The "show don't tell" and "info dump" question

Balthynu said:

I'm just wondering what the views of others are regarding "show don't tell" and "info dump" issues.
Is the writing of a novel becoming merely a step in the process of seeing ones story on the big screen? As the story plays out in our minds as we write it do we almost watch it as though it were being played out on a screen and then present those images on the page?

Click to expand...

Speaking from my small experience writing seriously, this kind of mentality does happen to me. When I first envision a scene (a lot of time with the aide of music) it plays in my mind like a movie. The characters exist abstractly (in appearance) and when it's over I am tasked with putting it down in words. Part of this may be with how we, as a society, have moved to being very visual in our media tastes. It upsets me how many times I hear about a child or an adult saying "I don't really like reading." They sure love movies though. My opinion there is that they simply haven't found something they find interesting to read...Without digressing anymore, I think you're on the right track here.

Balthynu said:

It’s a widely held consensus that cinema goers aren’t fans of flashbacks and I can understand why info dumping is bad in terms of a visual medium but have these issues merely transferred from screenwriting to novel/literary writing?

Click to expand...

Speaking as a reader who doesn't watch many movies, info dumps are seldom interesting. When I see someone do this in a book it loses my attention (something of which is shortening in the younger generations as I somewhat alludes to in my first answer). They're breaking away from the action to tell me something that "prevents" further action from happening. A change of approach could streamline this process and inform me without losing me to a wall of text.

Balthynu said:

Who told you to “show don’t tell”?

Click to expand...

I've heard the tip from too many to count. It goes up on my list of writing "rules" or what have you. When you're writing your story, you want it to be captivating. It should be something that the reader really wants to pick back up and finish. Using action can keep that interest fairly easy. If you want to flash back, let me be there when it happens. Don't sit me down in the middle of your story so one of your characters can sit me down and tell me their story. I want to be right there as the story is happening, flashback or not.

That's my two cents. Hope this helps.

EDIT: Not saying that telling in a story is a big no-no. Just don't go overboard

Yes it does seem to be taken a little bit too far, to the point where anything which is summarised instead of fully dramatised is viewed as some sort of cardinal sin. The ability to do that is very much a strength of the medium in my opinion. While i do understand where it comes from, it seems that, like all of these writing rules, it is taken to extremes. The reason for that is, people don't really understand the reasons for most of them, and so don't have the ability to decide when the advice is actually applicable.

The 'rules' are always listed, but never fully explained. For me, when i read, i don't mind a bit of 'tell' here and there. And i'd imagine most people don't. It's mainly when people's emotions are described during an action sequence that it becomes a bit awkward. like beautifully describing some chilling scenery and then adding 'Bob was scared.' That's when it's cumbersome and doesn't really fit. It would be better to show us little signs of that fear. But that doesn't mean everything must be fully dramatised. Telling is still necessary throughout most stories in my opinion.

Info-dumps are the same. In my opinion it's fine to put a little bit of extra information for the purpose of clarification. It's only when people put too much in at once that it becomes a problem. But again, the distinction is rarely made, and people just prescribe the sacred writing commandments without actually explaining what the problem is.

People are too quick to try to assert these things as rules.. Thou shalt eliminate every single adverb, Thou shalt never use 'was' etc. Always with the understanding that while they are not rules per se, if you commit these heinous crimes, you will never ever get published under any circumstances and the editors will burn your manuscripts as part of an ancient ritual that wards against new writers.. So please sign up to my writing class and pay me money and i will clue you in to the golden rules...

If you read... I dunno, let's say, any book that's ever actually been published, you quickly realise that these rules don't actually exist at all. Or if they do, neither writers nor publishers are paying any attention to them.

It would be interesting to hear from any editors who have had an otherwise brilliant manuscript, but have rejected it on the basis of finding a word on page 47 that ended with the egregious 'ly' which apparently is like a crucifix to a vampire.

Balthynu said:

Is the writing of a novel becoming merely a step in the process of seeing ones story on the big screen?

Click to expand...

No. Because 99.9% recurring of novels will never appear on the big screen.

Honestly, I don't see what 'show don't tell' has got to do with screenwriting. It's simply a technique in narrative that serves to engage the reader by exploiting the processes we all use in our everyday life to deduce what other people are thinking and/or feeling.

Instead of telling the reader that someone is experiencing an emotion, we describe actions and/or expressions that the reader associates with those emotions. The reader then deduces the emotion the character is experiencing.

If you tell the reader a character is sad, that does not give them the extent of empathy with that feeling that they experience if they work it out for themselves.

As for who first told me about it, no idea at all.

Novels have existed a lot longer than movies. I suspect if there has been any transfer of techniques, it's from novels to movies, not the other way around.

I think that show/don't tell can sometimes be taken to extremes. When I read, I notice quite a bit of telling, and it doesn't bother me. In Share Your Work, though, some people seem to be of the opinion that there must be absolutely no telling. I've read books that use very little telling, and I usually find them hard to follow.

Buffysquirrel said:

If you tell the reader a character is sad, that does not give them the extent of empathy with that feeling that they experience if they work it out for themselves.

Click to expand...

Well put. That is exactly the reason. It's meant to let the reader actually share the experience.

It was never meant to eliminate all summary. In fact, imagine how much longer books would be if they couldn't summarise at all. You can't 'show' absolutely everything. But people often don't explain it as clearly as you have.

I think show, don't tell applies for the most part to certain styles. For example, I tend to write in a very fairytale style where I do a lot of telling, but it works because it flows and the style works with that kind of thing. I also love working with pure dialogue where everything takes place in conversation, so I suppose that would be a form of 'telling'. All that being said, I still like to leave things vague and metaphorical so people can fill in the blanks through context. I feel as though telling becomes more annoying in more literal stories, where a precedent is set for showing and then we don't see the follow through. Again, it all comes down to the style for me and the skill of the writer within that style.

As for info dumping, I hate it. I am very minimalistic (some people say too much) and I simply can't stand getting entirely too much information (that's sometimes useless) all in one place. It's boring and frankly just uncreative. I want to learn about the world as though I'm moving through it, not like I'm reading an encyclopedia about it!

Balthynu said:

I'm just wondering what the views of others are regarding "show don't tell" and "info dump" issues.
Looking round the boards especially in the SYW section I've noticed people being advised to show don't tell and to avoid info dumping and wonder what's it all about.
To my mind show don’t tell is central to writing for the screen. no, although it is important there. It is central to avoiding an entire novel of "Tom was angry. Really angry. Then he got sad. Later on, he was happy, because he liked puppies." All telling, no showing--does Tom scowl when he's mad? Ball his fists? Punch drywall? Roll his eyes and resort to snark? We'd never know. Every script and screenplay writing guide will tell you this and I’m wondering if that’s where all this springs from.again, no. it has a role there too, but it isn't a guideline mis-applied from another medium. I remember reading a blog post or something from a literary agent who bemoaned the fact that so many of the novels submitted to them where clearly written for the screen and wonder if that’s the way writing is evolving. Is the writing of a novel becoming merely a step in the process of seeing ones story on the big screen? As the story plays out in our minds as we write it do we almost watch it as though it were being played out on a screen and then present those images on the page? While the advice to “show don’t tell” does have its place and is something we must all be aware of I have to wonder any form of emphasis could potentially damage the medium that is the novel making it little more than a detailed screen play. sometimes it can....strict adherence to guidelines rather than an understanding of them tends to do that though. It’s a similar although somewhat different story with info dumping and flashbacks. It’s a widely held consensus that cinema goers aren’t fans of flashbacks and I can understand why info dumping is bad in terms of a visual medium but have these issues merely transferred from screenwriting to novel/literary writing? Surely literary writing should be primarily about putting the words on the page and about prose and narrative and not visual imagery. Two books I have in mind concerning this issue are Hilary Mantels Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies both of which I think are excellent works but which I also think have a fair bit of “tell” rather than “show” along with info dumping. I suppose I’m just wondering where other people stand on the issue. Who told you to “show don’t tell”?

Click to expand...

re: infodumping: Here's the thing--an infodump is not the same as a flashback, or exposition. It is exposition and/or back-story handled in a decidedly distracting, clumsy, or blatant manner.
An infodump is by definition bad, then, this is like trying to argue one can tenderly rape someone, married couples do so all the time--they don't, what they are doing is, by definition, not rape. You don't have a good infodump, you have backstory or exposition handled well. If it is an "infodump" then it has issues by definition.

Honest Bill said:

People are too quick to try to assert these things as rules.. Thou shalt eliminate every single adverb, Thou shalt never use 'was' etc. Always with the understanding that while they are not rules per se, if you commit these heinous crimes, you will never ever get published under any circumstances and the editors will burn your manuscripts as part of an ancient ritual that wards against new writers.. So please sign up to my writing class and pay me money and i will clue you in to the golden rules...

If you read... I dunno, let's say, any book that's ever actually been published, you quickly realise that these rules don't actually exist at all. Or if they do, neither writers nor publishers are paying any attention to them.

It would be interesting to hear from any editors who have had an otherwise brilliant manuscript, but have rejected it on the basis of finding a word on page 47 that ended with the egregious 'ly' which apparently is like a crucifix to a vampire.

Click to expand...

Awesome.

When I take a class and join a crit group where people are following the rules to a tee, all the stories start to look the same to me. People know what to take out, but they don't seem to know what to put in instead. I just started a story where I have a flashback in the first chapter. I've spent a year never doing flashbacks or prologues and avoiding any sort of information dump possible. It was very relaxing to have that flashback in there and say, "Screw it."

As far as the "show don't tell" thing goes, I've always seen it as "know when to show and when to tell." I don't necessarily need to know every detail of a person's boring routine (like hygiene)--that's for telling. The important, exciting things that I need to know in order to understand this story...that's for showing.

And I can tell when something is info-dumping when it stops the story cold. For example, a scene showing a character looking at a calendar then remembering (in flashback) the last yearly visit of her not-so-favorite aunt is not info-dumping.

However, if instead of showing the scene, the character talks with her husband with about it like, "You know how Aunt Belinda always visits at this time of year and how she gets on everybody's nerves...?"--I would call this info-dumping. It doesn't feel natural because the husband already knows this.

Knowing how to slip in information into a story where it doesn't feel out of place is difficult. Some things have to be imparted to the reader so that what's happening is understood, but it's up to the author to do it in a way that is not noticed.

Buffysquirrel said:

No. Because 99.9% recurring of novels will never appear on the big screen.

Honestly, I don't see what 'show don't tell' has got to do with screenwriting. It's simply a technique in narrative that serves to engage the reader by exploiting the processes we all use in our everyday life to deduce what other people are thinking and/or feeling.

Instead of telling the reader that someone is experiencing an emotion, we describe actions and/or expressions that the reader associates with those emotions. The reader then deduces the emotion the character is experiencing.

If you tell the reader a character is sad, that does not give them the extent of empathy with that feeling that they experience if they work it out for themselves.

Click to expand...

This.^

Telling has its place, though. As does exposition and backstory.

Melinda Moore said:

Awesome.

When I take a class and join a crit group where people are following the rules to a tee, all the stories start to look the same to me. People know what to take out, but they don't seem to know what to put in instead.

Click to expand...

That's another thing i see a lot of. This is particularly true with adverbs. Everyone says it's better to use a stronger verb to convey the same meaning, but rarely do they ever offer an example of these all powerful verbs.

When it comes to writing I feel a mix is appropriate. As Abrams said "know whenbto show and when to tell". It definitely depends on how one approaches the 'show and don't tell' rule. I'm a lover of words and a thicker sentence structure has never hurt. For example I love the work of Angela Carter, but she does not mindlessly present long paragraphs of boring detail. Although, with any story there's information that isn't necessary.

The problem most likely lies where a writer is simply filling space to gain a higher wordcount. However, I guess with too much show, you may not know where the story is going as a reader.

This is not something that can be answered in the abstract. It's a fine principle, but the only real criterion is whether or no your story works. "Show" and "tell" are labels that can be convenient for reference, or even for an editorial shorthand, but beyond that, not much can be said outside the context of a specific piece of writing.

I've read the advice countless times. I've even read conscientiously-prepared examples. At the end, I am still left with the question: but how does that apply to this particular scene I'm writing?

I have learned one valuable insight from the critique forums, though. Sometimes the difference is not much more than a word or two. I had thought it applied at the level of entire paragraphs, but it's more subtle than that.

Sometimes you tell. It's called "storytelling," not "storyshowing."

But, overall, the show VS tell thing is good.

As far as where "show don't tell" came from, when I taught high school it was actually written into our writing standards as a skill students should master.

On screen, showing would have to be the default unless you have a narrator who is telling the audience parts of the story through one of those disembodied voices like some movies do but that's pretty rare. In writing, 'Show, don't tell.' is pretty simple. Instead of writing "Ann was a really kind person," in a 3rd person omniscient sort of way, SHOW us that Ann is kind by creating a scene wherein Ann does a kind thing and let the reader come to their own conclusion that Ann must be kind.

Of course don't fall into the trap of showing us every damned irrelevant-to-the-plot thing. If Ann and Sue are having lunch and discussing something, it's totally okay to skip over the boring stuff and just say "After Ann and Sue placed their order, Sue decided it was time to bring up the important issue that moves the plot along." You seriously DON'T need to show us that Ann ordered a Cobb salad with dressing on the side and extra croutons unless she end up choking on a crouton later on.

rwm4768 said:

I think that show/don't tell can sometimes be taken to extremes. When I read, I notice quite a bit of telling, and it doesn't bother me. In Share Your Work, though, some people seem to be of the opinion that there must be absolutely no telling. I've read books that use very little telling, and I usually find them hard to follow.

Click to expand...

This. Numerous novels tell a lot in their book and most of them are bestselling books. Many people don't complained about the excesses of telling they do. Telling isn't bad, it's just as the old saying goes "Too much of a good thing is bad for you." Not saying telling is a good or bad thing, but too much of it is bad like too much of anything.

lolchemist said:

On screen, showing would have to be the default unless you have a narrator who is telling the audience parts of the story through one of those disembodied voices like some movies do but that's pretty rare. In writing, 'Show, don't tell.' is pretty simple. Instead of writing "Ann was a really kind person," in a 3rd person omniscient sort of way, SHOW us that Ann is kind by creating a scene wherein Ann does a kind thing and let the reader come to their own conclusion that Ann must be kind.

Of course don't fall into the trap of showing us every damned irrelevant-to-the-plot thing. If Ann and Sue are having lunch and discussing something, it's totally okay to skip over the boring stuff and just say "After Ann and Sue placed their order, Sue decided it was time to bring up the important issue that moves the plot along." You seriously DON'T need to show us that Ann ordered a Cobb salad with dressing on the side and extra croutons unless she end up choking on a crouton later on.

Click to expand...

Exactly this. There are some things that are better shown, and some that are better summarised. But many people rely too much on the catchy little phrase "show don't tell" without making the distinction, or explaining why it is appropriate.

Buffysquirrel said:

It's simply a technique in narrative that serves to engage the reader by exploiting the processes we all use in our everyday life to deduce what other people are thinking and/or feeling.

Instead of telling the reader that someone is experiencing an emotion, we describe actions and/or expressions that the reader associates with those emotions. The reader then deduces the emotion the character is experiencing.

If you tell the reader a character is sad, that does not give them the extent of empathy with that feeling that they experience if they work it out for themselves.

Click to expand...

This, exactly. I've always taken the "show, don't tell" mantra as meaning "show emotional responses, don't tell the reader what the character's emotion is." That's harder to make into a catchy slogan, but it's at the core of what is meant by "show, don't tell."

It feathers into the objection about excessive use of adverbs, too, especially as dialogue modifiers. Many inexperienced writers fall into the trap of indicating emotion via adverbial tags:

"Of course I will," she said happily.
"No you won't," he said angrily.

Which makes for flat, unengaging writing.

caw

I tell to tell. If showing would involve writing numerous scenes that merely set up the main thrust of the story, then I just infodump. Better to do that than to write longer scenes.

I'll give two examples, both from fanfics:

I had written a "Bubblegum Crisis" prequel fanfic. Originally, it was going to be an expansion of an official character backstory thing that had appeared in a Japanese magazine (part of it was animated for an official music video). However, this involved the task of writing three different scenes involving characters' parents being killed in an earthquake. Eventually, I decided to focus on one character and keep only two scenes, and it became the story of how she (a Rock star) developed her musical style and wrote the song that she performed in the first episode.

Yesterday, I discovered a review for one of my fanfics (written years ago) based on the Escaflowne movie. It was a prequel that dealt with how Hitomi became depressed. The reviewer had read the fanfic over and over for eight years, and it spoke to her/him, because s/he suffered from depression. I was astounded that someone would care that much for the story, due to various interpretations that I'd made of the character and also due to how I had Hitomi periodically think out infodumps of her backstory while doing mundane tasks. It's completely unrealistic behavior, of course, and I was well aware of it while writing the story, but I guess it worked.