# Stephen King is a Weak Writer



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2014)

Okay well, not completely.  He's quite a masterful writer, actually. Despite what many critics say, the guy can write, toe to toe, with the best of them.

That said, Mr. King _does_ have a writing habit which, for the sake of discussion, we'll address here as "weak." 


What is this weak habit of his? 

At times, he holds readers at a narrative distance.


What is narrative distance?

This is where the writer reminds the reader that he or she is reading a story. This is where the writer pulls back from the character's perspective and returns to the _writer's_ perspective, holding the reader at arm's length and thus, preventing a deeper immersion into the story.

*Simply put, it's when a writer relies, lazily, on telling when showing would be stronger.*

Most often (as is with many authors, not just Mr. King), the biggest culprit of this is the reliance on the word "felt" and its various conjugations.

Remember the old maxim, "Show, don't tell." This tenet can be used to guide us, to remind us to describe what a character is feeling without actually _telling_ the reader what the feeling is.

Showing takes more creativity than simply telling the reader the name of an emotion. This is likely why so many authors fall back on narrative distance—simply because it's easier.

But you're not most writers, are you? You're here to elevate your craft. You're here to be better than them!

Let's look at a passage of Stephen's writing from his best-selling mega-novel, _It_, and then we'll discuss how it can be strengthened.

... George Denbrough ran toward his strange death. And the feeling which filled him at the moment was clear and simple love for his brother Bill . . . love and a touch of regret that Bill couldn't be here to see this and be a part of it.

The narrative distance that's happening here is that Mr. King isn't allowing the reader to experience what George is feeling. Rather, the reader is being _told _what George is feeling by simply naming the emotions.

"clear and simple love" ... "love and a touch of regret"...

What does clear and simple love _feel_ like?

How about a touch of regret? What does _that_ feel like?

The reliance on vague, universal terms becomes a problem: a lack of specificity. What's love or regret for one person might be different to another.


How do we avoid narrative distance?

What kinds of thoughts run through a person's head when experiencing these emotions? Better yet, what kinds of thoughts would run through _this character_'s head when experiencing these emotions?

Within the answers to these questions lies the solution, the path to deepening your writing and avoiding the prose-weakening buffer that is narrative distance.

... George Denbrough ran toward his strange death. And the feeling which filled him at the moment was clear and simple love for his brother Bill . . . love and a touch of regret that Bill couldn't be here to see this and be a part of it.

Let's rewrite it without the narrative distance.

... George Denbrough ran toward his strange death with his heart swelling behind his ribs. Gosh! If only his brother Bill could have been here to see this. It just didn't seem right without him.

Keep in mind, I'm not declaring this as an improvement upon Stephen's passage.

I am, though, demonstrating that this is a way to remove the buffer of narrative distance, thus placing the reader directly in the character's POV. Instead of being _told_ what the character is feeling, we're showing it.


Does Mr. King always rely on narrative distance?

Fortunately, Mr. King doesn't always fall victim to this bad writing habit of his. He also demonstrates the stronger (and _masterful_) way to describe character emotions—by removing narrative distance! Let's take a look at another passage from _It_ where Mr. King _avoids_ the pitfall of narrative distance and uses good old fashioned _showing_, instead of _telling _the reader how the character feels.

His fingers found the switch! Ah!

They snapped it--

--and nothing. No light.

_Oh cripes! The power!

_George snatched his arm back as if from a basket filled with snakes. He stepped back from the open cellar door, his heart hurrying in his chest. The power was out, of course--he had forgotten the power was out. Jeezly-crow! What now?

Notice here, Mr. King is skillfully placing the reader directly into George's POV. We aren't being told, "George felt a brief flush of panic." Instead, we are shown George's internal state through a combination of:

- Describing George's bodily sensations (his heart hurrying in his chest);

- Showing George's involuntary actions (George snatched his arm back as if from a basket filled with snakes);

and

- Showing thoughts and internal dialogue in the character's voice (Oh cripes! Jeezly-crow!).

As we can see, Mr. King isn't actually a weak a writer as originally stated. He can plunge waist-deep into a POV with the best of them. As his track record rightly proves, he is a masterful writer after all.


Okay. How do I apply this to my own writing?

There are actually several ways you can convey emotions without letting narrative distance slip in. Instead of directly telling the reader the name of the emotion, you can, instead:

- Describe the character's bodily sensations.

Wanda's palms started to sweat.

- Describe the character's involuntary actions, things the character does before even consciously thinking about them.

She pulled her arms against her ribs and took a shaky step back toward the door.

- Show the character's thoughts, in their own unique voice. 

Oh, man. This was a joke, right? Why the heck wasn't anyone here?

As a writer, you have the freedom to mix and match these various techniques at your discretion. Personally, I like to use several, to fully and completely convey the character's emotional state.

Wanda's palms started to sweat. She pulled her arms against her ribs and took a shaky step back toward the door. Oh, man. This was a joke, right? Why the heck wasn't anyone here?

(Keep in mind, there isn't any particular order to how you arrange these techniques. It's all up to you. Whatever you feel works best.)

Any/and or all of these strive to eliminate narrative distance, letting the reader experience the character's emotion directly, instead of being _told_ what the character is feeling. No more passages like, "Wanda felt frightened that the hall was empty." She felt frightened, you say? Show the reader! Convince her!

So, as the great Mr. King has shown us both what to do, and what _not _to do, remember the lesson: 

Don't name that emotion, don't _tell_ us what the character is feeling—_show_ it! Kill that narrative distance and go deep! :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 24, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Don't name that emotion, don't _tell_ us what the character is feeling—_show_ it! :encouragement:



As long as we remember this is not an iron-clad rule. Sometimes it really is better to tell, because otherwise the pace, the tension, the whole point of the scene, is diluted by a side-step to "showing".


----------



## Bishop (Jul 24, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> As long as we remember this is not an iron-clad rule. Sometimes it really is better to tell, because otherwise the pace, the tension, the whole point of the scene, is diluted by a side-step to "showing".



Agreed, but I honestly also believe the two can be blended nicely as well. 

That being said, it might be my personal preference, but including things like "Gosh!" and "Ah!" into the narrative always bothered me. I for the life of me can't remember what writer said it, but using exclamation points outside of dialogue is a no-no in my book. It just makes it seem far more campy than it needs to be. I think by removing those little "exclamation" words/expressions, the narrative is improved all over. It might convey that sense of the emotion, but it sounds more like a cartoon in my head.

Then again, I'm the guy who yesterday wrote about reptilian aliens, soooo...


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2014)

shadowwalker said:
			
		

> As long as we remember this is not an iron-clad rule. Sometimes it really is better to tell, because otherwise the pace, the tension, the whole point of the scene, is diluted by a side-step to "showing".



Example? I'm not disagreeing with you (I agree with you that this, just like most things in fiction, will inevitably have exceptions), but I think an example would better aide the statement. We could then dissect it and/or discuss it, and hopefully learn from it as well. :encouragement:



Bishop said:


> it might be my personal preference, but including things like "Gosh!" and "Ah!" into the narrative always bothered me. I, for the life of me, can't remember what writer said it, but using exclamation points outside of dialogue is a no-no in my book. It just makes it seem far more campy than it needs to. I think by removing those little "exclamation" words/expressions, the narrative is improved all over. It might convey that sense of the emotion, but it sounds more like a cartoon in my head.



I hear you, B. Though, I'm in the opposite camp of thought. I like those expressions and internal exclamations, especially when they are unique. When specific to the character, they help give depth (in my opinion).

They can hint at education, at age, at biases, at insecurities. A character's unique internal exclamations, when handled well, can say a lot about them. 

George Denbrough's "Jeezly-crow!" says a lot about him as a character, specifically his age. :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Jul 24, 2014)

As an illustration the passage you chose works, but in context, I believe King did just exactly what he wanted to. He created a slight dissociation from the POV character just when that character would probably have been feeling disconnected from reality and from his feelings (running toward your death can have that effect). I think King does very little which isn't calculated, and if he creates a sense of distance it is because he wants to, not out of laziness. In fact, the excerpted passage could be an outstanding example of how to create distance when it is needed. Not every scene needs to be, or even should be, written from a point of 'deep immersion'.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 24, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Example? I'm not disagreeing with you (I agree with you that this, just like most things in fiction, will inevitably have exceptions), but I think an example would better aide the statement. We could then dissect it and/or discuss it, and hopefully learn from it as well. :encouragement:



Take a battle scene. Sure, one can show the MC's emotions to a certain extent, but there are a lot of other characters involved, and trying to continually show even a handful of the more significant characters can (and in my reading experience typically does) slow the whole thing down way too much. Now, in a scene where the battle is the 'background', showing works very well. But if the battle is the main focus, not so much.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 24, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> They can hint at education, at age, at biases, at insecurities. A character's unique internal exclamations, when handled well, can say a lot about them.



True. And I think it works with children characters far more than it works otherwise. Take a look at 50 Shades of Grey: She says "Jeez!" in her narrative more times than I can count. That and a myriad of other little "!" expressions make her seem very childish (which in turn makes the book far more creepy...). And while it's true that it can convey the childlike nature of the character, I think that can be done through other narrative techniques and (much, much more so) through dialogue.



Terry D said:


> As an illustration the passage you chose works, but in context, I believe King did just exactly what he wanted to. He created a slight dissociation from the POV character just when that character would probably have been feeling disconnected from reality and from his feelings (running toward your death can have that effect). I think King does very little which isn't calculated, and if he creates a sense of distance it is because he wants to, not out of laziness. In fact, the excerpted passage could be an outstanding example of how to create distance when it is needed. Not every scene needs to be, or even should be, written from a point of 'deep immersion'.



Well said, as usual Terry D.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 24, 2014)

Bishop said:


> Agreed, but I honestly also believe the two can be blended nicely as well.
> 
> That being said, it might be my personal preference, but including things like "Gosh!" and "Ah!" into the narrative always bothered me. I, for the life of me, can't remember what writer said it, but using exclamation points outside of dialogue is a no-no in my book. It just makes it seem far more campy than it needs to. I think by removing those little "exclamation" words/expressions, the narrative is improved all over. It might convey that sense of the emotion, but it sounds more like a cartoon in my head.
> 
> Then again, I'm the guy who yesterday wrote about reptilian aliens, soooo...




 I just finished reading one short story where a writer tried using exclamation marks to cap off his many and very monotone puns. It was terrible.


----------



## Sam (Jul 24, 2014)

So basically you took 3,000-odd words to tell us to show and not tell. And I should take your advice because you've written eighty best-selling novels and have a fan-base of millions. 

I don't mind criticising authors when they write rubbish that should never have seen light of day, but to call a writer 'weak' because they tell instead of show is bordering on farcical. Despite what many people on this site would have others believe, readers *do not give a toss about showing or telling. *Never have, never will, unless they're writers. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Go to Amazon and find me a single review that criticises a book because it told too much. 

I'll be waiting by the long stand and the glass hammer.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2014)

Terry D said:


> As an illustration the passage you chose works, but in context, I believe King did just exactly what he wanted to. He created a slight dissociation from the POV character just when that character would probably have been feeling disconnected from reality and from his feelings (running toward your death can have that effect). I think King does very little which isn't calculated, and if he creates a sense of distance it is because he wants to, not out of laziness. In fact, the excerpted passage could be an outstanding example of how to create distance when it is needed. Not every scene needs to be, or even should be, written from a point of 'deep immersion'.



That's a good point, Terry.

It introduces a new angle to the topic: when is narrative distance desirable? When it is effective, and when is narrative immersion better?

By the way, the lazy comment was not meant as an attack on Mr. King, but half benefit of doubt, and half playful nod—as he has openly called himself a "lazy son of a gun." 

Though I really do like your interpretation of narrative distance being used for effect in that passage. It's definitely food for thought. :encouragement:



			
				Bishop said:
			
		

> True. And I think it works with children characters far more than it works otherwise. Take a look at 50 Shades of Grey: She says "Jeez!" in her narrative more times than I can count. That and a myriad of other little "!" expressions make her seem very childish (which in turn makes the book far more creepy...). And while it's true that it can convey the childlike nature of the character, I think that can be done through other narrative techniques and (much, much more so) through dialogue.



I haven't read _Fifty Shades_, but I did hear that about it. I think that's more an example of mishandling the technique, though, and not so much an example of why it's bad, you know?

Also, just to throw a wrench in your gears for fun—what if you're writing a character who's mute? 



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> Take a battle scene. Sure, one can show the MC's emotions to a certain extent, but there are a lot of other characters involved, and trying to continually show even a handful of the more significant characters can (and in my reading experience typically does) slow the whole thing down way too much. Now, in a scene where the battle is the 'background', showing works very well. But if the battle is the main focus, not so much.



Depends on the focus and the intent of the writing, on that we can agree. Though, this is mostly about writing emotions, rather than just calling them by name. Writing, simply, "his heart hammered in his chest," as opposed to "he felt afraid." It doesn't always require, or entail, drawn out prose. :encouragement:



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> So basically you took 3,000-odd words to tell us to show and not tell. And I should take your advice because you've written eighty best-selling novels and have a fan-base of millions.
> 
> I don't mind criticising authors when they write rubbish that should never have seen light of day, but to call a writer 'weak' because they tell instead of show is bordering on farcical. Despite what many people on this site would have others believe, readers *do not give a toss about showing or telling. *Never have, never will, unless they're writers. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Go to Amazon and find me a single review that criticises a book because it told too much.
> 
> I'll be waiting by the long stand and the glass hammer.



It's not my advice, though I do believe in it. It's a technique encouraged by many professional authors and literary agents alike. A quick Google search on "Deep POV" can lead one down all sorts of interesting avenues, for those who wish to explore it more.

Calling Mr. King weak was, intentionally, farcical. A playful form of sensationalizing. As pointed out in the thread, I used him to show us both the "lazy" path to writing emotions, and the stronger path. He acted as both cautionary tale, and as leader by example.

The reader thing is debatable.

When you have readers—those unfamiliar with terminology we writers use—calling a book "hard to get into", "didn't really feel too attached to the characters", "felt more like a summary of things", or other statements along those lines, often the general sentiment (what they're _really_ saying) is "too much telling, not enough showing."

Though, this is more about, specifically, *writing emotions better by removing the crutch of naming them*, rather than _show versus tell_ as a broad, general topic.


----------



## J Anfinson (Jul 24, 2014)

Word count also tends to increase when we show, so it could be he felt like he needed to restrain himself in order to keep an already 1200 pg paperweight from turning into a 2000 pg boat anchor.


----------



## Sam (Jul 24, 2014)

> It's not my advice, though I do believe in it. It's a technique encouraged by many professional authors and literary agents alike.



Don't use adverbs was a technique encouraged by King in _On Writing _and he uses about half a dozen every page.

There is no such thing as 'lazy' writing. That's also rather farcical. All writing is writing.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2014)

Sam said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as 'lazy' writing. That's also rather farcical. All writing is writing.



Oh, I do lazy writing all the time. 

John picked up the hammer. *He felt determined to get Susan's attention*. In one swift downswing, he smashed the hammer against the window pane.

It's what I do when I don't want to think, when I just want to slap up emotional placeholders in lieu of more impactful writing. 

Then I go back in, when I'm not feeling lazy, and expand.

John picked up the hammer, the weight of it tugging against muscles in his arm, as if he were holding Thor's mighty hammer itself. How would Susan react? Would she scream? Go silent? Would she finally, for once in her damn life, pay a-fricking-ttention to him? In one swift downswing, he smashed the hammer against the window pane.

That's what this thread is about. 

I'm not putting the term "lazy" out there as a judgment statement. Think of it, instead, as an indication that, _if one wishes to_, more can be done than simply naming emotions and leaving it at that. :encouragement:


----------



## Bishop (Jul 24, 2014)

Honestly, Kyle, I think the first example is better.

Partly because, like exclamation points, I hate question marks in narratives; why is the narrative asking the question? It's just going to make the reader ask questions too, and then they feel cheated when answers either don't come or are different than they expect. Or, if you're trying to explain a behavior or element, if the question is asked, it can shake a reader's suspension of disbelief.

"Why did he feel the need to kill her?" Why indeed! Suddenly, I think it's not realistic for his character. It doesn't make me feel his emotions, it makes me question them. Still, it would be better just to say, "He picked up the hammer. This time, he would get her attention." Shorter, still fits the voice of the character, still contains the emotion. My way, anyway.


----------



## Sam (Jul 24, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> John picked up the hammer, the weight of it tugging against muscles in his arm, as if he were holding Thor's mighty hammer itself. How would Susan react? Would she scream? Go silent? Would she finally, for once in her damn life, pay a-fricking-ttention to him? In one swift downswing, he smashed the hammer against the window pane.




If I were a teacher reading this, I wouldn't write 'impactful' in the margin beside it. I'd write: "This feels too written. Muscles tugging? Thor? Is it an eighteen-pound sledgehammer he's lifting? Stop trying to sound like a writer and tell me he swung the hammer. I don't need a forensic report." 

I get what you're trying to do here, Kyle, but if I had to read paragraphs like that all the way through a book, I'd throw it out the window.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 24, 2014)

In my opinion this is mostly another dose of screen-writer gobbledygook. Modulation of narrative distance is vital to the broadening of perspective and context which is the factor which has made the novel the premier literary form in modern time. That we are losing this in an era of video immediacy is something to regret, not extol.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2014)

Bishop said:


> Honestly, Kyle, I think the first example is better.
> 
> Partly because, like exclamation points, I hate question marks in narratives; why is the narrative asking the question? It's just going to make the reader ask questions too, and then they feel cheated when answers either don't come or are different than they expect. Or, if you're trying to explain a behavior or element, if the question is asked, it can shake a reader's suspension of disbelief.
> 
> "Why did he feel the need to kill her?" Why indeed! Suddenly, I think it's not realistic for his character. It doesn't make me feel his emotions, it makes me question them. Still, it would be better just to say, "He picked up the hammer. This time, he would get her attention."



Ah!

Yes, the effect is meant to convey that the questions are being asked by John, inside his own head, not by the narrator.

Just like how Stephen King had the narrative say "Jeezly-crow!" It was the thought of young George, merged seamlessly into the narrative.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2014)

Sam said:


> If I were a teacher reading this, I wouldn't write 'impactful' in the margin beside it. I'd write: "This feels too written. Muscles tugging? Thor? Is it an eighteen-pound sledgehammer he's lifting? Stop trying to sound like a writer and tell me he swung the hammer. I don't need a forensic report."
> 
> I get what you're trying to do here, Kyle, but if I had to read paragraphs like that all the way through a book, I'd throw it out the window.



We'll have to chalk it up to personal preference, then.

For those who are against Deep POV, think of this thread as an argument for it, from the perspective of a writer who favors writing with minimal narrative distance. 

I'm not arguing everyone must use it. Like all writing, technique is up to the discretion of the writer.

Mostly, I'm stating my case as to why I believe it's a technique worth learning. It's up to you to decide whether or not you feel the same way. :encouragement:


----------



## J Anfinson (Jul 24, 2014)

I think if you suffer as I do from moving quicker through scenes than you intend to from lack of detail, then learning to show more is a benefit because it fleshes everything out better. If your writing is already bloated, maybe not so much.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 24, 2014)

It's a good topic, Kyle. It never hurts to look at our work and try to understand why we write the way we do. Sure, the words may come instinctively from many years of reading coupled with an innate ability to tell a story, but even if they do, knowing why it works is only an advantage, IMO. Unless we spend too much time analyzing and not enough writing.


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 24, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> As long as we remember this is not an iron-clad rule. Sometimes it really is better to tell, because otherwise the pace, the tension, the whole point of the scene, is diluted by a side-step to "showing".



^--- This.

I'm in agreement with the premise of the thread, at least in the general idea that we should pay attention to the Reader and the consequences of narrative style. But, there are times when certain word choices are "instinctively correct." For instance, if King had chosen different words, different methods to convey internal struggle, would that have worked as well in context? Would the preceding paragraphs and following ones, building upon the pace of the action and the rising tension, have been as effective with a different choice of words? Would King have been writing as King with a different choice of words?

I love King's characters, but am not terribly fond of his novels. (Exception: "The Stand.") But, we can't ignore that, while King may have taken some liberties where some are concerned, he obviously did something right. It's not that he's got a bajillion books published, a stable of movies, has wide acclaim and recognition, and his is a household name, often spoken of fondly. Whether or not, in the minutia, he wavered from academic principles, isn't the most important thing about his writing. Whatever he's doing, it usually works well as a whole and that's a very important thing.

BUT, that isn't to say that we can ignore such things when we're trying to apply successful techniques. We know that King can get away with it. But, it's not likely that a writer with less skill can get away with it as often.


----------



## garza (Jul 24, 2014)

Kyle - I'd write it this way:

John picked up the hammer, determined to get Susan's attention. With one downswing, he smashed the hammer against the window pane. The window burst. John dropped the hammer, grabbed his hand, and began to cry. Susan put her arms around his shoulders.

'What's the matter, baby?'

'A piece of glass cut my pinky,' he sobbed.

'Ah, poor baby.'

All 235 pounds of 'poor baby' sagged into Susan's arms and both collapsed to the floor.

'John, get your fat butt off of me.'

Now, there's how to show real life.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 24, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Ah!
> 
> Yes, the effect is meant to convey that the questions are being asked by John, inside his own head, not by the narrator.
> 
> Just like how Stephen King had the narrative say "Jeezly-crow!" It was the thought of young George, *merged seamlessly* into the narrative.



Those two words are where we disagree. Yes, I understand that it's supposed to be going through his head, but it sticks out. I as a reader understand that uncertainties can plague the stressed mind, but I'd rather not have them listed in the narration. The question mark begs the reader to stop, it calls for an answer. It might be a subconscious thing, hell it might just be me, but it breaks flow.

I just wrote a scene today that could have used them:

"Arik’s eyes darted around the nearby tram cars, desperate for any hint of Jossa-Hana’s location."

I could have said: "Arik's eyes darted around the nearby tram cars. Where was she? How far could they have gotten?" Or something to that effect. Similarly, I'm telling when I say "desperate" instead of illustrating it out more. But if I took more time, it wouldn't flow with the rest of the piece.


----------



## Smith (Jul 24, 2014)

Very rarely is there a right or wrong in writing. It's all so very circumstantial.

In my opinion it is equivalent to some painters yelling "small brushes" and others yelling "large brushes." It's a matter of knowing when or where to put in the fine detail. Sometimes when emotions are more matter-of-factly stated, I put my own imagination into it a little bit and I don't even really notice. The process is just so seamless. There are times when really exploring an emotion or reaction via showing can be important too.

All a matter of moderation, but also finding what fits your personal writing style.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 24, 2014)

I always thought that King was clever with his use of narrative distance, as it meant that the story fluctuated effectively between scenes of intense immersion and scenes of, well, less intense immersion. He gives the reader what I call 'breathing room'; while it may make his stories less intense overall, it makes them a more easy reading experience.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 24, 2014)

Bishop said:


> I just wrote a scene today that could have used them:
> 
> "Arik’s eyes darted around the nearby tram cars, desperate for any hint of Jossa-Hana’s location."
> 
> I could have said: "Arik's eyes darted around the nearby tram cars. Where was she? How far could they have gotten?" Or something to that effect. Similarly, I'm telling when I say "desperate" instead of illustrating it out more. But if I took more time, it wouldn't flow with the rest of the piece.



I really liked the second example more!  

I "felt" more with your second example. I started to think, "yeah? Where is she? Is she close? How much time do I have?" I could feel the desperation, instead of just being told there was desperation. It got my pulse up a little more, I guess. I like that when I'm reading.


----------



## Ixarku (Jul 24, 2014)

Terry D said:


> As an illustration the passage you chose works, but in context, I believe King did just exactly what he wanted to. He created a slight dissociation from the POV character just when that character would probably have been feeling disconnected from reality and from his feelings (running toward your death can have that effect). I think King does very little which isn't calculated, and if he creates a sense of distance it is because he wants to, not out of laziness. In fact, the excerpted passage could be an outstanding example of how to create distance when it is needed. Not every scene needs to be, or even should be, written from a point of 'deep immersion'.




I think this is an excellent point.  Now, I don't have anywhere near the amount of experience in writing fiction that many folks here have, but I've been experimenting lately with "telling" and "showing".  Last night I finished the first draft of the first short story I've ever written, and in a number of places, I deliberately tried to create a sense of detachment, or "narrative distance" as Kyle describes it, by telling instead of showing in places where another writer might have decided differently.  It wasn't the mark of ignorance or laziness, or even a recognition that the parts I was telling were somehow less important than the parts I was showing.  Rather, I made a specific choice to achieve a certain effect.




I think "telling" and "showing" are, like anything else, just more tools in the writer's toolbox.  A reader is always going to feel if a story rings true or not, but how does the reader know if the writer is deliberately employing a technique to achieve a desired effect, or is an amateur making a mistake out of ignorance, or is an experienced author being deliberately lazy?  It's not so clear-cut.  "Good" and "bad" writing is highly subjective, and a lot of a reader's judgment is done on instinct and based on past experience.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I think at best we can say that there are certain grammatical and technical standards that are _generally_ accepted (with all of the usual caveats and hullabaloo about there being exceptions to every rule), and that there are certain writing techniques that are broadly recognized as such.  Knowledge is power, and I see a lot of value in a writer deepening his or her understanding of such techniques, of understanding when and how they are commonly applied.  Such knowledge puts the writer in a better position to make informed decisions about breaking the rules or not.  If writing is both a craft and an art, then I think that learning the techniques and how to apply them is the "craft" half of the equation.  The "art" half is knowing when and how to make deliberate choices to achieve certain aesthetic effects.

A hundred monkeys pounding on a hundred typewriters might eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare, but I'd hesitate to call the results of such work either art or craft.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 24, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Oh, I do lazy writing all the time.
> 
> John picked up the hammer. *He felt determined to get Susan's attention*. In one swift downswing, he smashed the hammer against the window pane.
> 
> ...



But that second example, is it really showing more than the first one? "He felt determined to get Susan's attention" is what you wanted to change, to show and not tell, but does typing a character's thoughts count as showing? I thought showing was all about actions and sensations. 

Sometimes less is more. I think it's cool to expand paragraphs beyond what's necessary when I want to create a kind of slow motion effect. Like right before someone pulls the trigger, before the explosion, when one characters walks in and catches whoever doing whatever. If smashing that window means the end of the world, then I'd probably prefer a longer version than the first one. Although... sometimes going with the brutally short option can be more dramatic.

This can be discussed endlessly. I sometimes catch myself having discussions like this with _myself_.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 24, 2014)

Man I disagree so hard with the OP. The first quoted except of King's work isn't bad at all, really. To unpack those abstract nouns in the interest of showing, and not telling, shifts the focus, changes the narrative style. Currently it's a very graceful telling of events and feelings from an omniscient point of view, and all the rewritten version seeks to do is limit this omniscience for some reason which is unclear--closing in so far that the narrative reads like third person limited. 

In general I think the earlier writers abandon the notion of showing and not telling, the better off their stories will be.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 24, 2014)

Sam said:


> And I should take your advice because you've written eighty best-selling novels and have a fan-base of millions.



I have a slight suspicion you wouldn't take the advice from anyone Sam, seller of millions of books, or none.

I'm not sure if your beginning statement is really relevant to your argument. I have some doubts (could be wrong of course--I often am!) if Stephanie Meyer were a member on this thread, that you would take advice from her. (seller of millions!) Unless of course, you've changed your mind about her writing. 

I'm just saying that I may like your advice whether you've sold one book, or a million. Information is information and it's always nice to learn new things. You either like it or not, but it doesn't mean the person giving it should have to be an expert in the area. Heck I don't think anyone on this forum is an expert (perfect) writer --if they even exist, yet everyone _loves _to hear themselves talk.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Jul 24, 2014)

I'll be honest.  I didn't read much further than the title of this thread before posting.  I'm sure there must have been a good point in the huge introductory post to this thread but life is short...and a long discussion on WHY Stephen King is a weak writer (I would have used some other term like average writer but...) seems overdone.

Of course he is.  He is number ONE.  When was number ONE ever the best in anything?  

That said, I have read tons of King's work.  There hasn't been a single book that didn't have some cringeworthy word choice.  I just thought everyone was aware that he's an extremely prolific writer of just slightly above average abilities (as far as writing compelling prose) who plots facinating stories.  

Anything else is either hype or jealousy for his huge paychecks.  
He's over rated.  But then again, so are Led Zeppelin but they're still an awesome band.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 24, 2014)

TheYellowMustang said:


> But that second example, is it really showing more than the first one? "He felt determined to get Susan's attention" is what you wanted to change, to show and not tell, but does typing a character's thoughts count as showing? I thought showing was all about actions and sensations.



Yes, in my book, typing a character's thoughts out, verbatim, counts as showing. You are, essentially, _showing_ the character's thoughts.

Telling would be more like, 

He thought about how Susan would react, pondering the various possibilities.

It's possible, also, to mix both telling and showing, and say:

He thought about how Susan would react, pondering the various possibilities. Would she scream? Go silent? ...

Again, though, the telling part is inserting narrative distance, reminding the reader that there's a writer working between the reader and the character. (Not that this is automatically a _bad_ thing. But it _is_ something one might want to consider.)

Going deep strives to eliminate the writer (or, at the very least, make the writer as invisible and non-existent as possible). 

:encouragement:



			
				Jon M said:
			
		

> Man I disagree so hard with the OP. The first quoted except of King's work isn't bad at all, really. To unpack those abstract nouns in the interest of showing, and not telling, shifts the focus, changes the narrative style. Currently it's a very graceful telling of events and feelings from an omniscient point of view, and all the rewritten version seeks to do is limit this omniscience for some reason which is unclear--closing in so far that the narrative reads like third person limited.



Hey Jon. It's all good. We're all free to disagree with each other. I found this commentary interesting, where someone with experience working alongside industry professionals recommends that, if a genre writer wants a better chance at getting published these days, he/she should probably move away from Omniscient and toward Deep POV (limited third): http://storysensei.blogspot.ca/2009/07/q-deep-point-of-view-versus-omniscient.html


----------



## Bishop (Jul 25, 2014)

David Gordon Burke said:


> I'll be honest.  I didn't read much further than the title of this thread before posting.  I'm sure there must have been a good point in the huge introductory post to this thread but life is short...and a long discussion on WHY Stephen King is a weak writer (I would have used some other term like average writer but...) seems overdone.
> 
> Of course he is.  He is number ONE.  When was number ONE ever the best in anything?
> 
> ...



Strangely, by reading only the title of this post, I feel like you missed its essence. It really didn't have anything to do with Stephen King's skills as a writer, that was just an effect hook and example...


----------



## Sam (Jul 25, 2014)

Sunny said:


> I have a slight suspicion you wouldn't take the advice from anyone Sam, seller of millions of books, or none.
> 
> I'm not sure if your beginning statement is really relevant to your argument. I have some doubts (could be wrong of course--I often am!) if Stephanie Meyer were a member on this thread, that you would take advice from her. (seller of millions!) Unless of course, you've changed your mind about her writing.
> 
> I'm just saying that I may like your advice whether you've sold one book, or a million. Information is information and it's always nice to learn new things. You either like it or not, but it doesn't mean the person giving it should have to be an expert in the area. Heck I don't think anyone on this forum is an expert (perfect) writer --if they even exist, yet everyone _loves _to hear themselves talk.



I'm not saying Kyle doesn't know what he is talking about, Michelle, or doesn't have the credentials to back it up, but I do take umbrage with the notion that telling equals weak and lazy writing. It's a destructive way of looking a form of writing that has been used for aeons. Showing has only existed at best for half a century. Telling has been done since Homer's _The Iliad _and _The Odyssey. _It's ground in the art of story*telling. *

So I agree wholeheartedly with what Jon is saying above: the sooner first-time (beginner, if you must) writers come away from the clamour of show and tell, the better they will be as a writer. Use both, as all writers do, but stop believing the notion that one is more superior to the other. If that were true, writers would be extolling telling by virtue of the fact that it's been around for far longer.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 25, 2014)

Bishop said:


> Strangely, by reading only the title of this post, I feel like you missed its essence. It really didn't have anything to do with Stephen King's skills as a writer, that was just an effect hook and example...



I'm thinking of titling my next thread something like, "Breathing Oxygen is for Losers." And then talking about plotting. *ponders the possibilities*


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 25, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> I'm thinking of titling my next thread something like, "Breathing Oxygen is for Losers." And then talking about plotting. *ponders the possibilities*



Should we hold our breath? 



Everyone has opinions concerning King's writing. There's a reason for that. Nikos Kazantzakis, on the other hand, likely has a smaller opinionated audience.

(Disclaimer: I own two or three King books, two of which I read completely. The rest that I have read, I no longer own. There's a reason for that, too.  I lost my copy of Greco and haven't missed it.)


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 25, 2014)

Sam said:


> ... I do take umbrage with the notion that telling equals weak and lazy writing. It's a destructive way of looking a form of writing that has been used for aeons. Showing has only existed at best for half a century. Telling has been done since Homer's _The Iliad _and _The Odyssey. _It's ground in the art of story*telling. *
> 
> So I agree wholeheartedly with what Jon is saying above: the sooner first-time (beginner, if you must) writers come away from the clamour of show and tell, the better they will be as a writer. Use both, as all writers do, but stop believing the notion that one is more superior to the other. If that were true, writers would be extolling telling by virtue of the fact that it's been around for far longer.



Pointing out the historic use of something really doesn't do much other than emphasize that it's been done in the past. We can acknowledge that it's been around and that it's been the source of great works, but we shouldn't use that as an argument against seeking improvements.

In my opinion, if we're going to talk about the technique of deep pov/limited third (or, more specifically, _ways to convey character emotions without describing the emotions by name_), we should discuss the technique, as well as the pros and cons of it, and not fall back on pointing fingers at what's been done centuries ago—because when we do that, we run the risk of defending antiquity and resisting modern change.

That said, I'm perfectly okay with anyone disagreeing with my advice in the OP. We all have our own perspectives.

I feel I've stated my case clearly enough. I didn't go about declaring anything without offering examples to support my argument, as well as examples on how to utilize the methods I'm advocating. One can say they disagree, or that my examples fall flat, and that's perfectly okay. Some members have found the OP helpful. Some haven't.

Like any advice in writing, it's up to the individual to use their own discretion. For anyone who wants to learn more about the approach described in the OP, a simple google search on "Deep POV" can open up a whole realm of learning. 

If you don't want to take the advice from me, maybe seeing it discussed by industry professionals might sway you more. Many of them discuss the benefits of it, as well as the current preference for it in today's publishing world. 

There's a lot to learn about this topic that extends beyond the boundaries of this thread, if one wishes.  :encouragement:


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 25, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> Should we hold our breath?



Just for that, I'll title another thread, "Morkonan Loves Present Tense."


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 25, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Just for that, I'll title another thread, "Morkonan Loves Present Tense."



I'm reaching for my heart medication...

Wait a sec, I don't have any heart medication!

Uh, and I don't have any problems with my heart, either.

OK, I'm going to the doctor to get a prescription for heart medication, just in case you make good on that threat! 

(And, I'm sharpening up my keyboard in preparation for posting in just such a thread!)


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 25, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> If you don't want to take the advice from me, maybe seeing it discussed by industry professionals might sway you more. Many of them discuss the benefits of it, as well as the current preference for it in today's publishing world.


I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you in that a book filled with "he felt" and "she was jealous" can distance you from the characters, and every person interested in writing has googled and researched all of these things countless of times. For me, it's more about looking at each scene individually and deciding what fits best for that moment specifically. I don't think you should ever limit yourself to only showing, or only telling.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 25, 2014)

Personally, I get tired of all the "better than" discussions in general. Show versus tell, plan versus pants, trade versus self-pub - it's an instant turn-off when one cannot discuss one without dissing the other. Vote for candidate Jones only because Smith is worse? 

So yeah, instead of "you should do A instead of B, because I don't think B is very good", why not simply "You should try A to see _*if *_it works"?


----------



## Sunny (Jul 25, 2014)

Should all writing be treated equal? Does that mean there are no improvements to make upon one's craft? I personally think knowledge is only going to strengthen whatever talent we already possess as writers. Discussion and learning is what makes us better writers. Opinions help to mould other opinions. It's good to hear someone else's point of view. I always learn something; even if I learn to be a little more open minded to the fact that everyone is an individual and their dislikes or likes are perfectly okay to be different from mine. 

I like discussing with someone who thinks differently than me. I bet I don't adopt what they say word for word, but I will likely take something away from that conversation to build my own strengths. The best outcomes of these conversations are broadening our horizons and growing. 

It starts out simple in grade school. Learning punctuation, grammar, the proper use of CAPS, spelling; the simplicities of our written language most of us would acknowledge make for good writing. We all had to learn it at some point. We're better writers from when we started out to now, so why can't we keep learning new techniques and apply what we believe is better for us? 

I want to learn everything I can about writing. I'll decide what makes me as strong as I can be. Then, just keep on learning. Discard some and apply others.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 25, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Personally, I get tired of all the "better than" discussions in general. Show versus tell, plan versus pants, trade versus self-pub - it's an instant turn-off when one cannot discuss one without dissing the other. Vote for candidate Jones only because Smith is worse?
> 
> So yeah, instead of "you should do A instead of B, because I don't think B is very good", why not simply "You should try A to see _*if *_it works"?



I get what you're saying, Shadow, but if we're striving to be _better writers_, at some point the discussion will have to address the topic of what it is that entails _better writing_.

Logically speaking, if some writing is better than other writing, there has to be a reason for it.

Take, for example, the acceptance and rejection process. If all writing were equal (none better nor worse), editors could simply accept and reject submissions at random, secure in the knowledge that all submissions will be of equal quality.

Unfortunately (as anyone who's collected enough rejections knows), sometimes our writing simply isn't good enough to make it past the slush pile.

We could shrug it off and chalk it up to reader preference, which some writers do, and continue writing as we normally do. Or, we could look at the mechanics of our writing to see if there are improvements that could be made.

Consider the OP of this thread as a suggestion (if that makes you feel better about it) on how one could improve a specific aspect of their writing. Yes, it's an argument about "better or worse," because that's, essentially, how we evaluate our writing when we're trying to improve it. 

And yes, opinions are bound to differ. That's okay, too. It's part of the discussion.

And fear not! I'll be sure to keep your comment in mind for all my future suggestions on the craft. :encouragement:


----------



## Sam (Jul 25, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Logically speaking, if some writing is better than other writing, there has to be a reason for it.



Yes. It's called experience, ability, and talent. 

Showing done by a crap writer won't make the work any less crap. Deep POV done by a crap writer equally won't make the work any less crap. 

The techniques don't make the writer great; the writer makes the techniques great.


----------



## garza (Jul 25, 2014)

Kyle, _et al_ - Read a Faulkner story. Read a Hemingway story. Their styles are the same - they both wrote in English and spelled correctly.

Beyond that similarity, what techniques in storytelling are shared by both? Can a set of rules for good writing be devised that can be seen to have been followed by both writers? Add London, Joyce, Kerouac, Camus. Can a set of rules or a set of techniques, be found that would embrace the work of all these writers?

Sam said it: _The techniques don't make the writer great; the writer makes the techniques great. 						_


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 25, 2014)

Sam said:


> Yes. It's called experience, ability, and talent.



Three things we can all benefit from having more of.



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> Showing done by a crap writer won't make the work any less crap. Deep POV done by a crap writer equally won't make the work any less crap.



That's debatable, depending on the discretion of the reader. For me, and other writers/authors/agents who recommend deep POV as I do (contrary to what some here may think, I'm not the only person in the world who promotes this stuff), we (or at least _I_) would consider it an improvement of the work. 

And yes, that's my personal opinion, which I'm entirely entitled to, just as you are entitled to your own opinion.



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> The techniques don't make the writer great; the writer makes the techniques great.



And here (the subject of this thread) is yet another technique for a writer to make great, if one chooses to.

For those interested in discussing how to make this technique great, we can discuss it.



			
				garza said:
			
		

> Kyle, _et al - Read a Faulkner story. Read a Hemingway story. Their styles are the same - they both wrote in English and spelled correctly.
> 
> Beyond that similarity, what techniques in storytelling are shared by both? Can a set of rules for good writing be devised that can be seen to have been followed by both writers? Add London, Joyce, Kerouac, Camus. Can a set of rules or a set of techniques, be found that would embrace the work of all these writers?_



Yes, there are techniques that can be distilled from each of those writers. Some literature classes have been devoted to accomplishing just that.

This thread isn't about that, though. It's about a specific technique one can use, if one wishes, to convey character emotions.

---

Look, you guys aren't going to change my mind about this by throwing platitudes or hypotheticals at me in a condescending manner. That'll just put my guard up.

If you want to discuss the cons of the technique, writer to writer, I'm willing to soften my stance to see if we can reach a middle ground of agreement (or at least, an "agree to disagree" truce).

As it stands, I feel as if I've been attacked for making a case for a specific technique. Which is fine. I'm a big boy. I can take it.  Though, the interesting thing is how this has played out as if I've violated some unspoken writing discussion commandment. "Thou shalt not advocate Deep POV!"

Again, this isn't just me promoting this. Pop onto some literary agent blogs. Find the ones talking about deep POV. See what they have to say about it. Better yet, drop them a line and ask them whether or not a writer should care about it. 

They can, no doubt, likely produce a more convincing argument than I can.

Yes, I believe it's a useful technique. Yes, I'm willing to soften my stance (or possibly even change it) as a result of convincing writerly discussion. No, belittling me won't do it.


----------



## MJ Preston (Jul 25, 2014)

Oh how I wish I had Mr. King's weakness and money.


----------



## garza (Jul 25, 2014)

Okay, Kyle, I went back and read your original post again, all the way through. 

Those narrative shortcuts you describe fall flat when taken out of the context of the story. In context they work. King balances the 'showing' and 'telling' in an effective way in the few stories of his that I've read. King is a master craftsman and a good teller of stories. His _experience, ability, and talent_ (Sam's words)guide his writing and his writing attracts millions of readers and top dollar contracts. I find it very difficult to find fault with that, or to decide that maybe I know better than Stephen King how a Steven King book ought to be written.

I don't care for the genre and for that reason I'm not likely to study his written rules for writing, but I can respect what the man has accomplished and accept that he knows best how to tell the story he wants to tell...


----------



## Sunny (Jul 25, 2014)

garza said:


> King is a master craftsman and a good teller of stories. His _experience, ability, and talent_ (Sam's words)guide his writing and his writing attracts millions of readers and top dollar contracts. I find it very difficult to find fault with that, or to decide that maybe I know better than Stephen King how a Steven King book ought to be written.
> 
> I don't care for the genre and for that reason I'm not likely to study his written rules for writing, but I can respect what the man has accomplished and accept that he knows best how to tell the story he wants to tell...



Too bad when I say the same thing about Stephanie Meyer people jump down my throat and tell me how wrong I am. 

*If your writing attracts millions and you get top dollar contracts you find it difficult to find fault.* Hey, I agree! 

I just wonder why when it comes to Stephen King or some of the other big writers this is what constitutes them as being good, but for Stephanie Meyer it doesn't apply. Her first book's sales blew Stephen King's first book's sales to smithereens! 

Yet, it seems book sales don't matter when it comes to her, because apparently she only has young teens as fans (as if they don't count as readers!). The top dollar contracts don't seem to matter because she doesn't get credit for the sales in the first place, because she "only got lucky!" 

I find it interesting that those few statements you said (and I bet many others agree with you, as I do) get denied whole-heartedly when it comes to other authors' successes.

Anywho, just me thinking out loud. Ignore me. It's totally off topic, but just something I found interesting!


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 25, 2014)

Kyle, I have no problem with someone promoting one technique, one method, one format - until they have to tear down another in order to make "theirs" look good. Why not just explain or give examples of how show works really well in a given situation - without pointing out how (in your opinion) telling sucks. If it works, it works. And it would also be nice if people in general would accept and embrace the fact that different techniques work in different circumstances and we should, in order to make our writing the best we can, try those different techniques instead of automatically tossing one or the other in the trash.


----------



## Folcro (Jul 25, 2014)

Sunny said:


> Her first book's sales blew Stephen King's first book's sales to smithereens!



I'm not sure how fair that comparison is. Pop culture, let alone advertising and marketing, has changed so much since Stephen King finally got his first acceptance letter.



garza said:


> King balances the 'showing' and 'telling' in an  effective way in the few stories of his that I've read.



While  I don't much care for King in general, I do tend to agree with this,  particularly in _The Eyes of the Dragon_, a work of fantasy where the  exposition is often rather interesting; in fact, much more so than what I  see of most writers who try to give a back story to their settings.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 25, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Kyle, I have no problem with someone promoting one technique, one method, one format - until they have to tear down another in order to make "theirs" look good. Why not just explain or give examples of how show works really well in a given situation - without pointing out how (in your opinion) telling sucks. If it works, it works. And it would also be nice if people in general would accept and embrace the fact that different techniques work in different circumstances and we should, in order to make our writing the best we can, try those different techniques instead of automatically tossing one or the other in the trash.



That's a fair statement, Shadow, and you'll receive no argument from me about it. 

Part of this comes from the authors I've read who have, in fact, used this same method to demonstrate why certain deep POV techniques are preferable. One author even went as far as calling narration that _doesn't_ use deep POV as "annoying." So, consider my OP as a combination of enthusiasm and, perhaps, poor influences. In many books on the craft of writing, it's common for the authors to point out flaws in sample prose in order to promote alternate methods.

I'll do my best to avoid this practice in the future to avoid ostracizing or offending writers who believe in the contrary view.

Though, I'm still on the "deep POV is a useful technique" side of the fence. :encouragement:


----------



## Sunny (Jul 25, 2014)

Folcro said:


> I'm not sure how fair that comparison is. Pop culture, let alone advertising and marketing, has changed so much since Stephen King finally got his first acceptance letter.


This is true. But what I was trying to say is, if we're judging an author for success by top dollar contracts and millions of sales, then she is undeniably one of the top successful authors. For some reason, she does not get the credit for this. 

People will argue Stephen King is _proven _to be a great writer because of dot dot dot, but those same people will not allow those same rules apply to Meyer. She is the exception at being tremendously successful for many reasons, yet a million excuses are made to why she doesn't deserve to have the same credits and applause.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 25, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Though, I'm still on the "deep POV is a useful technique" side of the fence. :encouragement:



Hey, I agree with that completely.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 25, 2014)

It helps my writing to understand what I am doing and what I should do. Here, I am wondering about ".... love and a touch of regret that Bill couldn't be here to see this and be a part of it." Does anyone every feel like they are feeling a _touch _of regret? He's running to his death and feeling his love for his brother and he stops to recognize a small emotion and quantify it? Alsp, regret is more complicated than just sorrow.

Better? "He wished his brother could be here to see this and be a part of it." Does that count as showing rather than telling? To me, it's just writing what he is more likely to be thinking.

But in my minuscule experience with King, he is more interested in creating interesting characters. For that "a small touch of regret" might be working well.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 26, 2014)

Sam said:


> So basically you took 3,000-odd words to tell us to show and not tell. And I should take your advice because you've written eighty best-selling novels and have a fan-base of millions.
> 
> I don't mind criticising authors when they write rubbish that should never have seen light of day, but to call a writer 'weak' because they tell instead of show is bordering on farcical. Despite what many people on this site would have others believe, readers *do not give a toss about showing or telling. *Never have, never will, unless they're writers. Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Go to Amazon and find me a single review that criticises a book because it told too much.
> 
> I'll be waiting by the long stand and the glass hammer.



There are times, Sam when seeing a post from you is exactly what I need. This would be one of those times because I AM that reader who simply doesn't give a crap about "showing vs telling" as long as I am entertained by the story. 

It was a great novel. I didn't find anything "weak" about it. A little wordy, yep. But that's King.


----------



## PiP (Jul 26, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I AM that reader who simply doesn't give a crap about "showing vs telling" as long as I am entertained by the story.
> .



Me too, Bowie


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 26, 2014)

Kyle, what you are basically saying to me is...because I wrote this




> Making a few small gestures with her other hand and saying a few words under her breath, she slowly raised her hand. As she did, he rose as well. At first, just enough to be standing. Arms stiff at his sides as if tied in place, further up he rose. Now clearing the table with his feet, Callie floated him over the table, into the area where she and the two wizards stood. There was not a single sound from the rest of the Council as she held Sythren in place a few feet above the floor.



instead of something like this




Kyle R said:


> John  picked up the hammer, the weight of it tugging against muscles in his  arm, as if he were holding Thor's mighty hammer itself. How would Susan  react? Would she scream? Go silent? Would she finally, for once in her  damn life, pay a-fricking-ttention to him? In one swift downswing, he  smashed the hammer against the window pane.



that I am just being lazy because I didn't go all "Deep POV" and tell the reader any of the questions that may have been running through Sythren's head.

That would lead to the implication that your writing is superior to mine because I failed to use a "Deep POV" technique. I find that kind of insulting.

_____________________________________

Not really. But I think you may want to consider that someone else might be insulted by that kind of implication. That could be why some people get pretty irritated by your word choices at times. 

"Lazy", even used in jest or as an example used by King himself, can be taken WAY out of context in a medium such as this. So, even though you may only be extolling the virtues of a technique you find worthwhile, some may not read it that way and take your words as an affront to their abilities.

_________________________________________

Personally, I do get a little miffed at times. Especially when seeing posts implying that my writing is inferior because I don't do this, or follow that rule, or have extensive knowledge of that technique. I have grown a pretty thick skin over the years, so it doesn't bug me as much as it could.


But there are some who haven't had time to grow that shell yet. I believe that the last thing you would want to do would be to discourage a new or aspiring writer. But there are times that your implications (even imaginary ones) could make a newbie feel inferior before they even get a chance to start developing their own style.


----------



## Smith (Jul 26, 2014)

Nonetheless, it is good we have people on both sides of the fence. I'll have people to talk to when I cross back and forth.

Really, though, it truly is what allows me to make a compromise, and learn what both show _and _tell have to offer. I think that is what improves writing. An understanding of all the techniques, as somebody else mentioned. So thank you Kyle for your advice. ^_^


----------



## Sam (Jul 26, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> And here (the subject of this thread) is yet another technique for a writer to make great, if one chooses to.



That's not what you said in this thread, Kyle. Far be it from me to argue for the sake of arguing, but what you said in the first post of this thread was that a passage from one of Stephen King's novels would be better if he had shown it from a deep POV. You never said: "here's a technique to use that might help". You came in and blustered about King's writing being weak because he _hadn't _used the technique you were espousing. You were being intentionally farcical about the weak comment, but you were dead serious that the way he wrote it originally was inferior to the way you would have written it. 

_That's _the problem. One is not superior to the other. You're advocating otherwise.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 26, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Kyle, what you are basically saying to me is...because I wrote this:
> 
> _Making a few small gestures with her other hand and saying a few words under her breath, she slowly raised her hand. As she did, he rose as well. At first, just enough to be standing. Arms stiff at his sides as if tied in place, further up he rose. Now clearing the table with his feet, Callie floated him over the table, into the area where she and the two wizards stood. There was not a single sound from the rest of the Council as she held Sythren in place a few feet above the floor.
> _
> ...



That's not what the thread is about, Bow. My apologies if I didn't make that clear. 

The thread is about conveying emotions without the crutch of naming them.

Had you said something like,

Sythren was angry about being lifted off the floor.

or

Suspended in air, Sythren felt fear.

Then I would say that the emotions (anger, or fear) could be better shown through Sythren's bodily sensations, internal thoughts, and external actions, rather than simply saying the character "was angry," or "felt fear." 

Unpack the emotions. Eliminate the need to name them. That's the advice (debatable as it appears to be) that I'm suggesting. :encouragement:


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 26, 2014)

Sam said:
			
		

> One is not superior to the other *(in my opinion)*. You're advocating otherwise.



The bolded parenthetical is my amendment to your statement, and it also highlights why we seem to be disagreeing so much.

Which is fine, we all have different opinions. That's what discussion is for. Again, as I said before, I'm willing to soften or possibly even change my stance—if the evidence is compelling enough. Hopefully, those who disagree with my position are open-minded enough to be willing to make the same concession.

Maybe you're right. Maybe one is _not s_uperior to the other. But the only way I see such a conclusion coming about is through hammering the technique itself from a technical perspective. Kicking the tires, so to speak. Looking under the hood. 

Discussing it as writers do.:encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 26, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Maybe you're right. Maybe one is _not s_uperior to the other. But the only way I see such a conclusion coming about is through hammering the technique itself from a technical perspective. Kicking the tires, so to speak. Looking under the hood.



See, saying it is superior is not the same as '_Though, I'm still on the "deep POV is a *useful *technique_" side of the fence.'. (emphasis mine) Yes, it's _useful_. Sometimes it works best, but sometimes it does not, therefore it cannot be "superior" except in limited circumstances. Just as in limited circumstances, distancing is "superior". But absolutes just don't work in _any _creative arena. They don't really work, period.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 26, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> That's not what the thread is about, Bow. My apologies if I didn't make that clear.
> 
> The thread is about conveying emotions without the crutch of naming them.
> 
> ...



Like I said, I'm not offended or anything. No worries.

But, I would ask another question.

I definitely understand why you would feel Deep POV to be a great technique. But in some ways, doesn't it seem like writing that way isn't giving the reader enough credit for their ability to read emotions into the story?

Most avid readers have a pretty vivid imagination and are able to immerse themselves into a decently written story pretty easily. Could any average reader not recognize the fear Sythren would be feeling without me telling them about it? 

Maybe I am way off target in my writing,but I like to give the readers (provided I wind up getting any) plenty of room for their imagination to work its magic.


----------



## J Anfinson (Jul 26, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I definitely understand why you would feel Deep POV to be a great technique. But in some ways, doesn't it seem like writing that way isn't giving the reader enough credit for their ability to read emotions into the story?



I think it depends on what you're trying to accomplish more than distrusting the reader. For instance, a lot of what I write is horror and one of the keys to horror (IMO) is in tension. Moving the story too quickly by telling can destroy the tension you're trying to build and diminish the fear you're trying to get the reader to feel. I think going deep as soon as you want to start building that tension enhances the experience. Could you get the same effect by telling if you're a good enough writer? I don't know. I can't think of any examples by the masters of the genre that _were_ telling (when they were trying to build tension), but that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. However, it also diminishes the effect if you keep the reader in that deep pov too long. It's knowing when to use it, and when to give the reader time to relax.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 26, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Like I said, I'm not offended or anything. No worries.
> 
> But, I would ask another question.
> 
> ...



I understand what you're saying, Bow. We definitely don't want to beat the reader over the head with the obvious.

I'm not saying one must "go deep" all the time (as Jake and Shadow wisely pointed out, sometimes it works well, other times being distant may work better). It's a great point that they both (and others) have declared.

Though, if a writer (again, in my opinion) is going to take the time to name an emotion, it's generally assumed that the writer wants the reader to know how the character is feeling.

In those cases, I, personally, like to unpack the emotion. I feel it brings the reader closer to the character. It also can eliminate possible misinterpretation.

Who knows? Maybe Slythren isn't feeling fear. Maybe he's wondering why sorcerers always seem to pick on him on Mondays. Maybe he's feeling relieved that, finally, the crick in his back is gone! Maybe he's suddenly remembered that he left the keys in his car.

Going deep can clarify exactly what's going on in Slythren's mind and body. It puts the reader _into_ the character. And, by eliminating the reliance on naming the emotions, we can attempt to bypass the effect of "reading a writer's description" as much as writerly possible, striving for "being in the character" instead.

Tom felt a rush of lust at seeing Clarice.

versus

Tom's breath puffed from his lips in miniature staccato bursts. God, was she amazing. That auburn hair. The way her hips swayed when she walked. That teasing, _I-know-you-want-me_ smirk. Did she even have any idea what she was doing to him? He pulled his ball cap lower on his head and shrank back further into his chair.

No, you don't have to use it all the time (or even at all, if you want). But, hopefully I've done a better job this time of explaining one of the reasons why I like to promote it. :encouragement:


----------



## Sunny (Jul 26, 2014)

Kyle, I know where you're coming from. I have many conversations everyday with you about this, and I know where your intentions lie. I know first hand how you do not want to persuade other writers to do it how you do it. I know that you are only trying to give information to others that want to learn some new techniques. If it's come across differently to some users on this site, well... I guess you can't really change that. _We_ know more than most people how words on a screen can come across differently than we intend to (remember the beginning of our relationship? Words on screen are not the same as a voice in person). What people take away from your advice will vary. 

You are a wonderful writer and you do so much research for your _own_ growth and only want to share with others the knowledge that you have gained. 

I think, and not just because I'm married to you and have learned so much from you, that this forum is wonderfully blessed to have you be a part of it. You have taught me and many other people so much about writing that I can't even add up to give you a list. 

If someone takes your intentions of this thread, or any other thread, differently than you wanted them to, so be it. You know that you were only trying to help. There is not a mean bone in your body. There is not a fleck of superiority inside of you. 

I don't aways agree with your ways. I am more of a fly by the seat of my pants writer, and as much as you try to teach me to plot it out... I don't always "get it", but I am always grateful for the continued education.  I take some of what you say and I can really see how it will improve me as a writer, and I take some of your other suggestions and know they don't/won't work for me. I don't _think_ like you all of the time, and I see writing differently sometimes. But I would never assume you think you're better than me, or anyone else (unpublished and just beginning, or a writer that is published with millions of fans). I know that you are only sharing what you know. 

So from me, and on behalf of the others on this forum that find your knowledge helpful, Thank you! For years you have helped many people through your insight, your knowledge and your constant encouragement. Don't ever change that. There are many people that love these threads. This is why I joined a writing forum.

*Mmmmmuuuah!*


----------



## Ibb (Jul 26, 2014)

Sunny said:


> Kyle, I know where you're coming from. I have many conversations everyday with you about this, and I know where your intentions lie. I know first hand how you do not want to persuade other writers to do it how you do it. I know that you are only trying to give information to others that want to learn some new techniques. If it's come across differently to some users on this site, well... I guess you can't really change that. _We_ know more than most people how words on a screen can come across differently than we intend to (remember the beginning of our relationship? Words on screen are not the same as a voice in person). What people take away from your advice will vary.
> 
> You are a wonderful writer and you do so much research for your _own_ growth and only want to share with others the knowledge that you have gained.
> 
> ...



Too much telling, here, me thinks.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 26, 2014)

Ibb said:


> Too much telling, here, me thinks.



Well, I assumed _showing _may be a little too much. You know? I don't think some things are allowed on these kinds of forums.


----------



## Ibb (Jul 26, 2014)

Sunny said:


> Well, I assumed _showing _may be a little too much. You know? I don't think some things are allowed on these kinds of forums.



Indeed. I have no conviction regarding either side, but your post in the wake of your husband's argument struck me as funny, thus my response. I mean no harm by it; you both seem very nice.


----------



## Smith (Jul 26, 2014)

Let's say in my story I said, "Harold's cheeks were hot to the touch." vs. "Harold felt embarrassed."

Wouldn't the former still be showing, without having to go into Deep POV and turning one emotion into an entire paragraph? The thing is, sometimes I feel (uh-oh, telling xD ) at that point I might as well just leave it in the latter state, "Harold felt embarrassed."

The reason being, I usually - not always, but usually - prefer a little more telling and less showing if the context of the text gets the point across fine anyway. Whether it is the actions of the characters from beforehand, or the description of the setting, or the previous dialogue, I often am comfortable being straightforward, and just saying, "he felt this". However, if I feel the context isn't strong enough, or for some reason that this emotion is important, I go in depth and use showing.

And that's when this whole argument for me comes full-circle. There is no absolute when it comes to showing vs. telling *if* you know how to use both properly. Because then it is just a matter of opinion, as writing is an art. I don't think Kyle was trying to say, "Telling never works and showing is always better." Correct me if I'm wrong of course. I think it was just a misunderstanding, because I do see how one could get that from the OP.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 26, 2014)

See, that "hot to the touch", without full context, is ambiguous, and thus could benefit from a little more tell than show. Was he embarrassed - or did he have a fever? 

Context is everything, and helps the writer decide whether tell or show works best.


----------



## Smith (Jul 26, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> See, that "hot to the touch", without full context, is ambiguous, and thus could benefit from a little more tell than show. Was he embarrassed - or did he have a fever?
> 
> Context is everything, and helps the writer decide whether tell or show works best.



I agree!


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Jul 26, 2014)

Smith said:


> Let's say in my story I said, "Harold's cheeks were hot to the touch." vs. "Harold felt embarrassed."
> 
> Wouldn't the former still be showing, without having to go into Deep POV and turning one emotion into an entire paragraph? The thing is, sometimes I feel (uh-oh, telling xD ) at that point I might as well just leave it in the latter state, "Harold felt embarrassed."



The former is physical (and more specific, in a way), the latter isn't. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are different.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 27, 2014)

Sunny said:


> Kyle, I know where you're coming from. I have many conversations everyday with you about this, and I know where your intentions lie. I know first hand how you do not want to persuade other writers to do it how you do it. I know that you are only trying to give information to others that want to learn some new techniques. If it's come across differently to some users on this site, well... I guess you can't really change that. _We_ know more than most people how words on a screen can come across differently than we intend to (remember the beginning of our relationship? Words on screen are not the same as a voice in person). What people take away from your advice will vary.
> 
> You are a wonderful writer and you do so much research for your _own_ growth and only want to share with others the knowledge that you have gained.
> 
> ...



Sunny, while I find it very nice that you have your husband's back, I also find that, though you may not see it, there is oftentimes an air of "My way is the right way" about some of his postings, despite his disclaimer to the contrary.

I don't doubt that he isn't doing something like that intentionally. I happen to find Kyle's insights pretty valuable. Even though I rarely use the advice he gives because my head just doesn't work that way.

All I am saying is that, from a completely unbiased view, sometimes he does make it seem like anyone who doesn't do what he is suggesting is on the completely wrong path and won't be able to find any success.

I agree with you about him being a valuable resource here. He puts a lot of work into the research he does. 

Kyle, I don't mean to speak to your wife like you aren't here. LOL


----------



## Sunny (Jul 27, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Sunny, while I find it very nice that you have your husband's back, I also find that, though you may not see it, there is oftentimes an air of "My way is the right way" about some of his postings, despite his disclaimer to the contrary.
> 
> I don't doubt that he isn't doing something like that intentionally. I happen to find Kyle's insights pretty valuable. Even though I rarely use the advice he gives because my head just doesn't work that way.
> 
> ...



His "my way is the right way" air that you're reading into, is really, his "I'm really excited about this! I've learned something new and I think it's really helped me. Let me share it with everyone!" 

I know this from personal experience. Kyle and I have been different style writers from the day we met. I used to get frustrated and feel stupid because I couldn't keep up to him or understand everything he was trying to teach me. I thought it meant he didn't like my writing and wanted to change it. But, it wasn't that at all. He just likes teaching what he's learned. Easy peasy. 

As far as his superiority complex that some people might see in him is really just his enthusiasm about writing. There are some writers among this forum that I feel exhume mass amounts of arrogance and superiority, but that's just how they come across to me. Maybe I'm wrong and it's just their confidence showing, or their strong belief in themselves. I don't know. But, I do know, when I read their posts or comments, advice and such, if I don't think their advice will help me for my own reasons, I just move on. I don't want to take the time to argue something that doesn't really matter. I would rather spend my time doing something more constructive, something more positive. If I don't want to learn what they're teaching, I move on. 

Sometimes these disagreements are all in good fun and some great conversations happen, but sometimes they can get a little hurtful. It's so pointless to be rude to one another. I don't get that part of it. We're all after the same thing... or well, we all love the same thing. We're all different writers. There has to be. I mean, there are a ton of readers with a ton of different tastes, we need different styles to suit everyone. 

Maybe it's the passion for writing that gets everyone in a tizzy. Writers are very passionate about their work and most of the time, they don't want to consider that it might need improvement. So for someone to come along and insinuate it's possible that they're not perfect writers yet, that there's a world of learning out there (I don't think that exists by the way.. perfection I mean) is like drawing a sword and asking for blood.


----------



## garza (Jul 27, 2014)

There's nothing wrong with a well developed 'superiority complex' so long as one has sufficient skill and talent. One must, however, be sensitive to the feelings and aware of the biases of others. There is a world of difference between 'my way is a good way' and 'my way is the only way'. To denigrate the work of one whose craftsmanship is well proven is to invite censure. Far better to offer examples of one's own making and say 'I believe this is better than that'. 

In regard to the matter as expressed in the OP, this discussion apparently began about the time Homer was a teen-aged cub reporter for the Athens Daily News. Every great writer takes a narrative shortcut from time to time to speed the flow of the story and to make the telling of the story more concise. Taken out of context, such narrative shortcuts can appear weak. Taken in the context of the work as a whole they serve as tie points between more clearly elucidated events. 

To see what I'm trying to say, let's take an example from another craft - that of automobile design. Consider the few square inches in the centre of a door panel on my old E-type. Those few square inches are nearly flat. They are featureless. Now step back a few paces and consider those few square inches in context. They are part of the overall design of one of the most beautiful automobiles ever built. The narrative shortcuts that writers use are an integral part of the overall design. The proper use of such shortcuts does not make the writer 'weak'.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 27, 2014)

Not to derail, or to pick on any individual, but I have noticed that _many _times, we writers fail miserably at our craft when it comes to forum posts. If there are misconceptions about what one is saying, does that not say, quite clearly, that the writer has a problem communicating what they really mean? This goes along with my long-standing impatience with people who ignore grammar and spelling in posts, I admit, but it does seem that if people are "mis-interpreting", the burden falls to the poster to clarify (and hopefully not make things worse). And of course, if one makes strong declaratives, they should expect those who disagree to be as strongly declarative in their opposition. Disagreeing with a post (regardless of how strongly) is not necessarily an attack on the poster.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 27, 2014)

shadowwalker said:
			
		

> Not to derail, or to pick on any individual, but I have noticed that _many times, we writers fail miserably at our craft when it comes to forum posts. If there are misconceptions about what one is saying, does that not say, quite clearly, that the writer has a problem communicating what they really mean? This goes along with my long-standing impatience with people who ignore grammar and spelling in posts, I admit, but it does seem that if people are "mis-interpreting", the burden falls to the poster to clarify (and hopefully not make things worse). And of course, if one makes strong declaratives, they should expect those who disagree to be as strongly declarative in their opposition. Disagreeing with a post (regardless of how strongly) is not necessarily an attack on the poster._



If as you say is true, shadowwalker, and maybe he, or I, or maybe that secret someone else you're talking about has a problem communicating their intentions and therefore is a bad writer, well... I guess we'll leave that up to the world of publishers, readers and what have you, and we'll see what's what. 

Besides, I think most of the arguing that happens on these threads is more about personal distaste of what one has read and how it makes them feel (inferior-angry-annoyed, or attacked... etc.) in someway. 

And really, when you say, "Not to derail, or to pick on any individual" .... that's exactly what you mean to do, is it not? Those little disclaimers just let us know that _you know_ you're about to do it. 

I had a good friend that liked to start out his sentences, "No offence or anything".... then would insult the heck out of you. "Don't take this the wrong way".... but really I know that's what you're going to do! 

Those little disclaimers are a wall to hind behind. Just come out and say, "Yes I'm going to derail, and yes I am going to pick on someone." Stand behind it at least.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 27, 2014)

Sunny said:


> And really, when you say, "Not to derail, or to pick on any individual" .... that's exactly what you mean to do. Those little disclaimers just let us know that you know you're about to do it.
> 
> Those little disclaimers are a wall to hind behind. Just come out and say, "Yes I'm going to derail, and yes I am going to pick on someone." Stand behind it at least.



When I say I'm not picking on an individual, that's _precisely _what I mean. I have seen this miscommunication many, many, many times on this forum and on the others I participate in. That it comes up in this particular thread only means that the opportunity to note this came up. But if you want to put your own spin on it, be my guest.


----------



## Pluralized (Jul 27, 2014)

Been lurking, and truthfully don't have all that much writerly expertise under my belt. But I want to at least throw some counterpoint in here because there have been some strangely closed-minded statements made.

The OP, I think, illustrates a really helpful technique, which is useful if you're ever to understand WHEN to use deep POV and not to. Everything devolves into a "showing v telling" argument around here, it seems. That's become a horrid cliché, but still the concepts are relevant. 

The proponents of a deeper POV in general, probably tend to enjoy a richer character experience, as opposed to those who enjoy and embrace "telling" which tends to isolate the narrative from the character experience. Usually, if I'm to understand the intent, to move the pacing of an action story along or otherwise focus narrative energy on the 'what' and not so much the 'who'. I'm knee-deep in 1Q84 right now, which, like much of King, does a good job of spending narrative capital on exploring the characters' emotions without short-shrifting the action and overall plot motion. Maybe I'm just naive, but I like that and will endeavor to do that myself as I'm able in my own novel.

There's a risk of going purple, which maybe happens with some attempts to embellish on simplified 'telling' but there's a risk of telling a wizard story or something that doesn't do any sort of character introspection that I think falls flat in its own right. So, the secret is balance, and understanding these techniques isn't going to hurt anyone.

Funny how we have this monster thing called "Writing Discussion" but then when anyone tries to discuss writing techniques, they're immediately told their techniques are a waste of time and they need to do something else. Not taking sides, but if I had two pesos for every time an admin here has dropped in and said "get over it, just write!" I could probably buy a small car. Kyle's giving us a lesson in technique here, and sure, he thinks it's a great technique. You don't have to agree with it, and don't get butt-hurt because you think it's wrong. Just do what works for you and let everyone take value from these kinds of posts as they're able. Isn't that why this forum exists?


----------



## Sunny (Jul 27, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> When I say I'm not picking on an individual, that's _precisely _what I mean. I have seen this miscommunication many, many, many times on this forum and on the others I participate in. That it comes up in this particular thread only means that the opportunity to note this came up. But if you want to put your own spin on it, be my guest.



I am very sorry if I have taken your intentions out of context shadowwalker. I guess like I was was saying, it IS easy to have someone else take your words and misconstrue them into something else. Easy to do, I guess! As for your statement above declaring this makes you a questionable writer, I would disagree. Things are just misunderstood and taken the wrong way sometimes. Me taking your comment the way you didn't intend, does not reflect on your ability to be a good writer.

Sorry for the spin!


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 27, 2014)

Sunny said:


> I guess like I was was saying, it IS easy to have someone else take your words and misconstrue them into something else. Easy to do, I guess! As for your statement above declaring this makes you a questionable writer, I would disagree. Things are just misunderstood and taken the wrong way sometimes. Me taking your comment the way you didn't intend, does not reflect on your ability to be a good writer.



There are times when the reader puts their own spin on words and there are times when the writer isn't clear. The first is something the writer has no control over; the second clearly is.

Personally, if one wants to discuss a technique, it's best to stay away from perjorative wording, such as "weak" or "lazy". (That's on the writer.) As I've said before, the technique should either stand on its own merit or perhaps it's not that great after all. 

And with that, I think my participation in this discussion is concluded.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jul 27, 2014)

Another thought, and sorry if this has been covered: As you say, obviously King's capable of doing a deep POV; he does it all the time. Here he doesn't--maybe chooses not to. Of course, we can't know why, but we can think about what the advantages of narrative distance are, why one might not _want_ a deep POV for this particular scene. 



The narrative distance here allows the reader _not_ to identify too strongly with George, to see him from a distance. Sometimes we don't want to be in close. When something is painful and awful, sometimes distance is desirable and even respectful.
Ventriloquizing a child's voice in the "Gosh!" kinda way offered in the OP risks sounding hokey and alienating a probably-adult reader. _Especially_ when that child is getting his arm ripped off.
George is not a major character in the novel; the real importance of this death overall is how it affects George's brother Bill. So this is not the place to spend a ton of emotional capital.
Speaking of emotional capital, King hasn't built it yet in this novel. It's early in the book, I think maybe the second chapter. The reader isn't very invested in the story yet; IIRC, it's not even clear what's going on at this point. So to ask for an emotional engagement with a non-MC who's dying horribly seems misplaced. Especially in a book with lots of horrible deaths in it. A desensitized reader is a bored reader.

As I think we all agree, there are times when deep POV can be great, and actually it's what I tend to gravitate toward in my own writing. But that doesn't mean that maintaining narrative distance won't sometimes work better. And I think in this scene it works better.

I'd also note that, with an author who is experienced and successful--and I don't _love_ King, but he definitely knows how to write a book--I think it's more productive to assume that he knows what he's doing, rather than that he's made a mistake. That is, if you see a moment where his work deviates from your preconceived ideas and the internet wisdom about how a book is supposed to be, it's worth considering that there might be an advantage to the author's chosen approach.


----------



## Apple Ice (Jul 27, 2014)

Sometimes I think writers talk about writing too much


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 27, 2014)

Apple Ice said:


> Sometimes I think writers talk about writing too much



You mean....if they stopped talking about it..some may _write_?? *gasp*

Seriously, though, I agree with that. Although I do find 99% of the things posted here helpful in some way or other, I have also found myself stuck because I started over thinking things.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 27, 2014)

Great contribution to the discussion, Lasm. :encouragement:

I'd like to respond to each point you made.



			
				lasm said:
			
		

> The narrative distance here allows the reader _not_ to identify too strongly with George, to see him from a distance. Sometimes we don't want to be in close. When something is painful and awful, sometimes distance is desirable and even respectful.



Being respectful is an interesting point. As far as real life goes, I agree. As far as fiction goes, I may have to disagree.

Do you mean respectfully distancing the reader to avoid hurting their feelings/scaring them/traumatizing them? In other words, distancing them to avoid making them _feel_?

If so, I'd like to offer another excerpt (this time from the late, great Michael Crichton) from _Jurassic Park_:

He stretched out his hands, waving them wildly in the air to ward off the attack he knew was coming.

    And then there was a new, searing pain, like a fiery knife in his belly, and Nedry stumbled, reaching blindly down to touch the ragged edge of his shirt, and then a thick, slippery mass that was surprisingly warm, and with horror he suddenly knew he was holding his own intestines in his hands. The dinosaur had torn him open. His guts had fallen out.

    Nedry fell to the ground and landed on something scaly and cold, it was the animal's foot, and then there was new pain on both sides of his head. The pain grew worse, and as he was lifted to his feet he knew the dinosaur had his head in its jaws, and the horror of that realization was followed by a final wish, that it would all be ended soon.

Here we have a similar death moment (the scene character being eviscerated by a monster), except the author has chosen to go as close as possible. I'd even argue that the passage could be _deepened_ in some spots, but still, I think it's a strong example.

Perhaps from this we can conclude that some authors like to go in close, even in traumatic situations, while some like to stay distant.

I'm one of those readers that likes it to be close. I find it makes the moment more powerful than going distant. The first time I read the Nedry scene above, I felt like I was really there. Because of that, the scene has stuck with me for all these years.

But, again, I agree that this is personal preference. Just stating my case as to why my preference leans one way. :encouragement:



			
				lasm said:
			
		

> Ventriloquizing a child's voice in the "Gosh!" kinda way offered in the OP risks sounding hokey and alienating a probably-adult reader. _Especially_ when that child is getting his arm ripped off.


Unless I'm mistaken, George wasn't having his arm ripped off. Not yet. At this point in the story, George wasn't really aware of any danger. 

The "Gosh!" suggestion of mine is, IMO, in the same vein as Mr. King's "Oh cripes!" and "Jeezly-crow!" (two deep POV thoughts made by the same character in another passage.) I was striving to match the same voice.

I agree that one should avoid making a character sound fake. Though, if a character's internal exclamations sound genuine? I believe it makes the characterization that much _more_ authentic. :encouragement:



			
				lasm said:
			
		

> George is not a major character in the novel; the real importance of this death overall is how it affects George's brother Bill. So this is not the place to spend a ton of emotional capital.
> 
> Speaking of emotional capital, King hasn't built it yet in this novel. It's early in the book, I think maybe the second chapter. The reader isn't very invested in the story yet; IIRC, it's not even clear what's going on at this point. So to ask for an emotional engagement with a non-MC who's dying horribly seems misplaced. Especially in a book with lots of horrible deaths in it. A desensitized reader is a bored reader.



Great topic!

How early is too early to establish an emotional connection with a character?

I'd argue that even one's throwaway characters should read as emotionally significant to a reader—at least if they are serving as POV characters. 

Of course, this is entirely up to the writer's discretion.

If we're in a character's POV, why not make the most of it? Or, at the very least, I propose: if you want to make the most of it—go deep.

Here's a passage from Peter Benchley's landmark novel, _Jaws_:

For the first time, the woman felt fear, though she did not know why. Adrenaline shot through her trunk and limbs, generating a tingling heat and urging her to swim fast. She guessed that she was fifty yards from shore.

This, to me, looks like Benchley desires closeness. The effect he's going for, IMO, is to put the reader into the female character's POV.

She's a throwaway character. Still, he wants the reader to feel what she's feeling.

There are a lot of deep POV techniques one can apply to this passage as well. I argue that, when a writer _wants_ the reader to feel close to the POV character in scenes such as this, we can use techniques such as those recommended in the OP.

We can expand and unpack "the woman felt fear," to _show_ her fear using sensations, thoughts, and actions—without having to use the word "fear" itself.

We can trim away, "She guessed that she was fifty yards from shore," and replace it with prose that _shows_ her actual thought-process of guessing.

We can, if we want, not just stop at semi-closeness. At least in the passages where we're after closeness—we can go deep all the way. :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Jul 27, 2014)

I want to thank Kyle for starting this thread, and I have no problem with how its message was conveyed. Anyone who has been around writing and studied writing for any length of time should recognize what Kyle was doing from post #1. If you want to get people's attention and start a discussion what better way than to tip a sacred cow? His point could have been made by saying "Salman Rushdie is a weak writer", or "Charles Dickens was a weak writer", or "Stephanie Myer is a weak writer" (although that one might have caused some discord on the home front, right Sunny?). And he could have found passages similar to the one he use as an example in any of their works just as easily as he found one in King's book. His intent was, obviously, to kick start the conversation by tossing a couple of eggs at the homecoming king. No foul there.

I also think folks should stop letting their shorts get in a bunch based on the use of a few words. I see lots of 'lazy' writing in stuff posted here and it does no one any good to pretend that is not the case. Sure, experienced writers know how to blend 'show' and 'tell' to create an effective story, but newer writers may not, and introducing them to different ways of looking at their writing so they can make well informed decisions can only help.

It's disturbing to me to see a thread about a perfectly good writing topic get turned into a debate about how the information was presented.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 27, 2014)

Thanks Terry.



			
				Terry D said:
			
		

> His point could have been made by saying ... "Stephanie Myer is a weak writer" (although that one might have caused some discord on the home front, right Sunny?)



Had I titled the thread that, my next thread title would have been, "Thoughts from a Writer Who's Now Sleeping on the Couch."


----------



## qwertyportne (Jul 27, 2014)

This thread reminds me of the advice I was given many years ago that authors should not make their presence known. The writers who gave me that rule said the way to avoid doing that was to show, not tell. I eventually decided I should show and tell and learn how to do it skillfully. The solution (for me) was to learn how to create reader-centered rather than writer-centered stories and poems.

I'm a beginning story teller so more experienced writers have plenty to teach me, and I'm listening, but not to those who tell me to stop discussing writing techniques and just write. I'm not standing on the top of the mountain. I'm still struggling up it. So I appreciate threads like this that attempt to dig down into the details of writing techniques.

But I've written hundreds of well-received poems and that makes me think I do have something to offer other poets about the relationship between showing, telling and narrative distance: 

Show when you want to pull your readers into your poem to participate with their imagination. 

Tell when you want them to step back to ponder the implications of your poem with their intellect. 

You don't want your readers standing emotionally outside your poem from start to finish. But you do want to give them opportunities to step outside your poem to interpret it with their own beliefs and opinions.


----------



## Sam (Jul 27, 2014)

There was a middle-aged man in my BA class who had a wonderful talent for telling riveting stories. He would frequently interrupt lectures and regale the class with hilarious anecdotes about experiences he had throughout the world that mirrored events in the novels we were studying. Leading up to Christmas one year, he took me to one side and told me he had started a novel. He asked me if I would read the first ten chapters over the holidays. I was only too happy to oblige. I looked forward to starting them on the day after Christmas, when I would have some free time, and sure enough I opened the file shortly after I finished my Boxing Day dinner. I read all 20,000 words over the holidays. Some days were slower than others. When I returned to college in the middle of January, he immediately asked me had I read the excerpt and if so what my thoughts were. As he had done with me, I took him to one side and explained that I hadn't enjoyed the story as much as I thought I would. Compared to the tales he made a habit of telling on campus, it didn't resonate with me at all. The problem? 

He used verbose and bombastic language. His sentences meandered for half a page and didn't say anything of note. He tried clever similes and witty anecdotes that were anything but. In total, he concentrated too much on form, style, and technique that he *forgot to tell the story*. In other words, he tried too hard to sound and write like a writer. His story became stilted and robotic. The very heart and soul of his brilliant storytelling was usurped and smothered by this false notion that he had to sound sophisticated and debonair. 

We all like to try something new from time to time. It keeps things fresh. However, when you favour one aspect of storytelling over another, or consider one inferior to another, you can become like my friend: stilted and robotic and afraid to do the one thing we're all trying to do in our own way: tell the damn story.


----------



## Sunny (Jul 27, 2014)

Sam said:


> There was a middle-aged man in my BA class who had a wonderful talent for telling riveting stories. He would frequently interrupt lectures and regale the class with hilarious anecdotes about experiences he had throughout the world that mirrored events in the novels we were studying. Leading up to Christmas one year, he took me to one side and told me he had started a novel. He asked me if I would read the first ten chapters over the holidays. I was only too happy to oblige. I looked forward to starting them on the day after Christmas, when I would have some free time, and sure enough I opened the file shortly after I finished my Boxing Day dinner. I read all 20,000 words over the holidays. Some days were slower than others. When I returned to college in the middle of January, he immediately asked me had I read the excerpt and if so what my thoughts were. As he had done with me, I took him to one side and explained that I hadn't enjoyed the story as much as I thought I would. Compared to the tales he made a habit of telling on campus, it didn't resonate with me at all. The problem?
> 
> He used verbose and bombastic language. His sentences meandered for half a page and didn't say anything of note. He tried clever similes and witty anecdotes that were anything but. In total, he concentrated too much on form, style, and technique that he *forgot to tell the story*. In other words, he tried too hard to sound and write like a writer. His story became stilted and robotic. The very heart and soul of his brilliant storytelling was usurped and smothered by this false notion that he had to sound sophisticated and debonair.
> 
> We all like to try something new from time to time. It keeps things fresh. However, when you favour one aspect of storytelling over another, or consider one inferior to another, you can become like my friend: stilted and robotic and afraid to do the one thing we're all trying to do in our own way: tell the damn story.



I can understand this, and see how you would feel there was no story. That happens too. I think there needs to be a happy medium and like Terry D had said earlier, we need to learn how to blend "show" and "tell". That comes with experience and comments from readers, like you did for your friend. Hopefully what you told him gave him something to think about. Maybe he would do some re-writing and agree with you, or maybe that was the style he was intending. 

I love books with some romance. I know a lot of male readers don't and maybe some females too, so I don't expect everyone to get the "feelings" I seek from the authors I love. 

I wrote my first romantic scene and I asked my friend to read it. I thought for sure she would gush all over it. I thought it was pretty steamy and it made my heart pound while writing it. I sat beside her and watched with anticipation, waiting for her to tell me how much she loved it. 

Finally, she set the pages down and looked at me. She didn't say anything. I said, "Well? How was it? Did you like it?"

She said, "Um, yeah, sure. It was good." 

I was sorta floored, I thought she'd love it. I mean she loved the same kind of books as me. I said, "Did you feel it? I mean, was it as great as Clay and Elena or Edward and Bella?" 

She curled up her nose and said, "Nah. But it was still good." Of course I asked her why it wasn't as good. I asked why she didn't like it as much as I was hoping she would have. She said, "I don't know. I guess because I couldn't feel what was happening. I mean you told me that he blew on her knee, but that's it. You said that he leaned in to kiss her, but I don't know what it felt like for them, so I couldn't feel it." 

I said, "huh! I never thought about that. I just thought you'd feel what I felt when I wrote it." 

She said, "I don't know what you felt when you wrote it, because it wasn't written!" 

I then spent the next month learning to put sensations we feel into my writing. After editing it and putting in my MC thoughts, her reactions, her nervous feelings, etc., my friend said she loved it; It got her heart racing. 

I think telling is good in some parts but the scenes that I want my reader to _really_ feel, I think deep POV is a wonderful tool. I love to be inside my MC's head, so deep POV sort of comes natural to me. I don't think it has to be long and drawn out, dragging the sentences and paragraphs into the bottomless pit of the never ending novel. It doesn't have to be full of purple prose, either. It can be simple and uncomplicated, like telling. 

It's nice that you were able to tell your friend the truth. That's a good quality to have. We need that truth from our friends to make ourselves better writers. I hope he was appreciative of your honesty. 

We have to learn how to hear the truth of what others think of our writing, good or bad-- if only to make us aware of what we _could _change.


----------



## bookmasta (Jul 27, 2014)

> He used verbose and bombastic language. His sentences meandered for half a page and didn't say anything of note. He tried clever similes and witty anecdotes that were anything but. In total, he concentrated too much on form, style, and technique that he *forgot to tell the story*. In other words, he tried too hard to sound and write like a writer. His story became stilted and robotic. The very heart and soul of his brilliant storytelling was usurped and smothered by this false notion that he had to sound sophisticated and debonair



This was pretty much 75% of my creative writing class last semester.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 27, 2014)

Is making a character come alive different from immersion? In the only story I read by King (and I do mean story, not book), he made the characters come alive, he did show instead of tell, but there was no immersion except in the main character.

Can you be immersed in more than one person at a time? Or is it immersion into the scene?

What about: "George and his brother did _everything _together. Something felt wrong, something felt missing, because his brother wasn't here now, seeing him."


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 27, 2014)

qwertyportne said:


> Show when you want to pull your readers into your poem to participate with their imagination.
> 
> Tell when you want them to step back to ponder the implications of your poem with their intellect.
> 
> You don't want your readers standing emotionally outside your poem from start to finish. But you do want to give them opportunities to step outside your poem to interpret it with their own beliefs and opinions.



Excellent insights, Qwerty! It's a great way of thinking about the difference between showing and telling—perhaps we can call it "imagination versus intellect"—and a stepping stone to determining when and how a writer can choose to use either approach. 

Excellent food for thought. :encouragement:



			
				Sam said:
			
		

> He used verbose and bombastic language. His sentences meandered for half a page and didn't say anything of note. He tried clever similes and witty anecdotes that were anything but. In total, he concentrated too much on form, style, and technique that he *forgot to tell the story.* In other words, he tried too hard to sound and write like a writer. His story became stilted and robotic. The very heart and soul of his brilliant storytelling was usurped and smothered by this false notion that he had to sound sophisticated and debonair.



That's a good point, Sam.

Sometimes when learning new techniques, writers have a tendency to overuse them and/or let our writing become mechanical in nature.

For those familiar with my various posts on the craft, it might seem like I'm always advocating write-by-numbers methods. That, actually, is more a result of me preferring to break down the techniques into digestible, bite-sized pieces in order to explain them.

_Step one, step two, step three...

_I don't mean to encourage people to write in a step-by-step manner, that's just what I consider to be the easiest way to explain the methods.

My belief is that much of the best writing comes out of us subconsciously. Or, "intuitively." As such, I don't want to seem like I'm advocating we banish that power station from our psyche—I believe it's the creative fuel source from which much of our greatest twists, reveals, and characters originate.

I do, though, believe that it's okay to look at the craft from an analytical perspective. I also believe that, in many cases, writing can be improved by finding weak points to hammer out and reinforce, on a technical level.

I consider deep POV a technique that can help us zero in on certain aspects of our prose to improve. The "improvement" part is still up for debate.

For those who want to learn it and/or improve at using it, I believe that a writer can evolve from a more mechanical/stilted handling of it (which tends to happen during the upslope of a learning curve) toward a more fluid, intuitive state of writing, where the technique has been absorbed and perfected through repetition, and can now be called upon, subconsciously, at the writer's leisure.

I do think, though, that addressing the method on a technical, analytical level is one of the first steps to achieving this more "automatic" state of writing.

And yes, I may often make declaratives that offend those who value alternate approaches, but don't worry—I'm working on curbing that trait of mine. :encouragement:


----------



## voltigeur (Jul 28, 2014)

I have noticed a marked difference between the coaching I see on this site and what I have received in person by local writers. 

The one point local writers have told me is that writing has 2 stages. 

1) Creating the work. Here you do whatever works for you to get the story on paper. Here is where you have fun play with your characters etc. 

2) Crafting the work.  Here is where you get the work ready for publication. You ruthlessly cut out those things that don’t move the story forward. Correct confusing transitions, mis-spellings, style issues and editing happen here. 

On this site I haven’t seen anyone split these 2 processes out. Maybe the confusion and hurt feelings come from this. I don’t talk to a writer about crafting, when they have just shown me their creative baby that they still are emotionally attached to. They are in stage 1 and won’t take critique well. 

In step 2 your ego has to get put on a shelf if you want to be successful.  You have to decide to be coachable if you engage beta readers, experienced writers and editors.  Here you have to be ready to challenge assumptions to make your work better.  Here threads like this one help. 

Do I have rough days with my critique group? Sure, but I am blessed that some of the people in this group that are professional writers tell me what doesn’t work and why. It is never personal. I have such little experience in writing I am mixing the 2 steps a bit for now.  I write a scene edit it second read through and submit it to the group. 

I’m finding that each subsequent scene needs less and less work, so I know I am learning. And after a meeting I’m working on re-writes and fired up to do the next scene. 

Anyway just my late night ramblings. lol


----------



## Sam (Jul 28, 2014)

voltigeur said:


> I have noticed a marked difference between the coaching I see on this site and what I have received in person by local writers.
> 
> The one point local writers have told me is that writing has 2 stages.
> 
> ...



If this thread should teach anyone anything, it should be that there is no single creative process. What you've outlined above may work for your local writers, but it doesn't work for everyone. That's the beauty of writing. There is no right and wrong way to craft a story. For instance, I don't have 'fun' in a first draft. I've been writing for so long that I've streamlined my process so that my first draft is almost identical to the finished product. If it has no significance to the story, I don't write it and then later cut it. I just don't write it at all. In other words, I don't wait for a second draft to be ruthless.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 28, 2014)

> On this site I haven’t seen anyone split these 2 processes out. Maybe the confusion and hurt feelings come from this.



Each writer has their own personal process. The confusion only arises when writers say one process/method/technique is better than another, or when a writer infers that a writer is saying that. It's like a mother saying her parenting is better than another mother, to another mother.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 28, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Can you be immersed in more than one person at a time? Or is it immersion into the scene?



Most authors and agents recommend to stay close to one character at a time, rather than dipping into the mind/body of multiple characters at once. "Head-hopping"—leaping back and forth between multiple POV's—runs the risk of jarring the reader, not really giving them time to settle in to any particular character.

That's not to say a writer can't have multiple POV characters. It's perfectly okay. Usually, though, it reads best when a writer avoids pinging back and forth. Each step into a POV should feel purposeful, as if the writer chose to immerse the reader in this particular character, at this particular moment, for some particular reason.

If we ping back and forth between character POVs too rapidly or too frequently, that feeling of purpose might get diluted, and a reader might begin to feel overwhelmed, confused, or possibly just detached. Just like getting to know people in real life—the more time you spend interacting with them, the better you get to know them.



			
				EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> What about: "George and his brother did _everything _together. Something felt wrong, something felt missing, because his brother wasn't here now, seeing him."



I like it a lot, Emma. You're describing George's internal state without having to name the actual emotion. And you're emphasizing words in a way the character himself might say them. You're going deep. Reads good to me! :encouragement:


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 28, 2014)

voltigeur said:
			
		

> your ego has to get put on a shelf if you want to be successful.



I agree 100%, volt.

It's natural to feel defensive when our work is being critiqued, especially after we've worked so hard on it. Our creative baby. How dare anyone suggest it isn't perfect?

Like a parent (going off Cadence's analogy), we writers tend to be fiercely protective of not only our own work, but our individual process as well.

Personally, if someone calls something I do in my writing "weak" and/or "lazy?" You can be damn sure I'm going to listen. Because maybe they're right. Maybe there's something I can learn from that individual.

Then again, maybe I'll find nothing of value there. Maybe, to me, they're just talking hot air. And that's perfectly okay, too. Not everyone values the same things, nor finds value in the same things. But the only way I'm going to decide is by taking my emotions out of it ("How _dare_ you!") and looking at the suggestions from a critical perspective. Seeing my writing not just as a writer, but as an editor, too.

Here's a short, easy-to-digest article written by a New York Times Best-Selling author about a deep POV technique: http://rebeccazanetti.com/writing-craft/deep-point-of-view/

In this article, Rebecca actually goes farther than I do and uses the adjective "terrible" to describe tags that create narrative distance. If a writer can get past the emotional reaction such adjectives might spark, he or she might be able to find value in posts likes Rebecca's, and maybe (just maybe) posts such as mine.

_Why_ does Rebeca consider narrative distance tags "terrible?" _Why_ do I consider narrative distance "weak?" 

These are heavy statements, absolutely! They _deserve_ to be challenged, to be questioned, to be pondered. :encouragement:


----------



## garza (Jul 28, 2014)

Now here is where my decision to take fiction writing seriously runs onto the rocks. Such terms as 'deep POV technique,' 'narrative distance,' and 'narrative distance tage,' are, to me, meaningless phrases on a level with 'artistic integrity'. These obscure technical phrases remind me of the hollow language I hear spoken by the bureaucrats in government offices. 

I remember two semesters of a graduate level course on Chaucer back in the day, and no such language was ever used in discussing his work. Instead, we delighted in the way Chaucer used the ordinary to make extraordinary statements about life. He was a master story teller, and is that not what the fiction writer should strive to be?

I will write my stories to the best of my ability. If they succeed with the reader then I will have accomplished what I set out to do. If they fail, then I must further polish my skills.

Edit - One other point I forgot to mention. Once a piece of writing is out the door and the cheque clears the bank, it's no longer mine. Praise is good, censure is bad, but neither can affect the purchasing power of the shekels handed over in the market place. It's time to move on.


----------



## qwertyportne (Jul 28, 2014)

voltigeur said:


> 1) Creating the work. Here you do whatever works for you to get the story on paper. Here is where you have fun play with your characters etc.
> 
> 2) Crafting the work.  Here is where you get the work ready for publication. You ruthlessly cut out those things that don’t move the story forward. Correct confusing transitions, mis-spellings, style issues and editing happen here.



Works for me. Let your imagination _play_ with you, then _work_ with what it brings to the surface. First time I heard that advice was in the movie "Finding Forester" where Sean Connery, playing the part of a college writing professor, said to his student, "Write with your heart. Rewrite with your head."


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 28, 2014)

garza said:


> Now here is where my decision to take fiction writing seriously runs onto the rocks. Such terms as 'deep POV technique,' 'narrative distance,' and 'narrative distance tage,' are, to me, meaningless phrases on a level with 'artistic integrity'. These obscure technical phrases remind me of the hollow language I hear spoken by the bureaucrats in government offices.



I see it kind of like _verb_, _adjective_, and _noun_. We don't _need_ to know such terms, that's for sure. Sometimes, they can be downright confusing.

Occasionally, though, writers may want to talk about such things, and using shortcuts to refer to them can make discussing easier.

It's like if I wrote a sentence that went:

Adam the playground fence.

One could say, "This sentence is missing a verb."

A writer unfamiliar with grammar might feel left out of the conversation. _What is a "verb?" Another useless technobabble term?
_
So, yeah, I understand the sentiment, Garza. A term like "narrative distance" can definitely be confusing. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a meaningless term, though. Just one that some writers might need explained.

Jill Elizabeth Nelson, from her outstanding guidebook, _Rivet Your Readers with Deep POV_, offers an explanation of what "narrative distance" is:

_Writers create narrative distance when they consciously or unconsciously insert an invisible narrator between the POV character and the reader. This issue is also known as author intrusion and is not the same as purposefully choosing omniscient POV as best suited to tell an epic tale._

Let's take the following passage.

_The Screamer 1000_ inched higher and higher, the roller coaster's wheels clinking against the ruts.

Snug in his seat, high above the crowd, Harold felt paralyzed with fear.

This is an example of the author holding the reader at a narrative distance. The reader isn't being allowed to directly experience Harold's fear. Instead, the reader is being _told_, by a narrator, what Harold is feeling.

Deep POV strives to do away with the narrative distance and make the narrator as invisible (or as nonexistent) as possible.

_The Screamer 1000_ inched higher and higher, the roller coaster's wheels clinking against the ruts.

Snug in his seat, high above the crowd, Harold's saliva caught in his throat. Oh, God. How on Earth had Mona talked him into this? He gripped his armrest and, with one eye shut, looked down at the fairgoers far below.

Going deep, the author attempts to eliminate the narrator buzzing in the reader's ear. The name of the emotion is removed. Narrative tags like, "he felt", "he thought", "he wondered", "he believed" are removed. Instead, the feelings, thoughts, wonderings, or beliefs are shown without a narrator's intrusion.

Ideally, this creates a more immersive an enjoyable reading experience. :encouragement:


----------



## garza (Jul 28, 2014)

Kyle - The second version of the roller coaster smells a bit like purple prose. My way of writing is to see all that happens, hear all that's said, but never go inside the character's mind to tell what he is thinking. Also, never to use five words when one will do.

_The Screamer 1000 inched higher and higher, the roller coaster's wheels clinking against the ruts. Snug in his seat, high above the crowd, Harold wet his pants._

Now we know the level of Harold's fear without any overwriting needed.

As for the Nelson quote, I honestly have no idea what she's talking about. If her entire book is written that way it provides another reason to avoid reading books about writing.

'Adam the playground fence' can fit quite nicely as it is into a story about juvenile delinquents. 

_Bobby carried the stolen watch in his jacket pocket as he passed the swings and stopped next to an older boy leaning against the slide. This was a boy he'd met before. Adam the playground fence.
_
You may want to change he punctuation, but my inclination would be to leave it as it is.  I've always been fond of the judicious use of fragments. They are especially useful in radio news.

Common grammatical terms are in no wise the same as such expressions as 'deep POV'. The words noun, verb, and such have clearly defined and widely agreed upon meanings. Those other terms defy easy definition.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Jul 28, 2014)

This thread reminded me of the Epic Rap Battle of History between Stephen King and Edgar Allen Poe


[video=youtube;56R3hU-fWZY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56R3hU-fWZY[/video]


Stephen King apparently has a good sense of humor about the notion of him rapping and his own writing in general


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 29, 2014)

garza said:


> Kyle - The second version of the roller coaster smells a bit like purple prose. My way of writing is to see all that happens, hear all that's said, but never go inside the character's mind to tell what he is thinking. Also, never to use five words when one will do.
> 
> [...]
> _Harold wet his pants.
> ...



Relying on cliches (_pants-wetting_ when scared; _hair-pulling_ when frustrated; _jaw-dropping_ when shocked) can certainly help us be more economic with our words. Sometimes, though, with shortcuts such as those, we run another risk of falling into the realm of (dare I say the words?) ... lazy writing.

Better (in my opinion) to show reactions that are as specific and as unique to your character as possible, rather than falling back on reactions many _John Does_ would do.

If Susie is happy about her new promotion, we can have her "jump for joy," (because it's an easily understood, universal response), or we can dig deeper and have her fantasize about dialing her worthless grease-bucket of an ex-boyfriend and leaving a gloating, _told-you-so_ voicemail just to rub it in his stupid, fake-tanned face. Oh, but she couldn't _possibly_... could she?

One approach is commonplace and can be used for virtually any character. The other strives to be more, digging deep to unearth an emotional reaction and response that's specific to one character and one character only. 

That's part of what _going deep_ is about—bringing the reader into the character as closely as possible. Character thoughts are (in my opinion) just one of the many useful tools at a writer's disposal to helping a character really come to life on the page.  :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 29, 2014)

Now that I think about it, and correct me if I am wrong, but isn't actually vocalizing (as an internal dialogue) a characters thought process going about as deep into the POV as it can get?

That is what I have done with my MC in Side Worlds.


----------



## qwertyman (Jul 30, 2014)

I have only dipped into this post and I haven't followed all of the comments.

With that in mind ... If you want to minimise narrative distance, it's simple - write in first person.

Writing from a narrative distance, or reportage as I call it, can bring the reader closer to the situation - it's the way and the circumstances under which you write it. A dispassionate narrative can be chillingly hypnotic. The narrator describes the situation in more detail and the reader who is, or should be, familiar with the character fills in the gaps. Like so...

_The Screamer 1000 climbed relentlessly to the highest point. Far above the crowds the sound of the roller coaster's wheels, clunked loosely against the ruts. 

Breaching the summit, Harold watched as the wind rattled the flimsy guardrail and gripped his seat, paralysed. Mona would pay for this._

...with 20% less words. 



> Going deep, the author attempts to eliminate the narrator buzzing in the reader's ear.



What does that mean?


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 30, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:
			
		

> Now that I think about it, and correct me if I am wrong, but isn't actually vocalizing (as an internal dialogue) a characters thought process going about as deep into the POV as it can get?
> 
> That is what I have done with my MC in Side Worlds.



Hey, Bow. Yep! Showing a character's thoughts are a way of going deep. :encouragement:



qwertyman said:


> _The Screamer 1000 climbed relentlessly to the highest point. Far above the crowds the sound of the roller coaster's wheels, clunked loosely against the ruts.
> 
> Breaching the summit, Harold watched as the wind rattled the flimsy guardrail and gripped his seat, paralysed. Mona would pay for this._
> 
> ...with 20% less words.



Nicely done!

Harold *gripping his seat* is an involuntary action. *Mona would pay for this* is an internal statement, a thought. 

You're conveying Harold's fear without letting narrative distance get in the way. In other words, you're showing the emotion through Harold's direct experience, instead of holding the reader at a distance with authorial intrusions such as, "Harold felt fear."

Deep POV in all it's glory!:encouragement:



			
				qwertyman said:
			
		

> _Going deep, the author attempts to eliminate the narrator buzzing in the reader's ear._
> What does that mean?



It means a way of cutting away any intrusions by the author, a way of getting the reader closer to the character.

For example, we can put some narrative distance into your written passage:

*Harold felt* the Screamer 1000 climb relentlessly to the highest point. Far above the crowds, *he could hear* the sound of the roller coaster's wheels, clunking loosely against the ruts. 

Breaching the summit, Harold watched *in fear*. *He saw* the wind rattle the flimsy guardrail and gripped his seat, paralysed. *He thought about how* Mona would pay for this.

The red, bolded comments are examples of narrative distance, places where the author is intruding on the scene to tell the reader information from a distant perspective, instead of allowing the character's own experiences to come through, unannounced (thus making the reader feel closer to the character.)

When we say something like, 

*George heard* something crash to the floor. He looked up from his work,

we have an invisible narrator telling the reader what George heard.

But if we get rid of the narrative distance:

*Something crashed to the floor.* George looked up from his work,

now the "something crashing" comes through, unannounced, just like it would for George himself. No narrator working as a middle man.

When it comes to emotions, a writer using narrative distance might write:

Looking at Stacy, *Robert felt the rush of love.
*
Here we have an invisible narrator again, announcing George's emotions, distancing the reader from George's internal state. If we want to get rid of the narrator, we can help the reader experience George's emotions on a deeper level by showing George's involuntary actions, his bodily sensations, or his thoughts (or any combination of these.) 

To avoid narrative distance, thoughts should come through, unannounced, the same way the character experiences thoughts. 

*With* narrative distance: 
Harold gripped his armrest and thought, _Mona will pay for this._
 
*Without* narrative distance: 
Harold gripped his armrest. Mona would pay for this.

:encouragement:


----------



## garza (Jul 30, 2014)

So I'm lazy. I've never denied that. Even when I go out walking for the exercise I take all the shortcuts. 

Normally I avoid clichés like the plague, but in this case it seemed the only thing to use. The trigger for this reflex response was the phrase, _Snug in his seat_ which begged to be juxtaposed with something equally brief and the opposite of snug's rhyme relative smug. No male of any age is smug with wet pants, and all the tension of the scene is released in one instant with the simple statement that Harold wet his pants.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 30, 2014)

Which is totally fine, too! Sometimes a cliche _is _the best thing to use. (And I enjoyed seeing your connection between "snug" and "smug." A very unique way of thinking!)

I don't mean to imply that one must never use cliches. But I do think good things can come from trying to dig deeper.



			
				garza said:
			
		

> we know the level of Harold's fear without any overwriting needed.



I like to think of it as: there's a difference between _knowing_ a character's emotion, and _experiencing_ a character's emotion.

One is informative. The other is vicarious. Sometimes it takes a little more writing to achieve the latter.

The dictionary offers us a valuable insight:

_*Vicarious*: felt or enjoyed through imagined participation in the experience of others.
_
:encouragement:


----------



## garza (Jul 30, 2014)

It's a difference of style, and I've been able, finally, to define some of the characteristics of my style of writing, the existence of which, the style, I mean, I've only recently become aware through the comments of a circle of library friends. 

My stories are told, to use another cliché, from a 'fly on the wall' perspective. I stand to one side, describe what my characters do, watch what happens to them, and listen to to what they say. I can't eavesdrop on their thoughts any more than I can eavesdrop on the thoughts of a member of the House when he rises to speak. Even though I may imagine what he is thinking , I can't report it. I can only report his words. Thus I try to define my characters by what they say and do. I base this on years of listening to people of all sorts in various parts of the world and learning the truth of the Creole proverb, _Fish git kech bai mout._


----------



## Ethan (Jul 30, 2014)

King's style varies enormously form book to book. Some I enjoyed others are page eared for another day. I think his later work smacks of screenwriting, like he's describing what the director needs to know rather than the reader. What he does is clever, although extremely irritating at times.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 30, 2014)

It's an unfortunate thing to condense _digging deep_ into referencing merely digging deep into a certain character's POV. One can dig deep into many things in writing fiction, one can for example offer detailed exposition of setting or philosophy or whatever. ---------------- The pitfall for all digging deep, notable in most examples above, is that it can easily introduce a plethora of extraneous material, the tying into the narrative of which can often derail a text's direction, and a reader's patience. Episodes of deep POV, or any characterization, need to further the narrative intent, to be germane in the text, or be part of the story. A successful work written entirely in deep POV will be a rare bird, especially while first person offers such a more versatile alternative.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 30, 2014)

I think there's a correlation here to another frequently discussed writing topic; character descriptions. How detailed does a character need to be described for the reader to form a mental image of him/her? (This is for comparison only, please don't divert this thread into a discussion of character descriptions.) My feeling is, not very. I think it's the same with most emotions. If I've done my job as a writer and created a sympathetic character, then the situations I create for that character shouldn't need a detailed explanation of the feelings involved. The reader understands those feelings (every reader has experienced nearly any emotion you can put into a story) and will relate to them in their own way. That creates engagement without the extra verbiage required to show the feeling.


----------



## garza (Jul 30, 2014)

I always know what my character is feeling, but that's between me and the character. What the reader knows is what the character does and says. That's how life is in the real world, and that's how life is in my stories. 

That probably won't work for all readers, but hopefully will work for some.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 30, 2014)

ppsage said:


> Episodes of deep POV, or any characterization, need to further the narrative intent, to be germane in the text, or be part of the story. A successful work written entirely in deep POV will be a rare bird, especially while first person offers such a more versatile alternative.





			
				Terry D said:
			
		

> If I've done my job as a writer and created a sympathetic character, then the situations I create for that character shouldn't need a detailed explanation of the feelings involved.


I agree that, like anything in writing, deep POV has its time and place. 

It's place (in my opinion) is where the writer is _already_ trying to describe a character's internal state. 

I'm not recommending a writer _always_ dip into their character's emotions/thoughts. But, when we _do_? Be wary of narrative distance that can dilute what we're trying to accomplish.

Even first person is not immune to narrative distance, either.

I could see the hive swaying, the insects pouring from it. I heard the air around me filling with their tiny, buzzing bodies. I felt frozen with fear. I wondered, _How could I possibly outrun them all?

_Cutting away the authorial intrusions (those red narrative tags that distance the reader from the character's experiences), we end up with:

The hive swayed, the insects pouring from it, the air around me filling with their tiny, buzzing bodies. My body tensed, every muscle locking in place. How could I possibly outrun them all?

When the those tags that signify narrative distance are removed, the character's experiences come through, unfiltered and unannounced, the same way they would for a character experiencing them. The effect of the passage is (in my opinion) improved. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 31, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> I like to think of it as: there's a difference between _knowing_ a character's emotion, and _experiencing_ a character's emotion.
> _
> _
> :encouragement:



This week I keep running into this difference between knowing and experiencing. Maybe...if you want the reader to know something, tell them. (Unless your "show" is really good.) If you want the reader to experience something, "show" them.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 31, 2014)

> Maybe...if you want the reader to know something, tell them. (Unless your "show" is really good.) If you want the reader to experience something, "show" them.



Here's an easy way to think about it:  

1) Everything you write is 'telling'
2) Everything you don't write, but the reader perceives, is 'showing'

The brain works by registering things that are sensed and coming to a conclusion; you believe someone is happy because they're smiling, for example, and from the sound of their voice. So the registration of an emotion is done as a result of the registration of the factors that contribute to, or 'show', it. So, when you write, as long as you are giving the reader information through what you write, unless the narrative is making a 'comment' (one of the most 'telling' narrative modes; saying something like 'she was an awful person'), you are giving them more through their own mental process. 

Hence, the reader naturally involves their own mind with the story as it progresses. Hence, encouraging their involvement through purposeful use of 'show' for important information can not only help them know it better, and not only help them experience it better, but also help them feel more part of the story altogether, as a man feels part of the world he lives in.

In this way, 'show' and 'tell' are entirely dependent on each other. You involve the reader by not 'telling' them things that they can realise for themselves, while 'telling' them what they need to realise said things.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 1, 2014)

Kyle, what do you mean by "deepening"? I am thinking there is a better word, but I don't know what it is.

Where I am editing right now, I want the reader to know that Rayquin will be a good father to Edam. I don't need anything more. Well, except when it comes to the part where they tell Rayquin to leave, I want the reader to _feel _what a tragedy that is. So I want the reader to _feel _the relationship between Rayquin and Edam.



> And then the door opens, and the most amazing sight walks in. Rayquin has his hand on Edam's shoulder, and they are talking eagerly. They sit and do not have time to even look our way and smile. Edam is talking about what they did this afternoon. Rayquin is adding depth to Edam's understanding, explaining more of what they did and why. He also has good things to say about Edam's help.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 1, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Kyle, what do you mean by "deepening"? I am thinking there is a better word, but I don't know what it is.
> 
> Where I am editing right now, I want the reader to know that Rayquin will be a good father to Edam. I don't need anything more. Well, except when it comes to the part where they tell Rayquin to leave, I want the reader to _feel _what a tragedy that is. So I want the reader to _feel _the relationship between Rayquin and Edam.
> 
> _And then the door opens, and the most amazing sight walks in. Rayquin has his hand on Edam's shoulder, and they are talking eagerly. They sit and do not have time to even look our way and smile. Edam is talking about what they did this afternoon. Rayquin is adding depth to Edam's understanding, explaining more of what they did and why. He also has good things to say about Edam's help._



I like to think of it as: The reader tends to feel what the POV character feels.

So, if you want the reader to feel something is tragic, then my recommendation would be to make it clear that the POV feels it's tragic. Or, if you want the reader to think that Rayquin will be a good father, then you can have the POV character think that Rayquin will be a good father.

For example:
_
And then the door opens, and the most amazing sight walks in. Rayquin has his hand on Edam's shoulder, and they are talking eagerly. They sit and do not have time to even look our way and smile. Edam is talking about what they did this afternoon. Rayquin is adding depth to Edam's understanding, explaining more of what they did and why. He also has good things to say about Edam's help._
_
The whole time they're talking, I can't help grinning. Rayquin will be a good father to Edam. Everyone in the room can see it. And I don't know if it's the medication's kicking in, or if I'm just becoming a big softy, but I take my cellphone from my purse and snap a picture of them both.

_I'm not, of course, saying this is how you should write it. But, take this as an example of one way to use the character's thoughts and actions to influence how the reader perceives the moment.

However the POV character feels/thinks about something, that's what the reader will use as their guide. 

Did any of that help? :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 2, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Did any of that help? :encouragement:



Yes! I was thinking about show and tell for this thread, which was useful for me. I was confusing that with narrative distance (which I might now understand) and deep POV (which I might understand).


----------



## BryanJ62 (Aug 3, 2014)

*Excellent post. Of all the topics I have read since joining this forum this might be my favorite. Of course it does helpthat I am a huge King fan.*

*Long story short: A long time ago I busted up my legs. I was laid up for about a year and a half. My soon to be wife came over and gave me some books to read. I was not much of a reader at the time but what else was I going to do. The internet hadn’t been invented yet so I might as well read. *

*One of the books was IT. I loved the idea of children dealing with a monster. Who else would be capable of such a thing?I loved how he went back and forth from childhood to adults. The girl in the boo k(her name escapes me as I write) was eleven I believe. She had red hair and seemed tough as nails. I have a twelve year old red head. Now I can really relate to that story. *

*I enjoyed the way King held us at bay and later pulled us in. To me that was the appeal of his story telling. He took me by the hand, gave me a wink and took me for a ride. That’s what story telling is, a ride. *

*I pictured myself riding shotgun while he took me on a crazy trip. Sometimes we drove the interstate; other times we took the back roads and it all made sense. Sure, at the time I kind of wondered what he was doing, but when the trip was over I realized it had to be done that way.*

*Maybe he was lazy. Maybe he wasn’t. Eitherway it was a wild ride and in the end who cares what path we took. *


----------

