Show vs. Tell

the best way to learn this is to READ... read constantly, the works of the best fiction writers, to see how they do it...

 

Personally, I'd just like to get rid of the "show-don't-tell" phrase altogether. Maybe adopt a new mantra ... go back to first grade maybe? Try something like "Show-AND-tell"? There is a place for both in your manuscript and both have a vital part to play in a well-rounded story. A place for everything and everything in its place?

 

Seconded (or thirded, or whatever we are up to.)

Good fiction will include showing and telling. Too much telling results in something that reads like a dull textbook. Too much showing results in prose that is wordy and overblown.

Showing usually takes a lot more words than telling. That means it slows down the pace and says to the reader "pay attention to this". If you do that for all of your story the reader is going to get bored reading lots of words about something that isn't really significant at all, it's just necessary bridging material. On the other hand, telling doesn't engage the reader so well, so if you just tell then the reader will know the story but probably won't actually care what happened. The "show, don't tell" rule probably came about because most new writers are probably more inclined to tell too much rather than show too much, but what the advice should really be is "pay attention to what you are showing, what you are telling, and what effect that is having on the pace and focus of the story." The trouble is, that takes skill and judgement. The black and white of "show, don't tell" is so much easier to work with, even if it does give the wrong results.

 

I'm not sure I can agree with that assessment. How many words does it take to tell a story?

It takes as many as it takes. Sometimes, that's 65,000 sometimes it's 150,000. But, again, it all depends upon the skill of the writer and the demands of the task at hand. The point being, some can paint a word picture in a minimalist style while others may feel the need to take multiple pages. And, from the other perspective, some might be able to tell the reader the important info in the briefest of passages while others may ramble on and on. In writing, there are no absolutes. Any 'rule' upon which you might expound, there will be someone waiting to point out the exception.

 

And how many to show the same story?

You will note that I didn't make an absolute statement. But I have examined dozens and dozens of samples of writing identified by experts as showing or telling (it was a university project) and the showing version always took more words, usually a lot more words. Try showing "He was angry" in fewer than three words.

 

I am economic with my words even when showing. However when rewriting the same story paying more attention to showing than telling my story that was 13, 139 at the same stage is now at 15,000 but has dropped a chapter.

I mean I can show He was Angry in 3 words lol in several different ways.

 

In principle I agree, but what the old saw about showing vs. telling is meant to convey is that the story is usually better served by showing. It's more intimate, it brings the reader closer to the emotion of the story. I can't show anger in as few words as "He was angry", but that line can't convey how angry, or anything about 'he'. Showing can; All three of these guys are angry too:

He tossed the empty bag of chips back into the cupboard and slammed the door.

“That’s not fair,” he whined into the phone.

Again and again the hammer came down, until there was nothing left of Sanchez’ face but a red smear.

 

The challenge is to do it in fewer than 3 words

 

Read back to the context -- I'm not disputing that, just noting that showing tends to take more words.

 

That's why I said I agree . I just wanted to stay on-topic with the OP, about the differences.

 

He glared.

 

Maybe he's feeling guilty.

Maybe he's annoyed, or frustrated, or just a whiny brat.

I suppose I'd be angry if someone beat my face into a smear... but who's supposed to be angry here? The hammer may be jealous, or psychotic, or just doing a job and not angry or feeling any emotion at all.

Not much better, though I agree it's less than three words.

The real offense here is that we're removed from the empathetic experience of looking through the characters eyes to literally looking at them. It creates a distance between the reader and character, and the character is then reduced to the 'show, don't tell' charades game where they're trying to act things out for the reader instead of just being the character and understanding through empathy.

The problem is that thoughts, feelings, motivations, all the more abstract stuff simply can't be shown very accurately. Direct, clumsy telling isn't much better, of course. Because in the end, showing and telling have little to do with good writing.

When showing and telling can be both good and bad, and good telling and showing can still be irrelevant or ineffective... then honestly how do people NOT rethink the 'show, don't tell' mantra? Whether showing or telling, you still have to write well, and even good showing and telling can lead very directly to bad writing.

 

Oh I agree lol but was the best I could think of that showed anger in less than three words lol

 

Why does shining brightly mean he was angry?

 

cos he ain#t got headlights in his behind

 

In my view, "showing" doesn't have to mean physical action - you can also show things through the character's thoughts.

For example, instead of writing

He got angry

you can write

What the hell is she doing? he thought.

In my eyes, that counts as showing, since you don't say directly that the character is angry; you let the reader understand it through circumstances.

 

Telling:

What the hell is she doing? he thought.

Showing:

"What the hell is she doing?" he said. (and of course just leaving it at "said" would be bad so throw in an action to do it, such as the mentioned slamming of cupboard doors or whatever it was )

Also I'd totally say that instead of said putting a word like "yelled" or else "said angrily" are both very much telling. Said is your best friend if you treat it right - it's such a bland little word you can put anything around it and it works. Said is the new black.

 

Yeah, this is stage 3 denial when it comes to 'show, don't tell.' Someone realizes showing can be bad, telling good, and that it's all a jumble, so they just start calling anything that's effectively written 'showing' as proof showing is still preferred.

Sorry, but by any definition of the term I don't see how stating direct thoughts can be 'showing' unless you're trying to bend definitions in a pro-showing way.

It's the opposite of people who defend telling by pointing out that since it's all text, it's all technically telling since you're 'telling' a story and there aren't actually any pictures.

 

Usually natural and real-feeling: Characters thinking things.

Often contrived: characters speaking to themselves, or stating thoughts out loud, so they're technically 'showing' instead of 'telling.'

Unless you're writing meta-fiction, your characters shouldn't seem to be actively shaping their actions as if trying to make sure they're showing what they're feeling, and not telling it... even if to themselves in their own brain.

Actually, this is interesting, I'm going to add 'characters seem aware they should be trying to show and not tell' to my blog-post about what makes characters seem insane.

 

I think a lot of it depends on context. If there's a damn good reason for a character to be angry, or one that would seem good to that character, "He was angry", or indeed him thinking angry thoughts, is fine or redundant.

If your character acts for seemingly no reason or in a way that's plain out of character, and you're rather relying on "He was furious/thought X" to inform or as the first inkling something might be up, then that's likely when you're telling rather than showing in the meaning of the adage.

 

Also sometimes a character can feel angry but not act angry. I wrote this today.

This scene is not really about my MC it is about his brother in order to have shown, he was 'volcanic' or angry and he didn't hate him, would have taken a lot more work and detracted from the rest of the scene. I showed his brother's pain and the idiot and punch is part of a secret code/language between the brothers that means I am still mad at you but I won't be.

 

I'll agree that showing one relatively simple thing generally takes longer than telling one relatively simple thing. But I think that the "thing" is often not simple.

For example, let's say that you wanted to communicate:

"Jack's father never could accept that his son had grown up. Every piece of information was always accompanied by a piece of advice."

and

"Jack was angry at the criticism, but touched because his father showed concern, when he'd had so little of that in his childhood. He tried to keep his temper and respond politely."

and

"Jack's father had an extensive knowledge of auto mechanics. Jack didn't know a darn thing about auto mechanics. Jack's father was disappointed that Jack didn't follow this interest of his, and suspected that Jack looked down on him. Jack, on the contrary, was embarassed about his ignorance in this area, and was unwilling to expose it by asking questions."

and

"Jack's father spoke in a Tennessee dialect, while Jack spoke standard news-announcer American English."

In theory, _all_ of these could be communicated with two or three lines of dialogue, as Jack and his father discuss a problem with Jack's car. Sure, the information is ambiguous, while in the "telling" it's totally unambiguous, but I think that ambiguity is often a good thing.

I see a difference between the following lines, the first one stolen from earlier in the thread:

Tell: Wilko couldn't believe someone would say something so callous.
Show: Wilko blinked. Mighty callous, that. Unbelievable.

To me, it's similar to the difference between:

Tell: Jane ordered a large Coke.
Show: Jane said, "Could I have a large Coke, please?"

Now, in these I'm not arguing that the "show" line is better, but I do see a difference, and I think that the difference needs a label, and "show" versus "tell" works for me as the label.

ChickenFreak

 

I think that there is a better way to look at this, rather than the show versus tell debate.

My creative writing teacher always said "Present sensory details, not judgements." in other words, tell only what is happening and not a thing more. Don't call a pillow ugly. Call it blue, fluffy, or something that can be proven. Whatever the narrator says has to be presumed as fact by the reader, and therefore they must picture what they deem to be an ugly pillow, which is a matter of opinion.

Now, to further that, I suggest that the point of view character can make judgements. If it is a 3rd person narrative and we are seeing things from Jim's perspective, it's okay to say "Jim doesn't like Bob," because we know Jim's thoughts. If we say "Jim thought the pillow was ugly," that is Jim's opinion and no longer needs to be considered a fact.

In sUmmary, I say to you: forget show versus tell, and just worry about judgments. Make sure only the point of view character makes them and never the narrator. Any other important information must be "shown."

 

sometimes they are one in the same.

 

If the narrator and the POV character are the same person, then he/she would certainly be able to make judgements, since they are not merely the storyteller but also a character within the story.