# A fear of telling?



## FanaticRat (Apr 13, 2010)

We all know the mantra of "show, don't tell"--it's been hammered into most of us constantly, and really, it's a lot more satisfying it seems to be able to infer something rather than have it laid out for you.

But can telling ever be a good thing? Or rather, is an obsession with showing as opposed to telling harmful? I know that, with me, I'm afraid to do nearly any exposition lest I start telling, and I think it may be screwing me over in terms of characterization, backstory, and descriptions. 

What is you guy's take on this? Is there some sort of happy medium? Is it okay to forgo almost all telling, or will this handicap a writer? Are there any really good examples of telling that I could learn from?


----------



## Scarborough (Apr 13, 2010)

I think telling (as opposed to showing) can definitely be used effectively. It's just a lot easier to tell a story badly by telling as opposed to showing.

Cases in point? Ever read Thomas Hardy? He's someone who loved to show and not tell, and damned if those aren't the most boring books I've ever read.

Anyway, the tell is very important when you need to summarize large quantities of data.

Uh... this post was edited because it contained examples that weren't really examples that properly illustrated tell v. show.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 13, 2010)

Showing and telling both have their appropriate places.  As Scarborough said, you want to tell when you have to divulge a lot of information.  So, like, suppose you have a character wandering around the desert for forty days; in that case, you might be better off just writing, "And so he wandered the desert aimlessly for forty days," and call it good.  That's telling, but in that case it's better than trying to show him wandering around pointlessly and doing essentially nothing but walking.  There are only so many ways you can indicate that someone is just walking around a desert, you know?  And you're not going to detail every one of the forty days.  So you just get the point across and move on.
You shouldn't be _scared_ of either of them.  They're tools, so you use them for the jobs for which they work best.  You don't use a hammer when you want to cut a piece of wood in half, but you can use a hammer to pound nails.  If you know what I mean.


----------



## Toonces (Apr 13, 2010)

Direct narration of a sequence of events can be very dry and used to achieve specific effects. Usually the order to "show, not tell" is given to avoid the prose from becoming mechanical, detached, and cold. However, within a certain context these sensations might be exactly what you're going for.

That said, understanding writing in terms of mantras like 'show, don't tell' is unhealthy and ultimately hinders growth as an author. Try to get outside of it.


----------



## panzergulo (Apr 13, 2010)

I was once concerned about this "show don't tell" thing too. I really tried to show how my characters felt, not tell how they felt and so on. I still use this with characters, because it's pretty easy. A character can laugh, cry, snort, giggle, frown, nod, shook his/her head, shiver, lick his/her lips, flinch, stutter, blink, close his/her eyes, open them, exhale, inhale, sigh... the possibilities are endless and it's easy, if you have ever been with people. Theater and movies are good things to watch too, the emotions in those are often more exaggerated than in real life.

I tried to use it with other things too, describing environments and stuff. Then once I "told" that "moon was shining from a cloudless sky" or something and one person wrote I should have "shown" the moon, not "told" the moon.



			
				Commenter said:
			
		

> "[...] don't *tell* me the moon is shining, *show* me the glint of moonlight on broken glass [...]"



For the record, that sounds really stupid to me. What is the difference of moon shining in the sky compared to moonbeams reflecting from shards of glass? Come on!

After that I thought "fuck this" and just plainly told my stories without thinking any "show/tell" thingies. Sometimes I end up showing, sometimes I end up telling, but I don't care, because it's all storytelling to me. And nobody has complained about "show/tell" in my storytelling after that.

Really, you are much better when you don't even think about the whole thing. If you're good enough in storytelling, your stories will end up just fine without these horrible "rules of thumb" or whatever. Just say "he walked aimlessly in the desert for forty days". If you start showing every speck of dust and every drop of sweat and every sunrise and sunset, you might get too close to purple prose anyway. Some might think that's artistic, but I think it's just stupid. "He walked aimlessly in the desert for forty days" is just good. I'm a storyteller, not a poet, dammit. Hell, I'm a storyteller, not an artist. Art is for other people. I just like telling stories.

Some things are meant to be shown. My stories are meant to be told. It was pretty much a conscious choice, and I'm still standing behind it.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 13, 2010)

Well, as with anything, rules of thumb are only useful if you understand where they come from, and why they are rules of thumb.  Beginners want to learn them and try to use them, but after a certain point you're sort of expected to move beyond that, because after a certain point you should really know more deeply how the craft is supposed to work for you to achieve your desired effect.
See... like showing the moon shining in the shards of broken glass... that can sort of work, but to me, without any context, it comes across as really hammy.  That kind of thing needs to be appropriate for where you use it, and for the piece you use it in, and if you intend to use it for some kind of concentrated dramatic effect.  But if your purpose is just to let the reader know that the moon is out, uh, just say so.  Brevity is always a good thing, because a short message is much more powerful than a long one.  That's just basic psychology.  So don't ramble on and on about the moon unless there's some significant purpose for doing so.  If you ramble on and on about the moon and then the characters have a conversation about pepperoni pizza, the reader's just going to wonder if you maybe have attention deficit disorder.  In that case, 'showing' the moon is just silly.  It's not the moon that's important!


----------



## kitreshawn (Apr 13, 2010)

Let me try to brake things down in a way that is simple to understand and fairly short.

Showing is how you bring the story to life for your reader and makes them feel like they are in the middle of the action.

Telling advances the plot of the story.

It is called story TELLING for a reason, however you need details in order for the story to be compelling.  That said, you cannot advance the plot very far at all by showing things to the reader, you eventually need to tell them stuff.

The exact balance is very difficult to work out and requires practice.


----------



## jinxtigr (Apr 13, 2010)

I'm going to do the last post over, better than it was- them's the breaks 

Showing is connecting the reader to what's being conveyed, viscerally. "The shadow of the baseball bat played across the wolf's face. His ears went back as he stared at the dark, backlit, looming forms, and a whimper escaped him as he scrabbled back, futilely, against the unyielding wall."

Telling is knowing what the reader is supposed to get out of all that- and making it a big short-cut. "The wolf was scared. He was up against the wall. He couldn't escape."

It's not that difficult, and it isn't really a balance- you want to have some of your story filled in by the reader's expectations, but 'telling' means you're turning it all over to them. 'showing' is more controlling what will be experienced.

That said, interrupting a scene to give people a close-up of glass glinting in the moonlight can be a ridiculous thing. Surely there is something more interesting happening in the scene than a scenery object? If you're outside in the moonlight and you have to notice there's been a fight here recently, sure, that becomes an awesome little moment, but if it has nothing to do with the story and you only want to establish the moon's out, 'the moon was shining' and on to the properly important bit.

Show don't tell is strictly about directing the reader's experience, not about the level of detail or little flowery depictions of things. It's boot-recruit stuff. There's almost always a better way to write than "Fox was really brave, and also adventurous. Krystal loved Fox more than anything. She wanted to do naughty things with him"


----------



## TakeWalker (Apr 13, 2010)

Any writing 'rule' can be broken if done so with proper forethought and with a specific reason. This is how you make experimental fiction.


----------



## Poetigress (Apr 13, 2010)

As with everything, it's a balance. And I think I said everything I had to say on this one back in this old thread: 

http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=14014


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 13, 2010)

I tend to use "show, don't tell" as a tight law in my stories.  Yes, laws can be broken by well meaning people who have a greater good.  Ask Jack Bauer   But, by and large, they should be followed.

However, you have to understand the law as I use it.  

Show, don't tell, when you can give more to the reader in terms of imagery, characterization, emotional attachment, or intensity.

If you can't give them that by telling, but you can by showing, you absolutely should be using shows.  

And yet, the corollary is true as well.  If you can't get more out of your novel by showing, there's no real advantage to doing so.  Why create a character or a scene when it really doesn't add much to it?

An example I can think of is present in CS Lewis and the Narnian adventures.  When the kids were in "the home" (even though it was only a few chapters), Lewis wouldn't go far into details.  He'd tell what was going on.  But when they went into Narnia, showing happened EVERYWHERE.   Reason?  The real world was meant to be dull, and showing would have polished it up.   Rowling did this too throughout Potter.

Show, don't tell.  Unless you don't get anything from showing


----------



## Scarborough (Apr 13, 2010)

jinxtigr said:


> Show don't tell is strictly about directing the reader's experience, not about the level of detail or little flowery depictions of things. It's boot-recruit stuff. There's almost always a better way to write than "Fox was really brave, and also adventurous. Krystal loved Fox more than anything. She wanted to do naughty things with him"



Am I allowed to use this line? Please? Am I please allowed to please use this line and do a little ditty off of it pretty please?


----------



## jinxtigr (Apr 14, 2010)

Scarborough said:


> Am I allowed to use this line? Please? Am I please allowed to please use this line and do a little ditty off of it pretty please?



If you promise to steal it and not say I wrote it first


----------



## Scarborough (Apr 14, 2010)

jinxtigr said:


> If you promise to steal it and not say I wrote it first



http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3705343/

I fully intend to make a profit off of this.

(Couldn't tell if you were serious or not about the stealing/not saying thing, so I'm just making sure w/ this post. XD)


----------



## jinxtigr (Apr 14, 2010)

Scarborough said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3705343/
> 
> I fully intend to make a profit off of this.
> 
> (Couldn't tell if you were serious or not about the stealing/not saying thing, so I'm just making sure w/ this post. XD)



You are more than welcome to try 

I'm not sure whether to ask for a shoutout in the comments, or to hide and pretend I hadn't started anything


----------



## BatRat (Apr 15, 2010)

Hey, nice to see another rat around here (even though I am a half-breed).
I really think that telling is preferable to showing.  Take Stephen King for example - he doesn't launch into tangets of description, he keeps everything to the point and only mentions backstory when he has to. 

The same SK rule applies to every genre, even fantasy fiction.

Don't show: "The dark elf's tapered ears peirced his mane of pale hair gracefully, mathcing the careful composition of his lithe body, like a needle of ebony among so many other ebon atmospheres..."

Tell:  "The Dark Elf blended in with the night."

An important tip (again from SK) on telling - "-ly" words are evil, and not your friends.


----------



## GraemeLion (Apr 16, 2010)

Well, you do have to be careful.  If you have more than one metaphor or simile in a sentence, you might be over-showing


----------



## Toonces (Apr 17, 2010)

"Telling" is infinitely preferable to "showing" in just about every sense, in my experience. The most insufferable and unreadable of prose comes from people who feel the need to elevate every mundane detail of the story through colorful, indirect language they glorify as "showing."


----------



## kitreshawn (Apr 17, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> "Telling" is infinitely preferable to "showing" in just about every sense, in my experience. The most insufferable and unreadable of prose comes from people who feel the need to elevate every mundane detail of the story through colorful, indirect language they glorify as "showing."



The opposite is just as bad:


I walked home from school.  I wanted to watch TV.  I saw my mom in her red dress.


^-- That right there is what you get if you only tell.  When people talk about show, don't tell they mean something closer to:

I headed home after school in a rush, eager to get back in time for my favorite TV show "The Amazing Adventures of Mr. Owl".  As usual mother was waiting out front, soil from the garden covering the front of her crimson dress.

The thing is that the basic story is the same if you notice.  The difference is that the details given make things less bland.  More importantly they give you an idea of what the characters are like and what they were doing.  Details that don't accomplish this goal are left out (I could conceivably put in something about the weather, but that is already implied because who gardens in the rain?).

This introduces the idea of word economy.  Each word should be selected to have the maximum possible impact.  Details that don't matter to the story, that don't add something vital, should be cut out.  But if you go too much the other way you might as well just make a numbered list of actions that happened for the enjoyment that will come from it.


----------



## Toonces (Apr 17, 2010)

kitreshawn said:


> I walked home from school.  I wanted to watch TV.  I saw my mom in her red dress.



is much more engaging than



> I headed home after school in a rush, eager to get back in time for my favorite TV show "The Amazing Adventures of Mr. Owl".  As usual mother was waiting out front, soil from the garden covering the front of her crimson dress.



because i didn't need to read any more than eighteen words to understand this idea. in fact, i don't want to.

i don't give a fuck about 'the amazing adventures of mr. owl,' and i don't care if it's your favorite tv show. i don't care about what your mother's doing, either. i'm the reader, and contrary to the common conviction, i really don't care about much of anything in your stories and my eyes are as liable to glaze over this 'showing' bullshit, as they are to actually parse anything. and the more inane bullshit you throw at me, the less i'm going to care. if you can't make 'telling' me what's going on interesting, then you certainly can't 'show' me anything worth seeing, either.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 17, 2010)

To clarify, 'showing' doesn't have anything to do with colorful language.  If you can do it with colorful language and make it sound good, that's wonderful, but it's not a necessity.

Telling: "Jim was very angry with his mother."
Showing: "Jim pointedly avoided looking at his mother."

'Showing' in that sense is more about inference, giving the reader the ability to draw his own conclusions, rather than 'trying to paint a pretty picture'.  I agree with Toonces, that if you go overboard on the language it's just going to be a turnoff.  But that's a whole other topic.  Showing versus telling is more about when you want to be explicit and when you don't.  Like in my above example, it's generally more involving if you don't just tell the reader that Jim is angry, and instead show that he's angry through his actions.  It doesn't mean you have to wax lyrical about Jim's face, and most of the time you probably shouldn't do that.
That's not how they teach it in schools, but that's how it is.


----------



## NaotaM (Apr 17, 2010)

Show, don't tell is the one iron-clad rule I always strive to follow and look for, no matter the story, the tone, the voice, the POV, the genre, or even the format(ie, a novel, short story, a film or tv show.) It's not merely some suggested technique thrown out by stuffy, coke-bottle-glasses-wearin english professors who spend all their time rereading that same old copy of Hemingway, and can thus eventually work around or "get out of" with enough growth. It's a very, very, very basic _requirement _of all good storytelling, and seeing even a small, but no less obnoxious amount of telling in any story can make me throw works by even this forum's most popular and active members straight into the recycle bin. Awful, ick, bad. Stop it.

Fooooooor instance...



> "So, like, suppose you have a character wandering around the desert for forty days; in that case, you might be better off just writing, "And so he wandered the desert aimlessly for forty days," and call it good. That's telling, but in that case it's better than trying to show him wandering around pointlessly and doing essentially nothing but walking."


 
No offense, but fuck this suggestion. It sucks. This is why I hate telling, even more than because it treats the reader like an idiot; it breaks flow and wastes time telling something that can be easily shown while the plot keeps moving forward. You don't, and shouldn't, have to worry about detailing entire scenes about every little thing he does walking through the desert(although on the other hand, why not? If you give him intersting things to do and see and people to meet, it could still work and the ideas you come up with could come together to be even better than what you had initially thought up, or tie into it in a brilliant way...but who's to say? It may not be a road-trip story you're going for, it's all about purpose, I guess. Writing's a free-flowing process, just like all other creative expression. AUGGGG TANGENTS ><)


Rather, just stop and think about how walking through the desert for that long would effect him, how it'd make him act, make him look, make him react. Really, it's all about characterization and careful, efficient detail; If he's been walking through the desert for 40 days(and why that long? Factor that in, too), he's going to be bony and starving, dying of thirst, he'll reek, if he has any sense, he'll be packed down with robes(that also reek) to shield him from the sun. Portray that, "show" that, with believable, real-world detail; show him reaching out with a wobbly twig of an arm and stuffing his god-given morsels of food down his mouth, barely even chewing. Guzzling down a canteen. If there's another character around, they should notice and you could mention the 40 days thing in dialogue, if you even have to do that much. 

And what if he doesn't have any clothing? Why? Was he suddenly stranded there somehow? Work that in. Is he a desert-indeginous species, like a camel or rattlesnake, and this is just a breezy, midday hike for him? Great, work that in, "show" it with every rasped, cracking attempt at words, every confused trace of a hand over some alien desert machinery, every beaming smile and wave as he heads back out to tan(or bleach. Furry logic's tricky ^^ because it's just so wonderfully mild outside. Don't tell, "show" the telling details, that's the whole point.

As for Batrat and Toonces, wow. You two are waaaaay off.



> Don't show: "The dark elf's tapered ears peirced his mane of pale hair gracefully, mathcing the careful composition of his lithe body, like a needle of ebony among so many other ebon atmospheres..."
> 
> Tell: "The Dark Elf blended in with the night."


 

Terrible examples. You don't seem to understand what the rule means. Case in point, those are both "showing", one's just more ridiculously florid than the other. What kills me is that they both still have their perks. If the first one was rewritten and clipped down a LOT, it could make for a decent part of a character introduction. The latter is short and sweet, quick and suited for action or suspense, though it could be punched up a bit.



> I walked home from school. I wanted to watch TV. I saw my mom in her red dress.
> 
> 
> ^-- That right there is what you get if you only tell. When people talk about show, don't tell they mean something closer to:
> ...


 
Likewise, those are both techincally still showing, though contrary to Toonce's belief(whom I can't tell if he's just trolling again, as he's wont to do, or is just that stupid -_-) paragraph B is infinitely preferrable to paragraph A. Beyond the fact that paragraph A is merely shitty and borderine monosyllabic, B uses effecient, not overblown, detail to give us clues on what these characters are like, giving them life and context and thus a reason to care about what's happening and whatever will happen later on, without skidding the plot to a halt to go on a tangent about who they are, why they like the Amazing whatever, etc. So woot, Kitreshawn has just the right idea. <3

Showing is telling your story, about the characters, about the plot, through concrete detail, _without_ overloading with purple prose and keeping the plot moving while getting what you need to across in an interesting, readable way. Don't "tell" me what the characters are like, don't tell me how they think and what they fear, "show" me how they behave, "show" me how they react to things people say, what happens to them, etc.


A. "He felt a sudden tickle creeping up his shoulder and his blood froze. His limbs stiffened, fur bristling like needles. He turned his head, wide-eyed, found all eight eyes of his molester glaring back at him and, like a shot, bolted for the living room. "Get it off! Get it off!" he yelped, swatting at his shoulder. The whole house quaked from his wild heavy steps as he bounded across the room for help, someone, anyone."


This is showing. It could also be tightened up a lot, but I just woke up. I'll think up a better example later. ^^; Point is, it shows you, through his reaction and behavior, what you need to know. As opposed to...

B. "He felt a spider on his shoulder and felt terrified. He always hated spiders. Their spindly little legs, their giant, bulbous abdomens that crunched underfoot. He had a crippling fear of them since he was twelve. Everytime he saw one, he seized in horror and ran off for help, squealing like a kitten half his age."

This is "telling", spoon-feeding information into the reader's head via narration. This is lazy, uncreative, treats the reader like an moron, and if they have any sense, they'll treat you and your writing likewise. A is infinitely preferrable to B, and if you honestly think otherwise, you're just another talentless hack who can't be arsed to work up the skill and discipline needed to tell a good, interesting story. After all, telling everything is easy, and why should we believe what you tell us when it may have no truth or power in the story itself? To show a detailed, concrete scene, a portrayal of reality through pictures painted with words, and make it believable, takes work, heart and skill.

And it applies for everything; there's showing v. telling for dialog(ie "As you know, when I was child, in that car crash...", ie telling, ie if you still write like this, _kill yourself. *UGH.*_*) *Showing v telling for story, message and theme(ie. portraying believable scenes and situations where what you're trying to get across comes up naturally in the reader's mind as opposed to being cheap, preachy and manipulative, beating your theme into us without actually working it anywhere into the plot. I can't tell you how many times I see people try to get away with this using first-person. I've even done it once and I can't stand to look at that story anymore.) Just stick to showing as much as you can. If you have that much background information, either try to show it through action and characterization as well as you can, or stop and consider how much of it is even neccesary. Hold off on some details and show them later, trickle down little pieces of the puzzle. If you write long, chapter-broken things, do what I do and use flashbacks(I shan't tange this today, but let me just say fuck all naysayers. I love flashbacks.) Or just dismiss me as being overly anal and fight the good fight for striking that certain "balance". Just please try to understand why the rule exists and why all stories need it.


----------



## kitreshawn (Apr 17, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> i don't give a fuck about 'the amazing adventures of mr. owl,' and i don't care if it's your favorite tv show. i don't care about what your mother's doing, either. i'm the reader, and contrary to the common conviction, i really don't care about much of anything in your stories and my eyes are as liable to glaze over this 'showing' bullshit, as they are to actually parse anything. and the more inane bullshit you throw at me, the less i'm going to care. if you can't make 'telling' me what's going on interesting, then you certainly can't 'show' me anything worth seeing, either.



M Le Renard is right, there is no need for colorful language.  If you look at my examples I didn't throw in tons of inane 'bullshit', I threw in things that are meaningful.  What can you tell about the main character in the first example?  1) He goes to school.  2) He watches TV.  3) His mom wears a red dress.

What about the second example?  1) He watches a very childish sounding show (e.g. he is young) 2) It is on right after school since he has to hurry to catch it.  3) His mom gardens.  4) It is nice outside.  5) He He goes to school.  6) His mom wears a red dress.  Now if these should actually be put into the story depends on the story.  If his mom's gardening is key to the story than yes.

The reason you don't give a fuck about the story is because that isn't the genre you like to read, not because there is anything wrong with how it is written.  That particular one is probably 'slice of life'.  Maybe you like more adventurous stories, lets see what happens when you reduce that to telling:

I quest to find the stolen treasure.  I went north.  I found the trail of the bandits.  I caught up to them.  I fought with them.  They cut my side.  I killed them.  I brought back the treasure.  I married the princess.

That is an entire adventure story reduced to nothing but telling.  All sense of exploration is gone.  All sense of danger is gone.  It is boring.

Or maybe you want to read yiff?

I was late for the train.  I managed to make it just in time.  There was a man on the train.  He was from the navy.  He read a magazine with pictures of naked boys in it.  He noticed me looking.  We had sex.  I came.  I got off the train.

Again, reduced to nothing but telling.  My wasn't that erotic?

You may say that I am not being fair by distilling things so completely, but at the very base that is EXACTLY what telling results in.

If you had actually bothered to read my post you would also see that I have said that it is completely possible to go overboard.  I will draw your attention to what I said here:



> the idea of word economy. Each word should be selected to have the maximum possible impact. Details that don't matter to the story, that don't add something vital, should be cut out. But if you go too much the other way you might as well just make a numbered list of actions that happened for the enjoyment that will come from it.



NOTICE: I specifically said that if it doesn't matter to the story IT SHOULD BE CUT OUT!  That is the whole point of word economy and DIRECTLY addresses your complaint about lots of stuff being thrown into a story that doesn't matter.

Finally, Toonces, if you cannot be civil please go away.  There was no need to curse (fuck, bullshit) at all.  I understand you did so in order to add emphasis but I don't care.   It is too easy to misinterpret tone enough on a purely text medium without throwing around swear words and acting like someone killed your dog.


----------



## Scarborough (Apr 17, 2010)

Naota - I'm seriously against overarching statements, and you're making one.

Showing is not _ipso facto_ better than telling, and telling is not _ipso facto_ better than showing. Saying that showing is better than telling is like saying that 1POV is better than 3POV or vice versa. It depends on what kind of story you're telling and what kind of effect you're trying to have on the reader and what kind of voice you're trying to produce.

At the risk of coming off arrogant, I'd at least redirect you to the story I linked a few posts earlier. The story would certainly not have worked had I "showed" all the action instead of "told" everything.

Or, consider David Foster Wallace's "A Radically Condensed History of Postindustrial Life," which tells the entire story instead of shows anything. Or Donald Barthelme's "The Glass Mountain."

It's not that telling is worse, it's that telling a good story is trickier than showing a good story.


----------



## kitreshawn (Apr 17, 2010)

Scarborough said:


> At the risk of coming off arrogant, I'd at least redirect you to the story I linked a few posts earlier. The story would certainly not have worked had I "showed" all the action instead of "told" everything.



heh.  I read that and found it funny, however it also gets the point across both ways.  The story isn't very engaging at all, but I gather that is the whole point.  Out of curiosity do you have any other examples of that?


----------



## Scarborough (Apr 17, 2010)

kitreshawn said:


> heh.  I read that and found it funny, however it also gets the point across both ways.  The story isn't very engaging at all, but I gather that is the whole point.  Out of curiosity do you have any other examples of that?



Besides the other two I linked, I don't have any stellar examples off-hand. Tao Lin does a bit of telling-not-showing, and for the most part it comes off as good. David Foster Wallace can do telling-not-showing.


----------



## NaotaM (Apr 17, 2010)

Scarborough said:


> Naota - I'm seriously against overarching statements, and you're making one.
> 
> Showing is not _ipso facto_ better than telling, and telling is not _ipso facto_ better than showing. Saying that showing is better than telling is like saying that 1POV is better than 3POV or vice versa. It depends on what kind of story you're telling and what kind of effect you're trying to have on the reader and what kind of voice you're trying to produce.
> 
> ...


 
And how is it not possible to produce all ranges of tone and voice through showing? If you're just trying to do a quirky narrative experiment rather than a story, like the links you posted(and you''ll find it no surprise I hated all three, though Glass Mountain seemed to switch back and forth between the two so it was tolerable at least), then you have at least a shaky point. Showing is stil prefferable, though.



> It's not that telling is worse, it's that telling a good story is trickier than showing a good story


 
You couldn't possibaly have it more backwords, so I'll assume you meant "showing is trickier", and more to the point, too bad. Them's the breaks. Nothing worth having, or reading, comes easy.


----------



## kitreshawn (Apr 17, 2010)

See, when I think of David Wallace I think of the use footnotes that he used to keep the narrative nice and clean but allow for the feeling of jumping about in consciousness, how your mind can wander.  When I read his writing I see fairly typical use of showing and telling.


----------



## Scarborough (Apr 17, 2010)

NaotaM said:


> And how is it not possible to produce all ranges of tone and voice through showing? If you're just trying to do a quirky narrative experiment rather than a story, like the links you posted(and you''ll find it no surprise I hated all three, though Glass Mountain seemed to switch back and forth between the two so it was tolerable at least), then you have at least a shaky point. Showing is stil prefferable, though.
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't possibaly have it more backwords, so I'll assume you meant "showing is trickier", and more to the point, too bad. Them's the breaks. Nothing worth having, or reading, comes easy.



How do you presume to say that one is better than (or even preferable to) the other? Especially with the David Foster Wallace piece, you simply cannot show instead of tell and get the same point across. Because the point of his story was to show the ability to oversimplify and connect common yet deeply personal ideas.

Your argument is simply ill-constructed. You said that showing is still preferable without showing (no pun intended) how you could have told the same story by showing.

And I am saying that it's more difficult to _tell a story well_ than to _show a story well_. It's very easy to _tell a story badly_.

Your personal preferences cannot be a definition for (1) good art and (2) other people's desires to read certain works of art.


----------



## jinxtigr (Apr 17, 2010)

Wheee! This is getting lively. "Toonces, toonces! The cat who can write a story!" 

Yes, it's Hemingway's Corpse versus Walls of Paragraphs! Who will survive???

hehehehehe

Here's the deal. This is what angers the Hemingway guys. *Not everything is important**. *If you like noting every leaf that falls, if every red dress has to be carmine or magenta or scarlet, fine, but there are other things to write about, things you might be swamping in a mass of detail. It's not all about trying to be different or working your style. At the most basic level you're writing about something, not just around something.

On the flip side of that, if you strip away all the flowery crap, *you'd better be getting down to something real.* You're choosing to cut all the crap and stand naked. Particularly if you're a younger writer, there's a huge chance you're mistaking your own existence for deep insight. You have a responsibility to translate your experience, you can't just strip away everything, say 'I am sad' and think you've communicated what's in your heart just because you're not obscuring it with wilting flowers and single raindrops. Worse, if you're pruning and simplifying, any distractions you make like bad grammar, spelling, sentences that don't read well- that stuff becomes more important the less fluff you stack around it.

In conclusion, I have been Harlan Ellison. Fuck you all


----------



## Scarborough (Apr 17, 2010)

jinxtigr has a point. For the most part, well-executed stories combine telling and showing.

Which is why one cannot necessarily be better than the other. And I think that point has already been iterated multiple times in this thread.


----------



## kitreshawn (Apr 17, 2010)

jinxtigr said:


> *Not everything is important**. *






jinxtigr said:


> You have a responsibility to translate your experience, you can't just strip away everything, say 'I am sad' and think you've communicated (...)



Quoted because this is basically my whole argument.  So Jinxtigr++


----------



## NaotaM (Apr 17, 2010)

Scarborough said:


> jinxtigr has a point. For the most part, well-executed stories combine telling and showing.
> 
> Which is why one cannot necessarily be better than the other. And I think that point has already been iterated multiple times in this thread.


 
It's too bad I can barely understand what jinxtigr is saying half the time. ^^; Syntax, learn it. And from what I can tell, I agree with what he said, having said it all already.


----------



## NaotaM (Apr 17, 2010)

Scarborough said:


> How do you presume to say that one is better than (or even preferable to) the other? Especially with the David Foster Wallace piece, you simply cannot show instead of tell and get the same point across. Because the point of his story was to show the ability to oversimplify and connect common yet deeply personal ideas.
> 
> Your argument is simply ill-constructed. You said that showing is still preferable without showing (no pun intended) how you could have told the same story by showing.
> 
> ...


 
Like I said, telling can work for specific experimentation, _sometimes_. The problem is, that wasn't a "story", and yes, it could be told better through showing; showing them being introduced, showing him awkwardly making a few jokes, showing her hesitating a bit, then bursting into pained, just a pitch-too-high, too-long laughter, showing them driving home with that twist on their face, and showing the introducer being irritated. Easy. Like you say, the point is that telling can work woth that idea, but that in itself is the only reason the telling works. Anything else and it'd come across as exposition trying to be poetic.

And it isn't a preference, it's just what makes good storytelling. I prefer third-person to first, but reading first doesn't irk me. Showing in itself is a balance, as is telling, but one is superior to the other for reasons you know damn well by now(and I'm not quoting my initial post cause OMG HUGE 0-0), and you're poorly-demonstrated disagrrement(relying on exceptions to the rule to make your point, which seem constructed around the knowledge that the rule exists, doesn't change the rule) doesn't change that.


----------



## panzergulo (Apr 17, 2010)

NaotaM said:


> Show, don't tell is [...] a very, very, very basic _requirement _of all good storytelling, and seeing even a small, but no less obnoxious amount of telling in any story can make me throw works by even this forum's most popular and active members straight into the recycle bin. Awful, ick, bad. Stop it.



Okay. I go now to delete my whole gallery and kill myself.


----------



## Scarborough (Apr 17, 2010)

NaotaM said:


> Like I said, telling can work for specific experimentation, _sometimes_. The problem is, that wasn't a "story", and yes, it could be told better through showing; showing them being introduced, showing him awkwardly making a few jokes, showing her hesitating a bit, then bursting into pained, just a pitch-too-high, too-long laughter, showing them driving home with that twist on their face, and showing the introducer being irritated.



And what, pray tell, qualifies a "story" and what disqualifies a "story"? Do you have a MFA in English and/or Creative Writing, and can you presume to tell us what does and does not constitute a "story"?

Because the definition of what does and does not constitute a "story" has changed radically over time. Most literary scholars will consider the works I linked "stories." Indeed, Donald Barthelme's story is collected in a collection of "stories." David Foster Wallace's story is collected in a collection of "stories." Publishers have agreed that those two works are stories. And they're stories because they use prosody as a form of expression.



NaotaM said:


> And it isn't a preference, it's just what makes good storytelling. I prefer third-person to first, but reading first doesn't irk me. Showing in itself is a balance, as is telling, but one is superior to the other for reasons you know damn well by now(and I'm not quoting my initial post cause OMG HUGE 0-0), and you're poorly-demonstrated disagrrement(relying on exceptions to the rule to make your point, which seem constructed around the knowledge that the rule exists, doesn't change the rule) doesn't change that.



According to whom? Thus far, you haven't said anything about why showing is better storytelling except to say that showing is better storytelling. I can thus far distill your argument as follows:

1. Showing is good storytelling.
2. A lot of people who are not simply old fogeys say that showing is good storytelling.
3. Therefore, showing is good storytelling.

Of course, that is both circular reasoning and _ad verecundiam_ fallacious.

Furthermore, simply stating that my disagreement is poorly-demonstrated does not make it so. Your own argument simply states that showing is good storytelling and (perhaps) implies that more detail and a connection to the characters of the story and their specific situations is desirable.

It's an impossible argument to make, because "good storytelling" (at least according to your definition) is largely entrenched in societal norms. "Good storytelling" thousands of years ago is far different from "good storytelling" now. You'll be good to note that the postmodern and the realist, though mere decades apart, are two radically different modes of thought that can stand in even starker contrast with the epic.


----------



## NaotaM (Apr 17, 2010)

* Re: A fear of telling?*



panzergulo said:


> Okay. I go now to delete my whole gallery and kill myself.


 
As you know, Panzer, since back three years ago at our uncle's villa, who is rich, and I felt sad, because of that fateful car crash, it's down the highway, not across the st....*drops dead


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 17, 2010)

NaotaM said:
			
		

> ...but who's to say? It may not be a road-trip story you're going for, it's all about purpose, I guess. Writing's a free-flowing process, just like all other creative expression. AUGGGG TANGENTS ><)


I notice you're trying to make a definite statement, but by saying this, you realize, you're actually agreeing with me.  What I said about panzer's moon passage echoes this sentiment exactly; it's all about purpose.  If the fact that he walked through the desert for forty days isn't really that important (in other words, if the only purpose was for him to get from point A to point B, and it happened to take him that long, but he's good at it so he knew how to prepare so he didn't come out of the experience any the worse for wear, didn't meet anybody along the way, blah blah blah contingency contingency), then trying to 'show' every step of the journey is just going to be a big chunk of filler.  The reader will HATE you.
So my point, I believe, remains, that telling can sometimes be appropriate.  And this is just a certain style of writing.  If you want to show absolutely everything, including the unimportant details, by all means do so.  Tolkien made it work fairly well when he did it.  Just recognize that that's definitely not the only way to write a well-told story.

Also, keep the bickering to a minimum, guys.


----------



## NaotaM (Apr 17, 2010)

Scarborough said:


> And what, pray tell, qualifies a "story" and what disqualifies a "story"? Do you have a MFA in English and/or Creative Writing, and can you presume to tell us what does and does not constitute a "story"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## NaotaM (Apr 17, 2010)

M. Le Renard said:


> I notice you're trying to make a definite statement, but by saying this, you realize, you're actually agreeing with me. What I said about panzer's moon passage echoes this sentiment exactly; it's all about purpose. If the fact that he walked through the desert for forty days isn't really that important (in other words, if the only purpose was for him to get from point A to point B, and it happened to take him that long, but he's good at it so he knew how to prepare so he didn't come out of the experience any the worse for wear, didn't meet anybody along the way, blah blah blah contingency contingency), then trying to 'show' every step of the journey is just going to be a big chunk of filler. The reader will HATE you.
> So my point, I believe, remains, that telling can sometimes be appropriate. And this is just a certain style of writing. If you want to show absolutely everything, including the unimportant details, by all means do so. Tolkien made it work fairly well when he did it. Just recognize that that's definitely not the only way to write a well-told story.
> 
> Also, keep the bickering to a minimum, guys.


 
That's perfectly fair. But then, what's wrong with the approach suggested in the very next paragraph?



> Rather, just stop and think about how walking through the desert for that long would effect him, how it'd make him act, make him look, make him react. Really, it's all about characterization and careful, efficient detail; If he's been walking through the desert for 40 days(and why that long? Factor that in, too), he's going to be bony and starving, dying of thirst, he'll reek, if he has any sense, he'll be packed down with robes(that also reek) to shield him from the sun. Portray that, "show" that, with believable, real-world detail; show him reaching out with a wobbly twig of an arm and stuffing his god-given morsels of food down his mouth, barely even chewing. Guzzling down a canteen. If there's another character around, they should notice and you could mention the 40 days thing in dialogue, if you even have to do that much.


 
Again, it's not about detailing Every. Single. Thing. Show the _telling _details, how they act and behave, their little quirks, and by no means not all at once. Stick to the important things, absolutely.


----------



## Scarborough (Apr 17, 2010)

I seriously did not want to have to do this.



NaotaM said:


> Oh, I dunno. Plot, conflict, character, resolution. Take your pick.



Precisely. _Take your pick._ According to Burroway and Stuckey-French's _A Guide to Narrative Craft_ (7th ed.), a story can be defined as a "series of events" recorded in some kind of "chronological order" (273). A plot is necessarily a tying together of such events in order to reveal perhaps a grander message. Note that not all stories have plots, and in fact the postmodern frequently employs a jumbled "pastiche" of events and ideas to deliberately confound the idea of a supposed narrative form (Bennett & Royle, _An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory_).

Bearing this in mind, all stories have different messages, and as such employ different aspects of a story, and as such use different techniques to represent the different aspects of the story that represent different messages. If all stories had the same message, you could go ahead and be so bold as to make your overarching statements. But this is simply not the case. Not only do literary scholars note this, but it makes sense. That one can "take their pick" with regard to what matters indicates that a story need not have every traditionally determined aspect of a story in order to actually be a story. "The Gift of the Magi" arguably has no setting, but does that automatically make it "not a story"? No, it does not.

My point is that if stories don't have to adhere to the exposition-climax-resolution plot structure and the main character-supporting characters-stock characters structure and the time-place setting structure, then some stories will look radically different from others. If that's the case, then the only true definition of a story is that something changes between the time it takes to get from beginning to end. The stories I provided meet this criteria, as do all traditional and non-traditional stories.



NaotaM said:


> This is why I hate telling, even more than because it treats the reader like an idiot; it breaks flow and wastes time telling something that can be easily shown while the plot keeps moving forward.



You've already assumed that telling "breaks flow" and "wastes time," and have implied that telling does not advance plot.

I have argued that plot is not an essential aspect of a story. I have further provided stories that have their own flow and message, and that a more "telling" style is consistent with themselves. Thus, this point is dismantled.



NaotaM said:


> You don't, and shouldn't, have to worry about detailing entire scenes about every little thing he does walking through the desert(although on the other hand, why not? If you give him intersting things to do and see and people to meet, it could still work and the ideas you come up with could come together to be even better than what you had initially thought up, or tie into it in a brilliant way...but who's to say? It may not be a road-trip story you're going for, it's all about purpose, I guess. Writing's a free-flowing process, just like all other creative expression. AUGGGG TANGENTS ><)



See MLR's response _supra_. This point supports my argument that telling is a perfectly valid style for storywriting, because it is all about purpose. If one's purpose more accurately calls for telling as opposed to showing, then one should tell instead of show.



NaotaM said:


> B uses effecient, not overblown, detail to give us clues on what these characters are like, giving them life and context and thus a reason to care about what's happening and whatever will happen later on, without skidding the plot to a halt to go on a tangent about who they are, why they like the Amazing whatever, etc



This stands in stark contradiction with your own point supra. You've just stated that it's up to the author to define purpose. Twice. You're already assuming that accurate characterization and plot are essential to a story. Again, I will cite "The Gift of the Magi" in its colloquialized and verbally passed-down form, which story is frequently told with poor characterization and minimal plot, and yet continues to be one of the most powerful short stories in today's culture. Thus, your point is dismantled.



NaotaM said:


> This is "telling", spoon-feeding information into the reader's head via narration. This is lazy, uncreative, treats the reader like an moron, and if they have any sense, they'll treat you and your writing likewise.



You have used the word "uncreative" without operationally defining the word "uncreative." Telling can most certainly be "creative" in the sense that the author has "created" the set of words in the specific syntax and timing and whatnot and has arranged them properly in space and is using them for some purpose. Furthermore, you have stated that telling "treats the reader like a moron" without providing adequate explanation with regard to _how_ telling treats the reader like a moron.

Telling the reader that Joe Schmoe walked 40 miles through a desert without talking about how parched Joe Schmoe is does not treat the reader like a moron. There are countless examples with regard to how telling does not treat the reader like a moron. Thus, this point cannot support your conclusion.



NaotaM said:


> A is infinitely preferrable to B, and if you honestly think otherwise, you're just another talentless hack who can't be arsed to work up the skill and discipline needed to tell a good, interesting story.



Ignoring the perjoratives, you have not defined what a "good, interesting story" is. I have provided supra my definition of a story.



NaotaM said:


> After all, telling everything is easy, and why should we believe what you tell us when it may have no truth or power in the story itself?



At this point, I would like to note to you that there is a difference between telling and overtelling, just as there is a difference between showing and overshowing. You already know examples of showing and overshowing, and you already know examples of overtelling.

Recall the story "The Gift of the Magi" as passed down in colloquial spoken form. That is telling a story. Overtelling the story would be, e.g., "Two people gave up their gifts so they could buy the other a gift, except the gifts they bought could only be used in relation to the gifts the two had previously given up to buy said gifts in the first place. The point of the story is to show kindness."

That is overtelling. That is not telling. Thus, your point is ill-defined and therefore cannot be used as support for your conclusion.



NaotaM said:


> To show a detailed, concrete scene, a portrayal of reality through pictures painted with words, and make it believable, takes work, heart and skill.



The amount of "work, heart and skill" necessary to create a scene bears no relevance with regard to how enjoyable the scene is. If I spend sixteen years making a loaf of bread, that bread is not _ipso facto_ better than bread you can buy at the supermarket. If I spent sixteen years growing the wheat, converting the wheat into flour, harvesting yeast, molding a bowl, building an oven, etc. in creating the bread, it doesn't make the bread better. It means I am an inefficient worker. Thus, the amount of work it takes to create bread is not even correlated to the amount of enjoyment one gets from consuming said bread.

This is a criticism on the Labor Theory of Value. This is also a criticism against your point. Your point, then, cannot be used to support your conclusion.



NaotaM said:


> And it applies for everything; there's showing v. telling for dialog(ie "As you know, when I was child, in that car crash...", ie telling, ie if you still write like this, kill yourself. UGH.) Showing v telling for story, message and theme(ie. portraying believable scenes and situations where what you're trying to get across comes up naturally in the reader's mind as opposed to being cheap, preachy and manipulative, beating your theme into us without actually working it anywhere into the plot. I can't tell you how many times I see people try to get away with this using first-person. I've even done it once and I can't stand to look at that story anymore.)



Furthermore, you are making an inductive fallacy. Just because you've seen poor writing that uses more tell than show does not automatically discredit all telling in storywriting. This point is fallacious and therefore cannot be used to support your conclusion.



NaotaM said:


> Just stick to showing as much as you can.



Yet, you've contradicted yourself when you were talking about the purpose of a story. Furthermore, jinxtigr's point is relevant insofar as you simply cannot show every leaf falling from the tree when you're going to write a story.



NaotaM said:


> If you have that much background information, either try to show it through action and characterization as well as you can, or stop and consider how much of it is even neccesary. Hold off on some details and show them later, trickle down little pieces of the puzzle. If you write long, chapter-broken things, do what I do and use flashbacks(I shan't tange this today, but let me just say fuck all naysayers. I love flashbacks.) Or just dismiss me as being overly anal and fight the good fight for striking that certain "balance". Just please try to understand why the rule exists and why all stories need it.



Your points are all based off of assumptions that you have not established. Most of your assumptions have to do with what does and does not make a good story, which you have defended by providing neither evidence from actual stories, nor evidence from scholars. You have simply provided examples and automatically called them "good stories," but you assume that a "good story" advances plot or character. You further give poor examples with regard to how telling could possibly advance plot or character. Essentially, your argument boils down to circular reasoning and straw man arguments.



NaotaM said:


> So, either you're bold-facedly lying, suffer from poor reading comprehension, or just truly have no recourse but to avoid acknoweldging their points to create the veil of having your own(and don't delude yourself; you've made no point except to posit circular questions about subjects both defined and nebulous and simply state that you disagree, which you'd agree does not magically make it so), but it's not that it matters. You're not worth further response until you have something to actually say.



Have I made myself clear?

Further reading: http://www.ursulakleguin.com/WhatMakesAStory.html



> "A story has a beginning, a middle, and an end:"  This comes from Aristotle, and it splendidly describes a great many stories from the European narrative tradition, but it doesn't describe all stories. It's a recipe for steak, it's not a recipe for tamales.



http://www.ursulakleguin.com/SteeringCraft_57B.html



> I define story as a narrative of events (external or psychological) which moves through time or implies the passage of time, and which involves change.
> 
> ...
> 
> But most serious modern fictions canâ€™t be reduced to a plot, or retold without fatal loss except in their own words. The story is not in the plot but in the telling. It is the telling that moves.



(Assume that she's not using "telling" here like we're using "telling" in our show/tell discussion.)


----------



## jinxtigr (Apr 17, 2010)

NaotaM said:


> It's too bad I can barely understand what jinxtigr is saying half the time. ^^; Syntax, learn it. And from what I can tell, I agree with what he said, having said it all already.



In triplicate? 

I was pretty sure I was speaking English, but I guess I might have just been meowing REAL HARD for treats. Silly me 

Be careful when arguing, guys- when writers argue, sometimes they start talking in such stilted language that they become unreadable. If you find yourself talking in Latin, that's a tip-off that perhaps both you AND the person you're arguing with are suffering from Lawyer.

The only cure for Lawyer is remembering that people are allowed to hate what you do. In fact, if nobody hates what you do, you're not doing it nearly well enough. Fapping is NOT a cure for Lawyer, you'll just rant more happily and your paws will be sticky 

Meowing harder lest Tinkerbell die,
-jinxtigr


----------



## Scarborough (Apr 17, 2010)

jinxtigr said:


> In triplicate?
> 
> I was pretty sure I was speaking English, but I guess I might have just been meowing REAL HARD for treats. Silly me
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I think what I'm looking for is that some (or maybe even most) people don't care to read that kind of art. Not that that kind of art isn't "good" art.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 17, 2010)

NaotaM said:


> That's perfectly fair. But then, what's wrong with the approach suggested in the very next paragraph?


Nothing.  Details like that are very pleasurable to read.  And I think the idea of including that he's been in the desert 40 days within the dialogue is probably a better approach than just stating in the narrative, because it doesn't break the flow.  You're still telling the reader that's what happened, though.  
Which reminds me.  Telling can also be used to dispel ambiguity.  A guy who looks like that might just be homeless, after all.

Also, man, we're busting out sources and page numbers in this thread.  This is quite the intense discussion.


----------



## Toonces (Apr 17, 2010)

kitreshawn said:


> M Le Renard is right, there is no need for colorful language.  If you look at my examples I didn't throw in tons of inane 'bullshit', I threw in things that are meaningful.  What can you tell about the main character in the first example?  1) He goes to school.  2) He watches TV.  3) His mom wears a red dress.
> 
> What about the second example?  1) He watches a very childish sounding show (e.g. he is young) 2) It is on right after school since he has to hurry to catch it.  3) His mom gardens.  4) It is nice outside.  5) He He goes to school.  6) His mom wears a red dress.  Now if these should actually be put into the story depends on the story.  If his mom's gardening is key to the story than yes.



First of all, I apologize sincerely for my colorful language. I meant it in playfulness, because that's just how I talk, but I should have realized how it would have come off condescending and dismissive.

However, the point I'm trying to get across is that the second paragraph is not necessarily better simply because it conveys more information. The ability of a story to arouse emotions and stir ideas and realize images is not in its ability to condense information into the most compact, efficient space. 

I'd like to call to mind one of the most jarring, memorable first lines of any story, from The Stranger (which somebody else already made reference to today):

"Maman died today."

The power in that opening line is in precisely that it endeavors to convey only one definite, direct piece of information. Of course, the use of the word "Maman," which is akin to something like "Mommy," adds a layer of characterization to the speaker. But it's the fact that the statement isn't diluted by descriptions of the rainy day, or the sound of babies crying in the background, or the scent of ground beef grilling, or whatever, that allows this one piece of information - the death of a mother - to hit with tremendous force.



> The reason you don't give a fuck about the story is because that isn't the genre you like to read, not because there is anything wrong with how it is written.  That particular one is probably 'slice of life'.



Even within a genre you appreciate, the natural process in reading is to cull. You might not realize this because it's a process you do without realizing it, but it's a matter of fact: Of the infinite number of things you could be reading at this one moment (n), you've dismissed n-1 things to actually read. You've made the value judgment that, at this point, you don't care about it. Even when you're writing to your audience, you need to make them care about it.

Unless you're an established author, or happen to be on your reader's favorites list, they are reading your story on a trial basis, and you need to _make_ them care about it. I didn't make that point because _I_ didn't care about the story, I made the point because it is how the overwhelming majority of your readers will approach your story. 



> Maybe you like more adventurous stories, lets see what happens when you reduce that to telling:
> 
> I quest to find the stolen treasure.  I went north.  I found the trail of the bandits.  I caught up to them.  I fought with them.  They cut my side.  I killed them.  I brought back the treasure.  I married the princess.
> 
> That is an entire adventure story reduced to nothing but telling.  All sense of exploration is gone.  All sense of danger is gone.  It is boring.



When you construct an example to be boring, it will be boring, which is what you're doing here.

If you don't mind, here's an example of a story I wrote that is 100% direct, declarative statements, given in the form of a customer's file. There isn't a single piece of information in this that is tinged with any kind of color. But the idea was to use the coldness of the method to represent the coldness of the business practices represented by the file. For what I was trying to accomplish with this short, experimental piece of fiction, writing the story in a way to generate warmth or a feeling of personality would have anathema to the story, which, in my opinion, generates its effectiveness from the fact that the person at the heart of it is kept distant, unrealized, unknown, and lifeless. It reflects the fact that, by the end of the story, she _is_ lifeless.



> Or maybe you want to read yiff?
> 
> I was late for the train.  I managed to make it just in time.  There was a man on the train.  He was from the navy.  He read a magazine with pictures of naked boys in it.  He noticed me looking.  We had sex.  I came.  I got off the train.
> 
> Again, reduced to nothing but telling.  My wasn't that erotic?



I don't have a similar example, but the same method could be employed in pulp to convey an idea of an anonymous encounter lacking real warmth, to generate an idea of a character doing little more than satisfying a base need. Which, for some people, would probably be mad hot. 



> You may say that I am not being fair by distilling things so completely, but at the very base that is EXACTLY what telling results in.
> 
> If you had actually bothered to read my post you would also see that I have said that it is completely possible to go overboard.  I will draw your attention to what I said here:



I don't think you're being unfair at all.




> NOTICE: I specifically said that if it doesn't matter to the story IT SHOULD BE CUT OUT!  That is the whole point of word economy and DIRECTLY addresses your complaint about lots of stuff being thrown into a story that doesn't matter.
> 
> Finally, Toonces, if you cannot be civil please go away.  There was no need to curse (fuck, bullshit) at all.  I understand you did so in order to add emphasis but I don't care.   It is too easy to misinterpret tone enough on a purely text medium without throwing around swear words and acting like someone killed your dog.



Again, I'm really sorry for using such aggressive language. I only use it to root my advice in the colloquial rather than the academic, but I should have realized how it would be interpreted.


----------



## Toonces (Apr 17, 2010)

M. Le Renard said:


> Also, man, we're busting out sources and page numbers in this thread.  This is quite the intense discussion.



My goal in provoking this debate hasn't been to correct anybody on anything, I'd like to point out, but rather just to provide more dynamic discussion than what usually happens around here.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 17, 2010)

I was referring to Scarborough, actually, but yes, thanks for provoking a good discussion.  It's always appreciated.
Also, to clarify, I wasn't referring to the cursing going on when I mentioned colorful language.  I never judge that because I cuss all the time myself.  I was talking about how 'showing' does not mean using colorful, elaborate language to describe things.  I probably should have used the word 'flowery'.


----------



## NaotaM (Apr 17, 2010)

> I'd like to call to mind one of the most jarring, memorable first lines of any story, from The Stranger (which somebody else already made reference to today):
> 
> "Maman died today."
> 
> The power in that opening line is in precisely that it endeavors to convey only one definite, direct piece of information. Of course, the use of the word "Maman," which is akin to something like "Mommy," adds a layer of characterization to the speaker. But it's the fact that the statement isn't diluted by descriptions of the rainy day, or the sound of babies crying in the background, or the scent of ground beef grilling, or whatever, that allows this one piece of information - the death of a mother - to hit with tremendous force.


 
Right, the power in that line IS in how much information it conveys. The colloqialism, the apperant childishness of that colloqialism, the simple, stark and quiet sadness of it. It shows so much by telling so little.

Which brings me to another thing I briefly touched on; dialogue isn't neccesarily telling. Naturally told dialogue that doesn't sound forced in to fill in some invisible listener can show so much about character and plot, draw in the reader, and more to the point, it's pretty neccesary if your story is particularly complex or involved. It varies, of course, but without providing context, situational and emotional, you'll never know what the hell's going on. It beats dry narration through telling, particularly because the plot still moves while information and subtler detail about the characters is being expressed. Dialogue as action, basically.

In any case, all three examples provided were still showing, the last two were just much better.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 17, 2010)

Now we're talking about showing by telling, huh?  Here's a whole new level of complexity.


----------



## kitreshawn (Apr 17, 2010)

M. Le Renard said:


> Now we're talking about showing by telling, huh?  Here's a whole new level of complexity.



I don't think that is quite true but it may strike at the issue that people are disagreeing over.

Personally I think that when showing and telling is done properly it is very hard to separate them because it is interwoven so closely.  At that point if you remove any of the showing the telling part becomes trite, and if you remove the telling part the story begins to lack coherence.  They mutually support each other with bursts of showing mingling so closely and seamlessly with the telling portions that unless you consciously go to pick them apart you simply don't notice the difference in casual reading.


----------



## NaotaM (Apr 18, 2010)

Scarborough said:


> > I seriously did not want to have to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jinxtigr (Apr 18, 2010)

NaotaM said:


> Yep, you're clearly, perfectly, safely ignorable. Do not bother replying, as  will not bother repeating myself. *Again.*



Where's your writing? P'raps you are, too 

And that's conveniently GERIATRIC memory to you 

*totters off in search of cane and squeaky mouse*


----------



## kitreshawn (Apr 18, 2010)

Scarborough, NaotaM, both of you need to give it a break.  I already nipped Toonces for using curse words and now I am going to nip both of you for using curse words and being passive aggressive.

Honestly, is it not difficult enough to read tone in a forum without acting like you are specifically trying to start a fight?  In the space of when I was last here this thread has gone from mostly meaningful discussion with the rare flare up of temper to senseless bickering where nothing new is being said because for the most part nobody is paying attention to what the other side has to say.

I hereby declare you BOTH lose.  Subtract 15 points from your e-penises until you both take a 24 hour break from snarling at each other.


----------



## Scarborough (Apr 18, 2010)

kitreshawn said:


> Scarborough, NaotaM, both of you need to give it a break.  I already nipped Toonces for using curse words and now I am going to nip both of you for using curse words and being passive aggressive.
> 
> Honestly, is it not difficult enough to read tone in a forum without acting like you are specifically trying to start a fight?  In the space of when I was last here this thread has gone from mostly meaningful discussion with the rare flare up of temper to senseless bickering where nothing new is being said because for the most part nobody is paying attention to what the other side has to say.
> 
> I hereby declare you BOTH lose.  Subtract 15 points from your e-penises until you both take a 24 hour break from snarling at each other.



Ok.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 18, 2010)

Thanks, kitreshawn.  Saves me from having to say it.


----------



## Toonces (Apr 18, 2010)

curse words fucking _rule_. "tell" (teehee) me your favorite curse words.

mine is 'goddamn'


----------



## darkr3x (Apr 19, 2010)

jinxtigr said:
			
		

> Fapping is NOT a cure for Lawyer, you'll just rant more happily and your paws will be sticky


^fuggin saved.

This has been a useful read, it's interesting to see techniques i never really think about in use and in contexts that support them.


----------

