"I really need to go to the store," Mike ejaculated. ETA: You have no idea how much I'm dying right now.
You may notice the first sentence of the post you quoted: it is labeled as a rant. To clarify: it is not a rant against you (after all, some one else told you "show, don't tell", and you rightfully asked if it is good advice); it is against something everyone seems to take for granted.
Oh no, I just mean that you have very liberal views about writing. You don't care much about cliches, you don't care about the tell versus show argument.
Ah. I thought "are you a member of the liberal party?" meant "you get fired up about writing really easily like how liberals get fired up about political issues." (Which is a stereotype in the US. Were you referring to the Liberal Party in the UK? In Canada?) My bad. Yeah, I am pretty tolerant of a writer's choice of tools for delivering a story. And I have a libertarian political philosophy, so I guess that makes sense.
I was more referring to Ron Paul's liberal views. But he's the only liberal I know, and my knowledge of American politics is poor.
I do agree with most of his philosophy. He would generally be called libertarian, rather than conservative or liberal. He is actually a member of the Republican Party, which is considered the conservative party, rather than the Democratic Party, which is considered the liberal party. But he is a total misfit in the Republican Party. Heh. I feel the same way about the "conservative vs. liberal" dichotomy as I feel about the "show vs. tell" dichotomy, in that the words have been used in so many different (often contradictory) ways that they have lost their meaning. And in the US, at least, it really negatively shapes how people think about politics.
@ChickenFreak : I don't see then where we necessarily disagree. I used the words 'beating around the bush' because I wanted to specifically emphasise that I don't consider 'beating around the bush' an effective 'show' technique. Because that would mean something like, instead of saying "She got up and walked over to the bar." saying "Her back straightened and she found herself on her feet. Taking slow deliberate strides, she put one foot in front of the other as she traversed the lush carpet...yadda yadda." Admittedly, there are instances when you can slow down action to this extent, and it works great, but if you went about saying everything you could say directly, obliquely and descriptively, it would make for an impossible read. I used this point because I know a lot of novice writers have misconceptions that showing is always better than telling, which isn't true. The rest of my comment I attempted to explain what the essence of 'showing vs telling' is, and you are right, literary devices can also be used for other things, but I never said literary devices are only used for showing, so I'm not entirely sure what you found so disagreeable about my post? I may have gotten a bit abstract in my explanation, might have talked more about a certain aspect of 'show and tell' than others, but I think we essentially agree, at least, I see no discrepancy between your and my point, just different ways of expressing the same general concept.
It is one possibility, but you'll always end up with some people repeating without understanding whatever new term or terms you coin, like they do now with 'show vs tell'. I think the term is perfectly adequate, in fact it's quite catchy and memorable, but like with any technical term, it takes knowledge and practice to fully grasp the meaning. A lot of terminology has layers of meaning, as one's understanding deepens the term becomes a resource, lateral connections are made, and this is how it gets incorporated into a set of skills. I don't see what benefit there is in vilifying the term itself, it's just as easy to give a few examples and explain.
I don't think the problem is with the terms, I think the problem is with the idea of it as a rule. I'd say we could formulate the idea as "Sometimes you want to just tell the reader what happened, and sometimes you want to show them all the details of the event. Be aware of when and why you're using each technique." It's less catchy, but I think it's what experienced writers are talking about when they talk about "show vs. tell". And I'd say the second sentence is the one where people go overboard, not the first one. It's not the terms themselves that are the problem, it's the absolutism with which people try to apply them.
Agreed, and I agree generally with @daemon in this thread. The appropriateness of show or tell depends almost completely on context and writing style. "The man was tall." is a perfectly good sentence. In my experience, people who admonish others about show vs. tell tend to be people who don't know much about writing and have seized on that cliche to make themselves seem more knowledgeable than they are. (And seeing Ron Paul described as a 'liberal' gave me my morning chuckle.)
I didn't find anything at all disagreeable about your post. I was agreeing with someone else (Daemon, I think) that there's a lot of ambiguity about the terms "show" and "tell". All the strategies you described are good strategies, well explained by you, I just wouldn't use them as part of the definition of show/tell
Ah, I see. I must have misunderstood or mixed up who said what, it happens with multiway conversations
First I don't agree. I think you are creating the issue here out of whole cloth. But that aside, what terminology would you use instead?
Perfectly OK or not, "the man was tall" is still telling. It was an example. Here is an excellent discussion of the difference and the reason writing is better with more showing than telling. http://users.wirefire.com/tritt/tip1.html The problem as I see it is trying to understand this issue just from the terms instead of looking at the concept. And that's where people mistakenly think this is about "a rule". It's not about a rule, it's about a concept, what makes better writing?
So, I'm totally going to hijack this thread, because I was about to start one on the exact same topic. But seeing as we're midway through here, I've got a question of my own. I recently read this article: http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/creative1/shortstory/ The author gives the follow example of what NOT to do: But I do this kind of thing all the time in my writing. Am I doing it wrong? Here's an example from something I posted in the workshops a while back. What I have in blue would be considering telling by the author of that blog, yet I thought it was just my author voice coming through: So am I really telling by adding these tidbits of character insights? Or are they appropriate? I'm really confused now. Thanks in advance.
@Artist369 : I clicked on the link, and the whole thing struck me as all over the place, poorly laid out mess. Couldn't be bothered reading it to be honest. I'm not sure what that author thought or meant, but your examples do suffer a bit from spoonfeeding the reader how they should interpret what's going on, especially the first example. If this is deliberate, then ok, but overdone, it can be jarring. It's all about balance and what feels right for the story.
I disagree. I think that whether it's "telling" depends on context and the intended message. If the intended message is "the man was tall", then it's telling. If the intended message is, let's say, Jane always chooses male friends who are tall, or the population of this city is very healthy and tall, or the MC feels intimidated, or the MC Is noticing a kaleidoscope of random details because she's drunk or drugged, then "the man was tall" can be part of a structure of "show"ing something.
I do think that it's best to avoid explaining. I'd rather the information come out some other way, in actions or a character's thought rather than the narrator's explanation. You gave the example: John sat up and took a deep breath, knowing that his confrontation with Mary had to come now, or it would never come at all. “Wh– where are you going?” he stammered nervously, staring at his Keds. There's a lot of redundancy here--he stammers, plus we're told that he stammers. He's obviously nervous, plus we're told that he's nervous. And we have a narrator's explanation instead of his thought. My rewrite might be: John sat up and took a deep breath. OK. OK. OK. Time to do this. Not tomorrow, not next week, not after vacation. Do it. Get it over with. Do it. And look her in the eye. What's she going to do, kill you? "Wh-where are you going?" Your second example was: “What, no witty comment on the composition of wet dirt?” she asked. He didn't answer. A vine swayed ahead. Something splashed into the muck- some unseen beneficiary of their heroic efforts. “You're brooding.” “Am not.” But he squirmed under her stare nonetheless, wishing she'd quit using that nettlesome mood-sensing ability of hers. I have no problem with "some unseen beneficiary..." because it feels like his thought, not the narrator's. But for the last line, I might tie the thought more clearly to him. “Am not.” But he squirmed under her stare nonetheless. Damned telepathic women.
The link was long but it was fairly well organized. From @Artist369's link: That's exactly the point of showing not telling. I would need to know more about your story, @Artist369, to address the sentences in question. @ChickenFreak's comments are pretty thorough. But you are adding to the example things that weren't there. It was a simple comparison of two sentences side by side. That kind of sidetrack is exactly why people think this is all about a confusing muddled ill-defined thing. It isn't about the label, it's about the concept of giving your readers an engaging story, not spoon feeding them the summary. From @Artist369's source: Choose Specific Details That Show Your Point Give the Reader a Reason to Feel Your Emotions Provide Engaging Details That Imply the Main Point Show with Informative Details and/or Emotional Language “Telling” States Facts; “Showing” Invites Deeper Understanding Showing Prefers the Specific to the General Sometimes, “Telling” Is Good I think people would be better served if they stopped getting hung up on defining words sans context and instead considered the meaning of these words in this specific context. I have no doubt you know what show don't tell means, @ChickenFreak. I've seen excellent critiques in your posts that demonstrate you know what the concept is about. "The man was tall" is telling any way you look at it. You are not engaging the reader. Maybe you don't need to and the sentence is useful. Perhaps by surrounding the sentence with showing you can make the overall description 'showing'. The question in the OP is, "Should We Always Strive to Show?" The answer is no. Be we should always strive to understand what showing vs telling is and why one is more engaging writing.
I agree. My point is that sometimes, telling is OK, depending on context and writing style. One doesn't have to 'engage the reader' with every single word, if an occasional telling suits the narrative and the flow. One problem with an over-emphasis on showing is that it can, and often does, lead to the dreaded 'purple prose', especially in the hands of less-experienced writers. Give me a bunch of telling over that any day.
I agree. I think when a new writer first hears, show don't tell, it takes a little work to understand it. It takes even longer to learn how to do it.
But that's my point. If you asked me, "What do you get if you add forty-nine?" I'd say, "Add it to what?" The question would be incomplete and unanswerable, without context or without some new definition of adding. By your definition, your example is answerable. By mine, it's not. My definition of show/tell absolutely requires context before I can judge whether something is showing or telling. And that's why I say those terms are ambiguous--they have very different definitions for different people.
