# When to 'show' and when to to 'tell'



## ironpony (Apr 8, 2017)

I'm into writing screenplays, and one of the things people often say when it comes to writing to show and not tell.  But I feel that a lot of movies will do this though.  In Reservoir Dogs for example, the heist is never shown, but it's skipped over and talked about through dialogue after example.  Or how in the first X-men movies, aside from Wolverine and Rogue, the other X-men and X-men villains, origins stories, are only told through some dialogue backstory, and not actually shown and played out, since they wanted to keep the movie under 2 hours.

In my script story for example, there is a scene where a crook is arrested, and then interrogated but he doesn't talk during the interrogation at all and remains silent.  I didn't write a scene showing this at all, cause I thought one cop, could just tell his superior later, through dialogue, in another scene, and I could just use that scene to also explain the interrogation and kill two birds with one stone, rather than having to budget for a separate interrogation room scene on it's own.

I figured if the crook character is not going to talk or give up any vital information, then why show an interrogation scene where nothing comes of it, especially when the crook knew it was his best option not to talk, if he was caught.  So to show it may feel arbitrary.

That is just one example.  I am in a screenwriting class right now, and the teacher said that whenever I do that, people will read it and think I 'pulled a Tarantino', as he says, which is why he used the Tarantino example.  But he says it's not good to copy Tarantino's tell and not show style, since newcomers cannot get away with it like he can so easily.  But what do you think?  If I do not show everything and tell some of the plot through dialogue, is that really 'pulling a Tarantino', like he says, and it's that obvious?

Another example, in my story is how I want to to begin it by starting out right in the middle progression of a chase scene, rather than opening of what starts off the chase.  Some movies that do that where it starts out right in a chase, and doesn't show how the chase at all started.  Movies like Lethal Weapon 2, Skyfall, and Mad Max.

I was told that it's not good to start out in the middle of a chase, cause I have not had any time to introduce or develop the characters in the chase.  But I feel that other movies do this as well.  Lethal Weapon II and Skyfall or sequels, so they don't have to develop the main characters, but they still start off in a chase with undeveloped villains, who we don't know anything about.  Mad Max also has an undeveloped protagonist in the chase beforehand, so I am wondering what can I do to not cause confusion in the reader.

Or is there anything wrong with it, and everything must be shown?


----------



## Sam (Apr 9, 2017)

No, everything _must not _be shown. 

Every creative teacher I've ever talked to, and there have been more than a few, has forgotten one key point in all of this show/tell stuff: all showing is telling. To show me something, you must also tell me it, at least in terms of writing. 

As to your teacher: I don't even know what "pulling a Tarantino" means, so how he imagines that everyone will think you pulled one is beyond me.


----------



## JustRob (Apr 9, 2017)

I have been reading the _No Rules Handbook for Writers _by Lisa Goldman, in which she challenges many of the rules of thumb given to writers. She is actually a theatrical producer and director, so has a good working experience of scriptwriting and the differences between that and writing literature. In the section of her book on "Show don't tell" she makes the point that by default novel writers tell, whereas by default scriptwriters show. A novel writer must write more lines to show, but a scriptwriter must write more to tell. It's a good point, that the two disciplines are in a fundamental way different.

No doubt for a scriptwriter there are cost factors involved. For a novel writer their words are the finished article but for a scriptwriter it is only the beginning of a long process. In fact she observes that often scriptwriters work in conjunction with directors to create the work progressively, rather than working to a predefined commission. Showing and telling aren't just intellectual considerations as in novel writing. Anyway, what do I know about it? Nothing.

She concluded the section on "Show don't tell", as with every other rule that she tackles, with her alternative approach, which in this case is stated as "It's the way you tell 'em", so evidently you have to develop that skill for yourself and not heed that particular rule of thumb too much. I recently started a thread in the Lounge entitled "Writing is ..." and in my opening post I said that it's nothing like painting by numbers. To create something original you have to work freehand, which may result in your style looking like someone else's purely by coincidence. So what?

The _No Rules Handbook for Writers _by Lisa Goldman is published by Oberon Books Ltd, by the way.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 9, 2017)

The thing that so many people miss is that "showing" has nothing to do with visuals. The object isn't to make the reader "see" the scene as in knowing what there is to see. It's to know what matters to the protagonist _as that character lives the scene_, because if we know all the factors going into their decisions and actions in the moment they call now—in the way they do—it will become _our_ moment of now, and time will seem to be passing as we read. That gives us a visceral understanding of the protagonist's world, and thus an interest in it.

Showing, is term for having a character viewpoint  strong enough to make the reader live it. Not POV, which refers to the personal pronouns the author chooses to use, but their real-time viewpoint. So we "show," the protagonist's viewpoint, not their visuals.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 9, 2017)

Okay thanks.  It's just when it comes to screenwriting, so many movies seem to tell at certain points, that it's hard to know what is acceptable and unacceptable.  Star Wars opens with written narration to get through some of the story, and Goodfellas, has a lot of voice narration, for example.  But like you said, it's not all about seeing what's on the screen, right?

When it comes to the my police interrogation scene, not being shown, the protagonist was not a part of that scene at all.  So if he is not a part of it, is it okay, for one cop to tell another in the story "the suspect didn't talk so we had to let him go", and not show it?  I suppose the protagonist (who is a cop), could be a part of that scene, but he is called in after the interrogation takes place, and is just told what has happened so far in the case.  So I could have him be part of the actual interrogation if that is better, or does it not matter, if he is being brought in after?  Or should I show it anyway, even though the protagonist was not a part of it?


----------



## JustRob (Apr 9, 2017)

I'm lost now, being pedantic. If the first cop tells the second cop, then is the protagonist the second cop or does he get told separately later? What you wrote doesn't tell me which it is, does it? So, maybe telling is okay if the telling is crystal clear and there's no possibility of ambiguity, but on the other hand maybe it's better to show and let the viewers deduce things for themselves. That was of course a devious trick by me to make a point that I didn't plan to, but then I'm erratic as well as pedantic, which seems quite an achievement.

I don't see why the interrogation shouldn't be shown even though the protagonist isn't there. Does the lead actor have something in his contract to prevent it? Give the others a chance to do their bit without being upstaged by him the whole time. Gosh, I dislike him already and don't even know the story yet. I still reckon it comes down to cost. Can the production company afford the scene? What's in the other actors' contracts? That part of it isn't fiction but real life. Only screenplays for films with unlimited budgets can have everything.

My novel is almost entirely set inside one building because I envisaged it as a TV series with a limited budget but wrote it as a novel. I'm not sure that writing a screenplay but viewing it in the way that one might a novel works though. Use the medium to its best advantage but also within its practical limitations ... and please don't crash too many helicopters; it's a cliché and they're expensive.


----------



## Sam (Apr 9, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> The thing that so many people miss is that "showing" has nothing to do with visuals. The object isn't to make the reader "see" the scene as in knowing what there is to see. It's to know what matters to the protagonist _as that character lives the scene_, because if we know all the factors going into their decisions and actions in the moment they call now—in the way they do—it will become _our_ moment of now, and time will seem to be passing as we read. That gives us a visceral understanding of the protagonist's world, and thus an interest in it.
> 
> Showing, is term for having a character viewpoint  strong enough to make the reader live it. Not POV, which refers to the personal pronouns the author chooses to use, but their real-time viewpoint. So we "show," the protagonist's viewpoint, not their visuals.



Yes, Jay, but so many people phrase it as you must show everything or almost everything. 

That's not helpful, because it's not about how to show but when.


----------



## plawrence (Apr 9, 2017)

The thing that I've learned from the forum so far is that you have to get the reader/watcher emotionally involved in the action.  Otherwise you lose them.  Rules are good, insofar as you use them as guidelines, but if you want to be a good writer, you can't always play by the rules.  If you can "pull a Tarantino" (whatever the hell that means), then why not do it?

I think your instinct is right.  Showing a scene where the suspect says nothing, isn't very informative, unless the interrogators can add something to the story line.  You can easily deal with a non-talkative suspect with a couple of lines of dialogue.



> What'd you find out from [suspect]?
> Not a damn thing. He lawyered up immediately and never said a word afterwards.


Done. Now move on to something that captures my attention.

Or, if you want to develop that more.


> Detective soandso walked into the interrogation room.  The suspect, seated across from him and safely handcuffed to the table, stared at him and smiled malevolently.  "You're a damn fool if you think you'll get anything out of me", he scowled.
> 
> "That's OK by me, little man.  I've already got you dead to rights anyway."  Detective soandso shuffled the folder he had put on the table, implying that "the dead to rights" were in it.
> 
> ...



It's your story.  Write it the way you want.  Just keep in mind that it has to be interesting, and in order to be interesting, it has to create emotions in the reader/viewer.

I just picked up Dashiell Hammet's Complete Novels and Don Quixote from the library.  Hammet is 946 pages and includes FIVE novels.  (Most people are familiar with his Maltese Falcon and the Thin Man.  Not so much with his other three.)  Don Quixote is 940 pages and it's ONE novel.  I'm pretty sure Cervantes broke the rule for book length, but that didn't stop him from writing, and it didn't prevent his book from being a best seller.  I'm also pretty sure that the average reader is thoroughly intimidated by a book that's two inches thick.  The likelihood of someone buying a 250 page novel is significantly greater than the likelihood of someone buying a 940 page novel.  Thus the rule.  Don't make your book too long.  Unless you need to and you're a really really good writer.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 9, 2017)

JustRob said:


> I'm lost now, being pedantic. If the first cop tells the second cop, then is the protagonist the second cop or does he get told separately later? What you wrote doesn't tell me which it is, does it? So, maybe telling is okay if the telling is crystal clear and there's no possibility of ambiguity, but on the other hand maybe it's better to show and let the viewers deduce things for themselves. That was of course a devious trick by me to make a point that I didn't plan to, but then I'm erratic as well as pedantic, which seems quite an achievement.
> 
> I don't see why the interrogation shouldn't be shown even though the protagonist isn't there. Does the lead actor have something in his contract to prevent it? Give the others a chance to do their bit without being upstaged by him the whole time. Gosh, I dislike him already and don't even know the story yet. I still reckon it comes down to cost. Can the production company afford the scene? What's in the other actors' contracts? That part of it isn't fiction but real life. Only screenplays for films with unlimited budgets can have everything.
> 
> My novel is almost entirely set inside one building because I envisaged it as a TV series with a limited budget but wrote it as a novel. I'm not sure that writing a screenplay but viewing it in the way that one might a novel works though. Use the medium to its best advantage but also within its practical limitations ... and please don't crash too many helicopters; it's a cliché and they're expensive.



No, it hasn't been cast yet, I just feel it would add to the budget, and not sure if it's necessary.

I mean if the cops try to talk to him, he will request a lawyer, and the interrogation will stop, and that's it.  So I felt it doesn't really establish anything that is worth showing.  Basically the protagonist is not part of the case at this point.  The way I wrote it, is that one cop tells another that the suspect didn't talk, and the other cop, the superior, says will I have a different idea.  The next scene that follows, is the protagonist following the assignment, on that idea, the superior had.  So I felt it was not necessary to show the interrogation since it's just basic set up, or at least that is how I felt about it.  But I could even if it's just a guy requesting a lawyer and the police then let him go, if he won't talk.

But I thought it would be a waist of money to film such a scene, that can be established as dialogue, in part of another scene, that is much more necessary, since the cops are discussing the case already in that scene.


----------



## JustRob (Apr 9, 2017)

plawrence said:


> I'm also pretty sure that the average reader is thoroughly intimidated by a book that's two inches thick.  The likelihood of someone buying a 250 page novel is significantly greater than the likelihood of someone buying a 940 page novel.  Thus the rule.  Don't make your book too long.  Unless you need to and you're a really really good writer.



There's a shelf in my bookcase filled with paperback books by the very successful British space opera writer Peter F Hamilton. Each one is two inches thick and even then the printers had to reduce the font size to fit the text into less than 1300 pages, the maximum that their machinery could handle. In America his books were divided into two books each by publishers there, so apparently not everything in Texas is bigger. However, my angel says that a book two inches thick is just physically awkward to hold, so you have a point. 

Hamilton is a really good writer, as you say, and space operas are, as the name suggests, very long, especially when you consider that his stories were also mainly trilogies, although he did manage to fit one of his sagas into just two books, but still an incredible 2500 pages or so. His work is not intimidating though but as wide as the universe in its diversity and you can lose yourself in it, especially if your book mark falls out. 

Some genres like science fiction need a large amount of detail that the reader can't imagine for themselves because the setting is so alien to them. Hence there can be no one standard for story length. When Cervantes wrote Don Quixote he was campaigning for a change in the style of novels and was actually a key mover in defining what we now consider to be the normal novel. That evolutionary process has not stopped there though and Don Quixote is not exceptional any more. I would say write what you must to make your work as good as it can be and let the readers judge, if the publishers will allow them to. It'll probably get read as an E-book anyway nowadays, so only be less than half an inch thick in the hand, even if it is as lengthy as P F Hamilton's works. I call this measure of book length in pages or inches "Gutenberg's Guillotine" because that is the technology that defines it. It isn't like the ergonomically conventional length of a film, which is defined by the capacity of the human bladder. In due course as home cinemas become the norm even that convention is likely to be revised and there are already signs of that.

My own single story would probably span a trilogy of conventional novels if I wrote all of it, but currently there is no convenient break point where the first of those novels could end, so I would have to leave the first book as the currently shortish story that it is with an unsatisfactory cliff-hanger ending or increase it to maybe twice the length and leave another unsatisfactory cliff-hanger ending, but I would rather satisfy the reader with three times the length, even though the ending there would also be a cliff-hanger but more satisfactory. My entire story would then be two long books rather than three conventional length ones, but I have no intention of writing the story at all unless I am convinced that readers would want to read all of it, so what does it matter where any "book" ends? So far the readers who have reached the end of the first part have expressed the wish to continue reading, so perhaps I ought to write the first long "book" one day, because the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts.

How did this subject arise here anyway? Are large books the consequence of too much showing? I suppose they must be.

@Ironpony  To get back to the main topic and your last post, I agree that on a cost basis there probably isn't enough to justify the scene appearing, but you ought to have it written anyway so that the overall length can be adjusted by removing such optional scenes if necessary. No doubt if you write more than is wanted then by the time the excess is cut out you'll end up with what you wanted to be produced in the first place.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 9, 2017)

> That's not helpful, because it's not about how to show but when.


I like Jack Bickham's view: *“*To describe something in detail, you have to stop the action. But without the action, the description has no meaning.”
~Jack Bickham


----------



## Sam (Apr 10, 2017)

plawrence said:


> I just picked up Dashiell Hammet's Complete Novels and Don Quixote from the library.  Hammet is 946 pages and includes FIVE novels.  (Most people are familiar with his Maltese Falcon and the Thin Man.  Not so much with his other three.)  Don Quixote is 940 pages and it's ONE novel.  I'm pretty sure Cervantes broke the rule for book length, but that didn't stop him from writing, and it didn't prevent his book from being a best seller.  I'm also pretty sure that the average reader is thoroughly intimidated by a book that's two inches thick.  The likelihood of someone buying a 250 page novel is significantly greater than the likelihood of someone buying a 940 page novel.  Thus the rule.  Don't make your book too long.  Unless you need to and you're a really really good writer.



Depends on what you mean by "average reader". 

As an average reader in my teens, for instance, I read several 1000-page books written by Tom Clancy. 

The rule here, and I use that term loosely, is that if you're a beginner and you're seeking publication for your novel, follow the rough specifications that exist for each genre. For instance, thrillers are expected to fall into the 90k to 120k gap, so you would be advised to aim for 100k and leave it there. But, as we all know, thrillers can easily be 200k and above. 

Writing them that length has nothing to do, really, with how good a writer you are, but rather how _established _you are. A 200k novel from an unknown beginner will not be accepted, but one from someone with a proven track-record of sales most certainly will.


----------



## JustRob (Apr 10, 2017)

Sam said:


> Depends on what you mean by "average reader".
> 
> As an average reader in my teens, for instance, I read several 1000-page books written by Tom Clancy.
> 
> ...



My angel appears on WF as BlondeAverageReader so she ought to live up to that name. She had no problem with reading our paperback copy of the trilogy _Lord of the Rings _which, although composed of three physical books purely as a convenience for handling, must be regarded as a single story. Nobody would read just one of the books, would they? The total page count is 1250 pages so she, as a representative average reader, has no problem with such a _story_ length, just the physical size of the books. She says that any paperback over 600 pages is just too unwieldy and, perhaps oddly, she has bigger hands than I do.

Tolkien's masterpiece got published because someone drew his shorter story _The Hobbit _to a publisher's attention first. Despite having an academic background in literature, had he not written that then LoTR might never have been published or even written, an appalling thought. That may be the reality of the publishing world but it seems a fundamental hindrance that a writer must write a sampler story before their real masterpiece can get into the reading arena. Personally I have just one long story in my mind and nothing else to offer. It may not be on a par with LoTR but it will probably just stay there unwritten because of this resistance in the publishing process. Hopefully new channels will eventually overcome the problem in the future.

This still seems to be off topic though, a bit like those stags fighting on a golf course fairway that I mentioned elsewhere.


----------



## AimlessWanderer (Apr 10, 2017)

The novel I'm working on at the moment is quite heavy in "tell", as the back story is significantly bigger than than present day, and a lot of the present day stuff would actually be pretty boring if played out organically. 

I'm trying to blend the two, so that the major tell sections last no more than two pages at a time, and always answer something that has already happened, so the reader is appreciative. I'm purposefully engineering a thirst for information, a chapter or two prior to the telling, so that they become an "Aha!" moment, rather than equipping the reader with the info before they know why they need it. If I can get the reader to _want_ me to tell, then I feel justified in doing so. Not every tell is done this way, just the big ones which would otherwise lead to "Why are you telling me this? I want to know what's happening NOW!"

So far it's working, but it's a fine balance. I think the only way to know if it's right is to read it back, and ask yourself if you're feeling what you want the reader to feel.


----------



## JustRob (Apr 10, 2017)

@AimlessWanderer Hi again. I'm a bit concerned that you say that you're feeding the reader blocks of showing and telling rather than keeping the two running side by side, but we have to reserve judgement until we see examples of what you're doing once you've fledged as a full member. 

You are so right about reading it back to get the reader experience regardless of your intentions. In my novel I wanted the reader to share in the characters' feelings of boredom, frustration and confusion, but fortunately my writing can quite easily do that to a reader. Er, perhaps that should have been "unfortunately", but you see my point. What is right or wrong at any point in a story entirely depends on what you are endeavouring to achieve within the reader's mind then, not whether it is considered "good practice" by some universal criterion which disregards that.


----------



## Tettsuo (Apr 10, 2017)

I find that many writers are looking for some magic key that'll give them all the answers.  Sadly, somethings will have to be figured out by the writer and plays into that writers style and voice.  It simply can't be completely taught.  You have to learn your own voice and master your own style, using it as best you can to tell your story.

So, IMO, how you show and/or tell, what things you choose to show and tell and how much of the story you choose to show and tell, all of it will play into your unique voice.

Choose wisely.


----------



## Sebald (Apr 10, 2017)

Tettsuo said:


> I find that many writers are looking for some magic key that'll give them all the answers.  Sadly, somethings will have to be figured out by the writer and plays into that writers style and voice.  It simply can't be completely taught.  You have to learn your own voice and master your own style, using it as best you can to tell your story.
> 
> So, IMO, how you show and/or tell, what things you choose to show and tell and how much of the story you choose to show and tell, all of it will play into your unique voice.
> 
> Choose wisely.



Good point. No magic solutions. But it's interesting to hear how other people handle show vs tell. 

My almost-finished novel is contemporary YA, so I'm not Dostoevsky or anything. But I find it helps to bear in mind that, no matter what we're writing, we want to move forward through the piece as dynamically as possible.

Poets seem to do this naturally.

The word 'dynamic' encourages you to relax, and trust your instincts. If you're coming out of a busy scene, you'll probably want to follow it with a reflective one. Pages of dialogue? You'll be ready for some description. And so on. 

Less repetition.

More contrasts.


I realise I'm stating the obvious, but it's easy to lose sight of simplicity when you're deep into a long piece.


----------



## AimlessWanderer (Apr 11, 2017)

JustRob said:


> @AimlessWanderer Hi again. I'm a bit concerned that you say that you're feeding the reader blocks of showing and telling rather than keeping the two running side by side, but we have to reserve judgement until we see examples of what you're doing once you've fledged as a full member.
> 
> You are so right about reading it back to get the reader experience regardless of your intentions. In my novel I wanted the reader to share in the characters' feelings of boredom, frustration and confusion, but fortunately my writing can quite easily do that to a reader. Er, perhaps that should have been "unfortunately", but you see my point. What is right or wrong at any point in a story entirely depends on what you are endeavouring to achieve within the reader's mind then, not whether it is considered "good practice" by some universal criterion which disregards that.



@JustRob Hi Rob, you are quite right, there are places where there are blocks as you describe. A recent block is a backstory "dump" which is a character's reflections of childhood, but is framed with "show".

Or maybe not, depending on what is deemed as show and tell.

The character finishes shaving with an open razor, looking into the mirror, feeling his face. The page drifts into the razor itself, why open razor, and what it symbolises. It organically drifts further into other areas of youth, before drifting back to cleaning the razor. It's a substantial segment, which I feel is justified in position (timing in the story) and content.

I do not wish to reveal much more online, but I do have stunt readers lined up, who are prepared to suffer the burden of the initial readings, and tell me if I have lost the balance at any point in the work.


----------

