I have a question pertaining to style in short stories and long short stories. To what extent can you have a narrator describe events in general rather then specific? What I mean is, is it acceptable to have a narrator describe an event and a conversation without specifically recounting the conversation, or should he always recount the conversation and actions of the individual characters themselves? I've found myself writing a psychological piece with an unreliable narrator. I'm quite a ways in and I'm realizing that the narrator has been describing conversations rather then showing them. I have a feeling that is bad.
Showing is often more desirable, but It's a decision that you have to make as the author. Sometimes it is more efficient to tell rather than show and in a case like yours it sounds like bits of the plot depend on it. Without reading your piece I can only guess, but it might work out just fine.
It isn't really an either/or question. It's finding an effective balance. This may help: Show and Tell
it really depends. i describe conversations when i can. for example, it's not necessary to recount a conversation my mc had with the old man who let him in the library. i just wrote, 'after he paid the old man at the door, james went inside the library. sorry for no caps, i'm writing with one hand and eating soup with the other j
Keep your readers interested. Tell the stuff that doesn't need to be shown, because showing takes time. Not only your time, but your readers' time. Don't just tell them about the epic final battle though; they'll probably want that shown in some detail. It's all about balance and knowing when to use both showing and telling.
I used to be obsessed with showing everything. The issue is, people tell me that my writing is too much like, "This happened, that happened then this happened." Indeed, finding the balance between showing and telling is best.
