First Person dillemma - tell or show character feelings?

[Exir]

Show, don't tell is a common adage in writing. However, I am faced with a dillemma when writing in first person - should we tell the feelings, or show them?

For example, if I write "I am sad", then that is realistic, because that's what the character would think. "A tear trickled down my cheek" would be more showing, but it would also be unnatural - people don't really think that way. I am confused here - when one is writing for the first person, should one aim to show the feelings, or just tell them for the sake of realism?

[Dale Emery]

Originally Posted by Exir

I am confused here - when one is writing for the first person, should one aim to show the feelings, or just tell them for the sake of realism?

Those are both fine choices. Some of us are exploring additional possibilities in this thread:
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99276

Dale

[dpaterso]

Consider how your character might express what they're feeling in their own unique way. Bad news: His words punched me in the gut and left me gasping for breath. Danger: Fear churned my bowels into hot liquid. The break-up: The bitch reached into my chest, ripped my heart out, threw it on the floor and stamped it into mush. Damage: Red-hot pain lanced through my body. Emotion via sarcasm: Take my advice, never drive at 100 miles per hour when you're crying your eyes out.

Shrug, just a thought.

-Derek

[hammerklavier]

Read Rebecca.

[ishtar'sgate]

Originally Posted by Exir

Show, don't tell is a common adage in writing. However, I am faced with a dillemma when writing in first person - should we tell the feelings, or show them?

For example, if I write "I am sad", then that is realistic, because that's what the character would think. "A tear trickled down my cheek" would be more showing, but it would also be unnatural - people don't really think that way. I am confused here - when one is writing for the first person, should one aim to show the feelings, or just tell them for the sake of realism?

I've never used first person - too limiting for the way I write - but I can see how it poses a challenge. I think for the example you've given I might try something like,
I just knew I was going to cry. I felt hot tears fill my eyes and I couldn't control the quiver in my bottom lip.
Some people flush up and feel heat in their cheeks or feel a gagging sensation in their throat when they're upset. I guess I'd just think about how I respond when I'm sad and how those around me might respond, then pretend it's me and write that. Anyhow like I said, I don't write in first person so I may be way off here.
Linnea

[qwerty]

I’ve written a novel in the first person which my agent is calling very strong. So, what makes it strong, I asked myself. Hmm, show don’t tell maybe? Have just skipped through some of it and realised I never actually state how my narrator feels. Below is an example. This woman has to drive onto a ferry to get from England to France.

“Oh bugger. I was going to have to do the getting onto the ship bit. The Vauxhall was now well trapped in the middle line of bumper-to-bumper vehicles, so there was no way of turning it to escape. No way I could bottle it now. In pouring rain, I sat in the queue of dripping cars thinking that, if I stopped breathing, two things would happen. The car’s windows wouldn’t be opaque from steaming breath and I would die and wouldn’t have to do this.”

She hasn’t stated that she’s shit scared, but I think the message has got over to the reader.

[dawinsor]

I'm trying to decided if and when I do think stuff like "I feel sad." I don't think I do, at least not for a while. I think I feel body stuff first, and wishes and thoughts. For me, it's an achievement to label my feelings as "sadness." I have to step back from them to do it.

[maestrowork]

Originally Posted by Exir

Show, don't tell is a common adage in writing. However, I am faced with a dillemma when writing in first person - should we tell the feelings, or show them?

For example, if I write "I am sad", then that is realistic, because that's what the character would think. "A tear trickled down my cheek" would be more showing, but it would also be unnatural - people don't really think that way. I am confused here - when one is writing for the first person, should one aim to show the feelings, or just tell them for the sake of realism?

With first person you can do anything since it's basically a dialogue between you and you/readers.

That said, the idea behind "show not tell" still applies because it simply is a better to get your readers involved in the story, and a more vivid way of storytelling.

"I'm sad" is boring, vague -- doesn't mean much to me. Everyone is sad, so what? It's navel gazing. Oh, woe be me type of emotional introspection. I'd rather want to hear about the narrator's specific thoughts, philosophies than a simple declaration of emotions.

Show it to me instead. Action is more interesting than a "feeling." Externalize the emotions with plot and action and dialogue. It makes for much stronger storytelling.

It's not about realism. REAL people who talk about themselves and how they feel are boring. Do you want your book to be boring? If not, show, don't tell. Interesting people tell interesting stories, and more often than not it's not about how they feel, but what they do.

[maestrowork]

Also, you don't really have to turn everything into an external event or action. Sometimes inference works very well, and it's an effective way of evoking emotion.

Here's when my protagonist in The Pacific Between is feeling melancholy, nostalgic and pensive. But he doesn't tell us "I'm feeling melancholy, nostalgic and pensive." Instead, he describes what's surrounding him and hints at his emotional states:

"soccer matches were won and lost here...the cheers are long gone. Between the goalposts on this green field now stands a thirty-two-year-old man in his Perry Ellis shoes...."

[mikeland]

I agree with maestrowork. Flat out stating what the character is feeling is boring and vague. And it also is not the way people think.

I wouldn't focus on physically describing the character (i.e. tears ran down my face) in such situations. The "show don't tell" in first person is about delving into how people actually process their emotions.

If you're feeling sad, does a little voice inside your head think "I feel sad"? Probably not. You're probably thinking about the girl or guy who just dumped you or the test you just failed or the fact that it is raining outside and you really wanted to go out and play. Whatever it is for your character, a first step would be to ask yourself, "what is making my character sad/angry/happy" and then write about that.

[maestrowork]

Originally Posted by mikeland

If you're feeling sad, does a little voice inside your head think "I feel sad"? Probably not. You're probably thinking about the girl or guy who just dumped you or the test you just failed or the fact that it is raining outside and you really wanted to go out and play. Whatever it is for your character, a first step would be to ask yourself, "what is making my character sad/angry/happy" and then write about that.

Exactly.

"I'm sad" is a commentary, a summary -- people don't summarize their feelings that way unless they're asked: "So, how do you feel?" Even then, they would actually try to explain what is happening in their minds and not really just flat out say, "I'm sad."

[Soccer Mom]

I agree with maestro and mike. I see no difference in show vs. tell when writing in first person.

[mscelina]

Remember, in first person the narrator can only assume what others are thinking/feeling/planning. Therefore, the writer finds it more difficult to fall into the telling trap inherently. You can't tell us how Character B feels, so you have to show us so that Character A can figure it out.

[Dale Emery]

Originally Posted by mscelina

Remember, in first person the narrator can only assume what others are thinking/feeling/planning. Therefore, the writer finds it more difficult to fall into the telling trap inherently. You can't tell us how Character B feels, so you have to show us so that Character A can figure it out.

In real life, people often make claims about others feelings, thoughts, and plans, as if they could actually know these things. As a consultant, I challenge that sort of "mindreading" all the time.

Given how often people indulge in mindreading in real life, what makes it difficult for a writer of first-person narrative to fall into that trap?

Dale

[mikeland]

Originally Posted by Dale Emery

In real life, people often make claims about others feelings, thoughts, and plans, as if they could actually know these things. As a consultant, I challenge that sort of "mindreading" all the time.

Given how often people indulge in mindreading in real life, what makes it difficult for a writer of first-person narrative to fall into that trap?

Dale

This is exactly why I think first person is so much fun (and such a challenge).

The flawed character is going to be unreliable and engage in "mindreading" constantly.

The author working in first person has to keep track of what the narrator knows and what the narrator thinks he/she knows. The interesting part is when an author can let the narrator be dead wrong without losing control of the overall story.

The author is omniscient -- the narrator is not.

[Soccer Mom]

Originally Posted by mikeland

This is exactly why I think first person is so much fun (and such a challenge).

The flawed character is going to be unreliable and engage in "mindreading" constantly.

The author working in first person has to keep track of what the narrator knows and what the narrator thinks he/she knows. The interesting part is when an author can let the narrator be dead wrong without losing control of the overall story.

The author is omniscient -- the narrator is not.

I adore the unrealiable narrator.

This is why so many mysteries are in first person from the detective's point of view. We can only know what the detective knows and are subject to his observations and prejudices. First person can be very powerful when done right.

Every POV has its benefits and pitfalls.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Dale Emery

In real life, people often make claims about others feelings, thoughts, and plans, as if they could actually know these things.

Yep. That's one of the odd things about first person. In third person limited, it would be head-hopping to write about a non-viewpoint character:

John smiled, doing a good job of hiding his anger.

But in first person, if the viewpoint character assumes that John is angry and is only smiling because he's hiding it, that's what he'd write.

[maestrowork]

Originally Posted by Pup

But in first person, if the viewpoint character assumes that John is angry and is only smiling because he's hiding it, that's what he'd write.

Inference is fine, but still how the narrator infers should be shown.

[Seif]

You can show emotions/feelings via 'Atmosphere' as in Bram Stoker's 'Dracula',

via utilising other characters in the novel to distinguish/accentuate your own personality and reasoning skills as in Charles Dickens, 'David Copperfield'

via your reactions to the changing circumstances or responses to social conventions as in Charlotte Brontes 'Jane Eyre'

There are various methods you could employ to convey your emotions and thought processes without resorting to such bland statements as 'I'm sad'. If that is going to be the general attitude then you may as well write that 'this is a story were sometimes I am sad, others were I am happy and in the end I die.'

First Person provides you with a genuine MC account of how s/he experiences and reacts to what is happening. I find this incredibly enriching not only in so far as character development goes, but in driving the story.

Once you have fleshed out an intriguing MC then you can convey his/her emotions by relating to, as I have, to nature (bruised, solemn clouds; the mournful cries of crows or the dying embers of the sun) or to people (sardonic smile; flinched from the reflection of my emaciated visage). Because all that you write about is from the MC point of view then the connotations etc. will reflect the internal struggles of the MC.

Use all the five senses to your advantage:

If s/he is happy see the world in colour, if sad on the other hand then in black and white. Or if you wish to be inventive use contradicting notions such as 'burning snowflakes' to create an atmosphere. Externalise the emotions of the MC rather than simply state them.

Internal dialogue is crucial for such purposes and I believe that this has been previously covered. I use a lot of internal dialogue, but use this with a healthy balance of action. Attach something still/abstract (feeling) with something moving/concrete (action) to add substance to emotions and get your creative juices flowing as well as conjuring up vivid imagery so as to offer greater participation from the salivating reader.

I just hope that I am able to adhere to such guidelines strictly enough, and it is a very exciting endeavor.

[jannawrites]

Originally Posted by Exir

Show, don't tell is a common adage in writing. However, I am faced with a dillemma when writing in first person - should we tell the feelings, or show them?

For example, if I write "I am sad", then that is realistic, because that's what the character would think. "A tear trickled down my cheek" would be more showing, but it would also be unnatural - people don't really think that way. I am confused here - when one is writing for the first person, should one aim to show the feelings, or just tell them for the sake of realism?

Comments like this are natural for the first person narrative, simply because your main character is relaying their own story to the reader. As with any storytelling, the more showing and detail, the better. I think this is especially true if the story is told in the past tense.

[maestrowork]

I agree. Normally, we won't say to ourselves "tears ran down my cheeks" but the thing is, the narrator is relaying a story to others, and he's trying to explain what's happening. Basically, saying "I'm sad" is not wrong -- it's a legit way of telling a story, but it's vague and dull and non-descriptive and just not very engaging. Navel gazing is boring to many readers. So ask yourself do you want to write an engaging story, or do you want to bore your readers?