Thread: Showing not telling in writing?

Greetings folks!

Eherm, anyway is it impossible if you cannot show an action in writing?

Like for example

"He looks up in awe"
Thats telling, I think?

Because I saw someone's comment that you can't show a action in writing?

Also one more thing, I would appreciate it if someone show instead of tell like "He looks up in awe", thats the one I'm having problem with, so I appreciate it if anyone could help me

And! Is this showing? I think I done it right, please correct me if I'm wrong

"He put his head up and his eyes and mouth widened in awe."

What's overawing him? That might help with the rewrite.

Have you tried rewriting this without the 'in awe'? Drop those words out and rewrite however you have to in order to get the point across.

Is this supposed to be written from his point of view or from someone else's? If it is about him (but not from his point of view) then you can describe his response to whatever it is. If it is written from behind his eyes then you can feel and notice whatever he feels and notices.

From someone else's point of view it might be: He looked up, then up some more, eyes widening.

From 'his' point of view: It was bigger then he had imagined in his wildest dreams, and shinier, seeming to unfurl upward as he watched.

When I'm writing from behind 'his' eyes I spend time writing about what he's reacting to more than about his reactions. Obviously I don't know what you have him in awe of so I just threw some attributes in there.

It's also worth noting that 'telling' is acceptable if you're conveying something quickly in the story. A mix of a little telling and a lot of showing is what I would prefer, I think. Show me (the reader) what's happening but don't slow me down with the minutiae.

Action scenes don't lend themselves to showing, actually. With action scenes you want to convey fast and furious happenings. That means short, snappy sentences; no unnecessary words; and active voice. I think that's what you're looking for.

It's possible to show some of the actions, but showing takes words. If you've got two sentences to show someone throwing a left hook, the sense of immediacy is lost. So therefore you concentrate on making everything active to engage the reader's sense of immediacy. So instead of "the punch was thrown by John", you would use "John sidestepped Jack and delivered a right hook to his chin". That makes it active, engaging, and immediate.

You might say something like: "John's arm came in an arc; Jack staggered back as the fist caught him on the cheek. He lifted a hand to wipe the blood from below his eye". That's two sentences of showing, but the POV is switching back and forth from both characters.

Also, don't get caught up with the belief that you must show wherever possible. It's a guideline, not a rule.

Originally Posted by Scintillescent

"He looks up in awe"
Thats telling, I think?

Yes, that's telling, which is not necessarily a problem.

Originally Posted by Scintillescent

And! Is this showing? I think I done it right, please correct me if I'm wrong

"He put his head up and his eyes and mouth widened in awe."

It's both. You show the awe through the eyes/mouth, then tell it, too with "in awe". This is a problem because it's unnecessary duplication. There's no need to show and tell the same thing.

Originally Posted by Scintillescent

"He looks up in awe"

Something like this:

Wide-eyed, Evelyn gasped and staggered backward when she saw her daughter. Evelyn’s hand came up to cover her mouth.

“Oh, my God. What have you done?” she said.

Originally Posted by Sam W

Action scenes don't lend themselves to showing, actually. With action scenes you want to convey fast and furious happenings. That means short, snappy sentences; no unnecessary words; and active voice. I think that's what you're looking for.

It's possible to show some of the actions, but showing takes words. If you've got two sentences to show someone throwing a left hook, the sense of immediacy is lost. So therefore you concentrate on making everything active to engage the reader's sense of immediacy. So instead of "the punch was thrown by John", you would use "John sidestepped Jack and delivered a right hook to his chin". That makes it active, engaging, and immediate.

You might say something like: "John's arm came in an arc; Jack staggered back as the fist caught him on the cheek. He lifted a hand to wipe the blood from below his eye". That's two sentences of showing, but the POV is switching back and forth from both characters.

Also, don't get caught up with the belief that you must show wherever possible. It's a guideline, not a rule.

Thank you Sam! I actually found this quite helpful even though I didn't necessarily come here looking for this.

Originally Posted by Scintillescent

"He looks up in awe"
Thats telling, I think?

For a line like that you could also manipulate the circumstances that cause the character to look up. Make it so that, by simply raising his eyes, the reader can already tell he's "in awe." If there's a giant, three-headed dog standing in front of him...well, how can he not be "in awe?"

Showing vs. telling has been a big pet peeve of mine for many years. When to show, when to tell, when to use both--gah! It's frustrating! I've seen authors show almost nothing and have hugely popular stories. I've seen others achieve greatness by showing virtually every minute detail (Neal Stephenson, I'm looking at you!). But sometimes those intricate descriptions try so hard to not "tell" that I'm left in the dark as to what actually happened. I have a few random images in my head of what could have happened, but nothing definitive. Did someone get blown up? Did someone get shot? If so, who did the shooting? Maybe it's my failure as a reader to interpret what was written, but a little helping hand would be appreciated. Get as descriptive as you want, just let me know at some point that it was so and so that took out the bad guy!

Originally Posted by Sam W

Action scenes don't lend themselves to showing, actually. With action scenes you want to convey fast and furious happenings. That means short, snappy sentences; no unnecessary words; and active voice. I think that's what you're looking for.

That is great advice, Sam. You're right - spend the time "showing" the slower scenes then rev it up for action. Because if you put yourself in the character's shoes, they're not thinking about their actions or reactions either in the heat of the moment.

Originally Posted by Rob

Yes, that's telling, which is not necessarily a problem.

Remember this. There's a lot to be said for concise writing, and showing doesn't lend itself well to that sort of thing.

"Show, don't tell" is a good rule of thumb, but your story is going to be far too wordy if you stick to it unconditionally. Figure out what pacing works best for you and go with it.

I disagree with the advice regarding showing/telling in action scenes for the following reason:

Although you *tell* action, you *show* effect. This is a stroke of luck, really, because the latter is more economic and also generally more effective.

"Thorne swung from the lower left, putting his back foot forward and supporting the blade with the palm of his off hand as he stepped across the path of the charging mount."

In this example, we may (or may not; I dunno, and that's why I never even bother with this kind of description) get a clear idea of exactly what is happening and how, but it's fairly dry and the sentence is a lot longer than the action it describes. I padded the length, but it doesn't get much better when you pare it down:

"He stepped across the path of the charging mount, swinging his sword in a rising arc as he did."

Compare that to:

"His blade flashed, the bright steel catching the sunlight and then dulled by a red flood."

Even though this example carries no detail about what actually happened, it would almost certainly be the more powerful of the two *in context,* since we already have a general idea of where everyone is standing and what their goals are. It cuts straight to the effect, which is what the reader wants to know, and it's nice and short, too.

Originally Posted by archer88iv

"He stepped across the path of the charging mount, swinging his sword in a rising arc as he did."

Compare that to:

"His blade flashed, the bright steel catching the sunlight and then dulled by a red flood."

These are both examples of showing, though, so what's there to disagree with?

Now if you would have written

Thorne slashed the enemy rider in half with his big penis-shaped sword.

that would be telling. And that'd be awesome, by the way.

Also, I don't think this advice is worth disagreeing with. It is just something to get newbie writers to write with specificity, not generalizations and abstract words. Once you have a few stories under your belt, the advice is worthless because good writing shows and tells.

"Once upon a time, things happened.

The End"

See how easy telling is? Showing it would require at least a novel. Perhaps a series. So much work! Who's got the time?

Let's look at it this way: Would anyone want to play a game called 'I'll show you mine if you tell me yours?'

Going back to the original post, in context, "He looks up in awe," can have meaning. The picture that the eyes see is what is missing. Looking is the action. It can be telling When you put a few more sentences around it.

"He looks up in awe as the humongous axe fell down on his head."

That stands alone.

Originally Posted by Jon M

Also, I don't think this advice is worth disagreeing with. It is just something to get newbie writers to write with specificity, not generalizations and abstract words. Once you have a few stories under your belt, the advice is worthless because good writing shows and tells.

I agree with this for the most part. How it's usually offered, as general advice, especially the "not" or "don't" part is pretty worthless to begin with.

As a way to describe how you can write things, knowing the difference between showing vs. telling can be useful. I'd take it a step farther and say it's best to point out how one might work better than the other when you're actually looking at a specific bit of writing in context -- like in a critique. In other words when you can say, "this is too telling, it might work better this way..." -- or the opposite. But that applies to just about every kind of general, cliched writing advice.