matter of saying someone is fat and showing that someone is fat, but this is the pointy nose of show, the part that sticks out so far you can't miss it. But show is also a part of narrative prose, part of characterization, part of dialogue.

Henry James used show extensively. So did Dickens and Twain and London and Melville.

Show is both blatant, as in the fat person, and subtle, as in narration. It's a matter of description at times, and a matter of word and verb choice at times, and a matter of cadence and rhythm and syntax at other times.

When a good judge says, "There's too much tell and not enough show," he means he isn't seeing this story as he reads it, and any good story should be seen as it's being read. "Moby Dick" wouldn't be readable if you couldn't see the characters, see the action, and see the story through the narrative prose. The same thing can be said about Dickens. Tons of narrative prose, but you can watch "Great Expectations" play in your head like a movie from page one to page last.

If narrative prose isn't showing the reader what's going on, if the reader isn't seeing the story playing in his headlike a movie, or like a stage play, if you prefer, every step of the way, it's bad prose, and there really is no other way to express this other than by "show, don't tell." We don't need another way.

[Shiraz]

Hello VeNoM:

As a new writer, the "show, don't tell" instruction from critiquers on a regular basis was a thorn in my side. Like what was stated earlier, it was as if everyone was born with the knowledge of what exactly that meant. I had been told many times that my writing skills (not as a book author) were very, very good. And then, I was told my novel writing skills really needed work because I tended to "tell" way too much. Huh?

So, after months of studying and studying all the words of wisdom from the professionals, it finally dawned on me. I had to STOP "reporting." What I began doing is closing my eyes and transforming myself into the character and playing the scene out in my head, like watching a movie. Once I began shifting into a different mode, it became easier and easier as I practiced.

However, "showing" can't always be done successfully. There are times when you need to fill in some of the finer details with a little "telling" sprinkled here and there. It's just unavoidable and there is a fine line between too much and too little. Just takes more practice.

I feel your pain, my friend. And, I hope this has made some sense and has been somewhat useful for you. Good luck.

[Flapdoodle]

1) That person is an idiot and doesn't even understand why a dramaturgical device doesn't/shouldn't automatically apply to novelistic literature, and is just regurgitating some buzz phrase they heard someone else say, who also doesn't realize it came from theatrical writers and

2) They're basically telling you to make your writing more exciting and visual. Less narrative, more action. Or, it could just be a nice way of telling you that they don't like your writing or it isn't up to the standards they're looking for. Characters aren't well-developed, story structure is poor, concept isn't compelling, stakes aren't high enough, etc. It might just be their way of saying, "I can't go out tonight. I have to wash my hair."



I don't agree with this.

It's nothing to do with "less narrative" and more "action." It's the difference between a story that's full of exposition and passive sentences and author intrusion (Usually to explain chunks things when there's nothing else to do.) and one that isn't. Humans have more than one sense & a vast range of feelings and emotions, and "showing" encompasses them all.

Someone has given a simple example somewhere using hunger.

[badducky]

Daniel Stern, a legendary Writing prof at University of Houston says something quite different.

"First you show for a while, and then you tell for a while, and then you show for a while, and then you tell for a while".

You can find his many novels and short stories on Amazon, if you're curious. He is definitely qualified for his job. Good advice, I think.

Carver was cool in the eighties. We have to write for five years from now, not twenty years ago. We can't just cling to spare minimalism all the time.

[__VeNoM__]

Show don’t tell is great advice – but often misunderstood. I think the best aspect a writer can use this is in characterization. Many times new writers don’t utilize everything available to them to bring a character out for a reader.

I know I DID.

Too many new writers want to tell the reader what the character is like. They find ways to tell the reader what color hair he has, what color eyes, how tall, whether they’re good-looking or not etc.

This is very good advice, and advice that hasn't really been touched on in this thread yet. Personally, I find this a chore at the best of times. Only recently was I coming to realise that there was always time for physical descriptions, and more importantly, this gives the reader the ability to see the character as THEY want.
To quote Jamesaritchie's friend. "A good writer paints a tree, and lets the reader paint the forest."

Or they have the character go into a deep internal monologue to try and give the reader a sense of the character which is really just another way of telling.

In the best books I’ve studied, the author never really comes out and says anything about the character. By the end of the first chapter, the reader may not know what color hair the character has or how tall or what color eyes, but the reader is left with the feeling that they Know the character. Because the author placed his character in such a way that his actions and words defined him. In essence the character showed himself to the reader – through action.

It could be in the choice of car they drive or whether they even drive or not or carpool or walk or take a bus. The clothes they wear, the food they eat, the way they walk. Is their apartment clean or messy? House or loft? Sportscar or luxury car. How they respond to what other people say. Polite, courteous or arrogant, loud? Do they say "noce doggie" or do they say "get away ya lil' bastard!"

All true.

good author will show their responses to other stimuli around them and their responses to other people through both actions and dialogue. A good writer can define his character without even having the character utter a word or without one piece of internal dialogue or authorial intrusion!

This leaves the reader knowing the character without realizing the author has actually manipulated them and fed the info piecemeal. At the end, the reader has their own unique picture of the character (internalized them) and identifies with them(hopefully).

That’s why, though many here decry character sheets etc, I think they are very useful. Yes, in the rough draft let your characters tell you who they are, let them naturally evolve. But once it’s time to fine-tune, take all the attributes you’ve discovered about your character and find ways to expose your readers to them without coming out and actually telling them.

It takes a little more time and a little more creativity but I feel it’s more than worth it in the end. The reader will be left feeling like they got to “know” the character naturally (just like if they met someone in real life) instead of a wooden character who’s just a recited list of stats.

So at least when it comes to characterization – Show, don’t tell.
Although a little of it has been mentioned, there are points in here that haven't. This is very good advice.

[__VeNoM__]

Hello VeNoM:

As a new writer, the "show, don't tell" instruction from critiquers on a regular basis was a thorn in my side. Like what was stated earlier, it was as if everyone was born with the knowledge of what exactly that meant. I had been told many times that my writing skills (not as a book author) were very, very good. And then, I was told my novel writing skills really needed work because I tended to "tell" way too much. Huh?

So, after months of studying and studying all the words of wisdom from the professionals, it finally dawned on me. I had to STOP "reporting." What I began doing is closing my eyes and transforming myself into the character and playing the scene out in my head, like watching a movie. Once I began shifting into a different mode, it became easier and easier as I practiced.

However, "showing" can't always be done successfully. There are times when you need to fill in some of the finer details with a little "telling" sprinkled here and there. It's just unavoidable and there is a fine line between too much and too little. Just takes more practice.

I feel your pain, my friend. And, I hope this has made some sense and has been somewhat useful for you. Good luck.

This is great advice and something that hasn't already come up in the thread.

The words in bold should be seen by all writers who are unsure of how/when to "show" and "tell."

There are times when you need to fill in some of the finer details with a little "telling" sprinkled here and there. It's just unavoidable and there is a fine line between too much and too little. Just takes more practice.

Yeah, I said the same thing earlier in the thread. This I have come to realise is almost certainly the case. I still think that tell should be kept to a bare minimum however.

I feel your pain, my friend. And, I hope this has made some sense and has been somewhat useful for you. Good luck.

That's an understatement.

[__VeNoM__]

Drama actually is nothing modern, and it wasn't Tv or movies that changed this aspect of novels. Drama is far older than novels. It is, in fact, the oldest form of storytelling, and "show, don't tell" was the order of the day long, long before the first novel was ever written.

It's a serious mistake to think that narrative prose doesn't need show, and isn't far better written in show. Henry James was a master of show in narrative prose. Short stories and novels need show every bit as much as any stage play, any movie, or any TV show, and the best show very often comes in the form of narrative prose.

Moderns readers love long passages of narrative prose as much as any readers ever have, and once a writer proves his worth, the longer the novel, and the more narrative prose, the better it usually sells.

A judge who says you need "show, don't tell" isn't an idiot, he's the one judge you'd better listen to because he's the judge most like pro agents and pro editors.

Word choice, and active verb choice is not a matter separate from show. Whether or not you show instead of tell is most often determined by word choice and verb choice. Shoe isn't one thing, it's half a dozen things, all working together to let the reader see the story and the characters as he reads. The reader should see what's going on, whether it's characterization, description, or narrative prose.

"Show, don't tell" should be at or near the top of any good judge's list of criteria, I don't care if the year is 2005 or 1825.

Of course much writing has other problems that show can't fix. But lack of show is a problem in and of itself, and will fix much that's wrong with a good number of stories. You can't say that because show doesn't fix some problems, show itself isn't a good thing.

And, of course, if the judges aren't pro editors, pro agents, or pro writers, pleasing them generally means you aren't going to please agents and editors when you start submitting stories.

Show doesn't water anything down, and doesn't show a lack of sophistication. Nor is show some modern fad brought about by TV and the movies. It's been around since the first writer, has been influenced since the plays of the Greeks and Romans, and has always been used by the best writers.

Tell is important, and any story of any length is probably going to require some tell. But show is also extremely important, and short stories and novels need it just as much as any movie. This has always been the case.

I'm starting to think the real problem is that too many don't really know the difference between show and tell. Oh, they can tell when it's a matter of saying someone is fat and showing that someone is fat, but this is the pointy nose of show, the part that sticks out so far you can't miss it. But show is also a part of narrative prose, part of characterization, part of dialogue.

Henry James used show extensively. So did Dickens and Twain and London and Melville.

Show is both blatant, as in the fat person, and subtle, as in narration. It's a matter of description at times, and a matter of word and verb choice at times, and a matter of cadence and rhythm and syntax at other times.

When a good judge says, "There's too much tell and not enough show," he means he isn't seeing this story as he reads it, and any good story should be seen as it's being read. "Moby Dick" wouldn't be readable if you couldn't see the characters, see the action, and see the story through the narrative prose. The same thing can be said about Dickens. Tons of narrative prose, but you can watch "Great Expectations" play in your head like a movie from page one to page last.

If narrative prose isn't showing the reader what's going on, if the reader isn't seeing the story playing in his headlike a movie, or like a stage play, if you prefer, every step of the way, it's bad prose, and there really is no other way to express this other than by "show, don't tell." We don't need another way.

I don't know much about the drama aspect, but there are some very good points made in here.

[Optimus]

Who, in this thread, said that dramaturgy was modern? Who, in this thread, suggested that James didn't use the "show, don't tell" mantra? As I said previously, he's the one credited with first saying it.

There are, however, differences between novelistic (literary fiction) and dramaturgical (theater) writing. Actually, if we want to be technical, novels have a different story structure than drama, however that's best saved for another thread.

My point wasn't that certain dramaturgical elements, such as more emphasis on visual storytelling (i.e. "show, don't tell"), have no place in novelistic writing. Certainly dramaturgy enhances novelistic stories.

My point was that over-reliance/emphasis on simply being "more visual" could lead to a deterioration of elements unique to novelistic literature, such as prose, introspective characterizations, voice, etc.

"Show, don't tell" is a good kernel of advice for novelists, but it certainly isn't the whole cobb.

I also disagree that "show, don't tell" isn't separate from word/verb choice. More effective word/verb choice enhances visual storytelling, but is not required for it.

"Darren looked scared," is certainly visual, but not very descriptive. Why? Because of poor word choice.

Great word/verb choice is indicative of great visual storytelling, but one could still write visually with lesser word/verb choice.

However, the writing itself will still be bad.

Anyway, I'm all for visual story telling no matter what the medium, as you need to create a picture in the reader's head, but it's not a panacea for overall poor novelistic writing, and a great writer will find the balance involved in using it.

'Course, this is all just my opinion. Feel free to disagree/disregard.

[__VeNoM__]

If you have a look at the poll as it currently stands, you can see what I meant about the plot being neglected in modern short story writing.

[egem]

I'm not crazy about telling student show don't tell. I think two things make up great stories details and action. I would rather tell a student define a character by what they DO than show don't tell. It is the same with a scene. There were cars on the street. Or the cars rushed by on the street or what have you. The more details and action the better in my opinion. Show don't tell is misunderstood a lot. You might be telling me what you are showing me or something like that and then it all goes to hell.

[__VeNoM__]

I'm not crazy about telling student show don't tell. I think two things make up great stories details and action. I would rather tell a student define a character by what they DO than show don't tell. It is the same with a scene. There were cars on the street. Or the cars rushed by on the street or what have you. The more details and action the better in my opinion. Show don't tell is misunderstood a lot. You might be telling me what you are showing me or something like that and then it all goes to hell.

Thanks for the useful input egem

[NFB]

Thinking back on the hoard of insipid short stories I read in college, the ones that truely stuck or made an impression were narrations of unique life experiences or truely original works containing well thought symbolism.

Some of my favorites were:

Kafka - In the Penal Colony
Crane - The Open Boat
Rampo - The Human Chair (truely original, I highly recommend the read)

[__VeNoM__]

Thanks NFB, it's all helpful.

[gomi]

Narrative - Good.
Exposition - Bad.

No one thing makes a short story great. It's the combination of various elements, in proper proportion, that make a story great. Anything that can be told, can be shown.

EJ

[emeraldcite]

Anything that can be told, can be shown.

Some things that can be shown, should be told.

For example, you can show someone walking to the store. Or you can tell the audience that they went to the store and move on with the story.

[gomi]

Some things that can be shown, should be told.

For example, you can show someone walking to the store. Or you can tell the audience that they went to the store and move on with the story.

If the store, or the trip there and back, isn't important to the story, why bring it up at all?

EJ

[Cleveland W. Gibson]

A clue to excessive showing is the use of certain words.
If editing watch out for helping verbs.
They were poor.
How best to translate that into a phrase which gives a mental image. Can it be the pile of unpaid bills on the table. No heat in the house? The holes in the shoes, that sort of thing.What image pops into my head ?

[PenDragon]

Here are a few articles on Show/Tell I've found useful...


http://www.sfwriter.com/ow04.htm

http://www.rachelsimon.com/wg_showtell.htm

http://www.writerswrite.com/journal/jun98/keegan9.htm

http://www.writerswrite.com/journal/jul98/keegan10.htm

[dante-x]

My major qualm with show versus tell is that often in exclusive show often necessitates that characters are stereotyped, and their behaviours are exaggerated unless certain conditions are met. Exclusive show seems to denude characters of their unique behaviours when certain conditions aren't met..




1) “Martha's slender finger nails wrapped across the lynolium counter top.”




-Maybe Martha does this when she's mad, but as far as I can see it the reader of pure show expects the stereotyped.




2) “Her eyebrows raised, and her nostrils flared as she wrapped her fingers across the counter's top.”




It can be solved in the tight third person or first person perspective. However, when you zoom out the behaviours seem like they need to be either exaggerated or reacted to unless you use a bit of tell.







Martha's behaviour reacted to




3) “Martha's slender finger nails wrapped across the lynolium counter top. Bill's throat constricted as he started to backpedal.”




The use of tell to spell out her behaviour.




4) “Martha's slender finger nails wrapped across the lyolium counter top. She was mad.”




Note: Lack of clarity might be due to lack of nicotine this morning.

[cattywampus]

Well! I must say, 99% of that went right over my head. Why "showing" vs. "telling" should result in stereotypes and "exaggerated behaviors" I can't imagine. Nor can I believe it's "necessitated."

Naturally, we don't "show" everything. If a person goes to the store they go to the store, period. A distinction must be made between what is useful to show and what is better told: compressed action, as in "I went to the store." Anytime you want to move quickly through time or space, just say it, or better yet, leave it out, if it is not something the reader needs to know.

We should "show" rather than tell any time important action is going on, such as a fistfight. Just to say, "There was a fistfight," is telling. Describing the blows that rained down on all involved is showing. For important scenes, you want to place the reader right in the action, let her hear the blows, smell the blood, feel the rage of the beater and the reactions of the beatee. Showing rather than telling allows you to load the scene with sensory information, which is what puts the reader in the scene, allows her to experience it fully, and remember it.

As for "The use of tell to spell out her behaviour. 'Martha's slender finger nails wrapped [sic] across the lyolium [sic] counter top [sic]. She was mad” is a blatant example of telling when showing is called for. Martha's finger nails aren't doing anything that indicates she is mad (she may merely be impatient or bored), thus the writer is compelled to explain to the reader that "she was mad." It's much better to show she is mad by having her hurl her plate/husband/self across the room. Never explain emotions to the reader, that's the worst kind of "telling." Let the character act out her anger so that the reader feels it.

[dante-x]

As for "The use of tell to spell out her behaviour. 'Martha's slender finger nails wrapped [sic] across the lyolium [sic] counter top [sic]. She was mad” is a blatant example of telling when showing is called for. Martha's finger nails aren't doing anything that indicates she is mad (she may merely be impatient or bored), thus the writer is compelled to explain to the reader that "she was mad." It's much better to show she is mad by having her hurl her plate/husband/self across the room. Never explain emotions to the reader, that's the worst kind of "telling." Let the character act out her anger so that the reader feels it.

This is what I was trying to get at. Writers revert to this over-dramatic "hurl her plate/husband/self across the room" in order to artificially convey an emotion. Again, very stereotyped, histrionic, and in many cases compromises a well thought out character. In real life scenarios we can read more aptly when someone we know is mad enraged due to their idiosyncratic behaviour. Show alone seems insufficient to get at that.

Perhaps you could show me a few instances of non-stereotyped behaviour?

[dante-x]

And as for all my gross displays of incompetence with the English language...

Uncle Jim is right, if you get in the habbit of smoking while writing it's hard as hell to quit and maintain your ability to write. :(

That's it, I quit quiting smoking, as of now. :flag:

[cattywampus]

More than happy to. I don't know what your definition of "stereotyped" may be, but here's mine: A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. (dictionary.com). An action is not stereotyped when it: (1) fits the character. If part of your character's personality is that she hurls things when she's angry and you have established that, it is within character for her to fling. (Of course, she will do something different if no plates are available), (2) when the action is not generally associated with a group of people, as in "He's a hillbilly from the south, so he's bound to be dumb." That is stereotyping. A character may fling plates all day without becoming any sort of a stereotype. Granted, it's a bit of a cliche, and not very creative, but it's just an example.

As for being "over-dramatic" and "histrionic," one of the characteristics of fiction is that it is dramatized. Real life is too mundane (how many people live like people in the movies?) to write about. Whether it is "histrionic" is determined according to the character. Another character may be a shy little mouse who seldom gets angry but when she does, she bites her lip until blood comes, saying nothing. To fling a plate would be out of character for her.

As for "In real life scenarios we can read more aptly when someone we know is mad enraged due to their idiosyncratic behaviour. Show alone seems insufficient to get at that," I have no idea what you mean by "read more aptly," But I forcefully deny the rest of the statement. Sure, we know in real life when a friend is angry if he curses violently, same for fiction. You are absolutely right, we can tell by "idiosyncratic behavior" "Idiosyncratic" being defined as "A structural or behavioral characteristic peculiar to an individual or group." "Behavioral" in this context means action, not speech, and this can only be fully conveyed by showing.

I must commend you for your decision to quit smoking, although it is difficult to see how smoking could cause errors in spelling or usage. Good for you, dante!

[dante-x]

By read more aptly (Merriam Websters) I meant in a more keenly and intelligent and responsive manner.

As for being "over-dramatic" and "histrionic," one of the characteristics of fiction is that it is dramatized. Real life is too mundane (how many people live like people in the movies?) to write about.

My definition of Idiosyncratic (Websters) peculiarity of constitution or temperament

Idiosyncratic is not obvious by definition. It is a peculiarity. If a behaviour is not familiar to the reader's experience as representing their schema for an emotion, how are they aren't going to comprehend it unless you spell/tell it out?

It sounds like you are prescribing altering the character over sacrificing a bit of show.

The statement that “real life is too mundane to write about” is far from accurate. Further a character does not have to be physically dramatic to be interesting. From off the top of my head I would suggest looking at the works of Chaim Potok, Amy Tan, or Margaret Laurence for just a couple examples.

As for quitting smoking, it does result evoke anxiety reaction. This limits the capacity neural networks responsible maintaining attention.

[cattywampus]

Sigh. ALL of that went over my head. Can anyone else translate for me what dante is trying to say? S/he doesn't seem to be writing in English.

What might CP mean? Whatever it is, I'll gladly critique for it. FREE.

[dante-x]

Sigh. ALL of that went over my head. Can anyone else translate for me what dante is trying to say? S/he doesn't seem to be writing in English.


Wow, that just leaped from slightly heated debate to insulting.

I'll let it go. I enjoy this community too much to get put off by one post.

[cattywampus]

Dante, I am sorry if you found that insulting, it was not meant to be. I do apologize. However, I was sincere in saying all your post went over my head. For example, what does "Idiosyncratic is not obvious by definition" mean? How about "a schema for emotion?" I am honestly trying to decipher what you are trying to tell me, in the interest of learning. I am always interested in learing more about writing. Can you help me? If no one offers to interpret for me, what can I conclude except that no one else understood you, either?

Please don't be insulted. I have a blunt way of saying things, but mean no harm. :flag:

BTW, the link you furnished returns a "page not available" error.

[C.H. Campbell]

I received one rejection that cited the "show don't tell" mantra. I take this from it: Write in such a manner that the reader doesn't remember that he's reading. It's all about flow; if you find yourself reading something and stop in the middle to wonder if that adverb was necessary, then the writer was "telling". It should be a smooth read that doesn't try too hard to describe the situation/surrounding/mood. That's my take on it anyway. And by the way, that adverb is never necessary.

[glutton]

Methinks a time to tell, not show, or summarize if you will, is when the legendary warrior cuts down several hundred men in a day of battle. Maybe show the first few enemies being horrible slain, but not every last one. Because if that is shown in detail, the reader will likely be pretty bored reading a loooong battle scene where the outcome is not very much in doubt. Or, summarize until a worthy opponent appears, in this case.]

At least, I don't think you want to read twenty pages of nonstop butchery.

[Lee_OC]

I just read a really great article titled "Ten Mistakes that Writers don't see (http://www.holtuncensored.com/ten_mistakes.html)." Part of it covers the show, don't tell topic. I found the article on the Writer Unboxed blog (http://writerunboxed.blogspot.com/).

[helene]

I agree with many of the people here. The "show, don't tell" advice is great - but the definitions aren't always clear.

I've always been a true believer of the "action/dialogue/narration" combo. When blended perfectly, it creates a nice effect. Too little or too much of one can cause your storyline to fall flat! Narration is always boring without the action or dialogue. All dialogue is too distracting, and sometimes annoying.

[cattywampus]

Well, Helene, with all due respect, I must disagree. Narration is not always boring - the obvious example is interior monologue. Ruth Rendell writes fascinating interior monologue, as do many other authors.

I also disagree that "All dialogue is too distracting..." Distracting from what? The story? But dialogue IS the story - an important part, in many (or most) instances. I can't believe that is what you meant to say.

It isn't a matter of how much or how little action/dialogue/narration you have in your story. The amount doesn't "cause your storyline to fall flat." What causes your storyline to fall flat is poor writing. One sentence can be incredibly compelling, as can a page or a chapter, if well written, isn't that true? Of course it is.

Flat generalizations like these do nothing but discourage other writers.

[Sesselja]

I don't fully agree with you here, Walter. I think:
Joe walked across the room and kissed Gloria on the lips, unexpectedly.
is showing. It shows action, although a little thin on the details. Depending on the rest of the story, this could work just fine.

To me, telling is something like this:
He was a skinny man in old clothes.

Showing would be:
He wore an ancient felt hat and his ribs showed through his torn shirt like a ship's under demolition.

(From Graham Greene's Our Man in Havana)

[maestrowork]

Joe walked across the room and kissed Gloria on the lips..

....is perfectly fine as "showing." The rest are overwrought.


Joe loved Gloria...

... however, is telling.

[erika]

Here's my question. When you're writing in first-person, isn't some telling acceptable because it gives you a sense of the character? For example, "her eyes glazed over like a vapid environmentalist coed equating the term right to life with beached whales."

One more question. What's wrong with saying "Bruce loved Jane. As his fist cracked against the side of her jaw, he felt a wave of nausea overtake his rage." Aren't you telling and showing and thus adding complexity to the character? Just wondering.

[Tami_Elder]

Here's my question. When you're writing in first-person, isn't some telling acceptable because it gives you a sense of the character? For example, "her eyes glazed over like a vapid environmentalist coed equating the term right to life with beached whales."

In my experience, you can do both if you balance it correctly, but as i have been told by an Editor. Writing in the First person perspective takes a great deal of practice, patience, and talent. Just to give an example of a better way to write your sentence...since this sentence isn't really first person. It's more third person limited

"I felt my eyes glaze over like an environmentalist coed who is equating the definition of 'right to life' to a group of beached whales."

Remember, descritptive is good, but you don't want to be too descriptive. Too much description takes away from the content of the sentence and makes it hard to read.


One more question. What's wrong with saying "Bruce loved Jane. As his fist cracked against the side of her jaw, he felt a wave of nausea overtake his rage." Aren't you telling and showing and thus adding complexity to the character? Just wondering.

Well, aside from the fact that the sentences seem out of order, there's not much wrong with it. The job of a storyteller is this: To tell a story. The best way to tell a story is to give the reader an image in their mind. You want your reader to be able to picture what you are telling them, and the only way to do that satisfactorily is to paint them a picture with words. If you just tell them the bare facts, your reader is going to put down your book half finished and never pick it up again. Details grab a reader's attention. Remember, anyone who reads a book is naturally intelligent. They want their senses to be stimulated. That's why they read a book to begin with. Now let me try to make your sentence make a little more sense and give you an example of what I'm talking about.

Your sentences:

"Bruce loved Jane. As his fist cracked against the side of her jaw, he felt a wave of nausea overtake his rage."

Corrective example:

As Bruce's fist cracked against Jane's jaw, he felt a wave of nausea wash over him. The intense love he felt for Jane finally won out over the rage he felt at her infraction."


See the difference? You're telling the reader that Bruce hits Jane, but also that he has been fighting an inner battle between his anger at her, and his love for her. It shows that there is a conflict while telling the reader what is happening.

Hope that helps.:)

[cattywampus]

Uh, not quite. Those two sentences are both showing (yes, a bit too "purple prose" on the one).

Maybe I can make this a little clearer. The purpose of "telling" is simply to convey information to the reader, without dwelling overlong on it. "After the surgery, Bill went home to recuperate." Here, Bill's trip home is obviously of very little import, so let's pass quickly over it (or, if it's that trivial, leave it out altogether). If, on the other hand, something important happened on Bill's way home - say, he got in an accident - you would surely want to show that.

So the difference is, telling conveys information and no more, while showing puts the reader right into the scene with sensory details, which allows the reader to experience Bill's accident along with him. The pain, the sound of the crash, the smell of gunpowder as the airbag inflates.

I disagree that saying "Bruce loved Jane" is OK. That is telling - the reader hears it, but doesn't feel it. Bruce's love for Jane should demonstrated by the way he treats her, or at the very least he might tell someone else, "I love Jane," and it should be established early in the story, if practical.

I hope this helps.

[writeroffthelake]

Don't focus so much on what the judges want. Write your story and make sure it meets the requirements for the contest you wish to enter it in, but if you write for the judges, you'll be second guessing yourself before you ever write a word of your story.

[Susan Lanigan]

In response to the original question: show vs. tell

"Show" when to tell would be to insult the reader's intelligence.

"Tell" when to show would have the reader ask "What did he do that for?"

I have not voted any of the options because I believe they are all important.

[freshpencils]

Birol -

I agree. If you don't "get" the difference between show and tell, when each works and doesn't work, you won't understand the instruction.

[ccomer]

I found that it depends on the publisher. I have a short story that I told and they liked it. I have another publisher for a short story and they want me to show it. I think from now on I will go with the show.

www.freewebs.com/ccomer

[writeroffthelake]

Your sentences:

"Bruce loved Jane. As his fist cracked against the side of her jaw, he felt a wave of nausea overtake his rage."

Corrective example:

As Bruce's fist cracked against Jane's jaw, he felt a wave of nausea wash over him. The intense love he felt for Jane finally won out over the rage he felt at her infraction."

There seems to be an awfully got of "he felt" used here. Also, it isn't showing, it's still telling. Starting the sentence with "As" usually isn't the best choice, either. And "a wave of nausea" is a cliche.

Everyone would have a different way of writing the paragraph, so I might as well interject my own way here:

Bruce's fist cracked into Jane's jaw. Nausea roiled in his stomach, nearly sending him to his knees. Damn, what was he thinking? Hadn't he learned anything from watching his father slam his mother's palm down on the hot stove burner?

I agree that telling isn't always bad. After all, if a character needs to go to the bathroom and for some plot reason you need to show the character going to the bathroom, you still don't have to have him unzipping, sitting down, grabbing the toilet paper...etc. Just have him go into the bathroom and discover whatever he needs to discover in there as he starts to unzip, then he can do his business while he ponders over what he's found. This way you've still shown him finding whatever it is he needs to find in the bathroom, but you don't bore (or disgust) the reader with every last detail.

[Dancre]

I feel there's a deep flaw in the 'show, don't tell' mantra.

Yes, it is an axiom because there is truth in it, but new writers are not told what it means. It is presented as an all-or-nothing approach, as if all telling is always wrong and showing never is, but there are times when you do need to tell, to use narrative and exposition, in order to provide information quickly, that if presented by showing, or revealing, the information would be dull and boring and slow the story down too much.

As for when to show and when to tell? That is more subtle and, as with many things, there are no hard and fast answers. Each writer must just do what feels right to him or her. With time and experience, the knowledge of what works and what doesn't will come.

I agree with Birol. I just read a submission where it was mostly show and I was LOST!!! Tell isn't evil and can come in handy. I suggest you stop worrying about showing and just write the story. Read others writing and see how they do it. But don't just tell the story:

Linda opened the door. Lap, the dog had peed on the carpet. Linda frowned. Lap was a bad dog.

Oh, God, please save my eyes!!! You have to be able to manipulate the words to paint a picture in the reader's mind. You don't want straight tell, but you don't want straight show, but a nice combination of the two. THe reason why publishers and agents preach show is because newbies ALWAYS tell. So show don't tell was birthed. You don't need 15 pages of Lap looking guilty for peeing on the floor, a simple, Lap lowered his head and whined. could constitue as showing and is what I consider showing, not a whole drawn out picture of Linda remembering when she first brought Lap home and how he loves his favorite red toy. Who cares?? Poor Lap. He still needs to go out. Can someone let the dog out?

But as Lori said, you have to know how to create the perfect balance of the two.

Have you seen the post under Writing novels regarding what makes a best seller? I've read books that were soooo poorly written, yet everyone loved them. I really do think it's a great plot with great twists and interesting characters that readers really want. So maybe you should write a short story with an interesting plot and great characters instead of worrying about showing so much? Just a thought. And good luck!!!!

kim

[Dancre]

I stole this from Lee OC's post and his list of ten don'ts:

SHOW, DON'T TELL
If you say, "she was stunning and powerful," you're *telling* us. But if you say, "I was stunned by her elegant carriage as she strode past the jury - shoulders erect, elbows back, her eyes wide and watchful," you're *showing* us. The moment we can visualize the picture you're trying to paint, you're showing us, not telling us what we *should* see..

Handsome, attractive, momentous, embarrassing, fabulous, powerful, hilarious, stupid, fascinating are all words that "tell" us in an arbitrary way what to think. They don't reveal, don't open up, don't describe in specifics what is unique to the person or event described. Often they begin with cliches.

Here is Gail Sheehy's depiction of a former "surfer girl" from the New Jersey shore in "Middletown, America":

"This was a tall blond tomboy who grew up with all guy friends. A natural beauty who still had age on her side, being thirty; she didn't give a thought to taming her flyaway hair or painting makeup on her smooth Swedish skin."

Here I *think* I know what Sheehy means, but I'm not sure. Don't let the reader make such assumptions. You're the author; it's your charge to show us what you mean with authentic detail. Don't pretend the job is accomplished by cliches such as "smooth Swedish skin," "flyaway hair," "tall blond tomboy," "the surfer girl" - how smooth? how tall? how blond?

Or try this from Faye Kellerman in "Street Dreams": "[Louise's] features were regular, and once she had been pretty. Now she was handsome in her black skirt, suit, and crisp, white blouse."

Well, that's it for Louise, poor thing. Can you see the character in front of you? A previous sentence tells us that Louise has "blunt-cut hair" framing an "oval face," which helps, but not much - millions of women have a face like that. What makes Louise distinctive? Again, we may think we know what Kellerman means by "pretty" and "handsome" (good luck), but the inexcusable word here is "regular," as in "her features were regular." What *are* "regular" features?

The difference between telling and showing usually boils down to the physical senses. Visual, aural aromatic words take us out of our skin and place us in the scene you've created. In conventional narrative it's fine to use a "to be" word to talk us into the distinctive word, such as "wandered" in this brief, easily imagined sentence by John Steinbeck in "East of Eden." "His eyes were very blue, and when he was tired, one of them wandered outward a little." We don't care if he is "handsome" or "regular."

Granted, context is everything, as writing experts say, and certainly that's true of the sweltering West African heat in Graham Greene's "The Heart of the Matter": "Her face had the ivory tinge of atabrine; her hair which had once been the color of bottled honey was dark and stringy with sweat." Except for "atabrine" (a medicine for malaria), the words aren't all that distinctive, but they quietly do the job - they don't tell us; they show us.

Commercial novels sometimes abound with the most revealing examples of this problem. The boss in Linda Lael Miller's "Don't Look Now" is "drop-dead gorgeous"; a former boyfriend is "seriously fine to look at: 35, half Irish and half Hispanic, his hair almost black, his eyes brown." A friend, Betsy, is "a gorgeous, leggy blonde, thin as a model." Careful of that word "gorgeous" - used too many times, it might lose its meaning.

To me, this has always been the perfect definition of show vs tell. Use show to describe someone's features or personality, but use tell to move them around the pages. Like for instance, you don't want to spend 15 pages describing Jerry's walk, when you can say, Jerry walked to the drug store.

kim

[ccomer]

I am a first time author and writer and this page has helped me so much with my next short story. I want to thank you all for your help.


www.freeweb.com/ccomer

[DonnaDuck]

Ah, the old addage of showing and not telling. How often I've heard that one. It's not something to be bypassed, especially in short fiction. With such limited space, you can get a lot more across in a few adjectives than a slew of tells that can take sentences to explain. Then again, it can work the other way around. What works best is a healthy balance between the two. Do too much telling and your story will read flat, emotionless. Do to much showing and you run the risk of sounding pretentious and drown your work in adjectives and images. Too much of anything is a bad idea and unhealthy. Good writers can be just as poignant in telling us what's going on instead of showing but they also show us what's going on at the right moments.

However, unfortunately, good writing and a selling story don't always go hand in hand. When entering into a contest, your work has to be grabbing, poignant, original and very well-written but, like something like modeling, you have a million other people writing equally as good that are vying for the same position. Your story can be great, but so are 30 others and then it might come down to the taste the particular judges might have, which story tells a better story or whathaveyou. As for getting published, with major publishing houses, they're not really interested in good writing but marketable writing (this said from a publisher, no less). They don't care how it's written but if the story is gripping enough and they think they can make loads of money off of it then they'll snatch it up and, with the appropriate marketing, it'll be made into a best seller. But the majority of the populartion aren't meticulous readers that will throw a book across the room because they can't get past how horribly it's written. Most will think it's a great story and probably won't recognize the fact that it is, really, terrible and that's why bad books keep getting written and sold.

It's a writer's fact that you will be rejected more often than you're accepted. You can either suck it up and carry on or stop. Use those rejection letters to paper your walls. More padding for when you hit your head against it wondering why that story was chosen over yours. I submitted a story I had written to my college literary journal that had been well received and something I thought was very good. It didn't make it in but a 10 page color spread of a guy ranking on drawings done by 3 year olds did. I died a little on the inside that day. It hurts. It may cause ulcers but you must soldier on. Persistence and patience are our number one virtues.

[davids]

I feel there's a deep flaw in the 'show, don't tell' mantra.

Yes, it is an axiom because there is truth in it, but new writers are not told what it means. It is presented as an all-or-nothing approach, as if all telling is always wrong and showing never is, but there are times when you do need to tell, to use narrative and exposition, in order to provide information quickly, that if presented by showing, or revealing, the information would be dull and boring and slow the story down too much.

As for when to show and when to tell? That is more subtle and, as with many things, there are no hard and fast answers. Each writer must just do what feels right to him or her. With time and experience, the knowledge of what works and what doesn't will come.


Very wise words indeed!

[writeroffthelake]

...you can get a lot more across in a few adjectives than a slew of tells that can take sentences to explain.


It is showing, not telling, that takes up more words/sentences/paragraphs. Also, concrete nouns and active verbs do more to show than adjectives.

[Fjm3eyes]

Well, show and tell. Let's see, which is better?

I'm not sure if either one is. And I wonder if that's the point. Really. I have heard this often since I have gone online, and I silently balk at the idea. I don't see what's inherently wrong with telling, especially if it's done right. By this, I mean informing the reader of some action, adding suspence, rather than simply telling to avoid showing. Perhaps, a respectful dose of telling AND showing would go far. What do do think?

As an exercise, you could read examples of telling. One thing I don't know; is this tell not show recent advice or does it have a history?

Stories to possibly read. The Willows, by Algernon Blackwood. The Horla, by Guy De Maupassant. Might be a good start. Sometimes, telling Is showing. Yes?

I have never written fo contests, so this is just adding to the general discussion.

[choppersmom]

Well, show and tell. Let's see, which is better?

I'm not sure if either one is. And I wonder if that's the point. Really. I have heard this often since I have gone online, and I silently balk at the idea. I don't see what's inherently wrong with telling, especially if it's done right. By this, I mean informing the reader of some action, adding suspence, rather than simply telling to avoid showing. Perhaps, a respectful dose of telling AND showing would go far. What do do think?

You need to know the definitions of "showing" and "telling," as used in the publishing industry, to understand which is better. If you use the sentence, "Jane was scared," it's telling, and it's boring. If you say, "Jane's palms were slick, her heart nearly drowned out the sound of her screams," it's showing. In this case, it's not particularly great showing, but you get the idea. It's less boring than "Jane was scared." Telling doesn't add suspense. At all.

As an exercise, you could read examples of telling. One thing I don't know; is this tell not show recent advice or does it have a history?

It's been the standard for pretty much as long as people have been scribbling.

Stories to possibly read. The Willows, by Algernon Blackwood. The Horla, by Guy De Maupassant. Might be a good start. Sometimes, telling Is showing. Yes?

Um, no. Not really.

Yes, there are times when quick-and-dirty does the trick, fits the bill, whatever. But you can't use telling as a style, and it must be kept to a minimum. Neither of those examples uses telling as the tone of the story. The prose might be short and to the point, but it's not boring. ANY story can be encapsulated in a few telling sentences: "A king had three daughters. Two of them were not so nice. The king got his eyes poked out, and the nice daughter took care of him." "Two teenagers fell in love. Their parents hated each other, so they committed suicide." "A really mean rich guy saw some ghosts, and they told him he better be nicer to people or he would die with no one to love him. So he bought his clerk a goose for Christmas and paid for his kid's orthopedic surgery, and everyone lived happily ever after." See how dull? That's not writing. "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet," and "A Christmas Carol" are writing at its finest. There's no way around that.

On the other hand, OVER-showing can be a detriment as well. You wouldn't want to read about a "long, black, iron machine, rumbling like thunder as it belched smoke and soot into the air." You'd want to read "locomotive" and be done with it. Everybody knows what a locomotive looks like, it's overkill to go into excruciating detail unless for some reason it propels some point that's being made. So yes, there is a balance to be found, and that's the art of writing. Understanding the difference between showing and telling, and finding that perfect balance between the two, is that elusive sprite that we all chase after while we tap away at out novels and stories and even our poems and reference books. That's why we write, because we want to be one of the lucky few that catches it.

[Fjm3eyes]

I agree, Trisha. Kowing the definitions would certainly help. When I hear, "show, don't tell," I hear . . . Always show, Never tell. I was trying to say I don't agree with that. There are instances when telling is effective in short stories too. Am I right?

Frank Mueller/Fjm3eyes

[writeroffthelake]

If you're saying "show, don't tell" isn't a 100% rule, I agree. I can't think of any rule, in writing or in life, that is 100%, with the exception of "thou shalt not kill", and many will argue that that is not a 100% "rule" either.

[RickN]

If you're saying "show, don't tell" isn't a 100% rule, I agree. I can't think of any rule, in writing or in life, that is 100%, with the exception of "thou shalt not kill", and many will argue that that is not a 100% "rule" either.

"Thou shalt not kill" -- not even in consideration when it comes to protecting my family, so count me among the many who disagree.

The only 100% rule I know of is women (as typified by my wife) will always announce a need for new black shoes whenever we pass a shoe store in the mall. Then, the 'accessory ripple' begins to upgrade to a matching purse, wallet, etc. Grabbing a couple $4 gyros at the mall's food court usually costs me $150.

As far as "show, don't tell", you show what you should and tell what you need to. Part of the 'art' of writing is knowing which is which.

[Fjm3eyes]

RickN

Show what you should and tell what you need to.

Exactly!

[choppersmom]

The only 100% rule I know of is women (as typified by my wife) will always announce a need for new black shoes whenever we pass a shoe store in the mall. Then, the 'accessory ripple' begins to upgrade to a matching purse, wallet, etc. Grabbing a couple $4 gyros at the mall's food court usually costs me $150.

Shoes? Where? With matching purses? Are they on sale? Is it real leather? Who's the designer? Are they knockoffs? I don't like croc, are they smooth or suede? How high are the heels? Are they wedges or pumps? Does the purse have a nice long strap? What about pockets? I like lots of pockets. Is the wallet a nice small size or one of those checkbook things that my checkbook never fits in? Are dresses on sale too? What about hats? Are the coats marked down yet? Can we go to Macy's after this? Oh look, Zale's...I'm hungry, can I have extra sauce on my gyro? I want to get some Auntie Anne's after.

[__VeNoM__]

"Yes, there are times when quick-and-dirty does the trick, fits the bill, whatever. But you can't use telling as a style, and it must be kept to a minimum."

Hi everyone, it's been a while since I've posted here since starting this thread, but on this particular subject I have pretty much just come to one conclusion.

If you want to win short stories you will "show," as just as choppersmom mentioned, telling is considered boring in this day and age. These days things are even more competitive and rather then to tell a story you have to market an idea. This is one of the main reasons why succeeding in writing has become so difficult.

What I'm saying is not that "show" is the only effective method to be used when trying to win a reader over, it's that show gives a description of the protagonists situation before we "tell," and thus we can then explain it in further detail.

[J. R. Tomlin]

I recommend reading Oscar Scott Card's comments on the "show don't tell." Let's just say he is skeptical that it is always good advise. (Well, he's less diplomatic than that. lol) His comments can be found at this Hatrack River site. :)

[writeroffthelake]

telling is considered boring in this day and age.

Telling has always been considered boring. Showing in fiction is nothing new. If the characters' actions show the story well enough, there should be little need for telling.

[Talkatoast]

I only use the show, don't tell thing when paragraphs are bogged down with too much description and the writers just tell us how the characters are feeling, rather than showing.

Example:
Johnny is sad. (Don't tell us Johnny is sad. Show us how he's sad through description)

But I agree. Some people take the mantra too far, just like some people take the said-bookism thing too far. I think there needs to be more showing than telling, but not too much more. Sometimes you have to tell. It's really what's best for the story.

[jkcates]

I'm sure you've all heard the writer's saying "show, don't tell" many times before.
But how many of us know exactly where to draw the line between showing and telling?

The reason I've started this thread is lately I've been confused as to what works best. I've entered into around seven short story competitions already, but no result. I keep thinking that the content is fairly strong, and I've had people agree with me most of the time, but I don't seem to be able to satisfy the judges. Seeing's as I'm relatively new to short story competitions, only been entering them for about a year and three quarters, I'm just not sure whether the judges want me to show, tell or do both?

I've been working on a short story for a couple of weeks now and it's finished, I'm just touching up on it, but I've gone and risked including show and tell. I've got great (and honest) responses from people I know but I'm still wondering whether I did the right thing or not.

It's a deep story, something I don't do very often and I think it needs both. I was just wondering if anyone with more short story competition success could tell me what the judges really want in relation to the subject.

Cheers.


Having actually talked with some of the people who control submissions/judging for short fiction I can tell you this. Showing and telling aside, most of those I know talk endlessly about a story that "grabs" them. Meaning of course something they havent read over and over again. I think the poll results sum this idea up nicely. When you are dealing with contests and 'open' submissions, the important thing to remember is that the folks reading this stuff are reading hundreds (if not thousands) of stories for a limited space. They get bored just like the rest of us. I had a professor of an MFA program locally tell me how tired he was of reading fiction for his grad students. He said he doesnt even give an A anymore unless the story jumps off the page. I think contests work much the same way, they have seen it all at this point, and are just looking for something different and fresh.
That being said, I think what 'works' as far as showing and telling is entirely dependent upon the story. Some require more telling, some more showing, there are no hard and fast rules (despite what the axioms say). My suggesstion is to worry more about the content factor, and its originality, more than showing and telling percentages.

Just my few cents worth, good luck