It hasn’t been very long since I first heard the “Show, don’t tell” criticism that is so pervasive in creative writing circles now.
I honestly wasn’t quite sure what was meant by it, and had to ask here what my readers thought it meant. Their responses made sense, and I came to understand it more as a valid criticism.
Lately, however, I am starting to think that it isn’t as valid a criticism as all the workshop leaders and critique partners might want it to be. I’ve been re-reading some of my favourite books, books I love so much that I’ll read them the way other people snack on chocolate and chips. These are books I go back to when I am in the mood to read but can’t take on anything new or unfamiliar. They’re books I go back to when the world outside stops making sense and I want a place to hide. They’re also books that have outsold most other books.
Maeve Binchy, Ken Follett, JK Rowling, Harper Lee, C.S. Lewis–those are all writers whose works are popular, profitable and about which people are passionate. Each and every one of those writers is a Teller. A storyTELLER who uses their skill to tell a story. Don’t get me wrong–other favourite authors like George R.R. Martin excel at showing, and through them I can see how it’s a useful tool in a writer’s kit. But more and more I am struck by how easy and comfortable a well-done Telling read can be.
Different authors have different voices and methods, and I’m beginning to wonder if perhaps it isn’t actually very bad criticism to insist that all books must read like screenplays. Because that’s where I think the Show Don’t Tell rule has come from. It seems to be most evident in American books by American authors who have also written for movies or television or who hope that their books will be sold to movies or television. Looking back through my list I realise that with the exception of Lee (whose book honestly does a bit of both Telling AND Showing), all the best Telling authors are English, Irish, Welsh–they come from a place with a stronger tie to literature and to the past. They come from a place of writing, not movie-making, and their books are meant to be books first and foremost.
After all, aren’t people forever saying that they liked the book better than the movie?
A friend of mine mentioned this a few days ago:
http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/1732344.html
Okay…this is getting SPOOKY!
I drafted this post last night. This morning when I checked into blogland, I see that another writer friend wrote a post based on THAT post you just linked to, latching on to another piece of it.
Anyone who doesn’t believe in the Unified Consciousness Theory would possibly be stymied by all this Dickensian coincidence breaking out.
I was going to write a post about the f*ck you part because that’s my favorite and what I want to tell people all the time when they use mantras like show don’t tell. But at this point it would just be gratuitous, rather than coincidence. Damn!
I don’t think that you are using “show, don’t tell” in quite the same way most writers I know do. Because I would say that Rowling is excellent at showing, and Binchy, at least in the book of hers I’ve read, also shows perfectly well. “Showing” doesn’t mean “write cinematically.” It means that you don’t say “Frieda was spoiled because she had naturally curly hair” and expect the readers just to accept that about Frieda; you have to have conversations in which she sounds spoiled, actions that indicate how spoiled she is, perhaps scenes in which she plays with her hair, whatever. The sentence about Frieda may serve to introduce her, but unless she is fleshed out as a spoiled girl who cares about her hair a lot, it isn’t convincing. To make the reader see that Frieda is spoiled, you have to show her acting spoiled. Otherwise you’re just telling.
OK, an example from one of your favorites: is Lucy Pevensey a tomboy? How do you know? Lewis has shown you her character, but he never just tells you that fact about her and expects it to sum her up.
I agree that it’s necessary at times and a good tool. But it’s an overused criticism. I was reading a review of a Binchy book on Goodreads where the reviewer just went on and on about hot horrid a writer Binchy is because she’s a teller not a shower. The book in question covered a year in the life of a small catering company and the people involved. There are times when Binchy does narrate openly–so and so was so tired she could hardly stand–and according to the criticism that sort of thing is never acceptable.
Pardon the brevity and the typos. This was sent from my iPhone.
Okay. Now that I’m back at my desk, perhaps I can expand on my thoughts a wee bit.
I’m not saying you should never show, and that you don’t need to back up your story-telling by fleshing out your characters. I guess what I’m saying is that a lot of writers I’m stumbling across on blogs, book reviews, workshops,etc. are taking it too far. It’s like it’s this one rule they’ve learned and so they paper the world with it.
I honestly think there are points where you serve the reader well with just telling; as I look at all the criticisms recent Fantasy novels are receiving for being Too Long it seems clear that what people are reacting to is the excessive show.
Now, personally, with the last GRRM I liked it very much. I had to read it interspersed with other, lighter reads, though because it is very much show-heavy. So you’ve got a ton of places where he could just say “Daenerys was tired of the toll that governing the strange city was taking on her.” Instead you’ve got 5 pages of watching Daenerys wander from room to room in her pyramid, bathing with fish, masturbating, sighing into the hot desert wind, etc. Good if you’re in the mood to be there but bad if you want to just get on with other things.
So yes, you can’t just have a flat out “and then I went here and said this” type of tale but sometimes it CAN be okay to just say “I am sick of wading through fiction through the protagonist’s eyes.”
Yes, yes, yes! I am very much in agreement with this. And obviously, we’re on the same wavelength because I mocked close 3rd-person perspective on my blog today (or last night), and the show don’t tell rule is inherent to a close 3rd.
Katherine, this was one of those Rules I was taught as a newbian that, I think, makes sense but can be way too rigidly enforced. The point is to keep a reader engaed. Exposition and telling can, if not careful, disengage a reader from the actual story. It’s like describing how good apple pie is rather than serving a warm slice. On the other hand, telling can move a story more quickly through a thicket of info — rather than showing every blasted machette swipe. So think a balance it good. But as far as a new writer goes, I do think this IS a reasonable Rule to be conceptually grasped.