The common terminology was an attempt at simplifying an abstract concept. It has led to many strictly literal interpretations, though.
It's not practical, just limiting, if it leads to the notion that something has to actually happen in the narrator's eye for it to be shown. Telling: Joe beats his wife. Showing A: Scene where Joe beats his wife. Showing B: Scene where the narration picks up cues by observing Ally's strained interaction with Joe. Body language, timing, etc... Depending on how you want to tell the story, all three are fine, but a literal interpretation doesn't appreciate Showing B even though it's just as demonstrative (yet more subtle, perhaps more compelling).
The broader definition is often the poorer one. Not always, but frequently. The terms ‘show’ and ‘tell’ are an attempt to capture an effect on the reader. And the definitions closest to those effects are more precise and reasonable. Let’s use a bakery for an analogy. If a hungry customer stops by their neighborhood bakery one beautiful morning to grab a bagel and coffee, they rightly expect to be able to purchase and consume both food and beverage. If they aren’t permitted to do that, and are informed by one of the bakery’s employees that patrons are only allowed to smell the baked goods and coffee, then the customer would be smart to conclude that they aren’t, in fact, inside a bakery. Not by any sensible definition. Though admittedly the “bakery” employee could try and console their “customer’s” disappointment (and hunger) with nuanced and complex reasoning. Narrative implication is great, and it’s one consequence of showing something on the page. Smelling baked goods is also great, and it’s one consequence of entering a bakery. But narrative implication isn’t showing, just as enjoying the aroma of food isn’t the same as eating it. The practical interpretation of serving food, is one with people being permitted to actually eat something. The practical interpretation of showing important narrative events and relationships, is one with those events and relationships shown on the page to the reader. If the effect is wrong, the term is wrong.
The best alternative I know about, to resort to telling as opposed to showing is to get heavily involved in the essay writing industry. Business writing is also a good call.
You can directly show an action, or you can imply it by showing the after-effects it had. It's still being done through showing, you're just showing something other than the direct event. If you show a car riddled with bullet holes, the reader understands it got shot at.
Whether or not the information is understood is not the point of disagreement. If the author simply states that the car was shot, the reader will also understand that. That doesn’t make showing and telling the same. The effect on the reader is the critical distinction.
Most of this debate really stems from how showing is most often taught (like every single place you google, for example). Showing is largely defined as micromanaging actions. You get silliness like: Joe's pinky finger curling and reaching out to touch the cold grass door knob and with a sweaty tip rotating it in a counter-clockwise direction, seventy degrees until he heard a slight click and sensed an easing of the pressure holding the two-hundred-pound oak Edwardian door tight against it's too-oft-stained frame. Supposedly that's showing. In fact, showing simply means to put things in enough scene to allow the reader to make the observations, as opposed to an author hijacking some actors brain (or their own) to explain the story away. Another way of saying this is: "Treat the reader like an intelligent human being and allow them to participate."
The only valid reason to express ‘show don’t tell’ is in obvious places where people do things like this: - He was so angry. He walked across the room like a storm > (There is no need to ‘tell’ that he is ‘angry’ here) - She shifted her feet in the sand and blushed coyly > (There is no need to ‘tell’ that she is being ‘coy’) When ‘telling’ is okay: - He disliked oranges, they reminded him of his aunt who used to devour them letting the juice drip from her chin like some ravenous fruit-demon. (It is worth making clear he dislikes oranges here because it is unusual and leads into making a point about another character and his memories). When ‘showing’ is sometimes not enough: - The trees were gnarled, the clouds black to bursting. His spine felt like an evil snake twisting down to his bowels. > (Here I am describing someone in fear, but it is perhaps unclear outside of any given context. Sometimes obscurity will put people off and sometimes it will entice the in). Compare too … His eyes darted back and forth through the clearing mists. The trees were gnarled, the clouds above black to bursting. The stillness consumed him, his spine felt like an evil snake twisting down to his loosening bowels. > (small additions and edits help make clear that emotion felt is ‘fear’ rather than some mere sickness).
Dude I'm all for different terminology. If the terms were more sensible and didn't lead to confusion, this thread wouldn't exist. If someone's understanding of narrative delivery is broadly separated into show, imply, tell (where show and imply have overlap), then that's good and fine. I'm not convinced that 'pragmatic' definition it the the popular one, though. I think the effect it has on people leads to statements such as 'but all writing is telling. You're telling the reader what happened, after all' or 'all you're showing the reader is words.' Or instead you might find text rife with clenched fists, red faces, smirks, yadda yadda. If it were up to me, I'd limit 'show don't tell' to graphical media. There is so much more capability in the written medium (language) that it transcends showing as events happening on the page. It's always more. The reader interfaces with the narration in a way unreconcilably different to that of a visual experience. It's something other than smelling or tasting the poppy seed bagel.
That’s more or less where I’m coming from. I don’t believe my conceptualizations of show, tell, and implication are especially popular — specifically the details. If I’m honest, I kind of like it that way. I also don’t feel anyone should drop their views about all this in favor of mine. But I will defend my positions should I get the impression I need to. If my ideas are presented as inferior or incorrect, I’m happy to explain why I don’t believe they are.
Maybe instead of saying show versus tell we can say to put the actors into the story, progress it in a forward direction, don't explain things to the reader, and instead give the reader what she needs in order for her to explain it to herself.
I have struggled with this concept for years and in fact it is something that has largely handicapped my motivation because I have tried what I think people mean when they say to show don't tell or whatever, and it is a difficult not blur the line between either. To some extent you have to tell because that is what writing is lolol you are telling your reader and I feel like oftentimes many of the favourite stories (I am not a big reader) do exactly what I would have done. No one seems to ever provide really clear examples on which is which. The bed curtains are silk and red... how else do I tell you that? My character is starting to cry, how else do I tell you that? It feels like writing the story gets pushed to the sideline while all the focus or energy becomes figuring out the right or wrong way to say it to the reader. For lack of better explanation, I get caught up in the technicalities. Some writers are amazingly skillful, because it seems very difficult to consistently find new ways to express thoughts or describe things- or find fresh vocabulary. I find myself, personally, running low on vocab.
It's a good thing you came here! First of all, erase the phrase "Show don't tell" from your mind permanently! It's a complete bastardization. I never let those words out in any form in that order (except when I'm telling people how bad that phrase is). You're absolutely right, showing and telling are both necessary. Good instincts. I think the reason that phrase caught on is because in general beginners do way too much telling and not enough showing. Not all of them, but many. You know what, rather than reiterate a discussion we've had many times before, let me see if I can find one of the better versions of it and post a link. That way rather than just getting whatever I post right now, you can see the entire thread. Be right back.
Here are some threads that should help: Showing vs Telling Pay particular attention to posts by Wreybies, jannert, Seven Crowns, and big soft moose. This holds across all threads. Is there ever a time to 'tell' ? I listed several threads on showing and telling in this one.
Looks like everyone is getting on the same page. I too struggled with that rule and did a ton of research to understand the reason for the rule so I could find valid reasons to break it. Cleaver magazine published my Craft Essay on this topic, and I posted it on this forum as an article to help anyone who wants examples of how to show and tell... Seven Ways to Show AND Tell | Creative Writing Forums - Writing Help, Writing Workshops, & Writing Community
really show and tell (and use inference and omission) is all there is,a book that was all showing would be deeply tiresome. show the important things tell the less important things omit the unimportant things two mistakes i tend to see from newbies are i) telling huge chunks of back story much of which could be omitted, the key points shown, and the rest told but not in one huge wall of text ii) describing every damn thing leading to too much showing and too much telling
I just stumbled across this video from one of my favorite Booktubers, and basically she answers the thread question: It's very simple—distant POV is telling, and close POV is showing. Forehead slap moment. How did I not already realize this? It's at least true to a large extent, they might not line up perfectly. It occurs to me I probably should have thought about this for a few days before making the post—a little cogitation might turn up some big flaws in the theory. But close POV is at least one aspect of showing. I started to realize that over the last few days as I looked at videos about writing deep POV, and most of them were mainly about removing filter words. I was like "Wait, that isn't about deep POV, it's about showing!" And it started to hit me. If they're not identical, they're very close cousins. At first I was a little taken aback at the idea that you can move in closer from where you started, but can't move out farther. Until she explained it and then it's like "Oh, well, yeah, obviously." If the narrator already knows the character's name, and the reader knows it too, it wouldn't make any sense for the narrator to later refer to that character as "A man (walked down the street)". Though you can shift back out to your starting point, especially after a scene or chapter break (the old "Open the scene with an establishing shot, then zoom in" trick). So yeah, you need to start the story at the farthest-out (most objective) POV you're going to use and move in from there. In fact, this graph Wreybies posted is highly relevant here (I'll just drop his whole post in, it's good stuff): Remember that, whenever possible, I eschew the idea of "rules" in favor of "tools" when it comes to how I engage. I created this image rather quickly and I am 100% sure it is not remotely all-encompassing and that there is something much better out there, but it serves to show my sentiment. There are borders and abutments with respect to narrative mode that allow one to stray into foreign territory to a certain extent. My original sentiment of sticking to your narrative mode at all costs is, as I mentioned prior, because the narrative mode seems to always be the first part of the foundation that we sledgehammer when the going gets complicated, and I think it's a mistake to immediately go that route when things get a little sticky. In this image, think of the overlap areas as zones of permission rather than obligatory land that is equally occupied by both concepts. From traditional 3rd omniscient, you can slide into limited and even authorial to a certain degree within the same chapter, without any kind of formal break. If you're going to include some genuine 1st person content, you're going to need a hard break because 1st and trad 3rd omni do not share a border. But 3rd close limited and 1st person do share a border and one of the things that typifies 3rd close limited is the delivery of internal thought, written in 1st person, delivered without thought tags, just like in 1st. We can do this because 3rd limited already possesses the solid constraint that sentiments expressed through the narrative will necessarily belong to the POV character - not anyone else - so there's no confusion in writing them as if they were 1st person. Omniscient certainly can dip into Objective, but a story intended to be Objective that dips in the other direction has abandoned its defining characteristc and is no longer Objective, hence the one-way only. Spoiler: Image So basically, if you're going to use Omniscient in a story, you need to start in Omniscient. If you're going to use 3rd person limited and shift closer, you must start in 3rd limited.
I usually have a story I am writing using the point of view of one person who is the main character. I have generally deviated from that only rarely with a second character. But one story I work with is not working that way. It is with a group of characters, who are at least to start with anti-heroes. I had no main character and I have been using different perspectives.
