1. Alex R. Encomienda

    Alex R. Encomienda Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    257

    Telling vs Showing

    Discussion in 'Word Mechanics' started by Alex R. Encomienda, Aug 22, 2017.

    Good morning writers!

    Let's break this down here. There's been a lot of talk about telling the story and showing the story. Both are good for certain POV's.

    I was reading Stephen King's I am the Doorway the other day and noticed great narrative. I took a gander through Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson and the narratives were quite alike. I enjoy reading books where the author tells me what's going on. I enjoy the strange dialect, the mood, the feeling I get when I look at a certain word like for example, metamorphosis or sarcophagi.

    Give me some good examples of paragraphs that tell and then paragraphs that show. At some point, too much of both can be tiresome to read. I hate reading a book where it reads:

    Adam placed his sweaty hand on the table. He winked at the bartender and noticed she liked him. He yawned and continued to flirt with her while he smacked his lips.

    Something about that kind of writing is very dull to me. I don't mind pages and pages of dialogue but only if it's interesting and progressive.

    Let's break this topic down once and for all. Discuss!
     
    Stormburn likes this.
  2. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Quick question: Are you arguing that your sample paragraph is telling or showing? I'd call it telling.

    Though of course both telling and showing are vague, fuzzy concepts, and my definition of them is slightly nonstandard. To me, the question of which is which depends on intent, so you really can't judge which one a paragraph is, without context.
     
  3. izzybot

    izzybot (unspecified) Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,419
    Likes Received:
    3,884
    Location:
    SC, USA
    I've developed the opinion that showing is usually the way to go if it's important and you want the reader to pay close attention, and telling is usually the way to go if it's less consequential (note the 'usually' in both cases).

    Eg, if Adam was flirting in the background, I'd probably just have a throwaway line like "Adam flirted with the bartender while ..."; if Adam's the pov character / this scene is important to inform his character / etc., I'd show more: "Adam sidled up to the bar and dropped a hand in it, not sure if the stickiness was from it having not been cleaned or just his own sweat. He tried a few times to catch the bartender's eye, winking when he was finally able to, and she gave him a once-over before smiling back."

    Both have a place. My style is definitely more show-heavy, but I think there are probably workable tell-heavy ones too. For sure neither should be %100 avoided.
     
  4. Seven Crowns

    Seven Crowns Moderator Staff Supporter Contributor Contest Winner 2022

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,998
    Likes Received:
    3,691
    That cracks me up! Yeah, I understand your point. Deep-POV with all its sensory micro-gestures is the style of the day, but sometimes you just want to blast through the text. The key with show/tell is proportion. What needs to be shown, and what really shouldn't be? Sometimes the reader wants out of the MC's skull, but does the author realize this? It's very difficult . . .

    Here's a long tell. It works because of the voice. It's also an example of enormous narrative distance. The POV is so far removed that at times it almost sounds omniscient. It is definitely not the MC speaking. You are not in his head.

    The Deliverator belongs to an elite order, a hallowed subcategory. He's got esprit up to here. Right now, he is preparing to carry out his third mission of the night. His uniform is black as activated charcoal, filtering the very light out of the air. A bullet will bounce off its arachnofiber weave like a wren hitting a patio door, but excess perspiration wafts through it like a breeze through a freshly napalmed forest. Where his body has bony extremities, the suit has sintered armorgel: feels like gritty jello, protects like a stack of telephone books.

    When they gave him the job, they gave him a gun. The Deliverator never deals in cash, but someone might come after him anyway -- might want his car, or his cargo. The gun is tiny, acm-styled, lightweight, the kind of gun a fashion designer would carry; it fires teensy darts that fly at five times the velocity of an SR-71 spy plane, and when you get done using it, you have to plug it into the cigarette lighter, because it runs on electricity.

    The Deliverator never pulled that gun in anger, or in fear. He pulled it once in Gila Highlands. Some punks in Gila Highlands, a fancy Burbclave, wanted themselves a delivery, and they didn't want to pay for it. Thought they would impress the Deliverator with a baseball bat. The Deliverator took out his gun, centered its laser doohickey on that poised Louisville Slugger, fired it. The recoil was immense, as though the weapon had blown up in his hand. The middle third of the baseball bat turned into a column of burning sawdust accelerating in all directions like a bursting star. Punk ended up holding this bat handle with milky smoke pouring out the end. Stupid look on his face. Didn't get nothing but trouble from the Deliverator.

    Since then the Deliverator has kept the gun in the glove compartment and relied, instead, on a matched set of samurai swords, which have always been his weapon of choice anyhow. The punks in Gila Highlands weren't afraid of the gun, so the Deliverator was forced to use it. But swords need no demonstrations.

    The Deliverator's car has enough potenÅ£ial energy packed into its batteries to fire a pound of bacon into the Asteroid Belt. Unlike a bimbo box or a Burb beater, the Deliverator's car unloads that power through gaping, gleaming, polished sphincters. When the Deliverator puts the hammer down, shit happens. You want to talk contact patches? Your car's tires have tiny contact patches, talk to the asphalt in four places the size of your tongue. The Deliverator's car has big sticky tires with contact patches the size of a fat lady's thighs. The Deliverator is in touch with the road, starts like a bad day, stops on a peseta.​

    Normally the lack of conjunctions would drive me nuts. The voice is so strong though that it's okay, almost natural.
     
  5. archer88i

    archer88i Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Messages:
    839
    Likes Received:
    432
    There was this big meeting about designing a nuclear reactor. One of the items on the agenda was the actinide ratio (or some other such chemical gobbledegook) for the reactor itself--a supremely important detail with far reaching impacts on cost, safety, and other factors--which got about four minutes of discussion. Another item on the agenda was the design of bike sheds to be built on the grounds for the use of the employees--something that makes no difference to anyone in God's cruel kingdom--and that got more like four hours of discussion.

    ...I tell that story because it's entertaining, based on a true story, and because it illustrates what I want to say: a big part of the reason we talk so much about showing versus telling is that it's something that everyone can understand. Thing is, not everyone understand why a writer sometimes does the one instead of the other, so in a lot of cases I see advice on that subject that just isn't very useful--a dogmatic stricture against "telling" of any kind, under any circumstances.

    In reality, you should keep your story as short as possible, and you should "tell" as much as possible, because "telling" doesn't take as many words as showing. Now, how much can you actually get away with? Not that darn much. Simply listing events for the reader robs a narrative of its emotional heft, so you have to be sparing, but that doesn't mean it's to be avoided. Rather, it's to be celebrated whenever you can actually get away with it. :)
     
    Lifeline likes this.
  6. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    See, I see your example as mostly showing...
     
  7. Seven Crowns

    Seven Crowns Moderator Staff Supporter Contributor Contest Winner 2022

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,998
    Likes Received:
    3,691
    I don't know what to say to that. It's basically exposition told after the fact, just statements from a narrator chronicling past events. It nearly commits the "renowned curator" sin.

    Renowned curator Jacques SauniÚre staggered through the vaulted archway of the museum's Grand Gallery. He lunged for the nearest painting he could see . . .​

    It starts with a legendary tell. He's renowned because the author says so. In my first post the MC's "of an elite order," also a tell. It's interesting to me why one is so good and the other is just boiler plate. (Didn't stop it from selling a million copies. But the first book did okay too.) He's delivering pizzas, by the way.
     
  8. big soft moose

    big soft moose An Admoostrator Admin Staff Supporter Contributor Community Volunteer

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    22,569
    Likes Received:
    25,883
    Location:
    East devon/somerset border
    the thing about tell vs show is it suffers badly from the terms used. All writing(except for Manga , comic books, and film /theatre scripts) is telling .. because the reader is dependent on the writer telling them the story

    what it is really getting at is how deep the description of each bit is, and how much the readers imagination is engaged in uderstanding the story rather than simply imparting facts ... so if you are going to say "bob was angry" its generally better to describe him being angry so the reader can imagine the scene... however if you say "bob didnt like peanut butter" unless thats a plot critical fact its probably not worth describing him tasting it for the first time and being revolted by its gritty texture and the way it sticks to his teeth
     
    OurJud, pyroglyphian and Laurus like this.
  9. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Oh, there are a few fragments of summary, which you could regard as "tell". But the "tell" here would be:

    "Pizza delivery men are highly armored and highly trained, with extensive protective and transportation equipment. This is to defend them against threats in uncivilized areas."

    Edited to add: Or, the "tell" might be:

    "The world is very, very different from the way it used to be."

    All those paragraphs "show" that, they don't tell it. The sample is, by my book, totally totally show. "Show" isn't about scene versus summary, narrative versus dialogue, none of that. It's about communicating the message by stepping a layer or two or three out from that message, to give it texture and impact, to make it big and bright in the reader's mind.
     
    BayView likes this.
  10. Homer Potvin

    Homer Potvin A tombstone hand and a graveyard mind Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,141
    Likes Received:
    19,770
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    Little Tells -- show up in language, usually when dealing with emotions. Like: "Bob came home angry" or "Clarice loved Betty more than any person ever loved another." There's nothing inherently wrong with those. Like @izzybot said, a throwaway line is fine so long as unraveling the character's emotions or mental state is not important to that particular scene or story. What often happens though is that an inexperienced writer, or one used to the topic sentence dogma of essays or academic writing, will tell us that "Clarice loved Betty more than any person ever loved another" and then show us a bunch of examples as to why that sentence is true. I see these all the time around the forum, but at least they're easily to fix. Just delete the topic sentence and let the examples show us how the characters feel about each other.

    Big Tells -- this is when the author tells us everything we need to know about the story before it begins. Or when an author answers all of our imaginative questions before we have a chance to ask them. These make me want to slap authors and stick flaming bags of Homer-poo on their doorsteps. I'll use The Godfather as an example. The meat of that story character-wise is the transition of Michael Corleone from a man who didn't want to become like his father to a man that did everything he could to become like his father. The answer, which is not told, was that Michael had to become the head of the family because he was the only one who could protect them from a corrupt, dangerous world. It wasn't of Michael's making or choice, but he loved his family and they were balls-deep in the game with no way of extricating themselves. He became the godfather and ruthlessly savaged his enemies to protect them. That's really the gag of the whole book/movie. What's Michael doing? He's not supposed to be like this! He's one of the good guys! WHY IS HE GOING DOWN THAT ROAD??!! That's imagination. That's me engaging with the story and characters. Now imagine if Mario Puzo decided to write something like: "Michael decided to become like his father so he could protect his family" somewhere in the first third of the book . Well, shit, questions answered... nothing left to see here, folks!

    The bad tells cut our imagination off at the source. They don't let us think or discover things. The other, small time tell-y shit is forgivable so long as it doesn't become annoying. So long as you avoid the emotional tells (Bob was angry)... those drive me fucking nuts when they start to clutter up the page.

    ETA: also I think sometimes that people confuse info-dumping with telling. They're similar but not the same thing. Different thread needed for that one.
     
  11. Seven Crowns

    Seven Crowns Moderator Staff Supporter Contributor Contest Winner 2022

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,998
    Likes Received:
    3,691
    Okay, fair enough. To me it's overwhelmingly tell, except for the bit at the middle where actual action happens. It's just telling done very well. It seems like every time tell comes up, a terrible example is presented, and then the 'showing' counterpart comes in (at about a paragraph to the tell's sentence) as the sort of gold standard.

    I think the OP's real problem was bigger than show/tell though. I kind of mentioned it in my first post. What is really annoying him is showy Deep-POV, which is obsessed with the sensory.
     
  12. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    The thing that struck me immediately with this passage is that it sparkles, because the storytelling voice is so strong.

    It's the WAY the story is being 'told' that provides the sparkle. In a storytelling voice with no personality, a the dull recitation of weapon and car characteristics can put me to sleep. But this is very engaging. What we're engaging with are the narrator's word choices and memorable images and humour. It's the narrator, not the Deliverator, whom we find interesting.

    A good example of how, with the right voice, 'telling' can work beautifully.
     
  13. Nilfiry

    Nilfiry Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Eternal Stream
    If you really want to know what I think.... I think people abuse this aspect of writing (among many others) too much and ruin their enjoyment of reading and writing.

    Most of the "showing" that I see are just unnecessary details that only someone who spent all of their life in a well would need. The transfer of ideas through writing is esoteric by nature. A reader will not understand what is written unless he or she has experienced enough to relate to your writing. You can attempt to bring a reader to your mode of thought by showing many things that they are more familiar with, but those that have never experienced what you are talking about are not going to be able to imagine it the way you want no matter how much "showing" you try to do to evoke their senses. They will most likely just end up glossing over the words or taking it the wrong way. Those that do know what you are talking about will get it right away with just one or two words.

    When I read, "he is angry," I have everything I need to imagine an angry person because I know what being angry is like. There is no need for fancy details like, his face flushed, his voice raised, and his fists trembled. This just boggles things down. I get it, move on already. Those that do not get you are trying to describe anger will need you to "tell" them anyway. On the contrary, when I see people asking to be showed everything, all I hear is, "help, I need to know exactly what details I should imagine and how I should imagine it!"

    The real purpose to showing, in my opinion, is for when there is a peculiarity beyond the norm, but is not entirely out of scope, that needs to be noted. If there is a particular way that a character expresses anger, like his voice becomes cooler and his words become sharper (instead of the usual red face, raised voice, etc.), then go for it. However, if the way a character expresses anger is just like most everyone else, then do not bother. This applies to everything that you can evoke with the senses, not just feelings, and it is the same for sceneries and scenes in general. I can spend a paragraph showing you a terrain of mixed woodland and pasture, with fields and winding country lanes sunken between narrow low ridges and banks surmounted by tall thick hedgerows that break the wind but also limit visibility, but for people that know what this is, all I have to do is tell them, "bocage," and they know exactly what image they should see and feel.

    That is not to say that it is not worth it to try and show things to people who do not already know about it, but as the writer, you cannot possibly know who is going to read your writing and their experiences. It is more important to focus on getting the story across than how your readers perceive each scene exactly.

    Perhaps all I am trying to say is show with a purpose, and not just because you feel that you have too to impress your readers or yourself. Tell everything else. Unless you are doing technical writing, your story should be a guideline for the imagination, not How to Imagine [insert title here] 101. Too much showing does not help the imagination, it restrains it; it cripples it such that one cannot imagine anything else beyond the words.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2017
    Stormburn likes this.
  14. Seven Crowns

    Seven Crowns Moderator Staff Supporter Contributor Contest Winner 2022

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,998
    Likes Received:
    3,691
    I've always held that the most important thing to do in the opening paragraph is to set your voice. It's going to carry the story, so in some ways it's even more important.

    I should have attributed those paragraphs. That was Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson. (of Cryptonomicon, The Diamond Age, Seveneves, Anathem, et al.) To me this bit by him reads like Chuck Palahniuk, but Stephenson is his own creature, of course.

    Does anyone else have example paragraphs? I like seeing what other people are reading.
     
    Stormburn likes this.
  15. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    But it's NOT telling! I shriek while waving my tiny claws.

    Telling can be fine. But this isn't telling. This is a big, beautiful expanse of specific detail intended to convey a message or messages that are not explicitly included in the detail. That, to me, is the definition of showing--when the message is not explicitly included in the words. Therefore, this example is absolutely not telling.

    Examples:

    Joe was hungry.

    That could be telling. Or it could be showing that Joe, who for six pages has been trying to stop overeating, has finally succeeded.

    The trash can was full every day for a month.

    That could be telling. Or it could be showing that the hoarder living in the house is making progress against the hoarding.

    The house was painted bright red.

    That could be telling. Or it could be showing that the owner of that house is a rebel, because we've already established the dull, tasteful colors of the neighborhood.
     
    VynniL, BayView, Wreybies and 2 others like this.
  16. Alex R. Encomienda

    Alex R. Encomienda Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    257
    In that case, I got away with it twice.
     
  17. Alex R. Encomienda

    Alex R. Encomienda Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    257
    I like that kind of writing because it tells. I don't think it shows much but that's never been a problem for me whenever I pick up a book.
     
  18. Alex R. Encomienda

    Alex R. Encomienda Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    257
    Thank you! I agree.

    Yes, showing readers another world where they can taste, hear and feel things is good but it depends on the story. Some characters are introverts so the story must be introspective at times. Other times, there is an idea or a theme that needs to be conveyed and narration helps a lot with that. You can feel sad or happy by reading tellish stories just like you can feel that way reading showy ones. It's all about preference.
     
  19. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I don't agree, but that's because I don't agree with what I think is your definition of showing. You seem to be focusing it almost all on sensory input, and that's not, IMO, the point.

    Going with the anger, we could say:

    Joe was very angry, so Jane changed her mind and did what he demanded.

    Or you can actually present that scene as a scene, so that we observe how Joe manipulates Jane, what Jane's afraid of, where she sets her boundaries and how they crumble. This isn't about the color of Joe's face; it's about a deeper understanding of the situation.
     
  20. Nilfiry

    Nilfiry Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    708
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Eternal Stream
    Peculiarity does not just mean things that look or sound different in regards to the senses. I mainly mentioned evoking the senses because that seems to be the most common way it is used. However, when you get into specifics, we have to examine everything on a case-by-case basis.

    Using that example, the peculiarity here can be the way Jane responds to Joe's anger. You can show how frightened she is to imply perhaps an abusive relationship where she as has been physically abused every time Joe gets angry. By showing this peculiarity, your purpose is to point out to the reader that their relationship is abnormal. On the other hand, you could also just as easily go out of your way to show how Joe and Jane bicker like every other couple, and achieve nothing much out of it in the long run besides more word count.
     
  21. Alex R. Encomienda

    Alex R. Encomienda Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    257
    Since writing is supposed to be done by saying things in as little words as possible, showing how everything happens would take too long. When I write a story, someone will critique me and say it's too wordy. An editor told me one of my stories were too detailed. I do believe that showing a major event and telling other smaller events is a good approach.
     
  22. Stormburn

    Stormburn Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,223
    Likes Received:
    1,569
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, MI
    One the first books that I ever read was 'Incredible Victory: the Battle of Midway' by Walter Lord. That book has stayed with me all of my life. Reading the posts of this thread, I realized that it is a brilliant example of telling and showing. Lord tells the history of the battle, the who's, when and where's. Then, when telling about an event, he will insert a vignette of someone involved in the battle. From the POV of this character, he then shows the event. I wish I had a digital copy that I could pull examples from, but, my hard copy is back at home.
     
  23. surrealscenes

    surrealscenes Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    a room made of impossible angles
    Stories are made of scenes. Scenes need to be shown to the audience. Audiences don't like to be told what the scene is.
     
  24. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    Yeah, you and your tiny claws make a good case for that! I can see what you mean. :) However, I still think the second sentence in this phrase is 'telling.' :
    The rest of the passage illustrates his 'esprit', but I think it's a 'telling' phrase, that tells us what the author/narrator thinks the Deliverator is like. The rest of the passage illustrates why the narrator has drawn that conclusion. But nevertheless the 'conclusion' isn't left up to us, the readers. The author/narrator is directly telling us that's how we should regard the guy. That phrase could have been left out, couldn't it? And then the conclusion about the Deliverator's 'esprit' would have been left for us to figure out.

    However, like I said, it's VERY well done, and it directs our attention. And nothing wrong with it at all.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2017
    VynniL and ChickenFreak like this.
  25. Alex R. Encomienda

    Alex R. Encomienda Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    257
    I just came across another thought. Some people identify 'showing' as being in the character's head so that they can feel what the character feels. The problem with that is it goes against the "camera" technique. The camera can't see internal thoughts but if I chose to say "Adam clutched his waist and wobbled out the door in great pain as his shadow mirrored a hunchback" some might say I'm telling instead of being in their head.

    Which is it? Being in the character's head or writing as if the camera can capture what's happening?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice