"Show vs Tell" and Top-Rated Stories

[ColinPiper]

Anyone else noticed non-mastery of "Show versus Tell" doesn't seem to hinder some stories getting high ratings? I guess the majority of readers don't notice, or don't mind. Just sayin.

 

[mildlyaroused]

I've always thought "Show, don't tell" is just rubbish. It's storytelling, not story showing. I understand that it's meant to be a base rule - a simplification to get new writers writing more immersive stuff - but I still think it simplifies things way too much. It should be "Show AND tell!" Please do both!! The concept of showing and telling in writing is way too broad, complex and nuanced to fit into a single, catchy, three-word phrase.
(I know I'm not really speaking in the spirit of the rule, and I don't think it's useless, I just think it is given far, FAR too much credit and emphasis in most writing advice. Even for beginners).

 

[ElectricBlue]

(I know I'm not really speaking in the spirit of the rule, and I don't think it's useless, I just think it is given far, FAR too much credit and emphasis in most writing advice. Even for beginners).

The courage of your conviction is rather small...

 

[mildlyaroused]

The courage of your conviction is rather small...

My inward conviction is absolute, but sharing those convictions is scary sometimes! I don't want to tread on anyone's authorly toes.

 

[StillStunned]

My inward conviction is absolute, but sharing those convictions is scary sometimes! I don't want to tread on anyone's authorly toes.
View attachment 2372965

You'll probably tread on fewer toes by saying "This prescriptive rule is nonsense" than by championing the prescriptive rule.

FWIW, I agree with you. Show and tell have different roles in writing, and the trick is to find the balance.

As to the OP, who knows? Perhaps Lit readers prefer to be told. After all, if they wanted be shown they'd watch porn.

 

[TheLobster]

After all, if they wanted be shown they'd watch porn.

If you want to show rather than tell, perhaps you should reconsider your choice of developing a Literotica profile instead of an Onlyfans one

 

[ColinPiper]

The point about using both is valid. I guess my point is there are stories with very high ratings that I feel have too much "tell". It comes down to your views on narration and focalisation. I feel there's something wrong with a story or characters or situations being explained to you as a reader as if you were a child.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've always thought of "show, don't tell" as a useful guideline for writing good prose, not an inflexible rule. Many authors would profit from doing more of it, but there are times when "telling" works just fine.

As for the OP's observation, I haven't done a careful study of the issue, but I tentatively disagree. My evidence is that longer stories tend to score more highly than short ones, and longer stories tend to have more "showing" than shorter ones do. They don't skimp on dialogue, they offer more description of characters and settings, they describe actions and character interactions in detail as opposed to glossing over them.

I would agree that Literotica readers, in general, are not overly picky, and one can find stories with high scores and especially with high view numbers that are no great shakes in the prose department. But there's some correlation, in my opinion, between good prose (including the appropriate use of "showing") and good scores.

 

[THBGato]

Anyone else noticed non-mastery of "Show versus Tell" doesn't seem to hinder some stories getting high ratings? I guess the majority of readers don't notice, or don't mind. Just sayin.

Maybe it depends on the category? I only really read Lesbian Sex on here and the top rated stories there are all SHOW. I'm not saying no "telling" goes on, but those stories that rely excessively on it do not trouble the top 250.

(One of the reasons I don't read much Romance on here is, on my few forays into to category, I've found the authors there use a lot of telling, which puts me off.)

Perhaps it's different in other categories?

 

[lovecraft68]

I find things like this interesting.

You have a writing 'standard' for lack of a better word. A big bad of something no writer should ever do for....reasons.

Then as the OP points many of the most popular stories here break said rule.

There will be some who disparage the readers over this. They're ignorant, they don't know this or that, they have no taste, easily pleased, whatever.

But when we put out a story, who are the people we hope will enjoy it? The readers of course.

It makes me wonder, are readers that 'uneducated' or are some writers just that full of themselves that they refuse to stop and wonder, does any of this really matter as much as they want it to? Does it diminish they're precious pedigree and damage their ability t sound better than?

 

[alohadave]

I've always thought "Show, don't tell" is just rubbish. It's storytelling, not story showing. I understand that it's meant to be a base rule - a simplification to get new writers writing more immersive stuff - but I still think it simplifies things way too much. It should be "Show AND tell!" Please do both!! The concept of showing and telling in writing is way too broad, complex and nuanced to fit into a single, catchy, three-word phrase.
(I know I'm not really speaking in the spirit of the rule, and I don't think it's useless, I just think it is given far, FAR too much credit and emphasis in most writing advice. Even for beginners).

Show don't tell is advice originally meant for screen/script writers. But, as with many other things, it became applied to all fiction writing and is now overly simplified. If you look in writing groups online, you see it parroted endlessly because it's an easy thing to say.

If you look at nearly any piece of published fiction, you'll see that the 'rule' is broken all the time.

Writing prose is not the same thing as writing for stage/TV/movies, and has different conventions and formulas.

 

[ColinPiper]

Interesting replies. Of course there is justification for "tell" in certain circumstances. My point, if I can try again, is along the lines of the position and intrusiveness/non-intrusiveness of the narrator. I remember reading someone (really can't remember who, but paraphrasing here) who said, "there's something wrong with narration in modern prose". I remember agreeing. I can't put a finger on it, but I get a feeling of being reminded I'm reading someone else's story when I encounter prose with a lot of "tell". I think of stories in the fictive dream sense - "showing" takes you to dreamland, "telling" wakes you up.

 

[mrs_mackenzie]

Personally, when I review something I've written with 'show don't tell' in mind, I find it helps me find dry, internal monologue-y sections and rework them into something the reader actually wants to read. But equally, I'm also aware that I'm writing an erotic short story, not a novel, and going down rabbit holes of recollections or flashbacks or fantasy sequences just to avoid any 'telling' can be a setback too.

 

[ronde]

I find things like this interesting.

You have a writing 'standard' for lack of a better word. A big bad of something no writer should ever do for....reasons.

Then as the OP points many of the most popular stories here break said rule.

There will be some who disparage the readers over this. They're ignorant, they don't know this or that, they have no taste, easily pleased, whatever.

But when we put out a story, who are the people we hope will enjoy it? The readers of course.

It makes me wonder, are readers that 'uneducated' or are some writers just that full of themselves that they refuse to stop and wonder, does any of this really matter as much as they want it to? Does it diminish they're precious pedigree and damage their ability t sound better than?

It has been my experience over a lot of years that many "standards" arose to prominence because of the relative professional status of the author of said standards. If you examine the "standards" of almost any field over the years, you'll find this is true. A prime example is that since Isaac Newton supposedly was hit on the head by an apple, Newtonian physics was the "standard" for understanding the world...until Albert Einstein came along. I have no doubts that as technology progresses, some physicist will propose a new "standard" that will require a re-write of physics.

The field of writing seems to be particularly loaded with current standards, many very successful authors violate those standards without so much as the blink of an eye. That is because unlike physics, there is no way to objectively evaluate the "standard" for accuracy. A "standard" for writing is only a standard until someone else has a better idea and enough reputation to cause others in the field to adopt that idea as "the right way".

A "standard" can also have monetary consequences for the author. Ever take a college course where the required text cost twice what another text would cost and the required text was written by the professor teaching the course? Did the professor teach that any other "standard" was just as correct as the "standard" in his text?

The other problem with the argument over show vs. tell is that it really isn't a binary standard. It's a continuum from "show" to "tell". "Show" can mean vague descriptions and dialogue that trails off to an ellipsis that can leave a reader wondering what's happening. It's clear in the mind of the writer, not so much in the mind of the reader. "Tell" can mean descriptions so defined and dialogue so specific that the characters and action become more like cartoons than writing. The best writing is writing that finds the point on that continuum that best fits the situation, characters, and action in the story.

It's not a function of how many words are used or how long and sophisticated those words are. If you read the words, "blonde pole dancer", you don't need any more words to form the picture. That is "showing". If instead you read about a naked blonde woman hanging upside down from a three inch diameter polished brass pole secured at the base to the hardwood floor of the stage and at the top to the ceiling beams and that her 40DD breasts are hanging down enough she is sucking her own nipple while stroking her shaved pussy with her hand, that's "telling". Both are appropriate for some stories and for some readers, but I feel that most readers like a blend of both - enough "show" they don't have to think much about what's obviously happening and enough "tel"l to fill in the blank spots.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think people are overthinking this a bit. "Show, don't tell" isn't an abstruse, academic concept beyond the grasp of ordinary readers. It's just good storytelling, and everybody can relate to that.

If you write an incest story and you write "Mom and son had a long conversation that made them so hot for each other that they had sex" you're telling, not showing. Nobody finds that appealing. It's more erotic when the author adds detail, dialogue, and suspense, and when the author describes what's actually going on in their heads and how they interact with each other in some detail. That's what makes the story erotic. The Cliff's Notes summary version isn't sexy. You want to create a picture in the mind of the reader. Good storytellers have been doing this since storytelling began around campfires thousands of years ago.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'd say that some people here are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Sure, showing gives immersion and depth, but in any longer story or even a novel, you can't possibly show everything without making your story overinflated or even tedious. You can't develop every single character or relationship by showing, you can't show every plot point in detail.
So the real dilemma is which parts of the story you deem important enough to show to the reader and which parts you decide to tell. The right amount and the proper selection of these two approaches is the key.

 

[Living_in_a_lewd_world]

I think people are overthinking this a bit. "Show, don't tell" isn't an abstruse, academic concept beyond the grasp of ordinary readers. It's just good storytelling, and everybody can relate to that.

If you write an incest story and you write "Mom and son had a long conversation that made them so hot for each other that they had sex" you're telling, not showing. Nobody finds that appealing. It's more erotic when the author adds detail, dialogue, and suspense, and when the author describes what's actually going on in their heads and how they interact with each other in some detail. That's what makes the story erotic. The Cliff's Notes summary version isn't sexy. You want to create a picture in the mind of the reader. Good storytellers have been doing this since storytelling began around campfires thousands of years ago.

I agree with that. I see "show don't tell" also rather as quite a basic advise to new writers, a reminder not to neglect e.g. direct speech, picturesque language and depiction of feelings. I already read some stories, that felt as if someone wrote an "instruction" rather than a story and even if there is an interesting plot and a good story structure, that doesn't feel appealing. An experienced author may consciously add parts which are rather "told" than "shown" to convey a certain feeling or to develop a certain dynamic and thus create a really great story, but a beginner might have rather to be cautious not to tell too much to keep the readership interested.

 

[visioneer]

"Show, don't tell" is a good rule, but as has been noted, it doesn't need to be followed slavishly. While the emphasis should be on showing the action or emotion, writers need not twist themselves into prose knots to do it. AwkwardlySet's point is well taken.

For inexperienced writers, being vigilant and revising a few obvious "telling" sentences to "showing" can give a story a more polished feel.

As for show vs telling impacting ratings ... most people aren't reading these stories to improve critical thinking skills.

 

[Voboy]

Every story is different. There's no formula. Some stories are told better, some are shown better; as always, trying to turn these things into incontrovertible "rules" has done more harm than good.

Plenty of very good stories are told, not shown, in every genre. A skillful writer knows when different techniques are called for, and is able to master those different techniques.

 

[AG31]

Anyone else noticed non-mastery of "Show versus Tell" doesn't seem to hinder some stories getting high ratings? I guess the majority of readers don't notice, or don't mind. Just sayin.

I think practically any bit of "universally" accepted advice about writing pitfalls can be ignored at the hands (pen... keyboard) of a really talented writer.

If you're not looking for this quality, and it leaps out at you, the story is probably not being written by a master.

Edit: I made my reply before reading the rest of the thread. I think I'm in agreement with 100% of the other responders. Maybe one exception.

 

[THBGato]

Show don't tell is advice originally meant for screen/script writers.

It's a lot older than that, surely? Checkov basically gave the same advice, and he predates screen writing.

But also, if you really go back, the desire to be shown something (rather than be told it) is probably why theatre replaced oral poetry. Rather than the court poet reciting ballads, European courts patronised the likes of Shakespeare and Lope de Vega.

 

[alohadave]

Checkov basically gave the same advice, and he predates screen writing.

He wrote plays. The stage and TV/movies are very similar.

But also, if you really go back, the desire to be shown something (rather than be told it) is probably why theatre replaced oral poetry.

They are different formats, so how you tell the story would be different. Oral stories would be more like narrative fiction, so telling wouldn't be the detriment that it'd be in a play.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Anyone else noticed non-mastery of "Show versus Tell" doesn't seem to hinder some stories getting high ratings? I guess the majority of readers don't notice, or don't mind. Just sayin.

Non-mastery of a lot of stuff does not hinder high scores around here.

After all, if they wanted be shown they'd watch porn.

But they do watch porn. How do you think lit readers find lit? They click on ad banners. Where are those ad banners? On porn sites. "I was browsing barnes and noble and saw an ad banner for literotica." "The FUCK you did!" : P Not all of us got here that way. Hardly, but a vast number have. Probably the majority.

many very successful authors violate those standards without so much as the blink of an eye

Well if you write (or create in any artform) by sticking to the rules, you won't be original. Any strong piece of art probably bends or breaks a rule or two here and there. The key is picking the right spot(s) to bend/break the rule.

 

[NotWise]

"Show don't tell" and similar rules are for authors and critics. Readers get from a story what they want to get, and that doesn't have much to do with rules. My most popular story starts with an info dump, which folks here often claim is a big no-no.

I've read a lot of examples of "Showing" vs "telling" and they make the difference clear, but I have a hard time distinguishing them in my own writing.

 

[StillStunned]

He wrote plays. The stage and TV/movies are very similar.

The advice comes from a letter to his brother, on novel writing. Something along the lines of, "Don't tell me the moon is shining. Show me the moonlight gleaming on a broken window."