When to show, when to tell

[sammyboy777]

"Don't tell the reader what's going on, show them it. Good writers ALWAYS show"

No this is wrong.

Good writers are constantly balancing between three things in terms of information giving: showing, telling, and ignoring. Many critiquers will believe showing is the only, and best way to give information in the book. However, showing the reader something, rather than telling is often less effective in some cases.

Showing takes the most amount of space and gives away the least amount of information. The common misconception: because you have more lines and more description=amazing. Most critiquers only look at the words on the page, and thus many writers have been led astray with "show, show show"

So when do you ignore,show or tell? Well for starters, try and see how important this event is and how much it weighs into the story. Is it something mundane, or regular activity that you'd assume all humans do? Does this greatly affect the reader emotional involvement, or make him more interested? If it's not particulary important AND the reader already expects said event to happen- ignore it. Simply don't write it out. For example, we all know all humans go to the bathroom every day(or should be). Have you read many books where the writer describes how the character poops?(unless it was related to some event eg:taking wrong pills). No, because the reader already expects that out of the character and it does not keep, or give any action to the story.

Telling vs. Showing. So when do you show, and when do you tell? Again, telling information is the easiest way of giving information while taking the least amount of lines. Showing takes a substanial amount of lines in a book, and while it does keep the action, at times it is simply filler. For example: Sue has a birthday party planned this weekend for a friend, John let's say.

To show how sue got John's birthday party it'd be like this: Sue sauntered off to the store in search of the needed materials for John's birthday party. Cart ready in hand, she began to sail across the aisles looking through products, occasionally picking up some fruit on the way. Minutes into her hunt, she spotted a beautiful red cherry cake- it was beautifully glazed...ETC.

Now to tell it'd be like this: Sue had left early today in search of John's birthday bash materials. An hour later, she came out with a beautiful cherry cake, several party assesories and 2 batches of cupcakes among other things.

See this? You conveyed the action, and the information in two sentences. If you had SHOWN an hour of Sue's mundane search, the reader would had quickly dropped the book down.

Think of it in a movie scene. The director doesn't show the main character sleeping for 8 hours does he? He simply lies on bed, the lights dim, and then suddenly it's morning. Your given the idea and information already, so why enlongate it?

As a last note though, in action scenes or any significant important event- always show it.

What would sound better, if this was the final battle some hero had to face?

Tell: John quickly defeated the villian after what seemed like a futile atempt

Show: John quickly swerved to the left in an act of instinct- he knew Lex was going to fire. He proceeded, knife in hand to stab Lex in quick sucession but to no avail... ETC..

Well I hope I cleared up some misconceptions some people had. It seems to come up alot in the writing forums I've been to. Ps: Ignore spelling mistakes.

[Skye Thomnson]

You're completely misunderstanding what it means when people say "Show, don't tell."

It doesn't mean "display all the action, don't summarize." It means that implication is often stronger than statement. For example:

Telling:
Charles handed the teddy bear to Alice. She loved it instantly, as soon as she saw it.

Showing:
Charles handed the teddy bear to Alice. As soon as she saw it, she smiled and hugged it to her chest.

The second example is more effective: It communicates the same emotion, and at the same time shows the reader what's happening, instead of just flatly telling you the emotion in the scene. By showing the action in such a way that it implies the emotional content, you can put more information in roughly the same amount of space.

There's more ways to apply the same principle, but that ought to be enough for now.

[Imitty]

Skye Thomnson

You're completely misunderstanding what it means when people say "Show, don't tell."

It doesn't mean "display all the action, don't summarize." It means that implication is often stronger than statement. For example:

Telling:
Charles handed the teddy bear to Alice. She loved it instantly, as soon as she saw it.

Showing:
Charles handed the teddy bear to Alice. As soon as she saw it, she smiled and hugged it to her chest.

The second example is more effective: It communicates the same emotion, and at the same time shows the reader what's happening, instead of just flatly telling you the emotion in the scene. By showing the action in such a way that it implies the emotional content, you can put more information in roughly the same amount of space.

There's more ways to apply the same principle, but that ought to be enough for now.

Yep yep.


^^ sammyboy, your point is a little unnecessary. I think everyone knows that when you're telling a story, there are details you don't show or tell because they aren't relevant to anything. Otherwise you could never work out where a story really started or ended, and you'd find yourself trying to write the whole history and future history of the universe your story is set in. I probably don't have to point out to you that this is not a very common predicament.

[DarknessofHeavenandDreams]

Its up to you and honestly, good authors do both. Read some Terry Pratchett.

[Jaiden`]

Quote:

See this? You conveyed the action, and the information in two sentences. If you had SHOWN an hour of Sue's mundane search, the reader would had quickly dropped the book down.

You seem to be rallying more for telling than showing. Mundane details can be condensed, but if Sue's hunt for the cake shows the reader something about Sue, advances the plot, or is otherwise necessary, then her sailing through the aisles, one foot gleefully on the bottom rung under the cart while she pushes off with the other, will only enhance the story. Say John doesn't even like the kind of cake she bought. Her buying the cake is shown to the reader, John's reaction ["I don't like that kind"] is shown to the reader, and you have a bit of a conflict, because Sue is going to feel disappointed that she went through all that trouble to get this cake and now he doesn't want it. And the reader will see her disappointment. They might even identify with her disappointment, because hell, haven't we all at one point bought something someone hasn't liked after we took so long to find the perfect item?

If the whole story is titled "Sue Hunts For A Cake" then showing Sue hunting for the cake is probably your best bet in engaging the reader. The reader will feel slighted if you don't show Sue hunting for this cake.

Quote:

Showing takes the most amount of space and gives away the least amount of information.

Which requires the reader to interpret the character's actions, which makes, shock of all shocks, for an active reading experience.

Don't treat your readers like lazy slobs, or you'll pay for your condescension by not being read.

[Zucchera]

I agree with Jaiden. When you show, I connect more to a story than when I read telling. I'd much rather read a scene where I can see what's going on than a scene where I only know what's going on.

[Proud_Bunny]

sammyboy777

"Don't tell the reader what's going on, show them it. Good writers ALWAYS show"

No this is wrong.

Good writers are constantly balancing between three things in terms of information giving: showing, telling, and ignoring. Many critiquers will believe showing is the only, and best way to give information in the book. However, showing the reader something, rather than telling is often less effective in some cases.

Showing takes the most amount of space and gives away the least amount of information. The common misconception: because you have more lines and more description=amazing. Most critiquers only look at the words on the page, and thus many writers have been led astray with "show, show show"

So when do you ignore,show or tell? Well for starters, try and see how important this event is and how much it weighs into the story. Is it something mundane, or regular activity that you'd assume all humans do? Does this greatly affect the reader emotional involvement, or make him more interested? If it's not particulary important AND the reader already expects said event to happen- ignore it. Simply don't write it out. For example, we all know all humans go to the bathroom every day(or should be). Have you read many books where the writer describes how the character poops?(unless it was related to some event eg:taking wrong pills). No, because the reader already expects that out of the character and it does not keep, or give any action to the story.

Telling vs. Showing. So when do you show, and when do you tell? Again, telling information is the easiest way of giving information while taking the least amount of lines. Showing takes a substanial amount of lines in a book, and while it does keep the action, at times it is simply filler. For example: Sue has a birthday party planned this weekend for a friend, John let's say.

To show how sue got John's birthday party it'd be like this: Sue sauntered off to the store in search of the needed materials for John's birthday party. Cart ready in hand, she began to sail across the aisles looking through products, occasionally picking up some fruit on the way. Minutes into her hunt, she spotted a beautiful red cherry cake- it was beautifully glazed...ETC.

Now to tell it'd be like this: Sue had left early today in search of John's birthday bash materials. An hour later, she came out with a beautiful cherry cake, several party assesories and 2 batches of cupcakes among other things.

See this? You conveyed the action, and the information in two sentences. If you had SHOWN an hour of Sue's mundane search, the reader would had quickly dropped the book down.

Think of it in a movie scene. The director doesn't show the main character sleeping for 8 hours does he? He simply lies on bed, the lights dim, and then suddenly it's morning. Your given the idea and information already, so why enlongate it?

As a last note though, in action scenes or any significant important event- always show it.

What would sound better, if this was the final battle some hero had to face?

Tell: John quickly defeated the villian after what seemed like a futile atempt

Show: John quickly swerved to the left in an act of instinct- he knew Lex was going to fire. He proceeded, knife in hand to stab Lex in quick sucession but to no avail... ETC..

Well I hope I cleared up some misconceptions some people had. It seems to come up alot in the writing forums I've been to. Ps: Ignore spelling mistakes.

YEP!!!

[[-Gamma-]]

sammyboy777

To show how sue got John's birthday party it'd be like this: Sue sauntered off to the store in search of the needed materials for John's birthday party. Cart ready in hand, she began to sail across the aisles looking through products, occasionally picking up some fruit on the way. Minutes into her hunt, she spotted a beautiful red cherry cake- it was beautifully glazed...ETC.

Now to tell it'd be like this: Sue had left early today in search of John's birthday bash materials. An hour later, she came out with a beautiful cherry cake, several party assesories and 2 batches of cupcakes among other things.

See this? You conveyed the action, and the information in two sentences. If you had SHOWN an hour of Sue's mundane search, the reader would had quickly dropped the book down.

I think you got the wrong idea. What you seem to be discussing is about being descriptive or not. In the first example, you are "telling" that she sailed across the aisles, etc. In the second example you are telling she went in and out with the cake. You are, however, being descriptive in the first example, and not being descriptive in the second one.

It does not matter if you are descriptive or not. It all depends in your writing style, and as Jaiden said, the context and goals.



However, when it comes to showing and telling, we are usually referring to emotions. It will never be the same to 'tell' "Amelia sat next to Marcus with sadness in her face" than to 'show' "Amelia sat in silence next to Marcus. He said a joke, expecting to hear her laughing, but was instead greeted with a forced glimpse of an usually beautiful smile."

Now, I know those are bad examples, but you might get the idea. Even though the second example is longer, it conveys a greater emotion and it makes the reader feel "there". The difference between showing and telling is NOT about being descriptive or not. It is about "showing" the sadness or "telling" she is sad.

It is usually better to omit information if it is not relevant to your story, but that does not mean you have to be descriptive with everything you are writting. Being descriptive and showing vs. telling are completely different subjects.

[oOllamaOo]

I'm having trouble with showing things regarding the main character, while writing in the first person. How could I do this without it sounding awkward?

-inexperienced writer failing at nanowrimo-

[The Fringe Observer]

Quote:

To show how sue got John's birthday party it'd be like this: Sue sauntered off to the store in search of the needed materials for John's birthday party. Cart ready in hand, she began to sail across the aisles looking through products, occasionally picking up some fruit on the way. Minutes into her hunt, she spotted a beautiful red cherry cake- it was beautifully glazed...ETC.

Now to tell it'd be like this: Sue had left early today in search of John's birthday bash materials. An hour later, she came out with a beautiful cherry cake, several party assesories and 2 batches of cupcakes among other things.

See this? You conveyed the action, and the information in two sentences. If you had SHOWN an hour of Sue's mundane search, the reader would had quickly dropped the book down.

Think of it in a movie scene. The director doesn't show the main character sleeping for 8 hours does he? He simply lies on bed, the lights dim, and then suddenly it's morning. Your given the idea and information already, so why enlongate it?

I enjoy stories that are more showing than telling. I like the extra bits of info, as it helps me create a picture of the character, the setting, and other stuff. Those 'lines [...] of filler' can be important to how the character acts, to the plot, the setting, etc.

Not all the time. A book is not the same as a movie scene, and it can't be treated as such. Hur dur, I know, but it needs to be said. The movie scene approach is understandable in certain situations, like sleeping, but if there's something there that can be used to show or portray a character, helps portray the emotions, then write it out.

Unless it doesn't belong, then ignore it or omit it.

It all depends on your style, though. >>

[[-Gamma-]]

oOllamaOo

I'm having trouble with showing things regarding the main character, while writing in the first person. How could I do this without it sounding awkward?

-inexperienced writer failing at nanowrimo-

When you write in first person, you can usually get away with "telling" instead of "showing". The difference between telling in first person and telling in third person is that in third person the narrator (you) knows "everything" that happens and what you tell is considered the "truth". If you say "Robert was sad" is because Robert was sad.

In first person that is not the case.

In first person, the narrator is the same person as the main character and what "you" tell is restricted by what the character knows. Your character could say "Bob was mad at me, I knew it for sure" and that is how your character feels it. It could be that Bob was really mad at them or that he wasn't.

You don't have to "show" every scene in first person. You can, however, still show the scenes like "I watched my brother jump up and down the garden with his most recent acquisition between his hands, only stopping to catch his breath before showing it to my father."

If it sounds akward, it might be because it has to be "told" rather than "shown".

[oOllamaOo]

[-Gamma-]

oOllamaOo

I'm having trouble with showing things regarding the main character, while writing in the first person. How could I do this without it sounding awkward?

-inexperienced writer failing at nanowrimo-

When you write in first person, you can usually get away with "telling" instead of "showing". The difference between telling in first person and telling in third person is that in third person the narrator (you) knows "everything" that happens and what you tell is considered the "truth". If you say "Robert was sad" is because Robert was sad.

In first person that is not the case.

In first person, the narrator is the same person as the main character and what "you" tell is restricted by what the character knows. Your character could say "Bob was mad at me, I knew it for sure" and that is how your character feels it. It could be that Bob was really mad at them or that he wasn't.

You don't have to "show" every scene in first person. You can, however, still show the scenes like "I watched my brother jump up and down the garden with his most recent acquisition between his hands, only stopping to catch his breath before showing it to my father."

If it sounds akward, it might be because it has to be "told" rather than "shown".

The words I want are out of reach, but they've never been so loud...


Okay (:

It just feels weird telling everything, because I'm mainly working on character introduction at the moment so mostly everything involves her.
I don't usually work in first person, but for this story I had to, so I'm used to showing a lot of things in my writing.

Thanks for your help (:



Hardcore Donators Gift Giving
G: 33
R: 29 <33333
Wishlist

[[-Gamma-]]

oOllamaOo

The words I want are out of reach, but they've never been so loud...


Okay (:

It just feels weird telling everything, because I'm mainly working on character introduction at the moment so mostly everything involves her.
I don't usually work in first person, but for this story I had to, so I'm used to showing a lot of things in my writing.

Thanks for your help (:



Hardcore Donators Gift Giving
G: 33
R: 29 <33333
Wishlist

Oh, do not worry then. It might feel weird at first, but it's okay.
It can be both ways:
"I ran down the stairs with a grin on my face" to show extreme hapiness
or
"I was shocked when I heard the news" to show, well, shock.

You usually describe it if it's something "big" and if the character was conscious of their behavior. It's still not the same to describe a really big grin than to tell the character was "excited".

And you're welcome blaugh

[Desi the fuzzy fluffhead]

I think it really depends on the importance of the scene. ( Sorry if someone's already said this, didn't read it all.)

When first introducing one very important character I went into the description like:

Quote:

He opened his lips a little and turned them down at the corners, slightly widening his eyes. It was the most innocent look I've ever seen.

Quote:

"But what you mean?"

Somewhere else I might have simply said:

Quote:

He gave me the most innocent look I've ever seen.
"But what do you mean?"

The first one has more weight, but if I were to describe every character's expression like the first description it would get old fast.

So, I agree with you, there needs to be a balance.

@Gamma.
What kind of character do you have?
My first person character is a detective so he notices somethings that others don't and he's more aware of how he is in general.

Your character doesn't have to explain everything he says. He can say something angrily with out saying why.

Comparison is a great tool. Your MC can show why or how he doesn't look like another character. Can't be used a whole lot but it's still a great tool.

[[-Gamma-]]

Desi the fuzzy fluffhead

I think it really depends on the importance of the scene. ( Sorry if someone's already said this, didn't read it all.)

When first introducing one very important character I went into the description like:

Quote:

He opened his lips a little and turned them down at the corners, slightly widening his eyes. It was the most innocent look I've ever seen.

Quote:

"But what you mean?"

Somewhere else I might have simply said:

Quote:

He gave me the most innocent look I've ever seen.
"But what do you mean?"

The first one has more weight, but if I were to describe every character's expression like the first description it would get old fast.

So, I agree with you, there needs to be a balance.

@Gamma.
What kind of character do you have?
My first person character is a detective so he notices somethings that others don't and he's more aware of how he is in general.

Your character doesn't have to explain everything he says. He can say something angrily with out saying why.

Comparison is a great tool. Your MC can show why or how he doesn't look like another character. Can't be used a whole lot but it's still a great tool.

Yes, I completely agree with you. It depends on the importance of the scene.

My last character was a young woman/teenager trying to find her place in a "new world". She was definately not completely aware of her behavior, so it would not include plenty of detailed scenes.

It's written in third person though. If I had to write it in first person I think I would focus in telling more than showing, but that's because the whole story would be about how she perceive the world around her.