Odd, don't you think, that my kids never said, "Mommy, show me a story." Tell me. Read me. But never show me. "...but Abbie Emmons would disagree and shows you how to show interiority." How is that done with no telling? "John caught his wife and Henry in bed and vomited on Cheryl's new duvet." Unless we are TOLD that Henry is their Dachs…
Odd, don't you think, that my kids never said, "Mommy, show me a story." Tell me. Read me. But never show me. "...but Abbie Emmons would disagree and shows you how to show interiority." How is that done with no telling? "John caught his wife and Henry in bed and vomited on Cheryl's new duvet." Unless we are TOLD that Henry is their Dachshund puppy and that John has the flu and that Cheryl is the name of their daughter-in-law to be, we might think the wife's name is Cheryl, and is being unfaithful with a guy named Henry instead of wrapping the duvet in wedding paper as a wedding present.
As for noir, "Billy pulled out his (insert picture of gun) and it (picture of gun firing) into Cheryl 's (insert picture of human heart). She (insert picture of a woman lying down with the word LAST issuing from her mouth.) Billy (insert picture of a man running) to (insert picture of a street sign.)
That's how I knew the rule was ridiculous when I was told about the RULE. To "set up the scene" you have to tell information; the art is in the ability to make the scene believable. We've come a long way from pictographs. We have an alphabet that we can combine and arrange to deliver information quickly and clearly. Should we describe feeling through TELLING about actions? "Cheryl laid on the sofa and cried." Why? Bill left her? Henry died? She was watching a rerun of GWTW? At some point, a writer must explain the action.
Odd, don't you think, that my kids never said, "Mommy, show me a story." Tell me. Read me. But never show me. "...but Abbie Emmons would disagree and shows you how to show interiority." How is that done with no telling? "John caught his wife and Henry in bed and vomited on Cheryl's new duvet." Unless we are TOLD that Henry is their Dachshund puppy and that John has the flu and that Cheryl is the name of their daughter-in-law to be, we might think the wife's name is Cheryl, and is being unfaithful with a guy named Henry instead of wrapping the duvet in wedding paper as a wedding present.
As for noir, "Billy pulled out his (insert picture of gun) and it (picture of gun firing) into Cheryl 's (insert picture of human heart). She (insert picture of a woman lying down with the word LAST issuing from her mouth.) Billy (insert picture of a man running) to (insert picture of a street sign.)
That's how I knew the rule was ridiculous when I was told about the RULE. To "set up the scene" you have to tell information; the art is in the ability to make the scene believable. We've come a long way from pictographs. We have an alphabet that we can combine and arrange to deliver information quickly and clearly. Should we describe feeling through TELLING about actions? "Cheryl laid on the sofa and cried." Why? Bill left her? Henry died? She was watching a rerun of GWTW? At some point, a writer must explain the action.
Those are some good points. It's a rule that raises a lot of ire.