Show vs Tell a new perspective

[ZlodeyVolk]

I'm very glad to see that you don't view it as a problem. It's not.

 

[aThenian]

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 (e.g. Sam loves Frodo, but he's also "Master Frodo" and Sam's social superior, a relationship which carries duties and obligations) where Hunger Games is more internally focused, and the emotional relationship of characters to each other and to the world around them has primacy, but maybe that's not just because of the influence of cinematic techniques or whatever, but maybe also because of the relative differences in the factors guiding human behaviour in mid-twentieth-century British culture and early twenty-first-century American culture.

This also throws a light on the film version of LOTR which basically switched the focus to the internal conflicts of the characters (introducing substantial changes in the process). So, instead of Faramir, the Ents, Arwen, the Rivendell Elves etc (and there are other examples) fighting Sauron because that is their heroic role (as happens in the book) and basically accepting that as their mission, they struggle with their fears and internal conflicts and generally have to be persuaded to do the right thing - often at the last moment. Which I suppose makes the films more consistent with "twenty-first-century American culture" as noted above, but kind of undermines the nature of Middle Earth IMO. The film makers are really not happy for anyone to be straightforwardly a "hero" in a Homeric sense.

Of course, the straightforward heroism of the books might have grated but Tolkien does make an exception for Gollum and his ambiguities/inner conflicts and the conflicts that produces in Frodo and Sam. This produces a lot more psychological complexity, and so is maybe more "modern" in that sense.

 

[Jay Greenstein]

Pretty much every time I see someone talking about showing vs telling, that person misunderstands what showing and telling are. In the example of "showing" given: "her eyelids were heavy- too heavy. Her limbs could barely function and she couldn’t stop yawning," this is 100% telling, because the author, in the narrator's voice, is talking about how she feels—explaining it. In her viewpoint, the way she feels would be interfering with what she wants to do enough for her to react in a way meaningful to: setting the scene; developing character; or moving the plot. Without her responding to what's mentioned as a problem it's no more meaningful to her then were she to be farting as she dressed. In short: If it doesn't matter to her enough to respond to it, it comes from the author, not her. And that's telling.

There is another word for showing that I, personally, like better: viewpoint. When showing, we're placing the reader into the protagonist's viewpoint.

Look at the example from a reader's viewpoint:

her eyelids were heavy- too heavy.

Too heavy for what? Is she having difficulty staying awake? No way to tell, because "too heavy," alone, is indeterminate. In her viewpoint, if it interferes with what she's doing in the moment she calls now, she might take a drink, or stretch herself awake. After all, if it's not that important to her, why does the reader care?

Her limbs could barely function

As stated, this person isn't sleepy, she's on the verge of paralysis, yet she doesn't fall? She doesn't shout, "My god...what in the hell is wrong with me?" She doesn't think about going to bed? How can this be a real person? And why does that matter? Because if it's not her it's a POV break for an authorial comment. And how real can a character seem if someone invisible begins talking to an equally invisible audience and she doesn't ask who they are and why they're in her bedroom?

... and she couldn’t stop yawning

Think about it. Didn't all three of the things mentioned, her heavy eyes, her limbs, and yawning, simply repeat: "She was exhausted," which is telling?

The term showing doesn't refer to visuals, it says to place the reader into her moment of "now," to make the reader experience what living as the protagonist means. It means involving the reader in the protagonist's problem, emotionally. It means entertaining your reader, not explaining what happened.

One of the best articles I've found on how to involve the reader is this one, by Randy Ingermanson. It's based on the Motivation/Response Unit approach to scene presentation. Used well, when someone throws a rock at the protagonist the reader will duck.

 

[Onyx]

Pretty much every time I see someone talking about showing vs telling, that person misunderstands what showing and telling are. In the example of "showing" given: "her eyelids were heavy- too heavy. Her limbs could barely function and she couldn’t stop yawning," this is 100% telling, because the author, in the narrator's voice, is talking about how she feels—explaining it. In her viewpoint, the way she feels would be interfering with what she wants to do enough for her to react in a way meaningful to: setting the scene; developing character; or moving the plot. Without her responding to what's mentioned as a problem it's no more meaningful to her then were she to be farting as she dressed. In short: If it doesn't matter to her enough to respond to it, it comes from the author, not her. And that's telling.

There is another word for showing that I, personally, like better: viewpoint. When showing, we're placing the reader into the protagonist's viewpoint.

Look at the example from a reader's viewpoint: Too heavy for what? Is she having difficulty staying awake? No way to tell, because "too heavy," alone, is indeterminate. In her viewpoint, if it interferes with what she's doing in the moment she calls now, she might take a drink, or stretch herself awake. After all, if it's not that important to her, why does the reader care?As stated, this person isn't sleepy, she's on the verge of paralysis, yet she doesn't fall? She doesn't shout, "My god...what in the hell is wrong with me?" She doesn't think about going to bed? How can this be a real person? And why does that matter? Because if it's not her it's a POV break for an authorial comment. And how real can a character seem if someone invisible begins talking to an equally invisible audience and she doesn't ask who they are and why they're in her bedroom? Think about it. Didn't all three of the things mentioned, her heavy eyes, her limbs, and yawning, simply repeat: "She was exhausted," which is telling?

The term showing doesn't refer to visuals, it says to place the reader into her moment of "now," to make the reader experience what living as the protagonist means. It means involving the reader in the protagonist's problem, emotionally. It means entertaining your reader, not explaining what happened.

One of the best articles I've found on how to involve the reader is this one, by Randy Ingermanson. It's based on the Motivation/Response Unit approach to scene presentation. Used well, when someone throws a rock at the protagonist the reader will duck.

You've chosen to write an experiential series of sentences that are supposed to remind the reader of the sensations of being exhausted for the purpose of making the reader "live" the character's moment through their own memories of exhaustion, rather than stating that the character is exhausted.

Clearly you are rejecting creating this empathy state as an alternative to a more straightforward telling. So if those are the wrong way, what is the right way of showing? Your post only rejects without suggesting an acceptable alternative.

Reading your Randy Ingermanson link, I can't see the connection to your example, since Randy is describing how to create reaction through action, but your example contains no opportunity for action other than the sensation of heavy limbs. It would seem that the proper way to show an exhausted character is to exhaust the reader with descriptions of the exertions, if the link actually pertains to the example given.

 

[Jay Greenstein]

I can't see the connection to your example, since Randy is describing how to create reaction through action,

The example I deconstructed was presented as one of showing, but as you can see, it's actually telling. Randy's article is a condensation of a far larger body of writing on the technique, to demonstrate the building blocks and the technique for placing the reader into the protagonist's viewpoint, in real-time. which is what showing is.

Don't expect to find the way to write professionally in a few hundred words in a post. Writing fiction is a difficult, demanding, and competitive field. It's every bit as difficult to perfect as any other profession or trade.

For the data you seek I recommend going to the source, the book the article was condensed from: Dwight Swain's, Technique of the Selling Writer. For an overview of the field and the techniques of involving the reader, Swain's audio lecture on writing and character development are well worth the $6 fee to download. You can find them on Amazon under, Dwight Swain, Master Writing Teacher.

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

Here's a thought: show us, rather than tell us. Maybe using examples from your own work, to illustrate the concepts you're trying to explain?

 

[Onyx]

The example I deconstructed was presented as one of showing, but as you can see, it's actually telling. Randy's article is a condensation of a far larger body of writing on the technique, to demonstrate the building blocks and the technique for placing the reader into the protagonist's viewpoint, in real-time. which is what showing is.

Don't expect to find the way to write professionally in a few hundred words in a post. Writing fiction is a difficult, demanding, and competitive field. It's every bit as difficult to perfect as any other profession or trade.

For the data you seek I recommend going to the source, the book the article was condensed from: Dwight Swain's, Technique of the Selling Writer. For an overview of the field and the techniques of involving the reader, Swain's audio lecture on writing and character development are well worth the $6 fee to download. You can find them on Amazon under, Dwight Swain, Master Writing Teacher.

No one expects to be taught to write in one post, but you should be able to provide at least one simple example of what you're talking about.

How about a showing example of exhaustion to contrast the two telling examples?

 

[HareBrain]

I agree some examples would have been helpful, but the point is a good one. "Her limbs could barely function" isn't the character's experience; it's an author's summary of it. "His arms ached when hanging up the washing, and he had to rest them after three shirts" is more the actual experience.

I think most readers value details that strike us as true but that we haven't experienced ourselves and wouldn't necessarily have thought of. A writer who can provide those is on to a good thing.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I agree some examples would have been helpful, but the point is a good one. "Her limbs could barely function" isn't the character's experience;.

I have ME so I am never tired only ever fatigued. Her limbs could barely function (it's not a summary it is what is happening) is certainly my experience of fatigue is it not the same when tired?

 

[Onyx]

"Her limbs could barely function" isn't the character's experience; it's an author's summary of it. "His arms ached when hanging up the washing, and he had to rest them after three shirts" is more the actual experience.

"Her limbs could barely function" and "His arms ached" are exactly the same thing, regardless of whether you add actions onto the end of it - especially actions the character isn't necessarily doing. People are not always doing chores, but we do experience life in our bodies even when sitting still.

 

[HareBrain]

I have ME so I am never tired only ever fatigued. Her limbs could barely function (it's not a summary it is what is happening) is certainly my experience of fatigue is it not the same when tired?

What I mean is, it's not telling us which function she's trying to perform with them. I might say to myself "my limbs can barely function" when my CFS is bad, but that's not my actual moment-to-moment experience, it's my internal monologue summary of it. My actual moment-to-moment experience is that they hurt or ache or feel weak when I'm trying to do some specific task, like climbing stairs or hanging out washing.

That's not to say that something vague like "her limbs could barely function" has no place in writing. It's just that it's not pure "show" in the way that a more specific experience would be.

 

[HareBrain]

"Her limbs could barely function" and "His arms ached" are exactly the same thing, regardless of whether you add actions onto the end of it - especially actions the character isn't necessarily doing. People are not always doing chores, but we do experience life in our bodies even when sitting still.

But it's the action that makes it "show", surely? If her limbs hurt "even when sitting still" (okay, that's not much of an action, but it is for this purpose), that shows us more than "her limbs could barely function" which is in a kind of vacuum.

 

[Onyx]

What I mean is, it's not telling us which function she's trying to perform with them. I might say to myself "my limbs can barely function" when my CFS is bad, but that's not my actual moment-to-moment experience, it's my internal monologue summary of it. My actual moment-to-moment experience is that they hurt or ache or feel weak when I'm trying to do some specific task, like climbing stairs or hanging out washing.

That's not to say that something vague like "her limbs could barely function" has no place in writing. It's just that it's not pure "show" in the way that a more specific experience would be.

Now you're kind of just referring to the type of narration that is happening. "My arms hurt" is 1st person, "His arms hurt" is 3rd. The omniscient narrator's job is to summarize the character's sensations, even if the character doesn't go as far as talking to themselves.

Or, we dismiss the omniscient narrator and never report who characters feel, only what they say or possibly think as if they were talking. But I don't see how that is advantageous to realistically portray a character who has an internal state that is important to the story. How would you show a character slowly dying from a paralysing toxin? All of their "actions" are failures to move and the sensations that accompany that effort. If describing sensations are "telling", what is showing this scene?

 

[HareBrain]

How would you show a character slowly dying from a paralysing toxin?

Emojis

 

[Onyx]

Emojis

Is there a free newsletter and materials I can buy to learn how to use these Emojis just like professional writers do?

 

[HareBrain]

Is there a free newsletter and materials I can buy to learn how to use these Emojis just like professional writers do?

The secret and mystical knowledge comes to each person in different ways. For me, it happened at a party in Hemel Hempstead in 2009 when an ice-cream headache combined with the realisation that my socks clashed horribly with my shirt while Sade's "Your Love is King" played in the background.

But this is off topic.

 

[Onyx]

The secret and mystical knowledge comes to each person in different ways. For me, it happened at a party in Hemel Hempstead in 2009 when an ice-cream headache combined with the realisation that my socks clashed horribly with my shirt while Sade's "Your Love is King" played in the background.

But this is off topic.

That sounds a bit like how a learned roller blade!

 

[Ursa major]

"My arms hurt" is 1st person, "His arms hurt" is 3rd. The omniscient narrator's job is to summarize the character's sensations

Just an aside to point out that not all third person narratives are, or are meant to be, omnisicient.

Close third person narratives are certainly not meant to be omniscient -- so no head-hopping allowed -- but instead are meant to be from the perspective of the PoV character... so that only what the character knows** and can experience is meant to be in the narrative. (One writer helpfully suggested that the best way of understanding what a very close third person narrative is, is to think of it as a first person narrative that happens to be written in the third person.)


** - More specifically, what they think they know: their "knowledge" may be based on: the lies of others; the misconceptions of others; misinterpretations of what they themselves have experienced for themselves (because, for example, they have only seen part of a greater whole) or a combination of these.

 

[Onyx]

Just an aside to point out that not all third person narratives are, or are meant to be, omnisicient.

I agree. That's why I referred to the "omniscient narrator" rather than just "the narrator". Third Person may also be Third Person Objective, which only refers to what could be seen or heard by an observer and contains no thoughts or sensations from inside any character.

Limited or Close Third Person are really just types of Omniscient. I guess what you're calling Omniscient would be most accurately termed Unlimited Omniscient to show the difference from Close Omniscient or Limited Omniscient. All of which are different from Objective, that has no Omniscient powers, limited or otherwise.

 

[ZlodeyVolk]