I think she's confusing the two. Yes, you can show her drooping eyelids, because this is not first person perspective. Think of third person narrative limited as characters on a movie screen without V.O.'s.
But, even though I'm not using the first person "I," the text is from the character's point of view. I'm entirely in one character's "head." As opposed to the omniscient which jumps from head to head. (I'm a "he" by the way.) Illustration (not perfect, made up on the fly): Bobby walked down the narrow path, feeling the cold sweat running down his back. Oh man, he thought. This is unbearable. Assume the above text goes on for twenty paragraphs. The invisible narration is from Bobby's point of view. I can only see Bobby's thoughts. I'm not going to describe Bobby's face, unless I describe what he feels on his face. If Bobby encounters another character, I'm free to describe that character's face, but not what he thinks.
But surely your character can tell that their eyelids are drooping or their eyes are sore...there are 5 senses, not just sight, and if you limit yourself to what your character can see, then you're not gonna provide a very immersive experience for your reader.
Right... that wasn't my point. I'm not saying I should limit myself to what my character can see in exclusion of the other senses. What I was saying was that in that if my POV character can't see something, I shouldn't describe it visually. I can't physically, visually describe the color of the red eyes or the physical appearance of the drooping eyes of my POV character, without a mirror handy. I can certainly say my POV character felt her eyes drooping. I just can't say, for example, "Her eyes were a bright color red, and her eyelids looked like they had grown triple chins." Well, I can, but first I have to have her walk over to a mirror. That was my point. I was therefore trying to prove helpful instruction to other writers, who might make that mistake, a mistake I almost made myself. I was advising that, when you are writing, be aware of your POV. If you can see into the mind of only one character, you see what they see, you sense what they sense. You can't see your own face, but you can feel your own face. You can see other people's faces, but you can't feel their faces (except perhaps with your hands, by touching them.) It's also true that I can't use other senses to describe what my non-POV characters sense, except through the senses available to my POV character. If my POV character is Bob, I can't say his friend Steve smelled something. I have to say that his friend Steve's nose twitched, or that Bob heard Steve sniffing, or that Steve said, "Do you smell that?" An aside from all this: I can also tell, here and now, that perhaps I need more practice writing expository writing and have specific writing deficiencies I'm not aware of. I obviously explained my point poorly. I was trying to provide helpful instruction on a pitfall I encountered, but I must have chosen the wrong words to express that helpful instruction, because what I was intending to express was taken quite differently than the point I was trying to make. Looking back over my posts, I did make the point, however. I do find it interesting, albeit frustrating, how many interpretations there can be of what I was trying to say. To recap, and I hope I'm understood this time: When writing third-person narrative from a particular character's point of view, it's okay to "show don't tell," but be careful to only "show" what your POV character can sense with his or her own senses. Don't express something your POV character can't sense, which includes, physical descriptions of his or her own face when not standing in front of a mirror. Charlie PS. If I still haven't expressed myself correctly, and my point is still not understood, let me just state, since you can't see my POV, I feel like hitting my head against the wall. Just kidding. PPS. I want you to know, yours is another, very valuable and good point, it was just outside the point I was trying to make. Writers should make good use of all the senses. Throughout my writing, I try to sprinkle in references to smells and sounds and feelings, even taste! As long as they are within the capability of the POV character's senses, these are all good to use!
Charlie, this is why I prefer to both read and write in the First Person POV. I will read 3rd person pov, but I hate writing it, and my reading of it is limited to really gripping stories. For me it is hard to get into the character's head when I am writing in the 3rd person. Like your example, of feeling fatigued. In the first person I would put something like: God my eyes are dry. I rubbed them roughly with my finger and thumb trying to get some moisture to come. It felt so good to close my eyes, so good, I didn't want to open them again. Yes, that is wordy for "she felt fatigued." Sometimes in the pace of a scene, it would be better to just tell something like, using your example but worded my way: Her body was dragging under the weight of exhaustion. OR She could close her eyes and never open them again. Or The mounting physical fatigue was eating away at Jane's mental clarity. There are many ways you could say "She was fatigued." without actually saying "she was fatigued." It can fall somewhere between showing with a microscope, or showing with a full body shot, or even a wide view of the whole scene. It just depends on how closely you want your camera. "She was fatigued." is probably the farthest away that you could pull your reader. You are telling us a fact. "She was fatigued." that means you know it to be a hard fact. And in this case, it works because it is a hard fact. You could say that line and get away with it, so long as you have more pressing things happening in that scene. If you wanted to have the fact that she was fatigued really play on the whole outcome of the scene then it should be exemplified in a way to really draw the readers attention. This means coming in for a closer shot of your tired character. If it is being used as a way to characterize your character, then it should be more from the character's perspective. Thus you would use how the character feels with feeling words or showing the character feeling the physical sensations of fatigue. Like you could be using the fact that "she" is a strong character forcing her self to continue on even though she is tired. To me, I play the movie in my head as I write. I control the camera angles, width, and movement. This influences how the scene is viewed though my MC's eyes. Thus, dictates how much I show and how much I tell.
Hmmm... I like both first and third person. I haven't written any first person, but then again, I'm not as experienced as I hope to be one day. You can do all the same things with limited third person. God my eyes are dry. Sarah rubbed them roughly with her finger and thumb trying to get some moisture to come. It felt so good to close her eyes, so good, she didn't want to open them again. You could also have the same issue I was describing, with first person. Using first or third won't guarantee that every sentence properly handle the POV. I've read some terrific third person books, and some terrible ones. So, too, with first person. Honestly, everyone has his or her own style and own way of working. I don't do the camera thing, though I do try to envision different perspectives of each scene, and I do try to imagine what the scene would look like visually. I also try to imagine the smells, tastes and feelings that no camera could capture. I also try to get into the character's heads, imagine what they're thinking, what motivates them, none of which could be seen with a camera. Then, of course, the real art is putting it all into words. The camera thing won't help you formulate a good metaphor or vary your sentence structure. This isn't to say that your camera method isn't good, or for that matter, writing first person. If it works for you, great! I may get around to writing a first person book one day. Right now, I'm working on redrafting a very large book (which I'm going to have to condense from its monster 750 page size) which is in the third person limited, and it will be a while before I can work on something else.
showing character The most important thing to show, in my opinion, is character. If you fail to show anything else, please please please do not fail when it comes to your character. The most boring of all character descriptions are when they are given in one big chunk: he had brown hair, blue eyes and wore a leather coat..... etc etc If you are struggling with character description, this is fine to do this at first. By all means, just write one big paragraph describing your character but my tip to you is this: In your second draft or whenever you feel like you know the character better, delete this paragraph. Instead, insert these details in other ways (show rather than tell): She noticed that he had brilliant blue eyes and found it hard to look away... maybe a crappy example but hopefully you get the idea.
Thanks silly, I know what you mean, what you mentioned reminded me of Hemmingway's description of a man Robert Jordan was looking at, in "For Whom The Bell Tolls" It was more than enough to go with two sentences than the whole paragraph of description. I think it's better to put characters into action so as to let us want to know more about them in an indirect way. Showing and not telling is obviously a skill to be practised
It is indeed. I don't know how many times I've told myself, "Okay, SHOW it this time!" and then used an "-ly" adverb seconds later.
For the longest time that I have been writing I always thought I was writing show. But I recently got told by two people, that my writing is tell. I don't understand how my writing can be tell because I don't tell people right flat out what they are feeling or what they are doing. Maybe in certain area where it is necessary. Has anyone had this problem before? Where they couldn't tell if their writing was show or tell. How can you tell? How can you fix it?
For the longest time that I have been writing I always thought I was writing show. But I recently got told by two people, that my writing is tell. I don't understand how my writing can be tell because I don't tell people right flat out what they are feeling or what they are doing. Maybe in certain area where it is necessary. Has anyone had this problem before? Where they couldn't tell if their writing was show or tell. How can you tell? How can you fix it?
Again, Charlie, you're confusing the two. You're talking about first-person, not third. The reason why it's called third-person-perspective is because there is actually a third person witnessing the events of the two main characters like a hidden camera. So, in fact, there is a third narrator among the midst of the characters, without the characters realizing it, therefore you (as the third person) can describe specifically what they're doing, if it's on their face or not.
The third person observer can essentially be an introspective observer. By this, I mean an observer who can "see" inside one character's head, which is more intimate than a cinematic observer. However, that intimacy is broken if the same observer can also see a second character's thoughts. The introspective observer is therefore essentially a clone of one character, shadowing him or her. That makes it almost like first person, but the writing continues to have a more third person flavor to it.
There are all kinds of gradations of "showing," some of which feel more to a reader (in a given passage) like telling. IOW, "showing" can always be improved upon; and when the reader feels like he's being told something he'd rather perceive on his own, he very likely is going to ask the writer to "show" rather than "tell" him one thing or another. (There really is no better language to use to describe that perception.) Jason was sad. (Telling) Jason couldn't put his finger on any good reason to be unhappy. Still, he couldn't seem to pull himself out of a funk. (Telling with a little more showing.) Jason smiled, or tried to, but he knew Susan could read through his pretense. "Look at me, Jason." Susan was nothing, if not direct. Jason cast her a glance and then busied himself with the chicken breast on his plate. "Look at me." Jason looked directly into Susan's eyes. "What can I tell you you don't already know?" he said quietly. "I just haven't the will to get up anymore in the morning." (more complex way of showing his sadness, rather than simply "telling" it). And there are certainly better, more complex, interesting ways to deliver the story while making it a compelling "read" (that's what creativity is for). I think "telling" is sometimes confused with exposition--extended description. There's nothing wrong with extended description if it's meaningful and if the prose makes sense to the story, although sometimes it can be a bit much. If you read the prologue (or first chapter--can't remember which it's called) of THE POPE'S RHINOCEROS, you might agree with me that it's an amazing, compelling (and not brief) exposition about the herrings in the sea (where the story begins) and which sets the stage (and the tone and mood) for the historical scope of the novel and literally plants the seed for the story to actually begin. (It may do even more than that; I suspect it does. But I haven't yet read the whole thing). Like Norfolk's example, exposition (in artful, exceptional writing) should accomplish more than simply "telling" or relating details. It needs to relate thematically and artistically to the story in which it appears. The really annoying "telling" is when a reader ought to be able to arrive at his own conclusions (or worse, already has) about one thing or another without simply being told (e.g., that Jason is sad); and, more importantly, when the reader gets tired of the "telling" and hangs up the book altogether, then some conversion to showing is probably necessary (if that's a reader you care about).
Thank you very much for helping. Looking at the examples I now can say I am when detail: showy tell and just show. Is that a bad combo?
I'm not confusing anything. Third person limited is often from the point of view of a particular character. I believe you may be confusing third-person limited with third-person omniscient, where the narrator, in the midst of the characters, can see things none of the characters can see and see into the thoughts of all the characters. Third-person limited is in the third person, but presents only the viewpoint of one particular character. The Harry Potter novels are an example. They're third person, but always the reader sees the viewpoint of Harry Potter -- even to the point of making the same mistaken assumptions Harry makes.
Exactly. I'm referring to a third person observer who is an introspective observer -- who can see into only one head. I'd like to try one more time, this time, backing it up with authority, to make my point. I have your authority, Cognito, and I think you're respected here, that third person limited may indeed limit the POV to one character's thoughts. Now, let me point to the reference explaining this very valuable writing information, which would behoove writers to know, to move beyond mere comprehension of "first person" and "third person." From "Characters & Viewpoint" by Orson Scott Card, p155: The author goes on, a few pages later, to discuss levels of penetration. From page 165: It goes on to discuss how deeply we penetrate the character's mind: light penetration, where we only observe scenes where the viewpoint character is present, but we don't actually experience the scenes as if we were seeing them through the viewpoint character's eyes or deep penetration, where we do experience the scenes as if we were seeing them through the viewpoint character's eyes. So my point (and I'm not confusing first and third person, or anything else -- I'm speaking as to limited viewpoint third person as described both by Cognito and Orson Scott Card in his highly recommended book "Characters & Viewpoint") is as follows: We must be careful, when showing and not telling, if our book is written in limited viewpoint third person, to show only what the limited viewpoint third person "viewpoint character" can see. When you understand the "limited viewpoint third person" as described, this is really a simple and valuable point, expressed in the single sentence above. If you don't understand, please send me a PM and I'll be glad to explain further. Or better yet, purchase that very valuable reference by Orson Scott Card. It's available cheaply through amazon, ebay and other sites. Charlie
Ok, think of the word 'chair', what image does it conjure? Something with four legs, a seat, slim back? Now think of the word 'telling', what image does it conjure in your mind? If you're thinking 'nothing', I don't blame you. This is your first intro into what telling is and how difficult it is for the reader to decipher when they come across it: it deals (partly) with abstract words (words like 'telling' aren't something (physical or innate) in the world around you that you can physically touch, taste, smell, see and hear). E.g., you can't touch reformation, see globalisation, taste education etc. But you can touch a chair, smell a rose, hear a bird... etc. So (and this may cause a few raised eyebrows) If someone says a sentence like this is telling: 'The bird scared Sue', in many ways they're wrong. What you've done here is used the very basics of 'showing' something. To advance it to a level that interacts more solidly with a reader, you'd use something like: 'The flurry of red-breast and wing, the rustle of leaves, a beak full of expletives loud enough to make even her nieghbours close their windows snapped silence. Sue slipped out off her power-walking pace and...' What you've done is expanded the moment and made it more visual for the reader, e.g. you've injected more 'action' verbs 'snapped' (which is also vital to the 'showing' aspect. Think of 'scared' and it's abstract connotations. Can you touch 'fear', taste' love...? these are 'mental' verbs, verbs that you 'feel' and to change that simple aspect of showing, you need more action verbs: Stephen King did it beautifully with the simple line 'Everything floats down here' - scared the living daylights out of me, but he never used the word 'scared' himself: he just instilled it through that simple showing action), You've introduced colour (red-breast) so the reader infers the species of the bird (A Robin) Sound etc... So one way of dealing withing 'showing' is recognising the degrees it comes in. Simple showing contracts the moment: great for pacey sentences, atmosphere etc: more advanced showing expands the moment: great for building tension and slowing pace etc... Which is why it's good to use both as a writing tool...
If you're hearing a lot about your writing that you ought to be showing rather than telling, and (importantly) if you're hearing this from readers you'd rather impress, then you probably need to work at more show and less tell--regardless of where you think your own writing generally falls compared to the examples I gave. In any case, those examples were meant to suggest improvements in the direction of "more show" and "less tell" from one choice to the next. But there's an endless continuum of possibilities. These examples were not meant to suggest that the difference falls into only three categories. Try thinking of "telling" as describing a story or story element you're going to write, which is a perfectly good use of "telling." But it is definitively NOT the same thing as actually writing the story or tidbit. Far as I know, it's not possible to write great fiction by throwing in a dash of show and a dabble of tell in some magical combination that happens to work. "Show don't tell" is not so much a hard-and-fast rule that defines some difference between right and wrong, but usually it's a complaint from a reader, which accurately reflects the uninteresting way a story or passage reads to him. If someone says "show, don't tell," think, instead, that maybe it's dull, uninteresting, irrelevant, or unnecessary, or maybe it comes off as a careless shortcut. Are you telling your reader something he could figure out for himself, if you give him an image or something more interesting to think about. Or maybe what you're "telling" your reader is already perfectly obvious. A fiction writer who expects to be read simply has to understand what effect these influences have on a reader. Best way to understand it is probably to read plenty of fiction yourself and make your own judgements about what you find boring or interesting. Then try to figure out what causes that difference.
Charlie, I'm afraid you're wrong. Even if it's third person limited you can show your character's face without him or her looking into a mirror. Do you know what third person mean? It means the camera is constantly on your heroine. It means the camera is witnessing what your heroine is allowed to see as she sees it. It has nothing to do with her facial features--if she can see her own face or not. Whether it's limited or omniscient the camera can see her face, regardless if she can or cannot. Please, just trust me on this.
I write the same way as Charlie. . . My character can't see his own face, so I don't write what he doesn't know. I would never write anything like. . . "Hans had a great glob of mustard on his face, but he didn't know it, so he had no idea why people kept looking at him funny. . ." And it's not just a question of showing vs telling and which one is "better" - it's that I CAN'T write that sentence in my current POV. I could, however, say that Hans is 6 feet tall and muscular. . . because he knows it. So - anyway. . . if third person limited isn't 'it', then we need a name for it. . . because most of the books I read are written this way too. It's so popular. . . surely it must have a better name than "third person limited introspective". That's a bit of a mouthful. . .
You could describe how the mustard makes him feel though, whether he knows if it is mustard or not. That aside, I agree with you and Charlie. If the narrator of a third person limited piece was describing something they couldn't see or weren't aware of, I'd be really thrown off. I write in a particularly restrictive form of third person limited- basically, first person with pronoun changes- and therefore I can describe exactly what and how my narrating character sees, but not how they look.
No need to put anything aside. You agree with us both, 100%, because we both know that you can describe how the mustard feels. I've already made that point. It's a sign of a good writer to utilize all the senses. A limited third-person story, from the POV of the viewpoint character, can only be written utilizing the senses of the viewpoint character. The viewpoint character cannot see the mustard on his face, but he/she can feel it. The viewpoint character also cannot feel the mustard on someone else's face, but he/she can see it. (Well... to see the mustard on his/her own face, he/she needs a mirror, and to feel the mustard on someone else's face, he/she must stick her fingers into it.) The simple key is, everything must be from the viewpoint of the viewpoint character. Showing is great, telling is great, striking the perfect balance between showing and telling is great, but in limited third person, it must be done within certain parameters: within the sensual capabilities of the viewpoint character. In fact, if there were a scene (limited 3rd person) where the viewpoint character was blindfolded or locked in the trunk of a car or in a dark closet, there should be no visual description whatsoever, unless some light source managed to find its way into the closet or trunk, or a light powerful enough to allow visual sensations through the blindfold. To give another example, someone pointed out an error I made that I needed to correct in one chapter of my book: The text was not written in a style that my viewpoint character would understand. I referred to "portents of upcoming disaster," and "He sauntered across the room," and "He smiled sardonically," which are all fine things to say in writing, except that my viewpoint character in this particular chapter was an eight-year-old and eight-year-olds rarely use words like "portent" and "saunter" and "sardonic." The reader was mislead into thinking that this boy was somewhat older. Even the descriptive text should give the "feel" of the viewpoint character's thoughts, or destroy the illusion. Charlie
