Show vs Tell a new perspective

I agree that the first paragraph is much more detailed and lively than the second, however, I think the second would be just perfect in the right kind of narrative. If the character waking up is an important feature, a motif, or simply a moment that needs some attention, than the first paragraph is perfect.

However, if you just need to get your character up and out of bed because you're writing a crime thriller and goddamnit there's a severed ear and a ransom note waiting in the next room for her to discover, than the second one is just fine.

Some parts of a narrative are going to be more functional than immersive, and other parts are going to be more immersive than functional. It all depends on what you're writing.


Exactly. Noir writers like Chandler and Ross MacDonald use the latter approach to great effect. They even make apparent breaches of POV in the interests of succinctness and conciseness.. Sometimes you just need to get the guy out of the car and up the stairs.

And sometimes you just need to know that a character is lying, or being sarcastic, or being hesitant and it's quicker to just be told and get on with it. The writers I mention not only do these things, they make a feature of them, often very wittily.
 
I can't help but wonder if this topic doesn't overlap with cultivation theory, to some extent? You know—the idea that television (and other mass visual media) can 'cultivate' viewers' perceptions of social roles and acceptable behaviour. Isn't it possible that exposure to mass visual media have also shaped percipients' expectations of entertainment, as a whole?
 
Actually I would disagree::
I can't help but wonder if this topic doesn't overlap with cultivation theory, to some extent? You know—the idea that television (and other mass visual media) can 'cultivate' viewers' perceptions of social roles and acceptable behaviour. Isn't it possible that exposure to mass visual media have also shaped percipients' expectations of entertainment, as a whole?
It is enough different that I'd suggest a separate thread of it's own.
Cultivation theory reminds me a lot of Marshal McLuhan's The Media is the Message and yet it isn't even that; however once again to be discussed elsewhere.
Just my thought.
 
They even make apparent breaches of POV in the interests of succinctness and conciseness.

David Gemmell is one of my favourite writers, and he does the same. I can forgive little breaks in POV, but I start to get twitchy if a writer does it for too long too often. :)
 
I was listening to the Celia Heyes episode of Social Science Bites on cognitive gadgets the other night. Her thesis is that many features of human cognition are socially evolved, rather than genetic, and one of the things she talks about in support of her thesis is "mind reading" and the predictability of human behaviour, and how in different cultures this manifests differently. In our culture, we tend to believe that behaviour is predicated on our internal state, emotions and beliefs, and we can predict how people will act based on their feelings, but in other cultures behavior is seen as situational, and in those cultures people's social roles and circumstances are seen as much more important factors in determining behaviour.
This is really interesting, but hard to understand without scoring the accuracy of the different culture's mind reading. If they are equally accurate, then they are functionally the same because each culture has created predictive models that correctly select the important elements in other's decision making - internal state vs conformity.

But if one culture's mind reading is more accurate, then the other's less accurate system is in error and a form of cognitive dissonance is at work where people tend to believe things that are less true in service to their beliefs, despite the fact that they profit more poorly from their modeling.


I would assume that the first case is more likely - that people who do their mind reading along lines of conformity are just as successful in their cultures because individuals actually make their functional decisions by valuing and selecting conformity over internal desire. Which implies that the people in those cultures have an internal state that is more conformist rather than individualist, making the line between internal state and conformity difficult to delineate.
 
David Gemmell is one of my favourite writers, and he does the same. I can forgive little breaks in POV, but I start to get twitchy if a writer does it for too long too often. :)

I agree that clattering about disrespecting an established POV is annoying. It's just bad writing. The thing is people get too slaveish about it and begin to apply more stringent standards to writing than we do to reality itself!

Ross MacDonald, who I'm currently reading, will routinely write things like:

"Blah, blah, blah," said Doctor Blah. He didn't want to speak to me, but he was going to have to.

There's a kind of shorthand at work here. The intelligent reader can assume that the narrator has observed evidence (fidgeting, tone of voice) that the doctor doesn't want to speak to her. But I guarantee you that if I were to run such a sentence through a workshop the POV brigade would be out in force (How can the narrator know what the doctor wants? Whose head are we in? and so on)

You might also get: Dont tell us the doctor doesn't want to speak - show us... so this hypothetical sentence is a good example of both an arguable POV breach and telling as opposed to showing. On both counts it might be inundated with critique in a workshop setting.

But there's nothing wrong with it....
 
I agree that clattering about disrespecting an established POV is annoying. It's just bad writing. The thing is people get too slaveish about it and begin to apply more stringent standards to writing than we do to reality itself!

Ross MacDonald, who I'm currently reading, will routinely write things like:

"Blah, blah, blah," said Doctor Blah. He didn't want to speak to me, but he was going to have to.

There's a kind of shorthand at work here. The intelligent reader can assume that the narrator has observed evidence (fidgeting, tone of voice) that the doctor doesn't want to speak to her. But I guarantee you that if I were to run such a sentence through a workshop the POV brigade would be out in force (How can the narrator know what the doctor wants? Whose head are we in? and so on)

You might also get: Dont tell us the doctor doesn't want to speak - show us... so this hypothetical sentence is a good example of both an arguable POV breach and telling as opposed to showing. On both counts it might be inundated with critique in a workshop setting.

But there's nothing wrong with it....
There really isn't anything wrong with it, and it just reminds me of nearly every noir story narration ever. Are characters not supposed to have instincts and insights, or is it considered poor to tell the reader about those insights?
 
There really isn't anything wrong with it, and it just reminds me of nearly every noir story narration ever. Are characters not supposed to have instincts and insights, or is it considered poor to tell the reader about those insights?

I think you're exactly right and that many readers will never experience an issue with this stuff, but overly literal interpretations of the technical aspects of writing can lead (and does - I see it all the time) to pointless critique and the unfortunate avoidance of what would otherwise be good, clipped prose which encompassed unqualified "instincts and insights" as you say.
 
Which is a really long way of saying in Lord of the Rings the characters' relationships to the world around them and their motivations are driven by external social factors as much as internal emotional ones.

What I find interesting about this (and what I am slowly learning in my writing) is the subtlety with which "mind-reading" can be achieved. You don't need Sanderson-esque paragraphs of internal monologue to get what a character is thinking; small contextual cues can achieve a lot of that. I don't mean simply by describing actions, facial features or other visual cues or even using emotional adjectives and adverbs to give a brief glimpse inside the mind. The author can place characters in harmony or conflict with social norms in order to reveal aspects of psychology and thought.

I have to run off now and search for examples. I should think before I hit "reply".
 
I tend to adopt the rule "Don't bore the backside off the reader"

Sometimes it's enough to say:

Frodo had a row with Gandalf, and angrily he washed the dishes whilst the old toss pot had a shower.

Other times it's better to show: Frodo snapped on the Marigolds, and banged the dishes about as his thoughts percolated. He turned on the hot tap until the water ran cold and Gandalf could be heard yelping in the shower. The yelling from upstairs produced a smile from Frodo. Revenge really was a dish best served cold.
 
What I find interesting about this (and what I am slowly learning in my writing) is the subtlety with which "mind-reading" can be achieved. You don't need Sanderson-esque paragraphs of internal monologue to get what a character is thinking; small contextual cues can achieve a lot of that. I don't mean simply by describing actions, facial features or other visual cues or even using emotional adjectives and adverbs to give a brief glimpse inside the mind. The author can place characters in harmony or conflict with social norms in order to reveal aspects of psychology and thought.

I have to run off now and search for examples. I should think before I hit "reply".

For brevity, and making every word work, I always think of Raymond Chandler and his ability to show you a whole person in a couple sentences. I don't know if it's showing or telling, but it's damn fine writing:

“There was a sad fellow over on a bar stool talking to the bartender, who was polishing a glass and listening with that plastic smile people wear when they are trying not to scream.”

(from The Long Goodbye)
 
I was a latecomer to Chandler. I would have been there a lot sooner if only anyone had told me how funny he was.
 
As a late comer to this conversation (and new boy to the site), I find I struggle at times with the "rule" of "showing, not telling".

I've decided that it all depends on what you're trying to achieve, or convey, in that moment. Let's say, you're going for a bit of comic relief, then describing the clumsy things someone is doing while dog tired is useful, but wouldn't be of much use if done in a serious tone.

As I still struggle with this, I tend to type for a while, then go back and try to decide what i'm aiming for, then alter, add, or delete. More often than not I have tonnes of fleshing out to do, as I've not "shown" enough. It's not always my strong point, off the cuff.
 
As I still struggle with this, I tend to type for a while, then go back and try to decide what i'm aiming for, then alter, add, or delete. More often than not I have tonnes of fleshing out to do, as I've not "shown" enough. It's not always my strong point, off the cuff.

My first drafts are loads of "telling" too. I think it's because I'm working out the details in my head as I write. There are loads of digression about worldbuilding details that I know will have to be cut, and a lot of really, really drawn out scenes that are me struggling to fill in the Here Be Dragons parts of the story, where I know something has to happen, but I don't know what or to who.

I think of my first draft less as a story than the raw material for the story which gets processed and refined in subsequent drafts. I generally have no idea what I'm doing, and I just whisper to myself "Keep writing. Fix it in post."
 
My first drafts are loads of "telling" too. I think it's because I'm working out the details in my head as I write. There are loads of digression about worldbuilding details that I know will have to be cut, and a lot of really, really drawn out scenes that are me struggling to fill in the Here Be Dragons parts of the story, where I know something has to happen, but I don't know what or to who.

I think of my first draft less as a story than the raw material for the story which gets processed and refined in subsequent drafts. I generally have no idea what I'm doing, and I just whisper to myself "Keep writing. Fix it in post."

It can be frustrating, but I've found in the past that I do get better with practice, but I'm not consistent. Although I tend to do the same as you, just write and see where it takes me, which makes it difficult just to get started sometimes, but I find planning too much kills it for me.
 
As I still struggle with this, I tend to type for a while, then go back and try to decide what i'm aiming for, then alter, add, or delete. More often than not I have tonnes of fleshing out to do, as I've not "shown" enough. It's not always my strong point, off the cuff.

If you are showing what they are doing for comedic relief it's not telling. It's showing they are tired as long as you're not saying they are tired, and not telling the reader they need to laugh here. Sometimes a scene needs canned laughter though.
 
As a late comer to this conversation (and new boy to the site), I find I struggle at times with the "rule" of "showing, not telling".

I've decided that it all depends on what you're trying to achieve, or convey, in that moment. Let's say, you're going for a bit of comic relief, then describing the clumsy things someone is doing while dog tired is useful, but wouldn't be of much use if done in a serious tone.

As I still struggle with this, I tend to type for a while, then go back and try to decide what i'm aiming for, then alter, add, or delete. More often than not I have tonnes of fleshing out to do, as I've not "shown" enough. It's not always my strong point, off the cuff.
You speak of this as if it were a problem. I don't see it as a problem; I see it as a process—your process. It's the way your mind works, and nobody has the right to tell you that it's wrong. Sure, there are a lot of people out there, laying down "rules" and trying to enforce them. They're usually trying to sell books, or courses, or videos, or their services as editors … They (try to) make money by undermining an aspiring author's confidence in him- or herself and then hobbling said writer's creativity, and then bending it into something it never was meant to be and doesn't work, anyway. In general, these "experts" don't know what they're talking about: if they did, they'd be making a comfortable living by writing and publishing books that sell as well as the work of the best selling author you can name. Obviously they aren't doing this, else they wouldn't have the time or the financial need to push their other malarky onto the rest of us. They're not pundits, they're parasites.

The only "rules" any writer really needs are spelling conventions, punctuation conventions, and grammar. And even these aren't set in stone, but to be applied only to the extent they facilitate understanding. The rest of these so-called rules are just so much hot air. IMO.
 
You speak of this as if it were a problem. I don't see it as a problem; I see it as a process—your process. It's the way your mind works, and nobody has the right to tell you that it's wrong. Sure, there are a lot of people out there, laying down "rules" and trying to enforce them. They're usually trying to sell books, or courses, or videos, or their services as editors … They (try to) make money by undermining an aspiring author's confidence in him- or herself and then hobbling said writer's creativity, and then bending it into something it never was meant to be and doesn't work, anyway. In general, these "experts" don't know what they're talking about: if they did, they'd be making a comfortable living by writing and publishing books that sell as well as the work of the best selling author you can name. Obviously they aren't doing this, else they wouldn't have the time or the financial need to push their other malarky onto the rest of us. They're not pundits, they're parasites.

The only "rules" any writer really needs are spelling conventions, punctuation conventions, and grammar. And even these aren't set in stone, but to be applied only to the extent they facilitate understanding. The rest of these so-called rules are just so much hot air. IMO.

I used to think like this. The first time I ever picked up a book on writing I literally threw it across the room in disgust - how dare pure art be reduced to W diagrams!

That negative and cynical attitude was the worst mistake I ever made, and held my writing development back by years.

Despite what we learned in school, creative writing is not simply about stringing words together and then correcting the spelling and grammar. Perhaps for Literary Fiction, where anything goes.

But not for Popular Fiction.

There are a lot of technical considerations when it comes to writing fiction, just like any other art: painting, photography, acting, music. It's important to know what those considerations are, even if you don't use them directly.

It also takes years of practice, learning, and experience to even begin to claim to be competent. Even successful writers say it's a learning process that never ends.

Yes, it's far, far easier to talk about how to write well than to actually write well. There are indeed books out there written by people who perhaps see a market to sell to, rather than writing from experience.

But there are also a lot of people with experience who try to share in it: Orson Scott Card, Sol Stein, Stephen King, Carol Blake, Donald Maas, Jeff Vandermeer - just a few of the agents, editors, and best selling authors I can name off-hand who have published books on writing.

Even Brandon Sanderson has allowed videos of his writing lectures to be put on YouTube to be watched for free: Brandon Sanderson - 318R - YouTube

Ultimately the technicalities aren't about "how to write" as much as "how to write better".

As for "show vs tell", the topic of this thread - as a generalization, show is better in most instances, but there are clear cases where tell is better. Determining which works best for a particular piece requires practice and context, and understanding. The opening post offers suggestions that might help with making a judgement for that. :)
 
Last edited:
You speak of this as if it were a problem. I don't see it as a problem; I see it as a process—your process. It's the way your mind works, and nobody has the right to tell you that it's wrong. Sure, there are a lot of people out there, laying down "rules" and trying to enforce them. They're usually trying to sell books, or courses, or videos, or their services as editors … They (try to) make money by undermining an aspiring author's confidence in him- or herself and then hobbling said writer's creativity, and then bending it into something it never was meant to be and doesn't work, anyway. In general, these "experts" don't know what they're talking about: if they did, they'd be making a comfortable living by writing and publishing books that sell as well as the work of the best selling author you can name. Obviously they aren't doing this, else they wouldn't have the time or the financial need to push their other malarky onto the rest of us. They're not pundits, they're parasites.

The only "rules" any writer really needs are spelling conventions, punctuation conventions, and grammar. And even these aren't set in stone, but to be applied only to the extent they facilitate understanding. The rest of these so-called rules are just so much hot air. IMO.


I don't see it as a problem within any set of given "rules", it's merely a frustration with myself, but you have a good point.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top