Which sentence works better? — And showing rather than telling.

They both show very nicely. I'll let others suggest better word forms and punctuation.

H7TM4N, in both cases you are telling us that Greg pulled a bench from under the table. You do include a bit of nice detail that gives us an image of the setting (show). For me, if you concern is show vs. tell, then focus on the sensations of the event.


I've obviously showed a bit more than just pulling a bench from under the table, but you get what I'm doing, yes?

H7TM4N said:

In my writing, a character Greg pulls a low bench from under a table. Im trying to show instead of tell this, which still isn't easy for me. First of all, which of these two options do you all prefer:

Click to expand...

It depends on what the purposes is of the sentence. Your show should inform us of what is important to the character.

1) Reaching under the table jammed against the wall, Greg dragged a low bench scraping across the hardpacked earthen floor, leaving shallow marks.

Click to expand...

Here, the part that sticks out is the hardpacked earthen floor, because that is a specific description. More specific than an unmodified table or bench. The marks appear to be important to Greg, in this writing. I wonder why he is concerned about scuffing the floor.

2) Greg reached under the table jammed against the wall; the low bench scraping loudly across the hardpacked earthen floor, left shallow marks.

Click to expand...

Here, the noise seems more important because you call it out as loud. I wonder what he is concerned about if someone hears.

Incidentally, you have changed sentence structure between the two options. Again, the larger context might impact which of these is preferable.

Secondly, are there any good tips you could give someone new to writing to help show instead of tell? Especially, when it comes to actions.

Click to expand...

The more your actions can tell us about character, the better. Use an adjective or two in the right spot. Try writing the same sentence from different viewpoints to see how each character would experience the moment uniquely. You are free to add and embellish with a second sentence of action or 'thought' or other. You are free to embellish to give us more of the character and world.

Reaching under the table jammed against the wall, Greg dragged a low bench out. The joinery stopped him cold. Dovetails, in the exact dimensions his mom used. He flipped the bench over, holding against hope as he scanned for the woodmaker's mark. His heart sunk. No, this wasn't one of his mother's.

Click to expand...

^The specific detail that matters to him (the joinery), and why it matters, is shown.

First, a quick reprisal of showing vs. telling by Patricia Wrede, a trade-published fantasy author with a long career: (https://www.pcwrede.com/show-vs-tell/)

"“Show, don’t tell” is one of the two most misunderstood and misapplied pieces of writing advice that are commonly given to new writers (the other being “write what you know,” but that’s a different post.) It’s most commonly trotted out in relation to characterization, where “show” generally means “dramatize.” That is, rather than saying that George is both mean and a miser, the writer “shows” him complaining about his restaurant meal in order to avoid leaving a tip, turning the heat down on a bitterly cold day, kicking a puppy, etc.

One ought never, according to this advice, write something like “Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grind-stone…a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner!” That would be bad writing. Fortunately, nobody told Dickens that, or we wouldn’t have that lovely description of Scrooge."

So, showing and telling both have their place, and also, any action is a show, at least the way I see it. Using your example, you don't have to worry about descriptions of actions being "shows." Describing an action is close enough to a definition of a show, at least for me.

So the question at that point is which show is more effective, not which one is more "telly."

I'll include a mini-critique here.

1) Reaching under the table jammed against the wall rather than overloading the opening participial phrase, I'd deal with the table placement earlier if it's important, or omit if it's not, Greg dragged a low benchcomma scraping across the hardpacked I'd cut--any earthen floor in these conditions tends to be packed down, and also, it eliminates the moment where I got knocked out, thinking it couldn't have been very well packed if moving an empty bench can leave grooves earthen floor, leaving shallow marks.

2) Greg reached under the table jammed against the wall same comment as previous; the low bench scraping loudly across the hardpacked earthen floor,no comma left shallow marks. Uh, this one won't work at all. Here the low bench scraping loudly modifies Greg reaching under the table. Even with the two independent clause construction, by omitting the dragging, the sentence falls apart.

Hope this helps. : )

If I'm being completely bluntly honest, I'd prefer "Greg pulled a low bench from under a table". I agree with Cathleen that show v tell is frequently misunderstood. Unless the you have a reason for the stool to be making loud noises or tracks in the ground, I would just go with "Greg pulled a low bench from under the table".

Not only is telling fine, it's sometimes necessary. I generally choose one or the other based on how important it is to the story. For central events, characterisation, details etc, I'll show it. However for less important details, if you elaborate too much you'll go off on tangents and your story will be bogged down with unnecessary description. This then has a negative effect on pacing. (Though if you want to slow a story down in places because the pacing's too fast you can use this to your advantage as long as you keep it interesting.)

I'm concerned that this action you're trying to show rather than tell isn't important enough to require such a vivid description. If it is really important, as in what happens afterwards won't make sense unless this stool has been pulled out amid tracks in the ground/a loud noise, then choose the one that has the effect you need. If it's just an incidental thing he does (like maybe he pulls out the stool to stand on it and get something really important down off the shelf) then I'd just say plainly that he pulled out the stool and stood on it, and save my descriptive words for the important thing on the shelf.

Good tips: choose the right details. Also, it's common for fairly new writers to think that you have to describe every little action. You don't. For example:

Joe gripped the door handle, turned it, and pushed the door open. Then he walked through it. Then he walked across the room, opened the fridge and took out some bread (etc etc longwinded description of making a sandwich)

versus

Joe went into the kitchen and made himself a sandwich.

The first might be appropriate if Joe was recovering from a serious illness or injury that made doing all those movements difficult, so you'd want to emphasise that he's now well enough to do those things. For nearly every other situation, you'd just say he made a sandwich. You don't need to say that he opened the kitchen door, opened the fridge, got bread, filling, utensils etc, because all this is implied by "went into the kitchen and made himself a sandwich"

Last tip: there's loads of good advice out there, but almost none of it should be taken as rules. The advice is important but it has to be understood in context. There are always times when the advice doesn't apply. About the only thing I'd say always applies is "don't bore or confuse the reader" though what's boring is subjective and there's probably someone out there that's managed to make confusing the reader work artistically.