I know what you are talking about ed. Do this: Show me the country side or something...no people. Don't tell show.
I don't believe in "don't tell". I do believe that "tell"ing, explaining, pontificating, whatever, is usually less inherently interesting than "show"ing, demonstrating, whatever, and therefore it has to work harder to earn its keep. It should be funnier, or more character revealing, or show things in addition to the things that it's telling, or...something.
You're still stuck on the physical. It's not about the physical. I'll give you a brief example. In Spain, an elected body drafted a Constitution in 1812, establishing a constitutional monarchy to be responsible to a legislature. It was one of the most liberal of its time. In 1814, Ferdinand VII was returned to the throne, and ultimately revoked the Constitution. Now, it's 1820, and the Constitution has been re-established in Spain. My story isn't about Spain. It's about Cuba, and Cuba is about to undergo the beginnings of a transformation in no small part because of what is happening in Spain. I can show what's happening in Cuba, both to my fictional characters and the historical persons with whom they interact. But if I show what's happened in Spain since 1812, it's going to take a whole lot of word count that I don't have room for, and, much more importantly, it's going to either confuse the reader or bore him/her silly (maybe both). So, I show what's happening in Cuba and tell what has happened in Spain, which is necessary but only as background. Telling is actually an important tool, especially when one has to telescope jumps in time. But it should be used sparingly.
There are no such things as rules, just a list of things that people like to read, and if you want to sell, you have to adhere to what people like to read. If suddenly one day, the majority suddenly wants to read fine details, "be as detailed as possible," is going to be added to the list.
Ed, When you meet a new person. How much do you know about them the first day? You do learn more every time you see this new person. You never tell everything about a person, or a place all at one time...you spread it out, because that is how it is in real life. You could have a side character from Spain, and old grandfather or something...he's 99 years old. Every now and then (during a slow part of the story) have this old half crazy guy say something about Spain....you never give all the details to the reader at once...make them read for it. If you give all the details, it sounds like a police report. SHOW,don't TELL. I don't care what anybody says on this forum...brake that rule, and you will not sell to a publisher...you won't get past an agent.
What about that first date where the woman won't stop talking and goes on and on about her life and you're forced to sit there for hours because you promised her cousin, who also happens to be your friend, that you'll be nice to her?
I read recently that telling can be acceptable as a means of providing a reader with down time after a particularly intense scene. Kind of a way of creating distance for the purpose of relief.
I don't see what details has to do with a "show, don't tell" debate. Show-don't-tell is not a "rule". Every book will have some show and some tell. Most newish writers do too much telling--or explaining, which I think describes it better--because telling is easiest and most obvious and a lot of new writers don't realize that they can do anything else. But you're always going to have some of both.
Not really, IMO. If you change: Janet had always felt that her mother disapproved of her. to Janet said, "I've always felt that my mother disapproves of me." you really haven't changed the fundamental nature of anything. To show the concept, one possibility could be: Janet studied the closet. She could wear the calf-length skirt, and her mother would tell her not to be such a puritan. She could wear the knee-length skirt, and her mother would tell her to go to the gym to firm her calves. Pink? ("So stereotypically feminine, dear." ) Black? ("So stereotypically New York, dear.")
That's not what 'show, don't tell' is about. It's a lot more simple than it's being portrayed here. Here's an example from my WIP: Telling, (a bit exaggerated and not what I wrote): Brin was ten, living on Erda. The other kids picked on her. She looked up at the sky and saw another satellite over head. She saw the ring rain from the ring around Erda and wondered what that rain was like. She thought about her people and the Founders that were a threat to them. Here's how I really wrote it: “Scientist Brin will save her people. Then all the kids will wish they weren’t mean to her. When they ask to be her friend, she’ll say, yes.” I watched another satellite cross the rings. That was the third one tonight. I wondered if it went through the ice and dust or if it passed inside the rings’ orbits. “Brin the engineer needs to build a telescope.” In the warm spring night the ring’s layers painted the darkness overhead in curved stripes of white, gray and black. I could see the faint glow of ring rain hitting the upper atmosphere, never making it all the way to the ground. “I bet the Founders have samples of ring rain. Biologist Brin will test ring rain on her experimental garden, growing super food. Founder scientists will be impressed, urging an exchange of knowledge. Everyone will cheer as—” “Brin! Everyone’s looking for you!” ... The point is, telling is dull, you're essentially reading to the reader. Showing the scene to the readers let's them experience what you are experiencing as you see the scene unfold in front of you.
I see it a different way---though I'm confident that plenty of people see it the way you do. I don't see show/tell as necessarily being about scene or not-scene, but instead about stepping out to at least one level of indirection from the message or fact or impression that you're trying to communicate.
I think we are using different words to say the same thing. Consider you are perhaps just more articulate in this case than I'm being.
It's entirely possible that we mean the same thing, yep. I just wanted to emphasize that "show"ing isn't necessarily scene, and isn't necessarily about anything sensory, because it's often interpreted as requiring those things. For example: My first example, showing, scene: Janet studied the closet. She could wear the calf-length skirt, and her mother would tell her not to be such a puritan. She could wear the knee-length skirt, and her mother would tell her to go to the gym to firm her calves. Pink? ("So stereotypically feminine, dear." ) Black? ("So stereotypically New York, dear.") New example, showing, narrative: Janet's lunching wardrobe was limited. The calf-length skirt wouldn't do, because it would be deemed--by Mother--to be too puritanical. Mother would feel that the short one inappropriately exposed Janet's insufficiently toned legs, the pink sheath was be too feminine, and the black sheath too East-coast urban. I think that the "scene" one is better, but all the same, both are "show"ing by my definition, because both are at least one level of indirection from the message that Janet always perceives her mother as disapproving of her.
I could, but it would take away from the main thrust of the story. The reader doesn't need to know a complete eyewitness description of what happened in Spain, or to be introduced to a new character whose sole purpose is to discourse on background information. The reader needs the basic facts so as to orient him/herself to the action taking place in the story, which is happening in Havana, not Madrid. Again, I'm not giving all the details, because they aren't important to the story. I'm giving a quick summary of facts so that the reader understands the setting. Then, I show what happens locally. Many successful writers of historical fiction have managed to sell to publishers using this technique at various points in their works. It's what Dickens did with the opening of A Tale of Two Cities, regarded as one of the most gripping openings of all time. And another example from James A. Michener's Tales of the South Pacific: Michener places this explanation, which is pure, unadulterated "telling" (and violates another "rule", too: "breaking the fourth wall") in the middle of his description of (married) Bill Harbison's interest in young Nellie Forbush, neither of whom understand the dynamic being described but both of whom are deeply affected by it. Yes, it could have been worked into the story another way. It could have been described by another character, but then that would have made such character an "all knowing" presence. Also, any other approach would have belabored the reader and distracted from the story. Michener's one-paragraph description neatly explains the problem to the reader without disrupting the relations among his characters. Tales of the South Pacific was Michener's first novel. It won a Pulitzer Prize. Though it was written nearly 70 years ago, it still sells copies today.
I hope you ARE making an overstatement solely for the sake of the argument. If not, you should either look more closely into what the most (mis)quoted "writing rule" in existence actually means...or you should just read a few actual books of fiction to see what it might mean. Either way, I won't tell you that you are wrong, but I do hope you realize your argument is a bit shaky if you can't support it with relevant examples ...actually, I really hope you don't really mean this
Think TOOLS, not rules. I think it's dumb and counterproductive to tell someone to never use a particular tool, or to always use a different tool. Do what works for your story. Don't focus on doing this or not doing that. Just make your story work to its full potential.
Don't think tools either. Tools are something that you have acquired over time as a personal skill set. These are not rules. They are Principles. Rule are standards that should never be broken. Principles are ideas in place because years and years have proven them effective, but they are not set in stone. Your tools are what you use to break those principles if your work calls for it.
@Burlbird - good comments, but the train has already left the station. Domenic.p has long since taken his ball and gone home.
