Except, in this piece apparently you do know what you're talking about. There's emotion here. Something's happening. There's a purpose for the details.
Given the context of camping, the word "fallen" strikes me as redundant. A fair point about the ashes ... but when it comes to writing, detail is only as useful as the world it creates. Burdening the reader unduly with a catalogue of qualia is not telling a story.
"Asher rose from his bed (would expand a little - since he's camping would that be a sleeping bag or even just a roll out matress? ) and dusted himself off a bit. (why use 'a bit' it's weak and diminishes the action) (Would he be cold? Would he flap his arms about a bit (poor description - you can do it better.) Stamp his feet? Seeing the dimly lit ashes of the once heated campfire, he meandered to the nearly dead fire and ousted it for good using a little water from his wineskin. (If this is really necessary to the story change it, it's not that interesting. If he has to put out the fire for a reason, couldn't you have him kicking the ashes about, feeling the heat of the still smouldering ashes through his boots - or something similar. ' After taking a drink for himself, Asher sat down on an old fallen log near the campfire and picked up his pack, rummaged through it, and pulled out an insignificant lump of bread wrapped in rough burgundy cloth." (this is pretty mundane. You don't need to explain where he had the drink from, where he sat or even describe the bread, unless it's of some interest. It's important to place yourself at the scene (figuratively speaking) so that you can feel what your character is feeling. For example, imagine yourself outside a house, watching through a window at a party in full swing. Then imagine yourself inside. How much more can you feel when you're inside - you can smell the food, feel the heat of the fire, hear the hum of conversation, pick up the nuances of people's speech, notice as the couple in the corner pass each other suspect packages. From outside the window, you have to second guess. You miss things. You're not there. You can't hear the conversation. It's dull. And that's how it will come across to your reader. As an exercise, just try it. Any situation, one paragraph with you in the midst of the action. One with you looking from the sidelines. You don't have to include yourself in the action, just be there and tell what you see, what you hear and what you feel.
Yes, the old show-vs-tell argument. I do believe you can use both and should have a balance. As far as Storm's excerpt there are some issues with it, but not huge ones. Some of the descriptors are redundant and can be removed. Let's take a closer look at this scene: Asher rose from his bed and dusted himself off a bit. So, first sentence. Are you telling us or showing us? Personally I think this is a telling sentence. We need to get more into the character and what he is feeling. Seeing the dimly lit ashes of the once heated campfire, he meandered to the nearly dead fire and ousted it for good using a little water from his wineskin. This is where the redundancy comes in. The ashes are 'dimly-lit', 'once-heated' and 'nearly-dead'. And yes, 'doused' is the word you were looking for rather than 'ousted'. After taking a drink for himself, Asher sat down on an old fallen log near the campfire and picked up his pack, rummaged through it, and pulled out an insignificant lump of bread wrapped in rough burgundy cloth. Again, superfluous use of descriptors. What is the log? Well its old and fallen. Don't tell us it's old, show us what happens when you sit on an old log. This is the difference between 'telling' and 'showing'. I also agree that 'insignificant' is a poor choice. Is it small? Is it unimportant? Personally, this passage is telling. You could almost turn this into a bullet-point guide. Wake up. Douse fire. Sit on log. It's all very methodical. Might as well give my re-write. Tried to draw the reader into the scene so they can sense what Asher is going through.
Absolutely! Don't worry, you won't find me arguing that you always need detail (I hope I haven't said that. I sometimes seemingly contradict myself through lack of clarity). I agree with you that a lot of detail is boring, irrelevant crap that the reader is forced to wade through for no other reason than a writer's own indulgence. Get to the point! (as your excellent quote suggests.) Many writers sway too far one way or the other. It's a tricky balance.
Indeed, one that gives me much grief as well. My sig is as much advice to myself, y'know? I've been known to get florid on occasion.
Seriously? It's one sentence. Getting 'more into the character' is not going to happen in one sentence. Some awesomely bad advice in this thread. What if it's just an old fallen log and it's really not important enough for a couple sentences worth of 'showing?' Too often the result of these discussions is an over-emphasis of descriptive writing, and that is just as bad, arguably more so, than a passage of simple narrative 'telling' (god I hate these distinctions. So idiotic. All storytelling is telling. Everything else is splitting hairs.)
Jack, Everyone here knows that the posts are opinion. At least, I thought everyone did. As I said, there is a balance. Neither extreme is good, but I don't think calling our 'discussion' "awesomely bad advice" is very scholarly.... Just saying.
I'm sorry, but there are sights and sounds, smells and feeling associated with a scene, and the more you draw a reader into that scene, the better. People who want to demoralize and insult others for this fact are sad... I wouldn't want to read a book that was like: Asher stood up. He put out the fire. He got something out of his bag. He was in the woods. He sat down on a log. Here's an excerpt from (who else) Douglas Adams: See? Perfect example. He could have just said, 'It was windy.' or 'the air was thin.', but instead he showed the effect of those things and what they mean. Sure, it may just be wind, but that doesn't mean that it can't be given character. The more you know... ~ J. J.
The thing is, does the detail contribute? And how much is just right? I don't think anyone is saying that no details should ever be mentioned. The question is, do the details contribute to the environment or story? And are they being reported passively as narrative observations, or actively, as the perceptions of the character? Check this out -- it's a paragraph in my WiP that isn't going to survive rewrite when I get to its chapter: You know why? While it may present a very specific picture, it is inapt; the mosque is seen from a car, and bears only a small role in the tale. It is 189 words which do not advance the narrative. I will make mention of the mosque in proportion to its importance to both the story and the environment -- meaning that we're gonna lose 170 words or so: ... or something along those lines.
Consider this. Imagine your words as if on a balancing scale. On one side you have "show", on the other you have "tell". But your "tell" words weigh more than your "show" words so you must use more "show" on your scale to make them balance. Now, the weight of each of these groups of words is different each time you use them so you must figure out anew just how to make your "show" and "tell" balance. Obviously, if all you had was "show" one side of your scale would be sitting on the table while the other would be tipped way in the air. Take the "show" off and fill the other side with "tell" and the opposite side is now heavy laden and sitting on the table. (See where I'm going here?) Using one or the other exclusively will result in a lopsided story. You MUST find a balance of both types of exposition in order to craft an engaging and readable story. And what that balance may be for one is not the same as for another. It is different every time but it is critical to balance the use of BOTH Show AND Tell.
Is this something you want to consciously think about while actually writing? If it seems important and interesting, show it, if not, or if its something you want to drive home in the most direct way possible, just tell it. I've read books that use a whole lot of "telling" and remain interesting, and a whole lot of books of that achieve the same effect with "showing". Conversely, I've seen a lot of amateur works that use predominantly use one or the other, or even a healthy mix, and it comes out badly. So what does that tell you?
Only talented and gifted writers can cope with this task. Unfortunately, nowadays, not everyone understands this 'golden rule' and are convinced that they are genius writers.
Arr? With effort and work, I think that anyone with decent writing skills can learn the show/tell, or demonstrate/explain, or whatever you want to call it, balance.
Anyone can do this. The real question to ask is: Do they know how the effectively do it to keep their pacing right??
I think alexa_ was referring to "Show, don't tell," as the golden rule. If so, she probably didn't read the earlier posts in the thread.
Surely the "Golden rule" as applied to writing would be, "Write for others what you would want to read yourself."
Showing and not telling Lemex and others always keep telling me- SHOW DO NOT TELL. How does one do that?
