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.
Erudite as ever Thaddeus. I share your hatred of the unbending rule. First person singular plus show don’t tell are straight jackets for the imagination. When I ask a friend how they feel they don’t describe the heaviness of their limbs and the ache of their eyes, the nimbus of fog clouding their thoughts or the energy that has flowed from their body like water. It would be bizarre if they did. They say ‘ I feel tired.’
Beautifully conducted. Anais is one of my biggest influences. This was instructive and a pure pleasure to read. Thank you for making it available, Thaddeus.
I think show don’t tell is still a valid guideline, if not taken too far, so the middle ground you’re recommending makes sense. I remember a passage from an extremely popular novel. It was something like: “The guards wore bullet-proof armor, carried automatic rifles, and had extra ammo packs strapped to their bodies. One even sported a rocket launcher. The message was clear: no entry.” Gee, you really didn’t need to tell me that last bit, when you already showed it. Or how about, “He shrugged, showing his confusion”? The writers of my favorite sci-fi series do that too often, and it’s the one thing about their writing that drives me nuts.
We need to make the reader feel whatever the character is feeling. Rarely will “he felt nervous” or “she was deeply in love” do that. Of course, as you point out, context counts, so if the love or the nervousness isn’t the main experience we want the reader to have, then we can get away with naming those emotions. But if we want the reader to feel it, we need to use different strategies. Some of them might be descriptive and more “telling”: “her love was like an oasis to which she always returned, like a traveler in the desert.” Or we might narrate the feeling of nervousness or being in love in a fresh way. And those different approaches will work for different readers.
Show is Tell, was a very good article.I think writers of my generation learned the 'show don't tell' rule along with passive voice vs. active voice. Famous writers break those rules constantly, but only if they have a style that makes it work. I'm reading a Faulkner novel "Light in August" and it's a good example of how to break some of those rules and still make it work.
“Show don’t tell” is the BANE of my existence as both a writer and reader. 😖
I get told it all the time. I’ve read so many “how-tos”. Tutorials, worksheets, whole books. And so often when I’m reading the “show” example, *I can’t figure out what they’re trying to say*. Meanwhile the ‘innately inferior’ tell version is boring but immediately understandable. I always wish they’d just shiny up the telling rather than making me dissect endless blathering *around* the point.
That concept of “anchor points” - THANK YOU. Once someone has given me an anchor, told me the key point(s), I can usually follow along with the showing. It becomes fun rather than bewildering.
It's a rule I've always thought was very very silly (why is 'His heart beat rapidly' better than 'He felt nervous'?? Honestly!) and I was interested to read your take. I hadn't considered the fact that context matters (to whether its showing or telling) and also how the two work in combo.
The thing I don't like about it is it causes the narrative pace to become extremely uniform. Scenes unfold 'in-scene' in real time because they have to 'show.'
Anyway, I will certainly come back to this essay - thanks also for bringing together that list of links.
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.
Erudite as ever Thaddeus. I share your hatred of the unbending rule. First person singular plus show don’t tell are straight jackets for the imagination. When I ask a friend how they feel they don’t describe the heaviness of their limbs and the ache of their eyes, the nimbus of fog clouding their thoughts or the energy that has flowed from their body like water. It would be bizarre if they did. They say ‘ I feel tired.’
Beautifully conducted. Anais is one of my biggest influences. This was instructive and a pure pleasure to read. Thank you for making it available, Thaddeus.
Very kind. I appreciate that!
I think show don’t tell is still a valid guideline, if not taken too far, so the middle ground you’re recommending makes sense. I remember a passage from an extremely popular novel. It was something like: “The guards wore bullet-proof armor, carried automatic rifles, and had extra ammo packs strapped to their bodies. One even sported a rocket launcher. The message was clear: no entry.” Gee, you really didn’t need to tell me that last bit, when you already showed it. Or how about, “He shrugged, showing his confusion”? The writers of my favorite sci-fi series do that too often, and it’s the one thing about their writing that drives me nuts.
We need to make the reader feel whatever the character is feeling. Rarely will “he felt nervous” or “she was deeply in love” do that. Of course, as you point out, context counts, so if the love or the nervousness isn’t the main experience we want the reader to have, then we can get away with naming those emotions. But if we want the reader to feel it, we need to use different strategies. Some of them might be descriptive and more “telling”: “her love was like an oasis to which she always returned, like a traveler in the desert.” Or we might narrate the feeling of nervousness or being in love in a fresh way. And those different approaches will work for different readers.
On the spot analysis. I agree.
Show is Tell, was a very good article.I think writers of my generation learned the 'show don't tell' rule along with passive voice vs. active voice. Famous writers break those rules constantly, but only if they have a style that makes it work. I'm reading a Faulkner novel "Light in August" and it's a good example of how to break some of those rules and still make it work.
“Show don’t tell” is the BANE of my existence as both a writer and reader. 😖
I get told it all the time. I’ve read so many “how-tos”. Tutorials, worksheets, whole books. And so often when I’m reading the “show” example, *I can’t figure out what they’re trying to say*. Meanwhile the ‘innately inferior’ tell version is boring but immediately understandable. I always wish they’d just shiny up the telling rather than making me dissect endless blathering *around* the point.
That concept of “anchor points” - THANK YOU. Once someone has given me an anchor, told me the key point(s), I can usually follow along with the showing. It becomes fun rather than bewildering.
I will dig into the other pieces you linked to.
Oh very good! Thank you for this, Thaddeus!
It's a rule I've always thought was very very silly (why is 'His heart beat rapidly' better than 'He felt nervous'?? Honestly!) and I was interested to read your take. I hadn't considered the fact that context matters (to whether its showing or telling) and also how the two work in combo.
The thing I don't like about it is it causes the narrative pace to become extremely uniform. Scenes unfold 'in-scene' in real time because they have to 'show.'
Anyway, I will certainly come back to this essay - thanks also for bringing together that list of links.
Thank you for the suggestion!
I've left my personal commentary as notes. But largely I agree with you.
Loved the short story by the way.
Thank you!