When is it important to tell?

[BlueLucario]

Have you guys heard of show, not tell? Do you guys find it easy? I don't know about you but for me, it's irritating. Because you don't know what to show and what to tell and you can't identify what's showing and what's telling. (And my work always consists of 100% show. )

I looked around the forums for this stuff, and not much of it seems to help.

Can you guys give me an example of showing and telling? I tend to take it literally.

I know that a statement like "Sally is sad" is telling. i have a feeling that there is more to that.

Thank you. (Again, don't be frustrated at me.I still feel bad posting :( )

[IceCreamEmpress]

Blue, this is an excellent question. Don't feel even a bit abashed about asking it. I don't think anyone finds this easy; it's really at the core of what makes good fiction compelling.

I think Barbara Dawson Smith's brief article (http://www.barbaradawsonsmith.com/showdon'ttell.htm) is a great place to start.


Some of my own, less insightful thoughts on the topic:

One way of getting at this is to sort out the things you CAN show from the things you CAN'T, and therefore have to tell.

You can SHOW that a house is neglected and filthy with sensory details; you have to TELL that it's been condemned by the Board of Health.

You can SHOW how much Mary hates her job with dialogue and sensory detail; you have to TELL that she's been working there for 16 years.

So when you're telling something, it's useful to ask yourself "Can I show this instead?" And it's useful to remember that the answer may be "No."

[IdiotsRUs]

Tell: she was an outcast.

Show: she wasn't allowed at that table -- that was for the cool cheerleader girls. And that one was for the brainy, but not bad looking girls. Then there was the table for the 'not too bad, not too geeky' crowd. The nerd D n D table. No room for her there either. She was special. She got a table to herself.

[Pup]

I know that a statement like "Sally is sad" is telling. i have a feeling that there is more to that.

Imagine you walk into the room and see Sally there. You realize she's sad. How did you know?

Maybe she was crying. Maybe she was staring out the window with her chin on her hand. Maybe she told you a story about something that was bothering her.

Whatever it was, describe it to the reader, and after you "show" it to the reader that way, the reader can come to the conclusion the same way you did, without your needing to "tell" the reader Sally was sad.

[dempsey]

ICE's examples are very good.

It also depends on the age group you're writing for. The younger the group, the more telling required. A brand-new reader isn't going to have the social expertise to associate a shift of weight and flick of the eye with nervousness, for instance.

Lots of stuff to consider.

[HourglassMemory]

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95266
this thread was created recently and it was on the same topic.
Lot's of good responses, and I have a response of mine on this issue in there as well.

[HeronW]

A 'tell' in poker is a giveaway physical act like tapping the left pinky when there's an especially good hand. This is the same as a 'show' in writing when you show what surrounds the person, what they wear, what they look like, their expressions, nervous habits--the physical tangible stuff that is perceived by the 5 senses.

[Shweta]

I think the other thread on "show vs tell" is sort of the "advanced-theory" version of this thread; it's halfway between advice and theorizing. So since there are two, and this one's more basic and practical, I'm moving this one to Basic Writing Questions. :)

[maestrowork]

Have you guys heard of show, not tell? Do you guys find it easy? I don't know about you but for me, it's irritating. Because you don't know what to show and what to tell and you can't identify what's showing and what's telling. (And my work always consists of 100% show. )

I looked around the forums for this stuff, and not much of it seems to help.

Can you guys give me an example of showing and telling? I tend to take it literally.

I know that a statement like "Sally is sad" is telling. i have a feeling that there is more to that.

Thank you. (Again, don't be frustrated at me.I still feel bad posting :( )

It's all a degree of details. Simply substituting "she was sad" with some kind of descriptions or actions doesn't mean it's show vs. tell necessarily. It's all in the details, employing the five senses as well as saying something without blatantly saying so.

Watch movies -- they're mostly show and not tell (except in dialogue). When someone is angry, they don't say "I am angry." They show us. How? Watch carefully or read the script. It's all in the action, the things said or not said, and the character's expressions, etc.

"Telling" is not a evil word, but it's a matter of how much you leave out and how vague you are. "She was beautiful" is vague and lazy, all telling in that the readers only have your words and nothing else to base that judgment on. Who decides "she was beautiful"? Was it the hair? Was it the eyes? Was it her skin? Show us -- without saying a single word that means "beautiful."

Technically speaking, everything you do in fiction writing is "tell." There isn't a real person you can bring out for illustration, or a set built for all to see -- everything has to be described with words. That's the technical definition of "telling." You're telling a tale. So the concept of show vs. tell really is in the degrees of details and subtexts.

"She was sad" is all tell. There's nothing for the readers to see, hear or smell. The writer tells us: she was sad. That's all. Take it or leave it.

"She had tears running down her cheeks" is a bit better. A little more show without telling us the emotions behind it. Sure, it's cliched, but it's also basic. Still, without the context, are those tears of joy or fear or sadness? So, to effectively SHOW, you need to set up the context.

"She read the letter: Jim told her about her brother's death. She stared out the window without uttering one word. Then her lips quivered as tears rolled down her cheeks."

Again, imagine watching a movie. The character rarely yells out, "I'm so sad." But we can see and deduce from the context what's going on: she read the letter, looked out, and cried. They've just showed us how sad the character is. Nothing else needs to be explained. That is "show."

[rainboy]

Tell: she was an outcast.

Show: she wasn't allowed at that table -- that was for the cool cheerleader girls. And that one was for the brainy, but not bad looking girls. Then there was the table for the 'not too bad, not too geeky' crowd. The nerd D n D table. No room for her there either. She was special. She got a table to herself.

Aren't both of these tell?

Writing "She wasn't allowed at that table -- that was for the cool cheerleader girls" is not really showing. If you had her walk up to the table and the cheerleader girls pushing her away and shouting "Go back where you belong bitch!", that would be showing.

Or am I wrong?

[maestrowork]

Aren't both of these tell?

Writing "She wasn't allowed at that table -- that was for the cool cheerleader girls" is not really showing. If you had her walk up to the table and the cheerleader girls pushing her away and shouting "Go back where you belong bitch!", that would be showing.

Or am I wrong?

Your example would be a better "show" using real action and dialogue, etc. But the idea is the same: to show us "she is an outcast" without saying so.

Again, it really is the degree of details. Sometimes saying "she wasn't allowed at the table" is adequate and keep the pace moving -- we don't have to "show" everything in fine details. But the idea is don't just tell us something ("how is it that she's an outcast?"). Instead, find another way to show us what you want to say.

[Mumut]

I get to grips with 'showing' in the editing phases of my writing. Now I've been doing this for some time there'll be quite a lot of the story 'shown' when I first write it, but telling is easier and it sneeks in unseen. So when I edit, I'm looking hard for places to turn 'tell' into 'show'.

[J.S Greer]

While I certainly agree that Showing is better and more effective than telling most of the time, thats hardly the crux of it.

I think the thing to keep in mind here is to have a healthy balance, and to know when to use which device, and how.

Maestros post above is pretty dead on; our job is to evoke one, if not all of our readers five senses. That doesn't mean writing a paragraph to describe how someone is feeling or what they're doing in every instance, when you can do the same thing with one or two sentences. There is a time and place for each. The trick is knowing when those times and places are.

I hope that makes some sense. :tongue

[padnar]

As someone says we need a balance .
I love romantic books of the telling .
How nicely the author plays with her adjectives
padma

[Viral]

I always look for these:

She was beautiful. -> descriptive noun
She was intelligent. -> descriptive noun
"I get it," he said glumly. -> adverb
He was a wise man, though only twenty two in years. -> moral quality

If it's either a positive or negative moral quality, you definitely have to show it, since your reader will need convincing and won't just take your word for it. Most descriptive nouns could be shown too. Adverbs are always show-able.

She was beautiful. -> descriptive noun
How do you describe someone who is beautiful? You can't just tell me she's beautiful. Beauty is subjective, so you have to tell me WHY she's beautiful, or HOW she's beautiful in your mind. Does she walk with grace? Have long flowing raven locks? (That's a joke, by the way.)

She was intelligent. -> descriptive noun
How do you show she's intelligent? Perhaps show her intelligence through dialog - stilted language, or maybe an intellectual argument with a co-worker. Have her solve a couple tough problems.

"I get it," he said glumly. -> adverb
If he's saying it glumly, how is he acting? Maybe he's looking at the floor, or speaking very slowly. Or it could very well be your dialog isn't speaking for itself, thus needs the auxiliary. Instead of telling in an adverb, show via actions, or the dialog itself.

He was a wise man, though only twenty two in years. -> moral quality
Show him doing something wise, or acting as someone wise might act. He could debunk the young main character's foolish plans and tell him the correct ones. Your reader isn't going to automatically subscribe to what you tell him or her unless you prove your character is that way by showing.

Just my method.

[Stew21]

Blue, "show vs. tell", like anything else, is a guideline for writing. I truly believe that much of this is intuitive to writing. If you've read good books you know a bit about how it's done. You can tell what works and what does not.
Do not feel bad for not knowing the names of these guidelines or beating yourself up for the use of them. With practice and reading, the intuitive part of being a creative writer takes care of many of these things.
I started writing when I was very young. I did not know there was such a guideline as "show vs. tell". I'd never heard of head-hopping. I had no idea in the world what deus ex machina was. The thing is, you don't have to know all of these things other than having a name for them, which is helpful in writing conversations. I imagine that if I had had all of this information about the *right way* to write a good novel, I never would have gotten started for having been overwhelmed by a million sticky notes all over my desk reminding me off all the things I needed to avoid.
When I joined AW, I learned most of these things; while I didn't know their names, they seemed to be intuitive in the writing anyway. I just got names for them. I took what I learned and put my already written (and now trunked) novel to task - how would it hold up to those things. I foot-faulted on some of them (in one thread I provided an example of where I head-hopped, for instance), but I learned from them.
But where I learned most about writing the novel wasn't in learning these guidelines, or the names of the *rules*;it was learned in the writing of the novel. The first one taught me how to go about writing the second one. Editing - which I learned a good deal of here - helped me more effectively edit the second one. Occasionally I will go through my already-written material during editing and keep an eye out for the guidelines and if I had followed them. I did not write the first drafts with those things in mind. I just wrote.
Reading is a great way to figure out what works in writing. If you read enough and write enough, the intuition of the craft takes over and your guidelines don't matter.

Don't bog yourself down in these details until you have your completed work to hold up to that light.

Give yourself permission to write CRAP the first time through, then use the guidelines to show you the way to fixing it.

Their names are not important, every guideline has an exception, and every plot device is doable if it is written well.

In first drafts sometimes I *tell* through scenes to get to the next, knowing I have to include it but if I'm not feeling it, I just tell it, then go back and fill in the showing when I have a clearer idea of what I need to happen there. Tell is a good placeholder for show. It holds the place for draft 2 (and sometimes continues to hold it until draft 13 when you finally have the show you need.)
I can see how I would work myself into a panic if someone had laid all the rules out to me before I ever started writing a novel. I would stifle the words trying to make them perfect the first time. I would not be able to get them written down as I attempted to stay within the yellow lines. sometimes you can't stay within the yellows. Sometimes you have hit the ditch, cut through a field and pray to the dirt gods you make it to the other side. ;)


allow yourself to tell until you know what it is you need to show. That's what revisions and second drafts are for.

[Dale Emery]

I use a slightly different distinction: Is my writing sensory-based? Am I describing events and conditions in terms of what the POV character sees, hears, smells, feels, and tastes? (I include the POV character's internal words, sounds, images, and emotions in my notion of sensory-based. That stuff doesn't come strictly through the senses, but we experience it similarly enough to sensory intake.)

"Sensory-based" is easier for me to understand (and to test) than "showing." It's also more general, because the word "showing" suggests only the sense of vision directly.

I don't have a single word for stuff that isn't sensory based. Sometimes I use the terms "conclusion" or "summary" or "interpretation" or "judgment" to describe that. These are various kinds of meanings that someone might impose onto the information they've taken in through their senses. (I've written about some tools and techniques I use (http://dhemery.com/articles/untangling_communication/) to sort this stuff out.)

The distinction between sensory-based and interpretation can be tricky enough for many people. I know people who insist that they can see anger. (I ask, "What did you see and hear that led you to believe she was angry?" They answer, "I saw her anger!") But that's the distinction I use.

And I don't make a rule out of the distinction. It's not as if sensory-based writing is inherently good and interpretation is inherently bad. Instead I ask: What are the effects of writing this passage in a sensory-based way? What are the effects of writing it as an interpretation or judgment or summary of events? Which of those effects do I want for this passage?

Similar for other rules of style (e.g. passive versus active). What are the effects? Do I want those effects?

Dale

[Riley]

Have you guys heard of show, not tell? Do you guys find it easy? I don't know about you but for me, it's irritating. Because you don't know what to show and what to tell and you can't identify what's showing and what's telling. (And my work always consists of 100% show. )

I looked around the forums for this stuff, and not much of it seems to help.

Can you guys give me an example of showing and telling? I tend to take it literally.

I know that a statement like "Sally is sad" is telling. i have a feeling that there is more to that.

Thank you. (Again, don't be frustrated at me.I still feel bad posting :( )


I find it semi-easy when it comes to the show-tell thing.

From what I've been taught, and from experience (which may or may not be reliable, depending on your stance,) telling is when you flat-out "say" that something is this or that. Showing is when you more-subtly "say" that something is this or that. A lot of good examples here already for that.

In general, you should tell when the action is something meaningless. Depending on what's going on, things you might show in one story you'll tell in another.

Sally was sad. The littlest robot spun its wheels uselessly in the air. Bomber jets thundered just above the jagged skeletons that were once proud skyscrapers.

Okay, okay, so not nearly as good an example as everyone else here, but it was to point out that when you tell and when you show depends on the focus of the story. If the focus of the story is the bombers that are flying overhead decimating a city, and the overall effect of that, then Sally isn't so important (she needs characterization, but I think you get the point).

Then again, if we're concerned with Sally's reaction to what's happening--as in, say, a character study--you'd probably tell a little more about the surroundings and show more of her.

Also, where there's a lot of telling, there's a lot of adverbs and adjectives. I didn't think of this until I read Viral's post. So I think the two are in a way related, though I'm theorizing on it a little too much now.

I've noticed, in stories, if the story is extremely short when it was not intended to be, "telling" was the main mode the writer wrote the story in. Telling is a shortcut, an easy passage through the rough cave, so to speak. Looking at it from that standpoint, telling is actually a pretty good thing. You can cut through the boring, difficult, unimportant parts and get right to everything that is the opposite.

Rambling, much?

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Have you guys heard of show, not tell? Do you guys find it easy? I don't know about you but for me, it's irritating. Because you don't know what to show and what to tell and you can't identify what's showing and what's telling. (And my work always consists of 100% show. )

I looked around the forums for this stuff, and not much of it seems to help.

Can you guys give me an example of showing and telling? I tend to take it literally.

I know that a statement like "Sally is sad" is telling. i have a feeling that there is more to that.

Thank you. (Again, don't be frustrated at me.I still feel bad posting :( )


A wise man used to say that the only stupid question is one that is never asked. :) So don't be ashamed to ask this question. It's a good question, and should be addressed more often.

I find it very difficult to show instead of tell. The best way I've found to write properly, is to write my way in the first draft, then work the proper methods into my writing in later drafts. What I will do, usually, is, when I'm finished with my first draft, I will make a printout of it, and set it down where I can read it while typing my next draft. That way I can use it as a reference to keep myself true to the story while working on my new version.

I find that when I'm writing my first draft, I actually need to think only about the story itself. When the first draft is finished, I can then focus my attention on the story's structure. This is the best way I can think of to write a story properly, because otherwise I'm spreading myself out too thin, and I get confused.

I hope this helps you out somewhat. And again, don't be afraid to ask a question. Like I mentioned above, the only stupid question is one that is never asked. :)

Best wishes to you. :)

[dpaterso]

Here's a short extract from Gary Provost's "Make Your Words Work" (ISBN: 0-89879-636-9) page 24-24:
Show, don't tell.

Show means create a picture for the reader.

If you did an interview with Kathleen Turner and she seemed anxious for you to leave, you can tell the reader, "Turner seemed impatient." Or you can show the reader, "Turner looked at her watch constantly. She tapped her foot. 'Are you almost done?' she asked."

You can tell your reader that your character was handsome, or you can show that "women turned to watch him when he came into the restaurant."

Which do you find more compelling: a man who is cruel or a man who whips his dog? A woman who is afraid or a woman who reached for her gun when there was a knock on the door?

Showing in your fiction and nonfiction is more compelling than telling.

[maestrowork]

By the way, "she cried" is perfectly fine as a "show." You don't have to explain every act ("tears rolled down her cheeks," etc.) That would just be an overkill in many circumstances. Basically, choose your details wisely, but, yes, put your readers inside that world with five senses.

[She Raven]

I agree it can be frustrating but it can be mastered with a little practice. Example: One of the secrets to help move the plot along, involve secondary characters, and keep the reader interested is dialog. For example when I have a scene that is more telling going on for a page, I break it into dialog. this help add flavor to the scene. I try to never go on about anything for long. Go to acmeauthorslink.blogspot.com and go to archivies and look for tellin' ain't showmanship for examples on showing and telling.

[Devil Ledbetter]

By the way, "she cried" is perfectly fine as a "show." You don't have to explain every act ("tears rolled down her cheeks," etc.) That would just be an overkill in many circumstances. Basically, choose your details wisely, but, yes, put your readers inside that world with five senses.I actually read in one of my novel writing books (sorry, I can't remember which one) that things like "hot tears slid down her cheeks" have been so overdone that it's now considered preferable to go with the straightforward "she cried."

It's only too much telling that is bad. Likewise, too much showing can get tedious. It's the writer's judgment call to find the right balance for her story.

[Stew21]

I actually read in one of my novel writing books (sorry, I can't remember which one) that things like "hot tears slid down her cheeks" have been so overdone that it's now considered preferable to go with the straightforward "she cried."

It's only too much telling that is bad. Likewise, too much showing can get tedious. It's the writer's judgment call to find the right balance for her story.


We had a good conversation here (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84168&page=2) about that balance between showing vs. telling.

[jst5150]

Deal strictly with facts and not judgments, and you'll solve this faster than you think:

Judgment: Bad news
Fact: news

Judgment: Happy.
Fact: smiling, whistling, snapping fingers

Give it a try. Just observe things and write down what you observe and report it, not what you think of what you observe. Then cobble that together. :)

[BlueLucario]

Here's something I don't get. There's a time for showing and a time for telling. The problem is when would be the right time to do both? And how would you know what needs telling and what needs showing?

[JJ Cooper]

Always good to do the telling in dialogue and the showing in between.


JJ

[Julie Worth]

There's no formula for it that I know of, just whatever feels right for the story. If a scene is critical and/or interesting, then obviously it should be shown. And if you want to pass over a lot of time or trivial events, you tell. I try to break up telling with showing and vice versa.

[JJ Cooper]

You may also find this thread and the links in it useful, Blue (it's yours). http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95663

JJ

[Linda Adams]

There isn't a black and white answer. It's going to have to be something that you think about and sort out.

But one reason is that the reader might already know what happened, so there's no reason to show it a second time. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is an example. We are shown the scene with Harry in the graveyard. Then Harry explains it later on in great detail over many pages. The reader had already seen what happened, so there was no need to rehash it again. That was where the story would have benefitted from telling.

Another reason may be genre dependent. For example, I've noticed that when people complain about writers doing too much telling, they often cite thrillers. But thriller is a genre where you might have a very complicated aspect of the story that would be tedious to show. It might be easier and more interesting to explain how something works in a paragraph that tells than to spend twenty pages trying to show it.

The best thing you can probably do is look at the books you're reading and try to understand why the author told at that point instead of showed.

[Danthia]

There are some things you just can't get across any other way but through telling. There's not a list or anything, you just have to develop an eye for it in your own work. What I've found helps a lot is when you have to tell, you keep it solid in your POV's voice and attitude. That way, it comes across more as the POV thinking or reflecting on something and less like the author breaking into the story to explain something. It also helps to keep it short, and to tell it in places where it's very relevant. For example, if you need to tell readers about the history of prisoners, do it when your POV is captured and is now a prisoner. Their experience triggers that thought, so it feels natural to tell more about it, because that's what they're thinking about. But if you beak in and tell the history when the POV sees the prison as they walk through town, then it comes across as an info dump.

Places I find myself telling...

History, when it's just impossible to show that history (or the effects of it) in action. I can show a tyrant by how the people are treated, but I can't show that he killed his father to take the throne. Slipping in a quick "Life was so much better before King Meany killed his father and stole the throne" type line gets the point across, and lets you move on without slowing the story down.

Revelations. When your POV finds out something, sometimes you just have to explain it. Someone confesses, the POV put two and two together. A little telling is needed to sum it up for the reader and show the thought process that brought them here.

[hshd]

Here's something I don't get. There's a time for showing and a time for telling. The problem is when would be the right time to do both? And how would you know what needs telling and what needs showing?

One question you could ask is: do you want your readers to know more than the characters for a given situation? Something for which a reader is privy to know that is unknown to the character can enhance a story, while keeping it very natural and true to the character's knowledge and perception. I do not see anything wrong with infodumps or author exposition or telling. It's like a myth to me that it's bad. It's only bad if executed poorly. Do what you need to make it work, even if you have to disguise it.

[IdiotsRUs]

Go by Hitchcock's axiom:

Film is like life with the boring bits taken out

Same goes for books. Show the interesting stuff. Tell the rest of what the reader needs to know ( the boring bits).


For example the trip to get to the fair is boring ( though the reader needs to know they are off to the fair), but it gets interesting once you get there. A short tell: 'They drove for an hour to get to the fair' leads you into your interesting scene.

Crap example, but that's the basics of it. IMO of course.

[backslashbaby]

Also, I think there are some parts that aren't tedious that might be better told. Say you have a character that could tell it in a very clever way, that says a lot about the character, too. Or it's just more clever [one way or another] told with observations, maybe the voice of the character. This could be the thoughts of the POV character, or even an omni narrator if you are already using that. It could be dialogue, too, told to another character. The question there is: How clever is it?

You know those folks who tell an anecdote perfectly, brilliantly, without showing? That could be your narrator or character, too, sometimes, and I like to bring that up :)

[Birol]

Merging your two Show, Not Tell threads, Blue.

[ccv707]

Something that should never be told are emotions.

And I wouldn't say too much showing becomes tedious. If the reader isn't able to come to their own conclusions about the things they're being shown (i.e., that John is a sociopath when he displays all the signs of being one), perhaps they shouldn't be reading the book.

Of course, some things have to be told. Many things, actually. But just the same, many things are better off being shown.

[hshd]

"He was sad." "She was upset."

I try to avoid telling in such forms. But, in a writing club, there are two rules you should always remember:

#1. There are no rules.

#2. There are no rules. (wanted to italized and tried to google 'how to italize in forums'. not much help. how do you italize?)

There are people who internalize their feelings and do not visually express their emotions, people who may appear cold or detach to others. If writing about such people, I would tell their emotional state.

Example: "He opened the door to his house, and as he did so, he heard noises, of groaning and moaning, coming from his bedroom. He felt a tightening in his chest, a heavy feeling that crept and weighed into his heart as he walked toward it. He peered through the opened doorway to his room, and saw his wife beneath a man, her arms and legs clutched around him, their bodies in motion, the bed shaking and thumping upon the floor. The sight angered him, and sickened him. He turned and exited the house.... He called a lawyer..."