# Showing vs. Telling



## Pea (Feb 18, 2015)

Showing versus telling is something I have always struggled with in my writing. I have strived with my latest, and as yet most favoured project to try as hard as I can to avoid the dreaded info-dump and to focus on displaying characteristics rather than simply listing them. However, I am still struggling in some regards to eliminate 'telling' completely. 

I wondered if anyone else suffers with such troubles, and whether we might, as a community be able to help each other out in resolving these issues. 

My example is a part of my text in which I use the phrase: 
"Grace had always loved her sister for her way with words. Grace was clumsy, irresponsible, but Olivia was more careful; it seemed she always knew what to say, and how to say it."

To me, this is exactly what I want to say as a narrator. It explains the character with a little background information. However, I fear that this is what is known as 'telling' rather than showing, ultimately not what I want to achieve with my writing. I wondered if there might be another way of expressing the same notion, avoiding simply stating it.

If anyone else has examples of this in there writing that they are struggling to adapt, feel free to post it. Whether it be to get alternatives of how to set it out, or perhaps to be told that you're simply worrying too much and that sometimes a little 'telling' is okay.


----------



## Boofy (Feb 18, 2015)

Maybe have your protagonist express the sentiment through use of dialogue?

"Oh Olivia, you always know just what to say." 

You never need to hold a readers hand. You can show that Grace is clumsy and irresponsible and that Olivia is careful through use of dialogue at natural points and actions that demonstrate their characteristics. The reader should form an opinion about your characters for themselves and if you write them well, they'll understand them both as you clearly do :3

I am guilty of showing too. Sometimes, when I write, I switch to autopilot. From there, my brain thinks it's an excellent idea to show the reader EVERYTHING, hah.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 18, 2015)

> However, I am still struggling in some regards to eliminate 'telling' completely.



Of course you are. It's pointless and impossible.

Tell is everything you say; show is everything you don't say. If you 'show' that Lizzie is angry by having her frown, you have to 'tell' me she's frowning. Funnily enough, telling me she's angry may show, using the reader's imagination, that she's frowning. 

The relationship between the two goes back to scholars on mimesis and diegesis. One does not work without the other. They are both essential to telling a good story.

For your example:



> "Grace had always loved her sister for her way with words. Grace was clumsy, irresponsible, but Olivia was more careful; it seemed she always knew what to say, and how to say it."



The issue is that the prose is incredibly thin; there's no room for readers to have any input or imagination, other than to manifest examples of the 'way with words' and other descriptions themselves. There are an infinity of ways to demonstrate these qualities in the narrative without stating them; have your narrator focus on what Grace is saying, thinking and doing. The whole line is merely commentary that the reader should be able to have themselves while the story is progressing - have Grace show love for her sister and her clumsiness while doing things that move the story forward. Else, it's like we have to pause to know Grace better before we carry on, which is what makes a reader lose interest in the unfolding narrative.

Also, things like 'had always loved' are hyperbolically untrue. 

A good way to think about it - one I often use - is this: you know that Grace loves her sister's way with words. So, have her do things in the story that operate as a response to that part of her character. Let her quote what her sister said to someone else. Let her reminisce of those past conversations. Let her relate her sister in comparison to some of the greatest speakers she knows. Love is an action in whatever form it takes; you have to let it speak for itself. Then the reader will hear it.


----------



## Pea (Feb 18, 2015)

Thank you so much for your reply Boofy! I had actually considered using dialogue to that exact end, but I felt that such a phrase might be an odd one for someone to say aloud (then again, that is exactly the point I am making about Grace). 

What you say about showing it at natural points in the story is a really good idea. I guess I am rushing to get these characters across, whereas I might be better off forgetting lines like this and letting the reader get to know the characters over time.


----------



## KJay (Feb 18, 2015)

Don't we all struggle with that one?! I know I do! I think it is probably something you learn over time. I always explain way too much about my characters' characteristics, and I know it is something I need to improve.


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 18, 2015)

Cadence said:


> Of course you are. It's pointless and impossible.



It's also ill-advised. Telling has as much importance and positive impact on a story as showing does. The trick is knowing when to use which - and when either will work just as well. This is just another of those platitudes that new writers take way too seriously.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Feb 18, 2015)

And new writers, myself included, also underestimate their own instincts. Usually, we may not know the specifics, but just feel that something is off. Most of the time you can catch yourself when the balance is off. 

And yes it depends on the exact story you're telling and the setting, and mood of any kind of work. My favorite example is the Hobbit, because he does alot of telling. It's like an old man telling a story. And the book is famous and fun to read, so he did something right. 

But if your writing is more serious, perhaps something with drama, a romance or thriller, or a mystery, then you would definitely want to do more showing. 

That's just what I've seen. The exact balance depends on the POV and seriousness. Something that tells might not elicit the correct emotional response when serious situations arise. 

Or perhaps the situation is serious, but, say, one or more characters is light-hearted or perhaps just insane, and stays happy throughout. So it depends on your characters and their morals and views on certain issues or situations.

 At least, that's what I've gathered from reading far too much for my poor eyes to take... Q.Q


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 18, 2015)

Have you considered writing this in first person? I find first person works naturally with "telling." 

In third person, "telling" is discouraged because it often comes across as the author intruding on the story to explain things to the reader. In first person, "telling" is less intrusive because it comes from the character herself.

For example:

I'd always loved my sister for her way with words. I was clumsy, irresponsible, but Olivia was more careful; it seemed she always knew what to say, and how to say it.

:encouragement:


----------



## Folcro (Feb 18, 2015)

I like inferences. 

People often have varying interpretations as to what _exactly _"telling" is. As this is a common challenge for many writers, I leave my general interpretation in my signature.


----------



## LeeC (Feb 18, 2015)

I went on in another thread sometime back, how this whole preoccupation with show verses tell is just the blind following and exaggerating the latest dogma. Yes, I said it more politely the last time, but many miss the point of why such is the case.

The show versus tell consideration is NOT an overarching principle in writing, unless one is aiming for the surface skimmer reader in writing another Here Come The Zombies. It's a matter of how one can best portray situations within a given story (and their wordsmith skills), the balance of which may vary considerably throughout a story from all one or the other to somewhere in-between, depending. 

Take a look at how some exceptional writers have employed varying mixes quite effectively. Writers like Margaret Atwood in Moral Disorder, or the Nobel Literature Prize winner V. S. Naipaul in Miguel Street, and on and on. Not familiar to many I suspect, which is one reason they struggle looking for rules and formulas. A good writer not only has a story to tell, but has read widely to improve their wordsmith skills. 

It likely bores the brown stuff out of many, but one of my favorite short stories by Willem Lange (Objects Infused with Life in the collection Where Does the Wild Goose Go?) is all tell. Since it's also telling of this discussion, a short passage follows.

My wife and I sit at opposite ends of the dinner table in my great-grandmothers' chairs. My wife sits in Great-Grandma Walther's cherrywood armchair, an expression of Victorian sensibility. But not, alas, of good craftsmanship. The joints are all loose, and the chair's design aggravates the condition. Its maker did not sign his name to it. I sit in Great-Grandma Lange's rush-bottom armchair, as sound as the day over a hundred years ago that somebody named F. A. Sinclair of Plottsville, New York, stamped his name and home town into one of its hard maple back slats and shipped it out of his shop. 

Objects. They're everywhere around us, almost unnoticed because they're so familiar a part of our lives. But they express our nature and our personal history more clearly and indelibly than anything we might say or write. ...​
To those that understand what I'm trying to get across, I would add that I believe you have good potential ;-)


----------



## Pea (Feb 18, 2015)

Thank you all so much for your responses. The over-arching message seems to be a positive one; that show v.s. tell is not the be-all and end-all. I still struggle with perhaps telling too much, but I will make it less of a worry (I can't help it, I am a worrier, especially when it comes to writing). But according to Cadence's great advice I will try to flesh out my writing, to give the readers more to do whilst reading - not leaving them in the dark by excluding any telling at all, but letting them have just the right amount, in the right places in order to make the story more enjoyable and enticing.

There's a lot of good advice in here, so I'm really glad I asked!


----------



## Sam (Feb 18, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Have you considered writing this in first person? I find first person works naturally with "telling."
> 
> In third person, "telling" is discouraged because it often comes across as the author intruding on the story to explain things to the reader. In first person, "telling" is less intrusive because it comes from the character herself.
> 
> ...



Telling is rife in third person. 

It isn't discouraged and it certainly isn't intrusive. I don't know who filled your head with such nonsense, Kyle.


----------



## bazz cargo (Feb 18, 2015)

Hello Pea, welcome to WF.

Oddly enough the show v tell situation is something that generates a lot of conflicts and no resolutions. 

In a short or flash a bit of telling can help keep the word count down. In a novel things get very strange, usually there is a lot of telling and a damn great info dump at the beginning, then as you get into the guts of the book the beginning starts to change as the detail becomes diffused into the relevant chapters. As you practice your craft your skills change and you will become more assured, then the show v tell match becomes yet another well worn tool in your writer's toolbox.
Good luck
BC


----------



## JustRob (Feb 18, 2015)

This is something that got mentioned to me very early in my writing career, although come to think of it it still is very early ...
I think if you are aware of the issue then that is enough to remind you to keep things in proportion, but don't get obsessive about it. There are ways of dressing the telling up and these in themselves can add extra dimensions to the story, but they can also make it seem artificial if not done well. The less subtle ones are people telling other people things that they would clearly already know, so obviously don't need to mention. Doing this clearly comes across as artifically turning telling into dialogue, so I suggest avoiding that. However, the same words wrapped in something else, like an emotional outburst, a reminder to emphasise a point, or an admission can give the bare statement validity and tell the reader something while one character is telling something else to the other. A person can just be thinking about another person, not even talking to them, in the form of a monologue. In the first chapter of my novel NUAT, in the forum elsewhere here, a girl is talking to her image in a mirror, not necessarily actually talking but just imagining that she is. Here I've wrapped the telling in a showing and added a label which tells the reader that I have done it without Olivia being present. It could even be reversed with Olivia thinking that that is what Grace would think about her, maybe adding Olivia's thoughts about that to clarify their relationship both ways. I spend a lot of time exploring the innermost thoughts of my characters as they resolve their ideas and motives, so my telling is usually packaged inside something else like this. I don't know how good others see this technique but it's one that I find useful. Smoke and mirrors, always useful.

"Dear sister, I've always loved you for your way with words. Why am I clumsy and irresponsible when you are more careful? It seems to me that you always know what to say and how to say it. You could even speak these very thoughts of mine better than I am thinking them now."


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 19, 2015)

Sam said:


> Telling is rife in third person.
> 
> It isn't discouraged and it certainly isn't intrusive. I don't know who filled your head with such nonsense, Kyle.



Of course it's discouraged. That's the whole point of the maxim, "Show, don't tell." The expression's there to _discourage_ writers from telling.


----------



## Sam (Feb 19, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Of course it's discouraged. That's the whole point of the maxim, "Show, don't tell." The expression's there to _discourage_ writers from telling.



It isn't. 

It's there to encourage people to show, but you cannot write a novel without telling. Nor should you try. If you don't believe me, go to your bookshelf and open a third-person novel. If you can find one devoid of telling, I'll eat my shirt.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 19, 2015)

There's a lot of debate about the meaning of the expression, and everyone seems to draw their own conclusions from it.

For me, the expression resonates most when talking about a character's internal state. If we take a sentence like this, for example:

Tom thought angrily about all the things he'd lost.

This I consider blatant telling. It's _informative_, but it's not _evocative_. _Showing_ is evocative, in my opinion. _Telling_, to me, is informative and, as a result, undramatic.

Don't _tell_ me Tom thought angrily about all the things he'd lost, _show_ me Tom's anger. _Show_ me Tom's thoughts. 

Tom eyed the apartment with his jaw clenched and his hands in his hair. The television. The coffee table. Even that damned, worthless cat. Everything--_gone_!

That's more my speed.

Though, really, I try to apply it to everything. Even description.

The gymnasium had been abandoned years ago.

Reading this, I'm thinking, "Don't _tell_ me the gymnasium had been abandoned. _Show_ me a gymnasium weathered by years of disarray and neglect."

The gymnasium stood at the end of the lot, its paint-chipped walls cracked and sagging, its roof torn open, its insides exposed to the open sky. A tattered banner dangled from its rusted gutter, the logo indistinguishable, a muddled smear of sun-bleached ink.

Showing usually takes more effort than telling, but I believe the extra effort is worth it. Just my own personal preference on the matter. :encouragement:


----------



## Sam (Feb 19, 2015)

I'm in the middle of re-reading Robert Ludlum's _The Bourne Identity, _which has more telling and '-ly' adverbs than any book I've read in a long while. 

Does it matter? Not one jot. It is one of the most thrilling and intriguing stories I've ever read. 

The moral of this is that great writers do not need to show to be evocative.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 19, 2015)

> Showing usually takes more effort than telling



This is a misconception brought about by the fact that almost every 'show don't tell' example has a longer 'show' equivalent. 

You can only show by telling, so you aren't doing one or the other; you're always doing both. Stories should be both _informative_ and _evocative_ at the same time - separating the two is idiocy. No matter how much effort you're putting into one, you're putting that effort into the other.



> There's a lot of debate about the meaning of the expression, and everyone seems to draw their own conclusions from it.



This is why I think the maxim is useless, if not harmful, especially to the budding writer. What good is an instruction that doesn't actually instruct? All the phrase does is provoke writers to look at their work in a writerly manner, which may be useful for some, but highly discouraging for others. I think it's why a lot of potentially great stories never get finished.

When I pick up a novel, I want the author to _tell _me a story, not _show _me one.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 19, 2015)

Cadence said:


> This is a misconception brought about by the fact that almost every 'show don't tell' example has a longer 'show' equivalent.


To me, it's not a misconception. It's an accurate statement. 

It takes me three seconds to write, "They fell in love." It would take me much longer to show it (probably a whole novel). More effort, too. And (to me) the story would be a whole lot better for it.



			
				Cadence said:
			
		

> You can only show by telling, so you aren't doing one or the other; you're always doing both. Stories should be both _informative and evocative at the same time - separating the two is idiocy._


Idiocy huh? Careful—them's fightin' words.



			
				Cadence said:
			
		

> This is why I think the maxim is useless, if not harmful, especially to the budding writer... What good is an instruction that doesn't actually instruct?


I'm grateful for the mantra. I'm conscious of it whenever I write. I'm always trying to learn what I can from it. It's the reason my Duotrope account shows this nifty banner whenever I log in:







			
				Cadence said:
			
		

> When I pick up a novel, I want the author to _tell _me a story, not _show _me one.


I prefer the opposite. :encouragement:


----------



## MamaStrong (Feb 19, 2015)

I think you've gotten a lot of great feedback here. I'm a big show writer as well. It's so hard not to.


----------



## LeeC (Feb 19, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> To me, it's not a misconception. It's an accurate statement.
> 
> It takes me three seconds to write, "They fell in love." It would take me much longer to show it (probably a whole novel). More effort, too.



That depends on whether it matters what sense of "love" you're trying to get across ;-) Or to parody a past president, "That depends on your definition of love."


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 20, 2015)

The problem with "show don't tell" is that it leads to long, drawn-out descriptions of _everything_, even in those cases where the reader needs to be told simply because the item in question is not as important as that which it leads to. It can also be detrimental to pacing. In the example of the gymnasium, the 'show' is fine if, for example, you're reading a more introspective story about a homecoming; the 'tell' is better if you're reading about a detective meeting an informant with info on a murder - nobody cares about the gymnasium except to know it's an abandoned building. Too much dependence on show and your readers (as I have on many an occasion) start thinking, "Get ON with it, already!".


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 20, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> The problem with "show don't tell" is that it leads to long, drawn-out descriptions of _everything_. . .


You can show what matters and omit what doesn't. The art of the scene change! :encouragement:


----------



## Jeko (Feb 20, 2015)

> To me, it's not a misconception. It's an accurate statement.
> 
> It takes me three seconds to write, "They fell in love." It would take me much longer to show it (probably a whole novel). More effort, too. And (to me) the story would be a whole lot better for it.



Is 'Joe frowned' longer than 'Joe was displeased with what I had said'?

The misconception is that it _always _takes longer. Even when it does, you should be 'showing' so many more things while you're showing one that, proportionally, there can't be a direct relationship like you say. 



> Idiocy huh?



Indeed. When I write 'Joe frowned' I have _informed _you that he frowned and _evoked _his emotion to the reader. The two happen together and depend on each other.


----------



## Sam (Feb 20, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> The problem with "show don't tell" is that it leads to long, drawn-out descriptions of _everything_, even in those cases where the reader needs to be told simply because the item in question is not as important as that which it leads to. It can also be detrimental to pacing. In the example of the gymnasium, the 'show' is fine if, for example, you're reading a more introspective story about a homecoming; the 'tell' is better if you're reading about a detective meeting an informant with info on a murder - nobody cares about the gymnasium except to know it's an abandoned building. Too much dependence on show and your readers (as I have on many an occasion) start thinking, "Get ON with it, already!".



The problem is also that when people offer examples of showing being superior to telling, like Kyle has above, the telling is always intentionally weak. Any self-respecting writer would never leave it at "they fell in love". It's not weak because it's telling; it's weak because there is no substance to it. If I'm going to tell the reader that they fell in love, I'm also going to tell the reader _why _and _how _they fell in love. 

_Bill remembered how he had fallen in love with Sarah; how he'd first seen her in a queue at the bank one Friday evening and watched as she struck up a conversation with the man standing behind her. He had wondered how she could do that: turn to a complete stranger and start talking to them like she'd known them her whole life. It was her gift, something he loved about her to this day, but it was more than that. It was the way she laughed when someone told her a joke that wasn't funny; how she twirled her hair when she was feeling nervous or anxious; how she could be angry at him one minute, and cuddle up with him on the sofa the next; how she lit up like a child when they went to the Ferris wheel at Coney Island; and, most of all, how she loved and raised their children. She had changed him from a hard-nosed fisherman to a loving father and caring husband. Without her, he would still have been the same miserable sod he'd been before he met her, and he would love her for that for the rest of his life. _

That's just off the top of my head, no editing or changing, but it's miles better than "they fell in love".


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 20, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> You can show what matters and omit what doesn't. The art of the scene change! :encouragement:



So you don't tell the reader it's an abandoned gymnasium? They're just out in the Void somewhere? 

There are things readers need to know, but they already have enough knowledge and imagination to 'see' for themselves. They don't need the writer cramming description down their throats when that description is unimportant to the actual story. 

It should never be "show don't tell". It _should _be "know when to show, know when to tell, and don't abuse either.".


----------



## ppsage (Feb 20, 2015)

Once you figure out what good writing is, the show and tell business goes away. We are stuck with it for beginners because bad telling is a somewhat more common first mistake than bad showing. It is also an easy beginning problem to point out understandably. It is also a lot more involved than that initial admonition suggests. On the first day, show, don't tell. On the second , show and tell properly.


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 20, 2015)

ppsage said:


> Once you figure out what good writing is, the show and tell business goes away. We are stuck with it for beginners because bad telling is a somewhat more common first mistake than bad showing. It is also an easy beginning problem to point out understandably. It is also a lot more involved than that initial admonition suggests. On the first day, show, don't tell. On the second , show and tell properly.



As a former beta, I would personally say tell first, then learn to show. Why? Because people who don't understand "show" typically end up with purple prose and that is a living nightmare to beta. And at least with tell, they get the basic story down first.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 20, 2015)

Kyle R said:
			
		

> _Idiocy huh?_





Cadence said:


> Indeed.


:chargrined:



			
				Cadence said:
			
		

> When I write 'Joe frowned' I have _informed you that he frowned and evoked his emotion to the reader. The two happen together and depend on each other._


The distinction was made by Emma Darwin, who wrote an interesting article on the matter. I don't agree with everything she says (as evidenced by any conversation between writers, we all seem to have our own ideas on how things "should" be done), but I found it good reading material on the subject. http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/showing-and-telling-the-basics.html



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> _Bill remembered how he had fallen in love with Sarah; how he'd first seen her in a queue at the bank one Friday evening and watched as she struck up a conversation with the man standing behind her. He had wondered how she could do that: turn to a complete stranger and start talking to them like she'd known them her whole life. It was her gift, something he loved about her to this day, but it was more than that. It was the way she laughed when someone told her a joke that wasn't funny; how she twirled her hair when she was feeling nervous or anxious; how she could be angry at him one minute, and cuddle up with him on the sofa the next; how she lit up like a child when they went to the Ferris wheel at Coney Island; and, most of all, how she loved and raised their children. She had changed him from a hard-nosed fisherman to a loving father and caring husband. Without her, he would still have been the same miserable sod he'd been before he met her, and he would love her for that for the rest of his life.
> 
> That's just off the top of my head, no editing or changing, but it's miles better than "they fell in love"._


Definitely an improvement! Not the way I (personally) like to read such things, but I appreciate the example.

When I think of "showing" versus "telling", one main distinction comes to mind: real time. 

Showing (to me) puts the reader into the moment, allowing them to experience things in as close proximation to real time as possible. 

When we're talking about meeting someone in line at the bank, it's not described in summary (when showing). Instead, it's played out as if we're experiencing it in real life. The initial glances, the greetings, the conversation, the exchange of contact information—all this (when showing) will take time. Words. Pages. It's creating and nurturing the illusion that the reader is experiencing the story *as it happens*.

Telling, as you demonstrate here, has the ability to condense time, to breeze over it, to move past it externally. Anthony Doerr (award-winning short story writer) loves to tell, and he's great at it. I really like his writing. I enjoy his stories.

But I don't *feel* things with his work like I do with authors who love to _show_. It's rare that a "telling" author will bring me to tears. I'm much more likely to be emotionally moved by an author who excels at "showing", probably because it feels more like I'm actually *experiencing the moment, instead of reading about it* in summary form.



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> So you don't tell the reader it's an abandoned gymnasium? They're just out in the Void somewhere?
> 
> There are things readers need to know, but they already have enough knowledge and imagination to 'see' for themselves. They don't need the writer cramming description down their throats when that description is unimportant to the actual story.
> 
> It should never be "show don't tell". It _should be "know when to show, know when to tell, and don't abuse either."._


Was the gymnasium description really so tedious? It was only two sentences. 

The goal of showing (in such cases) is to attempt to erase that invisible narrator who is "explaining" things to the reader.

The late, great Eugie Foster (multi-award winning writer, editor, and former _Author of the Year_) explained it this way:

*Show don't tell.

*Avoid unnecessary narrative intrusion. A tight point of view--first or third person--is more than describing your character's actions to the exclusion of all others, it's also providing the illusion that the reader is sharing your character's perceptions, thoughts, and emotions. By drawing attention to the existence of a narrator, you weaken the illusion. Words like "thought," "felt," "saw," and "seemed" tell the reader the events of your story from an invisible narrator's perspective and outside of your protagonist's.  Showing is more visceral and intimate, more active. — _Eugie Foster_


----------



## Jeko (Feb 20, 2015)

> When I think of "showing" versus "telling", one main distinction comes to mind: real time.





> Showing (to me) puts the reader into the moment, allowing them to experience things in as close proximation to real time as possible.





> Telling, as you demonstrate here, has the ability to condense time, to breeze over it, to move past it externally.



You're talking about Genette's distinctions of narrative 'pause', 'scene' and 'summary': temporal relations between narrative time and story time. Both showing and telling have the capability to execute all three; they can both shorten or elongate the scene depending of the writer's wishes.

There's no distinction. It's just more examples that favour one style over another, making people think 'tell' is responsible for some things and 'show' for others. We overburden the maxim and redefine its terms to try to make more use of it, but alas, a quick look at people who have been over these facets of narrative in far more detail shows how limited it is.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 20, 2015)

"Show, don't tell," is a useful mantra for a beginning writer to get them focused on being immediate and visual in their narrative. It's usefulness is inversely proportional to a writer's experience. Quibbling about the semantics of what 'show' is and what 'tell' is never seems to achieve much. Like most such axiomatic instruction "show don't tell" has very tight constraints, a lot like "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'". Weird, huh?

According to the "show don't tell" guideline, the following would be a terrible way to start a novel:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

So, while I agree that our writing should be, for the most part, visual and close, I never think about show vs. tell. My writing either conveys what I want it to, or it does not. If it does not, I rewrite it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 20, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Was the gymnasium description really so tedious? It was only two sentences.



It wouldn't be in the right story - it would be in the wrong story. That's the whole point.



Kyle R said:


> The goal of showing (in such cases) is to attempt to erase that invisible narrator who is "explaining" things to the reader.



Understood. But it's not necessary to do that _all_ the time.



Kyle R said:


> The late, great Eugie Foster (multi-award winning writer, editor, and former _Author of the Year_) explained it this way:



Yeah, I understand what 'show' is. That doesn't mean that it is _always_ necessary, _always_ better.


----------



## Ajoy (Feb 20, 2015)

As a reader, when writing gets too descriptively "showy" to the extent of killing the pacing, I tend to start skipping lines or even pages depending on the writing. This is providing the plot is interesting enough in the first place to keep me reading. Regardless, I find myself wishing for better editing. 

I think there is an appropriate time and place for both showing and telling in writing. Either one can be effective or damaging depending on how it's implemented.


----------



## Phil Istine (Feb 21, 2015)

In my very limited writing experience, it seems that a mix of both is needed.  It is too easy to "tell" but too much telling can make the writing excessively two dimensional.  At least with "show, don't tell" in mind it pushes me to do some showing and helps me to write a little more three dimensionally.

As an example extracted from a small piece I wrote recently:

"I entered the café.  At the rear, the deadbeats played the gambling machines between pungent puffs of sweet oblivion."

Now of course there is some telling but there is some showing too.  I am informing the reader that this particular café is a bit of a dive with my "deadbeats" and "gambling machines" - but I'm reinforcing it with my "between pungent puffs of sweet oblivion".  I'm showing that it has a smokey atmosphere, that it's possibly a place that you wouldn't go to unless you had an interest in the slightly seedier side of life.  I'm possibly showing that the dope is more important to them than the gambling machines because they aren't "puffing joints between the slots sucking in their coins" - the gambling (by inference, less important) is what happen between puffs rather than the puffs occurring between putting money in the slots.
So sometimes showing can be less wordy than telling - though that doesn't seem to be the norm.  Just a novice's perspective which may change with time.


----------



## aj47 (Feb 21, 2015)

Adjectives describe and are good for telling.

Verbs, show.

That's all I got.  My latest poem is very verbcentric because part of it was about showing vs. telling.


----------

