Post #3 - Show Don't Tell & Show-And-Tell

There is a great writing expression that should be etched in stone and taught at a very early age to people in English classes:

Show, Don't Tell

Having read and worked with a lot of people, I think they've either never gotten this lesson, or they're confused as to its meaning.

So let's go through it.

At the most simplistic, it instructs writers to demonstrate a feeling, an action or a concept, rather than just stating the feeling/action/concept.

Example: Janine was nervous.

This "tells" us what state Janine exists in. She is nervous. Depending on the subsequent sentences, the audience may apply their own understanding of "nervous" to develop the scene.

Example: Janine felt clammy and her stomach churned a little as she moved through the dark house.

This sentence "shows" us what Janine did and allows us to infer from the description what state she was in.

Example: Janine was nervous. Her skin was clammy and her stomach was nauseous.

These two sentences are redundant. The first sentence tells us Janine's state, and the second clarifies it. Specifically, the second sentence directs us to specifically create the condition that "nervous = clammy skin + nausea". The problem with crafting the equation is that until we hear otherwise, all mentions of "nervous" can be defined that way, even if other characters don't express nervousness in that same manner.

There are generally three issues sitting at the heart of the "show/tell" debate:

1. The author does not trust the audience in their ability to see/get/understand the story the way it is intended. - the author thinks the audience is stupid.

2. The author does not want to relinquish control of the story, not even for the purpose of cooperative enjoyment. - the author thinks they should be totally in control, all the time.

3. The author writes poorly, crafting dull sentences that either lack development or suffocate under the weight of their construction. - the author abuses sentences.

Do other issues exist here? Yes, and we'll address them in later posts.

Let's go through these three.

1. The audience is not stupid. If you (the writer) build a clear world, with compelling characters, evocative and reasonable plot, supported by dialogue and dynamic exposition then the audience will "get" any theme or moral you're describing.

If you believe the audience to be stupid, then you'll treat them that way. Generally audiences are treated poorly by suffering through bad, over-illustrative prose.

The problem here is that if you write bad prose, the audience will think you're stupid too.

Treat the audience as you treat yourself. Granted, they don't know the whole story, but you will describe it to them. That's what they're relying on you for, that's why they've chosen your story above all others for their enjoyment.

Remember: They "get" only what YOU provide them. So who is the stupid one?

2. If the story is done, give up control. I am a huge proponent of empowering authors. I believe that a majority of writer-fear can be beaten back by the knowledge that the author is in charge of the story throughout its creation. But creation is only a part of the overall package. Once created, (and we assume editing is a part of creation) the next major phase is publication, wherein the story leaves the author's hands and goes out to the audience for reading. The author cannot race out to every bookstore and change every forty-seventh page to include an extra line, and I think that sense of finality scares some people and keeps them from finishing work.

As with so many other parts of life, you can only control so much for so longer. To try and maintain that control for too long is injurious to the end product. Let go, and let audiences have your work. It's good enough. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have made it past the creation phase.

3. Prose that lays flat on the page, prose that does not evoke feeling or create images can be essentially wasted ink on paper. Further, this waste turns into wasted dollars for the purchaser of your published book, and that sense of waste translates into diminished returns from the audience (why buy a crappy book?). One of the biggest tools in the writer toolbox is the sentence, and the crafting of sentences is what distinguishes authors apart, both in terms of unique style and quality. A sentence is the delivery vehicle for information, and it's alright for sentences from Author #1 to be different from Author #2. In fact, I'll say it's preferable that they are different. HOWEVER: If the sentence is weak, unclear, vague, or grammatically incorrect that is NOT acceptable and will tell the readers/editors/critique-ers of a lack of skill or inability to convey information. (This is what they're counting on you to do, don't let them down. Trust yourself to do this, and do it well.)

Sentence composition is developed through the writing of more, and varied sentences. Practice. Practice putting the verb first, try eliminating clauses, clip adverbs....there are so many options available.

Relinquishing control is part of the process, and a big key to that is accepting that you're good enough to finish pieces and that finished work is "good enough" (because people who are good, write good things).

Trusting the audience is developed by working on both sentence construction and getting over that need to explain things, no matter how mechnical or counter-intuitive this structure may appear. Explain what you need to, what is new/foreign to the audience, and allow them to fill in the blanks. If they get it wrong, if they miss details, then have the rest of your text correct them.