# Show Vs Tell + Writing/Pace question



## evak2979 (Jan 8, 2018)

Hello everyone.
I am a new member, and I have joined this board in hopes to read other people's work as well as present my own, ask questions, receive and give feedback - as you may have guessed, this is a question thread! I'll start with the first half of the title. Show Vs Tell.

I've read many articles on the S v T, and I feel I have the basics under my belt. Yet there are things that confuse me. I'll start by saying what I think show vs tell is. 

Show is evoking the reader's senses, to describe something that allows the reader to deduce what that something is without flat out saying it. E.g:

Show:
The floor, young as it was, groaned in pain the moment he entered the room. She had to crane her neck to look at his face. And when she found his face, she witnessed the birth of a storm (or something, forgive me for cheesiness. I am just making this up as I go). 

Tell:
The tall, heavy man entered the room, and the floor creaked. She looked up at him, and saw how angry he was.

Telling the reader someone is angry is, well. Telling, because it's abstract, it doesn't necessarily invoke an image (I think?). 
But isn't telling the reader someone is tall actual invoke the image of a tall person? Or is it that we don't specify just HOW tall that makes it tell and not show?

In this wonderful blog post (http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/showing-and-telling-the-basics.html) the author gives a list of show vs tell examples. She states the following is tell:

"The mountains were covered in fine, volcanic ash"


but for me, this paints a scene. It's showing me how the mountains look through the use of my eyesight. I am not sure how the above could be shown through a show? Similarly. She claims the following


"..and the heavy frost reflected the sun's rays brightly." is a tell


but this


"...and dazzling frost lay on every bud and branch."


is a show. Yet for me, they are both 'showing' me something. The first that the ice reflects the sun (telling me so through the use of the verb reflect), and the second through the use of dazzling. The second is more scenic due to the bud and branch addition.

I wonder if my question makes sense, but small details like such really confuse me, because they have me wonder how do I actually paint a scenic narrative. Taking it a step further, which is where I am stuck right now in my chapter is this. Doing a trip down memory lane in my POV's character head, is it showing or telling? Or is it good narrative summary?

This technique is one of the things I love in Stephen Kings book, being inside a character's head. Yet in being there, my character would never think :

'I felt my skin shiver, and my hackles rise, and my heart pump like a crazy train when something moved in the shadows'.

He/she would instead think:

'John remembered nearly shitting himself when he saw something move in the shadows'. 

I hope the above examples shed some light in my trouble separating showing vs telling and what's a good method to approach to distinguish which is which.

Bonus question - past narrative summary/flashback writing.

Narration is for covering ground, and if done with strong verbs and with a touch of character personality it nicely adds flavor. However, how much is too much? In my present example, I want my character to demonstrate his misery through thinking on how long it has been since he rode away from a city he loved. And I am going down this path:

'Three weeks to the day they had ridden away from Alexandria. Three weeks since last he had slept on a warm bed, three weeks since he had tasted warm food and sweet ale, three weeks since he had last smelled the sweetness nestled in a woman's hair. Now the air smelled of dunk and rot, and last they had seen an inn was half a day ago. Half a day. He could still turn around. He could still turn around and leave, and he would were it not for the feeling of guilt that gnawed at his heart. Guilt, reminding him that were it not for his master he would still be laying in a cold, dark cell bleeding to his death. Guilt, reminding him that he had been walking on a pair of legs instead of all fours because of his master. His master, who had removed his chains, who had shown him mercy. Who had replaced his ball and chain with an intangible leash, the kind of chain a man wears to his death.'

So what am I doing in the above? Am I showing? Am I telling? am I narrating, or doing a bit of both?

It' s a rough example, but looking at it I stop and worry if I , at any moment, venture too far into telling rather than showing territory. Thoughts like these stall my revising (I don't stop to edit as I write, am past that). But I am stuck on situations like the above for days, because I am still not sure whether I am telling too much or not.

I hope my post, lengthy as it was, sheds some light on my problem and that someone can suggest a technique, an approach, something to help me realize when I am telling the reader rather than helping him experience what I mean.

My apologies for the length, and I hope someone can help me with answers, links to posts that may help give me answers, examples and so on.

Thank you


----------



## Ultraroel (Jan 8, 2018)

It's not about whether it actually tells something. It's about conveying a feeling, a point of view or an impression. I can tell you the ice is on the floor: 

The floor was covered in a fine layer of ice.

Or I can show you,

Ice cracked underneath my feet as I set my way towards X.

For me the difference is this - Though as a beginner I may have it wrong -  Showing is part of an action, a small indicator of the state of something as something else happens. (I was scared vs. (Cliche: The cracking sound of snapping bones send a shiver down my spine.)

Telling is boring, it's a simple statement of something, where showing often is connected to something else. It paints a picture of how something made me feel, observe or sense.

You are telling:

You are telling us it was 3 weeks old, you are telling us about the smell, while not connecting it to something that happens.

On the other hand, it sounds like an introduction of a chapter and then it's not yet bad necessary. It's balancing it. When does showing add to the story and when not.


----------



## evak2979 (Jan 8, 2018)

Thank you for your response Ultraroel ! I agree, it kind of makes sense. But then if I am to think of the "The mountains were covered in fine, volcanic ash" example. How can we do this in any way other than a tell? Use a simile/metaphor, or add a 'feel' verb the sort of :

The mountains were covered in fine, volcanic ash like a row of tombs aged with time (to give it something morbid)

or

She felt her heart sink at the sight of the mountains covered in fine, volcanic ash?

Such trivial things confuse me so. Once more thanks for participating!

Edited: And thanks for pointing to the 3 weeks old thing. That's a very good point of where I am so confused. If I were to say this as a narrator, it would be telling. If this is part of a POV character's thought, is it still telling or is it now showing via 'thinking', like a direct link to what the character is thinking in that moment?


----------



## Phil Istine (Jan 8, 2018)

There are so many ways of doing this.  I've recently started writing a scene where a rough sleeper is hiding behind a fence waiting for the public toilet cleaner to leave so he can go in for a wash.

I could have told the reader that it was very early in the morning and that he was sleeping rough.

Instead I dropped in that there weren't many people around yet and that he brushed a few damp leaves from his hair (with his hand).

The second way still tells, but it also shows something slightly deeper about what is going on.  The second way might evoke a little sympathy from some readers (and others might wonder if he deserved to be in that plight).  Either way, there's a little more chance that a reader would want to continue reading by doing it the second way, because I've coloured it in very slightly.


----------



## Phil Istine (Jan 8, 2018)

evak2979 said:


> Thank you for your response Ultraroel ! I agree, it kind of makes sense. But then if I am to think of the "The mountains were covered in fine, volcanic ash" example. How can we do this in any way other than a tell? Use a simile/metaphor, or add a 'feel' verb the sort of :
> 
> The mountains were covered in fine, volcanic ash like a row of tombs aged with time (to give it something morbid)
> 
> ...



Maybe a little action or a hint at thought processes "Her heart sank as she wondered if anything could survive among the ash coating."  Of course, that is only useable if you are in the POV of an omnipotent narrator.

Perhaps better might be, "She sank to her knees. _Surely nothing could survive the ash fallout_"

There are better ways than this.  Much depends on the personality of the focal character and which POV you wish to use.  Or whether you are at a pacey or slower part of the text.  It's hard to say for certain without seeing a couple of paragraphs either side and knowing some more about the focal character.


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 8, 2018)

The whole show v tell thing is something that so many people get bogged down in. There are some cracking pieces that predominantly tell, just as there are others that show very well. It all depends upon the 'voice' of the narrative and the importance of the information. It also has much to do with the delivery. Sometimes you can say something in one telling sentence that has impact, whereas a paragraph showing the information would detract from the delivery.

If it reads well, that is all that matters. Of course, if you take such an approach, no doubt someone with a different style will call you every type of wrong under the sun, but that's writing for you!


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 8, 2018)

I am trying to do an exorcism, but it isn't working. Show versus Tell is confusing, self-contradictory, and an essential part of writing.

I do not want to read a description of characters traits and personalities. Show me in action and dialogue.

If someone is angry, just tell me. If they pound on the desk, that doesn't mean they're angry. Do not try to describe a smile, you will fail.

If I need to know someone's in love, tell me. If you want me to feel it, then show me. I guess in action and dialogue.


----------



## evak2979 (Jan 8, 2018)

Thanks everyone for your responses so far


----------



## Terry D (Jan 8, 2018)

I'd say don't worry about show v tell. If you focus on using vivid language with strong imagery and an active voice, it won't matter if you are telling or showing, the work will be interesting and that's what the whole debate is about, keeping the reader's interest. Of course vivid language, strong imagery, and active verbs is pretty much the definition of showing... so there is that.

For example:

*The road crested the hill and Rhotan saw that it dropped away from there following the curves of the hills to the West. Trees covered those hills and blocked his view of the sea beyond, and of the harbor city of Kol. Terrible Kol.


*
or:

*From the crest of the hill Rhotan saw the road ahead slither down the side of the hill and through the valley like a long, gray snake winding it's twisting way among the trees, hidden here and there by the heavy crowns of pines covering the hills like green fur. He could smell the freshness of the forest and the salty scent of the hidden sea beyond. The salt-breeze strengthened him, but there was something else in the air too, a rich, sour hint of human waste and coal fired stoves cooking greasy meat. The harbor city of Kol lay at the end of the road; the venomous head of the serpent along who's back he now walked.*


----------



## Book Cook (Jan 8, 2018)

The best thing to do about show and tell methods is to not think about them.


----------



## Irisd (Jan 8, 2018)

I agree with the general concept of show, don't tell, but I think it has to be something one has to learn to practice instinctually, or it can turn into a whole lot of metaphor-laden purple prose. I actually prefer the "tell" version of your first example (tall heavy man, etc) and of other examples. For me, simplicity always wins out over extraneous and distracting detail. I try to make sure every word I write has a real reason for being there (obviously, I rarely succeed at this, but it's something I keep in the back of my mind). Just as tell-heavy prose can be dull and lifeless, show-heavy prose can end up obscuring the real meaning behind a piece. it's easy to go too far and start to show things that just don't need to be shown.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 8, 2018)

> The tall, heavy man entered the room, and the floor creaked. She looked up at him, and saw how angry he was.


This, I'm afraid, isn't showing, it's still telling, because the narrator, someone neither in the story nor on the scene, is explaining what's visible in the scene that the author is visualizing. So the reader knows what happened as a chronicle of events delivered by an external, dispassionate voice.

In this, who notes that the man entered the room? It can't be the narrator, because s/he isn't there to see it, and can only talk about it. And if that happens we have two possibilities. First, is that from the reader's viewpoint we're not in that room. We're with the storyteller in an unknown place. The second is that we are in the room, and the peopl, there, will turn and say, "Who are you...why are you here...and, why are you talking about us?

Neither work.

Showing isn't making the reader know what _can_ be seen, it's placing the reader into the viewpoint of the protagonist, to the point where we know what motivates the character to react. So in this case, it would be the happening as the protagonist views it.

So...when does she know about the man? When the floor creaks and she looks up. That's only her motivation. The reader doesn't care that "The tall, heavy man entered the room," because there can be "a" man, but not "the" man, in her viewpoint. Moreover, what she notices about him is a function of how she perceives him and her mood. For example, if he surprised her, is close, and she's sitting, his height would be irrelevant because he would tower over her, be he short or tall, and she would focus on her fear, and anything about him that appeared threatening. Were he fifteen feet from her she might focus on her view of his purpose. She can _see_ that he's tall and heavy, but t's secondary to her in the moment she realizes he's there. As readers we're not interested in what she _can_ see. We want to know how/why she reacts, because that reaction will inform her actions/thoughts. Three examples:

1. The creak of a floorboard said that she had company. Was she to have no relaxation this day? With a  sigh Carol laid the book aside and turned, to find...
2. The weight of someone's step brought a muttered curse to Helen's lips. It could only be Nicky, so she turned, the anger at the interruption stilled in an instant, because framed in the doorway stood the most...
3. Angry breathing from behind the chair caused Zena to close her eyes. Obviously, the creaking noise she'd dismiss as the house "breathing" had been a floorboard complaining. She straightened, verifying that the pistol was available, as she turned to say...

Note that the narrator doesn't speak, other than in support of the characters living the scene. Nothing is mentioned that the protagonist has not noted and is reacting to, and we are aware of both her motivation and her response to ity, as we would be in life. So we don't know what the writer tells us, we know what matters to-the-protagonist, in the moment she calls, "now." And that's where story lives.

Want to know the trick? It's here. You might also want to look at my article, "What in the Hell is POV for a better understanding of why viewpoint matters so much to a reader's engagement with the protagonist. (though I'm not allowed to link to my own articles within a post...sorry).

Hope this clarifies


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 9, 2018)

We can get into really minute differences between Show and Tell, but, to me, the simplest distinction is that Tell usually _summarizes_, while Show often allows the reader a better opportunity to _experience_ the moment on the page.

Some blunt examples:

Tell: They had a loud argument, and many things were said.
Show: _Show the actual argument._

Tell: The fistfight was intense and exciting, but eventually Peter gained the upper hand.
Show: _Show the actual fistfight._

Tell: It was unique building.
Show: _Show the uniqueness of the building (through description)._

Tell: He asked her on a date, though he did it in a clumsy way.
Show: _Show him asking her, and show his clumsy way.

_Tell: When he saw the gun, George reacted in a shocked and fearful way.
Show: _Show George's reaction.

_Tell: Gandalf stopped the Balrog by doing epic, wizardly stuff.
Show: _Show Gandalf's epic, wizardly moment._


----------



## evak2979 (Jan 9, 2018)

Once more, thank you all for your responses !
They are all very interesting points - Jay's point latched onto me, because it raises a question. Like I said, I am an avid King fan. I've read extensively, but I always go back to Stephen King (The Shining being my all time favorite novel). In the Shining, very often, he plays a trick with the reader which is sort of King signature. He 'tells' the reader things that the characters are thinking, by adding personal touch to the thoughts. The chapter Boulder comes to mind, where Wendy is looking at Danny sitting on the pavement waiting for his dad. She is climbing down the stairs, buttoning her dress. And then the excerpt goes like this:

The whole building smelled of sour age, and what sort of place was this for Danny after the small neat brick house in Stovington? The people living above them on the third floor weren’t married, and while that didn’t bother her, their constant, rancorous fighting did. It scared her. The guy up there was Tom, and after the bars had closed and they had returned home, the fights would start in earnest – the rest of the week was just a prelim in comparison. The Friday Night Fights, Jack called them, but it wasn’t funny. The woman – her name was Elaine – would at last be reduced to tears and to repeating over and over again: ‘Don’t, Tom. Please don’t. Please don’t.’ And he would shout at her. Once they had even awakened Danny, and Danny slept like a corpse. The next


King, Stephen. The Shining (p. 9). Hodder & Stoughton. Kindle Edition. 

See how he starts it with : *and what sort of place was this for Danny after the small neat brick house in Stovington?

*which I found a very smart way to let me into a (albeit stereotype) of a way a worried mother would talk. 'What sort of place is this' is something one could imagine in a dialogue, but to me here he uses it in a subtle way to show that what follows are -her- thoughts. Or at least it feels like that. But then going further than this, he gives us a backstory of what goes on upstairs. The arguing neighbours, all very vividly shown . And yet some of it is narrative. The fights would start in earnest. It scared her. The guy up there was Tom.

This is not exactly painting a scene, and it's not exactly taking place now but for me, as a reader, it does work. So what do we call what he is doing? Narrative summary? Narrative? Good telling?

Once again thank you. This forum has already helped me tremendously !


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 9, 2018)

evak2979 said:


> So what do we call what he is doing? Narrative summary? Narrative? Good telling?



I think it is called free indirect speech, sort of bombing dialogue straight into narrated text.


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 9, 2018)

Regarding show and tell, the way I see it is tell is reporting on what happened at a bit of a distance, while showing is making it happen, marrionetting characters and things about till they assemble the scene via their various doings (and the perception thereof). I think I would be reluctant to use full-on show all the way through though, because as you say, you can govern the pace a little bit better when you mix it up, like your volanic ash example. Show things that are relevant to the plot and characters, and tell the things that frame them, otherwise too much show and things become weighted down. Equally, of course, too much tell and everything is very light and shallow and insignificant. 

But you can still tell with a good voice. If you think about it, the opening paragraph of _A Tale of Two Cities_ is more telling than showing, but it fits with the novel's tone rather than being blah.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 9, 2018)

evak2979 said:


> See how he starts it with : *and what sort of place was this for Danny after the small neat brick house in Stovington?
> *
> ...So what do we call what he is doing? Narrative summary? Narrative? Good telling?



He's narrating the POV character's thoughts. Also called _internal dialogue_. 

The road stretched on as far as Sheila could see. She glanced at her rickety old bicycle and frowned. Why the heck hadn't she taken the _truck_?​
:encouragement:


----------



## evak2979 (Jan 9, 2018)

Once more thank you guys  Invaluable input.


----------



## Book Cook (Jan 9, 2018)

I cringe every time I see an interrogative sentence in a narrative.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 10, 2018)

> This is not exactly painting a scene, and it's not exactly taking place  now but for me, as a reader, it does work. So what do we call what he is  doing?


What king is doing is presenting what matters to the protagonist in the moment he calls "now." So instead of Stephen King explaining the situation the man is reacting to what attracted his attention. In this case, the kind of place it was. An his reaction to that will direct his next action, be it to think, plan, or seek more data. It's art of what's often called a motivation/response pair.

In life, from the moment of waking to our final thought before sleep, our life is a linked, and unbroken chain of such M/R pairs. When used in fiction they do two important things. First, they calibrate our reader's response to events to that of the protagonist, making us see everything tinged by the protagonist's necessities and emotional responses. That places us into the story as the protagonist, and synchronizes our concerns to the character's. The second thing is that we are forced to "think with the proagonist's mind" as we write, rather than simply assigning the character behavior dictated by the needs of the plot. In fact, if your characters haven't told you, "Hell no. I won't do that because it's not my style," the situation—and the character—are not truly real in your mind. And if they're not real to you...


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 10, 2018)

Showing v telling will always be debated, and no matter how many pronounce rules on it the matter will never be resolved. Indeed, whenever anyone declares that creative writing has rules they are either driving an agenda, expressing a personal preference or inflating their own ego.

Yes, if you want to churn out me-too work that appeals to a mass audience and sells well, there are rules. Of course, those rules change as readers change. If you do not follow the current 'rules' you won't survive in that world.

Coming back to 'creative' writing, creativity is rarely based upon the past. Imitation is.

Whether you show or tell (and this applies to all the so-called rules) matters not. What matters is that you produce good quality work that entertains a percentage of the audience. If you do that, feel free to blaze your own trail.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 10, 2018)

There are a lot of different ways of defining the show/tell distinction, but the one that makes most sense to me is Kyle R's post 13. "Telling" is giving the reader the conclusion, while "Showing" is giving the reader the evidence. Telling is a great way to get a lot of information across in a few words, but it doesn't tend to lead to an immersive experience for the reader.

So if the reader needs to know something in order to move the novel along, this can easily be told:



> Over the next four days we had six-and-a-half more fights about the placement of the crystal, and still came to no conclusions.



But if the author wants the reader to really _experience_ a scene, she should slow down and show it:



> On the fifth day, Johnny came in with a cheerful grin that immediately set my warning radar off. He'd been talking to Alanna the night before... had they reached some sort of conclusion? Had they made a damn alliance?
> 
> I tried to hid my searching gaze behind a series of stretches as I peered around for Trixie, Joan, Ben, anyone who might take my side. etc.



I think newer authors don't always have a clear sense of what their goals are or what's "important" in any given scene, and so they may tell when they should show (meaning their work reads more like a summary of events rather than an immersive experience) or they may show when they should tell (meaning they get bogged down in minute, unimportant details that don't serve a real purpose).


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 11, 2018)

Terry D said:


> For example:
> 
> *The road crested the hill and Rhotan saw that it dropped away from there following the curves of the hills to the West. Trees covered those hills and blocked his view of the sea beyond, and of the harbor city of Kol. Terrible Kol.
> 
> ...



I saw this and thought 'I can't see the difference, he is still telling us what Rhotan saw, just in a fancy, distacting way.'
then I got onto the next page and saw this:-


Jay Greenstein said:


> This, I'm afraid, isn't showing, it's still telling, because the narrator, someone neither in the story nor on the scene, is explaining what's visible in the scene that the author is visualizing. So the reader knows what happened as a chronicle of events delivered by an external, dispassionate voice.


And though 'Nailed it, Jay.'


----------



## ppsage (Jan 11, 2018)

Whenever this discussion erupts, I am reminded that details in writing which are apt and evocative have a special name. They are called telling details. A celebrated wag around here claims that at the most fundamental level it's all telling because words tell things. The distinctions do seem to fall apart under intense analysis. My personal approach, as a reader, is that the important point in fiction is to make it interesting. Evocative details and language are generally more interesting than summary narration, but so is getting on with the story. Literary form apparently creates some interest and if you're forever leaving the gun on the mantel, people will lose interest. So, while one figures out evocative details, it's important to make them pertinent. I am old enough to remember with fondness the heyday of the external narrator (and sort of can't see the modern distinction) but narration needs to have a personality which the reader comes to understand and employ; a personality which shows the reader how to understand what's being told. Established characters, whether narrator or not, show things by their particular attitudes and reactions and thinking. Fiction is, in general, a bit longer than this or that paragraph, and no analysis at the sentence level is going to really get to the point. A successful story will need to employ every trick in the book.


----------



## Sam (Jan 11, 2018)

Look at the greatest authors of the last hundred years. 

I guaran-damn-tee you every single one of them tells -- and does so without apology. 

'Showing' is what you say to newbies who are having a difficult time with imagery, putting in words how they imagined something, and generally failing to create ample detail. Showing makes them think about what's happening, which is just a quick way get them to realise they've forgotten to engage all five senses. It's how you get them to think about scene-writing.  

The examples of 'telling' in this thread are woeful on purpose. When I tell, or when any experienced writer tells, I don't write such folderol. I can tell and put any reader smack-dab in the middle of the scene. It's got nothing to do with whether I show or tell, and everything to do with _what_ and _when_ I'm showing and telling. That's the trick no one in this thread can teach.  

All showing is telling. It's a different form of telling, but it's telling nonetheless, and once you grasp that concept, you'll understand that it's just as easy to drive a scene through telling as it is through showing. Don't believe me? Well, I defy you to argue with all of the books on your shelf and the authors who wrote them.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 11, 2018)

> 'Showing' is what you say to newbies who are having a difficult time with imagery, putting in words how they imagined something, and generally failing to create ample detail.


This.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 11, 2018)

I can't agree. Most newer writers already think showing refers to presenting imagery. But it's not, and has nothing to do with visuals. The term showing is short for, "Show the reader the protagonist's _viewpoint_." Ten thousand people could wander through a house, all seeing the same images, feeling the same textures, and noting the same smells, etc. But no two of them will perceive that house in the same way, because of differences in background, and, their mind-state in the moment they 'see" something. It's what makes each person unique.What we call showing is the art of placing the reader into the protagonist's world, in the moment that character calls now. Doing that makes the protagonist the reader's avatar, rather than simply someone the camera focuses on.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 11, 2018)

I really don't like when the author tries to make a character interesting by describing the character. It just doesn't work well for me, ever. I want to learn about the character through action and dialogue. (And in first person or a narrative that allows it, like Jay says the the narration helps define the narrator.) There is a place for describing a character, but that is just info and most used for peripheral characters.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jan 11, 2018)

Heh, with my current WIP I totally get to cheat on the whole show-v-tell thing.  The series I'm finishing up is a mockumentary so it gets told a lotta different ways: Journals, video logs, security footage, and good old fashioned narrator.  Each format is written in a different manner so I can pick & choose if I wanna show or tell.  I actually miss this freedom when I switch to other projects.


----------



## Sam (Jan 12, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> I can't agree. Most newer writers already think showing refers to presenting imagery. But it's not, and has nothing to do with visuals. The term showing is short for, "Show the reader the protagonist's _viewpoint_." Ten thousand people could wander through a house, all seeing the same images, feeling the same textures, and noting the same smells, etc. But no two of them will perceive that house in the same way, because of differences in background, and, their mind-state in the moment they 'see" something. It's what makes each person unique.What we call showing is the art of placing the reader into the protagonist's world, in the moment that character calls now. Doing that makes the protagonist the reader's avatar, rather than simply someone the camera focuses on.



You're correct, and I understand exactly what you're saying, but this isn't the advice regularly doled out to new writers. Instead, newbies go around showing stupid things like the fact that Jack has a beard: "He stroked his beard". 

This is exactly what I meant above by it's about _what _and _when _someone shows. I show things from the perspective of viewpoint characters all the time, but how do you get a newbie to think about that? The first step is having them engage all five senses as they write scenes. That gets them thinking about what the character sees, hears, smells, tastes, and touches. That essentially gets them thinking about viewpoint. 

I said all that, in my own words, but I come back again to the fact that experienced writers can drive scenes strictly through telling. That's a statement of fact. Now, if you disagree with that, perhaps it's time you took a long look at your bookshelf. Still disagree? So you're saying your opinion is better than that of every author in human history?


----------



## evak2979 (Jan 12, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> I saw this and thought 'I can't see the difference, he is still telling us what Rhotan saw, just in a fancy, distacting way.'
> then I got onto the next page and saw this:-
> 
> And though 'Nailed it, Jay.'



Thank you so much for the feedback everyone. I am starting a new writing course this Monday, a face-to-face one but I still want to try and polish whatever questions I have on these forums and your feedback so far is invaluable 

Olly, a question for you (And Jay)

Without getting too technical? The second example (from the crest, etc ) seems like limited omniscient to me vs a pure third person POV where you simply see, feel, and experience everything through the protagonist's eyes? Is that wrong you'd say? Also, my main problem I suppose is ... Well I can give you an example of a scene I am struggling with right now.

My POV is following his employer across a misty valley in the middle of the night. He is scared, being a city thug, uncertain. Wants to go back, and yet he keeps on pressing for reasons I don't yet want to disclose to the reader. Ways to right the scene pop to my head, but I dismiss most of them as way too telly. Examples:

- Twice the clouds have swallowed the moon whole, and in the darkness he had almost lost track of the Swordsman. His employer was a ghost, slipping in and out of the mist soundlessly, and when Grunt would try and listen for a footstep in the distance all he could hear was the hammering sound of his own heart. (This, for example - the clouds swallowing, etc. It is fancy, but is it coming across the character's POV? And when I go into telling the reader (yes, telling) how he had almost missed him twice due to the night being thick, is this good telling? Is it bad telling? I want this narrative summary to lead into my next scene, but when I write gluing scenes like that I feel like I don't have a small number of dos and do nots to follow? And it burdens my writing).

Alternatively, I thought 'okay, maybe I can right this as an active scene', but I don't want to. It doesn't feel right to me as the writer, I'd rather set a premise like a narrative summary before I sink into my next scene which is where I wish to place weight on. And finally: *

From the crest of the hill Rhotan saw the road ahead slither down the side of the hill and through the valley like a long, gray snake winding it's twisting way among the trees, hidden here and there by the heavy crowns of pines covering the hills like green fur.

*This reads beautifully to me. It may not be from the character's POV, but it still reads nicely and it adds a theme, a feeling to the scene. It sets the stage sort to speak, using verbs like 'slither' to foreshadow the serpent simile in the end. Why is this a bad example of telling? (is it even?) Not a sarcastic question, but rather a genuinely curious one. Is it because this is not seen from the char's eyes ? The author is using smell, sight, senses to picture a scene. I would've thought this to be showing...

Why is writing so confusing ! I swear to God, I have a PhD in computer science and algorithms are simpler than this


----------



## Phil Istine (Jan 12, 2018)

Sam said:


> Instead, newbies go around showing stupid things like the fact that Jack has a beard: "He stroked his beard".



Duly noted  . I included a similar line in a recent piece.
This thread has been illuminating and has given me pause for thought - a good thing for a new writer.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 12, 2018)

evak2979 said:


> Without getting too technical? The second example (from the crest, etc ) seems like limited omniscient to me vs a pure third person POV where you simply see, feel, and experience everything through the protagonist's eyes? Is that wrong you'd say? Also, my main problem I suppose is ... Well I can give you an example of a scene I am struggling with right now.



What is "limited omniscient"? "Limited" is generally used in contrast with "omniscient"--Limited Third would be a POV that sticks to one character and only "knows" what that character knows, while Omniscient Third is from the POV of an omniscient, non-character narrator. I can't figure out what "limited third" would be.

I swear, sometimes I think the terminology used in writing is so garbled and confused that it's more hindrance than help!


----------



## evak2979 (Jan 12, 2018)

Bayview said:


> What is "limited omniscient"? "Limited" is generally used in contrast with "omniscient"--Limited Third would be a POV that sticks to one character and only "knows" what that character knows, while Omniscient Third is from the POV of an omniscient, non-character narrator. I can't figure out what "limited third" would be.
> 
> I swear, sometimes I think the terminology used in writing is so garbled and confused that it's more hindrance than help!



Haha, I think it's like omniscient but only for a particular character, without getting into other character's heads. Nevertheless, I fail to understand the point of that comment - the second attempt is pretty showy to me, it speaks to the senses and it paints a scene beautifully. Perhaps it's a bit heavy on the simile side, and therefore not really my style, but other than that it does not -feel- telly.


----------



## Newman (Jan 12, 2018)

evak2979 said:


> Show:
> The floor, young as it was, groaned in pain the moment he entered the room. She had to crane her neck to look at his face. And when she found his face, she witnessed the birth of a storm (or something, forgive me for cheesiness. I am just making this up as I go).
> 
> Tell:
> ...



I like the Tell version.

It does invoke an image.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 12, 2018)

Bayview said:


> What is "limited omniscient"? "Limited" is generally used in contrast with "omniscient"--Limited Third would be a POV that sticks to one character and only "knows" what that character knows, while Omniscient Third is from the POV of an omniscient, non-character narrator. I can't figure out what "limited third" would be.
> 
> I swear, sometimes I think the terminology used in writing is so garbled and confused that it's more hindrance than help!



I think there is some confusion here. There is no "limited omniscient" viewpoint. By definition, an omniscient POV cannot be limited. I think what evak2979 is talking about is the difference between 3rd person limited, and 3rd person omniscient just as you describe above.

You are right about the terminology also. Like any craft, or art, or vocation, writing does have its own jargon. While you don't absolutely need to understand the jargon to write a compelling story, it does make it easier to discuss the craft if everyone is 'speaking the same language'. Time and experience usually smooth out those bumps.


----------



## evak2979 (Jan 12, 2018)

Terry D said:


> I think there is some confusion here. There is no "limited omniscient" viewpoint. By definition, an omniscient POV cannot be limited. I think what evak2979 is talking about is the difference between 3rd person limited, and 3rd person omniscient just as you describe above.
> 
> You are right about the terminology also. Like any craft, or art, or vocation, writing does have its own jargon. While you don't absolutely need to understand the jargon to write a compelling story, it does make it easier to discuss the craft if everyone is 'speaking the same language'. Time and experience usually smooth out those bumps.



Yes. It's exactly what I meant, thank you


----------



## sas (Jan 12, 2018)

Am I the only one who gets thrown out of a scene when the writer thinks they really want to be a poet?

clouds have swallowed the moon whole

his employer was a ghost

hammering sound of his own heart

the road ahead slither 

like a long grey snake, winding its twisting way

the heavy crowns of pines covering the hills like green fur


Loaded with metaphors, similes and cliches (hammering heart). Come on over to the poetry groups, or write  a story with tension, by getting to the rat killing. KISS it. 

Sas


----------



## evak2979 (Jan 12, 2018)

sas said:


> Am I the only one who gets thrown out of a scene when the writer thinks they really want to be a poet?
> 
> clouds have swallowed the moon whole
> 
> ...



To be fair, I think the intensity of the simile matters. The road ahead slithered, that's a good example done right for me ! A good strong verb to make a road feel insidious. Each to their own though, preference is preference


----------



## Terry D (Jan 12, 2018)

sas said:


> Am I the only one who gets thrown out of a scene when the writer thinks they really want to be a poet?
> 
> clouds have swallowed the moon whole
> 
> ...



Ouch! :beaten: 

The example is definitely over-wrought and not something I'd consider as 'finished', but was meant as an illustration of how vivid imagery can make a scene more compelling, more 'showy' and less 'telly'. Are you suggesting there's no place for 'poetic' language and imagery in fiction? I've always thought the poet's focus on language and imagery was a benefit to prose writers.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jan 12, 2018)

Show vs tell is not a _versus _at all.  It's a balance of both.  Finding that balance is completely up to the writer and what they're trying to convey.

Side note: This is where a good editor shows their stuff (and why you should pay them).  A good editor can see what the writer is going for and point out where the prose requires more "show" or more "tell" without interjecting their own voice into the work.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jan 12, 2018)

sas said:


> Am I the only one who gets thrown out of a scene when the writer thinks they really want to be a poet?
> 
> clouds have swallowed the moon whole
> 
> ...


I agree to a point.  Too many metaphors and similes can be very distracting if not grounded in some way.  But, well placed ones can move the soul and really illuminate prose.


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 12, 2018)

In my opinion, the whole 'show versus tell' debate screws up more writing than it improves. A writer should instinctively know how to weave a tale, and forcing 'rules' that have been dreamed up by the self-proclaimed writing experts just puts a spoke in the wheels.

I have two writing voices: a stark and minimalist one for prose and a more (well, slightly more) flowery one for poetry. Sometimes the two get mixed up, but that's my task to sort them out. I don't really think about showing or telling; I concentrate on creating work I'd to read.

Plus, without tell we wouldn't have classic lines such as: "It is common gossip in all circles along Broadway that Maury is placed in this quicklime by certain parties who do not wish him well, and it is also the consensus of opinion that placing him there is by no means a bad idea, at that, as Maury is really quite a scamp and of no great credit to the community."

That isn't going to get any better!


----------



## Book Cook (Jan 12, 2018)

Whenever I read a work written in first person or third person limited, I always wanted for the character/s to just stop feeling and musing so they could finally frickin' *do* something about the thing that caused them to feel and muse for five frickin' pages. The smell of roses takes Sally back to her childhood? I don't care! Is she going to pick, steal, throw, ignore, etc. the rose? That's what I want to know. Tell me what Sally is doing and I'll figure out what kind of person she is. I don't need her skull opened so I can see what every frickin' neuron is doing.


----------



## Dan C (Jan 15, 2018)

Well this is all very confusing! All part of the learning curve I suppose.

The very first scene in my novel is set in a newspaper office. If I were to simply describe the office would it be 'telling'? Is that a bad thing?

I feel like I am falling at the first hurdle!


----------

