Show Versus Tell

[polymath]

I don't know of a more challenging writing trial than show and tell. If there's any one writing skill worth mastering, I think that one is it. I certainly have my problems with it. It's also probably one that needs a lot of practice for any writer.

A big part of the trouble was for me what do show and tell mean. What does it mean is one of my most regular questions about anything life and writing related. Ancient Sophists used terms with precise meanings known to them, diegesis for tell and mimesis for show, which aren't as well known today. Diegesis meaning a recited account of circumstances. Mimesis meaning a recreated imitation of circumstances.

Putting the term narrator in front of those meanings gave me enough clarity to be able to analyze any given narrative for methods of how show and tell are handled. I needed to add more meaning in order to bring fully home and know with absolute clarity when any given passage is show or tell and whether they work in context.

Tell: overt narrator removed from the setting reciting an account of a viewpoint character's circumstances, most functional when the narrator expresses commentary about a topical theme. The narrator is the attitude holder, taking a stand in relation to the theme.

The opening lines of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice are illustrative:

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

"However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters." (Project Gutenberg edition.)

Tell pure and simple, but with attitude. And doing what one of the many essentials of openings require, introducing the narrator's attitude and standing as functions of narrative point of view. Then when the narrator steps in and expresses commentary as the action unfolds, it's not a disruption, it's a reacquaintance. A traditional narrative method that hasn't fallen out of favor and remains a standard option in contemporary literature. Jonathan Franzen's Freedom, 2010, and Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, 2004, for examples. Many contemporary third-person narrator novels open with a narrator lead-in tell like Austen's opening.

Show: third-person covert or first-person overt narrator reporting viewpoint character perspective of unfolding action, most functional when reporting viewpoint character's sensations, thoughts, and emotions as perceived from the immediate time, place, and situation of the viewpoint character. The viewpoint character expresses commentary and is the attitude holder.

Third-person covert narrator opening from Robert Cormier's The Chocolate War, 1974. Narrator reporting viewpoint character perspective from the now of the setting.

"They murdered him.

"As he turned to take the ball, a dam burst against the side of his head and a handgrenade shattered his stomach. Engulfed by nausea, he pitched toward the grass. His mouth encountered gravel, and he spat frantically, afraid that some of his teeth had been knocked out. Rising to his feet, he saw the field through drifting gaze but held on until everything settled into place, like a lens focusing, making the world sharp again, with edges."

First-person overt narrator opening from Janet Evanovich's High Five, 1999. Narrator reporting viewpoint character, showing Stephanie Plum's character as she thinks of herself at the moment of the opening.

"When I was a little girl I used to dress Barbie up without underpants. On the outside she'd look like the perfect lady. Tasteful plastic heels, tailored suit. But underneath, she was naked. I'm a bail enforcement officer now--also known as a fugitive apprehension agent, also known as a bounty hunter. I bring 'em back dead or alive. At least I try. And being a bail enforcement officer is sort of like being bare-bottom Barbie. It's about having a secret. And it's about wearing a lot of bravado on the outside when you're really operating without underpants."

Both of the latter examples could easily be mistaken for tells, but aren't, per se, because they're narrators' reports from the immediate time, place, situation, and persons' perspectives of the circumstances. They're recreations not recitals.

I can pick them out now while reading, shows and tells, know when an unsettled narrative point of view awkwardly jumps from one to the other disrupting my reading. I'm practicing how to do them, and deciding which I like most. I favor reading covert third-person narrator because it's ideal for multiple viewpoints. I'm worried my highly opinionated voice might be better suited to overt first-person. I'm not all that enamoured with overt third-person narrator. The open narrative distance isn't close enough to suit me. But I never say never.

[Mike Dickson]

Polymath,

Do you recommend any good books for new writer's on the subject of show vs. tell?

[polymath]

Chapter One of Self-Editing for Fiction Writers: "Show and Tell," by Renni Browne and Dave King, old-school actual editors writing about editing for writers.

Try online sources too, "Show Versus (vs.) Tell" search terms, 86,000,000 hits. Eighty-six million. Caution, not everyone knows show from tell. One clue to a good source of information is if the article doesn't prohibit tell, explains tell method's purposes. Best yet, if the article doesn't use second person (imperative) to tell what's what about what. In other words, shows what show and tell are, doesn't tell what show and tell are.

Some blogs
Comparative take;
http://www.writerswrite.com/journal/sep01/browne.htm

One about online myths propagating misconceptions about show and tell;
http://www.amypadgett.com/2009/12/myths ... -tell.html

[Aimée]

Do you recommend any good books for new writer's on the subject of show vs. tell?

Ayn Rand's The Art of Fiction discusses show versus tell from a different perspective. She calls it concrete versus abstract, taking an abstract idea (the theme) and transforming the idea into concrete terms (i.e. showing). I think the book is a great resource for writers.

[Mike Dickson]

Polymath,

Good sites, they certainly lend a similar explanation to show vs. tell. I appreciate the help.

Aimee,

I'll look into this book of Ayn's, I'm sure it's great coming from her.

Thank you!

[polymath]

Cool, Mike Dickson.

I like to sample a broad base of information for diversity and insight into nuances of topics. Differing opinions allow me to pick and choose for my needs, and form my own opinions, maybe discover fresh leads to follow. It's an integral part of my learning process evaluating others' opinions and insights. The ones with original thoughts tickle my fancy but are few and far between.

[PR Griffin]

Helpful links there,
However I believe a caveat should be added: 'Show don't tell' is a rule quickly thrown at all writers when you begin. The problem is complex, yet the rule is easy to rip off and paste onto every piece of work. Truly great telling is just as valid (if not more so ) than great showing. This is never mentioned (especialy by editors, those carnivorous swallows of the written word.) Great, stellar telling lies at the heart of many of the best novels this century. By teachin 'Show don't tell' you are forcing writers to think with one hand behind their backs. I hate the modern easy fix notions that get pushed in our faces, do this don't do that, show this don't show that... This causes our multitude of differing styles to be blurred- a facsimile copied in a photocopier. As writers we need to know the difference between the two- yet not be afraid to use either if it is right to do so. Now if only we could all do that well and editors and agents understood and accepted.

One problem with showing to a beginning writer is the amounts of shudders,smiles,grins,frowns,arched eyebrows and plethora of facial ticks you feel are needed to show a scene. Learning to reveal through dialogue is a big step along our writing path. Part one of Wilder's "The bridge of San Luis Rey" is entirely composed of brilliant telling(in fact most of the book is) But by pushing the show dont tell ethos we are missing out on a vital writing tool.

One problem of telling is that we don't self discipline our writing. So our telling becomes a weighty bloated beast with a life of its own.

Distillation is hard, (or we would all have moonshine for breakfast) but my take on it is this: Always take the road less travelled in order to make progress.(An example of tautolgy there I apologise)- Show and tell. It don't get simpler than that.

[polymath]

Yep, show and tell, that's the ticket, effective show and tell though. I'm not so sure it's just agents and editors who are pushing the show don't tell platitude. Critiquers and writers' consensuses are behind it too. Everyday readers somewhat.

I believe effective tell has attitude, so that readers' reader surrogate is the narrator and the narrator's opinion rather than a viewpoint character's. A narrator poking fun at some social injustice or socially unacceptable behavior, personality, or identity, for example, or praising or disapproving or approving, and so on. It's more like preaching to the choir though, like-mindedness that builds rapport from common ground. It's like being with the narrator in the narrator's world and view of the world.

On the other hand, effective show closes narrative distance in to a setting's immediate setting, time, place, situation, persons, events, and themes.

Frankly, I like close narrative distance. It's not for every reader. Some don't care to get too close. Some like to step back and stay at a comfortable distance, because too close feels voyeuristically creepy, perhaps too close to the darkness lurking just beneath the conscious surface of conscience wanting to let go, snap, and unleash the demons inside. Some like distance so they can think consciously, critically without getting caught up in the participation mystique, perhaps afraid they'll enjoy a ride on the wild side and, I don't know, maybe change their outlook. Change, hah, resistance is strong but futile.

I believe the show don't tell push reflects society's craving for closer interpersonal relationships that only written word can fully fulfill. Close narrative distance takes readers right into someone else's thoughts, motivations, desires, and realities.

For a while now, at least since the rise of Postmodernism, a lot of literary analysis has focused on psychoanalysis, layperson examination of the subconscious meanings and intents of literature. Show for its recreated imitation gets into personal viewpoints guided as much by subconscious circumstances as conscious circumstances. Character viewpoints, narrator viewpoints, writer viewpoints combined with subconscious intents and meanings. Tell just tells what it all means and what is intended.

Literary analysis is moving toward a less psychoanalytical bent and more interpersonal personalness, personably closer to thoughts, closer to meaning and intents, closer relationships. And that to me is where literature is heading and why there's a show don't tell push. Literary analysis follows literary movement, not the other way around, at least not historically. Something's afoot, I do believe. Agents, editors, critiquers, reviewers, writers, and readers are projecting a marked depature from what's gone before, just it's still kind of murky and lacks a clear direction as of yet. Postmodernism is waning. What will wax next? Wax on, I say.