# [ZOMBIE Thread of the Day]:   Show, Not Tell...



## Taknovrthewrld (May 22, 2012)

**Moderator Note *
This is a frequently cycling topic (and one I've often regarded as overemphasized), but further down the thread are a couple of very nice discussion.*

Every couple days I take an hour or two and read every online article on writing that I can get my grubby little hands on. Recently, I read about "showing, not telling" as a technique.


----------



## tinacrabapple (Jun 15, 2012)

I like this writing concept too.  The article motivates me to attempt to start trying to complete some writing exercises.  This is good for the aging brain.  LOL! I learned about this concept while reading Hemingway's  A Movable Feast.  It's one of the first mistake novice writers make, myself included.


----------



## LadyofRohan (Aug 9, 2012)

Thank you for the link. I'm working on this in my revisions of my NaNoWriMo novel. I've got to get better at "showing" and not "telling".


----------



## erusson (Dec 24, 2012)

LadyofRohan said:


> Thank you for the link. I'm working on this in my revisions of my NaNoWriMo novel. I've got to get better at "showing" and not "telling".


 This is exactly why I need to get better at showing and not telling! It's quite nice going back to the beginning of my NaNoWriMo project; I'd forgotten most of what I wrote back then.


----------



## MyPunkGang (Dec 30, 2012)

I think the main idea behind it is let your reader do more of the work, and draw their own conclusions (the ones you want them to make). It makes them more involved in what they're reading, and they appreciate it more.


----------



## dolphinlee (Dec 30, 2012)

Thank you. This is going into my "Improve my Writing" folder.  If only the improvement was proportional to the number of articles saved.


----------



## kitt.moss (Jan 1, 2013)

I know that every single writing book and course I've taken has expounded this theory to some degree. And it definitely helps. Showing rather than telling can bring a dull bit of writing to life.

I think that sometimes though, telling has its place too. Just like any advice, it's not universal, but it's a very good way to quickly improve your writing.


----------



## PiP (Jan 30, 2013)

I like the idea of an "Improve my Writing" folder. Think the _show not tell_ will be my first entry. I have scraps of paper everywhere and I work in disorganised chaos. :lol:


----------



## Nickleby (Jan 31, 2013)

Showing instead of telling isn't just a good idea--it's an opportunity to show a side of your characters or your setting that the reader might not otherwise see.

Recently, I had a scene in which I had planned to gloss over the beginning and pick up in the middle, where the really important stuff happens. I realized I should show the beginning rather than just tell it. I wound adding a couple of points that would have shown up elsewhere but would not have had the same impact. Go writing!


----------



## EditHelper (Apr 3, 2013)

I find that when we slip into "telling" it's because we're trying to hard to _be_ a writer rather than simply writing. This (link removed) really helped me see how I was holding back.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 15, 2013)

Annnnd this is why your manuscript is 350,000 words.

Showing has its place, but telling is darn efficient.


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 18, 2013)

Taknovrthewrld said:


> ... Recently, I read about "showing, not telling" as a technique....



"Show,  don't tell" is not a "technique." In fact, it's important to recognize  it as not being a technique, but an inseparable part of storytelling. I  shall demonstrate:

_"This one time, at band camp, this guy did  this thing and it was so funny! He like had this stuff and a thing,  then he jumped up and did a thing! It was awesome and so funny!"_

OK, now... WTF was that? 

That  was "telling." But, what is "showing?" Well, showing is a heck of a lot  harder than telling, so I can't do it on the spur of the moment for  that example and have it be half as funny as I "told" you it was. (Well,  not without using a bunch of vulgarity and compromising situations,  that is.) But, what would you rather read? Would you rather read  something that someone "told" or something that someone "showed?" If I  wrote a funny story that showed a guy doing all those things with all  that stuff and it was hilarious, you'd appreciate it a lot more than me  just telling you _"Trust me, it was funny."
_
Part of that is that you read fiction in order to experience something new. You don't read fiction just to be _told_  new and different things. You want to be part of the evolution of the  story and the only way to effectively do that is to show you the story  as it unfolds, not just tell you what happened. If all fiction was a  sort of _Cliff's Notes _version of what happened, it wouldn't be  very popular. Instead, the author shows the events and lets the reader  experience them, for themselves. You don't need to be told that a man is  evil when you've seen it for yourself, expressed in his actions in the  story. In that way, events become more immediate, more concrete. If a  wagon-train of pioneers is stranded in a mountain pass during the height  of winter, what has more impact on you - Being told they ate each other  or being shown them eating each other? Equally horrible, but which is the more rewarding read?

However,  telling is also a part of storytelling. You can't easily escape it  without reverting to some somewhat cumbersome mechanics. If I tell you  that _"The hobbit lived in an idyllic and pastoral scene"_, that  may be enough to get the point across without me spending five pages  describing sunlight, gentle hills, grass and trees and not interpreting those things for you. A writer desperately  needs to be able to "tell" some things, but must show good discretion  when doing so.

Let's say you have a story where there's an evil  wizard that everyone's afraid of. Now, the story isn't about everyone  discovering that he is evil - They already know that. The story is about  them attempting to escape from this evil wizard. But, we need to  increase the sense of urgency and drama as well as create a credible  threat in the guise of the evil wizard's wrath. Do I spend three  chapters acting out the vileness of the wizard, sacrificing babies,  burning down villages, destroying DVD's of _"Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan?" _No,  I've got a chase/journey story to write and don't have time to slow  down the pace of events, it'll ruin the flavor of the plot! Instead,  what I do is "tell" the reader how evil and feared the wizard is. I  introduce walk-on characters who are fleeing burning villages, the main  character saves a woman from the wizard's minions and learns that her  child was sacrificed by his priests and someone, somewhere, laments over  their lost DVD collection... All these things build up the character of  the evil wizard and I haven't "shown" that evil, anywhere. All I've  done is tell the reader about it. That serves my purpose and builds up  the sense of urgency I need without forcing me to write three chapters  of crap that would be misleading and unnecessary. 

How many times  did you ever "see" Sauron in the "Lord of the Rings" novels? None.  Zero. Zilcho. Only during two times, once in the latter third and then  at the very end was there a hint of his any sort of physical presence.  Sauron never acted directly in the experience of the reader. Instead,  everyone talked about how vile and evil he was and the reader  experienced a taste of that through the acts of his minions. But, Sauron  never lifted a finger to "show" anything about his vile nature,  himself. It was all "told" to the reader. That's as it should be as  Sauron was supposed to be a sort of remote and amorphous threat, only  visible through the acts of his minions. But, it also significantly  reduced the novel's likely wordcount...

If I tell the reader something, it's true. (If I'm a reliable narrator...) If I show the reader something, they _know_  it is true. (Again, if the narrator is reliable.) A good writer will  know when it is appropriate to "tell" and when they have to "show" the  reader, else deny them a unique and perhaps very rewarding experience.  Readers read in order to be rewarded, after all. Showing is always  better than telling, when the choices are equal. But, those choices do  not always have equal measures. Necessity demands its price.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 18, 2013)

If everything was shown, nothing would be told.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 18, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> "Show,  don't tell" is not a "technique." In fact, it's important to recognize  it as not being a technique, but an inseparable part of storytelling. I  shall demonstrate:



I'll just snip the rest of the quote, but know that I'm responding to your entire post.

You seem to be unclear on what exactly constitutes showing and telling.  Let's start with your band camp bit.  That's not even telling! That's merely being vague.

*Not telling:* "Remember band camp? That was funny!"
*Telling:* "Remember how Bobby put the snake in Susie's flute? She freaked out!"
*Showing:* "So then Bobby puts the snake in Susie's flute, and we all sat back, trying to act normal.  Susie comes in, grabs her flute, and then jumps about ten feet in the air! They could hear her shriek from three camps over!"

Taken literally, all "showing" is telling; it's simply telling with more detail.  You talk about "telling" the reader how the group meets refugees and passes burning villages, but that's all showing.  Telling would be simply saying, "Baddie McBadderson was evil."

Similarly, all of the Sauron stuff is showing as well.  Sure, we're TOLD that Sauron wants the ring desperately and Frodo is in danger as long as he has it, but we're shown all that when the Nazgul come after the party.  We don't need to be shown Sauron to be shown his desires and intentions.

Remember, all showing is telling.  The difference is HOW it's told.


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 18, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> ...Remember, all showing is telling.  The difference is HOW it's told.



That's a good point. But, the degree of separation of the reader from the events being portrayed is what I was trying to demonstrate, though perhaps not as well as I should have.

Sauron is visible to the reader through proxies, that is true. So, his intentions are "shown." But, is relating events or critical information by using a character or narrator who simply "tells" them the only way to "tell?" Is everything aside from that in the realm of "showing?" I don't think it's a matter of level of detail - It's a matter of the reader's experience and how far removed they are as a result of the mechanic being used.

I do agree that witnessing events as the result of something that is implied is "showing," though. But, it's still a degree of separation away from the action that is assumed to have taken place.


----------



## marina (Jun 15, 2013)

Back in Scotland in the 1970s, descriptive essays were a mainstay of our cirriculum and examinations - it's good to have a quick refresher after all these years!

So we sat, listening to the clock, ticking the moments down to our success or failure. "Your two hours start now" said the adjudicator.
Turn the paper over and pick up the pen.  Inhale.  Let our minds' creativity flow.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jun 15, 2013)

Actually, Gamer, I'm not sure your example of "showing" really was. It was just a character telling. JMO

Overall, I think showing is the better way of writing, but, as a couple others mentioned, that doesn't mean one should never tell the reader. And I've seen some writers get so confused trying to show instead of tell when they'd been doing a fine job until someone mentioned this whole thing - a bit of asking the centipede how it walks...


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jun 15, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Actually, Gamer, I'm not sure your example of "showing" really was. It was just a character telling. JMO



To be fair, my thesis in that post was "all showing is telling, but with more detail."  Though I am curious how that scene would be "shown" if that's not it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jun 15, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> To be fair, my thesis in that post was "all showing is telling, but with more detail."  Though I am curious how that scene would be "shown" if that's not it.



You would have to include the scene itself instead of having one of the characters tell about it; I'm not sure there is a way of actually 'showing' that without having a flashback. Your 'telling' example is less detailed, but basically does the same thing - tells the reader what that character saw, rather than putting the reader in the scene.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Sep 12, 2013)

New member here so if this has already been discussed, just ignore me .... but ....
You can find a great book called "The Emotional Thesaurus" which gives a ton of info about the body language and other cues people give depending on their 
emotional state.  Instead of saying, Bill was angry - use the thesaurus to get ideas on how the anger manifested itself.  
Also, the writers have a great blog with tons of other thesaurus(es) what IS the plural of thesaurus ?
Anyway, search 'em.  The Emotional Thesaurus and The Bookself Muse.  There are a lot of blogs out there with a ton of psuedo-advice, (mine included) - most of which I'd take with a grain of salt.  However, these resources get it done.
David Gordon Burke


----------



## OurJud (Sep 12, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Also, the writers have a great blog with tons of other thesaurus(es) what IS the plural of thesaurus ?



Thesaurai.

I just made that up.


----------



## VRanger (Nov 29, 2021)

Discussion from years ago on "Show, not Tell". There are a couple of lengthy posts in this discussion I thought were interesting."


----------



## Llyralen (Dec 1, 2021)

I’ve been thinking a lot about what you hope for when you pick up a book.  You hope to be immersed into someone else’s problems. You want to feel what you would feel if you were in that situation and you want to forget about yourself and your own worries.

I think showing not telling let’s you sink further into the story yourself, think your own thoughts given the circumstances… Or get to know someone in that dituation if it is in first person.  

At any rate, showing givres you a way to see, hear, touch, and telling means you’re receiving information.  The difference between seeing a beach  on tv or being there.  But I dont want to be just any old place doing menial things.  You need some telling for that.

I was thinking of one of my very favorite beginnings to a book, _The Witch of Blackbird Pond. The opening lines she _Kit Tyler first arriving in America.  You slip right in with the first sentence because of the idea of arriving somewhere new and you’re in it together.  Showing is easier when that happens.


----------



## VRanger (Dec 1, 2021)

Llyralen said:


> I’ve been thinking a lot about what you hope for when you pick up a book.  You hope to be immersed into someone else’s problems. You want to feel what you would feel if you were in that situation and you want to forget about yourself and your own worries.
> 
> I think showing not telling let’s you sink further into the story yourself, think your own thoughts given the circumstances… Or get to know someone in that situation if it is in first person.


One of comments from years ago had an interesting take on the concept, and I'm going to give another one.

Showing is the bricks of your story, and telling is the mortar that holds them together.

You show the things that are interesting and revealing.
You tell the things that move the story along, but the details of which are mundane.

Your character has a scene at a friend's house, and then a scene back home. Is anything on the trip home important? It could be so important you write a chapter. If it's not, you may summarize the trip in a phrase: "After Joe got back home, ..."

Also, you don't use telling as a substitute for something you should be showing, because you're too scared or lazy to write that element.

Here's an example. A guy and a girl meet, and you want the guy to be interesting and witty.

You "tell" that she likes him because he's interesting and witty. Wrong. You use dialogue and action to DEMONSTRATE that he's interesting and witty, and then the reader has a reason to get involved in the character. Telling that he's interesting and witty is a hollow cop-out.

Why might a writer do that? Possibly they're not sure they can write witty dialogue. This is a concern for every writer when they choose to imbue a character with some wonderful characteristic. The AUTHOR has to provide it. What if you want to make the character a brilliant military strategist and SHOW that he is. Suddenly, the author must become a brilliant military strategist, or the author writes something lame.

That's intimidating, UNTIL you learn how to do it. How does the author be wittier than themself or smarter than themself?

By taking the time to figure it out. The author has the advantage of time to think, and the ability to research. Those are the two tools that make the author's parts greater than their whole. Then, the more the author does it, the more they develop that quality in themselves. You want to write that brilliant military strategist? You start to study brilliant military officers in history, and learn what they did which was considered brilliant in their day. The more you learn about that, the more expert you become on the subject. At some tipping point, you can sit down and write a brilliant combat victory for the character.

The same principle applies to every outstanding character trait we wish to apply. If the guy has to be witty on the spur of the moment to impress the girl, that looks like spur of the moment to the reader. The author gets to take as much time as needed to come up with that witty remark.

However, I recommend not combining the two. Don't tell the reader the guy is witty and then proceed to show it, because you just might not write anything which makes the reader agree he's witty. ;-) BE as witty as you can, and that's what the reader now understands about that character.


----------



## RGS (Dec 2, 2021)

OurJud said:


> Thesaurai.
> 
> I just made that up.


----------

