# Lets talk showing vs telling.



## bookmasta (Jul 13, 2013)

I have seen in most advice given to writers since the beginning to show not tell as in don't tell me he is poor, show me the rats. I find this to be an interesting subject. Some like it, some simply don't. I find that it is often misinterpreted by some and understood by others. David Farland put it like this, "don't tell , don't show. Make." So who uses it, who doesn't and if you do use it when do you find it appropriate to?


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 13, 2013)

Just letting you know... there have literally been 50,000 identical threads on this exact topic.

My take? Show dont tell is either bad advice or irrelevant advice. This is the literary equivalent of business jargon: It sounds real good in a textbook or lecture but is fairly useless in reality. Because sometimes you have to 'tell'. Trying to 'show' absolutely everything in a novel is like trying to trim a lawn with a pair of scissors. Sure it's possible, but is it worth it? No. 

The trick is knowing *what* to show and *what* to tell.


----------



## Vitaly Ana (Jul 13, 2013)

Show your life
And
Tell it through your characters

I kind of think its irrelevant advice as well. Its fun to say and it seems to capture people's attention (it may even spur some creativity or motivation) but in the end its up to the writer to convey and convey meaningfully. Its a battle but a fun one!


----------



## Sandy (Jul 13, 2013)

I sometimes think it's trendy for two reasons:  1) we've become a visually-oriented audience because of film/TV, which by definition can't get into a character's thoughts... so, we have to deduce those thoughts by seeing actions.  2) Close POV is popular because we get to "be" the character, video game style, and for a time have a different and sometimes exciting identity in an otherwise kind of dull world.

I wonder if Lucky and Vitaly aren't more omniscient narrator oriented, where someone kind of has us gathered around a fire and spins a yarn in the grand tradition of story-telling, where language is everything.   A lot of people argue that it's old fashioned today, but I, too, like to paint with words.

I really admire writers who can control distance within a POV to focus on a character, then pull back a bit and set scene.

But yes, I think show-don't-tell is one of those "you should" things that is good to understand, but just a tool.  Oh, gosh, Lucky, I just got involved in thread number 50,001.......  time to call it a night!!!


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 14, 2013)

I also believe its trippy, the first time I heard it got me stuck. I tried to write everything in a showing manner, it was not worth the time nor my patience.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 14, 2013)

I think sometimes this advice is taken too literal. Showing, as they say, doesn't necessarily mean paint every scene right down to the minutest detail, but rather show your character to the reader. If you only tell, the story turns into a screen play of sorts. If you only show, the story turns into a long mess of useless words. 

Tell what the character is doing, but show the reader who the character is.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 14, 2013)

The irony in this is that I just saw another post telling people to show not tell....


----------



## movieman (Jul 14, 2013)

One of the best comments I've found on the subject came from Chekhov: "don’t tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass."

Of course, you can overdo it, and too much showing is just as bad as too much telling. You need to find the right compromise between the two.

I certainly critique far more stories that tell too much than stories that show too much.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 14, 2013)

I think most of the problem I have with it is that it's just open to so much misinterpretation. 

I completely agree with the 'glint on glass is better than moon shining' nugget. But that's all it is, a nugget. Nuggets don't write books.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jul 14, 2013)

I like to think of it this way:

You can tell me that the Grand Canyon is 18 miles long at its widest and 6000 feet down at its deepest . . . but if you want me to actually appreciate the sheer size, you gotta buy me a damned plane ticket.[SUP]1[/SUP]

[SUP]1[/SUP] or a normal plane ticket if the 'damned' one is burnt


----------



## Jeko (Jul 14, 2013)

If someone tells me I should 'show, not tell', I ask them to show me that advice, not tell me.


----------



## Sandy (Jul 14, 2013)

Cadence, that is so precious!  I love it!!!


----------



## mlcampbell (Jul 14, 2013)

There's definitely a balance involved, and I'm sure much of it depends on the writer's style.  There are instances in a novel where it is necessary to simply tell something.  "The cruiser sped through the intersection."  Of course, with a sentence like that, it's likely a high speed chase, or an emergency, and trying to show the police cruiser speeding through the intersection may slow the flow, thus reducing the element of urgency.


----------



## FleshEater (Jul 14, 2013)

mlcampbell said:


> There's definitely a balance involved, and I'm sure much of it depends on the writer's style.  There are instances in a novel where it is necessary to simply tell something.  "The cruiser sped through the intersection."  Of course, with a sentence like that, it's likely a high speed chase, or an emergency, and trying to show the police cruiser speeding through the intersection may slow the flow, thus reducing the element of urgency.



This is also a great example to show that telling, rather than showing, is a great way to keep the narration AND the reader in the story.


----------



## Skodt (Jul 14, 2013)

I think it's amazing we still debate over this topic. It's like arguing if blue is better than violet; when it comes to flowers. Either can be pretty alone; but picked in a bundle and placed side by side they usually look best. 

Quit over thinking it. Tell your story. If your character sees the moon; then he sees the moon. Why do we have to add a random piece of glass to make it poetic? If my character is angry, and I don't say he scowled, but instead I say he's angry; then I probably had good reason for it. Matt was angry. Matt Scowled. It's all the same; who really cares about that little bitty segment. If my only worry is I didn't show you he was angry, and the rest of my book is a goldmine; then I will talk to you about the showing and telling after I receive my author copies of the book.


----------



## mlcampbell (Jul 14, 2013)

Perhaps there is some confusion between showing vs telling and writing poetically. Poetic prose is more of a stylistic concern. Some have a knack for it, and others don't.  It doesn't mean it's bad writing if your prose is more simple and straight-forward.  It's a matter of what the readers prefer.

You definitely want readers to be engaged, though, and that's where showing comes in.  If your entire prose consists of telling the reader what is happening, it will become stale very quickly. 
_
They fought about it for hours. __Jenny didn't agree with him, and that made Joe mad. He couldn't let it go because he was so stubborn, but so was Jenny.
_
Boring. Readers are along for a ride.  They want to feel as happy, sad, angry, or ambivalent as the characters they're following, not just read about it. If you're going to write an entire novel this way, then you might as well reveal the ending in the first chapter because odds are the reader won't make it beyond the first act before chucking the book.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 14, 2013)

.


----------



## Skodt (Jul 14, 2013)

mlcampbell said:


> Perhaps there is some confusion between showing vs telling and writing poetically. Poetic prose is more of a stylistic concern. Some have a knack for it, and others don't.  It doesn't mean it's bad writing if your prose is more simple and straight-forward.  It's a matter of what the readers prefer.
> 
> You definitely want readers to be engaged, though, and that's where showing comes in.  If your entire prose consists of telling the reader what is happening, it will become stale very quickly.
> _
> ...



Sure. If you wrote like that it is bland. I think you over simplified telling. 

The two fought long and hard for hours. Jenny disagreed with Joe, it wasn't a fight either could win. Joe was brought to a sudden fit of anger. His stubborn way was overbearing, but Jenny was not saint either.


----------



## mlcampbell (Jul 15, 2013)

Skodt said:


> The two fought long and hard for hours. Jenny disagreed with Joe, it wasn't a fight either could win. Joe was brought to a sudden fit of anger. His stubborn way was overbearing, but Jenny was not saint either.



Yes, but even this form of telling can be very boring to read if it makes up the entire novel.  There are points where it is necessary to simply tell, and there are points when it is better to show. How I look at it, if the situation is not crucial to the plot or character development, then telling is sufficient. Show to develop a 3-D story with 3-D characters.


----------



## Sam (Jul 15, 2013)

mlcampbell said:


> Yes, but even this form of telling can be very boring to read if it makes up the entire novel.  There are points where it is necessary to simply tell, and there are points when it is better to show. How I look at it, if the situation is not crucial to the plot or character development, then telling is sufficient. Show to develop a 3-D story with 3-D characters.



So all the greats who used telling to convey their stories were actually employing one-dimensional characters and storylines? That's great to know. Hold on while I telephone their estates to let them know their deceased relatives were cantankerous old fools who didn't know how to write a story. 

If you are a great writer, _it doesn't matter a damn _​whether you show or tell. A great writer finds a way to make _any _form of writing interesting.


----------



## mlcampbell (Jul 15, 2013)

Sam said:


> So all the greats who used telling to convey their stories were actually employing one-dimensional characters and storylines? That's great to know. Hold on while I telephone their estates to let them know their deceased relatives were cantankerous old fools who didn't know how to write a story.
> 
> If you are a great writer, _it doesn't matter a damn _​whether you show or tell. A great writer finds a way to make _any _form of writing interesting.



Possibly. List some well-known writers and some books their known for. I'll read them and see if they tell the entire story, or if they weave a bit of show in as well. The worse that could happen is that I'll be wrong, which I'm comfortable admitting if that's the case.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 15, 2013)

> Possibly. List some well-known writers and some books their known for. I'll read them and see if they tell the entire story, or if they weave a bit of show in as well.



I'm not sure you're getting Sam's message. In almost every line in a book something is shown and something is told. 'Show' and 'tell' are two words which have been over-emphasized by those looking for easy answers so they can write books about how to improve your craft and perform legitimate daylight robbery.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jul 15, 2013)

Show don't tell is more relevant to poetry rather than fiction.


----------



## mlcampbell (Jul 15, 2013)

I'll restate what I have said before:



mlcampbell said:


> There's definitely a balance involved, and I'm sure much of it depends on the writer's style.  There are instances in a novel where it is necessary to simply tell something.  "The cruiser sped through the intersection."  Of course, with a sentence like that, it's likely a high speed chase, or an emergency, and trying to show the police cruiser speeding through the intersection may slow the flow, thus reducing the element of urgency.





mlcampbell said:


> Yes, but even this form of telling can be very boring to read if it makes up the *entire* novel.  There are points where it is necessary to simply tell, and there are points when it is better to show. How I look at it, if the situation is not crucial to the plot or character development, then telling is sufficient. Show to develop a 3-D story with 3-D characters.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 15, 2013)

> _if the situation is not crucial to the plot or character development, then telling is sufficient._



If a situation is not crucial to the plot or character development, it shouldn't be there anyway. Unless it's a joke.



> _"The cruiser sped through the intersection." _



You have shown that the pilot of said cruiser has a sense of haste, that the cruiser is capable of travelling fast, that a vehicle can go through this intersection without difficulty... do you see what I mean? Everything we do is show and tell. Not one or the other. Both.


----------



## shinyford (Jul 15, 2013)

I think I'm in the pro 'show don't tell' camp - indeed, I've used the phrase when critiquing pieces around here (and that's not a mistake I'll be making again  ).

But it sort of means something different to me; I don't think I've ever taken it at face value. It's more about engagement with the reader. If I use my prose to tell a reader that a man has a beard and is wearing green socks, the reader gets the look of him sort-of for free, with little effort but likewise little intellectual nourishment. It's a sugar-rush at best.

But if I describe the effect his look has on those around him emotionally, then the reader has to work harder, and consequently builds mental worlds of greater depth and colour. And fundamentally that's what fiction's for: every story we write evokes as many mental worlds as there are readers. (I was once told we don't tell a story so much as help readers tell themselves their own, and I think to a certain extent that's true.)

Does that make sense? It's a bit wanky, I know, but it sort of works, at least for me. Note that I don't always do it, BTW; I recently wrote something where I just went and described what an antagonist looked like outright. So I think there's a pragmatism to it too - sometimes a plain old tell is appropriate.


----------



## Sandy (Jul 15, 2013)

You guys have got me thinking about this all morning (yes, I know I should get a life!), and I was kind of wondering if showing isn't better than telling.

So here's a line:

_It was raining very hard. The hero knew he was going to get wet._

Okay, nothing really wrong with that. I'm _telling_ you something.  Me, the person who wrote it, the omniscient narrator. 

But since I am the omniscient narrator, and I am presently eating a sandwich and waxing poetic, I could try to show off my literary skills and write:

_Millions of raindrops cascaded in a torrent that pounded the ground and forecast misery for the anxious hero._

(okay, okay, it's not a contest entry!)

But this time the narrator, me, is _showing_ you something (the scene and the potential for the character).  Perhaps it builds more drama in my tale, maybe you'll admire my turn of phrase, maybe you'll say "bleah!" and not care anymore.  It might be colorful, but it's still _distant_. And I think that's sometimes good and sometimes not so good, depending on the circumstance.

But suppose the story is being told from the viewpoint of the character?  Now the weather has to be from the perspective of Hero, either in first person...

_I winced as I watched sheets of rain hit the ground and knew I was going to get soaked._

Or third person...

_Hero silently groaned at the sight of sheets of rain hitting the ground. I'm gonna get soaked, he thought._

But the narrative has to be in the voice of Hero, because Hero is _showing us_ the story and because we want to be close to, identify with, Hero.  If you leave Hero's viewpoint and _tell_ something as the author-narrator, maybe it it would weaken the story?

Hope that's clear, it was pretty good sandwich and now I've got to get back to work!


----------



## Sam (Jul 15, 2013)

All showing is telling. You cannot show something without telling it. 

_Bill ran his hand along his thick beard. _

That's telling. How? Because I'm telling you that Bill lifted his hand to run it along his beard. You cannot write a story without telling. It is utterly impossible. Too many writers get bogged down with the notion that telling is 'bad'. Poppycock. If that's the case, showing is bad as well. They're both forms of telling.


----------



## mlcampbell (Jul 15, 2013)

I think we all view the use of showing/telling differently.  It's a bit ambiguous. My creative writing professor would riddle my stories with "show, don't tell," in red ink, and I remember wondering what that meant. I'd look and wonder what's the difference?

Everything we write is telling, because that's what words do.  Showing is, as shinyford said, an "engagement with the reader."  I think it requires a bit more finesse.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 15, 2013)

This is one of those topics--like writer's block and grammar 'rules', or what dialogue tags to use--which always get blown out of proportion when discussed. That's okay, in my opinion, because it makes people think about what they are doing as writers and that's never a bad thing; unless we start focusing more on the technique than on getting the darned thing written.


----------



## Skodt (Jul 15, 2013)

What I am seeing in this thread is people think you can be more descriptive with showing, but the problem is they are just misusing telling. Everyone's telling is so drab and boring. It does not have to be that way. You never need add a fancy setting and a million raindrops to convey the message. 

Sometimes it helps and sometimes it does not, but in the end whats a cup of tea without the sugar? So do both and don't worry about it. If the story sounds good; then it works, if not you did something wrong; so go fix it.


----------



## Shadoe (Jul 15, 2013)

Tell: Max was angry at Karen
Show: Max threw a rock at Karen's head.

Telling the reader that Max is angry is fine. It gets the idea across. But it's more interesting for the reader if you describe how his hands curled into fists, his face turned red, and that vein on his forehead started throbbing. Saying Max was angry tells me nothing about Max. I don't know if he is about to strangle Karen or glare at her or raise his Vulcan eyebrow. But when his hands wrap around Karen's neck, I get an idea of who Max is and what his feelings are.

For me, the difference between show and tell is between how much I want them to get from me, and how much I'm going to make them decide for themselves.


----------



## mlcampbell (Jul 15, 2013)

Terry D said:


> This is one of those topics--like writer's block and grammar 'rules', or what dialogue tags to use--which always get blown out of proportion when discussed. That's okay, in my opinion, because it makes people think about what they are doing as writers and that's never a bad thing; unless we start focusing more on the technique than on getting the darned thing written.



It's true. The important thing is to just write.


----------



## Skodt (Jul 15, 2013)

Shadoe said:


> Tell: Max was angry at Karen
> Show: Max threw a rock at Karen's head.
> 
> Telling the reader that Max is angry is fine. It gets the idea across. But it's more interesting for the reader if you describe how his hands curled into fists, his face turned red, and that vein on his forehead started throbbing. Saying Max was angry tells me nothing about Max. I don't know if he is about to strangle Karen or glare at her or raise his Vulcan eyebrow. But when his hands wrap around Karen's neck, I get an idea of who Max is and what his feelings are.
> ...


Again why the drag Tell? It does not have to be drab. 

Max was seething. She was so angry at Karen. How could Karen think this was okay? Stealing another girls boyfriend is never okay. 

That sounds just as good as your throwing a rock. I didn't add any description to what Karen did. I could have, and it would have been fine, but it's not needed to sound any better.


----------



## Sam (Jul 15, 2013)

Skodt said:


> Again why the drag Tell? It does not have to be drab.
> 
> Max was seething. She was so angry at Karen. How could Karen think this was okay? Stealing another girls boyfriend is never okay.
> 
> That sounds just as good as your throwing a rock. I didn't add any description to what Karen did. I could have, and it would have been fine, but it's not needed to sound any better.



Precisely. The telling examples are deliberately under-exaggerated and drab. 

And what does throwing a rock tell me? It tells me that Max is a coward. Is that want you wanted me to think of Max, Shadoe?


----------



## Sandy (Jul 15, 2013)

I think I understand everyone's point of view and there have been some really interesting opinions....much to think about!   I was just trying to float an idea... but I guess it sank.


----------



## Dave Watson (Jul 15, 2013)

I've recently discovered the ultra violent fantasy writer Joe Abercrombie, and some of his "showing" is so extreme you have to laugh out loud at how incredibly graphic it is. Instead of just writing "someone stabbed someone repeatedly", he'll simply choose to go with something like "squelch squelch squelch"!


----------



## Sintalion (Jul 15, 2013)

For me, showing and telling isn't really a debate. Mastering the usage of both provides a writer with important tools. I enjoy a balanced approach and always seek to use the most appropriate selection (and try out both if I can't tell). Sometimes you just have to tell. Sometimes you need to do a little showing. 

I consider them both a problem when they draw attention away from the story itself. If I am pulled out of my reading experience because I'm thinking: gosh will you cut the showing and just tell me he got shot in the arm? or holy cow, this fantasy hasn't had a lick of scene in ten pages and I don't know where we are, I consider the work in need of improvement. Now someone somewhere can pull off that style novel- unfortunately most of us can't, and that's why showing/telling gets picked apart. 

I think people are advised to show more than tell because a lack of showing is much more easily spotted and acknowledged. When a writer is just posting dialogue, we say: Show a little more! Set the scene. Expand. When a writer has shown us a great deal, we say: Trim the fat. Tighten. Condense. Streamline. We don't usually say: why don't you try telling some of that (even if that's what we're getting at)?


----------



## Sandy (Jul 15, 2013)

Thanks, guys, for such a great discussion!  You've had me thinking about this all day because I can see both sides of the debate and even tried to sort it out myself.

Anyway, I took a little time and did some research (I mean, after all, that's what I do) and made some inquiries of people I know and found the answer -- well, several answers actually -- and why it's such a controversial topic.

If it helps egos or smooths ruffled feathers, everybody is right (including me!).  But unfortunately <wince> also just a teeny bit wrong (including me!). 

But at least I got clarity out of it and a level of understanding that will really help my writing, specifically in control of narrative.  So I'm pleased, excited and very grateful to you all! Thanks again!  

*hugs* Sandy


----------



## Myers (Jul 15, 2013)

I could be wrong, but I don't think my writing has suffered any as a result of ignoring this topic when it comes up. I believe I'm just going to ride with that.


----------



## Skodt (Jul 15, 2013)

Sandy said:


> Thanks, guys, for such a great discussion!  You've had me thinking about this all day because I can see both sides of the debate and even tried to sort it out myself.
> 
> Anyway, I took a little time and did some research (I mean, after all, that's what I do) and made some inquiries of people I know and found the answer -- well, several answers actually -- and why it's such a controversial topic.
> 
> ...


 
I still don't see how one can be wrong or right. Though I am glad you found what you are looking for. If it works for you; then do it.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 15, 2013)

.


----------



## paulcoholic (Jul 15, 2013)

Although I joined WF a long while back, I am just now getting involved in posting and reading. When I saw this topic, I tore through all the posts as I was curious about the consensus as it seems "showing vs telling" crops up a lot in writing advice pieces.

Like Sandy said, it seems to me that everyone is "right" and "wrong" to varying degrees. I'd add that each bit of advice or opinion is a reflection of the writer's life and experience and to how they approach using the written word. It may also depend upon the genre they write in. 

I'm comfortable with the notion that "showing vs telling" are both needed in any story. When either would be employed is a variable depending upon the writer's style and what he/she intends to do with the plot at that particular point or how the scene fits into the overall story. 

A good writer will know when to "show" and when to "tell," and a great writer will have readers not caring, 'cos the whole freakin' story is awesome.


----------



## Sandy (Jul 15, 2013)

Skodt said:


> I still don't see how one can be wrong or right. Though I am glad you found what you are looking for. If it works for you; then do it.



That sums it up nicely, Skodt.  I'm too new to have seen (and evidently groan at yet another) show vs tell conversation, and too young to really know how to manage narrative for effect.  I've heard the mantras and know that it's open for a lot of vigorous debate... but never really understood why until today.  The short answer is both _telling_ and _showing_ are specific techniques used for specific effects and often for specific reasons.

If you treat them like tools, not styles, and you couple them with management of distance from character, then it seems to me that you can really, really take charge of a story.

So the conversation did precisely the best thing: it forced me to think, to learn, to get a new perspective.  And for _that_, I am grateful to all who spoke up.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 16, 2013)

The way I decipher "showing" versus "telling", is that _showing_ approaches more "real time", whereas _telling_ sweeps over time in a quick manner.

I like to show a lot during scenes, and tell during transitions.

An example of _telling_ would be to say that the two characters "argued." Descriptions and comparisons can be used, to say they argued "like an old couple" or "bitterly", et cetera, but it is all still "telling", because it doesn't capture the moment in real time. 

If the content of the argument is not particularly important, I'd choose to "tell" it to the reader in that manner.

_Showing_ that would take several pages, likely, where all dialogue and actions are written. A real-time breakdown. If the content of the argument is important, I'd choose to devote the extra words to "show" it to the reader:

_Evan tugged on the laces of his sneaker, yanking them into a crude knot. He spoke while looking down at his shoes, expressionless. "Do me a favor, okay? Don't give me your community college psychobabble. I'm sick of it." 

Stacy sighed. Why did it always come down to this? "Maybe if you stopped acting like such a brat," she said, "I would."

"Yeah?" Evan stood and shoved his face close to Stacy's. "Maybe I'll just disappear, then you won't have to deal with me anymore. How's that?"

. . .
_
Et cetera.

Generally, I like to show the more important moments, and tell the less important ones. The more time and words you devote to a scene, the more significant that scene will be to your reader.

Picking and choosing what to emphasize and what to casually brush over is where personal taste comes in.

Just my approach on it. :encouragement:


----------



## Markovich (Jul 16, 2013)

Skodt said:


> Max was seething. She was so angry at Karen. How could Karen think this was okay? Stealing another girls boyfriend is never okay.



Ironically, your example only proves why we should try to show not tell. And it is still drab.

Telling transmits basic information, showing piques the five senses.


----------



## Skodt (Jul 16, 2013)

^And your opinion holds merit. It is however is different from my own. So, ironically, your example of my example isn't so ironic.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Jul 16, 2013)

This topic is really fun to debate, actually. I think it's because everyone has two cents on this little piece of advice. So whenever the topic shows up, everyone's rearing to go!


----------



## Jeko (Jul 16, 2013)

> And it is still drab.



The whole 'show is better than tell' thing is drab. It's just simple judgement masked as philosophy. It's also what makes a lot of modern published fiction such a bore to wade through. 

If people learned to 'tell' better we'd all become better at telling stories in general.


----------



## Myers (Jul 17, 2013)

The other half of this is that something has to happen to make a character angry, so it’s not just about his or her actions or reactions. You build to the point where you know the character is angry with narrative and dialog, using all the tools that are available to you. Storytelling, in other words. There aren’t too many situations where you’d have to convey something like a character’s anger with a sentence or two, at least there shouldn’t be, and it’s really not a good way to try to demonstrate any of this, especially if you just pull it out of thin air.

If it comes down to a character throwing a rock or you have to say outright that the character is angry, even if you dress it up sufficiently; either way, you’re probably doing something wrong.


----------



## Sandy (Jul 17, 2013)

Can I briefly suggest something here?  

_Showing_ lets the reader experience the story through a character's feelings, thoughts, words, senses and action.  _Telling_ is where the author expounds, describes, summarizes; telling is sometimes used as a shortcut to cover space and time, fill in backstory that would be otherwise too long, or provide trivial or unimportant details, especially when the characters know some piece of information but the reader doesn't.

Showing forces the reader to become a participant in the story and deduce or infer rather than just take information passively.  Telling is useful when reader needs a fact without dwelling on it.  Telling is more efficient than showing, which is a good reason to use it exclusively in doing a first draft.  But telling gets boring; it lacks drama and is anything but evocative.  On the other hand, showing takes a lot more space (poetic or not!) and if used exclusively in a story would become exhausting for the reader.

If you reserve showing for scenes where you really want dramatic effect and use telling to move from point to point, you enhance pacing and thereby strengthen story.  

Like I said earlier, to each their own, but I really don't see it as a philosophy or a style or a rule -- just a couple of tools to help craft what you want to relate in print.  Also, while telling can become boring when overdone, it's not a half-bad approach on an initial draft because it can help you focus on the story and characters rather than getting hung up on interior narrative and patient turn of phrase.  Once you have the whole thing laid out, you can now go back to important dramatic scenes and revise to _show_ rather than _tell._..but only where it works best.


----------



## Sam (Jul 17, 2013)

In the hands of a skilled wordsmith, _nothing _​is boring.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 17, 2013)

Sandy said:


> Can I briefly suggest something here?
> 
> _Showing_ lets the reader experience the story through a character's feelings, thoughts, words, senses and action.  _Telling_ is where the author expounds, describes, summarizes; telling is sometimes used as a shortcut to cover space and time, fill in backstory that would be otherwise too long, or provide trivial or unimportant details, especially when the characters know some piece of information but the reader doesn't.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't go as far as thinking of telling as "anything but evocative." Poor telling would be, perhaps.

The thing about _telling_ is, while it may not be as immersive as _showing_ due to its nature, it _does_ lend well to poeticism, simile, and metaphor. Good short story writers tend to be skilled at _telling_ in a lyrical style. It's a skill all its own, just as _showing_ is.

Having a strong narrative voice is just as impressive (to me) as having an invisible narrative voice (both are extremes, but both can yield great writing).

Anyway, I agree with your post. Just wanted to add my own two cents to it. 

Mostly I believe the "show, don't tell" maxim is recommended so much because beginner writers sometimes tell too much, or tell things that would be better off shown.

Also to note, though, a lot of readers-turned-novelists that I've read (off fan-fiction sites, most notably) tend to _show_ everything, and seem to have no concept of using _telling_ to streamline scene transitions (some even write whole stories as an entire, never-ending scene), so maybe "tell, don't show!" might end up becoming a guideline, too! Lol.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 17, 2013)

> Mostly I believe the "show, don't tell" maxim is recommended so much because beginner writers sometimes tell too much, or tell things that would be better off shown.


Exactly. Text that is all bad telling is a common beginner mistake. Nuff said.


----------



## Sandy (Jul 17, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> I wouldn't go as far as thinking of telling as "anything but evocative."



Kyle -- You're right ... it's a poor choice of word; I was trying to get at the idea with _telling_ is to more to efficiently relate information, which can indeed evoke an emotional response, even if it's just to paint an image.  The purpose of _showing_ is to make the reader a participant to deliberately heighten emotional response; it goes more toward feeling and action.  This is probably not making any sense to the "tell" enthusiasts, so I guess concede I'm not being clear, let it go, and reiterate "to each their own."  Thanks for your comments and sorry if I clogged up the discussion with an irrelevant point of view.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 17, 2013)

Sandy said:


> Kyle -- You're right ... it's a poor choice of word; I was trying to get at the idea with _telling_ is to more to efficiently relate information, which can indeed evoke an emotional response, even if it's just to paint an image.  The purpose of _showing_ is to make the reader a participant to deliberately heighten emotional response; it goes more toward feeling and action.  This is probably not making any sense to the "tell" enthusiasts, so I guess concede I'm not being clear, let it go, and reiterate "to each their own."  Thanks for your comments and sorry if I clogged up the discussion with an irrelevant point of view.



I agree that showing (done well) can be very immersive.

I might even go as far as saying telling is more _cerebral_ and showing is more _emotional_, as far as how the two narrative techniques involve the reader. At least for me, that is. With good _showing_ I feel like I'm in the story. My emotions are plucked like I'm a string instrument. With good _telling_ I've often found myself pausing and rereading a passage just to appreciate the brilliance of it—not so much to enjoy the feelings it gave me, but to better examine the skillful wordplay, like rolling something tasty over my tongue to savor the taste.

Perhaps you could even say, "Use _showing_ to move the reader to feel. Use _telling_ to move the reader to think." But things might slide into abstract waters there...


----------



## Jared77 (Jul 17, 2013)

In Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, I absolutely love the chapters "the Council of Elrond" and chapter 2, "The Shadow of the Past."  These chapters consist of the characters sitting around and telling stories.  I find it FASCINATING and enjoyable.  And these books for some reason keep selling 60 years later.....


----------



## Markovich (Jul 17, 2013)

Cadence said:


> The whole 'show is better than tell' thing is drab. It's just simple judgement masked as philosophy. It's also what makes a lot of modern published fiction such a bore to wade through.
> 
> If people learned to 'tell' better we'd all become better at telling stories in general.



Maybe you're right. Now that I think about it, I tend to write in a telling style. No one has ever told me to "show don't tell", so I guess it's possible.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 17, 2013)

A lot of books I've read from a few current writers have been filled with tons of showing... long, boring and exhausting showing.

"Things Fall Apart" is mostly telling, and I loved it.

I think it all depends on the writer and their style.  There is a time and place to show and a time and place to tell.  How you as a writer balance that, is what makes your work unique.

Bottom line, let the readers decide.  They are the only true authority and judge.


----------



## Shadoe (Jul 17, 2013)

Skodt said:


> Again why the drag Tell? It does not have to be drab.


I was going for simple. With telling, you tell the reader what they are supposed to understand. With showing, they watch the scene unfold.



> Max was seething. She was so angry at Karen. How could Karen think this was okay? Stealing another girls boyfriend is never okay.


More than my simple sample, but it could be better. Each sentence is in passive voice.

It's not that telling or passive voice is strictly no-nos. It's that they should be used for a reason.

I usually go through my drafts one time just to look for these, and I usually come up with better phrasing when I do.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Jul 17, 2013)

One thing I'm seeing is that everyone believes that the two are dichotomic and separate.

In fact, the "show don't tell" thing doesn't seem to me like advice for intermediate writers — rather, for absolute beginners, i.e. grade school and high school aged. From my own work back then (which is physically painful to read, so you all owe me) and from what I've seen produced from similarly-aged kids, a major problem with their work is that it zooms by all of the best parts of writing. An epic 110,000-word fantasy adventure can easily be done poorly in 7,000 words.

From most of what I've read by younger writers, this is a major problem, the instinct to blandly tell everything that happens at a comparatively lightning-fast pace, due to an undeveloped capacity to slow down and bring the reader to their preconceived notions about their own work. It's meant to suggest a more nuanced use of language rather than shoving it all in the reader's face all at once.

So y'all be arguin' something that doesn't need arguing. It's a one-off piece of advice that encourages younger writers to stop, slow down, and think about the language they use. 'Telling' isn't fundamentally different than 'showing' any more than metaphors are fundamentally different than similes.


----------



## Folcro (Jul 17, 2013)

My personal take on it:

SHOW: The eyes of every man turned on Sandra, and so did Stephanie's, the corners of her lips turned down. Sandra's posture held each eye, as her ample legs carried her in an unnatural balance. Stephanie held her glass to her lips, raised a brow as she turned her eyes to the men around her, counting each who looked away. Zero.

TELL: Stephanie was jealous of Sandra.


----------



## talentless_scribbler (Jul 18, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Just letting you know... there have literally been 50,000 identical threads on this exact topic.
> 
> My take? Show dont tell is either bad advice or irrelevant advice. This is the literary equivalent of business jargon: It sounds real good in a textbook or lecture but is fairly useless in reality. Because sometimes you have to 'tell'. Trying to 'show' absolutely everything in a novel is like trying to trim a lawn with a pair of scissors. Sure it's possible, but is it worth it? No.
> 
> The trick is knowing *what* to show and *what* to tell.




Hey now! Over the many years I spent growing up (yet never quite got there...) I spotted my dear ol' mother trimming not only the grass, but the hedges as well with a pair of scissors on many an occasion.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 18, 2013)

> In fact, the "show don't tell" thing doesn't seem to me like advice for intermediate writers — rather, for absolute beginners



Agreed. And it's encouraging advice, as it's not too hard to feel like you're pulling it off. Helped me write 500 pages of rubbish sci-fi a few years ago.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 18, 2013)

I think "Show, don't tell," while it may not apply in all situations, works particularly well with narrative description. It reminds me to be specific, not vague--to *_paint a scene that involves the senses_ for the reader to experience.

Don't just say, "The man in the silver SUV chased Jennie through the city." Show the cars screeching through intersections. Show the people diving out of the way. Show Jennie looking in her rear-view mirror, her eyes wide. Let the reader hear her say, with a shaky voice, to her teary-eyed daughter in the backseat, "Hold on, baby." Show the man in the silver SUV yanking his wheel, slamming his truck into the back of her Prius...

Don't just tell me "Ernan marched through the storm", show me Ernan hugging himself in a down jacket as he trudges through the snow, leaning against the wind, his pant legs flapping, fat drops of rain pelting his unshaven face. Show me his breath steaming the air through his clenched teeth. Let me hear him grunt, let me see him stumble. Show me the figure in the distance that his eyes are fixed upon...

Is the meadow "peaceful"? How so? What makes it peaceful? What does this peaceful meadow look like to your character? Smell like? Feel like? Sound like? Taste like? (I'm not suggesting to use all the senses. Sometimes just one or two alone will suffice.) If an author showed me those things well, I'd likely think to myself, "Ah. What a peaceful meadow," without the author having to have told me it. And likely, the reading experience would have been richer, as well. :encouragement:


_* I'm a supporter of the _show_ camp, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. _


----------



## wancow (Jul 19, 2013)

Skodt, I completely disagree.  Tell is Summary (like a Legal or Research Summary), Show is literary. (Melville's self indulgent crap notwithstanding).

Jane Austen does both.  One of the things that's interesting about her prose is that she'll tell you what everyone's impression of a person is, then proceeds to show you.  The narrative introducing Mr. Collins is probably the single best, and most enjoyable example of this.  For me, that makes her work very personable as if you're being introduced to characters after being told a whole lot about them going in.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 20, 2013)

> Tell is Summary



I can tell you about the last film I watched and go on for _hours_. Tell isn't intrinsically 'summary'. Information, maybe, but not limited to brevity.



> Show is literary.



And 'tell' isn't?


----------



## shinyford (Jul 20, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I can tell you about the last film I watched and go on for _hours_. Tell isn't intrinsically 'summary'. Information, maybe, but not limited to brevity.
> 
> And 'tell' isn't?


Well, it depends how you define it. Here we're taking the phrase 'show, don't tell' and dissecting what it means - and to do that you need to define your terms first. What wancow is saying is that, for them, yes, that's the definition. For you, it's different - but I guess the point is, there's no meaningful discussion to be had until the what we're all using those words and that phrase to mean is mutually understood.


----------



## SarahStrange (Jul 20, 2013)

I think that this whole discussion boils down to one thing: it's all relative. 

Do what works for you, because no one thing will work for everyone. Write well, using any tool, any way you can. That's all you can really hope to do after all.


----------



## wancow (Jul 20, 2013)

I encourage you to read Pride and Prejudice Capters 13-15 to see what I'm speaking of. Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen


----------



## Robdemanc (Jul 20, 2013)

I'm surprised this topic has generated so much discussion but my take on showing v telling is that the writer has a choice over how he/she wants the reader to receive part of the text.   What makes a good writer is one who knows which bits to show and which to tell.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 20, 2013)

I have created a monster! I had no idea this would be such a hot topic. I guess I'll just quote David Farland on this subject from his website. "Don’t tell.  Don’t show.  Make."


----------



## Jeko (Jul 20, 2013)

> I encourage you to read Pride and Prejudice Capters 13-15 to see what I'm speaking of.



I never knew how much Jane Austen could show in such a small amount of text.

Of course she employs both - so does every writer. And how every writer uses 'show' and 'tell' will be completely different, so no author's use of the two should be used as any bar or benchmark. Hence why I don't think 'tell' is intrinsically 'summary'. Writers can use it for summary. Writers can use it for a lot more too.

I echo Sarah Strange's most recent comment:



> Write well, using any tool, any way you can.



Everything is useful, and nothing should be downplayed regardless of how many people use it badly.

And shinyford, I disagree. It is almost impossible to mutually agree on the definitions of the most subjective terms writers have. Specific semantics are not essential for meaningful discussion; there is much more we can call upon.


----------



## wancow (Jul 20, 2013)

austen does employ both!  The thing is, I've never seen anyone emulate her. I have to tell you ever since I began understanding what it is she did, I'm highly impressed with how she accomplishes it.


----------



## shinyford (Aug 1, 2013)

Hi all

Don't really want to ignite this again, but I came across this anecdote from Chuck Palahniuk in another forum (linky). It feels like it gets somewhere close to what showing is vs telling, to me.

Cheers

Nic



			
				Chuck Palahniuk said:
			
		

> _A friend in my writing group passed this along to me. A bible of sorts for aspiring writers:_
> 
> In six seconds, you’ll hate me.
> But in six months, you’ll be a better writer.
> ...


----------



## Jeko (Aug 1, 2013)

Like how he ended with this line:



> _Then, pick through some published fiction and do the same thing. Be ruthless._



Implying that yes, this is what you should do, and no, it's not essential to pick apart every little problem with X-ray vision for your work to be enjoyed by the public.

His words support the way I draft - I start with the prose 'packed', and 'unpack' it as I edit. Good advice, plainly given.

I don't think it links too heavily to the show/tell hoo-hah; it's more about the article Skodt once gave a link to, about Filtering.


----------



## WriteAboutCreativeWriting (Aug 4, 2013)

Showing rather than telling is most certainly the way most of a story should go. It is much more immersive than telling and can appeal to the five senses. It also makes your writing more appealing to publishers if you use all the five senses, instead of just using sight, which is what is used mostly. Although in some cases, telling can be used. For example, if you are writing a first person narrative with a character that has an interesting voice. You could have a lot of fun with something like that, and your reader could as well!


----------



## Sam (Aug 4, 2013)

If most of a story was showing, it would be a thousand pages long. There's a balance to be struck, and part of the problem that faces many authors is falling into the trap of believing that everything must be shown.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 5, 2013)

> It is much more immersive than telling and can appeal to the five senses. It also makes your writing more appealing to publishers if you use all the five senses



As Sam said. I like to be immersed in a story myself, but if you're immersed in something for too long you usually drown and die. The same, I think, is true with writing.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 5, 2013)

This can be a slippery slope, because if you get too detailed, the reader can start to feel as if you are treating them like an ignorant child who can't figure out things for their self.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 16, 2013)

Wrong section.


----------



## Kuro (Aug 16, 2013)

Like others have said, I think there needs to be a balance between the two. Showing seems to be more appropriate for some things, whereas telling is more appropriate for others. With a character's emotions, for example, I generally find it better to try showing. Yet you pretty much have to tell about certain things, such as what your character is seeing.

I can see why this is largely a matter of your own personal writing style, though, and I can also see why people could take this advice too literally. So perhaps many of us need to be a bit more careful about how we word our criticism, so it is not taken quite so literally. I'm sure I've been guilty of coming off as too literal myself.


----------

