"Show, Don’t Tell" and Other Myths About Writing

[lydamorehouse]

Everyone always harps on nascent writers to “show, don’t tell” and there was a time I held this adage close to my heart. I still hold it, but now it’s at a more critical arm’s length distance. Thing is, in science fiction (and in any writing, really,) there are moments when it’s okay to just tell.

Here’s a piece from my own writing (from Twelve Traditions, published in the May 1999 issue of SF AGE): “The woo-woo ladies started their morning ritual on Sasha Danchenko's front lawn. Pouring himself a cup of strong-smelling Columbian coffee, he leaned on the porch rail to watch. Sasha waved, friendly-like, but they ignored him as usual. Fishing expensive Earth crystals from silken pouches, the ladies laid rocks around their feet. Each woman formed a stone circle which met in the middle making a kind of infinity symbol. Like the rocks, Sasha's lawn was a symbol--a symbol of resistance or recovery perhaps."

"He could find out for sure, he supposed, but he never bothered to ask. When they first started the ritual, he'd made the mistake of inviting them inside for a spot of tea or coffee. No caffeine; caffeine, they'd admonished, was a gateway drug. Apparently, a heroin addict could get the jones just from a nice hot sip of espresso. Sasha sniffed, rubbed his palm under his nose, and took a deep swallow of his morning coffee."..."He wondered, as he always did, which one of the ladies used to be into horse. Secretly, he hoped it was Toiya. The tattoos made him figure she liked the needle, but he'd never gotten close enough to look for scars. The other one looked so rosy-cheeked and healthy, maybe even a bit too plump--like she'd traded a desire for junk for a desire for sweets. Of course, Sasha knew this planet wouldn't let you overeat either; they had twelve steps for everything on Alpha Three, or, as it was called out in the system, the "Home of the Friends of Bill W."

There’s very little showing there. In fact, whole thing is telling.

I remember when I wrote this – what would become my first professional sale – feeling very freed from the need to conceptualize everything in terms of some kind of visual catalogue (how I thought “showing” worked at the time,) because Eleanor Arnason, who was in my writing group at the time, told me I didn’t have to. She said that it was okay, even necessary, sometimes to just tell. Especially when you have to convey a lot of science fictional information. Obviously, you don’t want to info dump, but in SF/F information is our lifeblood. You’ve got to get it in there somehow.

What you don’t to do, of course, is do a lot of “telling” when it comes to characters – particularly their emotional states. “He hated women,” for instance would be better conveyed in a scene or two – or, if stylistically you want to just come out and say it, it’s still wise to have things like that backed up with a scene or two. Otherwise the reader only has the authors word on it. That's where stories can fail, IMHO.

Comments

[mswyrr]

Oooh, that is really good. Simple and wise. And I really like your writing in the snippet you quote; will have to seek out your stuff.

Hope you don't mind if I friend you?

[nakeisha.livejournal.com]

Here via metafandom

Finally someone else who shares my view that it isn't always possible, necessarily, a good idea to show all the time. IMHO, a good story needs a balance between showing and telling.

I also often find that it's very difficult to keep to both the rules of 'show don't tell' and 'use few words', as they often contradict one another.

I can never think of good examples when I want them *g*, but for example 'it was a cold day', says, to me as much as 'the wind cut through her, making her fingers feel like icicles. She could see her breath in front of her and was glad that she'd worn her new heavy coat'. What is really gained by the latter? To me, nothing.

I also think that telling can be used, if done carefully and appropriately to convey characters, both their emotions and their looks. To me 'he was a handsome man', is fine, it's all I need. I'd rather have that than a paragraph describing his looks (unless it's essential to the plot), as one person's idea of 'handsome' and another person's often differ.

Also in a tight scene 'he was frightened', will suffice. We don't need to break off and explain his dry mouth, his sweaty palms, his quick breathing all the time. Doing so can often interrupt the flow of the scene and you lose intensity.

So yes, there is most definitely a place for both showing and telling in a story. And I have to also say that sometimes I think showing takes away the imagination and dumbs the reader down. I often prefer stories that tell more than show, because I have a great imagination and I can go to the world the writer wants me to go to on my own, without paragraphs of being 'helped' and shown. Showing is said to enhance the imagination, I sometimes find it does the opposite.

[azdak.livejournal.com]

Here via meta_fandom.

I've always found the glorification of "show don't tell" intensely irritating, but my annoyance reached its peak when I stumbled across an lj entry complaining hat Jane Austen was a bad writer because she kept telling instead of showing. And really, I think that if you are so lacking in discrimination that you think "Sir Walter Elliot, of Kellynch-hall, in Somersetshire, was a man who, for his own amusement, never took up any book but the Baronetage, there he found occupation for an idle hour, and consolation in a distressed one" would be better rephrased as several paragraphs of "After several hours of constant rain, sir Walter was beginning to feel bored. For a while he roamed through the rooms of his extensive property, Kellynch Hall, admiring the fine furniture and noble proprtions of the rooms, but at last the tedium became too great and he decided to read a book..." then you have NO BUSINESS writing fiction (at least not until you've gone out and read a great deal more so that you don't just mindlessly parrot fannish "wisdom"). Like everything in writing, it's not a question of what you do, but how you do it - done well, and appropriately, telling is wonderful (Borges's stories would be unthinkable "shown" rather than "told"); done badly, it sucks (but then so does all badly done writing).

Oops, sorry, this has turned into a bit of a rant, but this issue really pushes a button with me, and I'm so glad to see someone stand up with a dissenting view.

[dknightshade.livejournal.com]

Here via metafandom.

Personally, I think this is like the 'Don't Switch Point of View Within a Scene' rule. Which is to say it's really just a guideline, meant to help out people who are new to writing. I don't think anyone who says that means never tell, only show, just that most people who are new to writing tend to tell too much and this is a reminder for them to rethink it. In my fandom I run across a ton of stories that suffer from telling syndrome. There is definitely meant to be a balance but since most people err on the side of not showing, it's easier to just spout the guideline. It's rare that you run across someone who shows too much when they should be telling (although, that is definitely out there).

I think it comes down to the fact that a skilled author can do anything -- break all the rules. A skilled author can write a great story that's written in second person, mostly telling, and switching points of view in every scene. But the majority of people can't.

I tend to look at most of those sorts of writing suggestions as good things to do unless I have a good reason not to. *shrugs* And if you have a good reason that holds up, I don't think anyone has a write to wield a hammer about it.

But then, seeing the comment above about Jane Austen boggles the mind, so maybe I just haven't met the hammer wielding crowd.

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

I agree. I've always taken the 'show, don't tell' rule to mean 'show the important bits, unless there's a good stylistic or plot reason not to; tell the rest.' I mean, it's impossible to show everything. Fiction is all about fooling people into imagining verisimilitude. Showing everything would be counter-productive.

But then, most rules are sweeping generalisations ;)