@@matityaloran9157 My problem with many books is that they tell and show too much information. Too much of everything. I read one of Stephen Kings books and after a few minutes I am bored. Thats why I got interested in how to write engaging stories.
"Writing in a way that allows the audience to determine information through subtext rather than an author writing that information on page." Frankly, I think this is perhaps the very best definition I have come across. I do like the commentary on managing exposition as well.
@@matityaloran9157 Of course. That's the whole point of this video. He asked for our definition. I liked his. :) All writing advice is guidance, not doctrine. Heh.
One of the problems with "show, don't tell" is it's a simplified version of what the full advice should have been: "Don't tell what you can show or should show."
But pretty much everyone who’s ever given this advice elaborates this point anyway. “Show, don’t tell” is more often than not used as a quip to refer to that more nuanced advice
No. _"Don't tell what you _*_can_*_ show or _*_should_*_ show."_ is _almost_ practically the same as _"Show, don't tell."_ It should just be _"Don't tell what you _*_should_*_ show."_
And here I was, under the impression that "show don't tell" was writing advice for theatre and screen writers. Actors are supposed to SHOW rather than tell "oh I feel so sad". Books are an awesome medium because we can squeeze our main characters for every single last private thought. Why TF would I want my character blink a tear away when I could have them agonise over something for a hundred pages straight? The only way "show, don't tell" is allowed to enter actual writing, is the way Hemmingway interpreted it. What did he say again? Write a tragedy in a single sentence? "For sale, Baby shoes, Never worn." But then again - we writers are here to turn such sentence into an actual story.
You think it's okay for characters in novels to walk around going "Oh, I feel so sad"? It's honestly weird how often people get angry at a misinterpreted version of the advice only to "cleverly recontextualize" it into what it actually means, and advocate for that. Seems like that should be a sign... In the absence of a sign maybe some cognitive dissonance.
@@futurestoryteller I don't know if you're familiar with opera's, but there are entire aria's that can be condensed to "woe is me, I feel so sad" that sound very pretty nevertheless. The first silent movies had bits of text between scenes. A lot was spoon fed to the audience. Having your character tell they're sad was a legitimate way to convey this. That said, I do not think this belongs in books, because the beauty of books is that you can be verbose, speak in comparisons and metaphors and as I said before - have them agonise for a hundred pages straight. Having your character say "I am sad" for nothing but telling the audience as much is something I consider a showing of not having a command over the language you want to write in.
I usually try to "show" when describing a new place or a mood, like entering a dump cave or a love scene - when immersion is more important than fast pace. "Telling" I tend to leave for mind games, inner thoughts, and action, but I like to leave at least a bit of "showing" to keep the flavor. Like instead of "She got embarrassed" > "Her cheeks got red in embarrassment".
I actually thought this phrase was a stronger guide for film making than it was for literary writing. Like, Better Call Saul uses Show Don't Tell amazingly in execution
Amateur screenwriter here, Definitely agree, Show Don’t Tell is WAY effective on the screen because unless there is a spoken narrator, the only info you’re getting is from dialogue and setting. It works so well because people don’t generally tell each other things they already both know, so you have to find other ways to show exposition.
Im not English speaking writer if that is even significant. Show don’t tell is from my point of view a principle that applies to emotional state of the characters. You don’t tell the reader how he feels you show it through his actions and gestures or thoughts. For example-You don’t just say that character felt anxious you give character some thoughts or body movement from which reader can conclude that he is feeling anxious.
To me the one big thing I hate about "show don't tell" is that so many seem to be so obsessed with blindly parroting this phrase like a doll or a robot with a pull string up its butt.
I have always interpreted the phrase simply as "don't write explanations, but actions". Don't say "he was sad", show him crying. Don't info dump about the dragons, let us see one. I don't think the advice is for babies. I think babies may not take it in the right way.
The bit that is wrong in the advice is the word "don't". :) But that's too broad of a statement as well. It's great advice except when it isn't. :) Just like all writing advice.
Well said! Great breakdown. I’ve always said it’s about finding a balance; knowing when to show and when to tell, and being intentional with the effect it might have on the audience’s experience.
the danger is that some people think the "rule" is an actual rule.... Really, at most all "rules" for writing are literally just writing exercises that have been taken out of context
What I think is a very good example of show don't tell is having characters or the prose tell the reader that a character has a certain trait vs showing the character displaying that trait. You could do both, but if you're only going to pick one, telling is not the one to choose, because saying "X is brave" is meaningless if they never act like it. Show don't tell is one of those pieces of writing advice that I feel like isn't useful at all when you just say it without any context or anything. It's great in the right time and place, but just standing in front of a crowd and saying it like it means something isn't. It originates from screenwriting advice, and like most advice that people take from screenwriting and try to apply to novel writing, it gets complicated. There are times when you need to show, and there are times when you need to tell, and "show don't tell" is most useful when left as a note on something specific.
every single piece of advice or writing rules need a 1000 page errata. anyone who takes any writing advice at face value has literally never written a sentence in their lives.
If Heisenberg were a writer and not a scientist, he would have said that by showing a scene, you affect the result of what is told-id est, you are telling either way, just one happens vicariously through the reader. The simpler litmus I use when I write is to ask if it feels like the reader is riding shotgun with me as we're figuring things out together, or if I'm giving them a debriefing after the whole episode is over.
Every example of 'show, don't tell' I have seen reduced clarity and was horrendously over-written, somewhat like a clumsy imitation of Thomas Hardy or Henry James. 'Disguise the infodump' is a far more useful perspective.
In my opinion "show don't tell" has NO real meaning. This is why people disagree about it. (It has long been my belief that when there are many different definitions of a thing, then most likely * it is not a thing * ). And no - I do not agree that it is a rule for beginners. Frankly, I suspect it's a cop-out on your part - it's so entrenched you just do not dare to condemn it altogether ;) Because I can give examples where the "rule" is actually *detrimental* for a beginner. For instance, one version of "show don't tell" is "write scenes, not summaries". However, a beginner's problem is often *too many* scenes (journeys, for instance), because we are not yet certain what may be safely left out. Scenes are for the important stuff, where you want to look at things closely; summaries connect these parts, and carry you swiftly across less important terrain. Both are necessary, and people should learn HOW to use them, instead of being told that one approach is better than the other.
Nice analysis. I don't know if this is of interest, it's from my forthcoming novel. Our hero John is on an alien world with an alien woman; they are at a mountain lookout at the edge of a forest. The story is from John's perspective. The following takes place: ------- She stood up and turned round to look at the forest. He reflexively did likewise, and she again took his hand in hers. “Look John, how beautiful it is: wild, alive, riotous with green and-look-so many colours of tiny, unassuming forest flowers: in the shade, or peeking out from under a leaf, delicate little things you could so easily overlook-and yet it is rough, unconquered-so different from the neat way of the lowlands. Just these few scarecs away from our highway, how it all changes!” She breathed deeply, seeming to inhale the very essence of the place she so loved. John found himself doing likewise, for the first time consciously sensing the kaleidoscope of mossy, woody, fruity, flowery fragrances; he fancied he detected hints of pine forest, cedar, orange and peach blossom, and more, separately and together giving rise to a fine, exhilarating freshness. When he was here before, he was preoccupied with his troubles, but now he saw it with fresh eyes. Her love for this wilderness was infectious. -------- Okay, is it showing or telling? It is telling us the forest in her dialogue. The forest features in what follows, but the real outcome is to show us her character by showing us her love for her planet. I wasn't smart enough to plan this in advance. But I always 'become' each character, adopt their feelings and intentions, and then just write what comes naturally in that mindset. I ignore the needs of the plot. If it does off track, I find some other way to get it back in line; but always put the character first, and never 'put words in their mouths'. Cheers, Ron House
I'm 100% here for you clickbait title! Ha! And you are also 100% right. That being said, all writing "rules" need additional context. And a writer, of skilled enough can break or abuse all of them. :) I did just read a book too review from a new self-published author. And it is 100% telling. Not even a mere 90% telling, but 100%. I question if maybe the author is on the spectrum? Maybe? Not sure, but it made for s very awkward and bizarre read. I'm not certain how I can give feedback without crushing them. Anyway … Show, didn't tell, folks! Unless it makes sense to do so. ;)
Great video! :D I think I could get a bit better at show don't tell. I like that second definition of it! Advice I would give is this: Don't limit your story based on a word limit. Write it as long or short as it needs to be. It can be good to have a goal to reach 100,000 or 150,000 words, but don't stretch your story too far or cram it in too tight.
I am a beginner so I may not know better. I'm editing my first manuscript right now looking specifically for instances I am too explicit. I don't view it as a rule but rather an addage. As a reader I never like to be told...that innate reaction wasn't taught. I don't mind interpretation ambiguity... Its part of the dance
Don't tell me there's a gun hanging on the wall, Show me an entire scene from the gun's POV while it dresses itself down in the mirror. That's what Chekhov and his broad shoulders would do. Otherwise I just won't believe that it's really a gun when it goes off in act 3. I usually see "show don't tell" as "add more detail". That's generally how the advice has been presented to me in the past. The problem is, most of the time that detail isn't important. Having a man clench his fists is one thing, but the lavender in the window-box doesn't need an entire paragraph of description (sorry, reddit). I find most extreme showing to be filler, as a way to boost wordcount that often turns into garbage. I've read (traditionally published) sci-fi books that open with 10 pages of showing, and none of it is enjoyable to sit through. Please spend pages and pages of a character describing how the aliens are giant frogs without using the very human method of going "he looked like a giant frog, complete with the vocal sac puffing up around his throat." Some people would call that "telling exposition", but in my mind it's driven by the author trying to show, rather than tell. Using it to convey subtext feels legitimate, it just isn't how the advice is presented 99% of the time IMO. I think most authors when confronted with generic critique like "Don't tell me there's a tree, show it to me." would default to "leaves rustling in the wind, woodpecker marks in the bark," rather than something that conveys story like "the unfinished tree house with the rotting rope ladder."
@@futurestoryteller generally the way it was presented to me, with people directly quoting anton chekhov, is the way I still see it being presented to new writers. it's more harmful than helpful, it's a phrase that effectively means nothing, as open to interpretation as the ending to a Philip K Dick novel.
@@thicctynine No it isn't. He says don't tell me the cause (the moon shining), show me the effect it has (glint on broken glass). He communicated it perfectly clearly. The broken glass even suggests a larger story, which I agree is more important than just being lyrical or suspenseful. Did you ever notice how many people say "that's advice for screenwriting!!" and playwriting!" seemingly it never occurs to them how you literally can't do that in a play, or how Chekhov had nothing to do with films. Chekhov is not any more responsible for the people who led you to believe "showing" is an arbitrary injection of detail than he is the people who ahistorically literalized the advice into incompatible or anachronistic mediums once distorted. He wants readers to interpret what writers say, and ironically he said it as clearly as he could and people picked it up, and pretty much dropped it immediately. That's where the broken glass came from.
I see 'Show' and 'Tell' as writing tools, that both makes a great story, I just need to learn how to use these tools effectively. For me, too much telling, or too much showing could make a daunting and unpleasant reading experience. Also, I don't see anything wrong with exposition or info. dump, because I could read a book and can't tell what the story was really about or understand what was going on, however, a little exposition, could really make me appreciate that story better. Maybe the problem arises when it's done too much. And it might be matter of how often it is used.
The main interpretation of “show don't tell” I have read and agree with is: Rather than tell "he is an angry man," the writer should produce a scene that shows the man being angry. That is more impactful and immersive for the reader. Norris above gives “Her cheeks got red in embarrassment" as an example of showing… But that is also telling - making sure the reader knows why her cheeks are red. Which is great. I write that way as well. I think it is evocative without losing clarity, 'Show' purists insist on the likes of “Her cheeks got red," believing the reader is more immersed if they only see what they are shown and have to interpret the meaning on their own. But I think that sacrifices clarity. To use an extreme example here, there are many reasons cheeks go red, and you don;'t want the reader thinking she has rosacea.
Showing TOO MUCH can ruin the pacing of a scene, when telling would be more beneficial to the overall writing, to keep things moving and exciting. Some things don't matter to the extent that showing would require, effort wise, both for the writer and the reader.
The "in embarrassment" part is patronising to me. I got it. "I have a spare ticket for tonight..." He faltered. She flushed red. Looked up at him. A raise of the eyebrows. "If... If you're not busy"
@@NameNotAChannel I once watched a video from someone who went on a long rant about "why would I write several paragraphs of unnecessary detail just to tell you 'it was very hot out' when I could just say 'it was very hot out!?'" So I pointed out that either the heat affects the characters, and is part of the scene, in which case the reader will get the hint, or it's a trivial detail. In the latter case it's not necessarily going to hurt anything but your word count, and only just, and in the former case the stark declaration of heat is what's redundant. Either way "it was very hot out." Is what's functionally unnecessary, not further elaboration. He blocked me from his channel, as far as I can tell.
@@futurestoryteller Sometimes it's neither a trivial detail, nor something important enough to dedicate time to showing... some things just set the scene, or accent the things people say or do, adding a bit of personality or nuance. If it's not something the author wants to focus on, but wants to convey that nuance, it's fine if they tell, and don't spend time showing. I'd rather have a detail told, than cut because it wasn't important enough to show.
What! Show don't tell; not holy writ? You surprise me. I watched a video only yesterday that didn't tell but showed us that it was; at least that's what she tried to say to us. Of course, I understand what you are saying and you're right. I am a Jericho writer and Harry Bingham, the founder in one of his lectures warns writers not to go to ridiculous lengths in show don't tell such as "His head went up and down in reply to an answer. He says "Why don't you just write "He nodded" It's a good rule that needs to be applied sensibly.
Show don't tell should never be discarded, perhaps only by people who doesn't understand the meaning of it. That rule has never hindered me because I know the purpose of it and that it doesn't make sense to show in 100% of the text. A conversation should still be realistic between two people and a lot of times people do tell each other things instead of showing. That is common knowledge, and if you put "show don't tell" above common knowledge and common sense, than that's the writers problem and not the rule itself.
Considering the title of the video I expected this to make me much angrier. I've seen a lot of terrible videos on this topic. I do think you're splitting hairs at the end here, and also you're not going to convince me that this is advice for beginners, because so many people seem incapable of understanding it. Even published authors don't seem to know what it actually means.
I find the rule to be nonsense. I LIKE infodumps. I like to know details. I LIKE the inner dialog of characters in Dune. For instance, I don't care about characters, their motivations, or any action that could be taking place at the start of a book, UNTIL I find the world interesting. What makes THIS world or setting different enough from the real world for me to invest time into reading about the events taking place within it. I'm also a person who finds it difficult to interpret the subtext of actions compared to what they say. I am MUCH more comfortable having the subtext TOLD to me, rather than relying on me figuring it out, and getting it wrong. For instance, describing a person "jumping over a fence and clicking their heels together with a big smile on their face"... compared to "this was the happiest day of their life"... do not convey the same meaning to me. I'd much rather be told in that instance. Also, showing, rather than telling, can really slow the pace of a scene down. This is very frustrating during conversations, fights, and any time there SHOULD be a sense of urgency or quick movement. People experience scenes at the speed they're reading the events unfold. If you're showing every detail, they'll be moving in slow motion.
When you’re writing a book, everything is telling. Even saying “he yelled” instead of “he was angry” is telling. “Show not tell” is something people say because it’s a memorable pithy remark but it’s not something with actual meaning
How do you define Show Don’t Tell? Comment below!
I think it’s a buzz phrase without any real definition or meaning
@@matityaloran9157 My problem with many books is that they tell and show too much information. Too much of everything. I read one of Stephen Kings books and after a few minutes I am bored. Thats why I got interested in how to write engaging stories.
"Writing in a way that allows the audience to determine information through subtext rather than an author writing that information on page."
Frankly, I think this is perhaps the very best definition I have come across.
I do like the commentary on managing exposition as well.
@@t0dd000 That’s a fair thing to do (sometimes) but there are also some things that need to be communicated explicitly.
@@matityaloran9157 Of course. That's the whole point of this video. He asked for our definition. I liked his. :) All writing advice is guidance, not doctrine. Heh.
One of the problems with "show, don't tell" is it's a simplified version of what the full advice should have been: "Don't tell what you can show or should show."
But pretty much everyone who’s ever given this advice elaborates this point anyway. “Show, don’t tell” is more often than not used as a quip to refer to that more nuanced advice
No. _"Don't tell what you _*_can_*_ show or _*_should_*_ show."_ is _almost_ practically the same as _"Show, don't tell."_ It should just be _"Don't tell what you _*_should_*_ show."_
@@ultimaxkom8728Either way, "should" in this context needs to be defined.
And here I was, under the impression that "show don't tell" was writing advice for theatre and screen writers. Actors are supposed to SHOW rather than tell "oh I feel so sad".
Books are an awesome medium because we can squeeze our main characters for every single last private thought. Why TF would I want my character blink a tear away when I could have them agonise over something for a hundred pages straight?
The only way "show, don't tell" is allowed to enter actual writing, is the way Hemmingway interpreted it. What did he say again? Write a tragedy in a single sentence? "For sale, Baby shoes, Never worn."
But then again - we writers are here to turn such sentence into an actual story.
You think it's okay for characters in novels to walk around going "Oh, I feel so sad"?
It's honestly weird how often people get angry at a misinterpreted version of the advice only to "cleverly recontextualize" it into what it actually means, and advocate for that. Seems like that should be a sign...
In the absence of a sign maybe some cognitive dissonance.
@@futurestoryteller I don't know if you're familiar with opera's, but there are entire aria's that can be condensed to "woe is me, I feel so sad" that sound very pretty nevertheless.
The first silent movies had bits of text between scenes. A lot was spoon fed to the audience. Having your character tell they're sad was a legitimate way to convey this.
That said, I do not think this belongs in books, because the beauty of books is that you can be verbose, speak in comparisons and metaphors and as I said before - have them agonise for a hundred pages straight. Having your character say "I am sad" for nothing but telling the audience as much is something I consider a showing of not having a command over the language you want to write in.
@@bleeb90 The operative word here being "condensed." No pun intended, but still pretty funny anyway.
I usually try to "show" when describing a new place or a mood, like entering a dump cave or a love scene - when immersion is more important than fast pace. "Telling" I tend to leave for mind games, inner thoughts, and action, but I like to leave at least a bit of "showing" to keep the flavor. Like instead of "She got embarrassed" > "Her cheeks got red in embarrassment".
I actually thought this phrase was a stronger guide for film making than it was for literary writing. Like, Better Call Saul uses Show Don't Tell amazingly in execution
That is what the phrase was originally designed for. I could tell you the reason why but that may be a long story.
@@MrRosebeing This is not true.
Amateur screenwriter here, Definitely agree, Show Don’t Tell is WAY effective on the screen because unless there is a spoken narrator, the only info you’re getting is from dialogue and setting. It works so well because people don’t generally tell each other things they already both know, so you have to find other ways to show exposition.
It's guide for writing theaterplays (by Checkov).
@@polibm6510 No. It's not.
Im not English speaking writer if that is even significant.
Show don’t tell is from my point of view a principle that applies to emotional state of the characters. You don’t tell the reader how he feels you show it through his actions and gestures or thoughts. For example-You don’t just say that character felt anxious you give character some thoughts or body movement from which reader can conclude that he is feeling anxious.
“Don’t tell them it’s raining; make them feel the storm.”
To me the one big thing I hate about "show don't tell" is that so many seem to be so obsessed with blindly parroting this phrase like a doll or a robot with a pull string up its butt.
I have always interpreted the phrase simply as "don't write explanations, but actions". Don't say "he was sad", show him crying. Don't info dump about the dragons, let us see one. I don't think the advice is for babies. I think babies may not take it in the right way.
The bit that is wrong in the advice is the word "don't". :)
But that's too broad of a statement as well. It's great advice except when it isn't. :) Just like all writing advice.
Well said! Great breakdown. I’ve always said it’s about finding a balance; knowing when to show and when to tell, and being intentional with the effect it might have on the audience’s experience.
Thank you! It has been driving me mental how this obsession has taken over UA-cam. Ludicrous.
Doesn't this apply to all "rules," from all areas of knowledge & skill? "You have to know the rules before you can bend/break them?"
the danger is that some people think the "rule" is an actual rule....
Really, at most all "rules" for writing are literally just writing exercises that have been taken out of context
What I think is a very good example of show don't tell is having characters or the prose tell the reader that a character has a certain trait vs showing the character displaying that trait. You could do both, but if you're only going to pick one, telling is not the one to choose, because saying "X is brave" is meaningless if they never act like it.
Show don't tell is one of those pieces of writing advice that I feel like isn't useful at all when you just say it without any context or anything. It's great in the right time and place, but just standing in front of a crowd and saying it like it means something isn't. It originates from screenwriting advice, and like most advice that people take from screenwriting and try to apply to novel writing, it gets complicated. There are times when you need to show, and there are times when you need to tell, and "show don't tell" is most useful when left as a note on something specific.
every single piece of advice or writing rules need a 1000 page errata. anyone who takes any writing advice at face value has literally never written a sentence in their lives.
If Heisenberg were a writer and not a scientist, he would have said that by showing a scene, you affect the result of what is told-id est, you are telling either way, just one happens vicariously through the reader. The simpler litmus I use when I write is to ask if it feels like the reader is riding shotgun with me as we're figuring things out together, or if I'm giving them a debriefing after the whole episode is over.
Every example of 'show, don't tell' I have seen reduced clarity and was horrendously over-written, somewhat like a clumsy imitation of Thomas Hardy or Henry James.
'Disguise the infodump' is a far more useful perspective.
1:43, pithy phrases that don’t really mean anything but sound like they should like “write what you know” or “kill your darlings”
In my opinion "show don't tell" has NO real meaning. This is why people disagree about it. (It has long been my belief that when there are many different definitions of a thing, then most likely * it is not a thing * ). And no - I do not agree that it is a rule for beginners. Frankly, I suspect it's a cop-out on your part - it's so entrenched you just do not dare to condemn it altogether ;) Because I can give examples where the "rule" is actually *detrimental* for a beginner. For instance, one version of "show don't tell" is "write scenes, not summaries". However, a beginner's problem is often *too many* scenes (journeys, for instance), because we are not yet certain what may be safely left out. Scenes are for the important stuff, where you want to look at things closely; summaries connect these parts, and carry you swiftly across less important terrain. Both are necessary, and people should learn HOW to use them, instead of being told that one approach is better than the other.
Nice analysis. I don't know if this is of interest, it's from my forthcoming novel.
Our hero John is on an alien world with an alien woman; they are at a mountain lookout at the edge of a forest. The story is from John's perspective. The following takes place:
-------
She stood up and turned round to look at the forest. He reflexively did likewise, and she again took his hand in hers.
“Look John, how beautiful it is: wild, alive, riotous with green and-look-so many colours of tiny, unassuming forest flowers: in the shade, or peeking out from under a leaf, delicate little things you could so easily overlook-and yet it is rough, unconquered-so different from the neat way of the lowlands. Just these few scarecs away from our highway, how it all changes!”
She breathed deeply, seeming to inhale the very essence of the place she so loved. John found himself doing likewise, for the first time consciously sensing the kaleidoscope of mossy, woody, fruity, flowery fragrances; he fancied he detected hints of pine forest, cedar, orange and peach blossom, and more, separately and together giving rise to a fine, exhilarating freshness. When he was here before, he was preoccupied with his troubles, but now he saw it with fresh eyes. Her love for this wilderness was infectious.
--------
Okay, is it showing or telling?
It is telling us the forest in her dialogue. The forest features in what follows, but the real outcome is to show us her character by showing us her love for her planet. I wasn't smart enough to plan this in advance. But I always 'become' each character, adopt their feelings and intentions, and then just write what comes naturally in that mindset. I ignore the needs of the plot. If it does off track, I find some other way to get it back in line; but always put the character first, and never 'put words in their mouths'.
Cheers, Ron House
As a retired fourth-grade teacher, I feel attacked. 0:19. LOL!
Lol
This is so refreshing and positive Comparedto so much of the jaded hipster advice out there.
I'm 100% here for you clickbait title! Ha! And you are also 100% right. That being said, all writing "rules" need additional context. And a writer, of skilled enough can break or abuse all of them. :)
I did just read a book too review from a new self-published author. And it is 100% telling. Not even a mere 90% telling, but 100%. I question if maybe the author is on the spectrum? Maybe? Not sure, but it made for s very awkward and bizarre read. I'm not certain how I can give feedback without crushing them. Anyway … Show, didn't tell, folks! Unless it makes sense to do so. ;)
So what you’re saying is that the Netflix avatar writers are babies. Got it
Great video! :D
I think I could get a bit better at show don't tell. I like that second definition of it!
Advice I would give is this:
Don't limit your story based on a word limit. Write it as long or short as it needs to be. It can be good to have a goal to reach 100,000 or 150,000 words, but don't stretch your story too far or cram it in too tight.
I am a beginner so I may not know better. I'm editing my first manuscript right now looking specifically for instances I am too explicit. I don't view it as a rule but rather an addage. As a reader I never like to be told...that innate reaction wasn't taught. I don't mind interpretation ambiguity... Its part of the dance
“Show not tell” is to writers what “breathe from the diaphragm” is to singers.
Damn that dog gonna make me buy that book
If you haven't gone to Discord for a while you'll have a difficult time "verifying" account. I gave up.
Don't tell me there's a gun hanging on the wall, Show me an entire scene from the gun's POV while it dresses itself down in the mirror. That's what Chekhov and his broad shoulders would do. Otherwise I just won't believe that it's really a gun when it goes off in act 3.
I usually see "show don't tell" as "add more detail". That's generally how the advice has been presented to me in the past. The problem is, most of the time that detail isn't important. Having a man clench his fists is one thing, but the lavender in the window-box doesn't need an entire paragraph of description (sorry, reddit).
I find most extreme showing to be filler, as a way to boost wordcount that often turns into garbage. I've read (traditionally published) sci-fi books that open with 10 pages of showing, and none of it is enjoyable to sit through. Please spend pages and pages of a character describing how the aliens are giant frogs without using the very human method of going "he looked like a giant frog, complete with the vocal sac puffing up around his throat." Some people would call that "telling exposition", but in my mind it's driven by the author trying to show, rather than tell.
Using it to convey subtext feels legitimate, it just isn't how the advice is presented 99% of the time IMO. I think most authors when confronted with generic critique like "Don't tell me there's a tree, show it to me." would default to "leaves rustling in the wind, woodpecker marks in the bark," rather than something that conveys story like "the unfinished tree house with the rotting rope ladder."
Do you think it matters anymore how it has been presented to you in the past if you understand it now?
@@futurestoryteller generally the way it was presented to me, with people directly quoting anton chekhov, is the way I still see it being presented to new writers.
it's more harmful than helpful, it's a phrase that effectively means nothing, as open to interpretation as the ending to a Philip K Dick novel.
@@thicctynine No it isn't. He says don't tell me the cause (the moon shining), show me the effect it has (glint on broken glass). He communicated it perfectly clearly. The broken glass even suggests a larger story, which I agree is more important than just being lyrical or suspenseful.
Did you ever notice how many people say "that's advice for screenwriting!!" and playwriting!" seemingly it never occurs to them how you literally can't do that in a play, or how Chekhov had nothing to do with films.
Chekhov is not any more responsible for the people who led you to believe "showing" is an arbitrary injection of detail than he is the people who ahistorically literalized the advice into incompatible or anachronistic mediums once distorted. He wants readers to interpret what writers say, and ironically he said it as clearly as he could and people picked it up, and pretty much dropped it immediately. That's where the broken glass came from.
@@futurestoryteller"show don't tell"
@@thicctynine I did.
I see 'Show' and 'Tell' as writing tools, that both makes a great story, I just need to learn how to use these tools effectively. For me, too much telling, or too much showing could make a daunting and unpleasant reading experience. Also, I don't see anything wrong with exposition or info. dump, because I could read a book and can't tell what the story was really about or understand what was going on, however, a little exposition, could really make me appreciate that story better. Maybe the problem arises when it's done too much. And it might be matter of how often it is used.
Show, don't tell is really famous here in Brazil too.
this dude has some itch on his left hand, and he scratch that spot twice. I wonder if that a subtext he want me to catch my eyes on🤔
Finally someone said it.
There are dozens of us!
Brandon McNulty is also extremely critical of the phrase “Show don’t tell
The main interpretation of “show don't tell” I have read and agree with is:
Rather than tell "he is an angry man," the writer should produce a scene that shows the man being angry.
That is more impactful and immersive for the reader.
Norris above gives “Her cheeks got red in embarrassment" as an example of showing…
But that is also telling - making sure the reader knows why her cheeks are red.
Which is great. I write that way as well. I think it is evocative without losing clarity,
'Show' purists insist on the likes of “Her cheeks got red," believing the reader is more immersed if they only see what they are shown and have to interpret the meaning on their own. But I think that sacrifices clarity. To use an extreme example here, there are many reasons cheeks go red, and you don;'t want the reader thinking she has rosacea.
It doesn't sacrifice any clarity if the reader is given sufficient _context._
Showing TOO MUCH can ruin the pacing of a scene, when telling would be more beneficial to the overall writing, to keep things moving and exciting. Some things don't matter to the extent that showing would require, effort wise, both for the writer and the reader.
The "in embarrassment" part is patronising to me. I got it.
"I have a spare ticket for tonight..." He faltered.
She flushed red. Looked up at him. A raise of the eyebrows.
"If... If you're not busy"
@@NameNotAChannel I once watched a video from someone who went on a long rant about "why would I write several paragraphs of unnecessary detail just to tell you 'it was very hot out' when I could just say 'it was very hot out!?'" So I pointed out that either the heat affects the characters, and is part of the scene, in which case the reader will get the hint, or it's a trivial detail. In the latter case it's not necessarily going to hurt anything but your word count, and only just, and in the former case the stark declaration of heat is what's redundant. Either way "it was very hot out." Is what's functionally unnecessary, not further elaboration.
He blocked me from his channel, as far as I can tell.
@@futurestoryteller Sometimes it's neither a trivial detail, nor something important enough to dedicate time to showing... some things just set the scene, or accent the things people say or do, adding a bit of personality or nuance. If it's not something the author wants to focus on, but wants to convey that nuance, it's fine if they tell, and don't spend time showing.
I'd rather have a detail told, than cut because it wasn't important enough to show.
What! Show don't tell; not holy writ? You surprise me. I watched a video only yesterday that didn't tell but showed us that it was;
at least that's what she tried to say to us. Of course, I understand what you are saying and you're right. I am a Jericho writer and Harry Bingham, the founder in one of his lectures warns writers not to go to ridiculous lengths in show don't tell such as "His head went up and down in reply to an answer. He says "Why don't you just write "He nodded" It's a good rule that needs to be applied sensibly.
I love the video
Show don't tell should never be discarded, perhaps only by people who doesn't understand the meaning of it. That rule has never hindered me because I know the purpose of it and that it doesn't make sense to show in 100% of the text. A conversation should still be realistic between two people and a lot of times people do tell each other things instead of showing. That is common knowledge, and if you put "show don't tell" above common knowledge and common sense, than that's the writers problem and not the rule itself.
Considering the title of the video I expected this to make me much angrier. I've seen a lot of terrible videos on this topic. I do think you're splitting hairs at the end here, and also you're not going to convince me that this is advice for beginners, because so many people seem incapable of understanding it. Even published authors don't seem to know what it actually means.
where's the discord link?
Added it in the description! Thanks for reminding me 🙌
I find the rule to be nonsense.
I LIKE infodumps. I like to know details. I LIKE the inner dialog of characters in Dune.
For instance, I don't care about characters, their motivations, or any action that could be taking place at the start of a book, UNTIL I find the world interesting. What makes THIS world or setting different enough from the real world for me to invest time into reading about the events taking place within it.
I'm also a person who finds it difficult to interpret the subtext of actions compared to what they say. I am MUCH more comfortable having the subtext TOLD to me, rather than relying on me figuring it out, and getting it wrong.
For instance, describing a person "jumping over a fence and clicking their heels together with a big smile on their face"... compared to "this was the happiest day of their life"... do not convey the same meaning to me. I'd much rather be told in that instance.
Also, showing, rather than telling, can really slow the pace of a scene down. This is very frustrating during conversations, fights, and any time there SHOULD be a sense of urgency or quick movement. People experience scenes at the speed they're reading the events unfold. If you're showing every detail, they'll be moving in slow motion.
When you’re writing a book, everything is telling. Even saying “he yelled” instead of “he was angry” is telling. “Show not tell” is something people say because it’s a memorable pithy remark but it’s not something with actual meaning