I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. If I say that a character has come to a certain conclusion without showing how they reached that conclusion, - I guess that could be viewed as telling. But for example if we switch around. I could tell he was at a crossroad the way His facial expression switched between disgust and confusion. So that we get a chronological Motivation Reaction unit. The way his facial expression switched between disgust and confusion, I could tell he was at a crossroad. remove the filter. The way his facial expression switched between disgust and confusion, he had to be at some sort of crossroad. I'd class it as showing. (though talk of a crossroad doesn't feel quite right now) We've shown what the character has observed, and then we've shown a character's thoughts on that observation. - that to me is showing thoughts. The POV character's assessment isn't necessarily right, their reaction is just another thing we're being shown. One of the problems with "show vs tell" is people seem to be interpret it in different ways. - I don't think there's consistency even amongst accomplished authors. ETA - yes I've ignored the question of if the talk facial expressions is showing or telling. I can see how that's a grey area.
There's no principle that says showing and telling can't both be in the same sentence. Whether or not you feel the need to tell the reader "he had to be at some sort of crossroad," or "I could tell he was at a crossroad the way..." depends on if you think showing his alternating expression was sufficient for the reader to draw that conclusion on their own. I'm working on a post about the facial expressions thing.
But why feed the reader the conclusion ("...at some sort of crossroad...") at all? I'm not saying that it's always wrong to do so, but it should at least be questioned, IMO.
Maybe I'm not working with the best example to demonstrate my point, but it was the one to hand. Often the reason for showing the character's conclusion isn't down to whether the reader could work it out a conclusion for themselves, but is based on whether something can be shown about the character doing the thinking. In the case of a school counsellor maybe I'm trying to show how they do draw sensible deductions from the feelings they pick up from others. I think my point becomes clearer if you substitute in a character who's conclusion is wrong. If the character instead thought He must have some sort of indigestion. I think that mostly only shows that the thinker isn't so empathetic. It's still a thought, but I struggle to see how it can be classed as telling.
Well, and I don't feel that the question is whether it's "telling". The question, to me, is whether it's good or bad. Telling is not always bad; showing is not always good. The main value of those two terms is, IMO, to offer a vocabulary for discussing the many different ways to communicate something. So what is the author trying to communicate here? Is the message primarily about the kid's shifting thoughts, or about the counselor's assumptions and empathetic abilities? Sure, the passage may be communicating both, but which one is more important? If the message is the kid's feelings, then the explanation of the kid's feelings is an explanation or, if we insist on using the terms, "telling". If the message is the counselor's empathetic abilities or lack thereof, then the explanation of the counselor's view of the kid's feelings is a demonstration or, "showing". That's how I interpret the terms, anyway. There's no assurance that anyone agrees with me.
Whether or not to show or tell (or both) is a separate matter from what showing or telling is. So are you asking if telling becomes showing out of necessity? If so, the answer is no. Telling is fine, when you need it, when it works. But it doesn't become 'showing' because you can't otherwise show something.
No that's what not I'm asking. I agree that sometimes that telling is good and it doesn't magically become showing just because it's good. I was trying to have a "what is showing vs telling" discussion, rather than a "what is good writing discussion" I realise that latter is the real goal rather than the definitions, but it can be useful to know what other writers are on about in order to have a meaningful discussion. I was trying to work out why you think character thoughts are always telling. I can think of various definitions of showing vs telling and none bring me to that conclusion. I'm coming from a position where I don't see character thoughts as always being telling, anymore than storytelling in general is always telling. I think I confused my own point by using a poor example. One way of thinking of showing is that it's creating the illusion for the reader that they're experiencing a scene happening in real time. The summary between scenes is a (often necessary) sort of telling because it doesn't create that illusion. Furthermore a close POV aims to create the illusion for the reader that they're experiencing a real time scene from within the mind and body of a character. The correct sorts of character thoughts can actually enhance that illusion and thus I'd define them as showing. The wrong sorts of character thoughts can break that illusion because they actually feel like the narrator explaining something and pretending it's a character's thought (I.e telling) rather than a real character thought. I think that one problem is that a lot of real thought processes don't come out in our heads as words. A lot of the obvious connections happen at the subconscious level. We see someone smiling and at a subconscious level we realise they're happy, but 'he must be happy' doesn't actually flash through our brains. Often we don't even realise the brain has made that connection. If we write something that the reader can subconsciously infer from the observations, then they'll subconsciously fill in the blanks and assume the POV character also inferred the same thing. - they've created a more realistic thought process for the character without the writer having to write any thoughts. (and why I'm now considering my first example poor) On the other hand sometimes we are aware of our own thought processes. If we're agonising over a tricky decision, we know it. If we're rehearsing a speech in our heads we know it. It's those situations where a bit of well written internalisation actually enhances the illusion for the reader and is therefore showing. (In my eyes) I don't know if the above makes any sense to anyone except myself, but I find it a useful way to think about things. I realise this is just one way of looking at showing vs telling. I'm coming to the conclusion that there is more than one sort of writing decision that some people summarise as showing vs telling and while they're not invalid as decisions that need to be thought about, sometimes the terminology can conflict.
Agree with what you're putting forward, @plothog. Good, unequivocal examples would help immensely, and quickly segue into subjective examples, at a guess
Hmm. To chime in with my opinion, I definitely wouldn't see character thoughts, at least literal, in-the-moment character thoughts, as telling, any more than I'd see dialogue that way. That is: Joe blinked. Oh, for God's sake. High heels? At lunchtime? would be showing. Joe blinked in disapproval. He felt that high heels should be confined to the evening. would probably be telling. It certainly has the form of telling, but if the message is something beyond Joe's opinions about high heels, it might demonstrate that further message, and therefore be showing. Again, by my definition of the terms, where "showing" is demonstrating and "telling" is explaining. Now, it's possible for literal, in-the-moment character thoughts to serve as a way of sneaking in the narrator's voice, in which case they have all the problems often attributed to many occasions of telling. But purely technically, I'd say that they're still showing. That may be run counter to my own demonstrating/explaining definition; I'd have to think about that.
Yes, I completely agree with @ChickenFreak, thoughts are not always telling and her example is excellent.
