If You're Going to Relate a Story, Tell Don't Show

[Jassy Melson]

Sometime in the past, stories were divided between those that are told and those that are written. The written stories were for people to read; the stories that were told or related were for those to hear.

But someone—probably some teacher with too much time on their hands—usurped the position of the told tale. He or she proclaimed the rule that all stories be they related or written should be shown and not told. For some reason, there was no resistance to this, and it became the rule that all stories should be shown and not related or told. Indeed, “show, don't tell,” became so much the rule that it grew into a cliché. And no one seems to question that cliché.

But there is a problem with this rule, for some stories do not lend themselves to being shown. They are to be told and related to an audience. Even now, when someone says “Tell me a story,” they don't want to be shown a story; they want to be told a story. They want a narrative to be related to them.

To show a story lends itself too closely to theater and the stage. To tell or relate a story is what a story should do. If one is going to show a story, then it should be done on stage and presented as a playlet, dialogue or dramatic monologue.

Of course there is a place for the written story that is shown and not told; but in general stories should be told and not shown. They should be related to an audience who listens to them and hears them.

Most stories, by their very nature, must be related and told, not shown. Regardless of the old cliché of “show, don't tell,” tell, don't show is actually the rule.

So the next time one hears the old cliché “show, don't tell,” one need merely reply “Yes—on the stage.”

Most stories—not all but most, be they written or related, must be told, not shown.

[SkyCetacean]

I hold that Show Don't Tell is one of the most important rules in writing, because good writing transcends the words on the page. It's a rule to promote subtlety and honesty in writing, and those are some of the mot important things a writer can have.

For example, have you ever read a book that said one thing which in practice proved totally different? Just recently I read a book that said that a particular character was the "purest girl in the world," right before she went off and started sleeping with her mother's illegitimate lover, and that's just poor writing. A character's actions or even their own words generally speak louder than the author's words.

Another issue with that book I was reading is its propensity to launch into long, rambling monologues on whatever the author sees fit to, and that's also poor writing. A story interprets truths into fictional reality, making them personal and illuminating them in a new way, and they do that by showing the reader these truths in the context of the world they've written. If you simply want to write about a specific theme but can't bother showing it in the context of a story, why not just write an essay?

Now it's not a universal rule, sometimes you do have to have a character or the narrator "tell," something outright, simply because writing in entirely "show," can become overlong and tedious, but I think in general it's a pretty good rule for writing fiction.

[AuntShecky]

I think there might be some confusion concerning what the phrase "show, don't tell" means. The concept isn't to be taken so literally, but rather is a matter of how the material in a story is presented.

When writing a piece of fiction-- or for that matter, any written material-- it's always best to present the material in a palpable way that engages the reader.

For instance: I call again upon my trusty example of "The Open Boat." Crane does not open the story with a long narrative explanation of the situation. He doesn't say: "Some men were adrift in a lifeboat where they were so furiously rowing toward safety that they couldn't stop to look up." Instead, we get all of that information--and more-- with one succinct and expressive opening statement:

"None of them knew the color of the sky."

Take the classic example of The Illiad. It does not open with a long-winded background recap of the Trojan War, all the history, the personality quirks of the chief character. No, the story opens in medias res, right in the middle of the action, where we see the hero, Achilles, having a jealous snitfit over not getting what he feels is his due of the battle spoils-- a woman! Homer doesn't tell us what kind of man Achilles is-- he shows us. In later books and episodes of the epic, we are shown other aspects of Achilles, both in a valiant and a less-than-flattering light.

Showing rather than telling is effective not just in stage plays (as the OP mentioned) or in movies, but in any kind of fiction. Long paragraphs describing a character, his history, or his triumphs and hang-ups isn't as riveting as seeing the character in action. Dialogue can also show us what he's like-- by the way he treats other characters, his choice of language, not what he says, but how he says it.

I didn't make up the "Show, Don't Tell" secret. For that you can thank one of the world's masters of short stories, Mr. Anton Chekhov.

And if you're still not convinced that "showing" is preferable to "telling," please take a look at this excellent link:

http://writingchronicles.com/2012/02/29/show-dont-tell/

[DocHeart]

Sometime in the past, stories were divided between those that are told and those that are written. The written stories were for people to read; the stories that were told or related were for those to hear.

But someone—probably some teacher with too much time on their hands—usurped the position of the told tale. He or she proclaimed the rule that all stories be they related or written should be shown and not told. For some reason, there was no resistance to this, and it became the rule that all stories should be shown and not related or told. Indeed, “show, don't tell,” became so much the rule that it grew into a cliché. And no one seems to question that cliché.

But there is a problem with this rule, for some stories do not lend themselves to being shown. They are to be told and related to an audience. Even now, when someone says “Tell me a story,” they don't want to be shown a story; they want to be told a story. They want a narrative to be related to them.

To show a story lends itself too closely to theater and the stage. To tell or relate a story is what a story should do. If one is going to show a story, then it should be done on stage and presented as a playlet, dialogue or dramatic monologue.

Of course there is a place for the written story that is shown and not told; but in general stories should be told and not shown. They should be related to an audience who listens to them and hears them.

Most stories, by their very nature, must be related and told, not shown. Regardless of the old cliché of “show, don't tell,” tell, don't show is actually the rule.

So the next time one hears the old cliché “show, don't tell,” one need merely reply “Yes—on the stage.”

Most stories—not all but most, be they written or related, must be told, not shown.

The fallacy of equivocation is rudely evident in this post. You pick and choose meanings of the words "show" and "tell" to suit your intended conclusion, as if "show" only means "to act out" and "tell" only means to orally narrate. What you have to learn to live with is that just as there *are* axioms that differentiate good from bad wine, football, pick-up lines and toe-nail lengths, there are also axioms that differentiate good from bad writing. Who or why you're trying to convince with this is way beyond me.

Now, go on, thank me for my comment.

[hillwalker]

Sometime in the past, stories were divided between those that are told and those that are written... But someone—probably some teacher with too much time on their hands—usurped the position of the told tale. He or she proclaimed the rule that all stories be they related or written should be shown and not told.

Where did you find this junk? If it's your own personal opinion that's fine, but don't present it on here as fact. It doesn't help any aspiring writer visiting this site looking to improve their writing skills. There are no rules in writing. It's just that some things work more effectively than others - accept that as fact.

The issue of 'telling' versus 'showing' has nothing to do with whether a story should be enacted theatrically rather than related verbally. A degree of 'telling' is necessary, especially in detective thrillers for example where the reader needs to be made aware of the evidence or the clues relating to the crime in as concise a way as possible. But 'showing' also has a role to play when imparting information about the character for instance.

'Telling' when employed in creative writing is simply making a statement like:
'Fred was short and fat'
You're telling the reader something without supporting that statement. The author's idea of 'short' or 'fat' might differ to mine or any other reader's. We're unable to picture Fred clearly so we can't engage with the character as effectively. We're impartial observers being fed information.

'Showing' involves the reader witnessing events through more subtle means.
So 'If Fred stood on tiptoe it's still unlikely he'd be able to reach for the cookies in his grandmother's kitchen cupboard, but judging by the width of his waist there was usually a stool available nearby'
It's not a perfect example, but at least the reader can now get a clearer image of Fred and also ascertain the nature of his character.

Your misguided advice is bizarre from someone who purports to be an established writer.

H

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The fallacy of equivocation is rudely evident in this post. You pick and choose meanings of the words "show" and "tell" to suit your intended conclusion, as if "show" only means "to act out" and "tell" only means to orally narrate. What you have to learn to live with is that just as there *are* axioms that differentiate good from bad wine, football, pick-up lines and toe-nail lengths, there are also axioms that differentiate good from bad writing. Who or why you're trying to convince with this is way beyond me.

Now, go on, thank me for my comment.

This. One can almost hear Jassy saying to himself as this was written, "Ha ha! I've got them now!"

You're purposefully and knowingly misconstruing what the actual phrase "show, don't tell" actually means. So, either you're being intentionally dishonest, or you never understood what "show, don't tell" even means.

It was a semi-clever attempt to justify one's own poor writing, though.

[liza]

I think that most stories are boring because they are not true stories .. they are stories without feelings .. These kind of stories needs to have a lot of 'show stuff' inside to become interesting. It dosen't matter if you 'show or tell' I think it has to do with what you feel when you read a story .. an what the writer was feeling when he was writing it ..

:))

[Jassy Melson]

Thank you all for your comments and opinions.

[hillwalker]

Thank you for your thanks.

H

[Jack of Hearts]

First, you say that there was a division between stories that were meant to be 'told' and stories that were meant to be 'shown'- in your argument, that's the spoken stories vs. the written stories. But, other than this division, you give no description of either the nature of 'told' stories or 'shown' stories. You've left the heart of your discourse to implication, and so this whole post lacks foundation and collapses in on itself.

When someone says 'show, don't tell' to the writer, they usually mean appeal to sensory experience in lieu of judgement. Imagine we're speaking. Suppose this reader told you that hillwalker was evil. If you knew nothing about hillwalker, and if you had any sort of critical thinking ability, you would ponder the veracity of that proposition. It is entirely possible that you could conclude that hillwalker is not evil based on your mood, any evidence you could find, etc. But suppose this reader had instead told you that he saw hillwalker laughing and drowning a litter of puppies. That's a pretty strong piece of evidence to suggest that hillwalker is evil. It shows a reason why, perhaps, he is evil (he drowns puppies).

In real life, you don't sense abstract concepts. You sense the things that suggest them. This is 'show, don't tell.' So if your central argument is that most stories benefit from being 'told' (giving a conclusion about a hypothetical state of affairs with no evidence) rather than being shown (giving the evidence of a hypothetical state affairs in a suggestive manner and providing little or no conclusion), this reader thinks you're wrong, and thinks most people who read would think you're wrong.

Because most people who read serious literature are smart. And it's awfully simple minded to access concepts before accessing the things that suggest them. We call that judgement or prejudice or stereotyping or inductive reasoning.






J

[JCamilo]

Show don't tell is really a cliche often miused. Something on manual for hollywood scripts, as Ezra Pound would say about another subject, it is just a way to guide the sheeps.

Even the example of Homer is awful misleading. He is a master storytelling, from oral traditions that fill his stories with detailed telling, even the account of ships and captains. The example of achilles is not showing, it is the use of arquetypical character. There is nothing underneath of Achiles in Homer, it is just a mythical figure. Even the Media Res is most likely an effect of editing that happened centuries after the authorship.

And the fallacy of engament to the text only to show is easily be the engagament of readers to encyclopedias and journals. Show when you have to show, tell when you have to tell.

[Jassy Melson]

Exactly. To use an old cliche: You hit the nail on the head.

[Jassy Melson]

I stirred things up nicely with "If You're Going to Relate a Story, Tell Don't Show." (Rubbing my hands) Let's see, what should I post next to keep the pot stirred?

[Jack of Hearts]

I stirred things up nicely with "If You're Going to Relate a Story, Tell Don't Show." (Rubbing my hands) Let's see, what should I post next to keep the pot stirred?


But, other than this division, you give no description of either the nature of 'told' stories or 'shown' stories. You've left the heart of your discourse to implication, and so this whole post lacks foundation and collapses in on itself.

How about a response to this?

What does it mean, to you, to 'tell' a story? And what does it mean to 'show' it? Because, as was the focus of this reader's first response to your post, you've neglected to provide either definitions or examples.





J

[hillwalker]

I stirred things up nicely with "If You're Going to Relate a Story, Tell Don't Show." (Rubbing my hands) Let's see, what should I post next to keep the pot stirred?

The term 'troll' springs to mind. As I said earlier in response to one of your tedious threads, you're a disgrace to the term 'writer' - and a disgrace to this forum.

H

[JCamilo]

I hope this thread is not closed because hillwalker decided to attack a poster and also determine from his throne who is or not a disgrace for a writer. Just delete his post.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What the **** are you talking about, J? You're condemning hill for attacking a poster? Jassy's been attacking the whole goddamn board! He ****ing admits he's trolling:

I stirred things up nicely with "If You're Going to Relate a Story, Tell Don't Show." (Rubbing my hands) Let's see, what should I post next to keep the pot stirred?

Hill is dead on.

[Logos]

I hope this thread is not closed because hillwalker decided to attack a poster and also determine from his throne who is or not a disgrace for a writer. Just delete his post.
Nah, I'll just close it because a bunch of people here can't act their age and it's gone off topic.

--