Show, Don't Tell - Why Don't The Greats Play By The Rules?

Mr. Anonymous · Aug 31, 2008

One of the key pieces of advice often given in critiques is to show, not tell. Why is it unacceptable for us to tell, but on the other hand, authors liked Dickens are lauded for it.

Perhaps the most famous passage from all of Dicken's work comes from the first paragraph of A Tale Of Two Cities.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

And he goes on and on, telling telling telling about plain faced and fair faced queens and large jawed Kings. In fact, the entire first chapter, composed of about 2 full pages, is all telling.

Next up on our list is a good old russian. Bulgakov, in his The White Guard.

"Great and terrible was the year of our lord 1918, of the revolution the second. Its summer abundant with warmth and sun, its winter with snow, highest in its heaven stood two stars: the sheperds' star, eventide Venus; and Mars - quivering, red.

But in the days of blood as in days of peace the years fly like an arrow and the thick frost of a hoary white December, season of Christmas trees, Santa Claus, joy and glittering snow, overtook the young Turbins unawares. For the reigning head of the family, their adored mother, was no longer with them.

A year after her daughter Elena Turbin had married Captain Sergei Talberg...etc."

Lots more telling than showing. So why do they get away with it and we don't?

waylander · Aug 31, 2008

Writing styles have changed greatly since the days of Charles Dickens. The writers you quote were of their time and wrote in a style acceptable then.
If you wish to be published in today's market then you must write in a style acceptable to that market.

ColoradoGuy · Aug 31, 2008

Writers need an audience, and the expectations of the reading audience have changed since 100-150 years ago. Dickens' audience expected (and liked) stories to be told the way he told them, and doing it with longer books. Thackeray and Trollope wrote in much the same way as he did. Comparing your writing to theirs is apples to oranges because the world has changed dramatically since then. One day it may change back -- who can say.

ETA: I see Waylander and I were typing away at the same time.

citymouse · Aug 31, 2008

You don't have to be one of the so called past greats to break the show-don't tell rule. David Baldacci is a prime example. Elizabeth George's latest novel also has long stretches of narrative. The trick is making it work.
C

Mad Queen · Aug 31, 2008

It's not a question of getting away with it. Choose a scene and rewrite it to show instead of tell or tell instead of show. Then read both versions. You will almost always prefer the version that shows. Granted, some of these 19th century writers knew how to tell, but whenever I read one of their books, I keep thinking that they would be better if some scenes were shown. But they were a product of their times and we grew up watching TV and going to the movies.

CACTUSWENDY · Aug 31, 2008

As a reader I don't want to take the time to read pages and pages of tell. Prose has it's place. If I want classic type reads I read the older stuff, but for the most part I want a story to grab me and take me for a fast ride. The old ways were for the hours that did not have TV or other things pressing for attention in the busy lives most folks have today.

I love super long stories, but only if I can put aside three days and read non-stop. It's like the signs of the times. We do everything a lot faster now.

If I pick up a book that tells....I end up skimming and finally put it aside, never to be finished.

IMHO This is how I view stories.

willfulone · Aug 31, 2008

Others with intelligent explanations (although waylander sounded right on in one respect) will give you specifics on show/tell. But as a reader (which is all I am) I can tell you what I think as a reader about this issue.

I like to walk the pages of your story with your characters. If you show me what they experience my heart races while theirs does in a certain spot. I may gasp when they do, I may laugh with them or at them if you show me. You may even get me to cry with them. And, I know someone else is thinking/feeling something different in some cases when they read the same passage.

But, if you tell me everything (rather than showing me), I am an outsider looking in. It is as if I am sitting on a couch and you are holding my hand telling me exactly what this story should do for me - allowing me nothing individualized. I get no sense other than your version of events. I don't like to be told how I should read the story - even if it is yours. I want to be there if I can.

I know it sounds simplistic and possibly it does not make sense to another. But this is how I feel as a reader.

Just my opinion.

Good luck on your writing!

Christine

rugcat · Aug 31, 2008

Different times, different expectations -- all true.

But don't ignore the reality of genius. Writers (and other creative souls) who possess overwhelming talent can make their creations airily fly in unexpected ways, wheras we lesser mortals who attempt to emulate their idiosyncrasies tend to fall to earth with a thud.

Prozyan · Aug 31, 2008

rugcat said:
Different times, different expectations -- all true.

This is true, to a point.

While it is true that in modern writing a person will most often be told to show rather than tell, anyone who says you should always do one over the other is mistaken. Show/tell is also a pacing device. Showing provides a more vivid experience, but slows the pace. Telling, while more sparse, increases tempo. Try writing a story in which every single instance of show vs. tell is shown and you'll see how it can ruin pacing.

Sometimes it is the best, most effective method just to tell the reader what they need to know. How do you decide when to show and when to tell? Experience, practice, talent, whatever you want to call it.

Now onto the greater question: Why does "x" great get to break "y" rule?

The answer is exceedingly simple: Because they can.

And yes, that is true. The "greats" don't have to worry about hooking a new reader in the first few paragraphs. They don't have most of the worries or concerns a new writer has. Their name is the hook, their audience established, and thus they have some latitude to play outside the lines because they have a proven record.

In the spirit of football (American) season, think of it as an old, multi Pro-Bowl running back vs. an undrafted rookie. The Pro-Bowler might fumble, lose yardage, or make mistakes, but he will always have a longer leash than the rookie, who might get pulled after a single fumble, single mistake, etc. The reason is because one is proven, the other is not.

IceCreamEmpress · Aug 31, 2008

Mr. Anonymous said:
One of the key pieces of advice often given in critiques is to show, not tell. Why is it unacceptable for us to tell, but on the other hand, authors liked Dickens are lauded for it.

Because "show, don't tell" wasn't a literary goal or standard or commandment in Dickens's day. Nor in Bulgakov's.

Dickens wasn't "breaking" a "rule"--there was no such "rule" then.

Mad Queen · Aug 31, 2008

I think it's important to emphasise that 'show, not tell' exists to help you write a better story. If it doesn't improve your story, you are free to break this 'rule'. It's meant to guide you, not hinder your creativity. Sometimes telling is better than showing. Even editors say so--read the first chapter of Self-Editing for Fiction Writers.

Mr. Anonymous · Aug 31, 2008

Thanks for all your input guys!

Ice Cream Empress, you highlighted the main point I was trying to make. WHO came up with the rule? And why?

The answer? I suppose we did. The readers. After all, authors are producers and we are consumers. They respond to what we want.

And as others have alluded to... Times have changed. But what has changed in that time? Mad Queen mentioned that we've grown up with TV and movies, and in that regard I feel she nailed it.

I think the immediacy of television has made us more impatient as readers. Most television shows are either 30 minutes in length, or an hour. Probably just under a third of that time is spent in commercials. So the writers have, essentially, between 20-40 minutes to HOOK the audience, give them a good time, and then end on some sort of note that makes people want to come back for more.

I guess this is a personal pet peeve of mine, because some of my favorite passages from books involve telling rather than showing. That's not to say that I'm advocating a book that's all tell and no show. I guess all I'm saying is, if Charles Dickens posted the first chapter of A Tale of Two Cities on absolutewrite, most of us would tell him to scrap it and get to the action/plot. And I guess that just bothers me.

Marian Perera · Aug 31, 2008

Mr. Anonymous said:
I guess all I'm saying is, if Charles Dickens posted the first chapter of A Tale of Two Cities on absolutewrite, most of us would tell him to scrap it and get to the action/plot. And I guess that just bothers me.

If Margaret Mitchell or George R. R. Martin had tried to get Gone with the Wind or A Song of Ice and Fire published way back in Dickens's times, those might not have gone down so well either.

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

Toothpaste · Aug 31, 2008

As someone else has noted, sometimes it is actually better to tell. I find myself on boards like these often advising people to tell rather than show mostly because as writers we are told so often the opposite that people get obsessive about it. Once in a while, we need to do some telling. I would rather just read, "He got up and went to work", then "He got up. He turned off his alarm clock. He fell back asleep. He got up an hour later. He pushed off the covers. . . etc" I would much rather read, "After a month of walking they finally reached their destination" as opposed to an entire chapter of the terrain being covered.

It isn't about rules. It's about (as they say in good ol' Pirates of the Caribbean) guidelines. Most often the reader does not want to be lectured, or considered too stupid to put two and two together. To tell me someone was angry when you can show me him punching a hole in a wall, is a bit frustrating. But some of the examples of showing I just gave are equally so.

It's about understanding the rules, guidelines, understanding where they come from and what they are trying to achieve. You want to bend or break them once you fully get it, then go for it. People break them everyday. But the authors who do so successfully understand that they are in fact bending the rules. They know the rules in the first place.

I'd also say that there is a fair bit of showing in Dickens as well. Certainly that passage wasn't, but there are many physical descriptions he offers of characters that show you exactly what the author thought of them. Just because he told, doesn't mean he didn't also show.

He was just really good at both.

IceCreamEmpress · Aug 31, 2008

Mr. Anonymous said:
I guess all I'm saying is, if Charles Dickens posted the first chapter of A Tale of Two Cities on absolutewrite, most of us would tell him to scrap it and get to the action/plot. And I guess that just bothers me.

Have you ever read Time and Again by Jack Finney? There's a scene where the time-traveling protagonist, who is a successful commercial artist, draws a sketch in the style of 1960whatever. The people in 1882 look at the sketch and don't believe he can possibly be a professional artist, because the sketch looks unfinished to their eyes. That's what this makes me think of.

Charles Dickens was the master of the conventions of his time--he had a shrewd eye for the marketplace. If Dickens was alive today and started writing, he'd be writing in a way that fit today's marketplace, because that's how he rolled.

Heck, if Henry Fielding had traveled ahead in time, shown Tom Jones to Dickens, and asked him to serialize it in his magazine Household Words, Dickens would probably have pitched him out of the office, because the standards of 1729 were so different from the standards of the mid-19th century.

Mad Queen · Aug 31, 2008

I've noticed than when telling is used to compress a lot of repetitive action in a few sentences, it usually goes well. When telling is used for characterization, it's easier to make mistakes, especially when the point of view is omniscient. It drives me crazy when the telling is at odds with the showing--when the narrator tells how a character is, but the character's actions say otherwise. I adore The Count of Monte Cristo, but Dumas makes this mistake a couple of times.

Ken · Aug 31, 2008

I'm not sure if this would be considered to be telling, but there are a lot of instances in 19th century lit where novelists interrupt the narrative to offer an opinion on some mildly related matter, which would be rather annoying if the tangential asides weren't brilliant and full of psychological insight.

So what allowed great authors like Charlotte Bronte and Dostoyevsky to get away with telling of this sort, over and above what the conventions of the time period expected, was the deep insight into human behavior and society they had.

Mad Queen · Aug 31, 2008

I wished they had put their tangential asides in a separate work. They might have been great, but I don't want to read a treatise on religion when a character is about to kill the other.

Ken · Aug 31, 2008

there's a comic book version of Crime & Punishment that does just that...

Mad Queen · Aug 31, 2008

Well, I was thinking of Brothers Karamazov. I'll never forgive Elder Zosima for interrupting the story.

Ken · Aug 31, 2008

he did more than interupt the story. Zosima interupted humanity's consciousness and put it on a different course. (It's debatable whether we're better off.)

SPMiller · Aug 31, 2008

I follow one simple guideline which seems, so far, to lead to entertaining writing:

Tell when it's boring, show when it's interesting.

So if you need to skip over a big chunk of time--say, a journey--because you don't want to spend any time on boring stuff, just tell the reader it happened and move on to the exciting part.

TrickyFiction · Sep 1, 2008

Rules were made to be broken. But you've got to know the rules, so when you break them, you do it intentionally and without shame.

And what SPMiller says. I think that's excellent advice.

Phaeal · Sep 1, 2008

The "telling" at the beginning of A Tale of Two Cities and the still more brilliant opening of Bleak House is the voice of the omniscient narrator, a character in himself, touching on his themes like the overture of an opera that introduces the leitmotifs to be developed throughout the work. This is the high art of "telling."

"They traveled for two months through the high passes and the canyons, plagued by snow, rain and merciless sun" is workaday telling.

Both have their places.

One should note that Dickens was more than capable of "showing," writing scenes. Try the opening of Great Expectations for swift immersion in scene and a plot in media res, and with the MC upside down, too.

Write4U2 · Sep 1, 2008

willfulone said:
Others with intelligent explanations (although waylander sounded right on in one respect) will give you specifics on show/tell. But as a reader (which is all I am) I can tell you what I think as a reader about this issue.

I like to walk the pages of your story with your characters. If you show me what they experience my heart races while theirs does in a certain spot. I may gasp when they do, I may laugh with them or at them if you show me. You may even get me to cry with them. And, I know someone else is thinking/feeling something different in some cases when they read the same passage.

But, if you tell me everything (rather than showing me), I am an outsider looking in. It is as if I am sitting on a couch and you are holding my hand telling me exactly what this story should do for me - allowing me nothing individualized. I get no sense other than your version of events. I don't like to be told how I should read the story - even if it is yours. I want to be there if I can.

I know it sounds simplistic and possibly it does not make sense to another. But this is how I feel as a reader.

Just my opinion.

Good luck on your writing!

Christine

That's the whole magilla, isn't it? You are right on the money. Thanks. :Hug2:

Show, Don't Tell - Why Don't The Greats Play By The Rules?

Just a guy with a pen & a delusion

Who's going for a beer?

I've seen worse.

fantasy dweller

California Mountain Snake

An old, sappy, and happy one.

I am a zebra...

Lost in the Fog

Are you one, Herbert?

Hapless Virago

California Mountain Snake

Just a guy with a pen & a delusion

starting over

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

Hapless Virago

California Mountain Snake

California Mountain Snake

California Mountain Snake

Prodigiously Hanged

Who?

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.