"Show vs. Tell..."

Craig Gosse · Mar 7, 2008

I thought I'd tackle this topic, as I've seen a good many threads, spread across the board in general, that, directly or indirectly, impact upon this point.

(Not coincidentally, that also made it a tad difficult to decide where I would post this thread...)

'Show, don't tell' is a truism in writing - but, as with anything else, it has it's caveats. As tempting as the idea to 'control' the concept you are creating might be for an author, it is also a terrible mistake. As an author, you *MUST* allow room for the reader to re-interpret your work.

Each and every one of us is locked within our own skulls. Nothing can change this fact, and the best that we can hope for is to establish contact with the 'distant land' that is another personality locked within another skull through the few 'input/output' channels available - the senses. As an author, we are diplomats - representatives of the sovereign nation within our own mind, attempting to relate with our distant neighbors...

Don't let 'reality' interfere with the reader's concept of 'realism'. When describing a scene or a person, unless it's a 'plot point', leave it vague enough to allow a person to form their own image. Perhaps you can describe a certain 'real life' scene perfectly, right down to the smallest detail... but if it clashes with the reader's memory/idea of that locale, you'll actually be driving a wedge between yourself and the reader. You're a diplomat - so be diplomatic. Let them maintain their 'badly mistaken and obviously incorrect' concepts about what something looks/sounds/feels like. You're not here to win a debate. You are here to entertain and, if - and only if - you manage to meet that criteria, edify.

Don't use funny spelling of words to try and project a 'perfect' accent/dialog. Describe it... and then let the readers imagine what each character sounds like, through your word choices. It might not be the same as how you imagine your character sounding - but that's all right!

Not too long ago, I had a get-together with a bunch of close friends. As close friends, I'd let them read my manuscript. Sooner or later, the conversation got around to, 'if it were made into a movie, who do you see playing the roles?'

Not ONE of my friends saw the same actors playing the characters I'd written as I did - and few saw the same actors as each other. Each one had their own 'mind's eye' image of the character... and that's exactly how it SHOULD be.

As tempting as it may be to feel so, you are not a God(dess) on high handing down glory to the unwashed masses. Reading always has been, and, I most sincerely hope, always will be an interactive activity. At a remove, perhaps, and with precious little direct feedback to us writers, but interactive nevertheless...

...and, as always, the first and most important 'interaction' is whether or not a potential reader chooses to purchase our work.

I'm merely, and most humbly, suggest you keep that in mind before deciding to 'pick an argument' with that person's preconceived notions.

God knows - it's something that I'm struggling like the (Charles) Dickens to beat out of myself!

My two cent's worth,
(and then some),
C. Gosse.

kdnxdr · Mar 7, 2008

I recently wrote a short story (sort of) and submitted to be critiqued here at AW.

The great critique that I received suggested I give more detail to what I wrote as a more incidental part of the story. I say incidental in that I wrote from the perspective of the my own self and of an experience I actually had.

It was suggested that I give more physical detail to one of the characters, and it was a pivotal moment I tried to write about. I can see how I might follow that advice and "flesh out" the character and the emmotional content of that moment but it wasn't intended to be so emphasized in the originally telling of the story.

I'm saying all this to question the whole showing/telling aspect. It gets very confusing to me. With your advice, I originally wrote the scene so that one could imagine all kinds of characteristics of that particular character. If I took the advice of my critter, I would fill in alot of details to make the character more tangible.

So, now, I'm still confused as to which is the better way to go.

kid

Shweta · Mar 7, 2008

Showing works better for giving a reader an immersive experience.

Telling works better for getting through stuff quickly (also if you want to do metanarrative commentary but that's another issue entirely).

In general, I think telling works best when it evokes ideas in the reader's head. Telling a little slantwise, in other words, rather than telling the obvious things. Leaving it to the reader to make inferences, rather than spelling them out. Example. "She was sixteen years old and six feet tall" rather than "She was awkward and shy because she was very tall for her age." For this, the writer still needs to do a lot of work to figure out the right details.

By which I mean, telling is a shortcut for the reader, not the writer.

TheChuck · Mar 7, 2008

A good example I heard recently was instead of saying "He was six feet tall" you would write "He had to duck to pass through the door".

Craig Gosse · Mar 7, 2008

Shweta said:
By which I mean, telling is a shortcut for the reader, not the writer.

*Blink, blink*

I'm not sure whether to be grateful, or jealous... (*Grin*)

By all means - I don't mean you should 'skimp'. What I am referring to are those aspects that are 'slippery'.

'Tall' is slippery. Almost everybody on the planet has a different definition as to what, exactly, 'tall' means. By all means, if you wish to describe a particular hight, do so - but then you have either dedicated yourself to being equally explicit in ALL your character's heights, or being just as conscientious about describing heights based on the reactions of characters your have already established...

(Regardless of anything else, regardless of topic, the one thing that readers the world over will be annoyed by is inconsistencies in any way, shape or form...)

The point I was trying to make, however, regards the manner in which you choose to set forth 'limits' on the readers imagination. Don't fight the battles you think you can win; as an author, fight the battles you think NEED to be fought. If you need to educate a reader in how this-or-that works, (contrary to common opinion), then do so... in the way you think will best educate the reader, without driving them off. If, however, it is a point that is not substantially important, provide enough detail to 'set the scene', but leave it to the reader to provide the rest.

Now - *DON'T* take this to mean you should 'generalize'. Not at all. It actually means you should provide very clear, sharply-rendered detail - but that you must choose WHICH detail, rather than all of them.

Sunset...? Discuss the quality of light, OR of sound, OR of texture... whichever you think will best 'set the scene'. DON'T try to do all of them.

When I spoke of 'Show vs. Tell', I guess what I really meant is that, as an author, you MUST be discriminating: TELL the reader what is important by SHOWING them just the details you have chosen, and leave them to fill in the rest...

...and, of course, the hard part - do it so smoothly that they don't even see you palm that card...

C. Gosse

chroniclemaster1 · Mar 7, 2008

I usually think of it as being the other way around. Showing is about being willing as a writer to lose control to your reader about what they will think about your work. It's much more comfortable to preach at them and shove down their throats what you think they should think. Showing means giving them permission to make what they will of your work, and that is exactly how it engages them. If done well, it gives them permission to become involved in your writing... if done GREAT, it sucks them in.

Shweta · Mar 7, 2008

Showing pins the reader down to sensory details.
Telling (sometimes) pins the reader down to interpretations. I don't generally like that form of telling outside oral-tradition narrative.

Craig Gosse · Mar 7, 2008

As much as I hate to admit it, I'm forced to fall back on examples....

Our Main Character, a gun in hand, is running into an alley:

He's planning to lay in ambush:

'John ducked into the alley. A cold wing stirred the loose trash around his feet, battering them up against the dumpsters, pipes, and semi-inset doorways that defined that narrow, high-walled passageway leading to the next cross-street.

John shuddered - that cold wind would soon become a factor in his plans. As he settled himself into a a narrow doorway out of immediate sight of the alleyway entrance, he knew that his need to remain absolutely still would give that bitter wind an advantage...'

He's running from a murderous enemy:

'John ducked into the alley. A cold wing stirred the loose trash around his feet, battering them up against the dumpsters, pipes, and semi-inset doorways that defined that narrow, high-walled passageway leading to the next cross-street.

John gratefully took in the profusion of nooks and crannies, the complex lay of light and shadow. Eagerly, he scampered towards the protective shadow of a series of horizontal pipes next to a Dumpster - in their shadow, he could hide unseen as the enemy passed by, oblivious to his presence...'

He's injured, and needs medical attention:

'John ducked into the alley. A cold wing stirred the loose trash around his feet, battering them up against the dumpsters, pipes, and semi-inset doorways that defined that narrow, high-walled passageway leading to the next cross-street.

Quickly, he gathered up a few, wind-swirled pieces of newsprint, pressing them against his blood-warmed side. This narrow passageway offered egress onto a busy street, and he hurried towards that potential of salvation even as the coarse paper pressed painfully hard against his wound both absorbed and stemmed the flow of blood from his injury...'

Any ONE of these is valid... but trying to put all possible levels of detail into a story would dilute whatever eventual end towards which you were trying to aim the reader...

Sunshine13 · Mar 7, 2008

Craig, thank you for starting this thread!!

I typically fall in this trap, I suppose I'm controlling by nature and it's slipping into my writing now. You've explained some things that I can actually grasp now in finding the difference between the two, because honestly it was very hard for me at first. Maybe I'm just slow. Hm....

So anyway

My biggest challenge with my current WIP is I have some time "jumps". Where I start, things have happened prior, so I guess my OCD'ness urges me to 'tell' the reader in small "infodumps" what has happened and how.

And then a chapter jumps ahead 3 years. Right now I'm working on what can be left out for the readers imaginiation and what will drive them nuts if I don't explain and the problem is, like babies, EVERY READER IS DIFFERENT. Arg! Why?!

Kidding, it's great. But frustrating. Even here, I have one person saying "Hm, it'd be better if you add this." And I do. And another will say, "Um...that doesn't work, etc etc." I'm rambling now.

Long story short, thanks for the thread. Wait, I already said that. Well, it's late and I need my Nyquil. But I think I have a better understanding after reading this now. Now I gotta hop to it!

Colin McHale · Mar 7, 2008

Craig Gosse said:
'Show, don't tell' is a truism in writing - but, as with anything else, it has it's caveats. As tempting as the idea to 'control' the concept you are creating might be for an author, it is also a terrible mistake. As an author, you *MUST* allow room for the reader to re-interpret your work.

Each and every one of us is locked within our own skulls. Nothing can change this fact, and the best that we can hope for is to establish contact with the 'distant land' that is another personality locked within another skull through the few 'input/output' channels available - the senses. As an author, we are diplomats - representatives of the sovereign nation within our own mind, attempting to relate with our distant neighbors...

Don't let 'reality' interfere with the reader's concept of 'realism'. When describing a scene or a person, unless it's a 'plot point', leave it vague enough to allow a person to form their own image. Perhaps you can describe a certain 'real life' scene perfectly, right down to the smallest detail... but if it clashes with the reader's memory/idea of that locale, you'll actually be driving a wedge between yourself and the reader. You're a diplomat - so be diplomatic. Let them maintain their 'badly mistaken and obviously incorrect' concepts about what something looks/sounds/feels like. You're not here to win a debate. You are here to entertain and, if - and only if - you manage to meet that criteria, edify.

Don't use funny spelling of words to try and project a 'perfect' accent/dialog. Describe it... and then let the readers imagine what each character sounds like, through your word choices. It might not be the same as how you imagine your character sounding - but that's all right!

Not too long ago, I had a get-together with a bunch of close friends. As close friends, I'd let them read my manuscript. Sooner or later, the conversation got around to, 'if it were made into a movie, who do you see playing the roles?'

Not ONE of my friends saw the same actors playing the characters I'd written as I did - and few saw the same actors as each other. Each one had their own 'mind's eye' image of the character... and that's exactly how it SHOULD be.

As tempting as it may be to feel so, you are not a God(dess) on high handing down glory to the unwashed masses. Reading always has been, and, I most sincerely hope, always will be an interactive activity. At a remove, perhaps, and with precious little direct feedback to us writers, but interactive nevertheless...

Not so fast.

What's with all these "musts" and "shoulds" and "do's" and "don'ts"?

It might be hard to believe, but there are people out there who want everything described to them, everything demystified. I've known people who'd get pissed if a story actually made them think. They wanted everything spelled out.

I'm not saying I'm agree with them, by any means. Nor am I saying telling is superior to showing or vice versa.

What I am saying is that as a writer, you aren't the one who determines what readers will or will not like. Everyone has different tastes--that's why some writing you might think is trash still sells well--and has legions of fans who'll swear by it.

Keep in mind that the "rules" we writers tend to follow are things your average-Joe reader probably never even thinks about when picking up a book. I can tell you right now if I asked one of my (non-writer) friends whether they get upset when a book does too much telling or showing, I'd be met with a blank stare.

Craig Gosse · Mar 7, 2008

Colin McHale said:
Not so fast...

If you are expecting an argument, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you... (*Grin*)

Personally, I don't like Chuck Palahniuk's work. I can appreciate what he's doing, but it just doesn't 'work' for me - yet he's a famous author, and I'm not....

The truth is, there's no 'hard and fast' rules about writing, ever. My emphasis' are just that - MINE. If you are one of the rare few who can flout the rules, 'more power to you' - as a more plebeian writer, I can only slog along, assiduously following 'the rules' until I gain enough experience to break them...

So, as always, take my (and anyone else's) 'suggestions' with that proverbial grain of salt. I have, and never will, suggest otherwise... if for no other reason than, if you can find the 'sure-fire' formula to success, I don't want to alienate you so much that you won't tell me!

C. Gosse

Craig Gosse · Mar 7, 2008

Colin McHale said:
Not so fast...

Say - Haven't I seen your Navy somewhere...?

(Retro *Grin*)

Quadrillion · Mar 7, 2008

Not sure I agree with all these definitions of showing vs. telling.

Telling. Vicki was adamant about getting her hands on the gun.

SHowing: "Tell me where that goddamn gun is or you're gonna be eating your next thirty meals through a straw."

Telling: Ben had a dream during the night about a Buda walking a dog.

Showing: Buda is walking across a golf course. He is holding a leash, and on the other end is a dog. Buda bends down and picks a mushroom. The dog begins to float.
Ben sat up rubbing his eyes.

(PS: Imagery from Tom Robbins) (don't like this example as much)

I have also heard it said that you shouldn't mispell words to denote an accent. I strongly disagree with this. I think hitting the reader in the face with the accent brings the character to life. THey can figure out what word you were trying to write just as they would be trying to understand what word the character just threw at them if he was in the room.

Craig Gosse · Mar 7, 2008

Quadrillion said:
I have also heard it said that you shouldn't misspell words to denote an accent. I strongly disagree with this. I think hitting the reader in the face with the accent brings the character to life. They can figure out what word you were trying to write just as they would be trying to understand what word the character just threw at them if he was in the room.

If you check the relevant threads, you will find the 'vast majority', (a relative term if there ever was one, BUT...), find this highly distracting... or, more to the point, 'annoying'.

Yet, at the same time, you can find a significant percentage of that same majority who can name somebody who 'pulled it off'.

Personally, I go back to something I said in another thread... while YOU might find a character's accent 'odd', THEY would not. If you put yourself in your character's head, THEY are speaking clear English. YOU might hear 'Y'all', but that's purely subjective. Somebody from the South both says, and hears, 'You All'....

"You all want some grits with that...?" Daisy-Mae asked, pencil poised over order-pad...

Or, to put it another way - don't confuse 'reality' with 'realism' - which brings me back to my original point.... (*Grin*)

Quadrillion · Mar 7, 2008

I have a character who is German. I love it when he speaks. But he isn't the main character. I'd rather my German go "Yah" than "Yes". If done properly, it isn't distracting at all. You just can't overdo it.

Craig Gosse · Mar 7, 2008

Quadrillion said:
I have a character who is German. I love it when he speaks. But he isn't the main character. I'd rather my German go "Yah" than "Yes". If done properly, it isn't distracting at all. You just can't overdo it.

See, that's where I'd go with:

"Ja," Hans agreed, "Das ist gut - I like it."

Everybody is locked within their own skull - and we, as authors, are not only diplomats, but commandos. Sneak up on the enemy's weak point, their vision-slits (i.e, 'eyes'), and toss in a brain-grenade. Wait long enough to do a Bomb Damage Assessment, the drive the attack forward....

(*A very martial *Grin*)

Shweta · Mar 7, 2008

Interesting.

"Yah" would distract me with a German character, because to me that rsounds wrong. But "Ya" or "Ja" would be fine. However if he's mostly talking English, he's probably not saying "Das is gut" most of the time. He's saying "Ja, that is good."

So I'd get thrown by both your versions, some

wayndom · Mar 8, 2008

While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think it's relevant to the "show don't tell" rule.

The idea of "show don't tell" has little or nothing to do with describing scenes in detail. It means, rather than tell your reader about a character, show the character's personality or character trait in action, so the reader gets to know the character "first hand," instead of getting a personality description.

What you're addressing is how much or little to describe in a story, and I agree emphatically. I learned about the limitations and pitfalls of description largely from D.H. Lawrence and Earl Thompson. Lawrence was a brilliant storyteller, but whenever he described a scene, he went overboard with details. When he began his description, I saw the scene clearly, but as he piled the details on, the scene became less and less clear in my mind, until the scene was like TV snow.

When reading Thompson, I often felt as if I were actually at the place he described, watching real events unfold, and not as if I were reading a story. When I looked back on the pages that evoked such powerful visual images, I discovered that there was no description at all -- just a simple statement of what was there.

I concluded that everyone has their own stock photo file in their head, and if you restrict yourself to a simple statement like, "It was a weathered wooden shack," and say no more than that, the reader pulls up her file photo of a weathered wooden shack, and sees it clearly. If you describe in detail how the rusted nails streaked the wood grain, etc., you disallow the reader from using their file photo, and instead of creating an image, the reader is left with a handful of words.

Shweta · Mar 8, 2008

Oh ah, good point, Wayndom. This then is more in the category of "News you can use" discussion, I guess?

But there is a correlation between showing and detail. There is there is. Telling is generally quicker.

Bufty · Mar 8, 2008

What do your French characters say instead of 'Oui' - We? :Shrug:

If it's done properly as you say, why does the question of overdoing it even cross your mind?

Quadrillion said:
I have a character who is German. I love it when he speaks. But he isn't the main character. I'd rather my German go "Yah" than "Yes". If done properly, it isn't distracting at all. You just can't overdo it.

Exir · Mar 8, 2008

When deciding whether to show or to tell, you should have the narrator in mind. Imagine: if the narrator was telling you the story, like a real person, how will he tell you? Will he say "he's an extremely grumpy person"? Or will he say "he roared at his friend"? I think this applies even to third person narrators, because usually they're focused on one character.

Hope I'm being clear.

Pup · Mar 8, 2008

Quadrillion said:
I have also heard it said that you shouldn't mispell words to denote an accent. I strongly disagree with this. I think hitting the reader in the face with the accent brings the character to life. THey can figure out what word you were trying to write just as they would be trying to understand what word the character just threw at them if he was in the room.

As far as showing vs. telling is concerned, if you want to show that the character is hard for others to understand, and everyone needs to focus more on just grasping what he or she said rather than getting on with the conversation, a thick misspelling of words accomplishes that.

But if the other characters can understand the accented speaker just fine, I think gratuitous misspellings get in the way, because they're still showing the reader that the character is hard to understand, when he isn't. Depending on how the viewpoint character hears someone else speak, a writer could show his varying levels of difficulty understanding, with anything from

"Vat you tink ve shud do, den?"

to

"What you think we should do, then?"

The problem is that heavy misspellings can annoy a modern reader just as trying to communicate with a person you can't understand is annoying in real life, so in a long struggle for understanding, one can't drag out the frustration too long, without occasional relief like, He jabbered on for another minute, until finally I shouted, "Slow down!" Otherwise you risk the reader becoming annoyed more with the author than the character.

HourglassMemory · Mar 8, 2008

I've said this many times. but I'll say it again because I think it can help.

Do not make abstractions, like "compassionate, happy, dreamy, passionate, popular enthusiastic", into adjectives that describe the character. Like “ A dreamy person.”
Show those things.

Things like "blonde, fat, blue" and such, help the reader to SEE, because it's a physical thing.
Beauty is not. Make the readers think that it is beauty that they are being presented.

Think first of what would the characters do or have that would show the reader that they were this or that.
What would make a person think that a character is compassionate? That a character is angry? Or sadistic?

Saying that a character is compassionate, for example, is very boring and vague, and the reader thinks nothing more than...”Ok, she's compassionate."
That's TELLING what you should show: You should SHOW because it's more entertaining, and you as a reader, start to make the story your own, for the reader controls the story by stating "this is what I think is beauty", "this is what I think is sadism". the reader doesn't feel so controlled, and he controls the story. Because you're not TELLING him what to do.

When writers put this sort of stuff in their work, telling what should be shown (ex: She was pretty.) I can never REALLY picture it.
Show me! Don't tell me.
Let me think the person is pretty or really friendly by just getting to know the character through their actions. If our concepts coincide, I'll feel the same as you. Us being humans, is very likely that we will.

Don’t say things that readers will find out by themselves. Let them judge the characters’ actions and possessions.
People aren't stupid.
Show a character doing what you would consider, passionate, or popular, the reader will easily understand.
Don't be so straightforward like "Oh...she's a nice lady."

Avoid making abstractions into adjectives.

And another thing: I think that with static scenery, or stuff that isn't "Character", you can TELL more about it than SHOW. Telling, as has been pointed out, is a sort of quick way of bringing up images in your head. and it doesn't have to be deep telling.

I hope it helps.

Colin McHale · Mar 8, 2008

Craig Gosse said:
If you are expecting an argument, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you... (*Grin*)

Personally, I don't like Chuck Palahniuk's work. I can appreciate what he's doing, but it just doesn't 'work' for me - yet he's a famous author, and I'm not....

The truth is, there's no 'hard and fast' rules about writing, ever. My emphasis' are just that - MINE. If you are one of the rare few who can flout the rules, 'more power to you' - as a more plebeian writer, I can only slog along, assiduously following 'the rules' until I gain enough experience to break them...

So, as always, take my (and anyone else's) 'suggestions' with that proverbial grain of salt. I have, and never will, suggest otherwise... if for no other reason than, if you can find the 'sure-fire' formula to success, I don't want to alienate you so much that you won't tell me!

C. Gosse

Wasn't really looking for an argument.

Was just saying, in short, that the only rule set in stone in writing is that no rule is set in stone.

Dawnstorm · Mar 8, 2008

chroniclemaster1 said:
I usually think of it as being the other way around. Showing is about being willing as a writer to lose control to your reader about what they will think about your work. It's much more comfortable to preach at them and shove down their throats what you think they should think. Showing means giving them permission to make what they will of your work, and that is exactly how it engages them. If done well, it gives them permission to become involved in your writing... if done GREAT, it sucks them in.

Wait, this isn't mutually exclusive. And it's not really the other way round; more like stressing the other end of the continuum.

Showing: plot down sensory details, so you can figure out what's going on.
Telling: plot down information, so you can imagine what could have happened.

You need both showing and telling in writing, if only because - in writing - the only way to show something is to tell something else.

The run-of-the-mill examples could be rephrased as: Don't tell us about the emotion, tell us about the body language. But you may well tell us about emotions to show us the relationship, for example.

The thing is: "show, don't tell" is relative to what you think the text is doing, and if you're saying it, you usually also think the text should be doing something else. Which - most of the time - means that there are better and more precise ways to phrase it.

***

The original post, for example, could read:

Provide enough detail to spark the imagination, but not so much to stifle it.

The problem, of course, is that different imaginations need different amounts of detail to run smoothly. (Unlike wayndom, for example, I never had problems with Lawrence's descriptions.)

The "tell" corollary is that different minds need different amounts of information to run smoothly.

***

Summary:

1. [Activity] - [Object of activity]

Show - sensory details
Tell - information

2. [Text] - [mental process] - [result of mental process]

Show details --> interpretation of details ---> information
Tell information ---> imagination of information content ---> sensory details

Whatever you don't put into the text will be subject to reader variation, whether it's information or sensory detail. (And bear in mind that we derive sensory detail from information. If we've established the way a character expresses anger early on, a single sentence such as "You know, John is being angry again," can invoke the sensory detail. This is neither showing nor telling; it's referencing.)

"Show vs. Tell..."

Bored fanatic

One of the most important people in the world

gone

Bored fanatic

Seeking Undercover Angel

gone

Bored fanatic

Mom by day, writer by night!

Bored fanatic

Bored fanatic

Bored fanatic

Bored fanatic

gone

gone

Where have the last ten years gone?

Out of the cradle endlessly rocking

.

punny user title, here