I've actually found, since the little light bulb clicked on, that my MC's so real to me, that I wish I could sit down, talk with her, see the world through her eyes. Sounds strange but it's not, just means you've finally created a real person.
I think that it's important to show/demonstrate when the emotions of the moment are more complex than can be easily put into words. For example: Tell: Jane's mother made a remark that implied disapproval of Jane's clothing choices for the evening. Show: Jane walked in and struck a pose. "Ta da!" Her mother studied her for a moment, scanning the black velvet cocktail hat, down the little black strapless dress, and pausing longest on the bright red Dorothy-in-Oz heels. She turned back to her dressing-table mirror and reached for a lipstick. "It's late. Shouldn't you get dressed?" To me, there are paragraphs worth of nuances in the "show" (or at least there would be if it were written by a better writer than me), and writing those paragraphs would still give you less information than the scene itself.
Question: How does one "show" a character's appearance? I feel that description, almost always, is "telling" rather than "showing."
By how they think and feel about themselves. You don't have to have the typical mirror scene unless their thoughts are involved. Letting them tell the reader how they feel allows for showing their looks while keeping the story moving. The better way, though, is to spread it out during the book.
"Vivian walked into the room, flipping straight, blond hair out of light blue eyes. The slight curve of her hips always became more prominent when she walked, as they gently swayed from side to side. I could remember back in junior high when we'd both been invited to a birthday party at the beach; Viv's skin, just as smooth, but not as tan as it is today, had been entrancing, the way it fitted over her. Even back then she'd been a babe, with two sizes smaller breasts and a not-so-toned stomach." The first sentence is straight-out showing rather than telling. The rest is a mix.
I think some writers just tell what their characters look like. It's like they pause in one action and explain the appearnce of the charracter.
"Anthony combed back his lengthening fringe of deep black hair and stared into his reflection. His emerald green eyes glistened in the fluorescent light above his mirror." Yadda yadda yadda... Stock standard, but it gets the job done. But sometimes 'telling' fits. "Anthony had jet black hair from birth and his emerald green eyes were always the envy of his siblings."
Your first example sound more action driven. And your second one immediately tells what the character looks like. That one helped me imagine him well.
I'm concerned that the strong emphasis on showing may actually make it infeasible to use some of the classic story structures. E.g. a little while ago I wrote a story whereby alien explorers arrived at the earth at the peak of a zombie apocalypse. The story is told through entries in the ship's log. I think that there is still some showing involved as even when they find a human survivor, the universal translator can't handle human language, meaning that there is no communication. The aliens also don't know of zombies and are mystified by the actions of what appear to be the dominant species, but don't act like it. But the "ship's log" structure is in my opinion a valid one, even when it does mean telling rather than showing. I'd like to write a story where an aged and retired military man leaves a memoir about a still top secret project that he was involved in. I could write the story in present tense, but I really want to write it as a memoir, and that would mean a whole lot of telling, and little showing. I don't think it would be realistic for the memoir to be written in first person, or to contain shown action sequences etc. But with everyone saying "show, don't tell," I'm hesitant. My current aim is to write this story twice. Once in memoir fashion, and once in real time, possibly first person. But this isn't the first thing in my writing list of things to do, so it won't happen soon. I'm just writing down ideas for it. I can see from many examples how showing does work better than telling, but I'm also afraid that in emphasising showing, we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Showing has to do with actions. If a character isn't performing an action to get your information across, you are most likely telling and not showing. The 'show don't tell' rule has a lot to do with movies, where there are only two ways to get information to the viewer: actions and dialogue, and dialogue is telling. So, if you want the reader/viewer to know how powerful Don Vito Corleone is, you would have to devise situations that illustrate his power - that *show* us his strength and control over others. Far more entertaining than a simple tell.
So why not tell it? Although actually appearance is something it's hard to tell, not show. Typically, showing is about what the narrator can experience in the external world, as opposed to what the narrator knows or feels (and that's true even if the narrator isn't a character in the story -- there is still a narrative point of view at any moment). Somebody's appearance is something the narrator can experience in the external world.
Showing has to do with presenting the reader with observable details rather than the conclusions drawn from those observed details. You can't directly observe that Fat Tony is hungry. But you can see him stealing glances at a steaming pasta buffet. You can see a bead of drool forming at the corner of his mouth. And you can hear a rumbling noise echoing from the general direction of his immense gut. Show, don't tell isn't a rule. It's common advice, perhaps not well worded, from editors and teachers who see writing with virtually no showing. Instead, you should find where showing works best, where telling works best, and strike the proper balance. This may help: Show and Tell
To tell, or to show: that is the question: Whether 'tis better in writing to sling The emotion and action with omniscient directness, Or to make subtle - perhaps blatant - suggestion, And, by doing so, leave the reader to draw the conclusion?
Exactly. Actions that illustrate hunger. Glancing, drool forming, etc. Verbs. Actions that illustrate hunger.
In that example, yes. But descriptions that don't involve action can also show the reader things. An unmade bed, decaying food in the trash, and a light layer of dust on the furniture, in an otherwise impeccably decorated and clean home can show depression or illness on the part of the homeowner. But there are no actions there.
From a young writer's point of view, when they tell their story, they want the readers to visualize what the story is all about. That is probably the reason why they just tell...
As many of us do, I tend to 'tell' in my writing rather than 'show' A problem I am trying to solve. I'm fully aware that a good piece of writing should have both, telling and showing. Too much telling and your writing reads like a list. Too much showing and your writing is cursed with 'purple prose' My question is what should the ratio be: 80/20 (80% showing and 20% telling) 60/40 (60% showing and 40% telling) or 50/50 (equal amounts) What are your thoughts?
I don't think there's any ratio that could apply to all writing. It all depends on what your work needs in a given scene. If it needs showing, you should show. If it's better with telling, you should tell.
I also believe that there is no exact ratio ratio. There is a balance, however, but there are many ways to achieve it and not one single method. Just avoid the common mistakes and errors and you're bound to reach one of the better solutions. Edit: The guy under me got it right. Just stick to what's currently important.
I agree -- I don't think there's a magic ratio. But I don't think I've ever heard the criticism, 'you show too much. Just tell us some of this stuff.' I'd say to err on the side of showing too much and then, when editing, if there are scenes you need to take out, because they're not adding enough, then you can just tell us what was in that scene. Try to keep an eye on what's important. Sometimes it is better to just say, "I ate dinner and got into bed," rather than showing us his taking chicken out of the fridge, cutting it up, sauteing it in a pan, adding carrots, soy sauce, snow peas and water chestnuts, cutting into the chicken to make sure it's done, opening the refrigerator and grabbing a coke and then sitting down at the kitchen table. Cutting and chewing. Then putting the dishes in the dishwasher, walking upstairs, taking off his pants, brushing his teeth, pulling back the comforter, and getting into bed. If it's an important scene, show us. If you just need to show the close of a day or the passage of time, or segue to the next scene, you can just tell us.
Please read Show and Tell. As others have said, there is no ideal ratio. You just have to understand when telling is more effective, and when showing works better, and make the choice accordingly at each point in the story.
If there was a magic ratio we would all do it, depends entirely on circumstance. As a general rule though people hate being told, they do not mind being shown.
