Some writing tips

[HeyAll]

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/...t-break-these-habits?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Saw this today.

I really like the first tip of not giving too much background info.

As for the whole "show don't tell" thing, I never understood it. I never had a problem with flat out explaining something.

 

[Hypoxia]

Ah, more rules to break as needed. Best-selling novelists seem to flout many of these. The basic rule: occupy your audience. Otherwise one might as well masturbate alone.

 

[SamScribble]

Otherwise one might as well masturbate alone.

Hey, desperate times sometimes demand desperate measures.

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

I really like the first tip of not giving too much background info.

This actually turned out to be the issue with the story I'm currently writing. Picking a starting place for a story is always hard, but I've never missed the mark quite as much as with this one. When I realized it, I cut out the summary of a whole day (almost 800 words) and incorporated the few critical pieces of information into the first scene, which is the end of the first day. This cut down my introduction that was setting the scene from 1300 to just 500 words, and it works so much better now.

As for the whole "show don't tell" thing, I never understood it. I never had a problem with flat out explaining something.

It took me a long time to understand this advice too, and I've found that it's very difficult to find a good explanation online for it too when you go looking for one. That said, once I did grasp the concept it turned into a valuable writing tool. The way I see it, the gist of it is this: instead of just giving your reader the conclusion, give them the pieces of information they need to reach that conclusion on their own. Example:

"She was mad at him."

Boring, right? This is telling.

"Her balled fists were shaking and a faint red tinge colored her cheeks."

This is showing. I'm not explicitly stating she's mad, but nearly everyone reading this will reach that conclusion based on her body language.

It also extends to backstories, motivations and other things. Instead of just telling he misses his father, maybe have him open his wallet and stare at the picture inside for a second before closing it again. Or instead of explaining why he thinks a certain way, show the cause for this behavior happening in real-time in a flashback. Stuff like that.

Of course telling isn't always bad. It can be a very straightforward and simple way to deliver information. Like Hypoxia said, rules are there to be broken. But the art is in knowing when to do that.

 

[SimonDoom]

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/...t-break-these-habits?utm_source=pocket-newtab

As for the whole "show don't tell" thing, I never understood it. I never had a problem with flat out explaining something.

My general approach about guidelines like this is "Mix it up."

It's true that many novice authors tell too much and show too little. That makes the story flat. But sometimes for the sake of economy it's OK simply to say "he was angry" rather than to draw a scene in detail that shows the reader that the character was angry. I think "show don't tell" is a good general guideline, but not one to be followed slavishly.

I struggle with the background issue, because I usually have fairly detailed ideas about the background in my mind and I want to get it across to the reader. A way to deal with the problem is to reveal background in bits and pieces throughout the story rather than all at once at the beginning, and also to ask how much of the background is REALLY necessary. It's even better when you can mix up the method with which you reveal background. It can be done through narrative, through flashbacks, through dialogue, etc. Mix it up.

 

[8letters]

It took me a long time to understand this advice too, and I've found that it's very difficult to find a good explanation online for it too when you go looking for one. That said, once I did grasp the concept it turned into a valuable writing tool. The way I see it, the gist of it is this: instead of just giving your reader the conclusion, give them the pieces of information they need to reach that conclusion on their own. Example:

"She was mad at him."

Boring, right? This is telling.

"Her balled fists were shaking and a faint red tinge colored her cheeks."

This is showing. I'm not explicitly stating she's mad, but nearly everyone reading this will reach that conclusion based on her body language.

What works for me is to do a mixture, to tell enough to set up the show. She was furious at him. Her balled fists were shaking and a faint red tinge colored her cheeks. "How could you say that about me? How could you?" She shook her fist in front of my face. "After all the things I've done for you." And then she turned and stormed away.

What I see a lot is an author tells me that someone is really attractive. Doris is a very attractive woman. [Laundry list of physical descriptions] The author might add something about how everyone finds Doris attractive All of the guys in the office are wild about Doris. When she wasn't around, we'd talk about how much we'd love to fuck her brains out. [More description of how everyone thinks Doris is so sexy] That doesn't show me that Doris is attractive.

Here's part of my story My Day as a Pool Boy:

Alex was a tall, thin beauty with shoulder-length light brown hair. This was my favorite time of year to talk with her. She was incredibly smart and incredibly driven. Saturday, she would graduate valedictorian from my sister's school. During the school year, she didn't give boys the time of day. Once school was over, she flirted like crazy until she found a boyfriend. I enjoyed flirting with her. Because she was so smart, she was great at word play and could keep up a constant stream of innuendo and double entendres.

Alex walked over to me.

"Not the best start to your summer, Dylan?"

"I would consider you being here a good start."

Alex smiled. "Let me really give you a good start." She grabbed the bottom of her T-shirt and slowly pulled it up, exposing her long sexy stomach. A little higher and her small red bikini top came into view. She flashed me a smile when I mimicked a wolf whistle. She pulled her shirt off then turned around. The back of the bikini top was two strings. She slowly slid down her shorts, revealing a thong bikini bottom and her small ass. Alex ran regularly to keep in shape. She shook her ass at me as continued sliding her shorts all the way down.

"Down boy, don't you have some pool brushing to do?"

I had forgotten the pool while watching the show Alex gave me.
:

"So Dylan's going to be our pool boy today?" smirked Alex.

"I'm almost done here, then I've other chores." I had already mowed the front and back yards, and pulling weeds was next on the hit parade.

"I've always wanted a pool boy," said Alex as she gave me a sexy pout.

I continued talking with Alex, acting the straight man to her constant flirting. Emily had told me a few summers back that flirting was how Alex blew off steam after the school year and she got upset when a guy took the flirting to mean that it was open season to hit on her. Alex liked being in control of her relationships. Emily was laying out on one of the four chaise lounges and listened with amusement to our banter.

The first paragraph is all telling. But then I start showing what I've told the reader. But then I screw up at the end and lapse into telling and not showing. I should have had more flirting, had some innuendo and double entendres. To me without the telling at the beginning, the aggressive flirting wouldn't have made sense.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I struggle with the background issue, because I usually have fairly detailed ideas about the background in my mind and I want to get it across to the reader. A way to deal with the problem is to reveal background in bits and pieces throughout the story rather than all at once at the beginning, and also to ask how much of the background is REALLY necessary. It's even better when you can mix up the method with which you reveal background. It can be done through narrative, through flashbacks, through dialogue, etc. Mix it up.

Provided you know a character's background in your head, I think it can come across with a very light touch indeed, even just grace notes. As you say, does it all need to be spelt out? How often does one know voluminous background about someone in real life? Not often - why should a story have extra privileges?

The other approach, which I often fall into, is discovering a character's background as you go along. There's many a time when I'm only one sentence ahead of my reader - particularly when another character turns up who can be more interesting than your "leading role". That often happens in my stories.

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

I agree with Simon and 8letters. Advice like this is generally a guideline or something to consider, rather than a thing you have to do at all costs or else your writing will be bad. In fact, I used telling quite a bit in my nude day story just because it saved a lot of time, both in terms of keeping the plot moving and for me as the writer because the deadline was approaching.

And as I said, telling is not bad. It's just that showing can make things feel more engaging and realistic. But I like the mix and match approach, swapping between the two when needed. Exclusively showing will get boring very fast, or at least bog down the pace of your story. I don't really think about showing vs telling too much anymore actually, I just write what feels right in the moment. I naturally gravitate towards showing when it would work well, it's not a conscious decision usually. Although when editing I might decide something would work better when it was shown and change it.

 

[Privates1stClass]

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/w...=pocket-newtab

If LIT writers followed tips in the article, we'd be reading more articulate stories here.

 

[8letters]

I agree with Simon and 8letters. Advice like this is generally a guideline or something to consider, rather than a thing you have to do at all costs or else your writing will be bad. In fact, I used telling quite a bit in my nude day story just because it saved a lot of time, both in terms of keeping the plot moving and for me as the writer because the deadline was approaching.

I think you should be showing what's important to your story and telling what's not. In my example, I should be showing the flirting between Alex and Dylan and the building chemistry between them, as that's what the story is about. And it's fine to tell how Dylan cleans the pool as that's not important.

 

[Hypoxia]

I think you should be showing what's important to your story and telling what's not.

I vaguely go with "tell what needs to be told and show what needs to be shown". TELL about the background with just enough details or hints. SHOW what's happening now, vividly. SNEAK in whatever juicy bits you can manage. A bare-bones narrative can feel thin and flat, so I fatten it, for flavor.

 

[KeithD]

The basic rule: occupy your audience.

That provides a response to HeyAll's "show vs. tell" question. When you show an element via action/character dialogue, you are bringing your audience into the story, engaging them in figuring out for themselves rather than lecturing to them. That's occupying the readers and engaging them in the experience.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think you should be showing what's important to your story and telling what's not. In my example, I should be showing the flirting between Alex and Dylan and the building chemistry between them, as that's what the story is about. And it's fine to tell how Dylan cleans the pool as that's not important.

I like your idea, but I think like most things having to do with writing it's a guideline, not a rule. Sometimes you just want to write "He was angry" and move on rather than have to describe how he manifested the anger so the reader can see it.

 

[Hypoxia]

Sometimes you just want to write "He was angry" and move on rather than have to describe how he manifested the anger so the reader can see it.

As always, it's a balance. How important is the emotion or event to the whole story? You could say, "Angered, she aimed her sleek throwing knife at the duke's foppish throat." That gives both tell and show. Then move on after the bleed-out and dying ejaculations.

 

[lustatopia]

I really like the first tip of not giving too much background info.

I'm going to stick with Thomas Mann's pro-tip, “only the exhaustive is truly interesting.”

 

[Hypoxia]

I'm going to stick with Thomas Mann's pro-tip, “only the exhaustive is truly interesting.”

He wrote novels, not shorts, right? Shorts often lack space for exhaustive coverage. Damn, all that stuff about autogyros I've had to edit out... Long fiction can exhaust. Short fiction had better provoke. We don't see many rich short-story specialists AFAIK.

 

[KeithD]

He wrote novels, not shorts, right? Shorts often lack space for exhaustive coverage. Damn, all that stuff about autogyros I've had to edit out... Long fiction can exhaust. Short fiction had better provoke. We don't see many rich short-story specialists AFAIK.

No, he wrote short stories too--and novellas (short novels) in an era when they weren't numerous because they weren't cost effective to publish unless you were established, as Thomas Mann was.

Having had to read him in German (the German being tough, not his writing), I can't see the "exhaustive" quote he is said to have given. He was a master of revealing in short phrases of "show." I've had him in mind when I've written some of my period pieces--trying to catch the atmospherics he could evoke in just a few words. He also wrote scenarios that easily could be pushed to the gay, and I've done that a couple of times--taken his basic scenario (like Death in Venice) and written it gay. He was at least bisexual himself.

 

[lustatopia]

No, he wrote short stories too--and novellas (short novels) in an era when they weren't numerous because they weren't cost effective to publish unless you were established, as Thomas Mann was.

Having had to read him in German (the German being tough, not his writing), I can't see the "exhaustive" quote he is said to have given. He was a master of revealing in short phrases of "show." I've had him in mind when I've written some of my period pieces--trying to catch the atmospherics he could evoke in just a few words. He also wrote scenarios that easily could be pushed to the gay, and I've done that a couple of times--taken his basic scenario (like Death in Venice) and written it gay. He was at least bisexual himself.

Happy to meet a Thomas Mann fan! And in the original German too. I always wondered what I was missing reading translations.

Perhaps what Mann meant by 'exhaustive' is somewhat lost in translation, maybe he meant more like apotheosis or crescendo. Surely, Mann didn't mean exhaustive in Marcel Proust's sense, to bury the reader under an avalanche of wordage.

Could a koan be exhaustive? I believe so.

 

[Handley_Page]

As always, it's a balance. How important is the emotion or event to the whole story? You could say, "Angered, she aimed her sleek throwing knife at the duke's foppish throat." That gives both tell and show. Then move on after the bleed-out and dying ejaculations.

I think that should be:-
"Angered, she aimed her sleek throwing knife at the foppish duke's throat."
This indicates that the duke is a bit of a fop (from a 1696 play, the Relapse; Lord Foppington (Fop became a pejorative term for a foolish man excessively concerned with his appearance),

 

[Bramblethorn]

The first paragraph is all telling. But then I start showing what I've told the reader. But then I screw up at the end and lapse into telling and not showing. I should have had more flirting, had some innuendo and double entendres. To me without the telling at the beginning, the aggressive flirting wouldn't have made sense.

Yeah, this is a nice example. The "show" part draws the reader in, but on its own it's easily misconstrued. The "tell" helps the reader understand the background to that interaction and it would be a lot of work to give that context in "show" mode.

I don't think the "tell" at the end of that excerpt is such a problem. Yes, you could've given more dialogue/flirting before switching back into "tell", and maybe that would've been an improvement (hard to say without seeing it). But the info in the second "tell" is still useful, and it doesn't have to stop you from expanding the dialogue.

 

[MayorReynolds]

The first rule of writing is that there are no rules.

The second rule of writing is that there are, technically, guidelines. Most of them have to do with establishing a connection with your audience, and respecting readers enough to keep them interested without insulting them.

The third rule of writing is that when you are comfortable enough, develop your own style.

Oh, and read. A LOT. Pick up on prose and how it is used. Decide what you like and assimilate it into your own writing.

I have a great dislike for these famous writing gurus and screenplay coaches. They get paid untold amounts of cash to tell aspiring authors to write like everybody else.

 

[MayorReynolds]

Actually, if I want to refer to any "rules" I go with Elmore Leonard's 10, and then bend and break as I see fit.

1. Never open a book with weather.
2. Avoid prologues.
3. Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said"…he admonished gravely.
5. Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.
6. Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose."
7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things.
10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

Most of these are about keeping it simple and avoiding cluttering up the page with unnecessary words and punctuation marks.

Leonard was a master at simplicity. He cut every page down to the bare minimum: where are the characters, what are they saying, and how is the story moving along. Which may sound kinda boring, except the end result is his books are roller coaster rides. You fly through the story and feel out of breath when it's over. Simplicity does not deter emotional impact.

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

Actually, if I want to refer to any "rules" I go with Elmore Leonard's 10, and then bend and break as I see fit.

1. Never open a book with weather.
2. Avoid prologues.
3. Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said"…he admonished gravely.
5. Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.
6. Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose."
7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things.
10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

Most of these are about keeping it simple and avoiding cluttering up the page with unnecessary words and punctuation marks.

Leonard was a master at simplicity. He cut every page down to the bare minimum: where are the characters, what are they saying, and how is the story moving along. Which may sound kinda boring, except the end result is his books are roller coaster rides. You fly through the story and feel out of breath when it's over. Simplicity does not deter emotional impact.

I have some pretty strong opinions about writing advice that includes the word "never". (or "always", for that matter.) As you mentioned, there's plenty of reasons to break rules or guidelines, and making such generalizations that there is only one way to do something seems a bit extreme.

 

[SimonDoom]

I have some pretty strong opinions about writing advice that includes the word "never". (or "always", for that matter.) As you mentioned, there's plenty of reasons to break rules or guidelines, and making such generalizations that there is only one way to do something seems a bit extreme.

I agree, but I also think that for most authors, it's more useful to follow rules like these than to take the position that everything's just a guideline. Truly excellent writers know that good writing involves knowing when to bend or break the rules. But most writers aren't truly excellent writers, and in nearly all cases (in my opinion) their writing will be improved if they DO treat rules like these as rules and follow them almost all the time.

I've read and enjoyed several of Elmore Leonard's novels, and as far as I can tell he pretty much scrupulously followed his own rules. His prose is an excellent model for an aspiring writer because of its simplicity and clarity. Even if one doesn't feel compelled to adopt Leonard's rules as rules as such, they're very useful as guidelines.

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

I agree, but I also think that for most authors, it's more useful to follow rules like these than to take the position that everything's just a guideline. Truly excellent writers know that good writing involves knowing when to bend or break the rules. But most writers aren't truly excellent writers, and in nearly all cases (in my opinion) their writing will be improved if they DO treat rules like these as rules and follow them almost all the time.

I've read and enjoyed several of Elmore Leonard's novels, and as far as I can tell he pretty much scrupulously followed his own rules. His prose is an excellent model for an aspiring writer because of its simplicity and clarity. Even if one doesn't feel compelled to adopt Leonard's rules as rules as such, they're very useful as guidelines.

While I can see the value in them (I even got a good tip out of reading them myself), the risk with rules this strict is that it teaches people to emulate a writing style. My personal writing style violates at least a third to half of those rules regularly, for example. Now I'm not saying my writing style is flawless or anything (quite the opposite, actually), but it is mine. New writers that might come across these rules might feel attacked, and like they're being told they're doing it wrong.