Giovanna Clairval
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,128
Why "Show, don't tell"?
This is SF writer Robert J. Sawyer's explanation:
"First, what's the difference between the two? Well, "telling" is the reliance on simple exposition: Mary was an old woman. "Showing," on the other hand, is the use of evocative description: Mary moved slowly across the room, her hunched form supported by a polished wooden cane gripped in a gnarled, swollen-jointed hand that was covered by translucent, liver-spotted skin.
Both showing and telling convey the same information — Mary is old — but the former simply states it flat-out, and the latter — well, read the example over again and you'll see it never actually states that fact at all, and yet nonetheless leaves no doubt about it in the reader's mind.
Why is showing better?
Two reasons. First, it creates mental pictures for the reader. When reviewers use terms like "vivid," "evocative," or "cinematic" to describe a piece of prose, they really mean the writer has succeeded at showing, rather than merely telling.
Second, showing is interactive and participatory: it forces the reader to become involved in the story, deducing facts (such as Mary's age) for himself or herself, rather than just taking information in passively."
© 1995 by Robert J. Sawyer. All rights reserved.
The entire article is here: Science Fiction Writer Robert J. Sawyer: On Writing*— Show
But, according to Joshua Henkin ,"Show, Don't Tell" has become a mantra doggerel that leads to poor descriptions. Excerpts from a post:
The Elegant Variation: "Show, Don't Tell: The Great Lie of Writing Workshop
OK, let's dispense with the obvious, namely, that there's a kernel of truth to the old saw. Fiction is a dramatic art, and you need to dramatize, not simply state things. You need to use the sound, feel, smell, taste of language to make a reader undergo an emotional experience. The sentence "John was a handsome man" is not a handsome sentence, and though a writer is welcome to use it, she shouldn't think it will do much work for her.
It doesn't follow from that, however, that all a writer should be doing is showing. A story is not a movie is not a TV show, and I can't tell you the number of student stories I read where I see a camera panning. Movies are a perfectly good art form, and they are better at doing some things than novels are. But novels are better at doing other things. Moving around in time, for instance, and conveying material that takes place in general as opposed to specific time (everything in a movie, by contrast, is in specific time, because all there is is scene--there's no room for summary, at least as we traditionally conceive of it). But more important, novels can describe internal psychological states, whereas movies can only suggest them through dialogue and gesture. […]
Besides, the distinction between showing and telling breaks down in the end. "She was nervous" is, I suppose, telling, while "She bit her fingernail" is, I suppose, showing. But is there any meaningful distinction between the two? Neither of them is a particularly good sentence, though if I had to choose, I'd probably go with "She was nervous," since "She bit her fingernail" is such a generic gesture of anxiety it seems lazy on the writer's part--insufficiently well imagined."
End of quotation.
_____________________
I am not endorsing the author's choice of "She was nervous" vs. "She bit her fingernail", but Henkin's post certainly sparks a few questions.
If a novel is made of 99% telling, it certainly ends up having no dramatisation. In literary novels, I might accept this (I am a fan of Michel Proust), but in genre novels? Gah!
On the other hand...
In most cases, it is true that showing is better than telling, but every story needs a few passages that relate events without detailed descriptions. It is a question of pace: 1) not every event needs to be related in "real time"; 2) not every detail is necessary, plot-wise.
And shouldn't emotions be "told", sometimes, as opposed to "acted"?
Not all "telling" is evil...
This is SF writer Robert J. Sawyer's explanation:
"First, what's the difference between the two? Well, "telling" is the reliance on simple exposition: Mary was an old woman. "Showing," on the other hand, is the use of evocative description: Mary moved slowly across the room, her hunched form supported by a polished wooden cane gripped in a gnarled, swollen-jointed hand that was covered by translucent, liver-spotted skin.
Both showing and telling convey the same information — Mary is old — but the former simply states it flat-out, and the latter — well, read the example over again and you'll see it never actually states that fact at all, and yet nonetheless leaves no doubt about it in the reader's mind.
Why is showing better?
Two reasons. First, it creates mental pictures for the reader. When reviewers use terms like "vivid," "evocative," or "cinematic" to describe a piece of prose, they really mean the writer has succeeded at showing, rather than merely telling.
Second, showing is interactive and participatory: it forces the reader to become involved in the story, deducing facts (such as Mary's age) for himself or herself, rather than just taking information in passively."
© 1995 by Robert J. Sawyer. All rights reserved.
The entire article is here: Science Fiction Writer Robert J. Sawyer: On Writing*— Show
But, according to Joshua Henkin ,"Show, Don't Tell" has become a mantra doggerel that leads to poor descriptions. Excerpts from a post:
The Elegant Variation: "Show, Don't Tell: The Great Lie of Writing Workshop
OK, let's dispense with the obvious, namely, that there's a kernel of truth to the old saw. Fiction is a dramatic art, and you need to dramatize, not simply state things. You need to use the sound, feel, smell, taste of language to make a reader undergo an emotional experience. The sentence "John was a handsome man" is not a handsome sentence, and though a writer is welcome to use it, she shouldn't think it will do much work for her.
It doesn't follow from that, however, that all a writer should be doing is showing. A story is not a movie is not a TV show, and I can't tell you the number of student stories I read where I see a camera panning. Movies are a perfectly good art form, and they are better at doing some things than novels are. But novels are better at doing other things. Moving around in time, for instance, and conveying material that takes place in general as opposed to specific time (everything in a movie, by contrast, is in specific time, because all there is is scene--there's no room for summary, at least as we traditionally conceive of it). But more important, novels can describe internal psychological states, whereas movies can only suggest them through dialogue and gesture. […]
Besides, the distinction between showing and telling breaks down in the end. "She was nervous" is, I suppose, telling, while "She bit her fingernail" is, I suppose, showing. But is there any meaningful distinction between the two? Neither of them is a particularly good sentence, though if I had to choose, I'd probably go with "She was nervous," since "She bit her fingernail" is such a generic gesture of anxiety it seems lazy on the writer's part--insufficiently well imagined."
End of quotation.
_____________________
I am not endorsing the author's choice of "She was nervous" vs. "She bit her fingernail", but Henkin's post certainly sparks a few questions.
If a novel is made of 99% telling, it certainly ends up having no dramatisation. In literary novels, I might accept this (I am a fan of Michel Proust), but in genre novels? Gah!
On the other hand...
In most cases, it is true that showing is better than telling, but every story needs a few passages that relate events without detailed descriptions. It is a question of pace: 1) not every event needs to be related in "real time"; 2) not every detail is necessary, plot-wise.
And shouldn't emotions be "told", sometimes, as opposed to "acted"?
Not all "telling" is evil...
