Exercises to practice show don't tell?

Perhaps this is down to lack of experience but I struggle sometimes to come up with imaginative and creative ways to show what the character is feeling, show what is going on etc rather than tell them. So I was wondering what do people do to exercise their "show don't tell" muscles? I anticipate the answer will probably be practice practice, practice but I was looking for more extensive advice on how to improve my skills.

Thanks

 

Firstly - and appy-poly-loggies in advance for the pedantry - I do not believe in the phrase "Show, don't tell". I believe in knowing the difference between the two, knowing what each can do in a given circumstance, and using the one that best fits. Whatever you do in writing, do it deliberately, with intent, under your control.

Secondly - This conversation is going to quickly devolve into a debate over what exactly show means, and what exactly tell means within the envelope of this paradigm, and no one is going to focus on the metaphorical difference between 10:00 am and 10:00 pm; instead everyone is going to crowd around how to weedle apart the difference between 11:55 am and 12:05 pm, and no one is going to agree. (get your wellies out, you'll need them)

Think of show simply as evidence of the fact, rather than flatly stating the fact. When you do this it becomes clear that a given sentence can be either show or tell depending on circumstance.

Maria questioned Brad's authority.

That's pretty tellish, right? Pretty flatly stated. I'm not showing you any evidence of the fact; I'm just telling you what happened. But what if Maria is a mousy little woman who has been effectively mute so far in the story, would never challenge anyone, but she's reached her saturation point and Brad is one step away from finding a knife in his gut because Maria just can't take it anymore? Then that simple, undramatic statement of fact shows another dynamic.

I've seen the conversation attempt to granulate the idea further down to small snips of syntax and even down to the individual word level, and frankly I find that to be a pointless missing the forest for the trees kind of neurosis.

To your question: Look for those places in your writing where you are simply recounting events, happenstances, feelings etc. Check to see if telling isn't the best way to write whatever you've written in that moment. In those places where perhaps you feel, or see in your mind, that a different take on the matter would be better, try writing it out in an evidence of the fact manner, separately, in a different document. Play with the different colors you can imagine. Don't be afraid to be absurd. Embrace the absurd. And then reign it back in. Take your results and apply with deliberation.

 

Great post ^

I feel like the strength of telling is that it lets you condense a huge amount of boring crap into very few words. I read a romance recently where every chapter started off with a paragraph or two of tell to set the stage, then got going. It worked great.

I’m still too tellie in my writing, but I remember having a click about this after watching some YouTube videos about it, then copying a few pages from a VE Schwab book.

Somehow, copywork after study let me see it.

 

Like all slogans, it's too easy to use thoughtlessly.
I read one-third of a biography of Liszt once. The author kept mentioning that he was "witty" and talking about his "lively" conversation and charming manners. It's not that I don't believe Liszt had these traits; it's just that seeing no examples of wit, conversation or charm, I was so bored I didn't bother finishing it.
On the other hand, if you describe the character as tall and thin, the reader is content to be told and doesn't expect to be shown.
It also depends on how entertainingly you tell whatever information you need to impart.

 

I apologize to those who have seen me make this suggestion before, but I found drama/performance helps.

I do a weekly dropin in an improv class, and there is zero tolerance for expository dialogue.

The coaches demand expression via body language: expressions, positioning, motion... which is the core idea behind Show-Don't-Tell. I have zero dramatic training, but collaborating with people who do is free education on the subject of how people express internal thoughts with their bodies.

 

I agree with all the other posts above. "Show, don't tell" is tossed around a lot and it is a common error to tell where showing would work better, probably because "telling" tends to be easier to write. However, a novel is not the same thing as a screenplay. It does and should include telling as well as showing.

 

Think if your words are enough for the reader to see in their head what's going on.
If you say "John entered the room." (telly) what would a reader imagine? Is John going fast or slow? Can they know how John walks? Is he tired, drunk, vigorious, is he in a hurry, does he take long strides, or is he dragging his legs? Nope, they can't know that because all you said was that John entered the room, not how he entered. But does the reader need to know? Sometimes it doesn't matter, sometimes it does. If you want to show how John enters a room because he smells something burning or because he heard the baby crying, then John must be in a hurry, right? So, you may think of a way to show that he's in a hurry: "John rushed in the room" (showy), or even "In two large strides John found himself in the middle of the room." (really showy). Now your reader would definitely imagine a man in a hurry, he's moving fast.

 

At the clear risk of being the one to start the devolution I myself predicted, these examples are all varying flavors of tell. Show doesn't equal more detail. Show is evidence of the thing in question rather than the thing in question laid flat.

John was late to work. Again. Fired, totally fired, he thought to himself. The dog paid the price, punt-kicked as John entered the room.
​

I never mention John’s rush. You piece it together from the evidence.

 

I'd just like to add to what other people has said about 'show, don't tell.' That little homily somehow gets twisted to where people automatically think showing is exciting and telling is boring. Like everything else, the context matters, and so do the word choices, and the choice of images, pacing, etc.

This boring versus exciting notion also gets twisted when it comes to dialogue versus narrative—the widely touted idea that dialogue is exciting and narrative is boring. I have read some dialogue that put me straight to sleep. And I've read narrative that keeps me on the edge of my seat. It's not WHAT you're doing, it's how it comes across to the reader that matters. And that's down to word choice, appropriateness of image, pacing, etc.

I define the difference between showing and telling as this: 'Telling' is what you want the reader to know. 'Showing' is what you want the reader to experience or discover for themselves.

In one of the above examples, you have 'John entered the room.' Yes, that's telling. However, so is 'John rushed into the room.' All you're doing is substituting a fairly non-specific verb for a more specific one. Both are 'telling' us directly what happened. (He came through the door. /He came through the door in a big hurry.) The two-strides one is even more vivid ...but it's still telling, to a degree. It's just telling us that it happened so quickly John hardly noticed.

When it comes to a scene like that one, telling seems to be the default position. Showing action in detail can actually take up too much story time in a situation like this. You could describe how he leaped out of his chair, flung his newspaper to one side, dashed for the kitchen door, losing both slippers on the way, skidded across the linoleum floor in his stockinged feet and managed to snatch the pan off the stove just before it burst into flames. That whole scene is actually 'telling.' It's just detailed 'telling.' The detail might or might not enrich the story, depending on what is particularly important about the scene.

However, here's where it gets fun, and context comes into the frame. What if, up until that moment, the reader had been led to believe John was paralyzed from the waist down? Then suddenly John flings his newspaper aside, leaps out of his chair, loses his slippers, skids across the linoleum in his stockinged feet and grabs the pan off the stove. You would be SHOWING the reader that he is not paralyzed after all. The reader will reach that conclusion without being told, simply by 'seeing' what John does.

Telling would be: "John revealed he was not paralyzed when he leaped out of his chair and ran into the kitchen and grabbed the pan off the stove."

 

Great summary!

 

This, I think, deserves to be repeated. As a reader, I find that my tolerance for telling is greatly increased when it's interesting, entertaining, strange, or off beat.

 

Great advice so far in this thread. "Show, don't tell" is a useful guideline for people who are just starting out with writing, such as children whose stories sound something like, "Sarah fought with her mom. She felt mad." No, we say, show us the fight. Give us the dialogue and show her storming away and slamming her door. Maybe not the most artful description of anger, but hey, for a fourth grader it's a big step up.

But I don't know that I've ever encountered an adult who writes this way. I'm sure they're out there, it's just not a common issue. When asking yourself whether you need to worry about show vs. tell, ask if the reader is going to have a hard time taking your word for something. "John walked into the room." Pretty sure they'll take your word for that one. "John was a genius, the smartest guy at his college." Now, that sounds like a stretch. You're going to need to give evidence for that. Don't tell us; show us how smart he is throughout the story, and let the reader figure it out themselves.

Emotions are another kettle of fish. Broadly speaking, you have four options here, which may or may not be combined: straight-up telling ("Sarah felt mad"); physical telling ("Blood rushed to Sarah's face. She clenched her fists."); actions ("Sarah stormed away and slammed her bedroom door"); and an interior monologue ("Sarah couldn't believe her mother was doing this to her again.") Based on what I've seen, and looking back on my own writing through the years, inexperienced writers tend to rely most heavily on the middle two, since they are trying to avoid straight-up telling, but they may skimp on the fourth one by erroneously believing it also counts as straight-up telling. (When really, I think it's the most important one for helping a reader connect to a character.) The truth is, though, you really need all four of those tools from time to time, and I think the mark of a really skilled writer is someone who knows how and when to use them. Because sometimes, "She felt mad" is exactly what you need--if, say, it would disrupt the flow of the scene to drag it out, because there are other details you're trying focus on instead. I'm not at this level yet myself, but I'm working on it!

 

Characters' dialogue can be an effective way to practice this idea. Playwrights are masters of this because they have little if any narrative explanation and rely solely on their characters' exchange. Boiled down, this idea connects with our ability to infer what's going on, which is a major reason why I enjoy reading. I get to hear what the author is conveying, and, at the same time, I can offer my own interpretation.

@jannert nailed it.

 

There is a small irony in most of the critiques I receive.
I try to indicate aspects of my character in details of dress, demeanour, speech and reactions, rather than a single coherent description - showing through glimpses, as you would get of a stranger in walking life.
And I'm often told : "You didn't explain that!" and "What's he like?"
In fact, some of the same people who use that catch-phrase don't always like it in practice.
I'm not a great teller; I'm chary with words.
But I greatly appreciate the late 19th/ early 20th century novelists who told their stories in elegant prose.

 

I also think some of the confusion comes from the fact that an author is always 'telling' something. Technically, you can't really write without telling the reader what is going on in the story. But what usually gets left out of the 'show don't tell' maxim (soundbites don't always work, do they?) is the concept of allowing the reader to draw conclusions.

John was mad at Tom, so he punched Tom in the face.

Sheena hated her mother's neverending criticism of her housekeeping and parenting skills, so when Friday came, Sheena decided not to ask her mother to babysit. It just wasn't worth putting up with the nagging any more.

Josie didn't really love her boyfriend as much as everybody assumed. She hardly ever answered his texts.

These above statements are telling the reader what to think, and why.

"Showing," on the other hand, means you 'tell' us what John or Sheena or Josie are doing or thinking, but then you let the reader decide what it means.

John punched Tom in the face.

Sheena decided not to ask her mother to babysit on Friday, even though she really wanted to see the band and take a break from the kids.

Josie rarely paid attention to her boyfriend's texts.

Sometimes you will want to tell your readers what to think, but just be aware when you're doing it. It's not a do/don't situation at all. Just be aware.

It's tempting to convey the reason for a character's action as well as the action itself. However, when you do, it's harder for the reader to become emotionally involved. They'll be more involved if you let them draw their own conclusions about what motivates your characters to do what they do.

 

So then, let us change the bumper-sticker to
Show & Tell
(or has that been done already?)

 

"When it's important, demonstrate rather than explaining."

But it's much too long for a bumper sticker.

 

This is the last time I let you read my first drafts!

 

Thing is, I've actually found several articles written in very authoritative voice and style, expounding that the above lark would be the very pinnacle, summit, and acme of show. I've read others where they try to argue how a definite article is show and an indefinite article is tell, and here's why.... I've read people say that it can't all be show because it can't all be dialogue...

 

Exactly. It's called storyTELLING. Just do it in a way that gets the reader interested. How do you figure out what that is? Experience. Yours and others'. Do you need to describe every crack in the wall that your character is walking past? Maybe, but it also may be completely irrelevant. But if you're trying to add some characterization to a character, instead of saying she's nervous, you can say something like she started rubbing her thumb and forefinger together and pointed her eyes at the wall. You're still telling there, but you're telling in a more interesting way than if you were to just say she's nervous. I think saying 'show' just means: make sure your writing isn't dull.

 

I think the reason you're having so much trouble is because the phrase "show, don't tell" is meant for script writers. In other words, it's supposed to help people who write movies, TV series, and plays--not book writers.

Honestly what I found helped me the most was reading as much as I could on the subject--especially on this forum--and then doing my best to follow the rule to its strictest by never telling. It forced me to rethink everything, and since one cannot possibly tell an entire story through showing, it helped me to learn and understand when I should show and when I should tell. I'm still not an expert, mind you, but I learned a lot by doing that.

But mostly it was reading about it on the forum and then relaxing. You'll figure out what needs more or less detail in later drafts or when your beta readers complain .