The Importance of Telling

5 posts
User avatar
Gender Other
Points 89625
Reviews 1272
One of the biggest rules in fiction is “show, don’t tell.” This has been told by countless writing teachers and noticed by many a person who’s looked at drafts that tell the reader everything and don’t leave room for the imagination. But has it ever occurred to you that it isn’t always better to show?

Telling is most effective when used as a quick delivery. This can be of an emotional event, such as a character dying, or of backstory that is important to know but would bog down a work too much to show. Take this example of backstory from a short story of mine, told from Merlin’s perspective after he’s finished teaching the Lady of the Lake his magic:

He nodded, glad to see she was still asking questions. Seeing somebody flourish under his guidance reminded him of the times he had spent with Arthur.


The second sentence here is telling Merlin’s past. Since most people know or at least understand a close student/teacher relationship, I imply that Merlin is feeling the same relationship with the Lady of the Lake. I could have given a flash-back of Merlin teaching Arthur, which would have been showing, but the story was better off with this short mention of the past. And since Arthur plays no roll in this story, mentioning him would distract from the relationship at hand: the one between Merlin and the Lady of the Lake.

For an emotional event, a punchy, telling line works best after a build up of situation and feelings. If you want to tell of a character dying, for example, build up how much he means to at least one character for as long as possible. This time can vary; it can be one paragraph or two hundred pages. It all depends on how long it takes to establish the proper relationships with the characters.

I will say that an emotional event can be shown well. It is my personal opinion that the most tear jerking, hit you in the gut emotional scenes have the realization as a telling line. To give an example:

He stopped breathing. I knew he wasn’t going to start again.


That line can fit with any premise of a “he” dying. Both sentences are telling, yet they have an emotional reaction. We are told his chest stopped moving, and we are told what the MC [Main Character] knows. A showing line would look something like,

His breathing slowed to where I couldn’t hear it anymore. I put my hand above his mouth and nose to see if he was breathing. I felt no air against my skin.


So, not half bad. There’s still a heart-tugging reaction, but keep in mind these are isolated events. Say that “he” is the MC’s boyfriend and he had a knack for making it out of life and death situations alive. I think telling us he’s dead would work better in that case, because there’s a higher expectation that he’ll make it. Two telling lines kicks our feet out from under us. The three showing lines are a slow build up to him dying.

A rather obscure use of telling is “telling details.” Those are usually little lines of description that dig down to a deeper meaning in the work. This description is usually a metaphor, simile or other form of figurative language which at the beginning of the work doesn’t look all that important, but come the end you realize just what all those metaphors meant. They can also show the theme of a work. In a novel I’m planning, I use hot and cold as a metaphor for feeling emotions and being numb, respectively. Despite the bad pun that makes, those details make it so the story and world take center stage, not any meaning I might be trying to get.

The dark side of telling is why the “show, don’t tell” rule is used. If done poorly, telling makes a work too fast and flat to read. Nothing is left to the reader to imagine, and important events seem to be glazed over because in one line, the emotion is over because we were told. But if done well, telling is the cornerstone of a work. In fact, if you show too much in a work, it can be just as bad as telling too much. Showing every event can get boring to write and boring to read very quickly. A rule of thumb I use for backstory is: If the scenes themselves are not vital to the plot, tell them. This doesn’t mean that what happened in those scenes isn’t important; it means that I could pace the story better by summarizing (i.e.- telling) a scene instead of showing it.

To give an example of a scene that should be told, and not shown, let’s say that the MC lost her dad in an accident, and it now affects not only her relationships to her mom’s boyfriends, but she’s got a fear of whatever killed her father (I’ll let you fill in that blank). You could show her getting the news of her father’s death, the whole reaction to that, and a bunch of other scenes that show interactions between her mother, mother’s boyfriends, and what killed her father, OR you could give us maybe a page of summery of how she feels and move on. Needless to say, the later option is the better choice. It’s less repetitive, less long, and tells us the same thing. Now the plot can move on in whatever direction you want.

Telling can be one of the best tools you use in fiction. It can deliver a quick punch that makes readers empathize with the MC, summarize a scene so the plot could keep moving, and, if properly used, can create a deeper meaning in a story. Using telling well is the difference between a good work of fiction and a great one.
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.




User avatar
Gender Female
Points 20503
Reviews 370
Rosey Unicorn wrote:A rule of thumb I use for back story is: If the scenes themselves are not vital to the plot, tell them. This doesn’t mean that what happened in those scenes isn’t important; it means that I could pace the story better by summarizing (i.e.- telling) a scene instead of showing it.

I had this dilemma in something I just wrote. I wanted to start my story on one note; with the readers bobbing along, free and easy, just ingesting the thoughts of the character and taking in a sanctified summary of the situation, with the next scene taking a drastic one-eighty and dragging the reader by their hair over various pointy and uncomfortable objects.
When the lovely critiques of yws read my post, however, they kindly informed me that I was "telling, not showing."
Although this sounds like a whiny rant, I actually have a legitimate question.
Can I tell too much and then show to much? Should I start my story with part two, to pique interest, and have the situation explained in part one (now placed after part two, hypothetically)
Or can I keep it as is; lead with one expectation and slide into another.
Part one is interesting enough, I think, that I won't lose any readers right off the bat.
Do stories always have to start in the middle of things? What about the calm before a storm?
Gee, that was long. Sorry. :thud:
Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart.
*Le Bible
Royal Reviews Here!




User avatar
Gender Other
Points 89625
Reviews 1272
Hi! I'll just pull each question and answer them separately here. (Don't worry about asking too many questions! That's what YWS is here for. ^^)

Can I tell too much and then show to much?

Absolutely. An overload of telling doesn't balance out an overload of showing. You need to have a good balance (only found through trial and error, sorry to say) that tells just enough and shows just enough. And not all stories show. One story I read had only telling and it was fantastic. The importance is finding the right balance for your story. There isn't some magic formula for what's right and what's not.

Take the opening scene of my novel. It is, in short, three pages summerizing the MC's situation. A telling introduction, which should be bad, right? Well, no. What I did was, countered the "telling" nature of her backstory by putting her in the results of that backstory. There's still a lot of conflict in the opening, and I also show some aspects of the (rather unusual) culture. I also had a strong opening line ("Are there any assassins in the crowd, Kerani?") and the three pages of summery built on that one line. At the end I'll link my article on beginnings so you can have a better idea what I'm talking about.

Should I start my story with part two, to pique interest, and have the situation explained in part one (now placed after part two, hypothetically)

Possibly. What you want to consider isn't so much what the most interesting part of the story is. You want to consider what the most conflicting part of the story is. Readers can be dragged in right in the middle of a fight scene, but if we're not given reasons to care about the characters very quickly, readers will lose interest. Readers can also be given a story that opens with a walk in the part and love it, as long as there's some conflict. (For example, the book could start with, "Will the package be there?" and the MC is walking through the park. In her walk, she think about why she needs the package, making us care for her, and her worry about the source of the package, giving us conflict)

Or can I keep it as is; lead with one expectation and slide into another.

You can choose to keep the lead the same. The question is, should you. In writing you can do anything you want; doing it well is another story. Doing it well takes some practice and lots of experimenting, but it's often worth it. Just be prepared for setbacks. ^^

Now for your question. From the summery of your beginning, I'm unsure if there should be such a drastic change. As my article on beginnings put it,

On Conflict: Sometimes the conflict you use to hook readers is not the main conflict of a story. In the example above, Karen moving and figuring out how to navigate a new school is the minor part of the storyline. The major part is something rather unrelated; her trying to enjoy Christmas when her brother (who kept Christmas alive for her) is stationed overseas. What that boils down to is: You can change conflict in the middle of the story (or even right after the beginning if the change is slow), as long as you come back to the conflict you presented by the end.

Although, it must be warned that that change had better be slow and well foreshadowed. If you do a sudden shift, then things don’t add up. So if you’re going to change conflicts, make sure you have some mention of the problem in the beginning. (To take the short story I’ve been quoting, the fifth paragraph mentions her brother being overseas. Since that’s still in the “beginning” scene, it counts)


Pay special attention to the paragraph with the bolded line. A sudden turn-around in conflict can leave readers very confused and might not stick with the story. The beginning made them think a story was one style, the middle is something very different, and readers might not like the new style. I haven't seen your beginning so I can't say if the change is too sudden, but my preference is a slow shift in conflict. (In my novel, I take over forty pages to set up all the main conflicts in the story and I need to expand on some scenes).

Do stories always have to start in the middle of things? What about the calm before a storm?

This is a tricky question. It all depends on the story, really. Some are best to start in the middle of things while others are best to start in the calm before the storm. Finding which is better, like just about everything in writing, is all about experimenting. Experimenting doesn't mean writing out a beginning fifteen times (Although in some cases it can. I speak from experience); experimenting can mean just thinking about where you have enough conflict to keep readers interested, yet not so much that we're given time to form a bond with the character.

And since this principle is shown best by example, here is my beginnings article. If you have any questions about it or what I'm saying here, feel free to post back or PM me.

Hope this helps, and good luck! Novels are a pain sometimes to figure out, but taking the time to figure them out is often worth it.

Another tip: Spend some time with short stories as well. Then you can have fun with different styles of writing more easily and see what works and what doesn't.

PM me with questions. ^^

~Rosey
A writer is a world trapped in a person— Victor Hugo

Ink is blood. Paper is bandages. The wounded press books to their heart to know they're not alone.




User avatar
Gender Female
Points 3225
Reviews 365
Since you asked for help, here's a summary of what I told you in chat:
So, this article is a bit vague. You're telling me that telling is okay. But when/where/why is it okay? Give a few more examples.
Remember what I told you about dialogue: Telling can be interesting when a character explains something, or subtley mentions something to another character which leads to a backstory.
Remember my example about the war injury.
Also, most of your examples here are pretty show-y. His chest stopped moving? Well, the connotes death of course, which makes that showing, at least to me.
You're the narrator: Don't put in pages and pages of telling unless it's a first person story. In first person, you can get away with it.
But in third person, the narrator should simply report, not be like, "Oh, by the way, said contest Josephus speaks of takes place when three representitives from each country..."
That's boring.
Instead of out right telling us to tell, why don't you show us how to show in a way that's basically telling?
Gah, that makes no sense.
Tell me to clear things up if you need to?
Odi et amo. quare id faciam, fortasse requiris?
nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior.
-Catullus, Carmen 85




User avatar
Gender Male
Points 1040
Reviews 117
I think, that sometimes even up to 80% of 'tell/show' ratio is acceptable, especially if it's a high lit book, or a pulp adventure
:D
she got a dazed impression of a whirling chaos in which steel flashed and hacked, arms tossed, snarling faces appeared and vanished, and straining bodies collided, rebounded, locked and mingled in a devil's dance of madness.
Robert Howard



We are all broken. That's how the light gets in.
— Ernest Hemingway