"Show vs Tell" and Top-Rated Stories

[Comshaw]

First off let me say I have no flippin' idea what the term "show don't tell" means. As a mostly self-taught hobby writer some things that I should have learned I've completely wandered past. So if someone would be so kind as to explain exactly what it means, I'd be ever so grateful.

Now on with my bloviation.

This subject seems to be online with the gripe about "this story is crap but it has high scores!" It is usually followed by the pointing out of some instances of bad spelling, bad grammer, disjointed storylines or some other terrible work by the author of the subject story. Yet the story has a high score and the griper is wondering why.

"How can this happen when I followed all the rules and my scores are less than the ones for this story?"

It could be because a lot of fans have voted high on that story. I don't believe, nor has anyone ever produced evidence of it happening and definitely doesn't happen with a story that has a lot of votes. There is one simple and easy answer though (Occam's Razor): the readers like it.

There are things I've learned after almost 15 lustrums walking on this planet. One is my opinion of a thing can be anything I want it to be. But if my opinion on a thing is opposite of a reality, it's time for me to back up and take a second look to see if I'm wrong, or if there is something I've not seen. Most times I find I've been blind to what is because of my own bias.

So what am I blathering on about? One other thing I learned is there is seldom one single way to do anything. I may not be able to see it or want to use it, but normally there are multiple ways to get a thing done. It doesn't matter how a story is constructed, or my opinion on whether it was done "right", if the readers like it the author did it correctly.

and now I will return you to the regular discussion.

Comshaw

 

[NoTalentHack]

I find things like this interesting.

You have a writing 'standard' for lack of a better word. A big bad of something no writer should ever do for....reasons.

Then as the OP points many of the most popular stories here break said rule.

There will be some who disparage the readers over this. They're ignorant, they don't know this or that, they have no taste, easily pleased, whatever.

But when we put out a story, who are the people we hope will enjoy it? The readers of course.

It makes me wonder, are readers that 'uneducated' or are some writers just that full of themselves that they refuse to stop and wonder, does any of this really matter as much as they want it to? Does it diminish they're precious pedigree and damage their ability t sound better than?

I tend to agree with this. I'll go one further, actually: it's only in very rare cases that the "rules" of a given set of creators actually equate to more success, regardless of the medium they work in.

Call of Duty is one of the most basic-ass first person shooters ever made. I could name a dozen better shooters that came out in the last year, regardless of whether you want a hardcore experience, something goofy and fun, a retro game, etc. It still made $30B in revenue in 2022.

All that great music you hear in Vietnam movies? A huge chunk never hit number one on the Billboard charts; the album with Fortunate Son peaked at number three. Usually fairly disposable pop was ahead of the songs most people identify with the era.

Movies, books, TV shows: in each case, the things that get rewarded by the "masses" when they first come out are usually easy to digest above all else. Don't get me wrong, there's some great stuff scattered in the charts around Fortunate Son, for example, but people who aren't really entrenched in a particular medium, really invested in it, are also not going to appreciate and will often be hostile to the stuff that makes them even slightly work for their enjoyment of it. Another example: that same year, Leonard Cohen's second album Songs From a Room was released. It peaked at #63.

This kind of brings me, in a roundabout way, to AI, which I know is a favorite topic hereabouts. AI tends to produce "good enough" work in text and image generation for most folks for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that few people are immersed enough in every discipline to give a shit. A lot of writers really will not notice an extra finger or a weird eye in an AI-generated book cover, for example, and badly written AI copy in utilitarian places is going to escape the notice of anyone who's not inclined to think about words past what's necessary to get along with their day, even if that's just to tuck in with a story.

In working on the guide for taking down stolen stories from YouTube, I noticed two things. The first is that having shitty or good TTS didn't seem to matter much to a channel's success, regardless of whether the story was a cheating wife one, a romance, sci-fi, or whatever. As long as it was listenable and vaguely passed for a human voice, the quality of the voice didn't seem to have any correlation with the success of the video, in terms of views.

The second, slightly more disturbing one, was this: a lot of folks didn't seem to understand that the TTS voices are TTS voices. There's a very common one that gets used on a lot of videos of various types, and I saw more than one commenter say, "Yeah, this guy has the same story posted to another channel, too," or "I really like this guy's work. He does sci-fi stuff over on xxx." They think it's literally a person reading the stories.

That kind of terrified me. I get not recognizing good or bad writing. I get not having a discerning enough eye to recognize that AI art is AI art. But not recognizing that the voice reading the text was doing so in a stilted, bizarre way, with flat delivery when it should be emotional and vice-versa? How the hell do folks not get that? Worse, how MANY folks don't get that?

 

[alohadave]

"How can this happen when I followed all the rules and my scores are less than the ones for this story?"

It always comes down to the story. Technical stuff can be easily fixed, but a bad story is much harder to make good.

Some authors think that mastering the technical stuff (grammar, spelling, punctuation) means that they are a good writer, when they are writing technically perfect, but boring stories.

This happens in all art. In photography it's expressed as a "sharp photo of a fuzzy concept". When you focus on getting the focus perfect, but the picture is boring and has nothing to say.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

It could be because a lot of fans have voted high on that story. I don't believe, nor has anyone ever produced evidence of it happening and definitely doesn't happen with a story that has a lot of votes. There is one simple and easy answer though (Occam's Razor): the readers like it.

Exactly. Personally I've never been under any illusions that the scores here are an indicator of anything other than popularity, and popularity of stories with readers touching themselves has nothing to do with the rules of prose or literature.

Of course, that does not stop many writers here from adopting the logic that higher scores and Red Hs means that they are a good writer. It has nothing to do with how good your writing may or may not be. It has everything to do with how popular your stories are. The correlation between writing/storytelling skills and popularity is so negligible around here that it cannot be reliably measured.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I'd never heard the term before, because I'm not actually a writer, I just play one on TV.

But as I write with a lot of dialogue, with backstory sprinkled in, I've been following the idea of show /tell without knowing it, I suppose.

I do have difficulty with stories with huge blocks of backstory before anyone speaks, though. It's a dull way to begin in a lot of instances.

 

[lovecraft68]

I tend to agree with this. I'll go one further, actually: it's only in very rare cases that the "rules" of a given set of creators actually equate to more success, regardless of the medium they work in.

Call of Duty is one of the most basic-ass first person shooters ever made. I could name a dozen better shooters that came out in the last year, regardless of whether you want a hardcore experience, something goofy and fun, a retro game, etc. It still made $30B in revenue in 2022.

All that great music you hear in Vietnam movies? A huge chunk never hit number one on the Billboard charts; the album with Fortunate Son peaked at number three. Usually fairly disposable pop was ahead of the songs most people identify with the era.

Movies, books, TV shows: in each case, the things that get rewarded by the "masses" when they first come out are usually easy to digest above all else. Don't get me wrong, there's some great stuff scattered in the charts around Fortunate Son, for example, but people who aren't really entrenched in a particular medium, really invested in it, are also not going to appreciate and will often be hostile to the stuff that makes them even slightly work for their enjoyment of it. Another example: that same year, Leonard Cohen's second album Songs From a Room was released. It peaked at #63.

This kind of brings me, in a roundabout way, to AI, which I know is a favorite topic hereabouts. AI tends to produce "good enough" work in text and image generation for most folks for a lot of reasons, not least of which is that few people are immersed enough in every discipline to give a shit. A lot of writers really will not notice an extra finger or a weird eye in an AI-generated book cover, for example, and badly written AI copy in utilitarian places is going to escape the notice of anyone who's not inclined to think about words past what's necessary to get along with their day, even if that's just to tuck in with a story.

In working on the guide for taking down stolen stories from YouTube, I noticed two things. The first is that having shitty or good TTS didn't seem to matter much to a channel's success, regardless of whether the story was a cheating wife one, a romance, sci-fi, or whatever. As long as it was listenable and vaguely passed for a human voice, the quality of the voice didn't seem to have any correlation with the success of the video, in terms of views.

The second, slightly more disturbing one, was this: a lot of folks didn't seem to understand that the TTS voices are TTS voices. There's a very common one that gets used on a lot of videos of various types, and I saw more than one commenter say, "Yeah, this guy has the same story posted to another channel, too," or "I really like this guy's work. He does sci-fi stuff over on xxx." They think it's literally a person reading the stories.

That kind of terrified me. I get not recognizing good or bad writing; I get not having a discerning enough eye to recognize that AI art is AI art. But not recognizing that the voice reading the text was doing to in a stilted, bizarre way, with flat delivery when it should be emotional and vice-versa? How the hell do folks not get that? Worse, how MANY folks don't get that?

Great points. Lately I find myself thinking a lot about Carpenter's Movie "They Live" with the subliminal messaging all over saying "Consume" "Obey" and that's where we are thanks to social media and streaming etc. People need to be constantly stimulated and they don't care much about what it is as long as its there and there's more after it.

The AI voice thing is getting more and more convincing, but in seeing some of the YT channels you're fighting with, that voice is obviously not a human being, but like you said, people don't seem to catch it. The word discerning is one of many that are on the brink of extinction.

I'm not a video game person-last one I played was Halo 2 because my younger daughter loved it so I played with her-but Call of Duty has the name and brand so maybe to our points its all you need.

Keith used to always use the word "Pap" about different content, and I always thought it was kind of a snotty thing to say, but now I'm beginning to see things that way.

Fast and the Furious is working on #11, if that doesn't say it, nothing does.

 

[SimonDoom]

First off let me say I have no flippin' idea what the term "show don't tell" means. As a mostly self-taught hobby writer some things that I should have learned I've completely wandered past. So if someone would be so kind as to explain exactly what it means, I'd be ever so grateful.


Comshaw

If you write that Tommy got turned on while talking to his mom, you are telling. If you present the scene by actually writing out the dialogue between them, and describing things she does and how he reacts, and his internal feelings, then you are showing. You are presenting a scene that the reader can visualize.

If you write "he was scared" you are telling. If you describe how dark the passageway is, and you describe his goosebumps and sweat and his reaction to each bump and unexpected sound, and you narrate the interior dialogue that demonstrates his fear, then you are showing.

Putting aside all this talk of inflexible rules, which nobody here is actually endorsing, I think if you presented samples of showing and telling, most of us, whatever our stated views on this subject, would agree the showing samples were better in most cases.

This concept can be taken too far, and there's no need for every section of a story to be showing not telling. Sometimes telling is necessary, of for no other reason than to cut the story down to reasonable size. I think Alohadave is correct that the rise in the principle's popularity corresponds with the rise of film, which has in turn has given rise to a more cinematic and visual approach to story writing.

 

[NoTalentHack]

The AI voice thing is getting more and more convincing, but in seeing some of the YT channels you're fighting with, that voice is obviously not a human being, but like you said, people don't seem to catch it. The word discerning is one of many that are on the brink of extinction.

I will say this: there's one that tricked me for a minute or two, in that I couldn't tell for sure it was a TTS voice. I hadn't heard the voice before, and it sounded more real, both in terms of minute variations in the voice and delivery. It wasn't until it hit a line of dialogue and didn't change its inflection that I was sure it was TTS.

There's a company another writer pointed me to called elevenlabs, and it's really good. Like, REALLY good. I put in a couple of paragraph from a story I'm working on in it, and it read it... not 100% as I had it in my head, but like 95%? There was a minor hiccup, but that was about it. The tone changed when it switched to dialogue, for example, pitch up just slightly. Here's the snippet:

The sliding glass door opened behind me. “Zach, honey, are you okay? I was worried sick!” Stephanie’s tone held anger, but not directed precisely at me. Instead, it was the anger of a crisis averted once one learns their loved one is safe and sound. Anger towards the person that caused the alarm to be raised, but also at one’s own panic, and tempered with relief.

Not like the anger I had. I knew–although she didn’t yet–that our crisis was far from over.

I played around with it a little bit, too. When I changed it from "Stephanie's tone" to "John's tone," it changed the pitch for the dialogue to a lower register. When I changed it to "Zach, honey, are you okay? I'm so glad to see you!" it changed to a different emotional quality, too. When I changed the emotions described, it changed again.

Pretty soon, we're all going to be that guy who can't tell it's a TTS voice.

An amusing glimpse at our future:

 

[alohadave]

I will say this: there's one that tricked me for a minute or two, in that I couldn't tell for sure it was a TTS voice. I hadn't heard the voice before, and it sounded more real, both in terms of minute variations in the voice and delivery. It wasn't until it hit a line of dialogue and didn't change its inflection that I was sure it was TTS.

There are many Youtube accounts that are getting really close. They sound realistic, but one of the tells is that the pacing never changes. It doesn't sound robotic, but just enough 'off' that after a while you can tell.

Also if the account has some abstract name and you don't see a person's name or face on the account at all.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

We are derailing this topic so much, but telling the difference between AI and human content is getting much harder every day. And the "quality" of AI art is approaching the human average, rapidly. Maybe it's already there in many types of art, I don't know.
Take this song for example:

It's a country song, its music and lyrics generated by AI in less than a minute. It's something resembling Taylor Swift stuff, I guess. I'll just boldly claim that in my opinion, this particular song is above average when compared to human-created songs these days. We live in interesting times.

 

[Northstar4695]

There are guidelines and best practices and there are exceptions. The info dump at the start of a story is clunky, as a general rule, but I don’t think it pays to adhere inflexibly to these things.

 

[Silver_Arrow]

I'm still trying to find my own balance between showing and telling, especially with large time gaps in my story. I think the writing world that has been inherited from the last 200 years of development certainly shaped what many people to generally consider good/proper 'writing' and 'stories'. the kind you would visit your local book shope for and pay 12 shillings for something only you could read as everyone else was illiterate.

With where we are at as a global society and the obvious trend in changing word use, changing language, it's only natural that peoples perceptions of what true literature is will change as well. Just like with speech there will always be the old guard banging pots and pans 'back in my day we did this and that's how it's supposed to be!'.

The world moves on regardless of what you personally feel writing and literature should or should not be.

The proliferation of smut has made it far more mainstream. The access to tools and mediums that allow anyone with an idea to make a story leaves it up to the readers to decide what is good and what is not even if it's 'wrong' or 'bad' or 'not literature'. If easy to digest stories that mix writing types and doesn't adhear to the typical writing 'norm' or 'standard' is what people love most, then ultimatly that will be the direction writing takes, if only on places like this.

I'm sure there will always be institutionalized pressure from book companies, publishers etc. to stick to their standard. and that's ok to.

 

[Comshaw]

Exactly. Personally I've never been under any illusions that the scores here are an indicator of anything other than popularity, and popularity of stories with readers touching themselves has nothing to do with the rules of prose or literature.

Of course, that does not stop many writers here from adopting the logic that higher scores and Red Hs means that they are a good writer. It has nothing to do with how good your writing may or may not be. It has everything to do with how popular your stories are. The correlation between writing/storytelling skills and popularity is so negligible around here that it cannot be reliably measured.

That is explained by this:

There are things I've learned after almost 15 lustrums walking on this planet. One is my opinion of a thing can be anything I want it to be. But if my opinion on a thing is opposite of a reality, it's time for me to back up and take a second look to see if I'm wrong, or if there is something I've not seen. Most times I find I've been blind to what is because of my own bias.

I've heard that (bolded text in your quote) over and over, but no one has ever given me a satisfactory explanation as to the reason they are different, other than an unsubstantiated opinion. If we don't post our stories here to be popular, to see if the readers enjoy them, then why do we do it? If a story doesn't meet the standard we think it should, if it isn't good storytelling, then why is it popular? Is it because all those readers are wrong in their assessment or the singular and my opinion is wrong? It should be one or the other. And what are "good storytelling skills"? Does it mean it has to be contained within a rigid set of parameters to meet that standard? Or is it that the readers enjoyed the story? If a thing is to be rated, we must have a rating system to do it with. Personally, I default to the simplest explanation, whether I like it or not, whether I think it's crap, if the readers like it they must think it's good storytelling and therefore by majority assessment, it is. My ego isn't big enough to allow me to think I know what others should like or dislike.

Most of us are posting our writing here for that reason. I can't think of another valid reason to post it on this site. Yes, I know some say "I write for myself" and that's cool. But don't get butt hurt if the readers don't like what you think they should like. Good storytelling is subjective and multifaceted. It can be defined in more than one way. If I define it one way and the majority of readers do another, it doesn't mean either of us are wrong. It means, like the three blind men and the elephant, we are seeing different visions of the same thing and need to expand our view of it to understand it.

Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

If you write that Tommy got turned on while talking to his mom, you are telling. If you present the scene by actually writing out the dialogue between them, and describing things she does and how he reacts, and his internal feelings, then you are showing. You are presenting a scene that the reader can visualize.

If you write "he was scared" you are telling. If you describe how dark the passageway is, and you describe his goosebumps and sweat and his reaction to each bump and unexpected sound, and you narrate the interior dialogue that demonstrates his fear, then you are showing.

Putting aside all this talk of inflexible rules, which nobody here is actually endorsing, I think if you presented samples of showing and telling, most of us, whatever our stated views on this subject, would agree the showing samples were better in most cases.

This concept can be taken too far, and there's no need for every section of a story to be showing not telling. Sometimes telling is necessary, of for no other reason than to cut the story down to reasonable size. I think Alohadave is correct that the rise in the principle's popularity corresponds with the rise of film, which has in turn has given rise to a more cinematic and visual approach to story writing.

I guess I had this idea it was some big huge complicated facet of writing I hadn't been privy to. It appears I've been instinctively following that concept all along. Being ignorant isn't an embarrassment, not curing it with available information from those who know, is. Thanks


Comshaw

 

[SimonDoom]

I guess I had this idea it was some big huge complicated facet of writing I hadn't been privy to. It appears I've been instinctively following that concept all along. Being ignorant isn't an embarrassment, not curing it with available information from those who know, is. Thanks


Comshaw

It's understandable. We live in a consumer culture where people are selling miracle cures for everything. "My diet plan works better than all the rest." "My exercise device will give you rock hard abs." "If you follow my plan for ten minutes a day you can be a millionaire." "Write this one way and all your stories will be great."

It's all nonsense. "Show, don't tell" isn't a cure-all for writing; it's just a way of expressing a fairly common-sense idea about good storytelling.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

If a story doesn't meet the standard we think it should, if it isn't good storytelling, then why is it popular?

Because it meets a different standard than mine or yours or whomever's. Most readers here think that they want to read a good/well-written story but what they really want is someone to recite their own fantasy back to them. If you do that, you get a 5. if you don't, they back out or you get something less than 5. Usually these fantasies involve zero conflict which leads to no plot, because hey, they're fantasies, perfect world scenarios, and perfect worlds have no conflict and as such generally make crappy stories. Which is fine. Unsubstantiated opinion? Go read 20 random stories and check the correlation between fulfilling the fantasy and the score. It's not difficult. The pattern will emerge quite quickly. Of course there are always exceptions but by and large that is the pattern. Just look at how many stories (in the general kink categories) use the aggressive female and the subby boring male template. This is the fantasy. Guy trips over free sex, the girl does all the work for him, perfect world no conflict fantasy. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but any literary professional, (editor, publisher, professor) will tell you that it's a terrible plot/story at least literary wise. But the standard here on lit for the vast majority of stories is not literary, it's fantasy. So the stories are staggeringly popular.

Even in the non-kink based categories (like romance and EC) if you don;t deliver the expected fantasy your chances of getting a good score are slim at best.

For me personally, I'm still going to write stories that I enjoy writing, even if they get panned here, there are still people here who enjoy them (even if they are few). I have no interest in writing plotless fantasy just to be popular. I don't have enough time in my life for such scant reward. I just don't see the point.

I write to give an experience and make a connection. Sometimes that means that you pleased the reader. Sometimes that means that you surprised them. Sometimes it means that you gave them a broadening experience. Sometimes it means that you put them in touch with deep vivid emotions (or a wide range of them). Sometimes it means that you offended them. What it does not mean is that I did a little puppet dance to re-feed their own plotless fantasy back to them just to get the applause. There's nothing 'wrong' with that but that's not what I do.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I guess I had this idea it was some big huge complicated facet of writing I hadn't been privy to. It appears I've been instinctively following that concept all along. Being ignorant isn't an embarrassment, not curing it with available information from those who know, is. Thanks

There are many aspects or techniques of writing that I have been instinctively employing in some capacity or to some degree only to find out later that these concepts and techniques have names and have entire books written about them, symposiums and classes held, for decades. I believe that this happens to every writer.

 

[Comshaw]

Because it meets a different standard than mine or yours or whomever's. Most readers here think that they want to read a good/well-written story but what they really want is someone to recite their own fantasy back to them. If you do that, you get a 5. if you don't, they back out or you get something less than 5. Usually these fantasies involve zero conflict which leads to no plot, because hey, they're fantasies, perfect world scenarios, and perfect worlds have no conflict and as such generally make crappy stories. Which is fine. Unsubstantiated opinion? Go read 20 random stories and check the correlation between fulfilling the fantasy and the score. It's not difficult. The pattern will emerge quite quickly. Of course there are always exceptions but by and large that is the pattern. Just look at how many stories (in the general kink categories) use the aggressive female and the subby boring male template. This is the fantasy. Guy trips over free sex, the girl does all the work for him, perfect world no conflict fantasy. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but any literary professional, (editor, publisher, professor) will tell you that it's a terrible plot/story at least literary wise. But the standard here on lit for the vast majority of stories is not literary, it's fantasy. So the stories are staggeringly popular.

Even in the non-kink based categories (like romance and EC) if you don;t deliver the expected fantasy your chances of getting a good score are slim at best.

For me personally, I'm still going to write stories that I enjoy writing, even if they get panned here, there are still people here who enjoy them (even if they are few). I have no interest in writing plotless fantasy just to be popular. I don't have enough time in my life for such scant reward. I just don't see the point.

I write to give an experience and make a connection. Sometimes that means that you pleased the reader. Sometimes that means that you surprised them. Sometimes it means that you gave them a broadening experience. Sometimes it means that you put them in touch with deep vivid emotions (or a wide range of them). Sometimes it means that you offended them. What it does not mean is that I did a little puppet dance to re-feed their own plotless fantasy back to them just to get the applause. There's nothing 'wrong' with that but that's not what I do.

"Because it meets a different standard than mine or yours or whomever's."

Exactly my point. It's subjective. Because it doesn't meet my standard as good storytelling, but does for a large percentage of the readers, means IT IS good storytelling in their eyes and therefore by majority assessment of erotic stories, good storytelling. Does it matter if it's reflecting back to them their fantasies? This is an erotic site after all. If it gets them off and they enjoy it, it is by definition good storytelling for this genre of written work. It matters not a tinker's damn what I think it should be, only what they think it should be.

"Most readers here think that they want to read a good/well-written story but what they really want is someone to recite their own fantasy back to them."

Sorry but I am not comfortable with, nor do I subscribe to the idea that I should be telling people what they ought to like or dislike. That ain't mine to declare. I know what I like. I ain't got a clue what everyone else does until they somehow show it. Here it's by vote.

This particular disconnect happens a lot in the movie industry. How many times have we seen critics hate a certain movie because it doesn't meet their threshold of being a "good" movie, but audiences love it. There are literally dozens of examples. Does it mean that movie is bad because the critics didn't like it? So what of the opinion of the public? It can be dismissed as the rantings of the great unwashed?

We all write and post for different reasons. I will not, like some movie critics, declare those who like stories I think are less than mine to be lowbrow troglodytes just because they see things through a different lens from a different angle.

Comshaw.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

"Most readers here think that they want to read a good/well-written story but what they really want is someone to recite their own fantasy back to them."

Sorry but I am not comfortable with, nor do I subscribe to the idea that I should be telling people what they ought to like or dislike. That ain't mine to declare. I know what I like. I ain't got a clue what everyone else does until they somehow show it. Here it's by vote.

I'm going by what scores well and what doesn't and by comments by people upset that the story didn't go the way that they wanted it to. This stuff is rampant. I'm not guessing. This phenomenon is real and it is rampant.

This particular disconnect happens a lot in the movie industry. How many times have we seen critics hate a certain movie because it doesn't meet their threshold of being a "good" movie, but audiences love it. There are literally dozens of examples. Does it mean that movie is bad because the critics didn't like it? So what of the opinion of the public? It can be dismissed as the rantings of the great unwashed?

You can look at it as looking down at the unwashed if you want, but who sold more records, Leonard Cohen or the Spice Girls? Tom Waits or Luke Bryan (God, he's awful). Who is better at the craft? Yet, who is more popular? It's just the reality. People 'like' what they can relate to. The higher level of the art, generally the better it gets, yet the less relatable it becomes to the masses, and so the masses tune out great stuff.

We know this because as we grow in our skills in a certain artform, we begin to realize and appreciate why certain classics are so good when before we could not understand the appeal. We could not relate to them but as our appreciation and our own skill in the artform improved and elevated, we then could relate on that higher level.

The readers here mostly (not all but the certain majority) want their fantasy recited back to them and do not care about plot twists nor immersive details, nor conflict, and certainly not any theme. Just give them an info dump and a unicorn and get to it and generally you will score well. This is not me guessing or asuming. This is observation of what scores well and what gets cheered and conversely jeered in the comments. And there's nothing wrong with that but it;s just the reality and a writer here would be wise to understand that in order to understand the feedback to their own work.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Leonard Cohen or the Spice Girls?

Well, I'll tell you what I want.

 

[Djmac1031]

If you think about it, "Show don't tell" really applies more to film or TV shows.

When writing a story, we sometimes by necessity need exposition to tell backstory or set up the universe. Where as in movies / TV it's much simpler to show these things.

Not that the written word can't be used to "show." I get the point of the debate.

As always it comes down to balance between the two.

 

[THBGato]

The advice comes from a letter to his brother, on novel writing. Something along the lines of, "Don't tell me the moon is shining. Show me the moonlight gleaming on a broken window."

Thanks! I knew it wasn't to do with screen/script writing.

If you think about it, "Show don't tell" really applies more to film or TV shows.

When writing a story, we sometimes by necessity need exposition to tell backstory or set up the universe. Where as in movies / TV it's much simpler to show these things.

Got to disagree with you there. As @StillStunned points out above, Chekov coined the phrase in reference to novels. It is still regularly taught in that context. As you say, in the movies it is much easier to show things, which is why novelists need to do so more consciously in their writing, lest they lapse into dull exposition. (Not that scriptwriters avoid this entirely: The Tempest Act 1 Scene 2 anyone?)

 

[TheLobster]

"Don't tell me the moon is shining. Show me the moonlight gleaming on a broken window."

This is a great phrase, and I believe we can glean a lot of insight about the idea of showing vs. telling if we dissect it. I can see at least four different ways in which this advice can be interpreted.

First one would quite simple: write in an evocative manner. There is little imagery involved in a shining moon alone; it's basically an ivory white disk (or other shape) against the backdrop of a darkened sky. Even the phrase itself is so common, a reader might just gloss over it, without it leaving any impact in his mind.
But if you add that gleam in a broken window, you immediately evoke an image. It is much more grounded and specific. It captures reader's attention.

This connects to the second interpretation: make your writing more concrete. A shining moon is abstract; it's little more than a filled circle, or a section thereof, on a mostly featureless plane. It also looks more or less the same in every place on Earth.
Mentioning the gleam in a broken window, on the other hand, immediately makes everything more concrete. The scene is instantly set somewhere, even if we don't yet know exactly where it is. A window is a much more concrete concept/object than moonlight, so it is easier to relate to.

We can link to the third interpretation: compress your writing. "moonlight gleaming on a broken window" is just six words but it carries tremendous amount of information already. It's nighttime; the sky is moonlit; there is a window; that window is broken; that broken window is outside, since moonlight is gleaming on it. Conversely, "moon is shining" is three words and it conveys only two out of these 5+ points, and it fulfills no other role than to carry information (poorly).

Which gets us to the fourth interpretation: write to set the mood. In the second example, there are already multiple themes introduced into the story. First, there is mystery or strangeness, signified by moonlit sky and nighttime. Second, there is potential danger (broken window? who broke it?) or at the very least a theme of neglect/abandonment/disuse, perhaps accompanied by solitude. These elements create a mood that is largely absent in the mere mention of a shining moon.
You could even speculate what kind of tale or genre this is already. Maybe a crime story? Or perhaps an urban fantasy with vampires or werewolves? Some of these options seem more probable than others, while "moon is shining" could be a beginning of, well, pretty much anything.

So, do any of these interpretations explain it better what showing means? No idea; you tell me. I mean, show me

 

[CockSparrow]

Show don’t tell can be a bit misleading. Stories are told. And the people who tell them are storytellers, not story showers. Good storytellers picture the story in their mind and then transfer it, as smoothly and completely as possible, into the mind of their reader (or listener). Check out Elmore Leonard.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Most stories are a combination of noteworthy passages - the content that motivated the author to write that story in the first place - and "glue" that holds the story together but isn't interesting in itself. "Show don't tell" is often good for those noteworthy passages, but "tell" is usually fine for the glue content and often better.

I guess it's a little like volume control: by turning the volume up here and there you can focus audience attention on those bits, but if you just keep it set to 11 the whole time then nothing stands out.

There are always exceptions. Usually I'd encourage authors trying to convey strong emotions to get into how they feel - not just "I was in love" but the speeding heartbeat, the twisting stomach, all those physical signs. But occasionally a terse "tell" can stand out better than more descriptive text would. For the separation that comes near the end of "Red Scarf" I ditched plans to write a long farewell scene and just went with this:

My flight left from a different gate to hers, and half an hour before. We scouted the two gates together, and then stayed together at mine until the last possible moment, and hugged one another goodbye. It hurt. like. fuck.

I felt that by the time we got to that point, hopefully I'd established enough empathy for the narrator that readers would feel her reaction to that situation, and if I hadn't managed it then one more scene wasn't going to do it. I could also argue that the abruptness of that passage is its own form of "show", evoking something painful enough that the narrator would rather not detail it.

All in all, I think it's good for writers to remember that "show" and "tell" are both available, and to think about which one works better at any given moment.