# To show or imply



## Jack of all trades (May 9, 2018)

There have been a couple threads lately that have touched on this. The points made have referenced letting the reader define things like beauty or how a grief stricken person acts. One school of thought favors spelling everything out for the reader, the other gives the reader freedom to make choices.

Which method do you prefer and why?


----------



## moderan (May 9, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> There have been a couple threads lately that have touched on this. The points made have referenced letting the reader define things like beauty or how a grief stricken person acts. One school of thought favors spelling everything out for the reader, the other gives the reader freedom to make choices.
> 
> Which method do you prefer and why?



Show, by a wide margin. Often I simply infer that something has happened, or make the reader assemble the event in their own mind by supplying referents. This also allows me to control several levels of understanding simultaneously, as there will always be people that don't understand the references and will then read a completely different story.


----------



## Kyle R (May 9, 2018)

I lean heavily toward the _show_ end of the spectrum as well, though it's certainly a matter of personal preference.

With showing, there's always the risk of showing _too_ much, beating the reader over the head with the obvious. But leaving things too open for interpretation also has its own risks, as the reading might feel vague or uncertain.

Given a choice of two evils, I'd rather _over_write than _under_write. At least with overwriting, the reader isn't left confused. Perhaps they're left feeling worn out or bored (which is definitely still something to avoid), but at least they're not left feeling uncertain.

With _under_writing, though, things can get confusing real quick, especially if the author leaves too many gaps for the reader to fill in. And to me, confusing your reader is one of the worst things you can do.

When in doubt, spell it out! :encouragement:


----------



## bdcharles (May 9, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I lean heavily toward the _show_ end of the spectrum as well, though it's certainly a matter of personal preference.
> 
> With showing, there's always the risk of showing _too_ much, beating the reader over the head with the obvious. But leaving things too open for interpretation also has its own risks, as the reading might feel vague or uncertain.
> 
> ...



My issue with underwriting is that in instances where the word choices are insufficiently powerful, the text gets anemic and bland. There's no commitment to artistry, no dazzlement, nothing cool or inventive about it. But yes, belabouring every tedious detail is also a problem. I call it the "beige sofa" syndrome, after seeing two unrelated pieces of work (not here) that each went into that amount of detail, both mentioning the offending furniture in the opening puh


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 9, 2018)

> Sometimes it’s okay to leave the obvious unsaid—one thing I love as a reader is when the author reveals just enough to let me fill in the blanks on my own. If the narrator explains things after I’ve already concluded the same, it can feel a bit redundant and overwritten.




That was feedback Kyle gave me. Of course, it leaves out the tiny detail of where to draw the line. But I have played with not saying as much, and I like it.

I tried writing that scene today, and I'm not especially happy with it, but you can see what I left out. It was just a possibility, but . . .


"That's my _son_, that's Dylan. He's _my_ son, you-- "

Finally I look down at him. This little boy -- clinging to his mother's neck, scared stiff -- looks nothing like Dylan, or me, or any of our family.

"I'm sorry," I say, feeling how hopelessly inadequate that is. I'm overwhelmed with embarrassment and shame.  I let go of the boy and take a step back, trying to smile and not look crazy.


----------



## Bayview (May 10, 2018)

If we're using the traditional "show vs tell" interpretation of "show", I don't see show and imply as in any sort of opposition to each other.

I think we should show as much as the reader needs to be able to reach the conclusion we want the reader to reach. I certainly don't think we need to spoon-feed readers, so leaving some content to reasonable inference works for me.


----------



## moderan (May 10, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> My issue with underwriting is that in instances where the word choices are insufficiently powerful, the text gets anemic and bland. There's no commitment to artistry, no dazzlement, nothing cool or inventive about it. But yes, belabouring every tedious detail is also a problem. I call it the "beige sofa" syndrome, after seeing two unrelated pieces of work (not here) that each went into that amount of detail, both mentioning the offending furniture in the opening puh



"Showing" is NOT underwriting. That's something that insurance companies do.
It's making the audience connect the dots instead of drawing the lines. You're in charge of the dots. Make like Georges Seurat. 


> no commitment to artistry, no dazzlement, nothing cool or inventive about it


Complete and utter bilge. It takes more artistry to suggest, and especially to suggest successfully, than it does to simply relate the laundry list. We must therefore duel at high noon.
Bring your pencil.


----------



## ppsage (May 11, 2018)

As a former (year-long) LM judge, I would say that the most common problem there is authors not being explicit enough about what is actually supposed to be happening.


----------



## moderan (May 11, 2018)

ppsage said:


> As a former (year-long) LM judge, I would say that the most common problem there is authors not being explicit enough about what is actually supposed to be happening.


I would say that this is because they are incompletely imagined. Most of the stuff I read seems like first-draft stuff, dashed off to be part of the competition. Writing flash is a skillset that needs development.


----------



## silvafilho (May 14, 2018)

ppsage said:


> As a former (year-long) LM judge, I would say that the most common problem there is authors not being explicit enough about what is actually supposed to be happening.



I've received a professional feedback on a novel I wrote and she pointed to me this exact problem. Some plot points were obscure, but not in a sense of show vs. tell, more of a "why the hell is this guy running around after all?"

I implied too much, instead of telling or showing what should be happening.


----------



## moderan (May 15, 2018)

silvafilho said:


> I've received a professional feedback on a novel I wrote and she pointed to me this exact problem. Some plot points were obscure, but not in a sense of show vs. tell, more of a "why the hell is this guy running around after all?"
> 
> I implied too much, instead of telling or showing what should be happening.


Implication 'is' showing. This is what I meant, above, by 'incompletely imagined'. You need to be able to see the scene in its full detail in order to relate the happenings, and the audience has to have something to refer to.
It's like innuendo. When Eric Idle nods and winks and jogs Terry Jones with his elbow, squire, most people know what that means, and that's why the jape works.
Saying "I'm sayin'" doesn't illustrate anything at all.
I like to make literary references to move the plot...a story of mine begins "He too knew the words of Guru."
If you don't know the original story, there are details later to fill it in. But if you do, you have the thing pegged.
As a writer, you control the horizontal and the vertical. Make the reader connect the dots.


----------



## silvafilho (May 15, 2018)

Yeah, I need to work on this. The problem is that I didn't give enough dots for the reader to connect =(

It is manageable tho.


----------



## DeClarke (Jun 30, 2018)

Art is getting too scientific for me. I do whatever feels right at the time... why is this my method? Too much analysis leads to perfectionism, which leads to self-sabotage. So, yeah... I just go with the flow and as I have said before, let posterity decide.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 30, 2018)

You can only 'show' things in stories by 'telling' other things. That's how language and meaning-making works - mimesis and diegesis. You can tell me 'she smiled' and imply to me, through that, that she is happy (of some variant of happiness that fits in the context of the smile). Or you can tell me 'she was happy' and imply to me, through that, that she is smiling. The two options give you different kinds of focalization, different perspectives on the action. One looks at the objectively describable, and leaves the reading of her emotions to the audience, which better places you in the position of an onlooking character who would themselves be reading that happiness. The other gives you a recollection of those emotions directly, letting the image that the character or narrator speaking would have read to say that they are happy come as a secondary result of that statement. Both of these approaches have their place in storytelling. Sometimes it's more important that our narrator vocalizes their acknowledgement of how a character is feeling.

If you try to leave too much to implication, your reader can be left with not enough information to firmly grasp, and too much going on in their heads at once. Remember that thought is linear, no matter how fast. You have to guide the reader through what you want them to think about on their end.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 30, 2018)

In my year of judging the LMC, by far (FAR, FAR, FAR!!) the biggest flaw in the stories was not making what was going on clear enough to get the point. (These are only 650 words, so the point is about all there is to the story... but still.) I would say, when the question arises, always try to err on the side of being too explicit.


----------



## bulmabriefs144 (Jul 6, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> I lean heavily toward the _show_ end of the spectrum as well, though it's certainly a matter of personal preference.
> 
> With showing, there's always the risk of showing _too_ much, beating the reader over the head with the obvious. But leaving things too open for interpretation also has its own risks, as the reading might feel vague or uncertain.
> 
> ...



I'd rather bore the reader to tears with exposition than leave them without a good sense of the worldbuilding. Unfortunately, I have a problem with telling rather than showing. But implying, the third option, is usually only good for when you're foreshadowing, and you want to tell/show something but keep it cleverly hidden through double entendre.  

By the way, implying can go very *very *wrong. In the book Wishsong of Shannara, you can, by reading between the lines, decide that Brin may have (1) have become more than friends with Kimber Boh, (2) used her magic to transform her body one last time (magical sex change, anyone?), (3) there is a 300 year gap so nobody can tell us otherwise. This is helped along by a lot of tricky phrases about how Brin doesn't rush into situations, but when she does, she goes all in. And Allanon warning her not to "misuse" her magic. And the kid with the magic sword, Rone Leah, is basically not someone who was incredibly useful or attractive (he was out of it for the second half of the book, after his sword broke). It's possible to completely fumble an implication in such a way that people come up with strange fan theories.


----------



## Malachi (Aug 2, 2018)

Imply/show. Iceberg theory, Hemingway. Sometimes you can say more with what you _don't _say.


----------



## meinyetigerhundbaerwicht (Dec 2, 2019)

I think showing, or to use the less ambigous term _telling_, is essential to your worldbuilding, albeit depending on your goals and the point of your story. If you want your reader to imagine the story exactly the way you imagined it, telling is absolutely necessary. You don't have to overwrite in terms of describing every tiny detail, it's much more about describing the _essence_ of your world and the events happening - describing them enough to make sure everyone knows what's going on and has at least the same idea of how your world looks like and how the events unfold. Of course, if you want to leave certain things - how a location looks like, how a person looks like, what kind of relationship two characters have - to the reader's fantasy because that's your goal as a writer or that's how you want the story to be,  that's totally fine as long as the reader is still able to fully understand the logic of your plot (in theory - not every reader will necessarily understand your story, but if it can be understood, if there is logic to it and this logic is detectable, I think it's all fine).
I believe the point where _implying_ is important is when you write about your characters. About their traits, their feelings, their opinions, their way of thinking. In my opinion, it's much more effective to write a scene where someone is screaming at their kid because of something small, rather than writing "they got angry very easily". 

My absolute favorite stories are those that spell out what's happening in front of the reader's eyes, describing everything so well you can basically see it in front of you or feel like you're actually there, but use their plot points to transport a hidden message, imply an important twist that is not essential to understanding what's going on but essential to understanding _what the story is about_, or to allow rich fan theories.


----------



## SamDrake (Dec 14, 2019)

I think the best way is to incorporate a combination of the two. There are lots of situations where you could say, 'Sweat beaded on my forehead but my hands were ice.' Depending what was happening someone could easily infer fear or nervousness. Or if you have a thought that goes with it you can add that and then the descriptive.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 15, 2019)

There seems to be a dichotomy between action and description. The action, where the plot is expounded to the reader, needs to be fairly explicit; That must be understood correctly. The description of scenes and objects is a different thing. Then the reader can fill in the detail to suit themselves and create a more personal and believable picture.


----------



## Master Brett Nortje (Jan 25, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> My issue with underwriting is that in instances where the word choices are insufficiently powerful, the text gets anemic and bland. There's no commitment to artistry, no dazzlement, nothing cool or inventive about it. But yes, belabouring every tedious detail is also a problem. I call it the "beige sofa" syndrome, after seeing two unrelated pieces of work (not here) that each went into that amount of detail, both mentioning the offending furniture in the opening puh



Have you ever considered that that will be a point of focus for the writer to better express the scene that they are fixated upon? It is like getting personal, if you did not get personal, then there is no identity shared. If there is no identity, then there is no sense of self or the objects around you, if you are into programming, so to speak.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 29, 2020)

I go both ways, whatever seems appropriate. One thing I would say is if you are doing the description do it first, that way the reader won't create something that then gets overturned.

'It stood up against the wall, as though trying to remain inconspicuous until it could edge out of the room. Grime had polished to a sheen in the areas most rubbed and leant against and one almost expected a comic book sticking plaster bandage to be covering the occasional tear in the fabric. Nothing could be further from Priscilla's polished and perfect piece, yet both beige sofas were of the same original design, probably purchased at the same outlet at similar times.'

An extract from 'The Beige Sofa Conspiracy', one of the most boring stories not yet written.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 20, 2020)

It's bizarre to read this thread and see so many people with so many different opinions on what is showing and what is telling - to the point where some people say showing is writing more, some people say it's writing less, and some people say the terms are synonymous.

To answer the original subject line, showing IS implying.  If you're writing everything out, you're no longer showing, but telling.  Jeko did a good job of explaining why people confuse the two ("he smiled" is showing that he's happy, but "he's happy" is probably showing that he smiled), but there is a hard line between the two.  If you are writing out the implication of something, you are telling.  If you are writing out the action or event that's doing the implying, you are showing.

_He ran to the building quickly._ - Telling
_He reached the building long before the others._ - Showing

_The house was old and spooky._ - Telling
_The roof had caved in, and an eerie noise came from the windows._ - Showing

_Bob was scared of going inside._ - Telling
_"Why don't you go first," Bob told Steve._ - Showing

Telling prompts the question, "How do we know that?" Showing prompts the question, "Since we know that, what does it mean?"  The distinction isn't in how many words you use, or how many adjectives are present, or dialogue, or description, or any of that.  It's entirely based on what question the reader asks after reading.


----------



## becwriter (Mar 23, 2020)

I fall into the "showing" camp for sure, but see no reason why I can't also imply while showing. The art comes in the writers ability to discern just how much to show and how much to imply. As a reader I enjoy using my brain to figure things out and congratulate myself when I pick up on the clues that were only implied...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 24, 2020)

'Show' seems to be a trigger for the word 'Tell', But the OP talks about showing and implying. To me that is something different, showing and telling are both explicit in some way, implying not so.


----------



## Fiender (Mar 24, 2020)

Kind of following Olly's comment, I feel there's a big difference between show/tell and show/imply, and that everyone seemed to jump onto the classic show/tell talking points. Also of note, the OP has not posted again to clarify their meaning.

I think all three (show/tell/imply) have their place, especially in SFF where you can't -- or shouldn't -- always spell the details of your world out to the reader. Little bouts of telling speeds things along, showing can evoke imagery and emotion in your reader, and implying can make your reader think more deeply about what's going on in your story.

Implying, imo, is also the hardest of the three and the most difficult to decide where it is and isn't appropriate. Example: one of my shelved storied has SideCharacterMan™ catching his close friend, MainCharacterGal™, committing a violent act of vigilantism. My beta readers almost universally asked what kept the side character from turning her in. Even if I showed him expressing unease whenever she flirts with other guys, or tell the reader that he once asked her out only to be turned down (though he was cool about it and they've remained close friends), and how when he scores a lucrative (illegal) job, the first person he goes to show off to is MainCharacterGal. It likely seems obvious when I list my intentions, but implying bit by bit in the text can be tricky.

Should I have been more explicit? He's just a side character, and I didn't feel his subplot merited more time in the novel than he already got. But that's a very tricky thing to decide on.


----------



## TL Murphy (Mar 24, 2020)

Implication or implying is a way of giving the reader subliminal information without telling.  You can show a manner of dress or body language or a way of speaking that says a lot more about the character than mere description.  This is achieved through our learned associations. You can imply a lot about a person’s socio/economic class by showing how they dress or speak. You can imply a lot about a persons mood or disposition by showing their body language.  A writer may want to do this so that a character’s hidden attributes are revealed slowly and subtly for whatever reason.  Or the author may want the reader to know that a character is not entirely what he appears to be.  There are many reasons to imply and it’s always better than telling because the reader has to engage the character or situation through his imagination.


----------

