The time to tell instead of show.

[Living_in_a_lewd_world]

For me, show vs tell is all about pace and timing. If you have some info that the reader needs to know but this info doesn't really require its own scene, just drop in some exposition (tell it). Here's an example of something that I wrote where I mixed show and tell.



You can see that I highlight the exposition (the telling) in color. The scene allows the reader to meet the characters by seeing them talk and interact.

Why I chose to skip over bits with telling was for pacing. If I had fully shown all of the dialogue that might explain how Mike Pierce was a champion and a respected driver, the scene would have been much longer and the whole thing would have bogged down. The important info that Mike is cheating on his wife is SHOWN, but the important info that he is a highly respected former champion is TOLD.

The same for the line about David and Leigh leaving but the others staying for another round. We don't really care about the last round of beers, we just care that things are winding down and that some leave early and some leave later, so it's just TOLD.

Also notice that all of the colored text (the telling) is quite short compared to the rest of the scene. The exposition is dealt with quickly and does not bog down the pace. We don't want a WALL of TELL (the dreaded info-dump). 99 times out of 100 that is bo-ring. I don't want to waste the reader's time. I've done enough of that with all this dialogue already. : P Yes we are dumping info, but only in small doses here and there, so it still reads naturally and doesn't feel like a dump (at least I hope).

Then there is the timing of the exposition, which is less obvious. If the whole chapter was this one scene I could have stretched it out and done more showing, but this scene starts 7500 words into the first chapter (and the excerpt itself is over 1000 words) and there has been some flirting already but nothing steamy yet. Stretching this scene out will only make the reader antsy wondering when the hanky panky is coming. So making this scene 1500-2000 words would have been a mistake. The timing of the scene within the chapter urged me to shorten it and telling was a perfect tool for just that. I knew when I was writing it that it could get too long too long, bog down, bog down. So I took a couple of sections and glossed them over with exposition.

I personally see "tell" as purely descriptive writing without any figurative language, basically what you do, when you write an instruction or an scientific text. And thus, I don't see much "tell" but more "show"in what you write. I personally think, that the choice of first person alone might be a choice of showing rather than telling, as it's basically a way to show the world one is creating through the subjective eyes of a protagonist. Additionally all the figurative language you use like: "clash with my hiking trips", "tagging along behind him", "projected an aura of wanting to be anywhere else" produces images in front of my inner eyes. So, what you present is at least for me well written and a very good example of "showing".

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I think I've just read, well, attempted to read anyway, the worst case of showing I've ever seen. In a 15k words erotic story, the author kept describing the apartment of one of the characters for a total of, *drumroll*, eighteen consecutive paragraphs!
Eighteen! I copied the text into Word to check the size of that description. It's 1350 words long. So many words of nothing but descriptions of how every single room in the apartment looks like in detail. To make matters worse, the apartment has no importance for the story - the description was written mostly to "show" how rich one of the characters is and how lavish their living style is. I mean, for fucks sake, it would have been more than enough to say that the character was rich and had a lavishly decorated apartment.
Eighteen paragraphs and 1350 words. Beat that, Showers!

 

[Kumquatqueen]

It's 1350 words long. So many words of nothing but descriptions of how every single room in the apartment looks like in detail. To make matters worse, the apartment has no importance for the story - the description was written mostly to "show" how rich one of the characters is and how lavish their living style is. I mean, for fucks sake, it would have been more than enough to say that the character was rich and had a lavishly decorated apartment.
Eighteen paragraphs and 1350 words. Beat that, Showers!

There's a lot of people into wealth porn. They love the detail of how the others live. I know women who read 50 Shades for the billionaire lifestyle and flipped past the kinky sex, for example. Or there's Jilly Cooper, Jackie Collins, and the whole genre of 'bonkbuster' novels.

I'm actually intrigued - send me a link?

 

[StillStunned]

There's a lot of people into wealth porn. They love the detail of how the others live. I know women who read 50 Shades for the billionaire lifestyle and flipped past the kinky sex, for example. Or there's Jilly Cooper, Jackie Collins, and the whole genre of 'bonkbuster' novels.

But there are also authors who are totally enamoured with the world they envision, to the point where describing the setting and their characters' lives is more important than telling a story.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

But there are also authors who are totally enamoured with the world they envision, to the point where describing the setting and their characters' lives is more important than telling a story.

Yes, and it's not just world building. Writers can be very indulgent with any aspect of their work, their descriptions, their characters, their dialogue (there's lots of indulgently bad dialogue out there), and of course their kinks. Readers often don't notice how indulgently bloated a writer can present his kinks, usually because the readers themselves are into the kink. A reader only mildly into the kink can get bored very quickly.

When I write I will often remind myself, "I think I need to take it easy here and pick up the pace, some poor fucker has to read all this jive." Yes, I want to have fun creating all of this and that and that too, but ultimately what I'm making is a reading experience, and once it's done, that is what will be most satisfying weeks, months, years later.

 

[burgwad]

I am anti-expository. Even just saying so makes me chafe.

Show, or show not. There is no tell.

 

[StillStunned]

I am anti-expository. Even just saying so makes me chafe.

Show, or show not. There is no tell.

The opening lines of your newest story:

The twins broke free of the overgrowth and tromped out onto a small secluded beach of chilly, glittery sand. Blaze and Michelle had already kicked off their sandals. Seay and Tracy removed theirs, too.

That's all "tell". And that's because it's very difficult to write a story without "tell". "Tell" is the bones of your story. You can't "show" everything, because it would bog the story down in unnecessary detail. So you handwave the boring bits that don't need to be described in every sensation and experience, you just shorthand them. "They went there, and did this. It looked like this." You don't need to explain how the branches scratch their arms, or how Blaze curses when he steps on a rock with his bare feet, or in what way the beach is secluded, or what minerals in the sand make it glittery. Those details don't move the story forward, or only very, very slowly.

People keep saying "show, don't tell". But the two aren't mutually exclusive. "Show" immerses your reader in the story, and the mindset, thoughts and feelings of the characters. "Tell" moves the story along to the next moment that the reader needs to experience what the characters experience. You need both for a balanced story. You just have to decide when to use "show" and when to use "tell". It's different for every story.

 

[SimonDoom]

The opening lines of your newest story:

That's all "tell". And that's because it's very difficult to write a story without "tell". "Tell" is the bones of your story. You can't "show" everything, because it would bog the story down in unnecessary detail. So you handwave the boring bits that don't need to be described in every sensation and experience, you just shorthand them. "They went there, and did this. It looked like this." You don't need to explain how the branches scratch their arms, or how Blaze curses when he steps on a rock with his bare feet, or in what way the beach is secluded, or what minerals in the sand make it glittery. Those details don't move the story forward, or only very, very slowly.

People keep saying "show, don't tell". But the two aren't mutually exclusive. "Show" immerses your reader in the story, and the mindset, thoughts and feelings of the characters. "Tell" moves the story along to the next moment that the reader needs to experience what the characters experience. You need both for a balanced story. You just have to decide when to use "show" and when to use "tell". It's different for every story.

This might be quibbling over definitions, but to me this is showing, not telling. The words used are clear and descriptive and do a good job conjuring up a picture in my mind of what's going on.

"They went to the beach and had fun" would be telling. I call the level of detail in this passage showing.

I suppose you could say it's a matter of degree rather than a bright line.

"He was sad" is telling.

"He cried" is somewhere between showing and telling.

"Tears poured down his cheeks" is definitely showing.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'm with Simon on this. While this isn't a clear case, I'd also say that it leans more towards show than towards tell.

 

[StillStunned]

I'd say that "show" would go something like this:

===
Branches scratched at Blaze's bare arms, but at least the undergrowth appeared to be thinning out. The air was less dense here too, and his nose detected a trace of salt on a sudden cool gust.

His thoughts were interrupted by a call from Michelle up ahead. "A beach!" She sounded excited and relieved. "I can see the sea!"

At last! Blaze's feet began to move faster as if of their own accord, until a sharp pain in the sole of his foot brought him to a halt with a curse. He almost regretted taking off his sandals earlier, but he couldn't stand the way they slapped against his heels, or how they constantly filled with sand.

He paused to rub his sore foot, and then he saw it too. Blue sky, and a beach blazing white under the sun. And in between sparkling waves, calling to him with a promise of delicious coolness.

Etc.
===

Is this better than the original? In the context of the story probably not. It might be more evocative, but unless the emphasis is on Blaze's mood when they reach the beach this is all unnecessary detail. All the reader needs to know is that they're at a beach. That's where the story picks up.

But yes, I agree that it's a sliding scale. So to say "I never tell" is an oversimplification.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

The twins broke free of the overgrowth and tromped out onto a small secluded beach of chilly, glittery sand. Blaze and Michelle had already kicked off their sandals. Seay and Tracy removed theirs, too.

It's in the verbs used.

"breaking free" rather than "coming out of", "tromped out" rather than "walked", and "kicked off" vs "removed." All these verbs have an inherent "show" quality to them, even though they are also "telling." "Chilly, glittery sand" is also more showing than telling.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I agree with Simon. The quoted example is descriptive enough to form a picture. It has details that are totally unnecessary in exposition. "tromped", "chilly glittery sand" - these are blatant shows.

 

[Living_in_a_lewd_world]

The opening lines of your newest story:

That's all "tell". And that's because it's very difficult to write a story without "tell". "Tell" is the bones of your story. You can't "show" everything, because it would bog the story down in unnecessary detail. So you handwave the boring bits that don't need to be described in every sensation and experience, you just shorthand them. "They went there, and did this. It looked like this." You don't need to explain how the branches scratch their arms, or how Blaze curses when he steps on a rock with his bare feet, or in what way the beach is secluded, or what minerals in the sand make it glittery. Those details don't move the story forward, or only very, very slowly.

People keep saying "show, don't tell". But the two aren't mutually exclusive. "Show" immerses your reader in the story, and the mindset, thoughts and feelings of the characters. "Tell" moves the story along to the next moment that the reader needs to experience what the characters experience. You need both for a balanced story. You just have to decide when to use "show" and when to use "tell". It's different for every story.

I also agree with Simon, I find the words quite imaginative.

I just found an interesting text passage in the german Wikipedia about "Show don't tell", which I can mostly agree with. I translated it into english via deepl and made some adjudgements as "Wiedergabe" should here better be translated as "use" than "reproduce" as deepl suggested it to me. According to this description, what you write definitely ‘show’:

-------------------

If a writer follows the rule of show, don't tell, they reveal the character of a literary figure primarily through their verbal and non-verbal actions. Literary ‘showing’ can be done in different ways:

• through scenic writing
• by describing the actions of a character
• by using dialogue
• through the use of all five senses

----------------------

They also give an example, but I find actually using the word gossip in this case is already a kind of showing, as I can see immediately kind of an image of her on my mind. To keep it more "telling", I would even rather use "talkative" instead of "a gossip" and "talk" instead of "gossip".
That's why I would probably also personally make this definition even broader and add a 5th way how to show, which would be sth. like:

"using figurative language"

-------------------------
Instead of reporting ...

‘Mrs Kleinschmidt was a gossip.
She always found something to gossip about.’

... the author should show:

‘She opened a narrow gap between the leaves of the blinds so that she could see the VW stopped in the driveway. She squinted to get a better look at the muscular man who had got out of the car and was walking towards the front door. When he rang the bell, Mrs Kleinschmidt ran to the phone: ‘Charlotte, you won't believe what I've just seen!’

-----------------------------------

Source:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show,_don’t_tell

 

[Britva415]

That's all "tell".

You kind of made me realize that any first paragraph with the perfective "had" in it is all tell.

Since, as I've said before, you can't show without telling something else, I suppose it's possible to tell what had happened in order to show something else which had been the situation when the act'ion (that's the contraction for "actual narration") started, but I never see it happening like that.

 

[mildlyaroused]

In first person or close-third person, the narrator is still "showing" us things even if they're also outright "telling" us stuff. If our narrator is a window through which we look into their world, then they're a limited window. They don't know everything. The very way in which they interpret the world and relay ("tell") that information to us readers will show us things about their character.

She was disappointed.

vs.

I tried to make sense of her expression. It looked almost akin to disappointment.

vs.

I stared at her. Her gaze drifted somewhere over my shoulder, into space. Her brow lowered.

The first example tells us that the narrator knows (or is sure that they know) what "she" feels: they might have a keen eye for expressions, or might know this woman well and therefore know how to interpret her actions specifically. The second example is less resolute. The narrator isn't as adept at discerning what she's feeling, but they think they have a read. Both of these first two examples are "telling", but they're still "showing" us things about the narrator by the way in which they're written.

The third example is showing. It's still first person, but it's not telling us what "she" is feeling. We have to interpret her actions ourselves. A narrator only has limited information in their brain, and a specific perspective on the world. You can still show a whole lot through their voice, because they don't know everything there is to tell. Even if you explain their actions bluntly in narration, the actions and nuances of the world around them are open to their (and therefore our) interpretation.

 

[XerXesXu]

vs,

Her face fell.

'Show not tell' isn't an invitation to be prolix.

 

[Thanatos_X13]

The common problem I've seen with conversations around "Show, Don't Tell" is it oversimplifies a much more complex philosophy, AND so many people don't seem to know what the terms mean. So discussions devolve into disagreements over my definition of show and tell vs. yours vs. hers vs. his. And b/c people think Telling is universally bad, I see folks try to attribute instances of Telling as Showing b/c they know it isn't bad writing, so how can it be Telling? Or the opposite. This is Telling bc it's bad, when the reality is it's Showing done poorly.

The way it was taught to me, and how I keep it straight is Show is describing things and actions and Tell is informing or explaining. For example:

• Jenny stood outside the door with her hand hovering near the doorknob and took a deep breath. (Showing - Actions)
• The color had gone from her face, and she was sweating. (Showing - Describing)
• She'd heard from Clara that the house was haunted by the vengeful ghost of a woman who was murdered by her husband. (Telling - Informing)
• She was scared to go inside by herself. (Telling - Explaining)

The thing about Showing is that, when done well, you don't have to tell as much. The reader will understand the implicit meaning and that allows them to think for themselves and engage more with the work. It also creates room for subtext. BUT, Telling isn't bad. Show Don't Tell often gets taken too literally. You do need to give backstory and context sometimes, and it can be beneficial to let the readers peek inside a character's head. You just don't want to over-explain or give too much info or backstory. Telling can also just be expedient. Readers don't need to be shown everything. It's okay to just tell and keep the story moving. Sometimes, preserving the pace and momentum is more important than showing every detail. A prime example is time of day. Sure, you can go to lengths to "Show" what time of day it is, but in most cases, it's not worth it. Just Tell the reader it's 2pm and move on.

Obviously, you can also Show too much, i.e. purple prose. Or in an attempt to Show everything, the writer delivers info in weird, convoluted ways. All backstory is delivered by flashback sequence, or a character happens to find something from another character's past and asks them about it. I've also read stories where the author Shows a lot and Tells very little in a way that made it feel like I was observing the characters from a distance. That's a valid stylistic choice, but it's not for everyone. It can feel alienating without having any Telling of the characters' emotions or thoughts.

I think the last thing is, Telling shouldn't be a crutch, and you should never Tell anything that contradicts what is Shown. In other words, if you aren't Showing well, don't use Tell to patch up the holes. And don't Tell me one thing and Show me another. My go-to example of this is the Netflix Avatar show where Aang says to the camera something like "I'm just a goofy kid who likes to play games with my friends" in the most serious tone he can muster, and then we NEVER see him being goofy or playing with his friends. If you're gonna Tell the reader anything, you better back it up. That, to me, is one of the most important times to employ Show Don't Tell, and one so many writers miss. I'd rather an author get that right than any of the other Show vs. Tell moments. Clunky exposition and purple prose I can mostly live with, but please don't Tell me your MC is a great detective and then never Show them solve a single mystery.

 

[mildlyaroused]

vs,

Her face fell.

'Show not tell' isn't an invitation to be prolix.

What can be considered "prolix" is purely relative, and contextual. If you want to get across information implicitly, with more depth, subtext or nuance, you're going to need to spend more than three words. "Her face fell" is a sentence which could have been taken from almost any past-tense novel ever. There's no character, and there's no synergy with existing traits or themes. Simplicity and complexity both have their roles; it's just a matter of picking your moments for each of them.

 

[XerXesXu]

What can be considered "prolix" is purely relative, and contextual. If you want to get across information implicitly, with more depth, subtext or nuance, you're going to need to spend more than three words. "Her face fell" is a sentence which could have been taken from almost any past-tense novel ever. There's no character, and there's no synergy with existing traits or themes. Simplicity and complexity both have their roles; it's just a matter of picking your moments for each of them.

Don't listen. Prolixity's the near worst sin; don't accept excuses for it, they're bogus.

 

[mildlyaroused]

Don't listen. Prolixity's the near worst sin; don't accept excuses for it, they're bogus.

I don't think you quite understood what I wrote (intentionally or not, I don't know). When did I make excuses for prolixity?

What I actually argued is that what constitutes prolixity varies wildly depending on the specific instance.

Your example, "Her face fell", is not even a succinct version of what I wrote. You've actually altered the physical action that "she" is performing. This might work if, for instance, there was no reason for her to stare into space specifically - but sometimes there is. That's when the context of the narrative matters.

Not every protracted sentence is an example of prolixity.

 

[XerXesXu]

Communication 101: Never leave your audience asking, 'What did the blow-hard say?'

 

[mildlyaroused]

Communication 101: Never leave your audience asking, 'What did the blow-hard say?'

Communication 101 is not sidestepping the meat of someone's argument and instead pretending they said something they didn't.

You still haven't said anything about why a longer sentence is automatically prolix. You haven't engaged with what I've said at all! I hope that's intentional and not a genuine failure of comprehension. It would be more worrying for your writing it if were the latter.

 

[XerXesXu]

You said that, by:

'She was disappointed.
v
'I tried to make sense of her expression. It looked almost akin to disappointment.'

You meant:

'The first example tells us that the narrator knows (or is sure that they know) what "she" feels: they might have a keen eye for expressions, or might know this woman well and therefore know how to interpret her actions specifically. The second example is less resolute. The narrator isn't as adept at discerning what she's feeling, but they think they have a read. Both of these first two examples are "telling", but they're still "showing" us things about the narrator by the way in which they're written.'

And by:

'v
I stared at her. Her gaze drifted somewhere over my shoulder, into space. Her brow lowered.'

You meant:

'The third example is showing. It's still first person, but it's not telling us what "she" is feeling. We have to interpret her actions ourselves. A narrator only has limited information in their brain, and a specific perspective on the world. You can still show a whole lot through their voice, because they don't know everything there is to tell. Even if you explain their actions bluntly in narration, the actions and nuances of the world around them are open to their (and therefore our) interpretation.'

Correct? I couldn't remember what you said in detail, so I used cut 'n paste.

Do you use footnotes to explain what you've written, like in Infinite Jest?

I'd just use:

'Her face fell.'
or,
'She frowned past me, avoiding my gaze.'

and skip the footnotes.

I'm not sure Infinite Jest is the best way to go. Have you seen how long a text can get when you lose control?

 

[mildlyaroused]

I'm not sure Infinite Jest is the best way to go. Have you seen how long a text can get when you lose control?

Aha, we are making progress here. Thank you for actually engaging with what I said.

I'm still curious as to why you think the footnotes are part of the text, though. Obviously they wouldn't exist if I put those lines in a novel, because those lines would be part of a greater whole. They would serve purpose not just on their own, but in the context of the story. The effect of each line would be for the reader to figure out. That's what "showing" is.

The footnotes - my explanations - exist as literary analysis. That's what we do here. When someone offers a passage on this forum, then some text analysing it, do you always assume that the text would be included within the narrative itself? Of course not. I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, other than for a laugh. How bizarre.

Now, the two alternative lines you provided are certainly valid. You could include them instead, and they would make sense. But they still achieve different effects to those which I provided - equally valid effects, but different. Depending on the story, one of our lines would work better than the others. They all convey different actions which, given narrative and character context, could mean different things.

So I circle back to my original point: what constitutes prolix depends on the specific use case in a narrative. I never made excuses for prolixity; I merely argued that there is more nuance than simply "long sentence = prolix." As you said, too many long sentences can get out of control. But I also made that point in my very first response to you. I said, "Simplicity and complexity both have their roles; it's just a matter of picking your moments for each of them."

You can have a preference for absolute economy in word choice. I never said your alternative was bad. But you are wrong to say that something is "prolix" by virtue of being long. Sometimes length is required to achieve depth; this is a literary fact. You're also wrong to say that I made excuses for prolixity. If you find those excuses, enlighten me. You misinterpreted the very crux of what I was saying, called me a blow-hard, forgot what I said and had to copy-paste, and assumed that I would include footnotes in my writing because I analysed something on a writing forum!!! You can argue any of these charges if you want to. I will continue my evening under the (educated) assumption that you're being deliberately obtuse. The alternative is worse, considering you're a writer...

 

[XerXesXu]

Aha, we are making progress here. Thank you for actually engaging with what I said.
...
Sometimes length is required to achieve depth; this is a literary fact. You're also wrong to say that I made excuses for prolixity. If you find those excuses, enlighten me. You misinterpreted the very crux of what I was saying, called me a blow-hard, forgot what I said and had to copy-paste, and assumed that I would include footnotes in my writing because I analysed something on a writing forum!!! You can argue any of these charges if you want to. I will continue my evening under the (educated) assumption that you're being deliberately obtuse. The alternative is worse, considering you're a writer...

I was making a serious point in a pointed but light manner. I do believe that overuse of description is the most common writers' fault, it renders writing clunky.

The things humans observe most, learn, and are most familiar with are human behaviour and human facial expressions. We all known the expression of disappointment, anger, contempt etc, those words alone evoke the face. To hint at a facial expression, you need say very little. Elaboration seems wordy. Where something the reader is expected to know little or nothing about more elaboration will be needed. The risk then, is that it becomes a favourite vignette, a darling. It's less painful to apply a verbal prophylactic than to abort a darling.

'Blow-hard ... as they say at dinner parties in Chelsea,"It was jest a jest"'