"Show, don't tell" - I've always found this rule confusing. In this entry, I try to discern what is meant by "show, don't tell", and explore its flaws.
My writing tips for exploring "Show, don't tell":
It is another of those mystical adages. Saying it as feedback to someone's work instantly appears to make the speaker an expert. But what does it mean?
There are several definitions across the internet, many of which contradict the other. It becomes impossible to know what anyone actually means. The way I interpret it, TELLING is making a direct observation of someone's state. E.G: "She was angry."
SHOWING is an illustration of that state which can be discerned through subtext, proxemics, pathetic fallacy - essentially, anything that is not a direct statement. E.G: "She punched the wall." This phrase can be interpreted as the subject being angry, as implied by the action, but does not outright state the subject's mood.
I think this is pretty easy to understand.
Nevertheless, "she punched the wall" is surely "telling" the reader. The writer has told the reader that the subject has punched a wall. This is why the term "show, don't tell" is confusing. Everything is "telling"; you're reading.
Puzzled, yet?
Unfortunately, I cannot change an historical term, and so I will have to refer to "show, don't tell" as "show, don't tell", as if it makes perfect sense - which it doesn't.
So, let's go back to my definition. TELLING is expressing the state of a character, location, exposition directly. SHOWING is using another passage to IMPLY that state.
I should say that I am not against this rule, but against its blanket-term usage, as though it is a miracle cure for writing. It, in fact, causes much complication for new writers, as they think that they must obey the rule at all times. This is far from the case.
There are instances when stating a character's intention or mood is beneficial. Showing is interpretational, and not every reader will interpret things the same way. Whilst this gives the reader the illusion of freedom, it can also dilute or overcomplicate a narrative, for the reader will not necessarily follow the writer's thought-process. It can, therefore, detach a reader from the story. Of course, "telling" the audience everything can catastrophically reciprocate this, which is why it is good to strike a balance.
One of my favourite writers, Ken Follett, often "tells" the reader his character's state. But it allows for a slick-paced narrative. This suits the form of his thriller novels.
Likewise, in The Falling Sun, I reflect the narrative form by implementing both showing and telling, as Akira is narrating the story. When a person narrates a story in real life, they often "tell" necessary exposition (and in many cases digress), whilst they "show" a character's actions, leading to implications of mood.
This leads me to exposition. Some exposition must be told, especially in books with large worlds unlike our own or historical narratives that want to teach the reader about its context. 1984 by George Orwell is practically all exposition in the second-half, but this is necessary to convey the author's message and that of the novel's world. In The Falling Sun, I describe the immigration policies of the United States in the early twentieth century, and give real examples of how people found loopholes in the law. This is necessary to educate and immerse the reader.
A problem with "show, don't tell" is that it causes writers - afraid that they will over-explain - to not explain their plot or character emotions at all.
Another flaw with "show, don't tell" is it appears to ignore dialogue. A few blogs that I have read suggest that dialogue is the best place to "tell" information, as it avoids info-dumping. But this could result in careless and clunky dialogue, like: "Have you seen Jane? She's so angry. It's because she's thirty years old, single, and her make-up was stolen. It was the best make-up in the whole world."
Okay, that's an extreme case. But it can happen.
Dialogue is a good place to discuss a major topic of exposition. But stretch the reveal. Avoid making direct statements (like 'she's thirty years old, single, and her make-up was stolen') and always compliment the dialogue with discussion from the narrator. This can add context to the scene. Ken Follett does this brilliantly, often following the formula "[dialogue] - [statement] 'it was true' - [elaboration]". If you do this, the narrative will flow nicely and will be safe of underdevelopment.
In conclusion, "show, don't tell" is not a miracle cure. But used in balance (with "showing" and "telling"), it can make for a successful and smooth-flowing manuscript.
With all that said, always remember: RULES ARE THERE TO BE BROKEN.
I hope this has been useful.
Comments