There is a saying: “If one person dies horribly, that’s a tragedy. If a million people die horribly, that’s a statistic.” Your suggestion to keep the scale of the story small is essentially to give the readers a tragedy rather than a statistic.
It's Stalin's quote: "'The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." Many writers plunge their protagonists into one tragedy after another, which not only not breaks them but apparently has no influence on the protagonist whatsoever. Unfortunately, some pieces of advice do encourage plunging protagonists in one problem after another, not giving them space to breathe or even register fully what's happening.
@@marikothecheetah9342 I think the issue is, most people have never experienced personality warping, life altering tragedies. [Loosing a grandparent usually(!) doesn't count as such, loosing a children as parent? Now, that is usually(!) a different story]. Especially not one after the other, hence they have often no clue how it feels like. Often when people write about it without experience, their writing has this "only the weak willed breaks under pressure" aftertaste. No coincidence that in my novel I wrote something along the lines of: "Only who never experienced true dispair belives they can survive anything. The ones who have seen the abyss knows that it can consume them whenever it feels hungry." [Sorry, in my native language it sounds way better] Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy for everyone who never experienced such things, but usually it falls flat, if their experience comes from second hand sources. With that said, I don't agree with the "write what you know" as an advice, rather I would say "write about feelings you experienced".
So many people these days are afraid to take things slow, and most writing advance seems to suggest people speed things up all the time. Some times it does take time to properly flesh out a scene and build tension and what not.
Thank you so much. I needed this even though I already knew beforehand. I just needed to hear the specific ways to go about this, like using concrete prose rather than abstract.
Agree with all of that. I'd add two points: 1. Regarding your last element, it's important to think in scenes and organise your story accordingly. A scene should have people in it and preferably have some element of conflict. This is why so many beginners' books start with scene-setting - descriptions of weather, places or people: the ultimate in Telling, but it's actually the writer trying to get the environment 'right' in their head before starting the real work. Instead, place one or more of your characters in the middle of doing something, hopefully in conflict. Show the character in action, don't just tell us about him or her. 2. In relation to your first point, a good way to get readers to infer is by the use of metaphor or simile - analogies in general. For example: "He had the nervous air of someone afraid his cat would suddenly bite him." Or, "He moved with the authority of a cat untroubled by lesser beings." Or, "He sat glumly behind his desk like a professor who had seen too many failing students and had given up hope." Not great examples, I know, but they make the reader do a bit of work rather than just saying "He was nervous," etc.
One of the counter arguments to Show vs Tell is that issue of Slow vs Fast. Too much time spent showing or inferring can slow the pace down unecessarily. I prefer to take the time to dwell on a situation only if I feel I have the reader's attention. But if I don't have them where I want them, it can work against me. Obviously, there's a balancing point to all this.
Showing can be just as short as telling. Sometimes shorter. Showing is really more about crystalizing an idea, so that it comes alive, some people don't need as many words as others to accomplish this. I don't tend to be very good at it, personally.
I do not recommend writers seek out alternatives to this advice, so I'm very happy that it's the _framing_ and not the advice that we're seeking alternatives to, especially since it is so widely, and wildly misunderstood. Rephrasing it in as many ways as possible shakes things loose, and let's people examine it from all angles.
Show don't tell became such a staple that it practically eradicated descriptions. Do I really need to know how an insanely captivating suit a guy is wearing if I just need description of him wearing it to indicate it's an official setting? Hell no. But I do want descriptions of the rooms, I do want to know characters through their surrounding, not only actions, I do want descriptions of them sipping from the mug: "I'm with a crazy one. And I'm single", wearing bright orange socks and reading Horace's poetry. These are so lacking from today novels, most descriptions are short and not even to the point, they are just criminally minimal. :/ Most of the times I don't even know how the character looks like. An authentic description of a character in a book, who propelled the whole story: He looked like his brother. - that was the whole description. Nah, I am not living for it. Show, don't tell and tell, when it's needed should both exist. What show don't tell really is is an elaborate description of how mundane things are perceived by the protagonist or the author or how should they be perceived by the reader, but sometimes dry explanation has its place, too. I once read a novel where a luxury boat was mentioned - that it was black, rather big, motor one and had golden ornaments. What it lacked was: how fast it was, how quickly it reached its maximum speed, why was it so special from the technical point of view - it's telling alright, but it also gives you why for existence of this boat.
@@marikothecheetah9342 After reading your comment through I can say I'm not entirely sure what you want from what you read. To me if we simplify showing to say it's the character's headspace, and telling is information the audience neeeds to move the story along, then potentially letting the audience in on a fact the character doesn't care about is not really showing or telling, it's just superfluous information. Unless we need to know the boat's top speed for some narrative reason, once both possibilities have been eliminated it's just pointless.
@@futurestoryteller Nah, what I meant was: there's too little telling for the sake of only showing - you can't show everything. Sometimes you need to just describe the damn room, house or train station without adding any glitter or "shine of the moon reflecting on the glass" as Chekhov put it. And there is very little of just simply descriptions in modern literature. "then potentially letting the audience in on a fact the character doesn't care about " - this is exactly what I'm talking about, sometimes it's not about character having feelings or opinions about something, sometimes it's just about the objects through which character is described - without any emotional side to it, but it helps the reader to either know the character better or... just imagine how they look like. " Unless we need to know the boat's top speed for some narrative reason, once both possibilities have been eliminated it's just pointless." - then why the hell mention the boat at all, if it's not needed? That is not what I am talking about, you see - the boat was going to be used for an escape - don't you think its speed is kinda crucial for the action? Additionally - you can write: it cost 1 mln dollars, but why not describe it as such: sleek, modern design, efficient engine of the newest generation of propulsion, allowing for smooth speed cruising through waves, highly maneuverable that would let the mafia guy easily escape any standard patrol boat - doesn't it sound better? But find me a good description of an object that wouldn't be considered "boring to the reader" nowadays. God forbid a reader would have to sit down and do any mental exercise, like imagining the boat that was just described. :/ And that's just a basic description.
@@marikothecheetah9342 I'm not throwing shade, but you seem confused by the concept altogether. I don't know if you want help understanding it, but I'd have to figure out where to start, which could be its own challenge.
Just sort of an aside, one thing I think is always missing from discussions of "show don't tell" and also concreteness vs. abstractness and their prominence in how we treat literary writing is the philosophical/ideological and historical contexts of those things. Instead they're treated as inherent facts of writing instead of contingent on a variety of forces that shaped Western writing techniques and ideas, so we're always told to approach them uncritically as the only legitimate way to write. Barbara Foley has a good pair of chapters on them in her book Marxist Literary Criticism Today. (Sorry for rambling in your comments, I just think about it whenever I hear "show don't tell" discussed lol.)
Great message as usual! I have a question. Would you consider having a character describe another character's traits behind their back as showing or telling?
One too common cliffhanger or foreshadowing pattern that breaks the last version is the, "At the time I didn't know that..." type of phrase. It also feels very lazy, like a cheap way to generate suspense when the writing lacks it.
Teaching and writing are two separate paths. I haven't seen Carl's writing, but he excels at teaching. Many famous writers, whether literary or commercial, are terrible at teaching.
This is technically an argument from authority, a logical fallacy. I'm not really blown away by most writing advice in general. I have no idea what LocalScriptMan has written, but his advice is the only advice I find I agree with almost universally.
It is nice advice. There was not much point in trying to negate that fact by insinuating who it's coming from matters, when the advice is good regardless. LOL
It's interesting that "show, don't tell" is a form of telling. Your concrete examples make the advice come alive.
How many people are *rooting for the cat* in the battle over the mouse? 🥺🥺😲
I’m with tou
The power of the cat butt is strong on this channel. What a superpower.
Good stuff, Carl. Thank you!
That cat swiping your hand away from the mouse shows he’s pretty protective over his food but he also sees you has a member of the family
There is a saying: “If one person dies horribly, that’s a tragedy. If a million people die horribly, that’s a statistic.”
Your suggestion to keep the scale of the story small is essentially to give the readers a tragedy rather than a statistic.
It's Stalin's quote: "'The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
Many writers plunge their protagonists into one tragedy after another, which not only not breaks them but apparently has no influence on the protagonist whatsoever. Unfortunately, some pieces of advice do encourage plunging protagonists in one problem after another, not giving them space to breathe or even register fully what's happening.
@@marikothecheetah9342 I think the issue is, most people have never experienced personality warping, life altering tragedies. [Loosing a grandparent usually(!) doesn't count as such, loosing a children as parent? Now, that is usually(!) a different story]. Especially not one after the other, hence they have often no clue how it feels like. Often when people write about it without experience, their writing has this "only the weak willed breaks under pressure" aftertaste.
No coincidence that in my novel I wrote something along the lines of: "Only who never experienced true dispair belives they can survive anything. The ones who have seen the abyss knows that it can consume them whenever it feels hungry." [Sorry, in my native language it sounds way better]
Don't get me wrong though, I'm happy for everyone who never experienced such things, but usually it falls flat, if their experience comes from second hand sources. With that said, I don't agree with the "write what you know" as an advice, rather I would say "write about feelings you experienced".
So many people these days are afraid to take things slow, and most writing advance seems to suggest people speed things up all the time. Some times it does take time to properly flesh out a scene and build tension and what not.
it just reader expectation mostly in this fast consuming era
Thank you so much. I needed this even though I already knew beforehand. I just needed to hear the specific ways to go about this, like using concrete prose rather than abstract.
Glad I could help!
The tingle that goes up your back when your cat bites your hand. Got it!
Agree with all of that. I'd add two points:
1. Regarding your last element, it's important to think in scenes and organise your story accordingly. A scene should have people in it and preferably have some element of conflict. This is why so many beginners' books start with scene-setting - descriptions of weather, places or people: the ultimate in Telling, but it's actually the writer trying to get the environment 'right' in their head before starting the real work. Instead, place one or more of your characters in the middle of doing something, hopefully in conflict. Show the character in action, don't just tell us about him or her.
2. In relation to your first point, a good way to get readers to infer is by the use of metaphor or simile - analogies in general. For example: "He had the nervous air of someone afraid his cat would suddenly bite him." Or, "He moved with the authority of a cat untroubled by lesser beings." Or, "He sat glumly behind his desk like a professor who had seen too many failing students and had given up hope."
Not great examples, I know, but they make the reader do a bit of work rather than just saying "He was nervous," etc.
One of the counter arguments to Show vs Tell is that issue of Slow vs Fast. Too much time spent showing or inferring can slow the pace down unecessarily. I prefer to take the time to dwell on a situation only if I feel I have the reader's attention. But if I don't have them where I want them, it can work against me. Obviously, there's a balancing point to all this.
Showing can be just as short as telling. Sometimes shorter. Showing is really more about crystalizing an idea, so that it comes alive, some people don't need as many words as others to accomplish this. I don't tend to be very good at it, personally.
I do not recommend writers seek out alternatives to this advice, so I'm very happy that it's the _framing_ and not the advice that we're seeking alternatives to, especially since it is so widely, and wildly misunderstood. Rephrasing it in as many ways as possible shakes things loose, and let's people examine it from all angles.
Show don't tell became such a staple that it practically eradicated descriptions. Do I really need to know how an insanely captivating suit a guy is wearing if I just need description of him wearing it to indicate it's an official setting? Hell no. But I do want descriptions of the rooms, I do want to know characters through their surrounding, not only actions, I do want descriptions of them sipping from the mug: "I'm with a crazy one. And I'm single", wearing bright orange socks and reading Horace's poetry. These are so lacking from today novels, most descriptions are short and not even to the point, they are just criminally minimal. :/ Most of the times I don't even know how the character looks like. An authentic description of a character in a book, who propelled the whole story: He looked like his brother. - that was the whole description. Nah, I am not living for it.
Show, don't tell and tell, when it's needed should both exist. What show don't tell really is is an elaborate description of how mundane things are perceived by the protagonist or the author or how should they be perceived by the reader, but sometimes dry explanation has its place, too. I once read a novel where a luxury boat was mentioned - that it was black, rather big, motor one and had golden ornaments. What it lacked was: how fast it was, how quickly it reached its maximum speed, why was it so special from the technical point of view - it's telling alright, but it also gives you why for existence of this boat.
@@marikothecheetah9342 After reading your comment through I can say I'm not entirely sure what you want from what you read. To me if we simplify showing to say it's the character's headspace, and telling is information the audience neeeds to move the story along, then potentially letting the audience in on a fact the character doesn't care about is not really showing or telling, it's just superfluous information. Unless we need to know the boat's top speed for some narrative reason, once both possibilities have been eliminated it's just pointless.
@@futurestoryteller Nah, what I meant was: there's too little telling for the sake of only showing - you can't show everything. Sometimes you need to just describe the damn room, house or train station without adding any glitter or "shine of the moon reflecting on the glass" as Chekhov put it. And there is very little of just simply descriptions in modern literature.
"then potentially letting the audience in on a fact the character doesn't care about " - this is exactly what I'm talking about, sometimes it's not about character having feelings or opinions about something, sometimes it's just about the objects through which character is described - without any emotional side to it, but it helps the reader to either know the character better or... just imagine how they look like.
" Unless we need to know the boat's top speed for some narrative reason, once both possibilities have been eliminated it's just pointless." - then why the hell mention the boat at all, if it's not needed? That is not what I am talking about, you see - the boat was going to be used for an escape - don't you think its speed is kinda crucial for the action? Additionally - you can write: it cost 1 mln dollars, but why not describe it as such: sleek, modern design, efficient engine of the newest generation of propulsion, allowing for smooth speed cruising through waves, highly maneuverable that would let the mafia guy easily escape any standard patrol boat - doesn't it sound better? But find me a good description of an object that wouldn't be considered "boring to the reader" nowadays. God forbid a reader would have to sit down and do any mental exercise, like imagining the boat that was just described. :/ And that's just a basic description.
@@marikothecheetah9342 I'm not throwing shade, but you seem confused by the concept altogether. I don't know if you want help understanding it, but I'd have to figure out where to start, which could be its own challenge.
Just sort of an aside, one thing I think is always missing from discussions of "show don't tell" and also concreteness vs. abstractness and their prominence in how we treat literary writing is the philosophical/ideological and historical contexts of those things. Instead they're treated as inherent facts of writing instead of contingent on a variety of forces that shaped Western writing techniques and ideas, so we're always told to approach them uncritically as the only legitimate way to write. Barbara Foley has a good pair of chapters on them in her book Marxist Literary Criticism Today. (Sorry for rambling in your comments, I just think about it whenever I hear "show don't tell" discussed lol.)
a showy way versus a telly way...why did that hit me right between the eyes???
I love how you spoke slower in this one. Sometimes the info goes a little too fast for my brain but ut was easier to keep up this time. Your kitty: 🤣
Great message as usual! I have a question. Would you consider having a character describe another character's traits behind their back as showing or telling?
I think that can work and be considered "showing". The trick is to make the conversation seem natural
By the way, buying fried chicken for someone is the purest form of love.
One too common cliffhanger or foreshadowing pattern that breaks the last version is the, "At the time I didn't know that..." type of phrase. It also feels very lazy, like a cheap way to generate suspense when the writing lacks it.
'Save The Cat'
"Save yourself from the cat"
the painting of the cat king... is that a depiction of your cat?
It is indeed
@@duncanosis6773 I suspected that - beautiful painting- beautiful animal and also beautiful channel :)
That advice is primarily for cinema and graphical media. In my opinion, telling is not a bad thing in books.
It can be in your opinion, but it wasn't created or perpetuated for that purpose and likely shows a lack of understanding to have that opinion.
It's harder to make sense of tense events than tents.
Nice advice but what have you written? Most "writers" giving advice have written little more than a slender volume of short stories or novel, LOL .
Teaching and writing are two separate paths. I haven't seen Carl's writing, but he excels at teaching. Many famous writers, whether literary or commercial, are terrible at teaching.
@@tamjgNicely said.
This is technically an argument from authority, a logical fallacy. I'm not really blown away by most writing advice in general. I have no idea what LocalScriptMan has written, but his advice is the only advice I find I agree with almost universally.
It is nice advice. There was not much point in trying to negate that fact by insinuating who it's coming from matters, when the advice is good regardless. LOL