Thread: New spin on an old adage

One of the cardinal rules of writing fiction is "show me, don't tell me."

A published novelist and creative writing teacher has just challenged that rule by calling it "the great lie."

His commentary is on the Writer's Digest blog "There Are No Rules."

See what you think. I for one vehemently disagree.

Some scenes are not interesting enough to be dramatized (i.e., 'shown') but still need to be included, and so they are told in narrative summary. And this is perfectly okay.

Curious why you 'vehemently' disagree.

I might agree about the "there are no rules" thing, but I would say that there most certainly are guidelines. Show, don't tell is among them. It doesn't mean you have to show everything, as Jon already said, but if the climax of your story is "the hero beheaded the villain, felt very triumphant about it, and lived happily ever after" then you may want to reconsider the benefits of telling versus showing.

I guess my "vehemence" is with the article itself, not with the concept that "telling" can sometimes be preferable to "showing."

Dickens' beautiful opening of "A Tale of Two Cities" -- "It was the best of times..." -- is "telling" that clearly works.

Did you happen to read the article, Jon M, or are you just commenting on the concept? I was hoping to steer people to the article so they could read the author's argument in its full context.

I wanted to read the article, but you didn't put a link to it. You just gave us instructions on where to find it, and I'm too lazy to go track it down.

That's funny, Tiamat. I did, in fact, wonder whether I should post a link.

Two reasons. As a newcomer to this site, I wasn't sure if I was allowed to post links before my minimum quota of posts has been met. I also wasn't sure whether a simple copy and paste would work or if I needed to enclose the link in html.

The least I could've done was tried, right? But you know what? I was overcome by a somewhat ornery streak. I said to myself, "Hey, these people are writers. They've got to be curious. They're gonna wanna know how 'telling' could possibly be better than 'showing.' And if they're too lazy to do a little work -- very little work -- to find the article, how are they ever going to finish their novel?"

So it was kind of an experiment.

I'll confess, too, that I'm just as lazy as the next person. But I try to fight it. If I need to get up out of my chair and go look up a word in an actual dictionary or to check something in a grammar guide, I usually say, "Dammit!" before I do it. But once I get that far, I do do it. That's how bad I want to know. And that's the key: How bad do you want to know? Sometimes you just have to force yourself. For your own good and nobody else's.

Here 'tis;

Why

Thanks Terry (and hyphenman, if you really wanted a discussion, you wouldn't expect others to 'do the work'. You brought it up, after all. )

At any rate, I agree with the article. He really isn't saying anything that hasn't been said in numerous writing forums and discussions. Sometimes it's better to show; sometimes it's better to tell. The skill is in knowing which to use when.

I don't think the article is helpful. It should mention the right times to show and the right times to tell. The "She was nervous" vs "She bit her fingernails" example could have come with an explanation of when one would be preferable over the other.

I think showing is employed when the writer wants the reader to experience something, rather than just be filled in on something. So its a way of altering the story experience for the reader.

Originally Posted by Robdemanc

I don't think the article is helpful.

Oh no - even agreeing with it, I don't find it particularly helpful. It really isn't saying anything new or earth-shaking - or, as you note, explanatory.

Originally Posted by shadowwalker

...

At any rate, I agree with the article. He really isn't saying anything that hasn't been said in numerous writing forums and discussions. Sometimes it's better to show; sometimes it's better to tell. The skill is in knowing which to use when.

I agree with this POV - from experience.

Showing is where the story happens.

Telling is everything else. It's used for narrative perspective, summary, and the telescoping of time. All useful and often necessary, but those moments themselves aren't the actual story.

Showing gives the reader an actual image in the mind of a character saying and doing something.

Telling, while it adds to the writing, doesn't have that same effect.

The reason showing is touted over telling is because, in general, the Showing-effect is what readers are seeking. They want to vicariously experience a story by seeing it happen in the storyworld, in realtime.

Also, something I believe that's important to know is that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can tell while showing. In fact, it's generally a good idea to mix in some narrative insights and such during a scene. But the showing should be the point of it all.

The most common use of telling is to be used as a transition, or connective tissue, between segments of showing.

The examples given in the article--a choice between showing with "she bit her fingernails", or telling with "she was nervous"--are both poor choices, in my opinion. I would go with a mix of both telling and showing, though I would make sure the SHOWING was the meat of the section, while TELLING was only used as narrative additions.

For example: (Red is Telling, blue is Showing)

It was past midnight, and Angela was pacing about the room. She had worn a faint tread in the vinyl floor, which she wobbled along like a girl on skates. "How long does it take to get a carton of ice cream?" she wondered aloud. She stomped and twisted, wringing her apron between her fingers and puffing her bangs from her forehead.

By the time the clock read twelve-fifteen, she was a hot, frothing mess. And by the time George came in the front door, a full quarter past one, Angela was rabid.

"Where the hell have you been?" she demanded. A wooden spatula sailed through the air, barely missing George's head.

--
Notice how the red serves its purpose well, setting the scene, connecting the scenes. But the blue is where the real story happens.

So, I agree with the maxim "show, don't tell". Or more so, "show the story, tell the rest". That is, if you want to write effective fiction. Go with telling if you want, but know that the reason the advice is given is because showing is generally what readers want to see.

Generally, I try to have a comfortable mix of the two. But it's important to know what each is meant to accomplish, and not to try to use telling where showing is preferrable.

Consider the alternative, of all telling:

It was late. Angela wondered why George wasn't back yet, and she didn't like it one bit.

By the time the clock read twelve-fifteen, she was a hot, frothing mess. And by the time George came in the front door, a full quarter past one, Angela was rabid.

As soon as George stepped into the house, an argument erupted. Things were thrown, voices were raised. A spoon even sailed through the air at one point.

Notice how it is almost the same, but somehow, missing something? It's got a strong narrative tone, but there's no anchor to reality in there, no actual characters on stage for the audience to see. At some point the reader will say, "Okay okay, yeah yeah, enough with the telling, show me something!"

I don't understand the point of the couch example in the article, since showing and describing are two very different things. Is "the torn couch" better than, "Tom looked at the couch. 'Boy, that sure is torn,' he said"? Well, yeah, but that should be painfully obvious to anyone, writing student or not.

Here's a possible solution: write the story.

Don't worry about whether you're formatting it correctly re show vs tell.

THEN go over it and decide how you want to express each scene.