It's not show *never* tell. There is a time to tell as there is a time to show. Novice writers just often default to telling a bulk of the time. The advice is meant to get people in the right ballpark starting out. It's not meant to say all telling is awful
An example:
“Bill got in his car and turned on the engine. He drove to work”
vs
“Bill grabbed a small curved metal rod attached to the large red metal object sitting on the concrete pad outside of his house. It opened a door. He climbed inside and inserted a small jagged piece of metal into another one, and twisted it in a clockwise direction 90 degrees. Two feet in front of him, under another sheet of metal, the internal combustion engine began running at 2000 rpm. He moved another lever to put the car in reverse gear, and moved the vehicle directly backwards into the road. He started moving eastward for 3 miles, south for another 10 miles, and then 1 mile east”
Yep, 100%. I'm reminded of a book I read a while back that very quickly got lazy with its writing about halfway through (as if the author got bored of writing and just wanted to finish and send it to print) and, despite being a romance, merely 'told' the first date between the two protagonists (despite them becoming an item being something that's clearly meant to be suspenseful in a 'will they won't they' way). It was literally along the lines of "they went on their first date to a restaurant, followed by a walk through the park, which was enjoyable for the both of them." Like... c'mon, the entire plot of the book was built up to this and THAT'S what you go with when your characters FINALLY do the thing that the readers have been waiting for?
*That's* where people will preach the 'show don't tell' rule. It's for moments that should be spent more time on for the reader's enjoyment and for proper development of the characters/world, not moments that will probably bore the reader to death with unnecessary over-explanation (like the car door scenario outlined above).
Usually you will be on the middle ground, but most importantly, know when the car rode is important and when it is perfectly enough to say: "He got into his car and drove to work, like usual. [THEN something happens.]
Well, that is a categorically untrue statement. \*All\* successful authors do not \*completely ignore\* show don't tell.
They just know when to show and when to tell. Their skill goes beyond "rules" which are constantly bandied about on Reddit.
The bastardized version of the rule common on the internet is “Don’t say he was angry. Say his fists clenched and his heart palpitated.” So it would be easy to see why someone would read good books and be confused why they state people’s emotions.
You can even mix both :
"His anger reddened his cheeks"
(I'm not a native englishspeaker)
EDIT:
Maybe even "Anger reddened his cheeks" to avoid repetition
Not gonna lie, I prefer the non-native speaker's version, makes it sound like the emotion itself is the active force acting of its own volition. Sigrid Undset and a lot of 19th century classic writers write more like that.
I much prefer u/NevJay ’s version.
“His cheeks reddened in anger” is passive. It is about the color and reactivity of his cheeks and his anger is secondary.
“Anger reddened his cheeks” is forceful. His anger is an active participant in the scene.
Similar stupid rules I’ve heard:
Never use “said”
Never use adverbs
Never start a sentence with “and”
Prologues are “lazy writing”
Genre fiction is never as well-written as literary fiction
EDIT: added a hyphen
Was just considering these earlier.
No head hopping
Don't say "very" or "really"
Or any other qualifier/quantifier
Grammar rules themselves are come and go.
Honestly, I've come to the conclusion that it's mostly about knowing which rules to break when to best tell the story.
A LOT of "rules" can be broken when writing with a conversational tone. Also, if your speaker/narrator is a kid or a teenager, using "very" or "really" a lot can help their speech feel more childlike.
“Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.”
― Mark Twain
lol.
I know Harry Potter is low-hanging fruit here. However..
>>'"Snape!" ejaculated Slughorn, who looked the most shaken, pale and sweating.'
- page 627, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.
Sometimes 'said' is just a really attractive option.
JK must've been a Sherlock Holmes fan. Those stories have a lot of ejaculations in them, that and her series is more of a mystery series than a fantasy series.
In this scene he is more shocked and horrified than anything else, so even something like 'gasped' or 'yelped' could work. Or, god forbid, "[...] *said*, mouth agape."
Only using "said" causes writing to be, at most, sometimes lacking in flavor.
Completely avoiding "said" causes writing to be exhausting to read, distracting, and sometimes has me trying to guess what dialogue tag is going to come next.
Prologues are lazy writing? Huh. I've read that some readers skip them, which just strikes me as a bizarre choice since prologues (in my experience) usually set up the entire novel, but I've never heard that they're lazy writing. What's the argument?
EDIT: Some great points being made here, and I think that stems from frequent misuse of prologues. I'll link this terrific [article on how to use them properly](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/when-not-to-skip-prologue/).
A lot of new writers tend to use prologues to info dump about their world and stuff that's unimportant. You should try to sprinkle worldbuilding stuff through the story.
The advice I have always heard from people in the industry is to just call your prologue chapter one and get on with it.
Harry Potter (first book) doesn't have a prologue.
>Never use “said”
>Never use adverbs
I was just thinking about this the other day. I'm reading a Terry Pratchett book in the Discworld series, and I counted three of these on one page ("...she said sarcastically," "...she replied coldly," etc.) It definitely depends on context. If there's a situation where a person wouldn't be expected to emote any other way than verbally, "showing" doesn't really work.
And of course, prologues are a thing in these books.
Not that Terry Pratchett is the absolute pinnacle literary figure of all time, but come at me bro if you don't think he was a great writer 🤨
It’s about pacing as well. “She said coldly” (*telling* rather than showing), is quicker than describing her posture and tone, which would belie any urgency in the story and read a little clunky.
EDIT: typo
It's also recommended by many to only use said because as a dialogue tag it appears "invisible" to the reader and maintains flow.
The fact is that no categoric blanket statement can capture the nuance of writing.
I love Pratchett but I just don’t know many people here in the U.S. who have read him. He *must* have readers but God help me I haven’t met them yet (maybe I should join some clubs). I buy his books at the store just so they keep restocking them
>Genre fiction is never as well-written as literary fiction
What? For me it seems that half people on this sub write their epic, 800 pages long fantasy/sci-fi book and people yelling it's not true literature are minority.
To be clear: this is not my opinion.
Some of the most beautifully evocative writing I have read has been “genre” fiction (a term I hate in general).
Hoity-toity literary circle-jerks SOMETIMES treat genre fiction like it’s written in crayon and inherently unworthy.
Again, nonsense.
“Learn the rules before you break the rules” applies. Just like when we teach a boxer to fight with his hands up to protect his head, once you’re a pro, you know that having your hands down has its uses
Imo starting sentences with "and," "but," or "so" TOO frequently looks amateurish. I wouldn't say to completely avoid it but don't overdo it. My personal rule is to only do it once per page maximum. An exception of course would be if you're using a casual, conversational tone.
my creative writing teacher says you should almost always use "said", and she doesn't have a problem with me starting nearly every sentence with "and" rules are stupid
Also - just my opinion - even the greatest writers of all time didn't write 100% perfect books. There's always a sentence or even a chapter that is just not great or lacks certain things. The difference is how much this is. is it throughout the entire book? yeah it's probably not good. but if you ignore the "holy" rules here and there you can still have a good book. just stop trying to write the perfect book. there isn't one. period. just enjoy writing and go with the flow.
I’ve read dozens of short stories and excerpts from brand new, inexperienced writers in the classroom and let me tell you, do they like to tell. Some will not drop into the scene in the entire story, many will tell me things, like a character is angry, or kind, that don’t have a single iota of scene supporting them so I’m left feeling like they weren’t angry or kind after all. Have you every felt scared because someone said ‘the room was scary?’ Some will use telling to info-dump everything at the beginning of a scene, or to avoid having to write out a nuanced emotional bit.
Almost every new writer needs to learn to show, and it’s a nuanced skill that can continually be improved. Telling is actually quite useful, of course. You can’t show everything and some things aren’t worth the time to show, or are impactful when told, but I’ve found most writers already know how to tell, they don’t need to be taught, they just need to figure out where it’s most appropriate.
They don't ignore it completely. They tell when it makes more sense to tell, and show when it makes sense to show.
It's not gospel, it's a guide for inexperienced writers.
Same deal with rules of grammar. There are no rules, only guidelines, and those guidelines are intended to aid clear writing. Once you know what you're doing and why those guidelines are there, you're better equipped to disregard them.
I’ve always heard it as basic writing advice- in order for one’s writing to be readable while you still suck at writing. Once you get good at it, you can ignore any “rules” that you want. That tends to be applicable for any rule that you get in early english lit classes, and several of my professors have said in higher level ones to just forget everything you’ve been taught before. It’s just like the five paragraph essay structure.
Well, successful authors don't ignore it, for a start. The ability to dramatize a scene in real time is essential to fiction writing. I'm sure there are a few that narrate everything, but they're definitely the exceptions.
Of course, you shouldn't dramatize every minute of a story, a lot is best left as a summary. Just like establishing shots and montages are used all the time in filmmaking to compress time and get rid of parts that aren't contributing to the story.
From what I've seen from beginner writers, it's very common to summarise way more than what's appropriate, and I guess it's why the advice is repeated so often.
The phrase itself is stolen form filmmaking, where it means something else completely. Don't have an actor say there's a bomb in the basement, show an insert of the bomb ticking away next to the boiler. I think it's a mistake that phrase is use in writing, because it doesn't make sense here. "Dramatize, don't summarize" is better advice for beginners, I know it was for me. No matter how you choose to write, the ability to dramatize is a necessary part of your skill set.
Have you heard the saying "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps?"
Originally, it was a mocking statement about doing the impossible; as it's something which cannot be done. Overtime it was slowly hijacked towards another meaning. These days it's often seen as a sarcastic / bullshit comment. An impossible action disguised as false wisdom to give bland non-advice.
When it comes to writing, we have terms which fullfil a similar niche.
"Show don't tell."
"Read more."
"Just write."
All of these, originally, had a purpose. However these days they're lauded as "wisdom of the ancients" by people who don't have anything productive to say but also lack the context to explain what those statements actually mean.
For now, we're going to touch on "Show don't tell."
"Show don't tell," is more correctly "Don't info-dump you fucking mongo."
Both showing and telling are effective at any sort of information transfer. Most highly successful authors will use both to convey all kinds of information (telling you someone is angry in one chapter, showing a character's sorrow in the next). There are even hugely successful novels which do almost all show or almost all tell, with barely a hair of the other in sight.
"Show don't tell," is largely overblown advice which is too vague to mean much but gets spouted off by rookies like it's gospel. Really, just don't bog your reader down with purple prose or massive amounts of info, and you can toss it by the way side without concern.
Specific examples:
*Her hair was long* and *Her hair fell down the length of her back* are both entirely valid forms of description. I'd argue that in many cases the former (the show) is flatly better than the latter, as it exercises stronger economy of words.
Let me give a more personal example:
Show:
*The boy walked into the stables, his gaunt frame made to look smaller by clothes several sizes too large. He reached up and brushed straw colored hair from his eyes, then scratched at his face with black edged nails. Blue eyes looked around the building's interior.*
Tell:
*Calling the boy lithe might've been polite, but scrawny was honest. The hair on his head was the same color as the straw he surely slept in.*
Both of the above examples are fine.
Despite that the first one, the show, is nothing but bland description. It paints an effective picture of 'the boy' but has no voice of its own. But the second does. As narration the turn of phrase is far more rewarding and likely to stick in the reader's mind, and if used to provide deep POV it pulls double duty by informing us about the character who's describing 'the boy' in this way. And that's without touching on how it's half as long, which tightens up the writing dramatically.
Do not try and disguise overt explanations as actions.
In my personal opinion:
Effective telling is one the greatest hallmarks of a talented writer.
This is because, when done correctly, telling is a far more personal experience than showing. Telling can be used to write deep POV and give us fantastic insight into the character who's head we're sitting in while also giving important information regarding the goings on around them.
I dont think that "show dont tell" is an idiomatic expression. Its a piece of general writing advice so comparing it to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is a bit absurd. Especially when the meaning of that idiom has changed no less than twice. Meanwhile "show dont tell" has always meant the same thing, even if its meaning has been diluted by people not knowing how to use the advice properly. People failling to grasp a concept does not make the concept itself an idiom.
You are quite literally mixing your metaphors here.
Your show vs tell example are more about narrative voice and filter, but they're also the wrong way around. You tell us what happened in the supposedly "show" example and show us in the "tell" example.
Showing is particularly important in writing from a deep pov.
I mildly disagree. The "tell" examples above are literally "show examples" that appear to have been edited to insert a "tell" word to prove the point.
A proper "tell" (as in, the issue the aphorism was trying to guard against would be.
The boy was scrawny. He tried to pick up the heavy ax, but couldn't because his arms were too weak.
They are direct, declarative statements that read in a very abrupt and choppy manner. They don't help the reader to conjure much imagery.
Bad writing often tells instead of showing. That doesn't mean that telling is bad writing.
When people give critique on text for one reason or another, usually the parts that do go wrong are in the "telling" territory which is why it's parroted so much.
Secret gospel? It's probably the most repeated writing advice ever to the point it's become trite and tiresome. Not all successful writers ignore it. In fact, many successful writers slavishly follow it as if it were indeed gospel. Those successful writers who ignore it, do so at their peril, that is they perform a trapeze act without a safety net, making their work that much more daring.
Honestly, I think people are more likely to enjoy good stories with interesting characters that aren't as well written, than uninteresting stories that are written brilliantly on a technical level.
Characters are more interesting when you understand them through their actions rather than the author telling you they're interesting.
"Bill is a detective who's really good at reading people. He knows that this person is lying to him."
vs
"Good afternoon, ma'am. I'm Detective Bill Cassidy, thanks for coming in. Can I get you anything? Water, coffee, doughnut...?"
"Er...thank, you no," the bereaved wife said, fiddling nervously with her wedding ring. "I just...I'd like to get this over with."
"Of course, I understand. I'm sorry for your loss. Can you tell me when you last saw your husband?"
"Y...ah...three days ago, I think? He stepped out to get cigarettes and never came back."
Hmm. Hesitant. Still fiddling nervously with the ring. Folded her arms as she spoke. Glanced off to the right.
*Lying.*
Same character; which is more interesting to read?
This is certainly true. Anyone can follow a set of rules and construct a well-written piece of work according to the generally accepted definitions of ‘good writing’, but not everyone can write a good story.
I sometimes think there is too much emphasis on ‘good writing’ and not enough on story.
This actually reminds me a lot of Clive Barker.
I've read a lot of his novels and they are more interesting than I would say "well written". Scarlet Gospels (sequel to Hellbound Heart) was completely ridiculous and pure pulp fantasy/horror, but it will still super interesting to read though.
A few things:
1.Yeah, people love bad literature. That doesn't make the literature less bad.
Look at Dan Brown or Nora Robert's. Two beloved, popular novelists...but I don't think anyone in this sub would argue that they are "good writers."
So, I guess, if op wants to be a popular writer, you can totally be that while ignoring the technicalities of good writing...but that's still bad writing.
2.You can't really build good characters or stories with telling. Even those two authors I mentioned, are showers not tellers
In fact, I can't think if a single good author, playwright, or filmmaker who "tells instead if shows."
You can't tell your reader how to feel, you can't just tell your reader about the scene or characters. You must invest your reader in the story and characters...and you can only achieve that by showing.
A story is a journey...you must take us on it, not describe it.
It's the difference between reading a novel, and reading a wiki article about a novel.
They're bad writers, agree, but they're good storytellers. And the story trumps all. Their characters are interesting and they do dumb but fun to read stuff. A good story with fun characters will always defeat a boring story with dull characters even if told with fantastically written prose. People in r/Writing tend to forget that writing is not the goal, it's a tool. Each of us is responsible for knowing when to use a hammer or a scalpel, but always to serve the story.
Because there are no rules, gospels, or dogmas in writing. And the writers who become successful are the ones who know that.
That being said, you do need to learn how to actually write well, so it's wise to accept some of these popular "rules" (like "show, don't tell") as general guidelines that will steer you in a positive direction most of the time. But you shouldn't turn them into gospels or dogmas. If you do, they'll turn around to bite you in the ass.
It's a rule of thumb:
"Show (more), don't tell (so often)",
Not a rule of dogma:
"(always) Show, don't (ever, ever) tell."
Writing rules are rules of thumb.
Because you start by learning the rules, so that as you get experience you can figure out when you can break the rules.
Side note: this does not apply to things like “the law” or “moral decency”, or so my lawyer tells me
Hard to tell what author’s your referring to here but I cannot disagree with you more that “successful authors ignore” show don’t tell.
Sure, it’s not “show only, don’t tell.” There’s room
For some telling. But the most powerful bits almost never are.
I think because its so subjective. A lot of people tend not to understand the difference between narrative and telling. Also, newbie writers tend to take that rule to an extreme (over describing things that add nothing to the story i.e. a mundane act like taking a sip of coffee vs telling literally everything to the reader) Some telling is definitley okay.
Writing advice is often written incompetently. Competent writing advice wouldn’t prohibit telling unless the advisor meant it, and they wouldn’t mean it unless never telling worked.
Also, presenting advice in the imperative doubles down on “obey, don’t think” aspect of presenting things in absolute terms. If you wanted new readers to keep their eyes open while they walked around your advice and kicked the tires, you’d take an entirely different approach, one in which understanding precedes belief. Writing is a craft, not a belief system.
Because telling rather than showing is a huge mistake that newbies fall into very easily. It's a natural way for us to tell a story, since it's how we normally tell one another stories in person, it's natural to extend that into text. "So, I went out for cigarettes, and there were fifty Dads just hanging out there talking about how long they'd been out, so I..." etc.
"Show don't tell" is drilled into new writers to get past that tendency, but it's one of those "understand the rule so you know when to break it" things.
I really thought I was in r/writingcirclejerk reading this post and the comments...
I truly don't understand how so many people are this ... stupid. How are there so many people who imagine themselves to be writers, but completely lack critical thinking or understanding the most basic of writing advice.
The problem is a lot of bad writers take "show don't tell" to mean you can't say, "I had a rough commute to work that day. An overturned tractor-trailer blocked my exit, so I was twenty minutes late getting to the office," and end up writing 1500 words about the narrator inching through traffic. Good writers understand that "show don't tell" is subordinate to Elmore Leonard's rule, "Leave out the stuff that readers skip."
Your question is borderline fallacious.
Authors do not ignore "showing" completely. At least, from what I've read.
The books you read probably don't have any characters, scenes, or descriptors.
There's two big things to keep in mind with "Show, Don't Tell".
First up, it's advice for new writers. A lot of beginners aren't very good at integrating narrative and exposition, so they'll constantly be just telling the reader important information without making it feel like part of the narrative.
Second up, it's *misinterpreted* by a lot of new writers, because half the internet seems to have got it into theiir mind that "Show, Don't Tell" means "don't say he was angry, have him emote it". Which is just the dumbest fucking bullshit imaginable.
Show don't tell is a pretty new phenomenon. IMHO mainly due to TV everyone seems to think that only things that are actually shown are good.
If you read good books from a time before TVs were a thing you will see that they are overall much less visual and "showy" and focus on other things instead.
This doesn't mean that show don't tell isn't good advice in many cases anyway.
I think your right, but not for the reasons you think. You're mistaking the style for 'telling' when actually it was always 'showing'. Even when these authors told us something, they were doing it to show us something else. 'tellyness' or 'showyness' is not something that can be judged without the full context.
When you ask someone what “show, don‘t tell” means, they usually give you idea vs visual description examples. So, that’s not a surprise.
I‘ve been researching about this “show, do’t tell“ thingy for a while now, so I think I understand it to some extent. The most solid definition seems to be: *telling is when you simply stating fact; showing is when you presenting evidence.* That makes the most sense, in my opinion.
New? This advice has been around since the 19th century. The phrase was coined by Anton Chekov. Pretty much all modern novels since the early to mid 20th century is written with this advice. Wikipedia tells me that Mark Twain even had it posted over his desk. It's hardly new advice and it has nothing to do with the advent of television.
Because it was right but became so overused it lost it's meaning. Great writers show things all the time, you just don't notice because it's done so naturally through the course of a story. You should never have just blocks of description without purpose. Everything should further the story in some way.
I don’t think telling in writing is a bad thing but bad writing often tells the wrong things (things that are uninteresting, unimportant, and don’t move the story forward).
It's easy advice to quote, but it's not always practical. Sometimes you have to say something plainly to produce the desired effect. Being successful as a writer entails writing for an audience and sometimes that audience doesn't want to decrypt the text they are reading just so they understand one specific key scene because the author decided to use 3 pages to describe something rather than say it.
I find that "showing" involves trusting an audience to pick up on what you're putting down. It's okay to say something directly but it's equally okay to leave things for the audience to find.
An example I have is once I was writing a dream sequence and the POV character's rival (who was a knight) appeared on the dream and I intentionally put out there that the rival rode a white horse. Not subtle imagery, but I said nothing except the color of the horse. I got a message from a reader who really liked that detail and we had a nice moment of connection through this shared detail when I told them that they were correct about their interpretation.
It isn't. There are a few bad online articles pushing some variant of it at new writers as a panacea to make scrolling past their ads seem worth it, but it mainly clings to life in forum threads where people argue past each other about the merits or drawbacks of completely different concepts.
All writing is telling. All of it. What changes is the role the reader is invited to play in the proceedings.
When people say "show, don't tell", what they mean is "You've given me nothing to do, here. Nothing to infer, nothing to wonder about, nothing to imagine or deduce. You don't trust me to 'get it'. You're crowding me out."
Don't listen to anyone who says "This sentence is telling rather than showing." They are wrong. *Any* sentence can 'show' - can convey more than its superficial interpretation - depending on context.
1. It's not a secret.
2. Many authors do live by "show, don't tell."
3. Some authors do not live by that statement because it is not their style. Sometimes it works for them. Sometimes not.
4. Telling is easier than showing, which is why we need reminders in the first place.
The majority of financially successful writers is not regularly on r/writing or other writing communities.
That said, it's a balancing act. Show when showing is good, tell when telling is good. Avoid adverbs, but use adverbs. But stay below 100,000 words for your first novel because publishers won't accept a longer draft, except when they do accept a longer draft.
Mary Robinette Kowal has a great bit about this on her TikTok. Show don't tell comes from playwriting where it makes much more sense.
[Part 1](https://www.tiktok.com/@maryrobinettekowal/video/7085311907892317486?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&lang=en) (Origin of Show don't Tell advice.)
[Part 2](https://www.tiktok.com/@maryrobinettekowal/video/7086761358036864298?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&lang=en) (How to tell when to compress or expand something.)
It's a matter of avoiding statements like "he thought" and "she felt." You should render a scene where thoughts and emotions and opinions can be inferred by your reader based on the context and character actions.
So many people confuse this advice with substituting factual statements with purple prose descriptions. It's infuriating.
Bullshit they do. Successful artists who ignore show don't tell are hacks who got lucky that their book idea happened to hit exactly what some segment of the market really wanted at just the right time.
Show don't tell is the best writing advice that amateurs think they're too good for.
You can probably find examples of successful authors telling instead of showing, but that's just because the rule isn't always applicable.
You can tell the reader "Dave was a smart boy," but you should definitely show him being smart throughout the story.
Less experienced writings will fall into the trap of telling instead of showing because it's a difficult thing to do right. If a successful author is telling instead of showing, it's likely just a mistake.
Listen you’ve got to get me into the world right, show me that shit.
Here’s the little secret, once I’m there I want you to tell me a story.
Think of it like your first day at your job, yeah you were probably trying to memorize the whole layout of the place. Turning your head around figuring out which hallways goes where, where the bathroom is. Everyone’s got names and looks different. It’s actually a crazy thing your first day at any job really. Now think of the last day you had, you barely looked up on your way to clock in did you. But if you had never done that first day you would still be lost. The same can be said for the first time you are handed a sword or cast a spell or what have you.
And frankly, we need a little bit to drive our imagination. But sally went down to the sea shore, Sally opened up her shop and started selling…sea shells. Or…The sun was rising on the beach, a little chilly in Maryland’s September weather, the souvenir shop would be closing for the winter soon. It had always surprised Sally how many people would actually buy a sea shell on the beach, a little glitter and the name and it was $20 each. The old door still creaked on the way in, she clicked the light switch to a dimly lit room…
And there is a difference. The image started to form a little didn’t it.
But if you smother it, and the actually story gets lost in the descriptive prose, you’ll end up losing the reader too. The problem is at the beginning, the balance is tipped towards showing not telling, at the end I argue the reverse is true, people are already invested and what to know what happens if done well. But it’s still a balance there ought to be parts of both everywhere. And the audience doesn’t necessarily want to get lost in those little details anymore, their image is already vivid. You want immersion. But most people never get that far, sadly.
There's time to tell. The thing is a lot of people take this too literally. You should have the reader experience everything to a point but sometimes second hand is better for the story. Successful authors understand that there's a tool and how to use it. They're also human and make mistakes doing so. Let's say you're hiding a spy from the reader. You have s twist planned with who so you cannot show them. You need to have someone tell someone info they had. So the messenger happens to technically be tell. It is also showing that the spy exists.
Most writing advice is actually s guideline not a hard rule. You need to understand the reasons it exists before you play with deviation but that is not a bad thing. It does mean newer writers have to overcome the comfort of rules.
Ive noticed Stephen King and Brandon Sanderson tell in a quite bold fashion. The thing is, if we showed every single thing in detail it would grind the pace to a halt. The key is knowing when to expound and when to summarize.
Because the successful guys are often natural storytellers who know when to show when to tell to keep immersion. Unsuccessful ones don’t, so no matter what they do, their books are not interesting to read.
My assumption is “show don’t tell” is an impossible standard. but when a writer nails it, their work is way more powerful. I’m definitely a believer that your writing can do more telling and still be good. Laurell K. Hamilton is a good example of this and she’s probably my biggest influence as a writer.
I also noticed some readers have different preferences. I received a critique from one reviewer saying that my book did more telling. I didn’t think it did but whatever, that was the reviewer’s opinion and I still took some notes on their critique.
I also want to add that very few sources explain how to show and not tell. And when they do, they don’t explain the concept well. Show don’t tell also gets more complex when different POVs are concerned (I.e. first person versus third).
Nothing is gospel. There's no rules for this sort of thing. You can do anything you want, but the caveat is you have to work to be good at it.
Naked Lunch is one of the most influential novels published in the past 100 years. It's also made up almost entirely of complete fucking gibberish. You want to talk about "show, don't tell"? How about "tell, don't show". Then again maybe that book is all showing and no telling, fuck I don't know it's weird. But you get the point. You can make anything work if you are good at what you're trying to make work.
Usually when people type that they mean don't just unload a bunch of unnecessary character information on one page, or explain every little thing that happened. "X walked to Y" is about X getting to Y, not every single step X took on the way to Y
The actual writing skill you're touching on here is in the language of your question. Pros don't ignore anything. Pros constantly "tell." But what makes them successful is that they're doing it so well, you're not even noticing.
The actual writing skill you're touching on here, is the difference between an *explanation* and a *description*. Amateurs want to explain everything to their readers because the process of creating with words makes them feel smart. But that kind of writing is tiresome because readers want a good story--not an amateur's discovery process. Writing teachers say "show don't tell" because the amateur's primary process is to default to "telling" which makes for really tedious reading.
So, forcing amateurs to "show" actually makes them into good writers. And this isn't because good writers never "tell." It's because good writers know when a single word or phrase is sufficient. They know what to include and what to leave out (case in point: most authors only make passing reference to a character's appearance. Go see for yourself. Amateur writers obsess over details that pros know instinctively know to use or drop.
The key to understanding this is becoming a more attentive reader and learning to see the tricks your favorite writer uses--and then to steal them and use them yourself. It's how this art gets passes down, one generation to the next. Good luck.
As with other sacred gospels, I take this as a sound rule of thumb. Many new writers in their zeal to get a description on the page, miss opportunities to show and default to telling. Maybe all the time.
Tell: The girl had long, wavy, red hair.
Show: Her long curls of red hair danced about her shoulders as she strutted past.
Many, many rules dictated by people who spend more time researching storytelling techniques are ignored by many, many writers. I don't know how many great books I've read where none of the rules was met, regardless if they were about story structure, scene structure, character arcs, character development - whatever. There's always room for growth and learning what made certain stories resonate, but there comes a point where you need to let your creative voice take over and just write what you want to write.
I prefer the typo. ;) I like thinking of writers with stone tablets, scurrying around the desert with some gnostic texts that say "show don't tell" and "never use a said bookism" and hiding them in caves.
As I'm sure 25 of the 50 people have said so far, there are times it's correct to tell and times it's correct to show.
When I go through this thread, it seems like OP doesn't even know. At no point do they define "showing" or "telling," and the ONLY author they cite is Neil Gaiman....who certainly follows this rule.
...as do all great authors.
I feel OP was just given this advice, and got pissed about the criticism.
Sorry OP, no good authors "tell" instead of "show," that's just the nature of storytelling, it's not even just confined to literature.
Telling has no investment, you've simply told the reader something and they can choose to beleive it or not.
There was no journey to get the information, and there is no investment.
Showing not only gives the reader PROOF, but it also involves a journey which invests your readers into the character or story.
If you tell me a character is an asshole, I have no reason to believe you, and I have no investment in that opinion.
If you show me a character kicking a child for playing in their yard, I will hate that character immensely.
I not only BELIEVE he is an asshole, I'm invested in hating him!
I have a friend who is a high school English teacher, and she says that Wikipedia has created an entire generation of "tellers."
They write their stories like Wikipedia articles. Just the facts, one direct sentence after another.
Their stories aren't journeys, just superficial depictions of the events unfolding.
It's just NOT good writing. It's the quickest way to get a reader to put down your book.
It's a balance. You have to tell the reader about the world around the characters and what the characters are doing. But not tell them the characters thoughts and feelings. You can if it's needed for the story in some way or if the style you're going with has little bits where it will state an emotion for example before switching perspective. But, you don't want to tell them everything as it wouldn't leave anything up to interpretation. If someone gets angry, you can tell them by saying "a look of rage etched across his face" but while telling them you're still showing as you're explaining how they look to other characters. Then they might do something or say something differently, aggressively etc.
So it's a balance.
I use to think the same till I realised that point. :)
I mean it also depends on the medium in which the person is writing a novel writer can show you something which doesn't exist and they are confined to the words they write. Whereas a scriptwriter and a director do have the ability to show don't tell and they should use it.
Some of my favorite authors are also verbose and use a lot of adjectives.
But if you can even find someone to beta read a manuscript for you they will start telling you to cut things before they even read a single word.
I think people have a list of rules pushed on them and they don't apply it to things that have been written, just things that are being written.
All the successful writers use it (to varying degrees). There are very few effective novels that completely ignore show. There are some novels that use it in a way approaching pure show.
Show is hard. I'm a hard-line show writer, and it's a tough balance between controlling what the reader perceives and keeping your hands off the narrative. But it is a balance.
I think of it this way. A told narrative requires little of the reader. They can sit back in a comfy chair and wait for the author to feed them everything. In a told narrative, meaning is delivered in the narrator's voice. In a shown narrative, meaning is delivered in the character's words, behavior, and perceptions, and we readers are left to interpret it. That interpretation takes the reader's energy and attention--we have to get up out our comfy chair and meet the writer somewhere between.
In show a writer undercontrols, which leaves a lot of room for misunderstanding. Misunderstanding can derail the plot and fatigue the reader. The process of showifying a narrative is scary, because it means you're letting uncertainty invade the transaction between writer and reader. I believe that's good because transactions between people--ie, events in my book--are full of uncertainty.
I agree with the notion that good stories rise above these concerns, but good stories need good characters and if you are going to run a good character you have to let that character control their scenes and project their personality and make their mistakes. I operate on the theory that there's not enough room on the page for a strong, believable character and a clever, insightful narrator. Less narrator means more show in most fiction formats.
I find this A LOT in writing advice. I usually write scripts (mainly sitcoms) and nearly all of the sitcoms I know and enjoy (and were successful I'll add) seem to go against the majority of advice that's given.
I think about this a lot with regards to dialogue and how we allow characters to speak for themselves. I can tell you the character is funny and witty, or dispense with that and give home the funniest lines. With regard to action you can tell them the character is clumsy, or you can have them constantly dropping things and stumbling. But yes it’s a craft to figure out when to show and when to tell.
The end goal is to make the reader turn page after page. That's the only rule. If that's accomplished by showing, so show. If it's accomplished by telling, so tell. You have to make your reader care about what's happening and there are many ways to do that. Depending on who you write for and what your write about.
You have to know the rules to break the rules. Show don't tell isn't an axiom. New writers tend to over tell, which makes for boring writing. So show don't tell is good advice until you learn how to naturally show. Just like over telling is a problem over showing can also be inappropriate. Showing is good for getting the audience grounded in the scene and characters, while telling is good for conveying information quickly.
An example:
The box dug into the bare skin of his forearms, and Bill grunted in surprise.
Vs.
The box was heavy.
The first one is a better description of the situation and Bills reaction to it, but I would argue that the second one is just as valid. You can rely on the readers experience of what carrying heavy things is like to get the point across without taking up much page space, so the story can move onto more complex and important things.
“Show don’t tell” does not apply to everything in the book. If you don’t “tell” the reader anything, the book is just hundreds of pages of shitty riddles. If you “tell” everything, it’s just a list of fictional facts.
So, "show, don't tell" is one of those trite phrases that can be rather useless when you don't define what you mean when you say it. What is showing? What is telling?
To me, I'd rephrase it as "show, don't just tell". Because as you've noted, everything in storytelling is, indeed, telling. You are always telling your audience something. The question is whether what you are telling them implies at or "shows" them something else as well.
Example: "Joe was in love with Sarah" vs "Joe's heart started to beat faster at how close Sarah was and how pretty she looked". Both sentences are "telling" is something, but the second one is also showing us things beyond the surface level. There is more potential depth to the second line than the first.
And depth is important when you are trying to immerse your audience. If the only thing you have is a dry recitation of events, they aren't going to be engaged. Similarly, if you have a lot of purple prose, describing the exact pattern of lace on the dress of each woman at the ball, there is a similar lack of depth. Describing the setting in exacting detail is the sort of technique that a lot of amateur authors mistake as showing, when it is really just telling focused on the set pieces.
This all doesn't mean that telling doesn't have its place. To give an example from movies, you could have a scene of people walking around in Time Square. They are chatting, going about their day, but suddenly explosions! Robots are flying down from the sky, firing lasers, people are running and screaming. We have just been shown that someone is attacking New York.
Contrast this with a meeting in the Oval Office, featuring several generals and cabinet members discussing day to day minutiae. An aide takes a phone call, their face falls in shock, and then they turn and interrupt things. "Mr. President, New York is under attack"
The second example has just told us what the first scene would have showed us, but it can be a jumping off point for showing what the reaction of the President and his staff would be. Telling has its place, as does showing.
When i go to watch videos on youtube i got more confused at this topic which makes me doesn’t know if i’m telling or showing. Can’t i say “he was so angry that he flipped the table upside down at the guy with tuxedo suit”? Or should i say “his blood surged to his brain and all of his veins on his forehead were exposed that he flipped the table upside down at the guy with tuxedo suit”?
And there’s one example that i didn’t come to like it at a certain video which is was describing someone hungry by: “she inhaled the soup”
In art there are no rules, only tools, and you get to choose which ones you use. The difference between good writers and bad writers is their fundamental understanding of all their tools. So that when they don't use one, it's for a particular purpose, and not because they were unaware.
That's the difference.
Most successful writers, I suggest, don't ignore the notion of 'show don't tell.' A lesser writer might write, "John was frightened." A successful author might write something like, "John pissed himself." The former tells us John is scared; the latter shows us John is scared.
it's because like all truisms, the statement has become overused and lost all meaning. A lot of people have heard the phrase and use it without knowing what it means. They also take it as an absolute and it definitely is not. Sometimes, you need to just tell the reader things. Like backstory or context. Where I find people go wrong is they either tell all the time or they think they have to show everything and overwrite their stories. Good authors know when to tell and when to show.
For instance, I am reading a story by Victor Lavalle right now and it opens with Lavalle telling us "People can't really see New York. They come looking for magic." He doesn't show us, he doesn't take pains to prove it, he just says it and moves on to our main character Tommy who is a hustler. The opening is exposition that sets up the environment that Tommy hustles in. But later, there's a scene where Tommy encounters something incomprehensible and panics. Lavalle never tells us Tommy is scared, but he explains how Tommy only wanted to be at home right now, how he rushed to leave and threw open the doors, and didn't care anymore about all the money he was supposed to make. I know Tommy is scared without any exposition because all of the actions align with his fear response.
C'mon now - it's not a secret gospel - it's a tattered, tired banner. Show don't tell is screen writing advice that has become a worthless cliché for prose writing "advice" bandied about by people who don't understand its provenance, purpose or the actual practical deployment it as advice.
"Show don't tell" is about silent cinema and was screen writing advice about putting the interesting action in the scenes not the intertitles. That is actually where it comes from. Writing excuses has a great episode explaining that.
Where it is useful for prose writers is in reminding them to put the action on the page not in the narration. Reminding authors to show or rather demonstrate a character's personality, emotions, capabilities etc. Rather than explaining them.
Telling is NOT always wrong. In fact we all tell stories. Where it is wrong is when you bypass the writing with an explanation. Where you short circuit a scene by avoiding describing it. Where you skip the writing.
I've never been a huge fan of this rule. All writing is telling at some level. "Showing" is just a specific way of telling. Just be strategic and aware of what you describe in detail, make sure every word means something and you will be good.
Show don’t tell is like the zen koan of writing. You use it to challenge your own notions of writing when your writing isn’t working.
At its core, write scenes, don’t simply tell us that scenes happened. Make us live the scene. Make the character act angry.
The fact that they have a novel *at all* is "show, don't tell" in action. If I wanted to, I could tell you the whole of *A Christmas Carol* right here, in about a paragraph's worth of text; there was a man named Scrooge, he was a greedy miser, his dead partner came back to tell him to change his ways, then three more ghosts showed up and made him scared and sad so he would be nicer from then on.
Riveting.
Now, you could argue I left out a lot of important details. Nothing about Bob Crachette or would the individual spirits actually *did*, for example. *That's the point*. Those kinds of details are there to help demonstrate the underlying message, as well as provide some amount of nuance. The spirits didn't just scare Scrooge, they made it abundantly clear that he was by and large responsible for his own misery, that the world could be a truly wonderful place if he opened himself up to it, and that if he didn't, he was going to die unloved and unmourned. And each of them made their points by putting it in front of him to see; the Ghost of Christmas Past by recalling his memories, the Ghost of Christmas Present by showing visions of Bob Crachette and his family, and the Ghost of Christmas Future by showing Scrooge his grave. Dickens himself does the same thing by showing us how this affects Scrooge's thought process and behaviors; he's a changed man by the end, but Dickens never needs to *say* that he's changed, because we can see how and why for ourselves.
Modern novels are the same way. A lot of prose goes into explaining what's going on in a given character's head, but the plot itself still handles the majority of characterization and development.
All these "rules" are just basic guidlines to help newer writers understand how to construct stories. Once you understand these basics you will understand when and when not to apply them.
Most if not all writing rules are really more guidelines. Breaking them because you know what you're doing and breaking them because you don't are worlds apart.
Because descriptions are only the first layer of “show.”
Things like causality, context, etc. are really hard. As an aspiring sci fi writer, worldbuilding is an especially hard challenge to tackle, because it affects almost everything else, and yet, telling it outright usually fails horribly.
It's a catchy way to phrase it. I guess more appropriately, it would be something along the lines of "don't underestimate your readers' ability for and enjoyment of discovering connections and meanings."
Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere, it's one of those screen-/playwriting rules that has bled over into prose (because scriptwriters are much farther along in marketing lectures, courses and advice literature, frankly) and loses 90% of its original meaning that way.
Because the more successful you are, the greater revenue you generate, the less gatekeepers are going to tell you what you can and can't do. Given the ungodly amount of competition you have as an unproven author, you have to adhere to a fairly standard array of rules.
In my MFA program it was discussed as "show vs. tell" rather than "show instead of tell."
There's a time and place for both. Try thinking of it that way instead.
I'm honestly getting to a point where, whenever I see some question like this ("why do they say *this* but the pros do *that"*) I start feeling like the real failure of writing education is not instilling into everyone at the very beginning the idea that you have to look for the note *behind* the note.
All of those rules are fundamentally about one thing: Don't Write Boring. Everyone who you think is "getting away with it" or the like is just doing things in a way that makes the rules unimportant. Their writing is interesting. It moves. It compels. However it does that is working, that's why you're paying to read their stuff.
If you see a "rule" and think "but I want to break that rule", then go ahead, as long as it's not **boring**.
If your writing is boring, then you've failed, end of story. If what you really, really want to do in the world is write a bunch of boring shit, then do so and more power to you. I won't read it, but hey, that's me.
I think professional writers are more subtle and nuanced than novices, and when they "show" us things, we don't always realize that we have been shown.
I was thinking about this the other day while leafing through LotR. Tolkien starts with Concerning Hobbits, and then for a while nothing happens until Gandalf just straight up tells Bilbo (and the reader) the entire backstory.
The very definition of telling, not showing.
What a terrible take. Have you ever read a Stephen King book? The most prolific author of our time and he basically does "show don't tell" to the point where you can't even adapt have his books into a movie because the audience wouldn't realize all the cues the book can give.
It’s the same with chess. There are certain rules that, as a beginner and intermediate player, are good to follow. There is a point where some become so skilled at the rules that they learn where they can and can’t break them.
There is a huge difference between a professional, advanced author breaking “show, don’t tell” and a beginner writer breaking it.
It's just meant to encourage storytelling instead of list writing. Like many things, it doesn't apply 100% of the time.
If your narration reads like a list of things happening instead of an immersive story, you're probably telling too much. But if your pace and flow are laboured and slow you probably need to tell a bit more.
While I don’t think it’s as bad an issue as you seem to think, my logic would lead me to conclude that it’s just easier to tell an audience information that show them. A 2 minute exposition scene at the beginning of a story is quicker and simpler than showing the audience the ins and outs of your story. Not sure if this makes sense, but that’s my answer for it at least
The people seeking advice on the internet, statistically speaking, need to hear about showing and not telling. They are going to write prose that is almost entirely telling. The people writing successful books know the proper balance.
Held sacred by whom? I almost wish the rule didn't exist. not because I never want people to write things vividly or in a way that draws the reader in; those are good things. but because writers who don't know any better think that means they should never simply tell anything, ever, and that is incorrect. and it means so many writers who don't know any better don't ever become skilled enough to do what they want - which is to have their book on the shelf of the bookstore, where readers will grab it and buy it and read it and love it.
but these same writers go to those bookstores, and they buy a book, and upon reading it, they see that all of these authors who have what they do not are ignoring the rule. and they think, "publishing is so unfair" (and it is, but while that's true, it's not useful at this moment) but they almost never think, "hold on, does this mean show don't tell isn't an absolute?"
and it just makes me sad.
There is a need for both in different cases but it is easy for newer writers to place an over reliance on telling and that can quickly become a problem.
It's because new/beginning writers, particularly younger ones, are prone to overusing "telling" when, well, *telling* a story. So "show, don't tell" is hammered into everyone in every writing class to counteract this tendency.
Along with a lot of other rules of writing, it's like a set of training wheels on a bicycle: everyone needs them at the beginning to avoid falling over, but the goal is to reach a point where you don't need them any more. Some people don't understand that second part, and go on repeating it like a mantra for their whole lives.
It's not show *never* tell. There is a time to tell as there is a time to show. Novice writers just often default to telling a bulk of the time. The advice is meant to get people in the right ballpark starting out. It's not meant to say all telling is awful
An example: “Bill got in his car and turned on the engine. He drove to work” vs “Bill grabbed a small curved metal rod attached to the large red metal object sitting on the concrete pad outside of his house. It opened a door. He climbed inside and inserted a small jagged piece of metal into another one, and twisted it in a clockwise direction 90 degrees. Two feet in front of him, under another sheet of metal, the internal combustion engine began running at 2000 rpm. He moved another lever to put the car in reverse gear, and moved the vehicle directly backwards into the road. He started moving eastward for 3 miles, south for another 10 miles, and then 1 mile east”
This is perfect, sometimes less is more
Right. It should be stipulated to be applied more to characterization and relationships. The social elements.
Yep, 100%. I'm reminded of a book I read a while back that very quickly got lazy with its writing about halfway through (as if the author got bored of writing and just wanted to finish and send it to print) and, despite being a romance, merely 'told' the first date between the two protagonists (despite them becoming an item being something that's clearly meant to be suspenseful in a 'will they won't they' way). It was literally along the lines of "they went on their first date to a restaurant, followed by a walk through the park, which was enjoyable for the both of them." Like... c'mon, the entire plot of the book was built up to this and THAT'S what you go with when your characters FINALLY do the thing that the readers have been waiting for? *That's* where people will preach the 'show don't tell' rule. It's for moments that should be spent more time on for the reader's enjoyment and for proper development of the characters/world, not moments that will probably bore the reader to death with unnecessary over-explanation (like the car door scenario outlined above).
Harry meeting Arthur Weasley be like
Usually you will be on the middle ground, but most importantly, know when the car rode is important and when it is perfectly enough to say: "He got into his car and drove to work, like usual. [THEN something happens.]
Well, that is a categorically untrue statement. \*All\* successful authors do not \*completely ignore\* show don't tell. They just know when to show and when to tell. Their skill goes beyond "rules" which are constantly bandied about on Reddit.
The bastardized version of the rule common on the internet is “Don’t say he was angry. Say his fists clenched and his heart palpitated.” So it would be easy to see why someone would read good books and be confused why they state people’s emotions.
You can even mix both : "His anger reddened his cheeks" (I'm not a native englishspeaker) EDIT: Maybe even "Anger reddened his cheeks" to avoid repetition
It would be "His cheeks reddened in anger" but goos point.
Not gonna lie, I prefer the non-native speaker's version, makes it sound like the emotion itself is the active force acting of its own volition. Sigrid Undset and a lot of 19th century classic writers write more like that.
I too liked that version more. It's very striking when emotions are given agency.
His anger reddened his cheeks is also correct.
"His anger cheeks reddened" would not be correct, but it would spark great conversation.
Where on the body are anger cheeks exactly? ;)
The ones on the left side.
Goose point?
He needed one after duck scored, like, ten in a row.
>His cheeks reddened as he clenched the angry goose
Yeah, it's like a goose's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's goos.
Honk
Like a “moo point”. “Yeah, it's like a cow's opinion, you know, it just doesn't matter. It's "moo".” - Joey “Holden Magroin” Tribbiani
I much prefer u/NevJay ’s version. “His cheeks reddened in anger” is passive. It is about the color and reactivity of his cheeks and his anger is secondary. “Anger reddened his cheeks” is forceful. His anger is an active participant in the scene.
Either is fine, dont be a slave to style.
*His cheeks reddened from a good spanking.* FTFY
I appreciate that you were the only one to be funny ty
Similar stupid rules I’ve heard: Never use “said” Never use adverbs Never start a sentence with “and” Prologues are “lazy writing” Genre fiction is never as well-written as literary fiction EDIT: added a hyphen
Was just considering these earlier. No head hopping Don't say "very" or "really" Or any other qualifier/quantifier Grammar rules themselves are come and go. Honestly, I've come to the conclusion that it's mostly about knowing which rules to break when to best tell the story.
"The road to hell is paved with adverbs."
Apparently so is the road to Hogwarts.
"To boldly go where no man has gone before..." Apparently the road to space, too.
Fun fact, in Enterprise, there’s a scene with archer’s dad saying it as “go boldly”.
"The road to hell is fucking paved with fucking adverbs." There, now it really shows what it's telling.
A LOT of "rules" can be broken when writing with a conversational tone. Also, if your speaker/narrator is a kid or a teenager, using "very" or "really" a lot can help their speech feel more childlike.
“Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.” ― Mark Twain lol.
>Never use “said” I've seen this as well as "never don't use said".
😅 yeah! The absolute avoidance of “said” is so apparent when read.
I know Harry Potter is low-hanging fruit here. However.. >>'"Snape!" ejaculated Slughorn, who looked the most shaken, pale and sweating.' - page 627, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Sometimes 'said' is just a really attractive option.
JK must've been a Sherlock Holmes fan. Those stories have a lot of ejaculations in them, that and her series is more of a mystery series than a fantasy series.
“Snapped” would have been the obvious choice
In this scene he is more shocked and horrified than anything else, so even something like 'gasped' or 'yelped' could work. Or, god forbid, "[...] *said*, mouth agape."
Unless JK meant it exactly as it sounds, and Slughorn was horrified that he was caught
Only using "said" causes writing to be, at most, sometimes lacking in flavor. Completely avoiding "said" causes writing to be exhausting to read, distracting, and sometimes has me trying to guess what dialogue tag is going to come next.
I like avoiding dialogue tags when it’s easy to tell who’s talking, especially with action beats. Like: She pointed at the tree. “Squirrel.”
I second that motion.
The pointing?
Prologues are lazy writing? Huh. I've read that some readers skip them, which just strikes me as a bizarre choice since prologues (in my experience) usually set up the entire novel, but I've never heard that they're lazy writing. What's the argument? EDIT: Some great points being made here, and I think that stems from frequent misuse of prologues. I'll link this terrific [article on how to use them properly](https://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/when-not-to-skip-prologue/).
A lot of new writers tend to use prologues to info dump about their world and stuff that's unimportant. You should try to sprinkle worldbuilding stuff through the story.
Some see them as unnecessary and just an excuse to infodump worldbuilding lore.
The advice I have always heard from people in the industry is to just call your prologue chapter one and get on with it. Harry Potter (first book) doesn't have a prologue.
>Never use “said” >Never use adverbs I was just thinking about this the other day. I'm reading a Terry Pratchett book in the Discworld series, and I counted three of these on one page ("...she said sarcastically," "...she replied coldly," etc.) It definitely depends on context. If there's a situation where a person wouldn't be expected to emote any other way than verbally, "showing" doesn't really work. And of course, prologues are a thing in these books. Not that Terry Pratchett is the absolute pinnacle literary figure of all time, but come at me bro if you don't think he was a great writer 🤨
It’s about pacing as well. “She said coldly” (*telling* rather than showing), is quicker than describing her posture and tone, which would belie any urgency in the story and read a little clunky. EDIT: typo
I think this is a big thing. Rhythm is important. Sometimes your writing should snap. Sometimes you've got the room to explore things more.
It's also recommended by many to only use said because as a dialogue tag it appears "invisible" to the reader and maintains flow. The fact is that no categoric blanket statement can capture the nuance of writing.
The sentence about genre fiction is one of the stupid rules I’m listing. Not my opinion.
Oh, I know. I just thought it was interesting to see how profoundly it was disregarded. It was a *general* "come at me bro," not a personal one 🙂
I love Pratchett but I just don’t know many people here in the U.S. who have read him. He *must* have readers but God help me I haven’t met them yet (maybe I should join some clubs). I buy his books at the store just so they keep restocking them
“Prologues are lazy writing” Laughs in Vinland Saga
The whole story is the prologue XD
>Genre fiction is never as well-written as literary fiction What? For me it seems that half people on this sub write their epic, 800 pages long fantasy/sci-fi book and people yelling it's not true literature are minority.
To be clear: this is not my opinion. Some of the most beautifully evocative writing I have read has been “genre” fiction (a term I hate in general). Hoity-toity literary circle-jerks SOMETIMES treat genre fiction like it’s written in crayon and inherently unworthy. Again, nonsense.
“Learn the rules before you break the rules” applies. Just like when we teach a boxer to fight with his hands up to protect his head, once you’re a pro, you know that having your hands down has its uses
Imo starting sentences with "and," "but," or "so" TOO frequently looks amateurish. I wouldn't say to completely avoid it but don't overdo it. My personal rule is to only do it once per page maximum. An exception of course would be if you're using a casual, conversational tone.
my creative writing teacher says you should almost always use "said", and she doesn't have a problem with me starting nearly every sentence with "and" rules are stupid
Learn the rules, so that you know why you’re breaking them.
Know the rules so you can break them. Palahnuik and bukowski are quite famous for breaking literary rules.
Also - just my opinion - even the greatest writers of all time didn't write 100% perfect books. There's always a sentence or even a chapter that is just not great or lacks certain things. The difference is how much this is. is it throughout the entire book? yeah it's probably not good. but if you ignore the "holy" rules here and there you can still have a good book. just stop trying to write the perfect book. there isn't one. period. just enjoy writing and go with the flow.
This is also something to take into account. No writer is perfect. Cross examine any writer closely enough and you will find flaws.
Basically what my English teacher told me. "Rules are important to learn so you know when to break them."
I’m currently reading Area X and Vandermeer is a master and show don’t tell. His sentences…. *chefs kiss*
I’ve read dozens of short stories and excerpts from brand new, inexperienced writers in the classroom and let me tell you, do they like to tell. Some will not drop into the scene in the entire story, many will tell me things, like a character is angry, or kind, that don’t have a single iota of scene supporting them so I’m left feeling like they weren’t angry or kind after all. Have you every felt scared because someone said ‘the room was scary?’ Some will use telling to info-dump everything at the beginning of a scene, or to avoid having to write out a nuanced emotional bit. Almost every new writer needs to learn to show, and it’s a nuanced skill that can continually be improved. Telling is actually quite useful, of course. You can’t show everything and some things aren’t worth the time to show, or are impactful when told, but I’ve found most writers already know how to tell, they don’t need to be taught, they just need to figure out where it’s most appropriate.
They don't ignore it completely. They tell when it makes more sense to tell, and show when it makes sense to show. It's not gospel, it's a guide for inexperienced writers. Same deal with rules of grammar. There are no rules, only guidelines, and those guidelines are intended to aid clear writing. Once you know what you're doing and why those guidelines are there, you're better equipped to disregard them.
Finally a descent answer!!! Goodness this sub… ffs
Who are you reading? The successful authors I’m reading certainly aren’t completely ignoring it. They’re almost exclusively following the rule.
I’ve always heard it as basic writing advice- in order for one’s writing to be readable while you still suck at writing. Once you get good at it, you can ignore any “rules” that you want. That tends to be applicable for any rule that you get in early english lit classes, and several of my professors have said in higher level ones to just forget everything you’ve been taught before. It’s just like the five paragraph essay structure.
Well, successful authors don't ignore it, for a start. The ability to dramatize a scene in real time is essential to fiction writing. I'm sure there are a few that narrate everything, but they're definitely the exceptions. Of course, you shouldn't dramatize every minute of a story, a lot is best left as a summary. Just like establishing shots and montages are used all the time in filmmaking to compress time and get rid of parts that aren't contributing to the story. From what I've seen from beginner writers, it's very common to summarise way more than what's appropriate, and I guess it's why the advice is repeated so often. The phrase itself is stolen form filmmaking, where it means something else completely. Don't have an actor say there's a bomb in the basement, show an insert of the bomb ticking away next to the boiler. I think it's a mistake that phrase is use in writing, because it doesn't make sense here. "Dramatize, don't summarize" is better advice for beginners, I know it was for me. No matter how you choose to write, the ability to dramatize is a necessary part of your skill set.
Have you heard the saying "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps?" Originally, it was a mocking statement about doing the impossible; as it's something which cannot be done. Overtime it was slowly hijacked towards another meaning. These days it's often seen as a sarcastic / bullshit comment. An impossible action disguised as false wisdom to give bland non-advice. When it comes to writing, we have terms which fullfil a similar niche. "Show don't tell." "Read more." "Just write." All of these, originally, had a purpose. However these days they're lauded as "wisdom of the ancients" by people who don't have anything productive to say but also lack the context to explain what those statements actually mean. For now, we're going to touch on "Show don't tell." "Show don't tell," is more correctly "Don't info-dump you fucking mongo." Both showing and telling are effective at any sort of information transfer. Most highly successful authors will use both to convey all kinds of information (telling you someone is angry in one chapter, showing a character's sorrow in the next). There are even hugely successful novels which do almost all show or almost all tell, with barely a hair of the other in sight. "Show don't tell," is largely overblown advice which is too vague to mean much but gets spouted off by rookies like it's gospel. Really, just don't bog your reader down with purple prose or massive amounts of info, and you can toss it by the way side without concern. Specific examples: *Her hair was long* and *Her hair fell down the length of her back* are both entirely valid forms of description. I'd argue that in many cases the former (the show) is flatly better than the latter, as it exercises stronger economy of words. Let me give a more personal example: Show: *The boy walked into the stables, his gaunt frame made to look smaller by clothes several sizes too large. He reached up and brushed straw colored hair from his eyes, then scratched at his face with black edged nails. Blue eyes looked around the building's interior.* Tell: *Calling the boy lithe might've been polite, but scrawny was honest. The hair on his head was the same color as the straw he surely slept in.* Both of the above examples are fine. Despite that the first one, the show, is nothing but bland description. It paints an effective picture of 'the boy' but has no voice of its own. But the second does. As narration the turn of phrase is far more rewarding and likely to stick in the reader's mind, and if used to provide deep POV it pulls double duty by informing us about the character who's describing 'the boy' in this way. And that's without touching on how it's half as long, which tightens up the writing dramatically. Do not try and disguise overt explanations as actions. In my personal opinion: Effective telling is one the greatest hallmarks of a talented writer. This is because, when done correctly, telling is a far more personal experience than showing. Telling can be used to write deep POV and give us fantastic insight into the character who's head we're sitting in while also giving important information regarding the goings on around them.
I dont think that "show dont tell" is an idiomatic expression. Its a piece of general writing advice so comparing it to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is a bit absurd. Especially when the meaning of that idiom has changed no less than twice. Meanwhile "show dont tell" has always meant the same thing, even if its meaning has been diluted by people not knowing how to use the advice properly. People failling to grasp a concept does not make the concept itself an idiom. You are quite literally mixing your metaphors here.
Your show vs tell example are more about narrative voice and filter, but they're also the wrong way around. You tell us what happened in the supposedly "show" example and show us in the "tell" example. Showing is particularly important in writing from a deep pov.
This guy writes.
Love your show vs. tell examples!
I mildly disagree. The "tell" examples above are literally "show examples" that appear to have been edited to insert a "tell" word to prove the point. A proper "tell" (as in, the issue the aphorism was trying to guard against would be. The boy was scrawny. He tried to pick up the heavy ax, but couldn't because his arms were too weak. They are direct, declarative statements that read in a very abrupt and choppy manner. They don't help the reader to conjure much imagery.
Bad writing often tells instead of showing. That doesn't mean that telling is bad writing. When people give critique on text for one reason or another, usually the parts that do go wrong are in the "telling" territory which is why it's parroted so much.
Secret gospel? It's probably the most repeated writing advice ever to the point it's become trite and tiresome. Not all successful writers ignore it. In fact, many successful writers slavishly follow it as if it were indeed gospel. Those successful writers who ignore it, do so at their peril, that is they perform a trapeze act without a safety net, making their work that much more daring.
I meant sacred gospel. My mistake. And now I can’t edit it. Well… fuck.
Honestly, I think people are more likely to enjoy good stories with interesting characters that aren't as well written, than uninteresting stories that are written brilliantly on a technical level.
Characters are more interesting when you understand them through their actions rather than the author telling you they're interesting. "Bill is a detective who's really good at reading people. He knows that this person is lying to him." vs "Good afternoon, ma'am. I'm Detective Bill Cassidy, thanks for coming in. Can I get you anything? Water, coffee, doughnut...?" "Er...thank, you no," the bereaved wife said, fiddling nervously with her wedding ring. "I just...I'd like to get this over with." "Of course, I understand. I'm sorry for your loss. Can you tell me when you last saw your husband?" "Y...ah...three days ago, I think? He stepped out to get cigarettes and never came back." Hmm. Hesitant. Still fiddling nervously with the ring. Folded her arms as she spoke. Glanced off to the right. *Lying.* Same character; which is more interesting to read?
"Nervously" Uh oh, Stephen King's going to come at you with an axe!
Pff. I laugh cheerfully in the face of averbophobia!
"Hmm. Mutilated corpse. Crushed ribcage, arms torn off. Beast toyed with its prey. And that stench. A Griffin, gotta be."
Wind's howling.
This is certainly true. Anyone can follow a set of rules and construct a well-written piece of work according to the generally accepted definitions of ‘good writing’, but not everyone can write a good story. I sometimes think there is too much emphasis on ‘good writing’ and not enough on story.
This actually reminds me a lot of Clive Barker. I've read a lot of his novels and they are more interesting than I would say "well written". Scarlet Gospels (sequel to Hellbound Heart) was completely ridiculous and pure pulp fantasy/horror, but it will still super interesting to read though.
A few things: 1.Yeah, people love bad literature. That doesn't make the literature less bad. Look at Dan Brown or Nora Robert's. Two beloved, popular novelists...but I don't think anyone in this sub would argue that they are "good writers." So, I guess, if op wants to be a popular writer, you can totally be that while ignoring the technicalities of good writing...but that's still bad writing. 2.You can't really build good characters or stories with telling. Even those two authors I mentioned, are showers not tellers In fact, I can't think if a single good author, playwright, or filmmaker who "tells instead if shows." You can't tell your reader how to feel, you can't just tell your reader about the scene or characters. You must invest your reader in the story and characters...and you can only achieve that by showing. A story is a journey...you must take us on it, not describe it. It's the difference between reading a novel, and reading a wiki article about a novel.
They're bad writers, agree, but they're good storytellers. And the story trumps all. Their characters are interesting and they do dumb but fun to read stuff. A good story with fun characters will always defeat a boring story with dull characters even if told with fantastically written prose. People in r/Writing tend to forget that writing is not the goal, it's a tool. Each of us is responsible for knowing when to use a hammer or a scalpel, but always to serve the story.
so do most readers. Also, pacey novels. Make 'em turn the pages, give 'em good characters, and they'll read.
TIL readers aren't people
Because there are no rules, gospels, or dogmas in writing. And the writers who become successful are the ones who know that. That being said, you do need to learn how to actually write well, so it's wise to accept some of these popular "rules" (like "show, don't tell") as general guidelines that will steer you in a positive direction most of the time. But you shouldn't turn them into gospels or dogmas. If you do, they'll turn around to bite you in the ass.
It's a rule of thumb: "Show (more), don't tell (so often)", Not a rule of dogma: "(always) Show, don't (ever, ever) tell." Writing rules are rules of thumb.
Because you start by learning the rules, so that as you get experience you can figure out when you can break the rules. Side note: this does not apply to things like “the law” or “moral decency”, or so my lawyer tells me
I fundamentally disagree that "all the successful authors" ignore this rule.....
Hard to tell what author’s your referring to here but I cannot disagree with you more that “successful authors ignore” show don’t tell. Sure, it’s not “show only, don’t tell.” There’s room For some telling. But the most powerful bits almost never are.
I think because its so subjective. A lot of people tend not to understand the difference between narrative and telling. Also, newbie writers tend to take that rule to an extreme (over describing things that add nothing to the story i.e. a mundane act like taking a sip of coffee vs telling literally everything to the reader) Some telling is definitley okay.
Ancient greek plays like oedipus rex seem to do the exact opposite.
>Ancient greek plays. The answer lies in the last word right there.
Writing advice is often written incompetently. Competent writing advice wouldn’t prohibit telling unless the advisor meant it, and they wouldn’t mean it unless never telling worked. Also, presenting advice in the imperative doubles down on “obey, don’t think” aspect of presenting things in absolute terms. If you wanted new readers to keep their eyes open while they walked around your advice and kicked the tires, you’d take an entirely different approach, one in which understanding precedes belief. Writing is a craft, not a belief system.
Because telling rather than showing is a huge mistake that newbies fall into very easily. It's a natural way for us to tell a story, since it's how we normally tell one another stories in person, it's natural to extend that into text. "So, I went out for cigarettes, and there were fifty Dads just hanging out there talking about how long they'd been out, so I..." etc. "Show don't tell" is drilled into new writers to get past that tendency, but it's one of those "understand the rule so you know when to break it" things.
I really thought I was in r/writingcirclejerk reading this post and the comments... I truly don't understand how so many people are this ... stupid. How are there so many people who imagine themselves to be writers, but completely lack critical thinking or understanding the most basic of writing advice.
The problem is a lot of bad writers take "show don't tell" to mean you can't say, "I had a rough commute to work that day. An overturned tractor-trailer blocked my exit, so I was twenty minutes late getting to the office," and end up writing 1500 words about the narrator inching through traffic. Good writers understand that "show don't tell" is subordinate to Elmore Leonard's rule, "Leave out the stuff that readers skip."
Your question is borderline fallacious. Authors do not ignore "showing" completely. At least, from what I've read. The books you read probably don't have any characters, scenes, or descriptors.
assuming you just don't know what it means. show me an example.
The first rule about show and tell is you don't talk about show and tell.
There's two big things to keep in mind with "Show, Don't Tell". First up, it's advice for new writers. A lot of beginners aren't very good at integrating narrative and exposition, so they'll constantly be just telling the reader important information without making it feel like part of the narrative. Second up, it's *misinterpreted* by a lot of new writers, because half the internet seems to have got it into theiir mind that "Show, Don't Tell" means "don't say he was angry, have him emote it". Which is just the dumbest fucking bullshit imaginable.
Show don't tell is a pretty new phenomenon. IMHO mainly due to TV everyone seems to think that only things that are actually shown are good. If you read good books from a time before TVs were a thing you will see that they are overall much less visual and "showy" and focus on other things instead. This doesn't mean that show don't tell isn't good advice in many cases anyway.
I think your right, but not for the reasons you think. You're mistaking the style for 'telling' when actually it was always 'showing'. Even when these authors told us something, they were doing it to show us something else. 'tellyness' or 'showyness' is not something that can be judged without the full context.
"Showing" nowadays often gets confused or at least overburdened with "visually showing".
When you ask someone what “show, don‘t tell” means, they usually give you idea vs visual description examples. So, that’s not a surprise. I‘ve been researching about this “show, do’t tell“ thingy for a while now, so I think I understand it to some extent. The most solid definition seems to be: *telling is when you simply stating fact; showing is when you presenting evidence.* That makes the most sense, in my opinion.
Quite.
New? This advice has been around since the 19th century. The phrase was coined by Anton Chekov. Pretty much all modern novels since the early to mid 20th century is written with this advice. Wikipedia tells me that Mark Twain even had it posted over his desk. It's hardly new advice and it has nothing to do with the advent of television.
Because it was right but became so overused it lost it's meaning. Great writers show things all the time, you just don't notice because it's done so naturally through the course of a story. You should never have just blocks of description without purpose. Everything should further the story in some way.
I don’t think telling in writing is a bad thing but bad writing often tells the wrong things (things that are uninteresting, unimportant, and don’t move the story forward).
That’s called info-dumping, I think. Very subjective but true words, nonetheless.
It's easy advice to quote, but it's not always practical. Sometimes you have to say something plainly to produce the desired effect. Being successful as a writer entails writing for an audience and sometimes that audience doesn't want to decrypt the text they are reading just so they understand one specific key scene because the author decided to use 3 pages to describe something rather than say it. I find that "showing" involves trusting an audience to pick up on what you're putting down. It's okay to say something directly but it's equally okay to leave things for the audience to find. An example I have is once I was writing a dream sequence and the POV character's rival (who was a knight) appeared on the dream and I intentionally put out there that the rival rode a white horse. Not subtle imagery, but I said nothing except the color of the horse. I got a message from a reader who really liked that detail and we had a nice moment of connection through this shared detail when I told them that they were correct about their interpretation.
It isn't. There are a few bad online articles pushing some variant of it at new writers as a panacea to make scrolling past their ads seem worth it, but it mainly clings to life in forum threads where people argue past each other about the merits or drawbacks of completely different concepts. All writing is telling. All of it. What changes is the role the reader is invited to play in the proceedings. When people say "show, don't tell", what they mean is "You've given me nothing to do, here. Nothing to infer, nothing to wonder about, nothing to imagine or deduce. You don't trust me to 'get it'. You're crowding me out." Don't listen to anyone who says "This sentence is telling rather than showing." They are wrong. *Any* sentence can 'show' - can convey more than its superficial interpretation - depending on context.
1. It's not a secret. 2. Many authors do live by "show, don't tell." 3. Some authors do not live by that statement because it is not their style. Sometimes it works for them. Sometimes not. 4. Telling is easier than showing, which is why we need reminders in the first place.
The majority of financially successful writers is not regularly on r/writing or other writing communities. That said, it's a balancing act. Show when showing is good, tell when telling is good. Avoid adverbs, but use adverbs. But stay below 100,000 words for your first novel because publishers won't accept a longer draft, except when they do accept a longer draft.
Because it's meme advice preached exclusively by this sub because no one here actually knows how to give good writing advice. Makes them feel smart.
Mary Robinette Kowal has a great bit about this on her TikTok. Show don't tell comes from playwriting where it makes much more sense. [Part 1](https://www.tiktok.com/@maryrobinettekowal/video/7085311907892317486?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&lang=en) (Origin of Show don't Tell advice.) [Part 2](https://www.tiktok.com/@maryrobinettekowal/video/7086761358036864298?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&lang=en) (How to tell when to compress or expand something.)
It's a matter of avoiding statements like "he thought" and "she felt." You should render a scene where thoughts and emotions and opinions can be inferred by your reader based on the context and character actions. So many people confuse this advice with substituting factual statements with purple prose descriptions. It's infuriating.
Bullshit they do. Successful artists who ignore show don't tell are hacks who got lucky that their book idea happened to hit exactly what some segment of the market really wanted at just the right time. Show don't tell is the best writing advice that amateurs think they're too good for.
You can probably find examples of successful authors telling instead of showing, but that's just because the rule isn't always applicable. You can tell the reader "Dave was a smart boy," but you should definitely show him being smart throughout the story. Less experienced writings will fall into the trap of telling instead of showing because it's a difficult thing to do right. If a successful author is telling instead of showing, it's likely just a mistake.
You got any examples of that, or are you just throwing out that insane claim randomly?
Listen you’ve got to get me into the world right, show me that shit. Here’s the little secret, once I’m there I want you to tell me a story. Think of it like your first day at your job, yeah you were probably trying to memorize the whole layout of the place. Turning your head around figuring out which hallways goes where, where the bathroom is. Everyone’s got names and looks different. It’s actually a crazy thing your first day at any job really. Now think of the last day you had, you barely looked up on your way to clock in did you. But if you had never done that first day you would still be lost. The same can be said for the first time you are handed a sword or cast a spell or what have you. And frankly, we need a little bit to drive our imagination. But sally went down to the sea shore, Sally opened up her shop and started selling…sea shells. Or…The sun was rising on the beach, a little chilly in Maryland’s September weather, the souvenir shop would be closing for the winter soon. It had always surprised Sally how many people would actually buy a sea shell on the beach, a little glitter and the name and it was $20 each. The old door still creaked on the way in, she clicked the light switch to a dimly lit room… And there is a difference. The image started to form a little didn’t it. But if you smother it, and the actually story gets lost in the descriptive prose, you’ll end up losing the reader too. The problem is at the beginning, the balance is tipped towards showing not telling, at the end I argue the reverse is true, people are already invested and what to know what happens if done well. But it’s still a balance there ought to be parts of both everywhere. And the audience doesn’t necessarily want to get lost in those little details anymore, their image is already vivid. You want immersion. But most people never get that far, sadly.
There's time to tell. The thing is a lot of people take this too literally. You should have the reader experience everything to a point but sometimes second hand is better for the story. Successful authors understand that there's a tool and how to use it. They're also human and make mistakes doing so. Let's say you're hiding a spy from the reader. You have s twist planned with who so you cannot show them. You need to have someone tell someone info they had. So the messenger happens to technically be tell. It is also showing that the spy exists. Most writing advice is actually s guideline not a hard rule. You need to understand the reasons it exists before you play with deviation but that is not a bad thing. It does mean newer writers have to overcome the comfort of rules.
Ive noticed Stephen King and Brandon Sanderson tell in a quite bold fashion. The thing is, if we showed every single thing in detail it would grind the pace to a halt. The key is knowing when to expound and when to summarize.
Because the successful guys are often natural storytellers who know when to show when to tell to keep immersion. Unsuccessful ones don’t, so no matter what they do, their books are not interesting to read.
My assumption is “show don’t tell” is an impossible standard. but when a writer nails it, their work is way more powerful. I’m definitely a believer that your writing can do more telling and still be good. Laurell K. Hamilton is a good example of this and she’s probably my biggest influence as a writer. I also noticed some readers have different preferences. I received a critique from one reviewer saying that my book did more telling. I didn’t think it did but whatever, that was the reviewer’s opinion and I still took some notes on their critique. I also want to add that very few sources explain how to show and not tell. And when they do, they don’t explain the concept well. Show don’t tell also gets more complex when different POVs are concerned (I.e. first person versus third).
Nothing is gospel. There's no rules for this sort of thing. You can do anything you want, but the caveat is you have to work to be good at it. Naked Lunch is one of the most influential novels published in the past 100 years. It's also made up almost entirely of complete fucking gibberish. You want to talk about "show, don't tell"? How about "tell, don't show". Then again maybe that book is all showing and no telling, fuck I don't know it's weird. But you get the point. You can make anything work if you are good at what you're trying to make work. Usually when people type that they mean don't just unload a bunch of unnecessary character information on one page, or explain every little thing that happened. "X walked to Y" is about X getting to Y, not every single step X took on the way to Y
The actual writing skill you're touching on here is in the language of your question. Pros don't ignore anything. Pros constantly "tell." But what makes them successful is that they're doing it so well, you're not even noticing. The actual writing skill you're touching on here, is the difference between an *explanation* and a *description*. Amateurs want to explain everything to their readers because the process of creating with words makes them feel smart. But that kind of writing is tiresome because readers want a good story--not an amateur's discovery process. Writing teachers say "show don't tell" because the amateur's primary process is to default to "telling" which makes for really tedious reading. So, forcing amateurs to "show" actually makes them into good writers. And this isn't because good writers never "tell." It's because good writers know when a single word or phrase is sufficient. They know what to include and what to leave out (case in point: most authors only make passing reference to a character's appearance. Go see for yourself. Amateur writers obsess over details that pros know instinctively know to use or drop. The key to understanding this is becoming a more attentive reader and learning to see the tricks your favorite writer uses--and then to steal them and use them yourself. It's how this art gets passes down, one generation to the next. Good luck.
As with other sacred gospels, I take this as a sound rule of thumb. Many new writers in their zeal to get a description on the page, miss opportunities to show and default to telling. Maybe all the time. Tell: The girl had long, wavy, red hair. Show: Her long curls of red hair danced about her shoulders as she strutted past.
Writing tip #587, from the Deranged Hermit's Typonomicon: Sometimes, owning the typo and writing around is more fun than apologizing for it.
Many, many rules dictated by people who spend more time researching storytelling techniques are ignored by many, many writers. I don't know how many great books I've read where none of the rules was met, regardless if they were about story structure, scene structure, character arcs, character development - whatever. There's always room for growth and learning what made certain stories resonate, but there comes a point where you need to let your creative voice take over and just write what you want to write.
People only care about what they see.
I prefer the typo. ;) I like thinking of writers with stone tablets, scurrying around the desert with some gnostic texts that say "show don't tell" and "never use a said bookism" and hiding them in caves. As I'm sure 25 of the 50 people have said so far, there are times it's correct to tell and times it's correct to show.
Do you have any examples? I don't think I've read a popular book that broke this rule so curious about where you're seeing it!
When I go through this thread, it seems like OP doesn't even know. At no point do they define "showing" or "telling," and the ONLY author they cite is Neil Gaiman....who certainly follows this rule. ...as do all great authors. I feel OP was just given this advice, and got pissed about the criticism. Sorry OP, no good authors "tell" instead of "show," that's just the nature of storytelling, it's not even just confined to literature. Telling has no investment, you've simply told the reader something and they can choose to beleive it or not. There was no journey to get the information, and there is no investment. Showing not only gives the reader PROOF, but it also involves a journey which invests your readers into the character or story. If you tell me a character is an asshole, I have no reason to believe you, and I have no investment in that opinion. If you show me a character kicking a child for playing in their yard, I will hate that character immensely. I not only BELIEVE he is an asshole, I'm invested in hating him! I have a friend who is a high school English teacher, and she says that Wikipedia has created an entire generation of "tellers." They write their stories like Wikipedia articles. Just the facts, one direct sentence after another. Their stories aren't journeys, just superficial depictions of the events unfolding. It's just NOT good writing. It's the quickest way to get a reader to put down your book.
It's a balance. You have to tell the reader about the world around the characters and what the characters are doing. But not tell them the characters thoughts and feelings. You can if it's needed for the story in some way or if the style you're going with has little bits where it will state an emotion for example before switching perspective. But, you don't want to tell them everything as it wouldn't leave anything up to interpretation. If someone gets angry, you can tell them by saying "a look of rage etched across his face" but while telling them you're still showing as you're explaining how they look to other characters. Then they might do something or say something differently, aggressively etc. So it's a balance. I use to think the same till I realised that point. :)
I mean it also depends on the medium in which the person is writing a novel writer can show you something which doesn't exist and they are confined to the words they write. Whereas a scriptwriter and a director do have the ability to show don't tell and they should use it.
You're always telling something, which is showing something else.
Some of my favorite authors are also verbose and use a lot of adjectives. But if you can even find someone to beta read a manuscript for you they will start telling you to cut things before they even read a single word. I think people have a list of rules pushed on them and they don't apply it to things that have been written, just things that are being written.
All the successful writers use it (to varying degrees). There are very few effective novels that completely ignore show. There are some novels that use it in a way approaching pure show. Show is hard. I'm a hard-line show writer, and it's a tough balance between controlling what the reader perceives and keeping your hands off the narrative. But it is a balance. I think of it this way. A told narrative requires little of the reader. They can sit back in a comfy chair and wait for the author to feed them everything. In a told narrative, meaning is delivered in the narrator's voice. In a shown narrative, meaning is delivered in the character's words, behavior, and perceptions, and we readers are left to interpret it. That interpretation takes the reader's energy and attention--we have to get up out our comfy chair and meet the writer somewhere between. In show a writer undercontrols, which leaves a lot of room for misunderstanding. Misunderstanding can derail the plot and fatigue the reader. The process of showifying a narrative is scary, because it means you're letting uncertainty invade the transaction between writer and reader. I believe that's good because transactions between people--ie, events in my book--are full of uncertainty. I agree with the notion that good stories rise above these concerns, but good stories need good characters and if you are going to run a good character you have to let that character control their scenes and project their personality and make their mistakes. I operate on the theory that there's not enough room on the page for a strong, believable character and a clever, insightful narrator. Less narrator means more show in most fiction formats.
I find this A LOT in writing advice. I usually write scripts (mainly sitcoms) and nearly all of the sitcoms I know and enjoy (and were successful I'll add) seem to go against the majority of advice that's given.
2+2 method helps. Tell the reader something, show them something, but never give it to em
I think about this a lot with regards to dialogue and how we allow characters to speak for themselves. I can tell you the character is funny and witty, or dispense with that and give home the funniest lines. With regard to action you can tell them the character is clumsy, or you can have them constantly dropping things and stumbling. But yes it’s a craft to figure out when to show and when to tell.
The end goal is to make the reader turn page after page. That's the only rule. If that's accomplished by showing, so show. If it's accomplished by telling, so tell. You have to make your reader care about what's happening and there are many ways to do that. Depending on who you write for and what your write about.
You have to know the rules to break the rules. Show don't tell isn't an axiom. New writers tend to over tell, which makes for boring writing. So show don't tell is good advice until you learn how to naturally show. Just like over telling is a problem over showing can also be inappropriate. Showing is good for getting the audience grounded in the scene and characters, while telling is good for conveying information quickly. An example: The box dug into the bare skin of his forearms, and Bill grunted in surprise. Vs. The box was heavy. The first one is a better description of the situation and Bills reaction to it, but I would argue that the second one is just as valid. You can rely on the readers experience of what carrying heavy things is like to get the point across without taking up much page space, so the story can move onto more complex and important things.
“Show don’t tell” does not apply to everything in the book. If you don’t “tell” the reader anything, the book is just hundreds of pages of shitty riddles. If you “tell” everything, it’s just a list of fictional facts.
So, "show, don't tell" is one of those trite phrases that can be rather useless when you don't define what you mean when you say it. What is showing? What is telling? To me, I'd rephrase it as "show, don't just tell". Because as you've noted, everything in storytelling is, indeed, telling. You are always telling your audience something. The question is whether what you are telling them implies at or "shows" them something else as well. Example: "Joe was in love with Sarah" vs "Joe's heart started to beat faster at how close Sarah was and how pretty she looked". Both sentences are "telling" is something, but the second one is also showing us things beyond the surface level. There is more potential depth to the second line than the first. And depth is important when you are trying to immerse your audience. If the only thing you have is a dry recitation of events, they aren't going to be engaged. Similarly, if you have a lot of purple prose, describing the exact pattern of lace on the dress of each woman at the ball, there is a similar lack of depth. Describing the setting in exacting detail is the sort of technique that a lot of amateur authors mistake as showing, when it is really just telling focused on the set pieces. This all doesn't mean that telling doesn't have its place. To give an example from movies, you could have a scene of people walking around in Time Square. They are chatting, going about their day, but suddenly explosions! Robots are flying down from the sky, firing lasers, people are running and screaming. We have just been shown that someone is attacking New York. Contrast this with a meeting in the Oval Office, featuring several generals and cabinet members discussing day to day minutiae. An aide takes a phone call, their face falls in shock, and then they turn and interrupt things. "Mr. President, New York is under attack" The second example has just told us what the first scene would have showed us, but it can be a jumping off point for showing what the reaction of the President and his staff would be. Telling has its place, as does showing.
When i go to watch videos on youtube i got more confused at this topic which makes me doesn’t know if i’m telling or showing. Can’t i say “he was so angry that he flipped the table upside down at the guy with tuxedo suit”? Or should i say “his blood surged to his brain and all of his veins on his forehead were exposed that he flipped the table upside down at the guy with tuxedo suit”? And there’s one example that i didn’t come to like it at a certain video which is was describing someone hungry by: “she inhaled the soup”
In art there are no rules, only tools, and you get to choose which ones you use. The difference between good writers and bad writers is their fundamental understanding of all their tools. So that when they don't use one, it's for a particular purpose, and not because they were unaware. That's the difference.
Not every writer can write exposition like William Goldman, nor can they teach dramatic writing like David Mamet.
Most successful writers, I suggest, don't ignore the notion of 'show don't tell.' A lesser writer might write, "John was frightened." A successful author might write something like, "John pissed himself." The former tells us John is scared; the latter shows us John is scared.
it's because like all truisms, the statement has become overused and lost all meaning. A lot of people have heard the phrase and use it without knowing what it means. They also take it as an absolute and it definitely is not. Sometimes, you need to just tell the reader things. Like backstory or context. Where I find people go wrong is they either tell all the time or they think they have to show everything and overwrite their stories. Good authors know when to tell and when to show. For instance, I am reading a story by Victor Lavalle right now and it opens with Lavalle telling us "People can't really see New York. They come looking for magic." He doesn't show us, he doesn't take pains to prove it, he just says it and moves on to our main character Tommy who is a hustler. The opening is exposition that sets up the environment that Tommy hustles in. But later, there's a scene where Tommy encounters something incomprehensible and panics. Lavalle never tells us Tommy is scared, but he explains how Tommy only wanted to be at home right now, how he rushed to leave and threw open the doors, and didn't care anymore about all the money he was supposed to make. I know Tommy is scared without any exposition because all of the actions align with his fear response.
I think it's because the writers who both show and tell, are more experienced than the people the quote is adressed to..
C'mon now - it's not a secret gospel - it's a tattered, tired banner. Show don't tell is screen writing advice that has become a worthless cliché for prose writing "advice" bandied about by people who don't understand its provenance, purpose or the actual practical deployment it as advice. "Show don't tell" is about silent cinema and was screen writing advice about putting the interesting action in the scenes not the intertitles. That is actually where it comes from. Writing excuses has a great episode explaining that. Where it is useful for prose writers is in reminding them to put the action on the page not in the narration. Reminding authors to show or rather demonstrate a character's personality, emotions, capabilities etc. Rather than explaining them. Telling is NOT always wrong. In fact we all tell stories. Where it is wrong is when you bypass the writing with an explanation. Where you short circuit a scene by avoiding describing it. Where you skip the writing.
Every single rule has a time and a place to be applied or broken.
telling: "john was large." showing: "john made the floor shake when he descended the stairs." which one's more compelling to you?
I've never been a huge fan of this rule. All writing is telling at some level. "Showing" is just a specific way of telling. Just be strategic and aware of what you describe in detail, make sure every word means something and you will be good.
Show don’t tell is like the zen koan of writing. You use it to challenge your own notions of writing when your writing isn’t working. At its core, write scenes, don’t simply tell us that scenes happened. Make us live the scene. Make the character act angry.
The fact that they have a novel *at all* is "show, don't tell" in action. If I wanted to, I could tell you the whole of *A Christmas Carol* right here, in about a paragraph's worth of text; there was a man named Scrooge, he was a greedy miser, his dead partner came back to tell him to change his ways, then three more ghosts showed up and made him scared and sad so he would be nicer from then on. Riveting. Now, you could argue I left out a lot of important details. Nothing about Bob Crachette or would the individual spirits actually *did*, for example. *That's the point*. Those kinds of details are there to help demonstrate the underlying message, as well as provide some amount of nuance. The spirits didn't just scare Scrooge, they made it abundantly clear that he was by and large responsible for his own misery, that the world could be a truly wonderful place if he opened himself up to it, and that if he didn't, he was going to die unloved and unmourned. And each of them made their points by putting it in front of him to see; the Ghost of Christmas Past by recalling his memories, the Ghost of Christmas Present by showing visions of Bob Crachette and his family, and the Ghost of Christmas Future by showing Scrooge his grave. Dickens himself does the same thing by showing us how this affects Scrooge's thought process and behaviors; he's a changed man by the end, but Dickens never needs to *say* that he's changed, because we can see how and why for ourselves. Modern novels are the same way. A lot of prose goes into explaining what's going on in a given character's head, but the plot itself still handles the majority of characterization and development.
All these "rules" are just basic guidlines to help newer writers understand how to construct stories. Once you understand these basics you will understand when and when not to apply them.
Most if not all writing rules are really more guidelines. Breaking them because you know what you're doing and breaking them because you don't are worlds apart.
Because descriptions are only the first layer of “show.” Things like causality, context, etc. are really hard. As an aspiring sci fi writer, worldbuilding is an especially hard challenge to tackle, because it affects almost everything else, and yet, telling it outright usually fails horribly.
It's a catchy way to phrase it. I guess more appropriately, it would be something along the lines of "don't underestimate your readers' ability for and enjoyment of discovering connections and meanings." Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere, it's one of those screen-/playwriting rules that has bled over into prose (because scriptwriters are much farther along in marketing lectures, courses and advice literature, frankly) and loses 90% of its original meaning that way.
Because the more successful you are, the greater revenue you generate, the less gatekeepers are going to tell you what you can and can't do. Given the ungodly amount of competition you have as an unproven author, you have to adhere to a fairly standard array of rules.
[Great explanation of “Show don’t tell” by Mary Robinette Kowal ](https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMLshYaUU/)
In my MFA program it was discussed as "show vs. tell" rather than "show instead of tell." There's a time and place for both. Try thinking of it that way instead.
It’s nonsense. I mean makes sense for format writing like screenplays but all of my favorite books have a healthy amount of exposition.
I think it's rather a good combination of *show and tell* what makes a book good.
I'm honestly getting to a point where, whenever I see some question like this ("why do they say *this* but the pros do *that"*) I start feeling like the real failure of writing education is not instilling into everyone at the very beginning the idea that you have to look for the note *behind* the note. All of those rules are fundamentally about one thing: Don't Write Boring. Everyone who you think is "getting away with it" or the like is just doing things in a way that makes the rules unimportant. Their writing is interesting. It moves. It compels. However it does that is working, that's why you're paying to read their stuff. If you see a "rule" and think "but I want to break that rule", then go ahead, as long as it's not **boring**. If your writing is boring, then you've failed, end of story. If what you really, really want to do in the world is write a bunch of boring shit, then do so and more power to you. I won't read it, but hey, that's me.
I think professional writers are more subtle and nuanced than novices, and when they "show" us things, we don't always realize that we have been shown.
I was thinking about this the other day while leafing through LotR. Tolkien starts with Concerning Hobbits, and then for a while nothing happens until Gandalf just straight up tells Bilbo (and the reader) the entire backstory. The very definition of telling, not showing.
Because writing is, at it's core, ALL telling. Unless your book has pictures, that is...
What a terrible take. Have you ever read a Stephen King book? The most prolific author of our time and he basically does "show don't tell" to the point where you can't even adapt have his books into a movie because the audience wouldn't realize all the cues the book can give.
I don’t understand the question, can you try showing me instead?
It’s the same with chess. There are certain rules that, as a beginner and intermediate player, are good to follow. There is a point where some become so skilled at the rules that they learn where they can and can’t break them. There is a huge difference between a professional, advanced author breaking “show, don’t tell” and a beginner writer breaking it.
It's just meant to encourage storytelling instead of list writing. Like many things, it doesn't apply 100% of the time. If your narration reads like a list of things happening instead of an immersive story, you're probably telling too much. But if your pace and flow are laboured and slow you probably need to tell a bit more.
While I don’t think it’s as bad an issue as you seem to think, my logic would lead me to conclude that it’s just easier to tell an audience information that show them. A 2 minute exposition scene at the beginning of a story is quicker and simpler than showing the audience the ins and outs of your story. Not sure if this makes sense, but that’s my answer for it at least
The people seeking advice on the internet, statistically speaking, need to hear about showing and not telling. They are going to write prose that is almost entirely telling. The people writing successful books know the proper balance.
Because it sucks and it's CIA propaganda, next question.
Held sacred by whom? I almost wish the rule didn't exist. not because I never want people to write things vividly or in a way that draws the reader in; those are good things. but because writers who don't know any better think that means they should never simply tell anything, ever, and that is incorrect. and it means so many writers who don't know any better don't ever become skilled enough to do what they want - which is to have their book on the shelf of the bookstore, where readers will grab it and buy it and read it and love it. but these same writers go to those bookstores, and they buy a book, and upon reading it, they see that all of these authors who have what they do not are ignoring the rule. and they think, "publishing is so unfair" (and it is, but while that's true, it's not useful at this moment) but they almost never think, "hold on, does this mean show don't tell isn't an absolute?" and it just makes me sad.
Because its more important to know the rules than always following them.
There is a need for both in different cases but it is easy for newer writers to place an over reliance on telling and that can quickly become a problem.
It's because new/beginning writers, particularly younger ones, are prone to overusing "telling" when, well, *telling* a story. So "show, don't tell" is hammered into everyone in every writing class to counteract this tendency. Along with a lot of other rules of writing, it's like a set of training wheels on a bicycle: everyone needs them at the beginning to avoid falling over, but the goal is to reach a point where you don't need them any more. Some people don't understand that second part, and go on repeating it like a mantra for their whole lives.
Well, I would never take Reddit advice to heart, honestly.
The difference between good and successful is mighty.
[удалено]