Is it Show or Tell?

[argenianpoet]

I am having trouble understanding the difference between show and tell in writing. I am being told that I tell my stories instead of show them, and this bugs me. Can anyone here give me examples of show and tell so that I might get a better understanding of this concept. I do know, however, that one cannot show all the time; so there has to be a certain amount of balance. I have picked up numerous books in the past couple of days and they all sound like tell to me. Is it true that a book that just tells a story will never see publication or is this just a matter of opinion, or preference among authors, agents and editors? What is the low down here?

 

[dustinzgirl]

Yes. I was frustrated with this for a while, until I picked up "Self-Editing for Fiction Writers" by Renni Browne and Dave King.

Telling is basically a narrative. It generally reads like an essay or history lesson would. It has little interaction of the characters.

Showing is character interaction. It reads by thier motions, thier language, thier ability to interact and react to the environment and other characters.

Example of Telling:

Billy was tired. He had an exhausting converstation with his mother, and now resided rather petulantly on his bed. This was not thier first argument, and Billy was sure it would not be thier last.

Example of Showing:

"Mom!" Billy shouted. "That is so unfair!" He slammed the bedroom door.

"Billy, this is ridiculous." Mom said, standing behind the door. She sighed, loud and exasperated enough that Billy could hear her through the wall. "We have had this argument many times. You need to be home before ten pm on weeknights. That is final, and I am not discussing it again. I don't care if it is summer, or if your friends stay out until two am."

Billy put his face in his pillow. "That is so unfair!" He screamed into the Power-Ranger pattern. "I am sixteen mom!" He turned his tear-streaked face upwards and stared at the cieling.

 

[argenianpoet]

How do I control show in tell?

Yes. I was frustrated with this for a while, until I picked up "Self-Editing for Fiction Writers" by Renni Browne and Dave King.

Telling is basically a narrative. It generally reads like an essay or history lesson would. It has little interaction of the characters.

Showing is character interaction. It reads by thier motions, thier language, thier ability to interact and react to the environment and other characters.

Example of Telling:

Billy was tired. He had an exhausting converstation with his mother, and now resided rather petulantly on his bed. This was not thier first argument, and Billy was sure it would not be thier last.

Example of Showing:

"Mom!" Billy shouted. "That is so unfair!" He slammed the bedroom door.

"Billy, this is ridiculous." Mom said, standing behind the door. She sighed, loud and exasperated enough that Billy could hear her through the wall. "We have had this argument many times. You need to be home before ten pm on weeknights. That is final, and I am not discussing it again. I don't care if it is summer, or if your friends stay out until two am."

Billy put his face in his pillow. "That is so unfair!" He screamed into the Power-Ranger pattern. "I am sixteen mom!" He turned his tear-streaked face upwards and stared at the cieling.

Okay, this is a good example, and by the way I liked your writing. I did notice however that showing the scene made it a lot longer; is this always true? When you are limited to less than a hundred thousand words in a novel that makes it tough. I assume that a writer is supposed to pick and choose what to tell and what to show, but what justifies this? How much do you need to show in, let's say, one page of a story? There's no way that you would show everything, and though you need more show than tell, how do you balance that and still not overshoot your goal of a hundred thousand words? Should a writer show at least once in every paragraph, two times every page, three, four, five, six, seven...well you get the idea? This part is confusing me a great deal and I have been writing for sixteen years...who knew? How do I control it and evenly distribute show in amongst tell? HELP...I'm drowning....

 

[j d worthington]

First, there is no formula to this sort of thing. It depends on the demands of the story. The best way to find out what you want to know is careful reading -- going over the work of good writers "with a microscope", if you will. Not just popular writers, but, again, writers whose work has also stood up over the years. A balance of these, read carefully, then go back and look at how they structure these sorts of things. But it isn't something that can be graphed out in any way.

Let me be a little more concrete on what I mean: Take a good but also fairly popular novel of your choice. Read it as a reader alone; not the entire book, but a sizable enough portion to see how it pulls you in until you find yourself truly involved. Then go back and read analytically, examining which portions are exposition, which are description, and which are action-driven. Then go back over that and see how the sentences are structured, and how the writer balances the different types of prose. Read it aloud and listen to how the words sound together, how the language flows. Then try it with another writer, perhaps an older writer, or someone more highly respected on a literary plane (or, if you began with that, try someone who's more a popular but not necessarily "literary" writer second). With each writer you read, study how they do what they do. That's how any writer learns how to write well, how to balance these things.

Also, get someone you know, who has a fairly good knowledge of literature and ask them to read a portion of what you write as you go along, offering suggestions. Ask for help in structuring sentences, in developing "realistic" dialogue (dialogue that "sounds like conversation" on the page -- actually copying real speech patterns makes for very boring reading). More than perhaps anything else, these are the things that help a person learn the technical aspects of how to write well -- the rest is up to your individual talent and ability. Also read plays and good poetry -- not Reader's Digest jingles, but the real article -- and study how much thought can be packed into a very narrow space by careful choice of words. In the "Alphabetical SFF" thread, in discussing Gorgons, I posted poem by Clark Ashton Smith, so I'll use a line from that as an example -- you can look at the poem itself if you so choose; study his use of imagery. But here you have a single line: "Time caught in meshes of Eternity", describing the victims of the Medusa. Those few words say volumes. Description of action can also be very terse; avoid adjectives except where absolutely necessary. Keep the prose lean and unadorned; in Hemingway's phrase, "Kill your darlings".

I do have a question, though: Why the hundred-thousand-word limit? Isn't that closer to the minimum rather than maximum for a publisher these days?

For a good example of terse dialogue and description here on the forums, I'd also suggest you take a look at SJAB's "Idea" and Paradox99's "Ocean Black"; also, Dustinzgirl's poetry is a good indication of how to have powerful imagery, especially her use of simile and metaphor, without being trite or stereotypical. There are others, too, but these come to mind because you can also look at them in their various stages of comment and response, often seeing the revisions, as well. This may help you to learn what and how to trim, and how to structure "show" rather than "tell".

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

There are no hard and fast rules. Some writers are so good at narration, they can ramble on for pages and pages and readers don't mind -- they may even revel in the wit and style. Other writers can make even a scene of intense action or dramatic interaction boring. Then too, what works in one story may not work in another: some plots require a brisker pacing than others, and therefore a more succinct style of story-telling. But oddly enough, if you condense things too much -- as in leaving out all of the details that would bring the story and characters to life -- readers may get the impression that a shorter version drags on forever, while a longer version with just the right amount of detail gives just the opposite impression (because it's more entertaining).

The only real rule is that if readers frequently tell you that they are put off by the amount of telling you do when you ought to be showing ... then there is a problem.

But take the example that dustinzgirl has given. As a matter of personal taste, I actually like the first version better. The second version doesn't really give us any special insight to either character, and as you pointed out it is very much longer. Also, the first version is not a pure example of telling instead of showing; it's really a fairly good compromise between "Billy and his mother didn't get along" (which would perhaps be a better example of telling) and the longer scene she gives as a second example -- and in fact delivers some fairly good information in a few words. It informs us in a fairly economical fashion that Billy and his mother had just had an arguement; that they argued often and to the point of exhaustion; and that Billy sulked afterward. But other readers may like the other version, which is pure action and dialogue, better. So you have to take the target audience and their (probable) likes and dislikes into consideration.

 

[yebastick]

It is so frustrating to find the balanced between the two, the showing and the telling. Even years of reading and writing seem not enough to develop the instinct that would confidently assure you.

Yes, I share the frustration. All I can suggest is, dont stop writing.

 

[argenianpoet]

First, there is no formula to this sort of thing. It depends on the demands of the story. The best way to find out what you want to know is careful reading -- going over the work of good writers "with a microscope", if you will. Not just popular writers, but, again, writers whose work has also stood up over the years. A balance of these, read carefully, then go back and look at how they structure these sorts of things. But it isn't something that can be graphed out in any way.

Let me be a little more concrete on what I mean: Take a good but also fairly popular novel of your choice. Read it as a reader alone; not the entire book, but a sizable enough portion to see how it pulls you in until you find yourself truly involved. Then go back and read analytically, examining which portions are exposition, which are description, and which are action-driven. Then go back over that and see how the sentences are structured, and how the writer balances the different types of prose. Read it aloud and listen to how the words sound together, how the language flows. Then try it with another writer, perhaps an older writer, or someone more highly respected on a literary plane (or, if you began with that, try someone who's more a popular but not necessarily "literary" writer second). With each writer you read, study how they do what they do. That's how any writer learns how to write well, how to balance these things.

Okay, this is very sound advice and makes perfect sense. I am glad that I am not alone in this; thanks a lot J.D.!

 

[argenianpoet]

There are no hard and fast rules. Some writers are so good at narration, they can ramble on for pages and pages and readers don't mind -- they may even revel in the wit and style. Other writers can make even a scene of intense action or dramatic interaction boring. Then too, what works in one story may not work in another: some plots require a brisker pacing than others, and therefore a more succinct style of story-telling. But oddly enough, if you condense things too much -- as in leaving out all of the details that would bring the story and characters to life -- readers may get the impression that a shorter version drags on forever, while a longer version with just the right amount of detail gives just the opposite impression (because it's more entertaining).

The only real rule is that if readers frequently tell you that they are put off by the amount of telling you do when you ought to be showing ... then there is a problem.

But take the example that dustinzgirl has given. As a matter of personal taste, I actually like the first version better. The second version doesn't really give us any special insight to either character, and as you pointed out it is very much longer. Also, the first version is not a pure example of telling instead of showing; it's really a fairly good compromise between "Billy and his mother didn't get along" (which would perhaps be a better example of telling) and the longer scene she gives as a second example -- and in fact delivers some fairly good information in a few words. It informs us in a fairly economical fashion that Billy and his mother had just had an arguement; that they argued often and to the point of exhaustion; and that Billy sulked afterward. But other readers may like the other version, which is pure action and dialogue, better. So you have to take the target audience and their (probable) likes and dislikes into consideration.

Basically, it is an art and something that I am going to have to work on extensively. I know that I can conquer it, but I must first fully understand it. Right now that is my problem. People, other than this site, are saying this is an example of show, but it just sounds like tell to me. Isn't tell using words like Jane did this and she also did that and so on? Show, in my take of the concept, is more of the description. I guess I'm just confused, but that is not a new thing either. It just sucks to think you are a good writer and then be shot down so quickly...

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, let's try another explanation of the concept, since you are still having trouble.

"Tell" is when the writer informs the reader what they should think or feel about a character or a situation. "Show" gives the readers the relevent information, and leaves them to draw their own (often fairly obvious) conclusions.

It's the difference between saying "the weather was hot" and showing the sweat dripping off of the hero's face, the dogs panting in the street. The mere statement of fact comes across as vague and distancing, while more concrete and specific details like the sweating and panting bring the reader right into the scene along with the characters.

It's the same sort of thing when it comes to characterization. Readers don't want to be told (via the narration) this person is evil and this other person is noble and good -- they want the characters to reveal themselves through their words and actions.

 

[Carolyn Hill]

It's the difference between saying "the weather was hot" and showing the sweat dripping off of the hero's face, the dogs panting in the street. The mere statement of fact comes across as vague and distancing, while more concrete and specific details like the sweating and panting bring the reader right into the scene along with the characters.

Exactly. That's how I describe the difference in effect: "showing" uses specific, concrete, descriptive details to allow the reader to experience what the character experiences--to feel what the character feels, rather than merely be told what the character feels.

 

[Marky Lazer]

Let me have a go...

Telling is... say, when someone is hungry, to tell the reader he's hungry. Edward was really hungry.

Showing is a description of how Edward is feeling hungry. How he gets weaker because of the lack of nutrition, maybe he colapses even... That kind of stuff is telling. At least to me.

Isn't tell using words like Jane did this and she also did that and so on?

Not necesarily. Have a look at Chuck Palahniuk, for example. He uses, "He says" "She says" all the time, but is hardly ever telling.

 

[argenianpoet]

Let me have a go...

Telling is... say, when someone is hungry, to tell the reader he's hungry. Edward was really hungry.

Showing is a description of how Edward is feeling hungry. How he gets weaker because of the lack of nutrition, maybe he colapses even... That kind of stuff is telling. At least to me.


Not necesarily. Have a look at Chuck Palahniuk, for example. He uses, "He says" "She says" all the time, but is hardly ever telling.

That's what is tripping me up, because I am obviously reading over examples of show in books and thinking that it is tell because it is written like: He did this and that and so on. My guess, based on the information here, is that show is simply description, right? Maybe even more of what the particular POV character percieves, and it can be told like: He saw this and it looked like this and she said that with a reddened face, but with more of their perception/description woven into the text. If that's not it, then I guess I am still not getting it.

Another thing is: How do you pick the scenes to tell or show, because there obviously has to be a balance between the two, right?

 

[argenianpoet]

Yes. I was frustrated with this for a while, until I picked up "Self-Editing for Fiction Writers" by Renni Browne and Dave King.

I have ordered this book, so maybe it will help me a great deal. Thanks.

 

[j d worthington]

That's what is tripping me up, because I am obviously reading over examples of show in books and thinking that it is tell because it is written like: He did this and that and so on. My guess, based on the information here, is that show is simply description, right? Maybe even more of what the particular POV character percieves, and it can be told like: He saw this and it looked like this and she said that with a reddened face, but with more of their perception/description woven into the text. If that's not it, then I guess I am still not getting it.

Another thing is: How do you pick the scenes to tell or show, because there obviously has to be a balance between the two, right?

Okay: let's go about this with a different example. To tell, as opposed to show, means you describe what that person is thinking, how everything appears to them, etc., the way that Lovecraft does. There's nothing wrong with that, but it takes considerable skill and experience to pull it off, and it has severe limitations without those. To show, you give us their actions, their speech, occasionally their inner dialogue, those sentences they think to themselves but don't say out loud; these are usually indicated by italics, as they aren't actually spoken: Is that the man I saw last night? would be a good example of this, as opposed to "When she looked up, she saw a man standing at the end of the darkened hallway, standing against the light so that all she could see was his silhouette blocking the door. In panic she wondered if this was the man she saw the night before." Do you see the difference?

Here's another example:

"You might at least have told me, Martin," he complained.

"Told you what, my dear James?" Martin asked as he leaned over to pour the port into his glass. Glancing at James, he made a slight nod toward the second glass. James made a short, impatient negative gesture with his hand.

As Martin returned to his seat, James continued:

"Told me you were goint to sell her. Damn it, you know I haven't even got over your selling the last one yet. And you know, too, I had an especially fondness for this one."

Now -- you tell me, is this "show" or "tell"? And see if you can describe why you think so.

As far as there being a balance between the two -- again, you're looking for some sort of equation to tell you this. There is none. Some excellent pieces, in fact nearly all writing by some excellent writers, is entirely one or the other. Others mix and match. It depends on what works best for the dramatic tension of the story. The thing to avoid is telling your readers, not so much what the character thinks, but what the reader should think. To editorialize by inserting your own views and opinions. That's when you start to become preachy, didactic, and it often ends up by making a reader feel as if they're being treated as if they're in kindergarten. Give them information, but not opinions; let them form their own opinions based upon what the characters think and do, or the scene you set, etc. Don't tell them how they should feel, though describing the characters' feelings is perfectly appropriate. Don't insert your feelings; just those of your characters. (Unless, of course, you're doing an essay; which is a different ball of wax.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think you are having trouble with this idea because you are only looking at the mechanics, whereas the difference we are discussing exists more in underlying meanings.

Telling can be more succinct, but tends to be boring, because it's all on the surface, and everything is laid out for the readers in a way that doesn't allow for any participation on their part. Showing permits the reader to make inferences and draw conclusions, and to share the characters' experiences.

Telling usually involves the bald statement of facts. He did this, he did that, he was unhappy about doing so. Showing involves such details as body language, sensory impressions, physical responses, dialogue, etc. The reader doesn't have to be told that the character is unhappy (or angry, or cold, or behaving badly) because the details make that perfectly obvious, and in a way that is more vivid and interesting. All though it may involve longer descriptive passages, it can be economical, in that the right word(s) may carry multiple inferences and levels of meaning that could otherwise require long and complicated explanations (and still fall short of conveying the message).

Supposing the writer tells you: "It was a brutally cold day, the worst in sixty years. Everyone hated the frigid weather. John could not find a way to get warm." You, the reader, are not likely to share the experience vicariously, nor is the situation likely to make much of a mental impression. If you are reading quickly, by the time you've read several more pages you might even have forgotten that it's supposed to be cold (if that information really registered at all).

But supposing the passage was written this way: "It was a brutally cold day. Sitting in her rocking chair bundled up in so many blankets and quilts that she practically disappeared inside of them, Granny Jones said it was the coldest day she could remember in sixty years. Her children and grandchildren went about their chores in the barn and the milking shed with blue noses and chattering teeth. The eldest boy, John, felt that his toes had become permanently frozen. Even when he held them close to the tiny fire on the hearth, they refused to thaw, and he wondered if he would ever be warm again."

I think you can see that the second example gives essentially the same information, but in a manner that brings you into the story in a way that the first example does not. You are "shown" the blue noses and rattling teeth, also shown the grandmother insides her layers of blankets in her rocker. These are visual images.

But, you may say, the second is longer, and along the way it just "tells" me more things about the Jones family. Which of course it does, but it also conveys a number of things by inference, so that the writer doesn't have to directly state them later. For instance, the fact that Granny Jones must be more than sixty, since her memory extends that far. That several generations live in the same house. That they are farmers, and not very prosperous, considering that on such a miserably cold day they can only spare the wood for a scanty fire. (If instead of "blankets and quilts" I had said that Granny was wrapped up in "sacks and old rugs and dirty ragged shawls" the inference of poverty might be even stronger.) That the grandmother is either in charge or debilitated (later details would probably indicate which one) since she gets to bundle up and rock while the others spend the day working.

 

[argenianpoet]

Example text...

I think you are having trouble with this idea because you are only looking at the mechanics, whereas the difference we are discussing exists more in underlying meanings.

Supposing the writer tells you: "It was a brutally cold day, the worst in sixty years. Everyone hated the frigid weather. John could not find a way to get warm." You, the reader, are not likely to share the experience vicariously, nor is the situation likely to make much of a mental impression. If you are reading quickly, by the time you've read several more pages you might even have forgotten that it's supposed to be cold (if that information really registered at all).

But supposing the passage was written this way: "It was a brutally cold day. Sitting in her rocking chair bundled up in so many blankets and quilts that she practically disappeared inside of them, Granny Jones said it was the coldest day she could remember in sixty years. Her children and grandchildren went about their chores in the barn and the milking shed with blue noses and chattering teeth. The eldest boy, John, felt that his toes had become permanently frozen. Even when he held them close to the tiny fire on the hearth, they refused to thaw, and he wondered if he would ever be warm again."

I think you can see that the second example gives essentially the same information, but in a manner that brings you into the story in a way that the first example does not. You are "shown" the blue noses and rattling teeth, also shown the grandmother insides her layers of blankets in her rocker. These are visual images.

I sit in awe at your powerful imagery and see more clearly what you mean by show and tell. Obviously it is something that I have never been conscious of until now, and it is becoming a problem, because when I write the inner voice is screaming: YOU ARE TELLING AGAIN! This is good also, because it is making me conscious of how I am showing my story. To give you a very brief example of what I am talking about; by the way, I wrote this much today:

Fredrick Towers parked his station wagon on the side of the road the instant that he saw the community below. He opened the glove compartment and extracted a pair of binoculars in the next second. There was an open map beside him with his destination circled in red, along with a large black brief case with the words: Uticas International printed on the face side. He opened the door quickly and his legs hurt as he stepped out into the brisk morning air. This is the place. He thought excitedly, shutting the door behind him as he crossed the road.

Okay, as far as I can see , the part: ...and his legs hurt as he stepped out into the brisk morning air. is the only part out of that section that I actually showed anything. What did you infer from the man's legs hurting? Show me what is telling and showing in this very short example. Thank you very much...

 

[argenianpoet]

Here's another example:

"You might at least have told me, Martin," he complained.

"Told you what, my dear James?" Martin asked as he leaned over to pour the port into his glass. Glancing at James, he made a slight nod toward the second glass. James made a short, impatient negative gesture with his hand.

As Martin returned to his seat, James continued:

"Told me you were goint to sell her. Damn it, you know I haven't even got over your selling the last one yet. And you know, too, I had an especially fondness for this one."

Now -- you tell me, is this "show" or "tell"? And see if you can describe why you think so.

Okay, I think the part: "Glancing at James, he made a slight nod toward the second glass. James made a short, impatient negative gesture with his hand."
is showing and the rest is telling. But one more question: is direct dialogue considered showing? It may be possible that all of this is showing, but I'm not completely sure. Sorry. No one ever told me this until now. I appreciate you taking out the time to show me; no pun intended.

 

[j d worthington]

Re: Example text...

Fredrick Towers parked his station wagon on the side of the road the instant that he saw the community below. He opened the glove compartment and extracted a pair of binoculars in the next second.

"in the next second" is unnecessary and overwriting, overexplicit, too much detail

There was an open map beside him with his destination circled in red, along with a large black brief case with the words:/quote]

the colon here is unnecessary

Uticas International printed on the face side.

should be "on one side", "on the upward side"

He opened the door quickly and his legs hurt as he stepped out into the brisk morning air.

This is the place. He thought excitedly, shutting the door behind him as he crossed the road.

"This is the place, he thought excitedly, shutting the door behind him before crossing the road." -- No full stop is necessary, and he can't shut the door as he's crossing the road, only before doing so.

As for your question: you're not really "telling" anything here, you're showing it. You briefly tell us what he is thinking, but you don't impose your own take on it, you don't tell the reader what to think; you just give a brief glimpse inside your character's head. That's showing rather than telling. As I said in the earlier post, it's when you editorialize, step back as the writer and tell us what we should be thinking, feeling, etc. that you end up telling, more often than not.

 

[j d worthington]

Okay, I think the part: "Glancing at James, he made a slight nod toward the second glass. James made a short, impatient negative gesture with his hand."
is showing and the rest is telling. But one more question: is direct dialogue considered showing? It may be possible that all of this is showing, but I'm not completely sure. Sorry. No one ever told me this until now. I appreciate you taking out the time to show me; no pun intended.

Oh, I think it was intended, and quite apropos. Nothing wrong with a pun now and again. Actually, it was all showing: nowhere do I tell you in my own words, rather than the character's, what either is thinking; nowhere do I editorialize and tell you what either they or you should be thinking or feeling. I'm indicating it all by the actions and speech of the characters; their interaction with each other, and with the environment around them. That's showing.

Now try it this way:

James looked petulantly across at his brother Martin, who was standing by the small tabouret table preparing to pour himself a spot of port. "You might at least have told me, Martin," he complained sulkily.

Martin internally heaved a disgusted and rather weary sigh before replying: "Told you what, my dear James?" As he leaned over to pour the port into his glass, he made sure to look over at James with a questioning glance, nodding toward the bottle and glass to make certain James understood that he was offering him one as well. Still feeling angry and petulant, James made a swift, violent negative gesture with his hand, shaking his head as he did so with a look of annoyance on his face.

As Martin returned to his seat, James once again took up the argument, determined to make his brother feel guilty about what he had done.

"Told me you were going to sell her." Slapping his hand on the oaken arm of the chair, he snapped, "Damn it, man, you know I haven't even got over you selling the last one yet." Leaning back for a moment, he allowed the sulky expression to settle on his features once again. "And you know, too, that I had an especial fondness for this one."

Do you see the difference? In the first, I simply describe the scene and let the reader draw their own conclusions. In the second, I tell them what each motion means, and what sort of scene this is, how they should react, who is angry, etc.

 

[argenianpoet]

Oh, I think it was intended, and quite apropos. Nothing wrong with a pun now and again. Actually, it was all showing: nowhere do I tell you in my own words, rather than the character's, what either is thinking; nowhere do I editorialize and tell you what either they or you should be thinking or feeling. I'm indicating it all by the actions and speech of the characters; their interaction with each other, and with the environment around them. That's showing.

Now try it this way:

James looked petulantly across at his brother Martin, who was standing by the small tabouret table preparing to pour himself a spot of port. "You might at least have told me, Martin," he complained sulkily.

Martin internally heaved a disgusted and rather weary sigh before replying: "Told you what, my dear James?" As he leaned over to pour the port into his glass, he made sure to look over at James with a questioning glance, nodding toward the bottle and glass to make certain James understood that he was offering him one as well. Still feeling angry and petulant, James made a swift, violent negative gesture with his hand, shaking his head as he did so with a look of annoyance on his face.

As Martin returned to his seat, James once again took up the argument, determined to make his brother feel guilty about what he had done.

"Told me you were going to sell her." Slapping his hand on the oaken arm of the chair, he snapped, "Damn it, man, you know I haven't even got over you selling the last one yet." Leaning back for a moment, he allowed the sulky expression to settle on his features once again. "And you know, too, that I had an especial fondness for this one."

Do you see the difference? In the first, I simply describe the scene and let the reader draw their own conclusions. In the second, I tell them what each motion means, and what sort of scene this is, how they should react, who is angry, etc.

I see it J.D., but I am a slow learner sometimes. I can master this, but I must first understand it inside out before I can do so. Thank you for your examples; they have really helped me. Telling is basically when you, the writer, take it upon yourself to tell the reader what they should or should not be feeling, is that right? Not so much the technical part of it, because that's where I have been focused. I thought just John said, "I love you Gloria." was telling and that really screwed me up...bad! I haven't been writing on account of not understanding it and now I think I am taking steps in the right direction because of Theresa and you, thanks. Just as long as I leave my two cents (third person omniscient cents) out of the picture I should be alright, right?