How to show, and in doing so, tell

No one could beat Dick for titles.

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

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

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

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

blacbird said:

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

caw

Click to expand...

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

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

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

justAnotherWriter said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

Rushie said:

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

Click to expand...

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

(Er ... off topic?)

Rushie said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

Parametric said:

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

(Er ... off topic?)

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Aaaack !

justAnotherWriter said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Just my 2 cents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Straka said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Barrett said:

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

IE

"Jake was very good looking."

That is telling.

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

I agree that whatever it's using, it works

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

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

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

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

justAnotherWriter said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

That is not at all what I said. I said good rules make sense. And if you're going to break them you better have a good reason. If you write well you will already be obeying good rules for the most part, even if you don't realize you're doing it.

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

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

Example:

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

That was definitely telling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rushie said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

This is simple example of telling:

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

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


The same thing with showing:

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

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

justAnotherWriter said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

He was angry = telling.

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

She was frightened = telling.

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