Show vs. Tell
- Thread starter honeycomb
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,657
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
That's a great question.
I would assume you always show, never tell, but there are probably exceptions to every rule. I just can't think of any at the moment.
I would assume you always show, never tell, but there are probably exceptions to every rule. I just can't think of any at the moment.
What problem?
Do you not understand the difference? Or are you saying you do understand but you do not know when to choose which to use?
Try here (in addition to Chaos' link).
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18540
Do you not understand the difference? Or are you saying you do understand but you do not know when to choose which to use?
Try here (in addition to Chaos' link).
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18540
Last edited:
Not at all. There are plenty of times to tell instead of show. Such as brushing over a bunch of unimportant events to get back to the meat of the story. For example, I compressed an entire day of waiting (and hiding) into a a very small scene, because if I'd shown every little non-thing that happened, it would've dragged the story down. After you've shown a fight or two of a major combat, you'd probably want to summarize most of the other battles. No one wants to see every single combat in detail. You could also use telling to de-emphasize something that should be important, to show how unimportant it is to the characters, though in most cases you'd probably want to show their (non)reactions instead.
Last edited:
Instead of writing "Billy-Bob was angry," describe to me what he says and does. "He screamed at the top of his lungs, he beat his fist on the table," etc. Then I'll see that he's angry, and you've successfully shown me, as opposed to told me.
It's really that easy.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,657
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
Why wouldn't you just skip the scene if it wasn't important? Why bother explaining at all? If nothing important happens, I skip to the next important event.
"... The next few days were cold and rainy. Willybog wished he had never gotten himself involved with the Circus, that he had remained on the farm. But when on the fourth day they reached Minas Tirith..."
And you're back in a scene.
Those lines of narrative ("telling") did however make two scenes connect, and they even revealed a bit of character. They were thus importat, or would have been, had I not just made them up.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,657
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
Everyday I seem to understand less and less about writing.
I guess I would have just called that a transition and not included it under either heading of showing or telling.
I need to go back to grade school.
I guess I would have just called that a transition and not included it under either heading of showing or telling.
I need to go back to grade school.
As Willowmound said, you can't always just skip ahead without at least indicating what happened in the interim. But you don't have to show the events either, if they're not particularly important in and of themselves.
Another example: instead of describing in detail your protagonist's morning routine just before she answers the phone call that launches the plot, you could say, "While she was getting ready for work, the phone rang." I don't care that she sits up and rubs her eyes, stumbles to the closet, lays out her clothes, takes a shower (using a loofah instead of a washcloth), and gets dressed while gulping a cup of coffee--unless doing any of the above reveals character traits.
Last edited:
- Status