"Self Editing For Fiction Writers" has a chapter dealing with this subject as does Orson Scott Card's "Character And Viewpoint". He says you shouldn't do it all the time but there is a definite place for it. I say a chapter but it's more like a section toward the end of the book. There are other books that deal with that other hatrakers will probably be listing.

But back to my stories, I talked to a pro writer- Dean Wesley Smith- who has been nice enough to spend time on a couple of writing message boards teaching about writing, he now has a blog dealing with writing even though it's more on the business end than actual writing--which I have learned is important too, but instead of going for Show he works on putting all five of the human senses every two pages. He has sold thousands of short stories and very close to one hundred books by using that method.

Personally I work on both, which might be one thing wrong with my writing lately, I should settle for one or the other and get back to how I was writing before I started trying for Show, even though I've done a bit better on a couple of stories, my most successful tales where before I started working on Show and a couple of other techniques.

Not to mention working on the long sentences I like to do at times.

It is a hugely complex issue that in my opinion is thrown out as a critique a lot but it is really not understood. Telling is not always bad either.

this

this

this

and this

and this

Hope this helps.

quote:

---

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.

---

I suggest a different definition:

If the reader notices, it's telling.
If they don't, it's showing.

quote:

---

One of the things OSC doesn't deal with though is that editors-the ones buying stories- are some of the ones saying that. I know I've been told by at least one assistant editor to put in more Show. Obviously not all editors are, I referenced one who when he was a pro editor would not have said it, but there are some who do say it.

---

That is why I intend to publish online.

The trouble with showing all the time, as college teachers want you to, is that it adds so much ambiguity, which college teachers like in stories because it allows them to interpret the stories however they want.

Honestly, if Mary's an old woman, I'm fine with being told that in five words: Mary was an old woman. Or even three: Mary was old. The long liver-spot hunched-back sentence is, to me, over the top, and still.....it's TELLING me Mary's old. Just longer, and making me do the work of visualizing Mary in my head to come to the conclusion.

quote:

---

The knock at the door became insistent. Mary picked up her cane and wobbled down the stairs. Too much trouble to find her choppers first; she hoped whoever it was could interpret her gummy diction.

---

Demonstration in response to narrative necessity, rather than description shown without immediate purpose. Do we care at this point if she has liver-spotted hands? Probably not.

quote:

---

As far as I am concerned, as a reader, "description shown without immediate purpose" is probably one of the main reasons I don't like description. All too often, it comes off, to me, at least, as a way for the writer to show off, more than as a way to advance the story.

---

I totally agree, though there is something to be said about description that (even if show-offy) brings something to life in a way that wouldn't have been possible without it.

Writing is unique in how it allows storytellers to force a direct association of feelings and emotions of an object or person based solely on good description. If description is good, couldn't its "immediate purpose" be as simple as injecting beauty and emotion into the story, even if it doesn't move the story in any way?

I think description has a place in showing and in telling, and isn't necessarily a child of one or the other. You can tell with intense description, and you can show without an ounce of description.

quote:

---

Years ago, when they'd raced on a muddy field, Rudy was a hastily assembled set of bones, with a jagged, rocky smile. In the trees this afternoon, he was a giver of bread and teddy bears. He was a triple Hitler Youth athletics champion. He was her best friend. And he was a month from his death.

- The Book Thief

---

I see this excerpt from Markus Zusak as "telling" with gorgeous, subtle description. He is excellent at it.

Show vs Tell, for me, has to do with pacing more than anything else. Showing takes much longer, while telling gets the job done. "Show" when you want the reader to step forward and study the details of the story; "Tell" when you want them to step back and see a slightly bigger picture.

That excerpt also uses what has been called "telling details" which refers to a description that is not exhaustive or all-inclusive, but that mentions only select and specific tidbits which bring things into sharp and clear focus.

quote:

---

I'm with Reziac about "Demonstration in response to narrative necessity...."

As far as I am concerned, as a reader, "description shown without immediate purpose" is probably one of the main reasons I don't like description. All too often, it comes off, to me, at least, as a way for the writer to show off, more than as a way to advance the story.

---

Also, when you're really showing to narrative necessity rather than telling, it does a lot to set mood and motivation. Compare:

Too much trouble to find her choppers first; she hoped whoever it was could interpret her gummy diction.

Too much trouble to find her choppers first; whoever it was could just deal with her gummy diction.

Complete difference in Mary's attitude, and goes to show (demonstrate) her motivation.

quote:

---

To be honest, the Sawyer article makes me think I don't want to read his books.

---

I thought it would be nice to share the article here at Hatrack since Sawyer has been a WoTF judge as well as the recipient of both the Hugo and Nebula awards. He must have something that publishers, readers and his peers enjoy. Also, a few years back OSC reviewed Sawyer's book "Golden Fleece" praising the writing: "And can he write? Yes -- with near-Asimovian clarity, with energy and drive, with such grace that his writing becomes invisible as the story comes to life in your mind."

I personally took Sawyer's article as a very basic illustration of the differences between showing and telling. To me he simply shows what the differences are. He doesn't go into the details of how and when to show or tell since those decisions shape authorial voice and style and are part of a different discussion.

New writers often write the way ancient people told stories, which was boring.

" Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath, and came to the vineyards of Timnath: and, behold, a young lion roared against him. And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he would have rent a kid, and [he had] nothing in his hand: but he told not his father or his mother what he had done."

Notice how it jumps time. A huge amount of time passes in a short amount of words. This is telling. Showing then is putting us in real time. The above should take up at least a page.
Once he meets the lion. This needs to be a scene of its own.

Show telling vs showing?
Telling: And, behold, a young lion roared against him.
Showing: The lion whipped around from behind a shrub bush, its mouth opening wide, lips twisting. The lion's roar shook Samson to the bones. Etc, etc