Margaret Weis

[Elwyn]

The general consensus from all that I've read about learning to write is "show, don't tell."

I am reading Dark Heart by Margaret Weis and David Baldwin. It seems like there's a lot of telling without showing - and she seems to be a successful author. http://www.margaretweis.com/

And, I've noticed that many of her titles are shared by another (but not the same) writer. What's that all about? I've noticed that King also is using some sort of help. Has anyone at this forum ever co-authored before and what's the main advantage? I could imagine a lot of disadvantages.

Thanks!

[writeorwrong]

Pen name, maybe?

As far as Stephen King, he also writes as Richard Bachman.

[veinglory]

I may be wrong but I recall Weis as being a long term co-author (perhaps husband/wife) -- I see that as a fine technique not getting 'help' ;)

As for telling, well. The 'rules' should describe what makes a good or successful book, not determine it. If her telling is working for her then perhaps it's time to explore the parameters of the the rule and the exceptions to it?

[LloydBrown]

And, I've noticed that many of her titles are shared by another (but not the same) writer. What's that all about? I've noticed that King also is using some sort of help. Has anyone at this forum ever co-authored before and what's the main advantage? I could imagine a lot of disadvantages.

Margaret wrote the huge Dragonlance series with co-author Tracy Hickman (who is a man, by the way). I've met both, and they're very different. Tracy is boisterous, a great speaker, and a blast at conventions. Margaret is very sweet but not so outgoing.

I would opine that King doesn't use "help." He might agree to work with somebody he likes, but I cant imagine what skill any writer might lend that King doesn't have in abundance. Sometimes collaborations really are more a means of working with a friend than a case of complementary skills.

I've co-written a Dungeons and Dragons book with somebody. I wouldn't collaborate with most people, but this person was exceptional. Despite our success, I probably wouldn't do it again, even with him.

Collaborations are often a way for two or more people with different skills to work together to create a superior work. In practice, disagreements can cause problems based on the quantity of work done, the quality of work done, and other issues. One person might be a great plotter, while the other excels at developing character. Theoretically, they could work well together.

[janetbellinger]

I think there are times when a case can be made for telling instead of showing. All material is not so compelling that you need to take 5 pages to show it. Unless it's something that most people are not familiar with, I don't think they need to be shown. For instance, take the statement: Joe was a slacker. We all know what that means, we don't need to be shown in what ways Joe was a slacker, do not need descriptions of Joe shirking his work, or letting the dishes pile up on the sink. Sometimes, I would rather imagine things myself rather than having the author pinpoint it for me. Now if you want to teach me something new, then yes, show it. Paul Davis wrote a memorable book called "An Evening of Long Goodbyes," in which he did significant telling, but the telling was priceless. He also showed rather than told in the important parts.

[sunandshadow]

I've co-authored and I thought it had the major advantage of getting ideas generated faster because my co-writer and I kept inspiring each other, but had the disadvantage that you can get bogged down in disagreements and it's tricky to figure out how the editing should work.

[Jamesaritchie]

The general consensus from all that I've read about learning to write is "show, don't tell."

I am reading Dark Heart by Margaret Weis and David Baldwin. It seems like there's a lot of telling without showing - and she seems to be a successful author. http://www.margaretweis.com/

And, I've noticed that many of her titles are shared by another (but not the same) writer. What's that all about? I've noticed that King also is using some sort of help. Has anyone at this forum ever co-authored before and what's the main advantage? I could imagine a lot of disadvantages.

Thanks!

King doesn't use any help. I'm not sure what you mean by that?

Many writers co-author a book now and then, but it doesn't have anything to do with "help." It's just something that can be fun, and sometimes lucrative. I have co-authored one book, and while there are good things about it, it isn't my cup of tea.

As someone once put it, co-writing a book is twice the work for half the money and a quarter of the fun.

[BuffStuff]

Show Don't Tell is a great rule... but it only goes as far as any writing rule will get you. Many writers, even those who authored "classics", use plenty of telling with their showing. It's not only necessary (if you "showed" everything in an average novel-length story then it'd be about 500,000 pages long) but in some cases telling can be far superior to "showing" (all, so-called "showing" is just disguised telling anyway) It's all in how it's used and how good the author is in doing the telling. There are quite a few cases of telling in any story, where if the author had decided to "show" instead, the result may have been an inappropriate and/or clumsy passage.

I can think of numerous authors off of the top of my head, who do an enormous amount of 'telling' mixed in with their 'showing' (William Trevor, John Cheever etc) , but they tend to do it so well you don't notice it unless you're specifically looking for it.

[Euan H.]

The general consensus from all that I've read about learning to write is "show, don't tell."

I am reading Dark Heart by Margaret Weis and David Baldwin. It seems like there's a lot of telling without showing - and she seems to be a successful author. http://www.margaretweis.com/

If she's successful--which she is--and you can see a lot of telling in her work, then that should tell you something about the rule you quoted, right? :)

As far as I can see, it's not about "show, don't tell", but rather: "show what you should show and tell what you should tell."

The tricky part, of course, is working out when to do what.

[LightShadow]

Telling can be useful in establishing narrators and viewpoint characters, but showing not only makes for a better read but allows a certain amount of ambiguity in the text. It allows the reader to reach their own interpretation. So, as mentioned just above, the key is to decide what areas in your manuscript you should tell, and what areas you should show.

[Jamesaritchie]

I haven't rea dmuch Weis, but from what I have read, I don't find her using tell anymore than the average writer.

There are always times when tell is required in any novel, but there are even more times when show is required. And show does not need to use anymore words than tell. When show gets too wordy, the problem is often with the writer, rather than with the technique. When show does stretch out, it should be because it's a good, important scene that deserves the added wordage.

There needs to be a balance of tell and show, but get the balance wrong, or use tell in the wrong places, and no one is going to read very much of your manuscript.

Quite often, the problem is that many writers seem to have trouble separating show and tell. One of the things I've done in workshops is hand out short stories and have the writers highight tell in one color, and show in another. No two highlighted stories are ever identical, and it's a rare, rare event when a writer comes close to getting all the show and tell highlighted correctly.