The Debate on Show/Tell

[Rolling Thunder]

Maestrowork has a thread posted in writing games/excercises that is quite interesting to play with: http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41330

That thread brought a few questions to my mind about the average readers mindset:

Does the average, everyday reader (who would never consider writing anything) know the difference between Showing vs. Telling and if not, does it make any difference to them?

If the average reader is looking for entertainment what is the value of good prose or literary writing, as it has to compete with easier forms of entertainment? (ie, Television)

RT

[scarletpeaches]

I couldn't be entertained by a writer who assumed I was too thick to want to read quality. I don't believe you should dumb down to suit the lowest common denominator. I think you should be the best writer you can be, and teach people to expect quality. Never compromise.

As for the 'value' of good writing - that's a non-question to me. I would ask what's the value of bad writing?

[maestrowork]

IMO, an average reader might not understand what "show vs. tell" is -- heck, many writers don't get it either. The issue is not to have your readers say, "Ah, this author is very good at showing and not telling." Leave that to lit professors. My thought is, "show" gives the readers a better experience through their senses and vivid details as well as a "cinematic" experience as if they're actually in the world, in those situations, walking side by side with the characters. I think most readers can figure out the difference between "just words on a page" and "wow, I feel like I was there!" The experience of being told someone is "angry" is very different than actually witnessing and experience someone being angry. When you hit the readers in the guts with visceral sensations and emotions (with words, no less), it's VERY powerful.

[blackbird]

Good writing is a balance of both showing and telling, and the great ones know how to do both well--but most importantly, when to do either. A full work that attempts to show every detail, with no form of summarizing at all, is just as disastrous as one that is all tell and no show.

Also, I think (this is just my opinion, of course) you can get away with a bit more "telling" if you have a first-person narrator, because, after all, most stories are "told" to us in real life (does anyone actually act out a story for you? Not unless they're an actor or stand-up comedienne) but, again, the caution is striking the balance. A reader will still get bored quickly if there's no direct action or "show" at all.

I don't think the average reader knows the difference; most of us don't unless we've studied the craft to some degree. But they are sure going to know whether they are engaged or bored with the story. And most readers have been "trained" by past reading experience to expect writing that balances both show and tell, even if they aren't quite sure that's what it's called.

[Neeli]

No one tells you things in real life--you have to figure it all out (i.e., my kids are screaming at each other, they must be tired or hungry).

The reader who hasn't heard of "Show don't Tell" won't know how to describe what's wrong with a book that just tells, but they will be less satisfied. Part of what makes reading magic is having to figure things out for yourself. It's not what you SAY, it's what you DON'T say, but imply.

[veinglory]

The average reader just knows the difference between dull and engaging--and on average that relates to tell and show. Theory explains why some things are appealing, that is all. The lay consumer knows the difference from life not from theory.

[aadams73]

Does the average, everyday reader (who would never consider writing anything) know the difference between Showing vs. Telling and if not, does it make any difference to them?



Heck yeah! And it will make a big difference next time they have a $20 bill in their hand and a choice between your book and another writer's.

Writers shouldn't treat readers like dummies. Know when to show and when to tell.

[Jamesaritchie]

Maestrowork has a thread posted in writing games/excercises that is quite interesting to play with: http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41330

That thread brought a few questions to my mind about the average readers mindset:

Does the average, everyday reader (who would never consider writing anything) know the difference between Showing vs. Telling and if not, does it make any difference to them?

If the average reader is looking for entertainment what is the value of good prose or literary writing, as it has to compete with easier forms of entertainment? (ie, Television)

RT

The average, everyday reader knows the difference between exciting and boring, and the novels that buy suggests they firmly beleive telling is boring and showing is exciting.

[Rolling Thunder]

The average, everyday reader knows the difference between exciting and boring, and the novels that buy suggests they firmly beleive telling is boring and showing is exciting.

Actually, I think your posting #40 http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41146

did a good job answering my question.

That's what I'm trying to understand here, with this question. It's not a question of writers viewing readers as less intelligent. I feel this becomes a trap for a writer who forgets the key element, in fiction, is story telling. If the story is interesting and the writing conveys this in a way the reader can easily understand it, does the chance of publishing success become more even?

It makes me wonder if there are writers who abandon their initial style, which could be fresh and untested, out of fear that their writing is not of the same caliber of, say, their favorite author.

With the new avenues of E-publishing opening up will this begin to change writing as a whole, as agents and publishers begin to see readers reacting in a manner that goes against the status quo?

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

Does the average, everyday reader (who would never consider writing anything) know the difference between Showing vs. Telling and if not, does it make any difference to them?


They detect the difference and respond to the difference ... they might not "know" in an intellectual sense why they prefer one book over the other.

[MadScientistMatt]

Before I came here, I sure didn't know those terms. But I could probably spot when an author used the wrong technique. Funny thing is, both ways, my first reaction would be "This is boring." But if I had to explain why, it would be different:

"I don't feel like he is describing things clearly." - The author is telling instead of showing.

"Why does he need four pages to describe a trip to the store to buy milk? I want something to happen!" - The author is showing when telling would be more appropriate.

[PeeDee]

Honestly, I'm really unsure why this is one of those perennial debate issues that come up. I never saw it as anything of an issue at all. I think that as a writer, you should have a very clear definition of what "show" is when it's in a novel, and what "tell" is when it's in a novel. I think if you understand them clearly, then there's no matter at all to debate, honestly.

[Rolling Thunder]

Pete,

True, but as I've come to understand the difference, between showing vs. telling, I've noticed some good books I've enjoyed reading seem to have a huge amount of telling going on. I decided to re-read 'The Hobbit' a few days ago and Maestro's thread caught my eye.

Knowing the difference now, it doesn't seem to make a difference to me in how much I enjoy the story. But it does seem to rely on telling quite heavily.

Maybe this is due to the fact that it was written at a time when things were different, writing wise, and the story is what makes it timeless.

[Jamesaritchie]

It makes me wonder if there are writers who abandon their initial style, which could be fresh and untested, out of fear that their writing is not of the same caliber of, say, their favorite author.

With the new avenues of E-publishing opening up will this begin to change writing as a whole, as agents and publishers begin to see readers reacting in a manner that goes against the status quo?

Agents and editors are not going to see readers reacting in a manner that goes against the status quo because there is no such thing as the status quo.

Ths makes it sound like you believe readers have never had the chance to compare tell and show, of that there's something "fresh and untested" about not using show, or that unpoiublished writers have some natural style that hasn't been tested. There isn't. Both tell and show, and every variation thereof, have been around for centuries, and readers have simply, over and over and over, preferred show to tell. Pretty much any style you can imagine has been tried and tested repeatedly. Those readers like stick around, and those readers don't like fall by the wayside.

All good novels have some amount of tell in them, there are always places where show works best, and always places where tell works best, but, seriously, why would anyone want to read tell in action scenes, or in any other place when show simply works far better for readers?

Show isn't the way publishers arbitrarily decided novels should be written, and certainly the way novels are written because readers haven't had the chance to read tell more than anyone wishes.

Writing primarily in show is what publishers want because centuries of experimentation prove beyond doubt that it's what the vast majority of readers want. Likewise, tell is not something fresh and untested, it's something that has also been in use for centuries, and something readers have show through their buying habits that they don't want.

E-publishing isn't doing very well, and those instances where it does work comes when the writer gives the reader what the reader wants, which nearly always means writing that uses far more show than tell.

If there is any such thing as "fresh and untested," I haven't seen it. It's all been done before. Over and over and over. And in all honesty, many new writers need to get over the notion that style is why some writers sell well and others can't get published. It's true enough that many new writers simply can't write well, but this aside, style should be the easy part, and arguing about style is like arguing about whether writers should use English or Hieroglyphics. New writers worry about style when readers have shown repeatedly what style they want. They want a fair amount of show in any action scene, and they want fairly simple, competent writing.

Readers want a good story, and they want that story filled with good characters who speak good dialogue. Of course show works better than tell in most parts of a novel. Of course readers prefer show over tell in most parts of a novel. But what readers really want is a good story that has good flow and that is filled with good characters who speak good dialogue. When a writer fails to sell, and has any sort of competent style at all, the reason he fails is because he isn't giving the reader a good story, filled with good characters who speak good dialogue.

This is the hard part of writing, and the part very few manage to do.

[Jaws]

This is a subject that makes me very grouchy.

Once upon a time, I was studying literary theory. Heavily. Constantly. And one thing stood out: The "writing advice" that was being given at the time (the 1980s, if you must know) proclaimed that "showing" was always better than "telling"… without understanding the distinction, or even the roles those rhetorical means fill in fiction. I haven't noticed any improvement since then.

Although this sounds like a homework assignment that is unlikely to be immediately relevant, writers who are concerned about the showing/telling distinction should start not with facile advice thrown off by people whose works won't be read in ten years, let alone a century, but by reading some literary theory. The best place to begin—it's comprehensive, clear, and above all readable—is Wayne Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction (http://tinyurl.com/g94aw). Booth's work is important because it describes clearly how to tell when a passage requires telling, and not showing… and I don't mean just in infodumps! If the book costs too much for you (it's really not much more expensive than most of the writing-advice books out there, especially since it's usually available used), consider borrowing it from the libarary.

[PeeDee]

Wayne Booth's "The Rhetoric of Fiction" is one of the smartest books you could read, even if you're not interested in the difference between "show" and "tell." Just read it in general. Jaws, you have good taste. :)

[Higgins]

Honestly, I'm really unsure why this is one of those perennial debate issues that come up. I never saw it as anything of an issue at all. I think that as a writer, you should have a very clear definition of what "show" is when it's in a novel, and what "tell" is when it's in a novel. I think if you understand them clearly, then there's no matter at all to debate, honestly.

A writer should know what it means, but in most contexts, show vs. tell is a complete non-issue compared to other things to think about and control in a narrative.

For example, any kind of narrative summary (at first glance) seems to be a "telling"...but it is obviously possible to produce counter-examples. Any kind of close POV narrative seems to be a "show", but what if the thing "shown" is a text that the POV character reads? I've always thought making "show vs tell" distinctions was mostly vacuous and the sort of thing that people who don't like your writing anyway will talk about because they really have nothing to say (other than I don't like stories about talking treefrogs etc.).

[skylarburris]

True, but as I've come to understand the difference, between showing vs. telling, I've noticed some good books I've enjoyed reading seem to have a huge amount of telling going on. I decided to re-read 'The Hobbit' a few days ago and Maestro's thread caught my eye.

In general, science-fiction and fantasy have a lot more "telling" than other genres. I find these genres often boring for that very reason, and I was never able to read the Lord of the Rings trilogy. But other people find these narratives fascinating. How you balance showing and telling depends to a large degree on your audience.

[tommyc7407]

I think you find more telling in commercial fiction, and more showing in literary fiction. You take your bestsellers - Clive Cussler, Janet Evanovich, Stephen King, Tom Clancy - and it can be very frustrating because they appear to be violating all the rules that get pounded into our heads, as aspring authors.

The big example is Dan Brown. I have to say, I thought Da Vinci Code was an incredibly poorly written book, but an absolutely outstanding story. So good, that no one cared if he was showing, or telling, or what.

For me, I see authors showing me things on every single page in bestsellers all the time. I am a harsh critic of my own work, and so many novels distract me, because every single paragraph, they do things I would never allow myself to do - AND IT FLEW! So I look at it as kind of encouraging. Maybe you don't have to be perfect to break into this market.

But I know a lot of people who have no idea what I'm talking about when I point out showing instead of telling in books. Lots and lots of people don't mind being simply told things. And since it's easier to do, I think there will always be a lot of books that do that. Still, I think those same people enjoy it more when you show them, whether they know why or not.

[NeuroFizz]

I agree with others here--becoming a good writer (in both commercial and critical ways) requires that one learn when to use show and when to use tell to best move the story forward. I would imagine one measure of mastery of the craft would be the ability of a writer to use the two as extremely clever tools to help project mood, underline theme, and do the other little things that make a story really stand out. As a developing writer, if I may be so bold as to call myself that, I see show and tell as tools that are helping me grope my way on the path toward good writing.