I've finished a book for class I had to read and it had a great example of when telling can be much more effective than showing. In the scene a group of people inside an asylum sneak outside of their rooms through outside help and are partying inside one of the rooms. The whole chapter "shows" how the party is being played out with dialogue between the characters and the developments that were happening; one of the characters, their ring leader, is not in good terms with the head of the asylum and they feared for his being, so they suggest he escape. He plans on escaping before the workers came in at the morning and decides to get some shut eye. Of course they planned on cleaning up the mess they made, but the partying made them all sleepy. Everyone is sleeping soundly after the party became a success, and the chapter ends with, to paraphrase, "and the workers came in finding them there all fast asleep." Sure the novel could have conveyed the workers coming in, throwing in a gasp of surprise and shock and detailing how they reacted by displaying their every different facial expression, but that sentence alone of telling packed in a lot more punch than a whole paragraph of showing could. I guess in essence telling is effective more than showing when you want to quicken the pace of a novel.
I found a way to make these characters appear in the same scene and showed as much as I could of their differences, and at some point I'll have my character reflect on how different they are. If it will come off as telling or not I don't know (haven't written it yet) But I guess I will work on showing the differences between them through the entire novel and hope the reader catches what I'm trying to point out. Thanks everyone for your help.
I think it's a perfectly good idea to tell in this situation. In fact, it seems like a perfect theme for a sequel (as in scenes and sequels) which tolerate telling much better than the scenes. With show and tell, it all depends on the emphasis and the story. If your entire story is about her choosing between those two then sure, write ten scenes showing it all, but if it's a side issue, incidental or a stepping stone, it would be absurd to try and show it, n a classical sense.
The best way to learn this, is to read. Read all genres, all authors, they all do it different. The more I read the more I pick up on when to show and when to tell, and why. I don't think there is any one answer to this, its a feel or rhythm, when you are writing and reading. It reminds me of another example I used in the forums before. I was reading a book and the author had a fight scene, and was describing elbows and punches, etc. As the reader, I couldn't picture where the body parts were going. And when I looked back on it, it wouldn't have mattered to the story if the author would have just said - he kicked his ass, and so so had blood dripping out his nose as he stumbled to get up. I would have known who won the fight, without the interfering calamity of random body parts. Just saying.
I was told by my English teacher that the problem with young writers is that they 'tell' and not 'show'... I dont understand the difference between the two, and she didnt explain to us the difference in the two writing styles :/ I'd love for someone to help m with this, as I have no clue the difference between them
When I was school my English teacher said the same (highschool, not college). I remember her telling us students when showing, think of taking a snap shot with your words. I always remembered this when writing. Telling would be a sentence like: Ben was angry. Showing would be: Ben stalked into his room, slamming the door behind him. He threw his backpack into the corner of his room, where the dirty clothes were piled high, and plopped down onto his unmade bed. Hope this helps. Crystal
This is a blog post on the subject, by Cogito, it might help you: https://www.writingforums.org/blog.php?b=2182
Telling: Kate clenched her fists and got angry. Showing: Kate's breathing sped up, sweat droplets popping on her forehead, and she balled her fists hard enough to make both arms shake. Telling basically in this case was saying "clenched fists and angry." It tells you without showing anything. The second sentence, though wordier, shows something, an emotion that the reader can picture. Yes, new writers tend to write that way, because we're used to reports and etc in school which are telling items. However, in writing showing becomes an issue. With that said, there's always a mix of telling and showing in any novel or short story. The majority should be showing, but the mix pretty much depends on the story and skill of the writer.
Welcome to the forum. There have been more threads on this subject than you could shake a stick at. In the future, please do a search before posting to see if your topic, question, concern or issue has been discussed before. Chances are good that it has.
Near constant exposure to this rule of writing, and the ensuing discussions, has led me to believe that showing is just telling done in an awful, awful way. Post #4 is an example of this phenomenon.
Actually Jack, they are completely different. They really are. Telling is completely different animal then showing. Sorry but your wrong. Your entitled to your opinion but you're wrong.
The distinction is pretty useless. All storytelling is telling, essentially. Regarding your previous example, 'clenched fists' is an image just like rapid breathing, or sweat, or whatever else. They both tell and they both show. But I think the rule is idiotic in general. I realize that 'anger' is an abstract word without an image, and this, essentially, is what show, don't tell points to: clarifying the abstract with imagery. The reason the rule stinks is because it encourages a lot of really awful, purple prose. Writers think because they are being good little students and showing every detail that they are creating better prose, better stories, and it's doubtful they are. Narrative summary (i.e., 'telling') is not a boogeyman. Not something to be afraid of or to avoid. It is a wonderful way of compressing time, providing broad brush strokes in terms of history and events. The real challenge in writing is not whether you can show and describe things. Anybody can do that. Everybody already does that. The real challenge for writers is in writing exposition, narrative summary--essentially telling--in an interesting, artistic, and highly crafted way. Nobody cares how well you can describe a house or a lake, okay. The measurement of your skill as a writer is how well you can tell me about your character's history without it sounding like a boring summary.
There is a distinction, but I think the important thing to remember is that both can and should be used - properly. The idea is always to engage the reader, gain and keep their interest, and make them care what happens to the characters (whether they want them to succeed or fail is immaterial - they just have to care one way or the other). Too much telling is, well, too much. Same for too much showing. Too much is too much. Learning when it's too much is the key - and that can take a lot of writing.
Showing vs telling isn't a rule. It is sometimes expressed as though it is, but mostly because the majority of new writers don;t understand, and don't use, showing. Showing and telling are two different ways of conveying information. A painting metaphor for showing is negative space, where you show the form of something by the shape of the surroundings. Showing is particularly effective for presenting complex and abstract information, such as emotional state. Putting a simple name to an emotional state tends to trivialize it, but showing the outward manifestations gives the reader the impression of the emotion without limiting it by giving it a name. Please read Show and Tell
I don't think of "telling" as narrative summary. Both sentences below are narrative summary: Joe was depressed for days. Joe didn't get out of bed again until Thursday. But to me, the first is telling and the second is showing. The first interprets and explains the events for the reader. The second allows the reader to come to his own conclusion. That's why I increasingly distrust the terms showing and telling, and have started to think of the same concept as avoiding explanations, avoiding "spoonfeeding" conclusions to the reader.
Wow, thanks for all the explainations I appreciate it. I did go and read Cogito's blog, and it was very helpful, thank you. Before I vaguely understood the difference between the two, but now I think you all have cleared it up. I'm going to try and insert more showing into my stories, but I really liked your phrase, ChickenFreak "avoid 'spoonfeeding' conclusions to the reader." I think I do that way that way too often :/ Again, thank you all ^^
As with everything, I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle...I prefer a nice mix of all of them. Please don't show me everything because you're novel is probably going to be way too long for my schedule. Please don't tell me everything, because I do like to savor some of the details before hitting the pillow. Please don't totally spoon feed me (unless I'm twelve), but don't make guess everything unless I'm reading a mystery. Give me an occasional info dump embedded in some aspect of the novel so I feel wiser in the end...but pepper lightly with fluff sometimes because I'm reading for some element of escape. And have a good story...Oh yeah, that's important! That covers the perfect novel for me.
Everything's in the middle in writing. There's always a mix of telling and showing, and it's up to the author himself or herself to know what is the proper mix.
my personal view is that 'telling' is a more demeaning way of conveying information, at least when it comes to creative writing and novels. it puts the author too far above the reader for the reader to become attached to the writing. i say telling is for textbooks and informative essays, but that's my personal view.
Unfortunately, Prison, writing is a combination of showing AND telling. All novels are, to be honest. As I've said, now a hundred times, it's up to the author to determine how much the mix should be according to his/her story. Just like people talking about short sentences being better, that's not to case either. There's a lot of things that are necessary to make a good novel, and half of them require breaking the rules. Showing and telling is one of them. People on this site put wayyyyyyyy too much emphasis on one over the other, and it's not correct. I'm sure, in the next week or so, we'll have another thread on the subject, and there'll be another argument again. As a good friend of mine would say: the combination is whatever it takes to make the story work. *stepping off soapbox*
