The time to tell instead of show.

[AG31]

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

It's a good thing Thomas Wolfe's editor didn't subscribe to your one-size-fits-all philosophy.

 

[Lifestyle66]

The advice "show, don't tell" has its place in literature, and the experts will come up with the reasoning for it.

In my experience with the Loving Wives crowd and their dichotomy of comments pro and con for every story, and even when engaging some beta-readers or editors, I find that "showing" a reader in many cases doesn't always work.

There are readers who only "see" what they want. Lengthy scenes to build the characters and a situation lose them, because they will inevitably come to the same conclusions. They read and, in their minds, enter a scene with their own assumptions, and anything you "show" them which doesn't build the scene their way only serves to irritate them.

When writing and trying to be subtle by implying things, know your audience. Is your audience looking for a literary masterpiece? There are many readers who, when shown, just won't get the subtle "it". A lengthy description of opulence doesn't show them "wealth", it screams "boring, okay, got it, it's a big house!"

 

[XerXesXu]

It's a good thing Thomas Wolfe's editor didn't subscribe to your one-size-fits-all philosophy.

Don't assume that I know who Thomas Wolfe is, let alone his editor. I don't read fiction.

 

[SimonDoom]

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.

You don't want to contradict, and you also don't want to be redundant. This is why I'm generally opposed to "creative" dialogue tag use. If your dialogue is good enough, you don't need it, and you're being redundant.

For example:

"You're right," he agreed.

The tag "agreed" is redundant and unnecessary. Just say "said." The dialogue is the "showing" part and is sufficient to get the point across. "Agreed" suggests the author is not sufficiently confident of his skill and needs to gild the lily. Showy dialogue tags are a classic case of telling, and usually unnecessary telling. Show with the words of your dialogue, and use tags mainly just to let readers know who is speaking and otherwise fade into the background.

To me, skillful showing is a way that the author communicates trust in and respect for the reader. The author presents a scene to the reader, and lets the reader figure it out. An author who tells too much is one who doesn't trust the reader and feels the need to spoonfeed the story to the reader.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I do believe that overuse of description is the most common writers' fault, it renders writing clunky.

In literature in general, fair point, I don't really agree with it but I will certainly hear the argument as fair. But on lit? Hell no. There's not enough description here. There are so many cold tired and detached scenes that it's a plague.

Most common writer's faults on lit would be three things: 1 ~ cardboard characters that could not develop if the writer even wanted them to, 2 ~ spectacle driven plot (complete disregard for motive) and 3 ~ walls of exposition (info-dumps).

 

[Living_in_a_lewd_world]

The advice "show, don't tell" has its place in literature, and the experts will come up with the reasoning for it.

In my experience with the Loving Wives crowd and their dichotomy of comments pro and con for every story, and even when engaging some beta-readers or editors, I find that "showing" a reader in many cases doesn't always work.

There are readers who only "see" what they want. Lengthy scenes to build the characters and a situation lose them, because they will inevitably come to the same conclusions. They read and, in their minds, enter a scene with their own assumptions, and anything you "show" them which doesn't build the scene their way only serves to irritate them.

When writing and trying to be subtle by implying things, know your audience. Is your audience looking for a literary masterpiece? There are many readers who, when shown, just won't get the subtle "it". A lengthy description of opulence doesn't show them "wealth", it screams "boring, okay, got it, it's a big house!"

"Show don't tell" isn't an advice to build overly complex and long literary works. It is a basic entertainment advice that should help writers to get people engaged with their work. It says nothing about, how many details you should pack into your story. To " 'show'/'write' only as much as necessary" is a fact, that I find also important for good and entertaining writing.

There are authors, who can "show" facts, that are important to their story very efficiently with very few words as the words they use let your imagination explode and others bore you to death by "telling" you every little detail of a remote control, which one of their protagonists accidentially uses.

 

[RetroFan]

Sometimes it can be an advantage to tell and not show to save time and if you have established similar things in previous scenes.

For example in my story 'Sexy Savannah From Number 9' the main character is a 19-year-old slacker named Dino who is in constant conflict with his overbearing father Salvatore, who would definitely fit on the 'Large Ham' page over on TV Tropes. Many scenes feature a Dino action (or lack of action) and his angry father's reaction, which mostly consist of the father shouting at Dino and then punishing his son for his failings. Some of these scenes were worth writing out in full such as Salvatore ordering Dino to mow the lawn, micro-managing the entire process and barking orders at his son like a military man. There were some other scenes such as one where the father catches Dino using 'an internet' (the story is set in the mid-90s) and shouts at him for tying up the phone and accusing him of looking through windows to see naked girls; one where Dino forgets his biology text book for school (his father made him repeat Year 12 after failing the year before) and the father turns up with the book, shouts at and grounds Dino in front of the class before hitting his son over his head with the text book; and another where the father sees Dino perving on pretty neighbour Savannah and berates him in front of the entire street.

However some other scenes while funny weren't really worth writing out in full - such as the father punishing Dino for being late home for dinner by making him sit on the floor and eating with the cat while the rest of of the family ate at the table and another where the father is angered by Dino oversleeping a few minutes on the Saturday and upends the mattress and throws cold water all over Dino to get him up - so I noted them in narrative. The same was true of a previous failing by Dino - borrowing his father's car without permission and the father finding out about it when a speeding fine arrives in the post - and in another scene Dino deliberately unwinds a VCR tape his father is halfway through. The father goes off his head about it, ranting and raving and carrying on in Italian, but as I can't speak Italian myself I note this is what happens.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Don't assume that I know who Thomas Wolfe is, let alone his editor. I don't read fiction.

Journalist, more than a fiction writer. He chronicled a fair chunk of the last half of the twentieth century. I'm surprised you've not at least heard of him. It's a bit like hearing, "Yeah, I know all about art, but who was Andy Warhol again?"

 

[XerXesXu]

Journalist, more than a fiction writer. He chronicled a fair chunk of the last half of the twentieth century. I'm surprised you've not at least heard of him. It's a bit like hearing, "Yeah, I know all about art, but who was Andy Warhol again?"

But the art of communication, orally and in writing, and the recreation of reading are clean different things.

 

[SimonDoom]

Journalist, more than a fiction writer. He chronicled a fair chunk of the last half of the twentieth century. I'm surprised you've not at least heard of him. It's a bit like hearing, "Yeah, I know all about art, but who was Andy Warhol again?"

Well, there's Thomas Wolfe and Tom Wolfe. Thomas Wolfe was a Southern American novelist best known for Look Homeward, Angel. Tom Wolfe was an American pioneer of new journalism in the 60s who went on to write nonfiction books like The Right Stuff and then novels like Bonfire of the Vanities in the 1980s and beyond.

I'm not sure which one AG31 was referring to. Neither had what I would describe as a particularly economical style of writing.

 

[AG31]

Journalist, more than a fiction writer. He chronicled a fair chunk of the last half of the twentieth century. I'm surprised you've not at least heard of him. It's a bit like hearing, "Yeah, I know all about art, but who was Andy Warhol again?"

Different Thomas Wolfe, I think. Mine wrote "You Can't Go Home Again" and "Look Homeward, Angel" and "Of Time and the River" and he died in 1938. I've heard that his output filled a shed and his editor had to beat it into novels.

Don't assume that I know who Thomas Wolfe is, let alone his editor. I don't read fiction.

BUT... I'm really surprised that he isn't part of the "I've heard of him," list of a couple of well educated people. The death of the humanities may be starting earlier than I thought.

 

[AG31]

@ElectricBlue, @XerXesXu

Jude Law and Colin Firth star in the movie 'Genius,' (2016) portraying novelist Thomas Wolfe and renowned book editor Max Perkins.

 

[AG31]

I don't read fiction.

Well, now, that's interesting. Do you not count erotica as fiction? Perhaps you don't read stuff on Lit? (I don't read very much myself.) Perhaps you just like the analysis and conversation??? Please elaborate.

 

[XerXesXu]

Well, now, that's interesting. Do you not count erotica as fiction? Perhaps you don't read stuff on Lit? (I don't read very much myself.) Perhaps you just like the analysis and conversation??? Please elaborate.

Yes.

I do read material which forms the backdrop to conversations in AH.

I'm fascinated by others cognitive processes in the act of creation - seeing things, hearing things, personal agency, the HOW. And motivations - the WHY, in the act of writing or reading, do they want to have sex with a beautiful girl, their mother, a goat. And whether writers feel any POWER to affect the behaviour of others through their writing AND consequently any RESPONSIBILTY for what they write, and how they rationalise this.

All the usual things we chat about.

 

[Lifestyle66]

"Show don't tell" isn't an advice to build overly complex and long literary works. It is a basic entertainment advice that should help writers to get people engaged with their work. It says nothing about, how many details you should pack into your story. To " 'show'/'write' only as much as necessary" is a fact, that I find also important for good and entertaining writing.

There are authors, who can "show" facts, that are important to their story very efficiently with very few words as the words they use let your imagination explode and others bore you to death by "telling" you every little detail of a remote control, which one of their protagonists accidentially uses.

My criticism of the "show, don't tell" expert advice still stands with "know you audience".

It doesn't take 2,000 words of describing a mansion to "show" opulence. It might even be done efficiently with just 20 or 30 words.

But some in your audience might not see or appreciate opulence when reading that same short passage. They might "see" wasteful extravagance. It depends on the reader's personal background and their view of wealth. Some find displays of wealth to be offensive. So, an author trying to project a view of "opulence" can't show that with descriptions of things the wealthy purchased.

KNOW your audience and decide what it is you're really trying to project. Is it extravagant and wasteful wealth? Or is it to develop a character who is unconstrained by financial limits for the story?

 

[AG31]

Yes.

I do read material which forms the backdrop to conversations in AH.

I'm fascinated by others cognitive processes in the act of creation - seeing things, hearing things, personal agency, the HOW. And motivations - the WHY, in the act of writing or reading, do they want to have sex with a beautiful girl, their mother, a goat. And whether writers feel any POWER to affect the behaviour of others through their writing AND consequently any RESPONSIBILTY for what they write, and how they rationalise this.

All the usual things we chat about.

I share a lot of your attitudes toward taking part in AH.

 

[Living_in_a_lewd_world]

My criticism of the "show, don't tell" expert advice still stands with "know you audience".

It doesn't take 2,000 words of describing a mansion to "show" opulence. It might even be done efficiently with just 20 or 30 words.

But some in your audience might not see or appreciate opulence when reading that same short passage. They might "see" wasteful extravagance. It depends on the reader's personal background and their view of wealth. Some find displays of wealth to be offensive. So, an author trying to project a view of "opulence" can't show that with descriptions of things the wealthy purchased.

KNOW your audience and decide what it is you're really trying to project. Is it extravagant and wasteful wealth? Or is it to develop a character who is unconstrained by financial limits for the story?

I agree, that "knowing your audience" might be important for having success, but this doesn't still contradict in my view the importance of the "show don't tell" aspect.
You might use different words and stylistic devices to "show" e.g. wealth to different audiences and use also different words and stylistic devices depending on the messages, you want to convey, different relations you want to show..., but one will probably not just write as introduction of a main protagonist "Jack", who is wealthy and extravagant:

• Jack is wealthy and extravagant.

without further putting details to this, what would be in my eyes pure "telling" and would also be rather kind of boring. One would rather write something like:

• "Oh yes, I take this Ferrari, the Lamborghini, I bought last week was way too slow." said Jack.

or:

• Jack was sad. He had just used his last 100 Dollar bill to light his cigarette. He would have to go to the bank the next day to get another bundle of bills.

or:

• Jack was undecided. Should he buy the Rolex or the Festina. Suddenly, he had an idea: "Hmm... Mrs., how much is it to buy the whole shop?"

All three examples are ways to "show" that Jack is wealthy and extravagant instead of purely telling it. But I must confess, that especially in the last example there is an "know your audience" issue, as I had actually even to google, another example for an extravagant watch different from the Rolex, so not everybody might even know, what a Festina is.

 

[AG31]

KNOW your audience and decide what it is you're really trying to project.

How do you get to know your audience???? As is evidenced by numerous posts here it is really, really hard to get feedback from your audience.

 

[Lifestyle66]

I agree, that "knowing your audience" might be important for having success, but this doesn't still contradict in my view the importance of the "show don't tell" aspect.
You might use different words and stylistic devices to "show" e.g. wealth to different audiences and use also different words and stylistic devices depending on the messages, you want to convey, different relations you want to show..., but one will probably not just write as introduction of a main protagonist "Jack", who is wealthy and extravagant:

• Jack is wealthy and extravagant.

without further putting details to this, what would be in my eyes pure "telling" and would also be rather kind of boring. One would rather write something like:

• "Oh yes, I take this Ferrari, the Lamborghini, I bought last week was way too slow." said Jack.

or:

• Jack was sad. He had just used his last 100 Dollar bill to light his cigarette. He would have to go to the bank the next day to get another bundle of bills.

or:

• Jack was undecided. Should he buy the Rolex or the Festina. Suddenly, he had an idea: "Hmm... Mrs., how much is it to buy the whole shop?"

All three examples are ways to "show" that Jack is wealthy and extravagant instead of purely telling it. But I must confess, that especially in the last example there is an "know your audience" issue, as I had actually even to google, another example for an extravagant watch different from the Rolex, so not everybody might even know, what a Festina is.

Very good, ... if your audience appreciates such ostentatious examples of wealth. And if you're trying to write a literary masterpiece to appeal to the elites, that's the way to do it.

But would that be the audience you're trying to capture in a Literotica story? Maybe. It depends on the story line. In the case of a Burn-the-bitch story, that might make a good show for her lover's wealth. If you're trying to show a great disparity between economic levels, the "show" of wealth is a good idea. But if you're trying to tell a story of something like a sex party among relative peers, then it may be a waste of time or even counter productive.

 

[Living_in_a_lewd_world]

Very good, ... if your audience appreciates such ostentatious examples of wealth. And if you're trying to write a literary masterpiece to appeal to the elites, that's the way to do it.

But would that be the audience you're trying to capture in a Literotica story? Maybe. It depends on the story line. In the case of a Burn-the-bitch story, that might make a good show for her lover's wealth. If you're trying to show a great disparity between economic levels, the "show" of wealth is a good idea. But if you're trying to tell a story of something like a sex party among relative peers, then it may be a waste of time or even counter productive.

I just started to read one or two of your stories and for what you seem to argue against "show don't tell", you use it a lot yourself. The stories I read from you started all with direct action which defines your protagonists, not binding the readers on the nose, what they have to think about them with explicit words.

I didn't read much further, but that doesn't mean, that I don't appreciate your writing style. If I were interested in the "Loving Wife"-theme, I probably would read what you write, as it felt engaging. It's just not my personal kink. I'm more interested in "exhibitionism"/"nudism"-centered stories.

 

[Living_in_a_lewd_world]

How do you get to know your audience???? As is evidenced by numerous posts here it is really, really hard to get feedback from your audience.

Just look at the author's story page and you see, that their stories have a quite high comments/readers-ratio, at least compared to many stories I have seen before. It may depend on the categories one uses. The author writes lots in 'loving wifes', what might be a "topic", where people rather "like to rant" in general.

But I found the writing style also very engaging. It dragged me into the story quite quick. So this might also be a source for the high feedback ratio.

 

[Lifestyle66]

How do you get to know your audience???? As is evidenced by numerous posts here it is really, really hard to get feedback from your audience.

I've found that I can't write a story which EVERYONE would LOVE.

There are diverging tastes among the readers when you look at the total pool of potential readers for an audience. When I choose a story plot, I'm writing to appeal to that subset of readers who might appreciate the story and the ending. The amount of detail I write to "show" things then depends on that audience I want.

I wrote one of the "Lifestyle..." chapters, and I asked for a review from another author. The reviewer came back with saying the first half of the story wasn't needed, and the second half was just like mashing a Ken & Barbie doll together. In my defense, the first half of that story was to "show" how such parties come together and the dynamics between the participants. And "Yes", then without that setup, the remainder is like mashing dolls together. So, showing that lifestyle in the making went over the head of that reader. That reader/reviewer was not the target audience, and was not analyzing it for a literary review, but providing a plot and content feedback.

Just look at the author's story page and you see, that their stories have a quite high comments/readers-ratio, at least compared to many stories I have seen before. It may depend on the categories one uses. The author writes lots in 'loving wifes', what might be a "topic", where people rather "like to rant" in general.

But I found the writing style also very engaging. It dragged me into the story quite quick. So this might also be a source for the high feedback ratio.

I don't argue against "show", but rather suggest there are times when showing may only serve to alienate some in the audience.

In my story "Aftermath, Just Loving You," if I went to lengths to "show" her abduction and rape, it would be more an Erotic Horror story. And that might appeal to a small subset of readers. I allowed the victim to "tell" her POV of the incident a year after the fact. In my story, I skip over the actual abduction without showing it to build the conflict between the husband and wife's POVs.
EDIT: The story is about the "aftermath" and the divergence in their relationship due to that incident. Showing the incident isn't needed, as long as I can get across how it has changed her, then I SHOW how he's disgusted by those changes.

 

[Duleigh]

Show vs tell can be all the difference between erotica and smut.

 

[AG31]

Show vs tell can be all the difference between erotica and smut.

Excellent point.

 

[AG31]

It dawned on me that if you write in first person you want to capture a voice. Most people (perhaps with the exception of AH members) don't think in well turned phrases.

This doesn't exactly address the OP, as it's not about showing vs telling, but I was recently struck by the way James Lee Burke makes us believe that Vietnam Vet/Law officer Dave Robicheaux is splendid poet. Just sayin'.