Showing vs. telling vs. "good" telling

[Fallen]

Bold *Hiccup* too close to *hiccup* quotes. I need a decent editor for my posts...

 

[maestrowork]

I have a bad habit of telling when i should show. I have had some poeple tell me thats my problem. And ive read a thread that says its okay to have a mixture, but i can't even do that. I tell to much. does anyone have any ideas of how to help Show intead of tell?

Focus on the five senses and action. Use strong verbs instead of weak to-be verbs and adjectives/adverbs. Once you've done that, you're halfway there. The next step is to expand on summaries and judgments -- show us the action, senses, etc. instead.

E.g.

Maryn was furious -- a) it's a weak verb + adjective, b) it has no sensory input and c) it is a judgment (furious -- who decides she's furious? The narrator. Thus it's telling: The narrator TELLS us how we should think and judge the character)

Now let's take a look at "showing":

Maryn shrieked and pounded her fists on the counter (okay, it may be over-dramatic but we're here to illustrate a point): a) it has strong verbs -- shrieked, pounded, b) it has sensory input -- sound (shriek), action and textile (pound), and c) it's not a judgment, only facts.

The last point is important: present the facts, not the judgment. The narrator didn't tell us what to think. No judgment there. Instead, the narrator simply reports on how Maryn reacts: shrieks, pounds, etc. It's up to us, the readers, to infer. And that kind of showing is POWERFUL because we get to experience it and use our own cognitive abilities to understand emotions and subtexts, instead of someone telling us: "you know, Maryn is furious." Really? How furious? We can't feel any of that if you just frigging tell us.

Now, what to show and what to tell (summarize) is part of the art of storytelling. We writers must pick and choose the right details to show vs. tell and vice versa. Like Bufty said, we may not want to read all the boring, mundane details of how the guy gets on the boat, but by George, please show us HOW all Hell broke loose. Sometimes more details enhance the experience, and sometimes they bog down the pace and plot. We must learn to pick and choose and the idea is to keep the readers in that world we create, and to allow their imagination take hold by giving them the right sensory inputs.

 

[jvc]

I decided to merge the two 'Show vs Tell' threads into one. Might as well keep them in one place.

 

[maestrowork]

Boo, jed! We can never have enough "show vs. tell" threads!!!

 

[jvc]

I'm the bad guy today, but if it makes you feel any better there will no doubt be another along in a bit.

 

[bookbuyer]

Show vs Tell help? (merged with Showing vs. telling vs. "good" telling thread)

So, I have the problem of telling rather than showing a lot of the time. What are some ways to improve showing rather than telling when writing. Besides practice, because I already know that. Oh, and also how to better identify when you are telling rather than showing. Thanks BB.

 

[Bufty]

Read books! Real books! Novels of the type you wish to write.

Read them -don't skim them, and see where some things or some events are covered (or told/narrated/related very briefly and others are covered in more detail including dialogue.

It's a judgement call we all have to make as writers.

You have to be able to decide when it would achieve nothing to drag something out unnecessarily.

If you know you are telling more than showing you don't have a problem other than knowing how to show and that's very simple -

Stop using your brain to explain stuff to me when you should be writing down (in other words 'showing me') what happens and letting me use my brain to work out the result/effect for myself.

I deliberately haven't given any examples so you can use your brain to work it out.

Once you twig it -you're home and dry.

 

[Ryan_Sullivan]

There's a great thread toward the bottom of this forum page called "Show" vs. "Tell" vs. "Good Telling" (I believe) with a link to Agent Mary Kole's blog kidlit.com. Definitely check that out!

 

[dgiharris]

Read books! Real books! Novels of the type you wish to write.

Read them -don't skim them....

I will go one step further and say STUDY THEM. (which is what Bufty was implying )

Grab a favorite book, and dissect a particular scene that grabs you. Get a pencil and some paper and seriously deconstruct the scene; line by line, word by word and figure out exactly why you like this scene. Why did the author choose this word instead of that word? Look at the structure and pacing. Notice the mix of action verbs and descriptions.

You keep doing this until the lightbulb clicks in your head.

Also, the other thing that will help you enormously in this regard is critiquing.

Go to SYW and critique stories and read the critiques of others. It is harder to see our own mistakes, easier to see the mistakes of others.

Do the above enough times and eventually you will gain an intuitive feel for how to show and when to show.

Showing vs. telling is an art. Sometimes you tell, sometimes you show, sometimes you do both. It all depends on the best way of writing the story and what the scene demands.

This writing thing is part art and part science. THere is no magic formula.

good luck

Mel...

p.s. Also look around the site, we have a bazillion show don't tell threads
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184286

 

[seun]

Quick example:

Bob was angry.

So that's telling you that Bob was angry. Now you show me how Bob is angry.

 

[jvc]

Where's Ray? I told him there'd be another one around soon. Just didn't expect it to be this soon.

This thread is about to be merged with the other Show vs Tell thread. Prepare yourselves.

 

[maestrowork]

I was munching on my popcorn....

 

[jvc]

Buttered or salted?

 

[Maxim]

Like Bufty said, we may not want to read all the boring, mundane details of how the guy gets on the boat, but by George, please show us HOW all Hell broke loose.

It's important to show how all hell broke loose, but is it bad to still tell that it did? It seems like you should be able to say something like "As soon as he stepped on the boat, all hell broke loose." Followed by a description of what happened. Maybe I should give readers more credit, but I get the impression that if you give them a hint about how they're supposed to feel about the events that are about to transpire, they are more likely to have the appropriate reaction. So what if the boat capsized and the grill fell in the water. Maybe the reader doesn't like bbq. (okay, extreme example, but you get my point.) By saying all hell broke loose, you are telling the reader to be prepared for everything that is about to happen.

This is something I've struggled with, mostly because I have trouble figuring out what people mean when they say show don't tell, or what exactly counts as which. You're just writing the story with whatever words are necessary to impart it, so I have trouble wrapping my mind around it that way and I wonder whether my interpretation is correct. If you only tell, then you have provided insufficient words to impart the story. If you never tell, you have also provided insufficient words. I think it's okay to tell to direct the reader as long as you provide sufficient evidence to back it up. If you say "Becky was happy about the gift she received," but then don't either make her behave adequately happy or demonstrate in some other way that she is happy, then it is insufficient. (That is, unless Becky's happiness is tangential and unimportant to the story. Fewer words should be dedicated to unimportant things, but that's a whole other issue right there.)

 

[maestrowork]

Buttered or salted?

Ray took another handful of slightly salted, lightly cinnamon-sugar-coated popcorn and shoved it in his mouth, crunching, savoring, and watched as the threads continue to merge and expand.

 

[maestrowork]

It's important to show how all hell broke loose, but is it bad to still tell that it did? It seems like you should be able to say something like "As soon as he stepped on the boat, all hell broke loose." Followed by a description of what happened.

Why tell if you are already going to show. And why do you summarize first before you let us experience it? To me, that's short circuiting the experience and letting the cat out of the bag too soon. Really, think about it. Would you write like this?

"Hannibal Lecter killed and ate his victim" followed by the details of how he did it? Sure, you can do that, but part of the experience is to be grossed out and shocked and horrified. What is the purpose of letting us know he killed and ate the victim before describing it in details? What are you trying to accomplish?

I've learned from my editor (and I totally agreed with her) that if you must summarize the whole thing, do it last for emphasis:

Compared this:
"The steak melted in my mouth. The buttered lobster tail exploded with flavors, followed by a hazelnut creme brulee that lingered. The meal was scrumptious."

with this:
"The meal was scrumptious. The steak melted in my mouth. The buttered lobster tail exploded with flavors, followed by a hazelnut creme brulee that lingered."

In the first example, the last line emphasizes what we just experienced, and the readers would -- hopefully -- agree: yes, indeed, it's scrumptious because they've already tasted, in their minds, the steak, the lobster and the creme brulee. The agreement is spontaneous and relevant.

In the second example, the first line is wasted. We haven't tasted anything yet. We're set up to believe the meal must be scrumptious. And it was, but it's after the fact. The first line does NOTHING. It has no effect. The rest of the paragraph does the job nicely of conveying the fact that the meal was scrumptious -- thank you very much. Setting up expectations only set up disappointment: what if the rest of the paragraph doesn't sound scrumptious (let's say, the reader don't like any of that food)?

Better yet, cut out the summary and let the facts stand. Then the readers can make up their own minds: "ooh, that sounds scrumptious" or "ewww, I hate lobsters and creme brulee."

Then you have someone who says: What about just telling them "the meal was scrumptious." You can do that, definitely, if the summary is enough. The issue here is, again: Do you want your readers to experience it, or do you want them to take your words for granted? That if you say the meal was scrumptious it must have been scrumptious.

Maybe I should give readers more credit, but I get the impression that if you give them a hint about how they're supposed to feel about the events that are about to transpire, they are more likely to have the appropriate reaction.

Yes, you should give your readers more credit. Also, you shouldn't try to "force" your readers to feel either way. And you should give yourself more credit, too. It seems to me that you're not confident you can get the point across and make the readers come to the same conclusion, so you feel you have to preemptively tell them, before anything happens, what happened and how they should feel. You're forcing your conclusion on them before presenting them with evidence. That's the ultimate pitfall of "tell" and if you do that BEFORE you show, you beat the purpose of "show."

It's as if a lawyer tells the jury, "thus, the defendant is guilty without a doubt" before any evidence is presented or witnesses questioned.

So what if the boat capsized and the grill fell in the water. Maybe the reader doesn't like bbq. (okay, extreme example, but you get my point.) By saying all hell broke loose, you are telling the reader to be prepared for everything that is about to happen.

SHOWing us how Hell break loose is ALWAYS more interesting than telling us. Why must you prepare your readers? Think about it, when you watch a movie, would you want the narrator tells you how Romeo and Juliet died at the end first, before showing us how things happened and how they, yes, died at the end? Again, why do you feel like you have to summarize for them first?

Do you not trust the readers to be smart enough? Or do you not trust you're a good enough writer to get the job done?

If you must tell, then tell. But it really is pointless to tell, then show...

Worse, in your example (what if the readers don't like BBQ), do you really think now they would decide "yeah, all Hell did break loose" because you told them first? I'd counter and say now they will call you bluff, because you set up expectations. Now they're going to say, "bullshit, all Hell didn't break loose. It was just a tiny accident."

So, in this case, it's better to let the readers be the judge and leave the judgment out. Present them with the facts only. Don't editorialize.

 

[Maxim]

Sure, in the examples you gave it might seem that way, but I don't believe it always works that way and in fact I would say that it often doesn't. It isn't about making the reader believe that it is a tragedy even though they don't like bbq, but it is about imparting the experience of the main character. Readers can imagine that they care that the bbq fell into the water if they are told that they should. Giving indicators for what they should expect, and informing them of how the mood shifts makes the read easier and more accessible. I think it can make the story flow.

In your example, saying the meal was scrumptious before describing it may or may not be appropriate depending on context. The company might have been dismal, but the food was delightful. It draws contrast and sets the reader up for a more positive mood shift. In your example, it is very clear that the meal is scrumptious from your description, but it isn't always that clear, because situations aren't always that clear. Sometimes the reader should be directed regarding how they should interpret something when multiple interpretations are possible, as they very often are.

I know fiction is different and can break a lot of rules set in place for other types of writing, but I still believe it's best to make things as easy on the reader as possible, and if that means topic sentences to help them glide more easily through the story, all the better. Telling guides them through what happened and allows them to parse out the shifts in plot while descriptions make it real.

 

[Kalyke]

Showing comes when you exhchange those realtion verbs 'was, were, is are' and when you change abstract language (beautiful, happy, colourful) for words you can easily picture (house, car, settees -- anything that the reader can quickly and easily picture in their heads).

You're talking about the ladder of abstraction (Plato) and not nescessarily showing v. Telling. Beautiful and car are very different concepts. You cannot use "car" as a replacement for beautiful. Obviously you mean it is better to describe an object than say it was beautiful, but there is nothing terribly wrong with using beautiful as a descriptive word either, it simply is not very accurate because as you say it is subjective.
Also "was" is not a "telling verb," it is a conjugation (past perfect, I believe) of "To be." I've actually never read a grammar book using the term "telling verb," because it is not in any grammar books. All verbs tell. A verb denotes action. Even "being" (existing) is an action. I don't think any one verb is guilty of undermining a piece of weak writing. You don't just get better writing by exchanging bad verbs for good ones. Strong writing is holistic, with many attributes, that is why it is an art.

Telling: Martha called Jake. Is telling.

Showing: Martha quickly keyed his number. Her heart beat loudly as she watched the men who were following her round the corner. "Answer, please," she thought, feeling as she had the last time Buddy tried to molest her ... etc. Is showing.

 

[Bufty]

[Maxim] Sure, in the examples you gave it might seem that way, but I don't believe it always works that way and in fact I would say that it often doesn't. It isn't about making the reader believe that it is a tragedy even though they don't like bbq, but it is about imparting the experience of the main character. Readers can imagine that they care that the bbq fell into the water if they are told that they should. Giving indicators for what they should expect, and informing them of how the mood shifts makes the read easier and more accessible. I think it can make the story flow.

In your example, saying the meal was scrumptious before describing it may or may not be appropriate depending on context. The company might have been dismal, but the food was delightful. It draws contrast and sets the reader up for a more positive mood shift. In your example, it is very clear that the meal is scrumptious from your description, but it isn't always that clear, because situations aren't always that clear. Sometimes the reader should be directed regarding how they should interpret something when multiple interpretations are possible, as they very often are.

I know fiction is different and can break a lot of rules set in place for other types of writing, but I still believe it's best to make things as easy on the reader as possible, and if that means topic sentences to help them glide more easily through the story, all the better. Telling guides them through what happened and allows them to parse out the shifts in plot while descriptions make it real.

Telling/showing is always a judgement call -a mix.

But if one treats the reader as having at least the same amount of intelligence as yourself then surely there is no necessity to 'prime them' to react in the way you wish by 'telling' them in advance what is coming, although you may still wish to do so.

Your 'showing' through your writing should be sufficient to enable the reader to react in the desired manner. If it isn't - it's rewriting that is required

 

[maestrowork]

Sometimes the reader should be directed regarding how they should interpret something when multiple interpretations are possible, as they very often are.

Why do you want to do that? Why do you want to tell the readers "the meal is scrumptious" and then proceed to show them that it's mediocre at best?

Interpretations are great, and that's what you want. That's the whole point of SHOW. You don't want to pass the judgment. You want to present the readers with the facts and then let them make the judgment. Don't tell us she is beautiful. Show us. That's the whole point of show vs. tell. To do it otherwise is to not understand why you're showing in the first place, and thus negate the effect.

My point is, yes, you can "direct" the readers by telling them "the meal is scrumptious." And leave it at that. Nothing wrong with pure "tell." Or you can show them "the meal is scrumptious" and let them be the judge. But what purpose exactly does it serve if you tell them first how they should interpret the passage and then proceed to contradict it (okay, it can be done to effect as sarcasm, etc. -- see below). And if you do successfully describe the scrumptious meal, why do you need to force the readers to interpret it that way? Do you not trust your own ability as a writer? When Hemingway describe a delicious feast with oyster and wine, he never preempted it by saying "it was delicious" -- you just KNOW, from his wonderful description. To have to "direct" the readers means exactly that you lack the ability to let your descriptions do the work.

And even if the readers do have a different interpretation, that is fine. Your job as a writer is to present the facts and emotions, etc. through the five senses and your words. Your job isn't to direct the readers and force them to interpret something exactly the way you want (you can't, anyway). Your job is to trust them and yourself to come to the same conclusion via vivid writing.

Now, as I mentioned before, you could use tell + show for special effects, such as sarcasm:

The meal was scrumptious. Broken pieces of dry chicken. Charred corn. Flat soda.

Even so, I'd contest and say it'd be more effective if the "scrumptious" part is at the end. That would REALLY drive the sarcasm.

 

[maestrowork]

Telling: Martha called Jake. Is telling.

Showing: Martha quickly keyed his number. Her heart beat loudly as she watched the men who were following her round the corner. "Answer, please," she thought, feeling as she had the last time Buddy tried to molest her ... etc. Is showing.

Actually, both are telling or showing depending on your definition. They're just different levels of details. Both are facts, so both are show. But the second example went into more details.

In truth, all written fiction is "telling" anyway, because there really is nothing to "show" physically. We write words, and those words tell us what is happening. Unlike, say, movies.

The idea here is with written fiction, whether you're presenting us facts or imposing a judgment/interpretation on us.

Show: she called him -- it's brief and doesn't have any details, but it's a fact. We don't have to actually see her picking up the phone and dialing the numbers. We know how someone calls another.

Tell: she is nervous when she called him -- this is not just facts. We have no idea if she is nervous or not. We can't see her. The narrator is telling us she is nervous -- it's a judgment. Did she shake when she called? Did she stutter? Did she dial and then hang up? Here, the details are important to "show" us how she is nervous.

 

[Maxim]

I think you're missing my point about the intention when using telling in that circumstance. Some things should be left to judgment. Other things are only important in how they are perceived by the mc. If you describe oysters and wine to me as the reader, I would be suppressing a gagging reflex, not thinking "yum". On the other hand, very rare and even raw steak can make my mouth water, to many that would be disgusting. I could describe it all I want, but I'd better tell my reader what reaction that description is supposed to illicit. Of course, there are always ways around it, I could spend a paragraph describing the meal and another describing the reaction, but I believe that should be reserved only for very important instances. One simple telling sentence solves the problem and helps them interpret the rest.

Sure, readers could figure it out on their own, but they shouldn't have to. Writing should be as clear as possible and make them have to work as little as possible. Directing their attention to shifts in mood or circumstance just make it easier for them to move through quickly and not be bogged down or weighted by descriptions or fast changes. You can say it at the end, but by then it's too late. It draws contrast, (like I said about the company being dismal but the food delightful) and it transitions the reader effortlessly. I trust them to take something deeper from my descriptions, but I don't want to force them to have to. I trust them to find the subtleties and make interpretations and judgments about many things, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't guide them through the story.

Do I doubt the the reader can get by just fine without them, not really. But I also think that it makes for clearer writing to direct the reader. "She was nervous" sets the stage for the rest of the description. You want them to imagine nervousness when you tell them her heart started to pound and her hands started to shake, not fury. It might become clear as the passage proceeds, but the reader shouldn't have to waste any time with the wrong impression. There, judgment does matter. There is a wrong interpretation. Now, when you're describing, say, a tree that the character likes to sit under then yes, you want to leave it open to interpretation because it will help the reader relate to the tree in their own lives. You're describing a scene, it's peripheral, it doesn't matter what interpretation the reader makes. There is no correct interpretation unless it matters for the plot. So what you're saying isn't wrong in those circumstances, but those are peripheral. But when the main character sees their love interest across the room for the first time, "He was hot." isn't necessarily bad. It tells the reader that the MC finds the following attributes extremely attractive, which is an extremely subjective thing. It allows you to be vague enough about those attributes for the reader to insert attributes that they find fit the description. You are passing an important judgment rather than showing because the judgment is what matters and not the description. That man is hot and the reader can fill in the rest so that they imagine an attractive gentleman, making it a more personal experience.

 

[spamwarrior]

I think you're missing my point about the intention when using telling in that circumstance. Some things should be left to judgment. Other things are only important in how they are perceived by the mc. If you describe oysters and wine to me as the reader, I would be suppressing a gagging reflex, not thinking "yum". On the other hand, very rare and even raw steak can make my mouth water, to many that would be disgusting. I could describe it all I want, but I'd better tell my reader what reaction that description is supposed to illicit. Of course, there are always ways around it, I could spend a paragraph describing the meal and another describing the reaction, but I believe that should be reserved only for very important instances. One simple telling sentence solves the problem and helps them interpret the rest.

Well, how does the character feel about the meal? I would be less worried about conveying to my readers the sense that the meal is delicious than conveying to my readers the sense that the character thinks that the meal is delicious.

 

[Lady Ice]

For me 'bad telling' is giving judgements on the characters that aren't verified by anything we see in the novel:

'He was a charitable man.' Obviously you'd want some evidence of that- not necessarily a whole scene in which he gives a large sum of money to an orphanage but certainly some small action or moment that shows this. Even if you add a backstory: 'He had donated money to many hospitals', there still has to be something about the character that makes me believe that (unless it's supposed to be a lie).

 

[maestrowork]

Well, how does the character feel about the meal? I would be less worried about conveying to my readers the sense that the meal is delicious than conveying to my readers the sense that the character thinks that the meal is delicious.

Right. There's that.

For one person who thinks lobsters are delicious, there's another reader who despise them. You can't TELL them to think it's delicious. You can either just tell them "trust me, it's a delicious meal" and leave it at that, or you can describe the meal, let them experience it, and LET them make the judgment.

That's the key point of show vs. tell.

Seriously, let's say the character thinks the meal is delicious because he likes raw steak, but the reader doesn't: "yuck!" Let's say this is true -- a disconnect between character and reader. Fine. It happens.

What does putting the TELL before the show accomplish? NOTHING.

You're not going to convince the readers that raw steak IS delicious simply by stating that judgment before everything else. "Directing" doesn't work. Likewise, if the readers think raw steak is delicious, you don't have to tell them how to feel. TRUST them.

But if you only describe the food, the reader can make his own judgment: "yuck!" (show only)

But if you must show AND tell at the same time (for emphasis):

If you describe the food first, then say "it's scrumptious" -- the reader FIRST gets the impression of the meal, experiences the sensory details, and says, "yuck," and then sees that the character loves the food. The delayed judgment puts the readers in the personal experience first, then they realize their reaction is very different from that of the character/narrator. The reaction is "how could you think raw steak is delicious?" (or, they agree: "hey yeah, I am craving raw steak now.")

It's the idea of effective proximity. Again, direction doesn't work well because by the time you've finished describing the meal, three sentences later, the readers have already forgotten that it was supposed to be delicious and only remember, "oh, raw steak, yuck." However, if put the "tell" part at the end, since sensory details are overwhelmingly stronger than "tell/summary," the effect is stronger, even if the readers do not agree with the character/narrator. You already got them with the sensory details; you now are DRIVING the point across with the final emphasis.