posted
Every writing group I've browsed has ended up at some point discussing (arguing) about show vs tell. I found the following from OSC's lesson #13:
You said: "I made it a point throughout the novel to not tell motivations, but try to show them."
And you did this because ... of those morons who told you "show don't tell"? Because motivation is unshowable. It must be told. (In fact, most things must be told.) The advice "show don't tell" is applicable in only a few situations -- most times, most things, you tell-don't-show. I get so impatient with this idiotic advice that has been plaguing writers for generations.
Agree, disagree? I posted this on another site and got a rather snooty response that OSC doesn't know diddley about LitFic and that most likely he was trying to keep anybody from competing with him. I found that laughable, but the above does seem to fly in the face of every other advice I've seen.
posted
Well, technically, even in "showing" we're telling since we're using words.
I don't know what's right or wrong, but in general I'll try to use actions as much as I can to convey things except when it turns into too much of a circumlocution, or becomes so pervasive it becomes a distraction.
I would agree with OSC that, not only motivations, but most internal thoughts and feelings generally have to be told rather than illustrated (for the POV character). Actions really only hint at what's driving a character, and sticking the reader in this situation is kind of like witholding information. I guess for non-POV characters you will at times have to use actions and an astute POV observer to convey what make them tick.
I have often seen the same advice as you, along with smilar stuff like always write "actively" (not necessarily active voice), etc. I tested many of these rules on a wide variety of books, and found no published works that did not violate these "rules" repeatedly in the first few chapters.
I've heard anectdotes about editors that automatically reject any ms. that has the words "is", "was", "were", or "be", (for example), anywhere in the first three chapters. I've no idea if any of that is true.
posted
The more I write, and the better I get at understanding what is and isn't good writing, the less I pay attention to anybody's "rules", including OSC's. The simple fact is that there are no "rules" to fiction writing, which OSC states himself when he says that any rule can be broken if you're willing to pay the price.
Different writers learn different techniques, and execute different types of devices better than others. Some writers use excessive info dumping, for example, and do so effectively, but most of us can't, thus the rule on infodumps. In the same way, some writers can "tell" more than "show" because they can make it work in their writing. Does that mean that every writer can get away with it? Not by any means. These "rules" are just a good starting point for beginning writers that have very little experience to draw on. Most beginnning writers don't know their own strengths and weaknesses as a writer yet, and need something as a foundation. These "rules" work well for that.
In my opinion, fiction writing "rules" should be taken as "good suggestions". These "rules" are much more important early on in a writing career when a writer is first learning. If a writer is serious, and writes and critiques enough work, they eventually figure out what works best in their own writing, regardless whether it breaks somebody's "rule" or not. A writer will know when they can break a "rule" like "show don't tell" when very few people comment on it, or when they get compliments on its use in a story.
So, I guess what I'm trying to say in this long-winded explanation, is to follow "rules" as long as they make sense, and work in your writing. Don't worry about breaking a rule, but if you are just beginning, it's probably better to take the "good suggestions" very seriously until you really learn the craft. Only the writer themselves know when that point arrives.
posted
I'm doing a search on discussions of "show, don't tell" and hope to post a list of links to them soon.
In the meantime, may I offer a "rule of thumb" to consider?
If you use "show" to mean "describe a scene as if the reader were watching it" and "tell" to mean "summarize so you can get on with the story," then you might be close to what is meant by "show, don't tell."
Basically, writers should go into detail on the important stuff ("show") and summarize on the stuff that isn't so important ("tell"). This is because readers tend to infer that the stuff you spend a lot of words on is more important than the stuff you don't spend very many words on.
When someone asks you to "show, don't tell," they may be expressing a desire to have you give more word space to something they think is important enough for more words. You've summarized ("tell") when they want you to say more ("show").
You can really frustrate readers by not spending enough word space on things they care about (and therefore consider to be important), and by spending too much word space on things they don't consider important.
posted
Don't think of it as showing vs. telling, think of it as (to simplify what Kathleen said) scene vs summary. You need both, but I'd say more scene then summary.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the show-vs-tell I learned was a little different. Using examples, "telling" would be to say "Jack was mad." "Showing" would be to say "Jack slammed his fist on the table and scowled."
Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I remember correctly from Bootcamp (five years ago, now), Scott said that most events in a story are told, but most of the words in a story are devoted to showing. This fits in well with what Kathleen was saying--the showing requires a lot more space. So pick the few important things, and show them, and tell the bulk of the stuff. (Actually, the bulk of events is probably omitted altogether.) Don't show us the drive to the airport, don't show us the order in which the character eats the items of food on his plate, don't show us every time the character goes to the bathroom. If it's really important to tell us about the latter, then tell us THAT it happened, but don't show us the distasteful details.
Scott gets a little annoyed by the "show, don't tell" rule because he feels that it has misled many aspiring writers. What the people who repeatedly emphasize this rule mean (and I have to admit, it's not always clear) is probably a good idea, and some attention should be paid to it; but you hear it from so many sources that it's easy to over-internalize it and apply it to situations where you shouldn't.
By the way, regarding motivations: I would say that OSC himself does show motivation, but he does it by telling what the character is thinking, more than by showing what he does. Showing the character's actions and making us infer the motivations is what movies do so much better than books, and getting inside someone's head is what movies can only do on rare occasions (and unconvincingly) with a voice-over, while books can do it superbly. Use the power of your medium.
posted
You can't "show" everything but if you are "telling" or summarizing a lot, you might be starting in the wrong place.
I tend to think about it more in the way KDW described.
The Princess Bride is actually a pretty good example of "show" v. "tell." William Goldman is an intrusive narrator. He breaks into the story using italics and comments on what is happening or the bits from the "original" he is skipping. There is one section where he breaks in because Buttercup is being packed off to the castle and learning how to be a princess. He tells us this is happening in his narratator voice so we follow the passage of time and he doesn't "waste" 100 pages showing us something that is not truely relevant to the plot.
In A River Runs Through It the first 13 lines are spent telling us the importance of flyfishing: In our family, there was no clear line between flyfishing and religion. Talk about a great line. Cast, set and hooked. This is shown throughout the book but needed to be told to create the setting, mood, etc.
If it is necessary action to the plot (a scene) - generally show it. If it is necessary info or a transition (a segue) - generally tell it.
posted
The main problem with the advice to "show" rather than "tell" (or vice versa) is that it may be hard for the writer to know what constitutes either in text.
As long as you explain what you mean by "show", it's usable (if not necessarily great) advice. But if you don't define how to "show" something through writing, it's a meaningless platitude. The obvious meaning is to include a video clip in place of the text. Which is fine if you're making a movie, not so fine if you're writing a story.
posted
I agree with Card's advice but wish he hadn't given it. The reason is that after years of reading amateur work, "show don't tell" really could serve to correct a LOT of the problems I see there. Obviously, as with any catchy, three-word rule of thumb, it can be taken too far and misinterpreted, but there is a place for this bit of advice.
"Mark loved Anne."
Gee...I'm not feeling that. You can spend an entire book elaborating on that if it's important enough to you, but even if it is a mere supblot it is probably worth more than that completely emotionless sentence. In fact, if it's worth mentioning at all, it's probably worth showing to me in some subtle way. You can even use steretypes to do it. ("Mark's heart raced when Anne entered the room, her bosom pushing out against a thin, clingy t-shirt.")
"Show don't tell" goes to the depth and richness of a story. It goes to the emotion and to getting the reader involved and participated.
posted
Ever since I read THE RHETORIC OF FICTION I've dismissed the entire concept of showing vs. telling.
It's a modern concept that sought to do away with author intrusion. Read Henry Feilding, and you'll see him making comments to the reader throughout his novels. Flaubert came along, didn't like it, and wanted to eliminate all telling -- all author intrusion -- from the story.
As much as I can figure, this has been translation on the popular/commerical level to mean that novels must read like movies -- all showing and very little telling. Which is nonsense because it denies the written fiction the power of going inside the minds and hearts of the characters.
Thus, my one goal in writing is to make the reader SEE -- see the event as it's unfolding, see the mind in its deliberation, see the heart in its conflict.
posted
The drawback to 'show' for emotions in science fiction and fantasy is how does the reader know that the alien Grog flicks it's tongue when it laughs, unless you tell the reader. Later in the story, you can have old Grog flicking his tongue and the reader knows he's laughing.
There are lots of other examples especially in the scifi/fantasy genres where you just have to tell the reader what the heck is going on. There has to be a context.
Also, the example often used of:
Tom was mad. Tom scowled and heaved a sigh.
Okay, what if Tom has Tourette's? Maybe when he's mad, he laughs uproariously and swears.
I think that's a lot of what OSC might be getting at is that all showing just doesn't work in genre. Lots 'o telling has to be included to paint the world.
Oh, yeah. As for motivations: what motivates one person might be thought ridiculous by another. I think I'd better have my characters at least mention their motivations to somebody, if only themselves.
[This message has been edited by Marva (edited July 20, 2006).]
I don't think either one of these is showing anger. When anger is shown properly, it should also be evoked in the reader. The best way to evoke the feeling of anger is to help me live through Tom's anger, like so:
Tom's brother actually smiled when he walked into the room, his arm around Tom's girlfriend.
Trust me, at this point if you tell me in either of the above methods that Tom was mad, I'll tell you it's unnecessary. I KNOW Tom is mad because I would be pretty ticked off too.
posted
I don't know, Christine. In most circumstances that wouldn't do it for me. In general I'd expect Tom to get mad in that situation, but it would also be plausible for him to be sad, jealous, confused, or think nothing of it. Assuming he does get angry, is he mad at his brother, his girlfriend, both, himself? Does he storm out of the room, slink out of the room, confront either or both of them verbally or physically, break an inanimate object, or start plotting revenge? To me, all those choices show me something different about the character Tom. If he's the POV character, than the writer can tell me his thoughts as well.
I guess different readers have different expectations
posted
I never suggested that was the end of the story.
And probably Tom would be feeling a lot of things at once, which makes it all the worse to pick one emotion and "tell" it. Best to continue the story (with him storming out of the room or punching his brother in the nose or taking out an oozi and shooting his girlfriend) and forget the part wher eyou say "Tom was mad."
posted
Simple advice to all those that feel that they have it all figured it out. You can write a story any way you feel pleased, but don't get ticked when people don't want to read it. It is pretty simple, people read things they enjoy. If your story isn't enjoyable then no one will want to read it, and it is highly doubtful anyone will actually want to publish it.
Instead of trying to figure out how to break all the rules, start by trying to write within them. You might find more people have an interest in your story then...
posted
I think the main problem my novel has is that I've show and not told far, far too much. I would tend to agree that on the main it can be bad advice if implemented by an extremist.
Posts: 334 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Monica Wood has a good discussion on Show vs. Tell in _Description_ from Writers Digest Books.
Basically, the usual characterizations of "show" and "tell" oversimplify, and the maxim "show, don't tell" therefore expresses a caricature of what you should really be doing. (She didn't say it like that, but that's the gist.) Writing demands both show and tell, and the trick is balancing them.
She has some good examples, too. It's an all-around good book, so if this is haunting you it's worth reading.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
