Is 'Show' really better than 'Tell'?

[beatrice_dreams]

Hi all

I understand that Literotia is a website, and reading stories here is different than sitting down with a novel – i.e. things might need to be condensed a little. But I do see quite a few stories with high ratings and high views (specifically talking about Romance, where I currently post) and when I go to read them, they’re made up of block after block of exposition, with the rare short sentence of dialogue buried in the middle.

And people seem to love it.

The only thing I can think of is that they are a complete stories, and people like to read something from beginning to end in one sitting.

But where does that leave us ‘chatty’ types whole like a bit of dialogue? Is it really true on here that show is better than tell?

 

[Kurokami]

I'm a fan of the odd bit of telling; dialogue is great for fleshing out characters in ways that actions alone might not. Ideally, you'd want to do both.

I think the reason there's so much exposition and so little dialogue (obviously, blanket statement that doesn't apply to everything) is that this is an erotic fiction site, so the assumption is that there's going to be nookie. And unless you want it to sound like a bad porn film, you sort of need the action to happen without relying heavily on dialogue to explain it. I can't speak to the Romance section specifically, but that's certainly been my experience elsewhere.

 

[Weird Harold]

And people seem to love it.

Don't be confused by the voting, especially the early votes. The stories you refer to might actually be good stories that rise above the lack of "show" or the votes might just be inflated by "fan-votes" that vote for the author rather than the story.

If the stories are getting good votes becuse they rise above the lack of "show," How much better might they be if re-written to show instead of tell?

 

[beatrice_dreams]

Don't be confused by the voting, especially the early votes. The stories you refer to might actually be good stories that rise above the lack of "show" or the votes might just be inflated by "fan-votes" that vote for the author rather than the story.

If the stories are getting good votes becuse they rise above the lack of "show," How much better might they be if re-written to show instead of tell?

I would agree with you about the voting - that's a pretty surface thing. I do read the comments for these stories too, though, and you get people saying it was the best thing they've read on Lit, a great story, great writing, etc etc.

Perhaps there are different sets of readers - those who see a 6-page-Tell and can't get enough, and others who like things to be written...well...better (speaking here about the Lit I prefer reading...where people in the story actually say things!)?

 

[lovecraft68]

I would agree with you about the voting - that's a pretty surface thing. I do read the comments for these stories too, though, and you get people saying it was the best thing they've read on Lit, a great story, great writing, etc etc.

Perhaps there are different sets of readers - those who see a 6-page-Tell and can't get enough, and others who like things to be written...well...better (speaking here about the Lit I prefer reading...where people in the story actually say things!)?

My chapters have averaged 5-6 pages for awhile now and I don;t get any complaints. I also use quite a bit of dialogue.My votes are a little skewed as I am down to the "core" audience this high up but I get a lot of comments saying that at this point they read more for the story than the sex. Pretty good praise considering the category I am writing in

 

[avidreader_01]

Speaking for myself, I am a big fan of show simply b/c I prefer a lot of action in my stories. Of course, dialogue is an important part of any story, but I don't think I need to tell you I'm going to chop your head off, I'm just going to do it, its more effective for me that way.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Show v. tell is not dialogue v. non-dialogue, right? Non-dialogue can be either show or tell; it's all in how you write. Ditto for dialogue.

So . . . is it the non-dialogue or the telling that annoys you?

 

[beatrice_dreams]

Show v. tell is not dialogue v. non-dialogue, right? Non-dialogue can be either show or tell; it's all in how you write. Ditto for dialogue.

So . . . is it the non-dialogue or the telling that annoys you?

That's a very good question...and I think the answer is ‘a bit of both,’ but I think there’s a reason for that.

In my mind, the dialogue is actually a big part of the 'action' - not the other way around. It's what drives a story forward really, if it's got something to do with people and relationships and isn't one of the categories that's more about getting to the point, as it were. I can understand that many of the categories it's a lot to do with painting a visual picture, and the characters are a little too busy being intimate to stop for a long chat. The other bits (what they’re doing, thinking, where they’re going, etc) are important and necessary too – of course they are.

But unless the people in the story are physically unable to speak, if you don’t have at least some talking, then it also means that your story is probably happening in the past (or in the future?) – not in real time.

So no, dialogue isn’t the only thing – it’s only an indicator to me. I just want to be part of a story – not read an anecdotal account of ‘what once happened’ to someone. But then maybe this is purely subjective personal taste?

 

[3113]

Show vs. Tell isn't about dialogue

they’re made up of block after block of exposition, with the rare short sentence of dialogue buried in the middle....But where does that leave us ‘chatty’ types whole like a bit of dialogue? Is it really true on here that show is better than tell?

Show v. tell is not dialogue v. non-dialogue, right? Non-dialogue can be either show or tell; it's all in how you write. Ditto for dialogue.

Tatyana's right. You're mistaking what show/tell is if you think it's about dialogue vs. non-dialogue.

Tell is: "He'd met her in a coffee house and fallen for her at first sight."
Show is: "He was sipping a bitter espresso when she walked in. Her large brown eyes glanced his way, and a fleeting smile crossed her lips. He felt his heart drop, his breath go short. Wow."

In one you "tell" of it happening. In the other you "show" it happening. To be fair, however, the show-don't-tell rule, like all such rules, isn't absolute. Especially in short stories, you may have to tell quite a lot which, in a novel, you could show simply because you haven't the time to show it all. So you might say, "He'd met her in a coffee house and fallen for her at first sight" because the story isn't about how they fell in love, but how they fell out of love and back in, so you need to get to that point ASAP and you haven't time to "show" how they fell in love.

And, yes, votes aren't a real reliable gage of the writing quality as this is erotic as the aim of most readers here isn't to see which writer can write best. The aim is to get off, and so long as the erotica does the job they don't care if the writer skimped on show and used too much tell. Just as someone who is hungry really doesn't care if they're eating at McDonalds or a four-star restaurant.

Nevertheless, I think you'll still find that a story which details the sex--shows it happening in glorious detail, will have higher ratings than a story that simply says: "He fucked her that evening and she came several times."

 

[jomar]

But unless the people in the story are physically unable to speak, if you don’t have at least some talking, then it also means that your story is probably happening in the past (or in the future?) – not in real time.

Hmm, that would be an interesting writing exercise...writing a real time story without dialog.

I sort of did it with my silly Dirk Hammer piece. A fun thread got that one rolling.

So no, dialogue isn’t the only thing – it’s only an indicator to me. I just want to be part of a story – not read an anecdotal account of ‘what once happened’ to someone. But then maybe this is purely subjective personal taste?

I haven't read in the Romance cat, do they do a background dump instead of sprinkling things in as they go along?

 

[SamScribble]

I have removed most of my high-rating stories to use in collections, etc. But one that remains (http://www.literotica.com/s/speaking-of-louise) is almost entirely dialogue and seems to hover around a semi-respectable 4.5 - even though, as I've just realised, it has been posted in the wrong category.

My personal feeling it that if you can handle dialogue well, you can use it to tell a story. And if you can't, you can't.

I agree with Tatyana and others: it's not about using or not using dialogue, it's about telling a story and creating pictures in the mind.

 

[Spacefender]

Show vs tell isn't exactly dialogue vs non-dialogue but I notice that stories that are all tell and no show tend have very little or no dialogue. The reverse is often true as well, stories that are more show than tell tend to have more dialogue. As for me, if a story has no dialogue I'm not interested. Stories are about the interactions of characters and a huge part of character interaction is dialogue.

There is nothing wrong with a bit of exposition to inform the readers of important plot points or backround but in my opinion exposition should be kept to a minimum. And a lot of backround info can be worked into the story without the use of exposition. If I'm reading a story and it quickly becomes apparent that the story is going to be mostly, or even totally, exposition I almost always hit the back button. The only exposition I care for is Basil Exposition.

As noted, votes are not a reliable indicator of how good a story is. It's more of an indicator that the story has apparently hit all the right kinks, fetishes, preferences of that particular audience. That or the writer has a lot of friends.

 

[SydneyBlake]

"Show, don't tell" doesn't necessarily require dialogue. Fully developed relationships between people, however, does, whether it is through spoken language or body language, and don't forget internal dialogue.

Many of the scenes I write start out as nothing but dialogue, and I flesh them out from there.

But you're right about the endless paragraphs of exposition. They're often very boring.

 

[sr71plt]

Show v. tell is not dialogue v. non-dialogue, right? Non-dialogue can be either show or tell; it's all in how you write. Ditto for dialogue.

That's true. Show/Tell isn't about dialogue. The "tell" of that contrast is the narration just burbling it all out. Dialogue comes under the "show" category.

And I wouldn't mix up the typical Lit. reader with the typical fiction reader either. Most Lit. readers come here for the arousal. That's not really what mainstream reading is all about.

If you think that what sells here is different from what sells in the mainstream, you're absolutely right in regard to the largest section of the readership. If mainstream-type writing is what you're looking for, you're probably looking in the wrong Web site.

 

[autoplot]

From what I've read, "show, don't tell" is not as universal an axiom as people seem to think. I think it's more key to keep the action moving and not get bogged down in exposition. I don't think there's anything wrong with telling a story in dialogue or flat narrative, so long as it keeps the action going.

 

[CarlusMagnus]

Fully developed relationships between people, however, does, whether it is through spoken language or body language, and don't forget internal dialogue.

Even more so, developing relationships.

See:

http://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=1270130&page=submissions

--CarlusMagnus

 

[Spacefender]

"Show, don't tell" doesn't necessarily require dialogue.

You're right, it doesn't. But in my experience, the more dialogue you see the more likely what you're reading is 'show' and the less dialogue you see the more likely what you're reading is 'tell'. It's not always the case of course but I think it's the trend. Certainly from what I've seen.

Either way, I prefer dialogue when reading.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

That's true. Show/Tell isn't about dialogue. The "tell" of that contrast is the narration just burbling it all out. Dialogue comes under the "show" category.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your reply correctly. In the first part, you emphasize the distinction between show/tell and dialogue. But then you say that dialogue is show.

Do people really think that's true? I thought that, like non-dialogue,* dialogue isn't automatically placed in one category, and that it can be either show or tell.

Take 3113's tell example:
"He'd met her in a coffee house and fallen for her at first sight."

Put it in a conversation:
Best Friend, whose only purpose is to give Hottie McHotPants someone to talk to: "Who was that hot woman I saw you with?"
Hottie McHotPants: "Julia. I met her in a coffee house and fell for her at first sight."

If that sentence was "tell" when in non-dialogue, isn't it also "tell" in dialogue?

It still seems pretty terrible to me. If those were my only two choices, I'd be more annoyed with the latter, since I'd have to slog through more words and characters to get to the point.

*Sorry, but is all non-dialogue considered exposition?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm reading a collection of Gay Talese's sports stories, 1948-1966. The earliest story is about a 6'-7'' high school freshman basketball player. He stands beneath the basket and teammates throw the ball to him. Thats the total action in the 'story'. The last story is about mercurial, volcanic Joe DiMaggio.

One is a report, one is a story.

Tenderfoot LIT authors write reports. A few earn merit badges and write stories.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm not sure if I'm reading your reply correctly. In the first part, you emphasize the distinction between show/tell and dialogue. But then you say that dialogue is show.

Do people really think that's true? I thought that, like non-dialogue,* dialogue isn't automatically placed in one category, and that it can be either show or tell.

Take 3113's tell example:
"He'd met her in a coffee house and fallen for her at first sight."

Put it in a conversation:
Best Friend, whose only purpose is to give Hottie McHotPants someone to talk to: "Who was that hot woman I saw you with?"
Hottie McHotPants: "Julia. I met her in a coffee house and fell for her at first sight."

If that sentence was "tell" when in non-dialogue, isn't it also "tell" in dialogue?

pretty much- it's "expository dialogue."

It still seems pretty terrible to me. If those were my only two choices, I'd be more annoyed with the latter, since I'd have to slog through more words and characters to get to the point.

*Sorry, but is all non-dialogue considered exposition?

Mmm... depends on how you treat it. I wrote a story that has not one word of quoted dialogue in it, but a lot of reported dialogue:

Her subject stood in the center of the lodge, holding on to a loop of chain that pulled her arms high over her head. The femme standing by introduced herself as Jess, her Daddy as Gloria. Daddy G was wearing Jess’s corset. It pulled her waist in somewhat, and lifted her tits high, and contrasted with her ash blond butch shag, and the bike boots and jeans that lay neatly folded nearby.

Commanded to begin, Griffin cracked her whip overhead. Then she lowered her aim and landed a stinging blow on Gloria’s ass. Her range was just right. She waited for a yelp. She didn’t get one. Daddy G seemed thoughtful. Griffin, after a second’s pause, threw a second shot, and then, since no one told her to stop, she threw in earnest. Purple welts began to raise, in spots and streaks and Gloria grunted and twisted, her hands clenched until her knuckles showed white. Griffin stalked around her, aiming for her upper thighs. The sound she elicited from Gloria didn’t seem to be a safeword. Griffin looked over to Jess, watching with glee. Jess raised one arm and ran her other hand along its underside, meaningfully and with a grace that fogged Griff’s brain momentarily. Griff signaled frantically with her eyebrows. When Jess nodded, she shrugged and raised her aim. That hit caused Gloria to sag at the knees, so Griffin got the second in quick. While Gloria got her voice back, the marks slowly went livid, one on each tricep.

Gloria roared.

Griffin asked Jess if it was stopping time.

Gloria, still roaring, informed her that she hadn’t said any safeword, boy. Jess indicated that she wanted Griffin to hit Daddy’s tits, causing Gloria to turn her wrath in her partner’s direction. Griffin was doubtful, both of her aim in such a delicate area, and of Daddy G’s continued co-operation, but Jess insisted.

Trish came up while the negotiations went on, and slid an arm around Griff from the back. Dire threats were whispered, of what would happen if Griffin failed to give satisfaction to this very well respected top from California. Trish also wondered if her boy was starting to feel a little too daddyish. Griff didn’t think so. Not while the boy was having this much fun.
http://stellaomega.com/the-baronesss-boy/

It was a much fun exercise

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not sure if I'm reading your reply correctly. In the first part, you emphasize the distinction between show/tell and dialogue. But then you say that dialogue is show.

Do people really think that's true? I thought that, like non-dialogue,* dialogue isn't automatically placed in one category, and that it can be either show or tell.

Yes, I think relevant dialogue is show. In terms of how this "show/tell" distinction arose in creative writing discussion, it concerned what the narrator was doing--usually in third person (with too much telling being a danger in using third person). If the narrator got across necessary information (information that served the plot and characterizations) in the dialogue of his/her characters rather than flatly posting it in the story her/himself, this was a form of showing.

The problem with dialogue that isn't showing is the same as having too much expostulation. It's usually just rambling bulk that doesn't serve the plotline or characterization.

And that's a real problem with amateur writing.

Back a couple of years ago when I wrote up reviews on a contest here, I hadn't given top marks to a story that placed high in the finals. And that's because it was a long, rambling "what my day was like" back-and-forth discussion between "him" and "her" that, as far as I could see, was only done to force the story onto the fourth Lit. page.

But people voted for it for whatever reason.

 

[Weird Harold]

Take 3113's tell example:
"He'd met her in a coffee house and fallen for her at first sight."

Put it in a conversation:
Best Friend, whose only purpose is to give Hottie McHotPants someone to talk to: "Who was that hot woman I saw you with?"
Hottie McHotPants: "Julia. I met her in a coffee house and fell for her at first sight."

If that sentence was "tell" when in non-dialogue, isn't it also "tell" in dialogue?

As dialogue, that sentence can show us a bit about how "Hottie McHotpants" feels about Julia (i.e. not terribly enthusiastic) -- or it could just be bad dialogue. Either way, it is better than the stright narrative exposition.

Very bad dialogue can be as bad or worse than a straight "tell" version, but will almost always fall in the side of "show" over "tell."

 

[MarlowBunny]

But "Tell" is the tradition

I enjoy the "show" stories. My favorites are invariably "show" stories.

BUT, to be fair, the overwhelming tradition of story telling is around the camp fire. It's a guy telling his buddy about the great sex with the mystery woman. It's a parable. It's a fairy tale. It's a "this happened and then that happened" narrative.

When a buddy is telling a story he doesn't typically say, "You're a handsome stud," she told me.

I replied, "You have beautiful eyes the color of ripe green apples."

"Oh - you! Don't try to flatter me into your bed."

-----

Instead, he tells his buddy, "I complimented her eyes. My obvious flattery enticed her, and soon we were slapping together like two slices of wet bologna."

People tell stories with exposition and NOT dialog. Why must written stories be so different?

 

[3113]

Dialogue can be either--but it doesn't count

You're right, it doesn't. But in my experience, the more dialogue you see the more likely what you're reading is 'show' and the less dialogue you see the more likely what you're reading is 'tell'. It's not always the case of course but I think it's the trend. Certainly from what I've seen.

And from what I've seen, there are plenty of "show" stories here with not a single word of dialogue: "He draws me down onto him, he touches my breasts...."

I won't say they're good, but they can go on and on like that, showing you everything and not a word said. So, I'm sorry, you're wrong in your assumption that dialogue = show. Dialogue can be show, but when we're discussing the "show don't tell" rule (and we all agree that it's not an absolute rule, no writing rules are), then we're not talking about dialogue. We're not, we're not, we're not.

I'm not sure if I'm reading your reply correctly. In the first part, you emphasize the distinction between show/tell and dialogue. But then you say that dialogue is show.

Read some old sci-fi stories and you'll find dialogue that is totally "tell" with no a bit of show in it, not even to "show" something about the character.

It usually goes like this:
"Gosh professor, how does it work...?"
"As you now the planet we're on only has one-tenth's Earth's gravity and that means that we can take advantage of the different magnetic field. The graviton ray works on that principle....."

Continue on for about three pages with the other person interjecting "oh?' "Really" Gosh." "But wouldn't that be dangerous?"

Dialogue that is tell, no show.

 

[driphoney]

Wow. I always thought the difference between show and tell was mostly passive or active voice. One brings the action alive, whether in narrative or dialogue, and the other removes us from the action, dulls it down.

I've read some fantastic bits of writing that go on and on with exposition and I never stopped to realize there wasn't a line of dialogue for pages. I was completely sucked into the story. <shrug>