Showing and Telling
Dec. 26th, 2004 09:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
odd_buttonsThe following is an excerpt from Part III of the book Making Shapely Fiction, by Jerome Stern. The first two parts are very much worth reading as well. The book is available in paperback.
Showing and Telling
The distinction between showing and telling has become part of the vocabulary of every writing teacher in America. It tends to be stated this way:
The principle show don't tell has much truth to it. But it becomes a trap for writers who don't recognize that every great writer does considerable telling long with showing. Showing -- that is, rendering sensation in detail -- takes a lot of space. It means making a scene so that readers feel each moment of fictional time as if it were really happening. Good writing doesn't want to do that all the time.
Telling can be efficient, crisp, and, given some attention to phrasing, evocative. It's a way of summarizing, of commenting and of embedding insights and reflections. You could have a scene in which you show Thayer cheating a rich, potentially lucrative customer, and through the dialogue make the reader gradually see that Thayer doesn't think about how much more he could make if he were honest. But if Thayer is a minor character you might not want to write a whole scene for him. You might simply want to introduce him by telling readers:
See Dialogue, Scene.
Showing and Telling
The distinction between showing and telling has become part of the vocabulary of every writing teacher in America. It tends to be stated this way:
Showing is good and telling is bad. You are not showing me the way the character feels. You are just telling me how the character feels.This means that the writer has not rendered the sensations or thoughts in enough detail. In telling, a character is merely described:
Willis was mean and stupid, but he was shred too.In showing, the character is what you say he is:
Willis put his fist in my face. "I'm dumb, huh? I'm an idiot, huh? So I punch you in the mouth and then I'm not so dumb. Right?"If you simply tell that your character has broken a leg, the reader doesn't feel it. If you show the bare bone sticking through pale skin, the reader experiences it. The distinction becomes very important when dealing with mental states. If you say your character is depressed, but she doesn't think depressed, doesn't talk depressed, doesn’t' act depressed, your readers won't feel or believe she's depressed.
I had to admit his argument had a curious logic.
The principle show don't tell has much truth to it. But it becomes a trap for writers who don't recognize that every great writer does considerable telling long with showing. Showing -- that is, rendering sensation in detail -- takes a lot of space. It means making a scene so that readers feel each moment of fictional time as if it were really happening. Good writing doesn't want to do that all the time.
Telling can be efficient, crisp, and, given some attention to phrasing, evocative. It's a way of summarizing, of commenting and of embedding insights and reflections. You could have a scene in which you show Thayer cheating a rich, potentially lucrative customer, and through the dialogue make the reader gradually see that Thayer doesn't think about how much more he could make if he were honest. But if Thayer is a minor character you might not want to write a whole scene for him. You might simply want to introduce him by telling readers:
Thayer was an oily, corrupt little guy who would rather make fifty dollars by lying to you than a hundred by telling the truth.The notion that showing is good and telling is bad is a misleading oversimplification. Each has its place. Read John Cheever's stories. Scene and summary -- showing and telling -- create a rhythm for the dance of fiction.
See Dialogue, Scene.