Showing vs Telling

Honestly, I think if someone is concentrating on one or the other they're thinking too much. Readers don't give a shit about show don't tell, what they care about is an interesting story, and not everyone can agree on what is. One persons bestseller is another persons waste of money. Some writers ability to show has led me to some very long and boring books. I think that quote is right: Show, don't tell, is lazy advice you give to a lazy, uninspired writer.

Agree, but there would be a point of emphasis on either that would be "too far" and become intrusive in the read. The bottom line, I think, is that much writing, especially by the less-experienced writers, would benefit from more showing than it currently has, from which the "show, don't tell" advice springs. But, just like the guidance to kill all of your adverbs, showing everything rather than telling anything would be overkill.
 
Sometimes it can be better to tell rather than show, it depends on the circumstances.

For example, I wrote a story called 'Mandy Makes A Man of Mark' where 18-year-old Mark is falling for the mini-skirted 36-year-old single mother Mandy who lives across the street, Mark's judgmental, God-fearing mother invites the Reverend to have dinner with the family, talk to her son and put him back on the Lord's path.

Putting the entire conversation between Mark and the preacher into the story wouldn't have added anything, just unnecessary length. Reporting it like I was narrating an outdated public service film from the 1950s or 1960s (the story is set in 1964) seemed the better and funnier choice.

Contrast this with my lesbian story 'April Leads Julie Astray' (also set in the early 1960s) where Julie is very worried when April has an absolute freak out at school when pushed into a dark closet, and April's father talks to Julie about April's troubled childhood and why she is so claustrophobic. I wrote the entire conversation into the story as it was necessary, simply referencing it wouldn't have worked.
 
Back
Top