"Show, Don't Tell" REDUX

[AuntShecky]

"Show, Don't Tell": How to Jumpstart Your Short Stories (REDUX)



Well, your ol' auntie is nothing if not a glutton for punishment. Maybe there's a little bit of masochism in all (failed) writers, sort of an occupational hazard.

For several reasons I'm resurrecting this old thread from a year ago. Last March I was forced to ask the administrators to lock the thread because the original poster (namely, me) kept getting vilified for what had been presented in a spirit of generosity, to share with my fellow LitNutters thoughts I had gathered about the writing game over the course of the several decades.

Just recently I had resurrected another old thread, whose topic consisted of a discussion about excellent (i.e. "real" writers) who have been unfairly attacked over the years. The reason for "railing at greatness" is that because some readers and critics personally don't really comprehend the complexities of a better writer-- " il migliore fabbro,"--they thus express this deep-seated resentment by striking out in other ways, such as taking the writer to task for alleged prejudices and the like.

This is NOT to imply that yours fooly is in any way "great," nor that the LitNutters who ripped apart this advice in its original thread harbor such resentment. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that this thread, only offered in the hopes that it might be helpful to struggling fiction writers, has some value for someone. Hence, I'm posting it again.

Just like any other comment I might make on these forums, take it with a grain of salt, take it or leave it. These are suggestions only. If you want to write and post a short story which "tells" more than it "shows," no one is stopping you. Please remember that.

Comment if you like. Please try to keep the comments civil (without ad hominen attacks, although I'm not really all that sensitive. If I can dish it out. . . well, you know the rest of the old saying.) I just don't want the little choo-choo that could (or tried, at least) to go off the cockamamie tracks. I don't want to ask the admin. to close it again.

So without further ado, here's the original posting (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1015446&postcount=1)

Examples of good openings can be found is this list of short stories (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1017909&postcount=49) --by "real" (i.e. established) writers.

Finally, here's the "complete" story which I started in the original posting:
"A Change Will Do You Good." (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1017361#post1017361)

Okay?

AuntShecky
"A louse in the locks of literature."

[Jack of Hearts]

This reader just had a peek through that thread. It was surprising to see that he had posted a reply (from the looks of it, via iPhone). In hindsight, the response was impenetrable. It lacked presentation, so to speak. But this reader still found himself in agreement with it.

The crux of it might sound familiar if you remember that article you posted in your other thread ("Bad News, Aspiring Writers"). A summary might be:

- Some things cannot be 'gotten at' analytically even though we'd like it to be otherwise.

- Saying 'show, don't tell' is imprecise and meaningless but may be the best advice we can give to another person.

- We approach epistemic questions, questions about the nature of art and making art
and other sorts of shady things when we use conceptual analysis to attempt to understand our writing.

It's not the logos that makes art. And it's not conceptual analysis or analytic thought that's going to make you a better writer. Whatever's going on there is something else, and it doesn't get told to you by other people.

Maybe there's a confusion in the terms somewhere. When you were in elementary school you learned how to write. We think it's a learned skill, and like any learned skill we can just get better at it if we try. But we ought to see why that's silly. Consider professional sports. If all it took was an investment of time and effort, this reader would have difficulty typing this response because of all those heavy NBA championship rings.

But Jack of Hearts didn't get those skillz that pay the billz. He got a LitNet username, and the rest is history.






J

[cacian]

Excellent thread AuntSheky
I am at loss about rules in writing in general.
The more I know and the less I want to know.
Writing is an art and it should be left to the individual to do with it as they wish.
I don't react to well to being told to do it this and that when it comes to creating a storyway because it interfers with my abilities as a person to perceive what I do as persnal rather then somebody's else rule.
show and tell is somebody's idea and not mine.
How aboout show and tell at the same time?
Or how about no show and no tell? Is this duet supposed to
to be or not to be catch?
If I do not follow or agree with this 'rule' will this make me not a so good writer?

[BookBeauty]

It's simply a fact that it's more exciting and interesting to read something when it's showing. But, you also have to know when to tell. There is a precarious balance that the writer must be the judge of. Many people think they can write, but cannot because they haven't found the balance yet.

I have been doing a lot more telling in my writing lately, and not in a good way. I realize that. It's a crutch I've been leaning on to jump back into writing. Sometimes, the easiest way to tell a story is simply to tell it. But, that usually means it will not be read.

It's important to know the rules before you break them. Some people know the rules intuitively, while others think they know the rules intuitively. And others know the rules steps: 1, 2, 3. :D

No matter the case, 'Show don't tell' is probably the first rule every writer needs to know, and therefore this thread is always relevant. Thanks for bringing it back to life, Auntie. :)

[YouBetcha]

Tell: She stared at the teddy bear and felt uncontrollable sadness.

Show: She stared at the teddy bear and cried.

Show 2.0: She stared at the teddy bear. The stuffed animal blurred as tears leaked, tickling her cheeks.

With telling, you have to take the writer's word that the character is sad. With showing, you can visualize her emotions.

In my opinion, the more visual the better. There might be times where you can or should tell instead of show.

Like this:

Less tell: He opened the door.

More show: He grasped the edge of the rotting door and swung it open.

Both could be valid, but depends on the pacing you want.

EDIT: "He opened the door." may be more show than I think. "He met Jack inside the abandoned house" might be a better example of telling.

[AuntShecky]

Thanks for these four replies, which are "good" ones. Hope they prompt the kind of discussion I'm looking for.

RE: Jack of Hearts $50,000 word "epistemic" vs. intuition, I do believe it's a mixture of
both. As in typing or playing the clarinet or making a salad or "anything else" (thank you, Woody!)-- one learns by "doing," becoming better at it with practice. But writing good fiction doesn't come by accident. As yours fooly has said numerous times, READ a copious amount of fiction while consciously trying to figure out not only what the writer says, but how he or she is saying it. If you do that often enough, you'll begin to get a sense (via both knowledge and intuition) of crafting good fiction.

[Jack of Hearts]

You may be right Auntie. This reader just reads your pretty insightful posts and throws the ugly two cents at 'em. Anyways, the posters around here really like your stories so whatever your MO is, it's working.







J