I'm writing a story for the short class I'm taking now. The story is such that the main character is at the climax event at the beginning. I leave what the climax is going to be ambiguous at that point, but then it goes into sort the main character telling the story of how he got there and what led up to this point.
The whole thing is 1st person POV and all but 1st and last paragraph are told as a story from the main character.
I'm finding that when telling the story this way, it's very hard to "show" what's going on, because the main character is "telling" everything.
Any tips? I feel I'm not gripping the reader with all the "telling".
Posted by Wolfe_boy (Member # 5456) on :
Well, showing vs. telling isn't in who is doing the speaking, but in what is being spoken. I can show you someting with words, or I can tell you something with words.
Maybe post a first 13 in F&F and we'll see what we can do.
Jayson Merryfield
Posted by kingtermite (Member # 7794) on :
quote:Maybe post a first 13 in F&F and we'll see what we can do.
Thanks for your reply.
I did just post the first 13 in short stories, but I'm not sure it fully shows (no pun intended) the problem well.
Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :
So basically, your POV character seems to want to "tell" us how he got where he is rather than "show" us?
It sounds like you need to have a talk with your main character.
With first person POV, I always find it interesting to ask the following questions:
1. Why is he telling the story? 2. When is he telling the story? 3. How is he telling the story? (I mean in what form -- is he telling it verbally to eagerly listening people or writing it in a journal or what?)
He is unlikely to be pausing in the middle of a life and death climax to jot down notes, so even though he may start with a part of the punchline, he's already past that. So why is he telling it?
As he sits down to write, he may want to gloss over some of the details and "tell" us about something, but you need to make sure he doesn't. He's got the same standards of excellence in story-telling that you do, even if the story is true from his point of view.
Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :
Well, actually I think your fragment does. I detected it in the last para--it felt like a launch into an info dump coming on. I think you're right to sense the danger in losing the reader in the telling. It better be a darn good story to keep us engaged, and if it's a darn good story, then why aren't you telling it from that point? Don't assume the immediate action will grip and hold people better than a complex situation or a more subtle approach which, in my opinion, often promises a much richer story experience.
Many works ignore the inherent architecture in first person, and consequently fail to use it to its full advantage. So, Christine's points are well worth considering.
Posted by Elan (Member # 2442) on :
I noticed something while re-watching the movie "The Illusionist" (starring Edward Norton, Jessica Biel, Rufus Sewell, and Paul Giamatti). I love the movie because the plot is intricate and captivating. The movie starts out in the POV of Inspector Uhl, but revolves around the love story between Eisenheim and Sophie. Setting the POV from Inspector Uhl makes it impossible to "show" the private moments between Eisenheim and Sophie.
I noticed the last time I watched the movie that at a sement break, the story just transitioned smoothly into the 3rd person view of Eisenheim. I never even noticed the transition until I rewatched it, and was looking for it. Because you start in one person's POV doesn't mean you have to stay there. Use a segment break to shift the story as you need to.
Posted by lehollis (Member # 2883) on :
When I think of Show vs. Tell, I think of description. Here's a simple example.
Tell: He was nervous.
Show: His hands were shaking.
It's very simple for the sake of clarity, but the first one just tells the reader what is happening. The second shows what is happening.
An infodump can also be a case of telling, though I don't usually think of it as showing vs. telling. It can still be a problem in many cases.
I think it can work to start in the middle of the action and then flashback, but I can't think of any good examples. Whenever I see that technique, I find I've forgotten all about the initial scene of action or peril by the time we get back to it. Plus, since I didn't know the characters or the setup, I didn't care much what happened in the first place. (One exception to this might be if it were an established character in a series.)
Posted by Elan (Member # 2442) on :
quote:Tell: He was nervous.
Show: His hands were shaking.
I feel it's a mistake to use the "show" method alone. The reader wants enough context to understand what is being shown. His hands are shaking? Why? Is he cold? Is he in need of a drink? Does he have Parkinson's? Showing, then backing the "show" up with action or dialog, internal or otherwise, gets the point across.
Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :
I agree. One of the big reasons I think writers skip the "show" sometimes is because it takes longer. You can say "He was nervous." in three words. To show it, you need sentences or paragraphs. We need to see what is making him nervous.
One way I check to see if I'm showing enough is to see if I feel the need to specifically mention how my POV character is feeling. If I'm on the verge of saying "She felt nervous" I go back and try to figure out why I haven't written the story well enough to make YOU (the reader) feel that she is nervous so I don't have to say it.
Posted by MrsBrown (Member # 5195) on :
Here I am again with my newfound discoveries. In Plot & Structure, Bell says that you may want to use tell as a shortcut to get from place to place (tell that they traveled for three weeks and got worn out, instead of dragging the reader through it). But then get right back to showing.
He also suugests that how strongly you show the emotions depends on the intensity of the scene. If its a quiter scene, perhaps transition, don't punch it up as much as when its a big pivotal scene. It has to do with how you build rising tension. But I'm not stating that very well. (Sorry if I got off topic.)
Posted by lehollis (Member # 2883) on :
I said it was a simple example. I didn't say never use tell. I was explaining the difference, as I saw it. That's all. There's no need to pick it apart like that. Next time, I'll know better than to offer a simple example--or just not bother posting.
Posted by Wolfe_boy (Member # 5456) on :
There's no point in getting bent out of shape about show & tell. lehollis is right, showing is generally better than telling. Elan is also right, in that telling is a useful tool when trying to gloss over things. This point (and this very misunderstanding) have been covered too many times already on these boards to start having hurt feelings about it now.
Jayson Merryfield
Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :
I thought we were having a polite conversation about the difference between show and tell. I'm not actually sure what the misunderstanding was about.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited February 14, 2008).]
Posted by TheOnceandFutureMe on :
quote:Tell: He was nervous.
Show: His hands were shaking.
This is absolutely correct, and before anyone gets offended, let me say why. In this situation (nervousness), we are dealing with emotion. We want our reader to feel emotion. Simply informing the reader that "he was nervous" is not going to make the reader feel that nervousness. The way we make our readers feel that emotion is varied and depends our styles, but to do it successfully we must "show." Personally, I wouldn't choose "His hands were shaking" but I'm guessing that lehollis wouldn't either. It was an example.
The times when "telling" is appropriate are debatable, but if you're trying to convey emotion, "telling" is absolutely the wrong way to go.
Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :
I don't think anybody was debating the correctness of the example. I think Elan and I were simply trying to point out that showing takes time and energy. The moment that it comes to a head -- when we see shaking hands or racing hearts -- only have meaning because of a long setup. The reason I was pointing this out is that it makes showing more difficult and more time consuming than telling. Telling is often a shortcut that lacks emotional punch. The OP was curious as to how to keep from telling in a specific situation and we may have gone a bit off that road, but I think my point still fits in with that question. To show rather than tell, you need the right setup and you need to slow down and take some time. Even in a flashback. If a flashback is worth telling, then, IMHO, it is worth showing. Posted by TheOnceandFutureMe on :
Whoops, I think I may have miscommunicated my point. (I mean: He typed frantically, heart pounding.)
I only meant to say in that example, showing was the correct choice, because that example dealt with emotion. I certainly write, "he ran up the stairs" without describing every detail.
However, to try to makeup for helping to hijack the thread, I will go comment on the story over in F&F.
