Critique and Showing-Not-Telling questions

Discussion in 'Revision and Editing' started by jimr, Oct 2, 2011.

  1. digitig

    digitig Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    81
    Location:
    Orpington, Bromley, United Kingdom, United Kingdom

    Agreed with all.
    I think there's some ambiguity there, too, although I agree that adjective is most likely.
    Agreed with all.
    Perfectly ordinary British usage too.
    Agree with all,
    The Complete Oxford English Dictionary supports that usage, but the last example they cite is from the 16th century, so I suspect it's archaic or regional.
    Agreed with all.
    Just ambiguous, but almost certainly an adjective, yes.
    Agreed.
    My blog on the subject is coming! But I agree that the second case is arguable and calling the fourth case passive voice is a fundamental misunderstanding of the passive voice.
     
  2. ShadowScribbler

    ShadowScribbler New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've always thought the Show-Not-Tell thing was referring to an entirely different aspect of story-telling. For me, it's not about saying whether What's-Her-Name's cheeks flushed with anger or not, or expressing the colour, or choosing between salmon and red. Showing something in a story would be letting the reader know that Mary (bear with me, it's the easiest name I could think of) is very shy by making her blush constantly, avoid eye-contact, sweat a lot and stutter (I'm going with the obvious here). Telling would be writing "Mary was a very shy girl".

    Actions must, of course, be told. You can't expect the reader to be wondering what the hell your character is supposed to be doing if you don't tell him that she went out the door and is talking to her neighbour. Whether you want the reader to know if your character likes your neighbour or not, that is where show vs. tell comes in.
     
  3. thewordsmith

    thewordsmith Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    125
    Location:
    State of Confusion
    One thing I feel compelled to point out at this juncture ... Don't get too hung up on "Show-Don't-Tell" arguments. Remember, there is a place in GOOD storytelling for both in good balance. And what is good balance in one story is not necessarily what is good balance in another. Each is different and where one might require a great deal of descriptive (telling) and less showing, another might demand very litte telling and weigh heavily on showing. The entire concept of Show-Don't-Tell is fairly archaic (19th century), in my opinion, and people have clung too adamantly to it without necessarily knowing why. The important thing is to tell a good story and if that means you must TELL parts of the story, so be it. However, having said that, beware that too much narrative can bog a story down and that will put your readers to sleep.
    How do you know how much is too much? Ahh! Now that's the question writers have been asking for over a century - probably longer!

    Good luck.
     
  4. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    In general, I agree with your post, but I would argue that the "...with anger" part of "flushed with anger" is directly analogous to "...very shy girl." In both cases, you're telling the reader what your character is feeling, instead of letting them interpret it for themselves.

    ChickenFreak
     
  5. ShadowScribbler

    ShadowScribbler New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was an example that clearly isn't too close to the one originally presented, because whereas that one had flushed "with anger", the one I made up simply flushed because she's shy.

    My point was, and I hope it comes across -- that that's what I think telling's all about. You could also say that "Mary frowned, her cheeks acquiring a red hue as she turned her face away, glaring." That way, you can infer that Mary is angry, but you never actually mentioned it.
     
  6. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I would tend to put the advice as:

    "Show, don't explain."

    "Show, don't spoonfeed."

    and, sometimes

    "Show or tell; stop doing both."

    The problem, as I see it, is when the author deprives the reader of an opportunity to judge an important situation for himself.

    When John clenches his jaw and speaks in clipped sentences, does it mean that he's angry? Or does it perhaps mean that he's tired? Or does he do that when he thinks that the person he's talking to is stupid? People's motives are complicated; does even _John_ know for sure what's driving his behavior? Is the reader really better off if we spoonfeed them a simple explanation by saying, "John clenched his jaw in anger. His voice flat from frustration, he said..."

    I'd say, no, the reader is worse off. Words like anger and frustration and contempt are very simple labels for very complicated emotions. We feel those complicated emotions, and we see them in others, and we want to _see_ them in the character, not be spoonfed a simple cartoonish explanation. That explanation deprives the reader of his job, the job of witnessing and interpreting the events of the book.

    Sure, sometimes explanation and interpretation is needed. But I'd say that it should be used for the _less_ important events, not the more important ones. If John has had a maddening day before a critical scene, we might explain/spoonfeed "John had had a maddening day..." so that the reader knows John's mindset before the scene, but we _don't_ explain/spoonfeed John's motivations during that critical scene; those, we show.

    That's my view, anyway.

    ChickenFreak
     
  7. W.Locke

    W.Locke New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    1
    A lot of opinions indeed. Whether salmon or red or flushed is of issue, I'm not sure. I personally think of a flush/blush coming more from embarrassment possibly from flattery, preferably context would give you the proper idea of why, though ambiguity can be interesting and oft used in such a way to express anger and embarrassment and/or being flattered all at once.

    Anyway, (wow, that topic is certainly something that can be pondered), sometimes a good story is told and not shown. Or I'm just getting shown so well I can't differentiate... Borges seems to tell stories, really tell them, in many cases and is one of my favorite writers. He can jam an entire novel into a page and you still come out of it feeling like you'd read 500 pages. He tells in clear concise words the simple facts of the events in question, good prose can show or tell and both, to focus too much on one is probably like trying to draw the folds of clothing, absolutely maddening. Instead of worrying about showing vs. telling, allow the story to flow from minute detail to vast inclusive statement, let what doesn't need to be said remain off the page, put in only what is absolutely relevant or especially beautiful. But that sounds maddening too.

    Salmon sounds a little too mild for anger or maybe i'm thinking of rage and maybe my salmon is too light. I personally would go with "Red rose in her cheeks."
    (I like two words for red in the same sentence, leading to various interpretations.)


    Interesting thread.
     
  8. Chad J Sanderson

    Chad J Sanderson New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Statesboro, Georgia, United States
    I completely agree. The "Telling," that people seem to constantly harp on is just a form of dynamic language. After all, we're writing. We're ALWAYS telling. "Show don't Tell," is outdated and quickly losing credibility in my opinion. It seems to be an armchair critique that reviewers fall back on if they don't like a particular sentence or phrase or word. There are certainly acceptable and even preferable areas to use more dynamic language.
     
  9. JackElliott

    JackElliott New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    12
    SDT is easy to understand and misunderstand. It is concerned with specificity -- using words that create concrete, vivid, specific imagery. This is not an outdated idea -- it is the heart of effective writing. Some words are more specific than others. In general, whenever you resort to naming the emotion a character experiences, you are probably telling and not showing. Obviously there are always exceptions. Sometimes it may be appropriate to simply report the facts, but for the most part I think writing is improved when the author makes attempts to show, rather than tell. An appreciation of subtlety develops.

    "anger" has a different look for every person who experiences the emotion. It is vague. That is why "His face flushed with anger" is telling. It is lazy writing. The story context -- what comes before and after -- should be enough of an indication.
     
  10. JSLCampbell

    JSLCampbell New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    East Sussex - United Kingdom
    I think it's easy to get hooked on the phrase, which is more of a general guidance than a rule.
     
  11. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    I agree with those above who say not to get hung up on "show don't tell" comments. "Show don't tell" is bad advice often given to amateur writers, and most often by other amateur writers. It is meaningless without more being offered with it, but it is a very easy phrase to throw out in a critique, so there you go.

    There are times telling is more effective than showing, and books strike a balance between the two. Some authors lean more toward the "show" side of it in their work, and others do just as fine a job leaning more heavily to the "tell" side of the book.

    Your own question with regard to your own writing should be whether it is effective or not. If not, then look for ways to make it effective, which may including going from telling to showing or from showing to telling. And it may also include a number of other changes to your work that have nothing to do with either.
     
  12. jimr

    jimr New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2011
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you people realize this 7-word sentence has evoked over 10,000 words of discussion? I think that answers the other part of my question, that 100 people/100 different opinions thing. This is probably the most interesting thread I have ever read and I want to thank everyone for their input. Too bad I'm more confused than ever, huh? Two things I do think I see from reading here and ruminating a bit: Telling quickens the pace and Showing slows it down; both are necessary in balance for most good prose.
     
  13. Chad J Sanderson

    Chad J Sanderson New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Statesboro, Georgia, United States
    Your response is exactly the reason that "Show Don't Tell" is outdated, at least to me. Writing has evolved pass the point where people still cling to the idea that there is a truly "right way." Many famous authors and speakers are now commending the use of informal language that was formerly despised in literary circles. Like Steerpike said, "Show Don't Tell" should only be used while critiquing very early writers. Dynamic language does certainly have its place. It should be encouraged in areas and discouraged in others, but to discount it altogether is a rather elementary way of looking at it.

    The phrase- "He walked to the park," is telling, is it not? Should that phrase be disallowed from literature? Of course not. Which is why "Show Don't Tell" is a weak statement. It implies that ALL telling is bad, when telling makes up the majority of any story!

    You said the heart of effective writing is specificity. I disagree. I think the heart of effective writing is a strong grasp of language, creativity, purpose, and thoughtfulness. Anything else is supplementary. Skillful writers should, and do, use a variety of techniques to make their poetry or prose more effective.
     
  14. JackElliott

    JackElliott New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    12
    I never claimed or implied that there was a 'right way,' so I don't know what you're talking about.
    I don't see how 'informal language' (or 'dynamic language' -- whatever that means) is even relevant to the discussion. "Show don't tell" is a guideline to help writers create vivid, effective prose, and it transcends every kind of writing style.
    Oh, wonderful. "Telling" has been bastardized and made so general to include all forms of storytelling. If that is your aim -- to 'win' the discussion by semantics -- I'll concede right now. I'm not interested in playing stupid games.

    'Telling' in the sense the guideline meant, and as I've said before, refers to being specific, getting away from generalities, abstract words. It is not an outdated idea, but it is also not the end-all-be-all of writing techniques, and I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise. It is a very useful tool for helping writers craft textured, immersive writing.

    Your quote, "He walked to the park" suggests that we are not really talking about the same thing. There is narrative summary, and there is an immediate scene. Put another way, there is the backstage world where the audience (i.e., the reader) cannot see what goes on, and there is the drama happening onstage, which can be seen. Narrative summary is telling, and that is perfectly okay and even necessary. Not all scenes are important enough to deserve a vivid onstage performance. In other words, not every scene needs to be 'shown'. This is 'show, not tell' on a large level -- the level of scene and story. The discussion in this thread has revolved on 'show, not tell' on a smaller level -- word choice, primarily.

    Strong grasp of language means nothing if the wrong word is used when it matters. Specificity implies knowing the appropriate, most effective word, and purposefulness and thoughtfulness is pretty much a given. When you take enough care to make your writing vivid, these qualities are already at play.
     
  15. Dithnir

    Dithnir New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    5
    To paraphrase George Orwell, break any rule if it will improve your work. The challenge of course is knowing that it has improved.

    I'm with JackElliott otherwise :)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice