Regarding Showing vs. Telling

I mentioned in my first post for Authors.com that by far the most hits I received during the past year were for articles I had written that pertained to finding a book agent. But there also was substantial interest in what I wrote regarding Showing versus Telling, so I have combined two articles for this post.

Also, if anyone has any comments on anything I post, please let me know. I have wide shoulders, and if you don't agree or understand where I'm coming from, please tell me. And I can think of nothing more fun (sic, controversial) to discuss that Showing versus Telling. So here are the combined articles, and I hope you enjoy them.

Showing vs. Telling

Here is the same scene written both ways. The first is Telling the reader what has occurred; the second is Showing what is happening. The difference is obvious, but it is not to say that it is always best to Show rather than Tell, only that in the overwhelming number of instances it is preferable.

What separates writers is the ability to recognize when to utilize which technique. A suggestion is to always write the scene in a Show format, knowing that you can always change to the Tell medium if you wish to provide readers with a chance to catch their breath.

The last statement should also explain the main flaw with Telling, since Telling inherently retards the pace of the scene, while Showing forces writing in an active voice, which compliments pacing. The more times "had been," and "have been" can be eliminated are huge plusses for most narratives.

Telling the Action

Jack was having a tough time with life. Everything he was doing lately had seemed to turn out wrong. Even the simplest aspects of his daily activities had begun to take their toll. Look at what happened when he got out of bed in the morning. He had stumbled around, as if in a blue funk. He'd been hurt when he'd fallen against his dresser and pulled it over while he was trying to right himself. He didn't care who might have heard him throwing the unit against the wall or the damage it might have caused. And after he'd made his way into the bathroom and begun to prepare himself for another day, he wasn't sure if it was worth it.

Showing the Action

Like life itself, Jack could not find his balance. He fell against the chest of drawers and caught himself before falling backward and pulling the unit with him. A drawer flew open and hit him in the side, and he and it collapsed onto the bed like two clumsy lovers. He threw off the dresser and let it bang hard against the wall, cracking the plaster, and not concerned that the noise and vibration might have startled the newborn child in the apartment below. He weaved his way to the bathroom, and as he stared in the mirror and ran the water, not caring if it were hot or cold, he took out his razor. He didn't lather his face, but kept glaring at what he saw--and wondered.

Not that this is even serviceable writing, but it does identify the difference between Telling and Showing. And which would you rather read? However, Showing the action is not always the answer.

Sometimes Telling is More Effective than Showing

An author and scholar for whom I have immense respect added fuel to a long simmering fire by stating in a recent book of hers on writing that too much is made out of Showing instead of Telling. To paraphrase one of her points, she writes that the avoidance of telling leads to confusion which causes novice writers to think everything should be acted out. And to quote her, "There are many occasions in literature in which telling is far more effective than showing."

Agents and Editors are the Harshest of Critics

If everyone wrote as well as this woman (she has over two dozen titles to her credit), or the brilliant mostly classical authors and their literary works she cites in her book, who could argue? And that is the rub. Especially for someone trying to become published for the first time, and who is having his or her manuscript viewed by the harshest of critics--book agents and book editors. People who are seemingly searching, as if with an electron microscope, for the most minuscule detail to warrant rejecting material.

Don't Wave a Red Flag - Avoid the Dreaded "Been's"

In the real world of an author fighting tooth-and-nail for his or her manuscript to receive a fair hearing, the writer has to provide a narrative that does not wave a red flag--or even a yellow one. Nothing can kill a book quicker than if it is perceived to be written in a passive voice, which is most often indicative of scenes crafted in a Telling rather than Showing form. Other than breaking up too many uses of "was" or "were" by substituting an occasional "had been" or "have been," it is important to avoid the "been's" and therefore the passive voice narratives that Telling has a tendency to engender.

If a Choice, Overwrite Show Rather Than Tell

While it is 100% correct that many times it is advisable to Tell instead of Show, for most authors pursuing a major royalty publisher, it is much better to have overwritten Show than Tell. Let me put it this way: I've never heard of anyone being rejected for the former, but very often for the latter. So while the ongoing Show versus Tell debate may whet some appetites for eschewing the argument altogether, writers need to incorporate as many accepted elements as possible into their material, and Showing (and the active voice is supports) is considered a component of quality prose writing in the overwhelming number of instances.