Show, don't tell.

[Kraveree]

The most important thing I was hammered with while in my creative writing class when a teen was the "show, don't tell" bat.

I still feel the effects of that statement.

So where is this going? Simple answer: Is show, don't tell an absolute? (I like being unambiguous)
Or should we just ignore it all together and do whatever we like?

I like to show you a few examples that I made up for the single purpose of illustrating my question. Feel free to comment on those as they are just to get a bit of controversy going.

Tell Example 1:
We went to the ice cream store with the car because it was raining and we were bored.

Show by conversational example:
"I am bored."
"Want to get an ice cream?"
"Nah, it's raining."
"Mum said to take the car if there was an emergency."
"I guess, if it is really an emergency, I can be bothered."

Show by an illustrative example:
Rain, does it ever stop? They should have run out of cats and dogs in heaven by now. The rhythm of summer vacation going down the drain is strangely hypnotising. Something cold and sweetly therapeutic might be the answer to all this mindless staring.
A glance over at the couch with tongue extended licking the hot air above a fisted hand stirs something dark and mysterious.
Car keys fly across the room, land in upheld hand, bouncing once, are swallowed by a fist.

Bear in mind I am deliberately pushing this to the far end of the spectrum to make it easier to talk about.

I like writing a lot more when I apply the show, don't tell rule than when I do not. What makes writing fun for you? What are your ideas about all of this? Am I being old fashioned? Is speed of a story more important so we can get off faster? Is it laziness when avoiding show, don't tell? Does being descriptive interfere with the story flow?

Just being curious.

end-of-line.

 

[oggbashan]

Like most prescriptions for writing, it needs to be applied with caution.



It doesn't work well if you are writing fantasy or science fiction. For those you have to have some "telling" to set the parameters of the world you are creating.

You can "show" but that can be too obvious.

For example:

Spacemen approaching a new-to-them world can discuss what is different about that world, but it is easier to quote a short extract from the Galactic Encyclopedia or Lonely Universe books - then "show" as they react to the differences of that world.

Sword and Witchcraft fantasy also need some telling to explain why the warriors aren't using AK47s against their enemies.

 

[Carnevil9]

If you think about it logically, EVERYTHING is "tell," and nothing is "show," unless you are drawing a graphic novel. Even in your "illustrative example," you are TELLING us what was going through your character's head.

So I take the "show, don't tell" maxim to mean, "tell, but tell in a way that allows the reader to feel like he is there, watching the action for himself."

 

[Kraveree]

So I take the "show, don't tell" maxim to mean, "tell, but tell in a way that allows the reader to feel like he is there, watching the action for himself."

Indeed that is a better description than my rather popular remark. Thanks.

 

[NaokoSmith]

You are right Ogg!


I have a very elaborate world in my fantasy novels, which I know inside out because I've been writing them for decades. Some of the feedback I got asked me to say more about it. People found the world interesting and wanted to understand it better while reading it.

 

[HeyAll]

I never understood why this concept is so often repeated.

I don't see anything wrong with telling. It cuts straight to the point.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

To my way of thinking telling is best used to link significant scenes where showing is the way to go. If nuthin much happens in the cafeteria serving line, write, I WENT THR THROUGH THE SERVING LINE, PAID FOR MY FOOD, AND SAT BESIDE DAPHNE.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I like to show you a few examples that I made up for the single purpose of illustrating my question. Feel free to comment on those as they are just to get a bit of controversy going.

For me, the most important difference between these options isn't show-vs-tell but terseness. Show usually beats tell, but I'd prefer a concise "tell" to an overwritten "show".

If this was my story, I'd be thinking - how important is this transition? If I just need to establish that the protag is now at the ice-cream shop, then I'd be aiming to do that as quickly as possible so I can get on with the interesting bits of the story. In that case, your options #2 and #3 would be over-long, #1 would be preferable.

But I might have a side motive for that scene - e.g. I might want to show how two characters interact, in which case detailing that conversation could be useful. Then #2 becomes appropriate.

I think show-vs-tell is more important for things like character description. It's like writing a job application: anybody can say "I'm smart and I have good team skills", but it's not very impressive unless they can give tangible examples.

For instance, one of my stories has a scene where the protag is grieving after a breakup. "I was miserable and my soul was a black pit of despair" feels pretty trite. Instead, I tried to pick out things that readers will relate to. Staying in your pyjamas all day. That moment where you think "I have to tell X about this!" and then remember you're not talking to them.

 

[SusanJillParker]

The most important thing I was hammered with while in my creative writing class when a teen was the "show, don't tell" bat.

I still feel the effects of that statement.

So where is this going? Simple answer: Is show, don't tell an absolute? (I like being unambiguous)
Or should we just ignore it all together and do whatever we like?

I like to show you a few examples that I made up for the single purpose of illustrating my question. Feel free to comment on those as they are just to get a bit of controversy going.

Tell Example 1:
We went to the ice cream store with the car because it was raining and we were bored.

Show by conversational example:
"I am bored."
"Want to get an ice cream?"
"Nah, it's raining."
"Mum said to take the car if there was an emergency."
"I guess, if it is really an emergency, I can be bothered."

Show by an illustrative example:
Rain, does it ever stop? They should have run out of cats and dogs in heaven by now. The rhythm of summer vacation going down the drain is strangely hypnotising. Something cold and sweetly therapeutic might be the answer to all this mindless staring.
A glance over at the couch with tongue extended licking the hot air above a fisted hand stirs something dark and mysterious.
Car keys fly across the room, land in upheld hand, bouncing once, are swallowed by a fist.

Bear in mind I am deliberately pushing this to the far end of the spectrum to make it easier to talk about.

I like writing a lot more when I apply the show, don't tell rule than when I do not. What makes writing fun for you? What are your ideas about all of this? Am I being old fashioned? Is speed of a story more important so we can get off faster? Is it laziness when avoiding show, don't tell? Does being descriptive interfere with the story flow?

Just being curious.

end-of-line.

Imagery.

Most writers don't use it. Fitzgerald's novels were rich with imagery, which is why they can never fully be brought to the silver screen. No matter how many times they've tried, The Great Gatsby was always a disaster.

Most writers don't even describe their characters, especially the ones who write pornography instead of erotica. Some writers don't even name their characters, just talking heads having sex. When they do bother to describe their characters, they dump it all in one line.

What imagery does is much like dialogue, it allows you to write less narrative by painting a picture with images instead of with just words.

I don't know how anyone can develop characters without using dialogue, imagery, and description. I don't want you to tell me about your character. I want you to show me your character. I want to see your character in my head.

I have the best time when my character moves from my page to stand behind my chair to whisper in my ear what to write. The only time I can write what I don't know is when I turn the keyboard over to my characters.

If you want to put your reader to sleep, if you want to bore your reader, if you don't anyone to read your story, tell them your story and lecture them.

Rather, the great writers, Hemingway, Wharton, Fitzgerald, Poe, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dickens, Faulkner, Jones, Joyce, Twain, Woolf, Cervantes, Kafka, Homer, Morrison, Rowling, King, McCort, Salinger, Melville, Alighieri, Steinbeck, Huxley, Dickinson, Vonnegut, Carroll, Hugo, Wilde, Mailer, and Flannery O'Conner, et al, where all masters of show rather than tell.

Their novels were all rich with imagery, dialogue, and description. They showed what the wrote instead of telling you what they were writing.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Imagery.

Most writers don't use it. Fitzgerald's novels were rich with imagery, which is why they can never fully be brought to the silver screen. No matter how many times they've tried, The Great Gatsby was always a disaster.

. . .

Rather, the great writers, Hemingway, Wharton, Fitzgerald, Poe, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dickens, Faulkner, Jones, Joyce, Twain, Woolf, Cervantes, Kafka, Homer, Morrison, Rowling, King, McCort, Salinger, Melville, Alighieri, Steinbeck, Huxley, Dickinson, Vonnegut, Carroll, Hugo, Wilde, Mailer, and Flannery O'Conner, et al, where all masters of show rather than tell.

Their novels were all rich with imagery, dialogue, and description. They showed what the wrote instead of telling you what they were writing.

One of the things Hemingway said was to make readers feel emotions, not describe them to the reader (which is the same as saying show don't tell).

Here, according to Hemingway, is how to write better:

http://augustwainwright.com/how-to-write-better-according-to-ernest-hemingway/

 

[NOIRTRASH]

http://havechanged.blogspot.com/2014/10/eddie-coyles-friend-george-v-higgins.html

Higgins was reputed to be the best dialog writer ever. Most of his prose is dialog.

 

[Robot_Shark]

"Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream." -- Mark Twain

We discussed this quote at length in a fiction workshop I took as a much younger man, The teacher explained that it meant never leaving your readers feeling as though you took a shortcut to save time or effort. Leaving out description is a lazy shortcut. Telling your story through too much expository narration is a lazy shortcut. She said we should write about every fact or action or bit of dialog in such a way that readers believe it to be vitally important to the protagonist (not the author, not the reader, not some other minor character) AT THAT EXACT MOMENT OF THE STORY. That's always been an understandable, employable yardstick for me...although I'm still a crap writer.

I deliberately write a lot of my stories in the first person to help keep that frame of reference and not fall into too much exposition, but then I have to stop myself from keeping readers in the dark with too little incluing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_(narrative)#Incluing

 

[Gorza]

I like to think about Show Don't Tell in terms of cinematography. On this count, movies have a distinct advantage: they are moving pictures. However, every so often we need a narrator to voice over something or put some words on the screen because we need to get information to the viewer succinctly. It's a technique film directors try to avoid because it takes you out of the immediacy of the picture, and it becomes more like a lecturer showing slides (not cool for the suspension of belief). If needed, this telling happens at the beginning and/or end of the film to initiate/complete the viewer experience. A voice over by a character in the film beats a random narrator beats sticking the words up there. Then again, the Star Wars scrolling words are iconic.

Now, in fiction writing we deal with static words, and we're in a telling medium. However, a good story takes us out of the telling and into an imagined perception. When we 'get into' a story, this is what's happening. So, Show Don't Tell is the technique we use to give our readers that wonderful experience as best we can.

I've just gone through my editors comments on a story. I wrote "She was quite aroused" at one point, which is a pretty sad bit of writing, and the editorial comment said as much. It tells you something, but doesn't take us anywhere. My reworked version goes into close-up detail of how her body is showing its arousal. I hope it turns the reader on too. That's why we do it.

As in film, there are times when we need to do the tell. When we do it, we need to know we're not just copping out from writing a good show.

 

[GoldenCojones]

I've always thought of the difference this way:

Tell: The meatloaf was burned. Jan became frustrated with herself for not paying better attention.

Show: The acrid aroma of burned meat permeated the air. Taking the meatloaf out of the oven, Jan sighed. Twenty five minutes of work, ruined in five minutes of sloth. Again.

 

[sr71plt]

I'd suggest you do a double take and a little research before deciding that telling is just as good (or better) in fiction as showing is. You're swimming upstream if you think that, but it's OK with me if you do.

 

[TxRad]

As someone said, we use words that are a telling medium. The problem is that people have to turn those words into pictures in their mind.

The other way round. When you are writing do you have a string of words in your mind or a move or pictures you are describing?

 

[GoldenCojones]

As someone said, we use words that are a telling medium. The problem is that people have to turn those words into pictures in their mind.

The other way round. When you are writing do you have a string of words in your mind or a move or pictures you are describing?

I see the scene in my minds eye when I write sex scenes. The in between stuff sometimes not so much. When my characters really start taking over and the words are flowing and things are happening, it's almost like watching a movie I've never seen before. Those are the times I live for.

And then I go back and re-read what I wrote and I think. "What the Fuck? When did English become my second language? I know that's not what I wrote, damned keyboard must have fucked up."

 

[sr71plt]

I see the scene in my minds eye when I write sex scenes.

Agree. Some pretty intricate positions. Good to know they are possible.

 

[rjordan]

I like to think about Show Don't Tell in terms of cinematography.

[snip]

Now, in fiction writing we deal with static words, and we're in a telling medium.

I recently read "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption", Stephen King's novella. I followed that with a reading of the screenplay (see Unclean Arts Screenwriting Tutorial online). Then followed that by watching the movie.

It was interesting to see how each scene was handled in all three. The movie follows the book fairly well, but there are still differences in how things have to be handled. Some from the novella aren't included at all in the movie. The movie uses narration by a primary character.

rj

 

[SusanJillParker]

I recently read "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption", Stephen King's novella. I followed that with a reading of the screenplay (see Unclean Arts Screenwriting Tutorial online). Then followed that by watching the movie.

It was interesting to see how each scene was handled in all three. The movie follows the book fairly well, but there are still differences in how things have to be handled. Some from the novella aren't included at all in the movie. The movie uses narration by a primary character.

rj

I took a couple of screenwriting classes at Northeastern University in Boston with a professor who wrote the screenplays for Moonlighting with Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd. A hit series that was cancelled because the co-stars hated one another, he loved the Oscars and even taught a course in that, everything about the Oscars. Very interesting and informative.

Anyway, the best thing about the course was reading the book and then watching the movie in class with the instructor pointing out what the director did to show the scenes. Amazing, especially when you have someone there who worked in the industry.

At the end of class, as if he was a big time producer or director, one by one, we had to pitch him a screenplay while having coffee at a restaurant. It was fun and I learned enough to know that I don't to write screenplays. I'd rather write novels.

 

[Kraveree]

The other way round. When you are writing do you have a string of words in your mind or a move or pictures you are describing?

When picturing a scene I like to see what else could be there that could interact with it. When at an airport I think of intelligible sounds coming from PA system, nervousness that you can almost sniff off of people, the lone child that gets told by parents not to stray.
It has nothing to do with the actual scene but it gets me into the process of writing. Then come the words not before unless I have something specific in mind a person needs to relay or needs to react to.
When I have no experience with a particular area/scene/situation I go and watch youtube, read books or do research. Google maps and street view has been a huge huge help.
But again words only come when I have surveyed the situation, make up my mind what should happen next and then words pour out.
I don't know if other writers do this though. I have a very good memory which makes research and recollection from my own experiences a lot easier.

 

[SecondCircle]

I've always thought of the difference this way:

Tell: The meatloaf was burned. Jan became frustrated with herself for not paying better attention.

Show: The acrid aroma of burned meat permeated the air. Taking the meatloaf out of the oven, Jan sighed. Twenty five minutes of work, ruined in five minutes of sloth. Again.

I think this is a pretty good example.

"Showing" doesn't necessarily always equate to "describing" for me. I think a better way to think of it is "demonstrating".

For instance, you could "tell" me the meatloaf is burnt. You could "tell" me in those words that Jan is in fact frustrated. While that can be to the point, it can also just seem basic and flat.

So DEMONSTRATE that the meatloaf is burnt. Let me smell it. Let me hear Jan sigh. Don't simply tell me she's annoyed or frustrated or upset. Demonstrate that. Let me watch her rub her temples and curse under her breath. This way, you're "watching" events unfold and drawing your own assumptions as a reader on what is happening rather than just being told how it is. The difference is that one is more engaging for a reader than the other.

Description can be a part of this, true. But showing doesn't necessarily have to mean eloquently describing something in detail.

 

[GoldenCojones]

I think this is a pretty good example.

"Showing" doesn't necessarily always equate to "describing" for me. I think a better way to think of it is "demonstrating".

For instance, you could "tell" me the meatloaf is burnt. You could "tell" me in those words that Jan is in fact frustrated. While that can be to the point, it can also just seem basic and flat.

So DEMONSTRATE that the meatloaf is burnt. Let me smell it. Let me hear Jan sigh. Don't simply tell me she's annoyed or frustrated or upset. Demonstrate that. Let me watch her rub her temples and curse under her breath. This way, you're "watching" events unfold and drawing your own assumptions as a reader on what is happening rather than just being told how it is. The difference is that one is more engaging for a reader than the other.

Description can be a part of this, true. But showing doesn't necessarily have to mean eloquently describing something in detail.

Thanks

Very good point. Sometimes we get so caught up in describing that we forget to show. Description can be "Telling" if not done properly. If you say "Her skirt was short." It is kinda telling.

If you say "He watched her saunter away, hoping her skirt would bob up just a little and show off her sweet rounded cheeks." You're showing how short her skirt is in a way that hopefully engages the reader a little.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

When picturing a scene I like to see what else could be there that could interact with it. When at an airport I think of intelligible sounds coming from PA system, nervousness that you can almost sniff off of people, the lone child that gets told by parents not to stray.
It has nothing to do with the actual scene but it gets me into the process of writing. Then come the words not before unless I have something specific in mind a person needs to relay or needs to react to.
When I have no experience with a particular area/scene/situation I go and watch youtube, read books or do research. Google maps and street view has been a huge huge help.
But again words only come when I have surveyed the situation, make up my mind what should happen next and then words pour out.
I don't know if other writers do this though. I have a very good memory which makes research and recollection from my own experiences a lot easier.

Richard Feynman, the physicist, had genius for depicting complex events as simple imagery. At the CHALLENGER inquiry he stopped the circus when he put an O-ring in ice water, swizzled it, then took the o-ring from the ice water and snapped it in half, to demonstrate how the o-ring reacted with intense cold. He said we really don't know what we're talking about if we cant make it simple. And simplicity is my target when I write. Showing and telling are irrelevant and subordinant to simplicity.

 

[GoldenCojones]

Richard Feynman, the physicist, had genius for depicting complex events as simple imagery. At the CHALLENGER inquiry he stopped the circus when he put an O-ring in ice water, swizzled it, then took the o-ring from the ice water and snapped it in half, to demonstrate how the o-ring reacted with intense cold. He said we really don't know what we're talking about if we cant make it simple. And simplicity is my target when I write. Showing and telling are irrelevant and subordinant to simplicity.

With all due respect, I believe that this advice is great when taken in moderation. Go too simple and you lose the imagery that allows the reader to immerse themselves in the story.

Simple, succinct, terse writing is great for technical writing because in technical writing, which is how I make my living, the overriding goal is simplicity that conveys the complete idea. Only true engineers really enjoy reading technical manuals, however, and if I were to write porn the way I write a technical manual on how to disassemble a complex assembly, no one would finish it.

Writing style must fit the purpose of the writing. I believe that when writing a story you want your readers to immerse themselves in you need to build the world. That doesn't necessarily mean you should spend ten pages describing a drop of water on a rose petal, but building the scene for the reader is important. Using the "Show don't tell" technique to build the world is an effective way of helping your reader visualize the scene, to become part of the scene.

In the only story of yours that I have tried to read, you did this. I apologize, I don't recall the name of the story. It was one you submitted just recently. In that story you didn't overdo it by any means, but you did build the scene. You were succinct but you spent the words necessary to build the scene enough for me to see, except in the scene where your main protagonist murdered two black men for the crime, ostensibly, of being black. That scene was too simple. You may have had a reason for that, but it makes my point. Go too simple and you lose your reader. Go too complex and you lose your reader as well. It's kind of a balancing act. At least that's my opinion.

Wow, I haven't been serious this long in a very long time. Must be time to go to bed.