The dreaded show & tell and narrative fiction.

Yep. I fell for the old everything must be show trap. My advice is to write your whole story to the end. Worry about doing the showing thing on one of the edit runs. I'm now not worrying so much about it in my WIP. Funny enough though because I have been preaching it in critiques myself, I find that I am actually doing a lot of showing with more frequency on the first run.

JJ

mum23 said:

I am reading a book at present which is narrative fiction. It has an awful lot of narrative and not too much showing. I am re writing my work as narrative fiction and struggle with an even balance of narration and showing. Any suggestions?

Click to expand...

The question you need to ask is: Is the book any good? Do you like it? Does it give you a good reading experience? Are you absorbed in the story and the characters? Or are they just words to you?

To me, too much show or tell lacks the balance I need to be absorbed in the world the writers created. Too much tell, it's just words I read. Too much show, it can become tedious. To me, it really is about having the right mix.

And JJ is right. During your rewrite, examine every word and sentence and see if they have their rightful place. If you see a lot of "he's angry | he's sad | he's handsome" then you need to expand these with more show. And if you see yourself showing too much (do we really need to see how he walks every single time?), then pare that down.

There are people who can "tell" so beautifully that it doesn't matter if they "show" or not -- I'm thinking specifically of Alice Hoffman, though there are others. I think a good rule of thumb is to show as much as you can, but not to be afraid of telling; there are times when it's quicker/funnier/smarter/otherwise preferable to do so. The individual balance is going to depend on each story and each writer.

What do you mean by "narrative" anyway. To me, it doesn't necessarily mean it's all telling. But I am not exactly sure what you mean.

Example? I mean we're all telling stories.. but do you mean:

"Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was a prince, and the prince told the king that he wanted to become a lawyer. And the king told him to get out of his kingdom. Later, the prince left and met a woman who dressed in black. The woman told him to turn back..."

Instead of describing the scenes and using dialogue and action, etc.?

Like you're the omniscient narrator?

Yeah, I'm a little confused too. I have a novel that is 1st person, and the narrator is telling the story of her life, then again the novel I just completed is 3rd limited, and the narrator is telling that story as well, just from different perspectives. I think it's what's IN the story that matters, but I'm not really sure where you're coming from.

Okay, so 1st person. Gotcha.

The one thing in the "telling" area that you have to worry about in 1st person, since technically the narrator really is telling their own story, is internal dialog. Your narrator's thoughts are going to add flavor to the piece, but where I find a lot of 1st person stories stumble, is that they get too caught up in their narrator's thoughts, and it runs the story in a circle of internal dialog that ends up not only confusing, but going nowhere.

mum23 said:

Okay, here's an example.
Perhaps it was in the years BC (before children) that I really was an adult. Before nappies, bottles and being able to name all four Teletubbies made me realize I had in fact reached La La land. Gone were the days of unsuccessfully composing ones self while having a Lambrini moment, and trying to retain an ounce of decorum until 9.30pm when the alcohol tipping point was reached. Then it became an upward struggle to keep the contents of ones stomach in one’s stomach. Or trying to hold a pen while writing down your telephone number and falling apart at the focusing stage. Is that what being an adult was all about?

Click to expand...

This is First Person POV and it's the narrator's inner monologue. There's not action to "show" so, inasmuch as it can be, this is "showing" the character's thoughts. The "tell" version of this would be, "I thought about how sucky adulthood is."

Show Vs. Tell, as I understand is, comes more into play in the external.

John was angry about the mess in the room. "This really pisses me off," he said.

versus...

John's brows collided in a red twist. He shoved his hands at the piles of dirty clothes. "This really pisses me off."

-Jason

I see... first person is more reflective, etc. recounting the story. Still, I would say even first person should have a lot of external events and "showing" to make it interesting. If it's all narrative, I think it will get boring. I have read a narrative novel once -- first person, rarely a line of dialogue -- and I closed the book at about page 3.

My novel is in 1st person but there's a lot of "showing" by way of the narrator describing what's going on around him, what people are saying or doing. It's not all just internal narrative.

Even if you do decide to go with pure narrative, it doesn't mean you can't show. For example, the following sentence:

Gone were the days of unsuccessfully composing ones self while having a Lambrini moment, and trying to retain an ounce of decorum until 9.30pm when the alcohol tipping point was reached

Click to expand...

... could very well be expanded to SHOW us example instead of just telling us "Lambrini moment" and "decorum" which are, in fact, rather vague and "telling." The idea is that showing is generally more interesting than just telling, even in narrative. In other words, show vs. tell is about details. The more details you give (describe how someone is angry instead of telling us, or describing the Lambrini moment instead of just saying it), the more vivid it becomes.

maestrowork said:

The more details you give (describe how someone is angry instead of telling us, or describing the Lambrini moment instead of just saying it), the more vivid it becomes.

Click to expand...

Not just vivid, but often just plain understandable. As in, what the hell is a "Lambrini moment"?

caw

JasonChirevas said:

Show Vs. Tell, as I understand is, comes more into play in the external.

John was angry about the mess in the room. "This really pisses me off," he said.

versus...

John's brows collided in a red twist. He shoved his hands at the piles of dirty clothes. "This really pisses me off." -Jason

Click to expand...

I heard a writer once say that the narrator is a liar, only the characters speak the truth. I think this is a good rule to follow when determining how to show, not tell. So what does it mean? First, it does not apply to first person writing because with that style, the narrator is a character, usually the main character. But in the case of third person, the only thing the reader can really believe is what is revealed through the words, actions and reactions of the characters. If the narrator tells the reader something, we must assume it is a lie because the narrator is not a character and is therefore “outside” of the story--what Jason calls external. Even if a character tells a lie, the reader can at least believe it’s a lie. But the narrator has no credibility, therefore cannot be believed. If possible, all information should come through the words, actions and reactions of the characters to be the truth.

So the characters “show” us while the narrator “tells” us. In the case of Jason’s example above, we are told that John is angry. Who’s opinion is that? It’s the narrator’s opinion. We are being “told” by the narrator that John is angry. It might be true, but it could be a lie.

In the second example, there’s no doubt that John is angry. His anger is shown through his actions using action verbs: collided, shoved. And his anger is supported by his words. The reader can believe the character in the second example is angry, but not necessarily in the first.

So as you write, remember that the narrator is a liar, only the characters speak the truth. If you reveal information through the words, actions and reactions of your characters, there will never be an issue of credibility, and no one will accuse you of telling, not showing. Good luck.

Well I'm Scottish and still wouldn't know what a Lambrini moment is, despite having heard of the drink.

mum23 said:

... alcoholic drink that girls are supposed to get a little tiddly on the bubbles alone.

Click to expand...

And see, to an American, this phrase was very amusing. I must add this to my British lexicon, along with my most favorite of all:

this trolley has a wonky wheel

Well, in general, wonky is one of my favorite words. I read it on a sign in a grocery store in London, so it must be a real word.

And just the other day I learned that "out of pocket" is a phrase (meaning "unavailable" and not "has no money") that wouldn't just be confusing for someone who isn't a U.S. citizen -- it won't make sense to almost anyone who isn't from a particular part of the U.S.

Aside from my problems with multiple negatives, I'm constantly reminded that growing up in a part of the world where every other phrase is a colloquialism can hurt or help, depending on how aware I remain of just how insidious they can be.



wee