The time to tell instead of show.

[AG31]

I've encountered another situation where telling instead of showing is a good idea. That is, when it's intentional, in the hands of an accomplished writer, and serves to emphasize the nature of the MC and the story.

I just finished Fatal Gambit by David Lagercrants. Late into it it dawned on me that, except for dialogue, he was telling, not showing. E.g., "Samuel....couldn't fathom what he was looking at," instead of describing what he was looking at and why it was so confusing.

The minimization of showing lends a spare, cerebral quality to the narrative that fits the MC, and it moves it along more quickly than showing could.

 

[StillStunned]

I've encountered another situation where telling instead of showing is a good idea. That is, when it's intentional, in the hands of an accomplished writer, and serves to emphasize the nature of the MC and the story.

I've given some thought to "show" and "tell", and here's something I've realised.

"Show" makes the reader work. They have to make the connections for themselves. Saying a character has a frown on their face forces the reader to wonder why. Saying that pale sunlight is shining weakly off a wet road makes the reader draw their own conclusion that it's been raining. And so on.

And all this effort increases the reader's engagement. It immerses them in the story. It's what sets reading apart from watching television: the reader has to switch on their brain to get the most out of the story, and that makes them part of the story.

Now, you don't always need this. With mysteries, for example, the reader is already engaging their brain to solve the puzzle. In stories with vivid action, too much "show" will interfere with what's happening "on screen", so to speak, and you don't want to distract the reader from the story's purpose.

But otherwise? "Show" is what makes the reader care. It's where the writer's mind and the reader's mind meet.

 

[Britva415]

it dawned on me that, except for dialogue, he was telling, not showing. E.g., "Samuel....couldn't fathom what he was looking at," instead of describing what he was looking at and why it was so confusing.

Maybe every "show versus tell" is a two-sided coin. You've probably seen me before saying that you have to tell in order to show, and you pick and choose what to show versus what to tell.

In this case, you're interpreting the passage as saying instead of showing that Samuel couldn't fathom what he was looking at. Instead of describing a confusing element and letting the reader experience infer that Samuel was probably as confused as they are, instead we just say Samuel was confused and let the reader infer that what he was looking at was confusing and maybe even not-describable.

Each way, one thing is told and its flip side is shown.

I think the main crux of the show-versus-tell "rule" is to just not write in a way which only ever tells anything and doesn't ever show anything. Because that's just boring to read. It doesn't engage the reader's imagination. (This is a page taken from @StillStunned 's post above.)

The secondary crux is that the author can pick and choose what to tell versus what to show. The impression on the reader and the function in the piece is different depending on what it is we let the reader infer. In the case above, I think that showing the confusing nature of whatever it was Samuel was looking at, instead of trying to describe it, is a better way to write it than telling it in order to show Samuel's confusion.

I mean, imagine describing the unfathomable, right? Right?

 

[Living_in_a_lewd_world]

I've encountered another situation where telling instead of showing is a good idea. That is, when it's intentional, in the hands of an accomplished writer, and serves to emphasize the nature of the MC and the story.

I just finished Fatal Gambit by David Lagercrants. Late into it it dawned on me that, except for dialogue, he was telling, not showing. E.g., "Samuel....couldn't fathom what he was looking at," instead of describing what he was looking at and why it was so confusing.

The minimization of showing lends a spare, cerebral quality to the narrative that fits the MC, and it moves it along more quickly than showing could.

I just wanted to add, that the "show" and "tell" in "show don't tell" refers to the story and not directly to any objects in the story. So one could write actually also "show the story, don't tell the story", make the story vivid and impressive. I think, this little snippet is much to few to say if the author "tells" or "shows".

 

[StillStunned]

I just wanted to add, that the "show" and "tell" in "show don't tell" refers to the story and not directly to any objects in the story. So one could write actually also "show the story, don't tell the story". I think, this little snippet is much to few to say if the author "tells" or "shows".

Actually, the difference is generally attributed to Checkov: "Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me moonlight gleaming on broken glass."

The thing is that "show" and "tell" both serve a purpose. "Tell" moves the story along, "show" immerses the reader in the scene. You'd be hard put to write a good story using just the one. The trick is to find the right balance for your story and the purpose and style you're hoping to achieve.

 

[Living_in_a_lewd_world]

Actually, the difference is generally attributed to Checkov: "Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me moonlight gleaming on broken glass."

The thing is that "show" and "tell" both serve a purpose. "Tell" moves the story along, "show" immerses the reader in the scene. You'd be hard put to write a good story using just the one. The trick is to find the right balance for your story and the purpose and style you're hoping to achieve.

I personally think, a story is a series of events and one of the biggest aims of entertainment is to convey emotions. Thus I interpret the phrase “moon is shining” as a metaphor for events/processes in general, and the whole saying as that it is important not to explicitly state events/processes, what does often not trigger certain emotions but rather to find vivid rephrases like “moonlight gleaming on broken glass” that do (hopefully) convey the emotions (you want to convey), but it's more focused on the events/the story (the moon shining) and not on certain objects (the moon) (and probably also not on certain subjects but rather on their actions and their experiences, but I haven't thought through this in detail).

I think for erotic purposes, one could e.g. rephrase the saying as “Don’t tell me a woman is orgasming, show me how ‘she doesn’t smell the sweat running down from every pore as her body twitches faster and faster until a loud cry of pleasure breaks through the night and her body relaxes in deep satisfaction.’ ” or sth. like that. This vivid description of an orgasm basically moves the story along without explicitly stating, what's happening.

But I agree, that there are times, when one just "tells" or describes single events in short to progress the plot, that’s e.g. done, when it is not part of what you actually want to show, but you need the parts to logically progress the story to the next important scene.

Another aspect, that comes to my mind is, that one might use "telling" or describing certain events as a means to "show" something bigger e.g. when one wants to convey to the reader a person having empathy for somebody, one might "show" how the person reacts to another person who “tells” in short about their downfall. It might here not be necessary to explain the downfall in utmost detail, as it might not be the purpose and might even be counterproductive and distractive. The “tell” would here basically be part of the “show”.

I saw actually quite recently an interesting example, where in an paragraph the first part could be understood as rather describing and thus "telling" what was happening and then a change of perspective and "showing" how the protagonist of the story witnesses it:

"The first sign that something was different here was the sight of two nude girls jogging along the side of the road, on the grass. Amanda's eyes grew wide at the sight of, first, their ass cheeks bouncing along, and then, after they passed, their full round breasts swaying and bouncing as they ran on bare feet as sneakers and socks would have broken the dress code. Their faces were red, probably from the exertion of their run but it just as easily could have been from embarrassment. Amanda felt the burn on her cheeks as she turned back and faced the front of the car."

This is from "Blanke Schande College" from Katie Lynch.

Nevertheless the whole paragraph feels to me more like a single strong way of "showing" what happens to Amanda, what surely lies also in the climactic structure of the paragraph => first describing the scene, then showing it from Amanda’s perspective with vivid language, finally showing her emotions with very strong language, especially “burn”.

All in all, I think also that “Show don’t tell” is probably interesting as an writing-advice for beginners to nudge them to write more vivid and not in a dry, purely scientific way (if they do so) but rather inappropriate to analyse texts and stories in detail, as there are so many different and very complex ways to give the readers vivid impressions.

 

[StillStunned]

I personally think, a story is a series of events and one of the biggest aims of entertainment is to convey emotions.

Stories can serve all sorts of purposes. They might inform, moralise, excite, puzzle, titillate, scare. Each of these aims requires a different balance between "show" and "tell". Like I noted above, in a detective story the focus is on the mystery. This requires more "tell" to inform the reader of the facts and clues. Plenty of erotica stories focus on describing sex acts through "tell", because many readers just want to visualise what's happening, without being concerned with the participants' state of mind.

So instead of saying "show, don't tell", instead say "know when to tell and when to show". And that depends on the readers' expectations, genre, your own goals, story length, style, where in the story you are, and probably dozens of other factors.

 

[Duleigh]

Lately there've been several threads that discuss either the first person POV or the advice "show, don't tell."

I've always hated the "Advice" Show, don't tell. That clearly comes from somebody who had never written before
Showing is flat. "X, Y, then Z happened. It scared Marcy" Big deal.

But telling adds spice, it adds flavor, it adds feelings. Marcy's description of X will begin the tension, then as she begins to describe y the terror builds until she reaches z where you can now describe the reaction of her audience to add to the feeling.

Also, if you're writing a murder mystery and you're showing but you want it to remain a mystery you describe "W then X then Z" and you're being unfair to the reader by leaving out Y. (the TV show NCIS is famous for this sin) But if our killer Marcy is describing the scene she can say "W then X then F then Z and that's when I saw the body." You're not lying to the reader, Marcy is and now you have an additional feature to have fun with.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I've always hated the "Advice" Show, don't tell. That clearly comes from somebody who had never written before

Like I said back on page 1 if I recall, "show don't tell" may be more of a mantra that requires a deeper explanation, but considering that it is generally only given as advice to newer writers who have a nasty habit of using walls of exposition (info dumps), in that regard, it's excellent advice. But yes, there is more to it than that, and the mantra itself does sound like "exposition bad, immersion good" which is simply not true.

Showing is flat. "X, Y, then Z happened. It scared Marcy" Big deal.

Showing is flat? I think the issue that you have is that you have things backwards. It seems like your definitions for showing and telling are flawed.

But telling adds spice, it adds flavor, it adds feelings. Marcy's description of X will begin the tension, then as she begins to describe y the terror builds until she reaches z where you can now describe the reaction of her audience to add to the feeling.

Telling adds no spice. Description and immersion adds spice. Telling simply gives information. It seems like you think that description is telling. Description is showing. It puts the reader into the scene and gets their brain active. Telling is passive lets the reader's rest. I think you have it backwards.

Here are examples.

~ Telling

Dominic was a spiteful man.

The reader is told the information and his brain sits back unengaged. This is flat.

~ Showing

Dominic walked in the door and seeing the dog laying on the rug, he gave him a swift boot to the ribs.

The reader observes the villain doing something spiteful and their brain becomes active putting two and two together to deduce, "A-ha, this Dominic fellow is a spiteful jerk." The showing engaged the reader. This is descriptive and the opposite of flat.

 

[Britva415]

I interpret the phrase “moon is shining” as a metaphor for events/processes in general

Always?

Doesn't it depend on the story and context?

Sometimes a moon is just a moon, to paraphrase Freud.

I mean, I'm completely on your side regarding the idea that telling the moon is shining may be done in order to show something else.

Doesn't mean it always is. Sometimes it's just telling, and Chekov's idea is that it would be better to show it instead of tell it. I think it depends on the story and on what it is which should be told and what it is which should be shown. There's no way to just blanket-statement regarding whether a particular brief series of words is showing or telling, or, whether it should have been shown instead of told.