This page has been designed specifically for the printed screen. It may look different than the page you were viewing on the web.
Please recycle it when you're done reading.

The URI for this page is { http://mfaconnect.com }

Editing Series 2 - Show/Tell Dilemma Posted on March 30th

This is probably the most talked about situation that a writer faces, and there are many books which try to force us into the habit that “showing,” is better then “telling.” I hate these books, and I hate this rule even more. One is not better then the other. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and it is up to us in the revision process to decide which is better to use. By understand the uses each have, and deciding which one will make the writing stronger at any given time, we as “editors” engage our stories on a deeper level, and end up learning something about them we as “writers” maybe did not know.

A scene happens in real-time. Summary takes place after the fact. A scene happens someplace, so it is a good idea to describe that place. Using a scene to show something that happened, and describing the setting, invites the reader into the story. Without this invitation you run the risk of your story becoming a lecture, and will be received as enthusiastically. As important as “narrative summary” (telling) is, it is just not as compelling to read as a drawn out scene. Think Henry James.

Some aspects of the story are better off being shown, exactly because they are more engaging. This could be a character emotion, or an important plot development. One way to show an important aspect of a character’s personality, is through dialogue.

Telling:

“She was a very emotional girl, filled with a deep hatred for her father.”

Showing:

“Fuck you dad!” Marlyn said.

The trick is to know which information is important enough to find a way to bring it to life as strongly as possible, and which is better off being conveyed in less dramatic ways.

Now the reason I hate the theory (even if only implied) that showing is somehow better, is because if this were true there would be no contrast within the story. Narrative summary has its own set of strengths and is just as important to master. For one thing it sets the rhythm of the writing off, and provides needed breaks. Brief, intense scenes become exhausting. Not all information needs to take place in real-time, therefore a narrative summary of events provide these breaks and shifts in rhythm. These pauses in action build up the tension and provide the accent mark on the scenes which will be dramatized, making them that more powerful and important.

An example could be for scenes where there is a lot of repetition. If the story is about a race car driver, and you dramatized every race, what would be the thrill of reading about the really important one which happens at the end?

The only real rule of thumb I would suggest is that anything which is not absolutely necessary for plot development, could be summarized, so long as those scenes which are important are given the proper attention. It comes down in my opinion to a matter of rhythm, which is perhaps the most important thing to consider as a writer. Yeah, you could get away with anything so long as you have the ability to pull it off, and here I think rhythm is what gives certain writers the ability to pull it off. Think Henry James.

In this article I talked about the old showing vs. telling debate, but only really on the large scale issues, like plot development. Keep in mind these decisions apply to issues on the smaller scale, such as characterization, and with that I mean the urge to apply a million details about a character. A round character is not always so because every detail of his/her life has been explained. A few good scenes relating the same information might make the character more memorable, but it is up to you as the writer to figure out where, when, and how.

Finally, I tried to strike upon some of the positives and negatives of both. I tried to stress the importance of understanding your story enough to know what has to be shown, and what can be summarized, and to think about rhythm to keep that balance interesting.

For the next post, which will be shorter I promise, I will talk about characterization vs. exposition. Please comment on this post and let me know your thoughts…uncensored of course.


Trackback URL

Some Responses to “Editing Series 2 - Show/Tell Dilemma” :

  1. The beauty of screenwriting is that you have to both show and tell, but the telling is also challenging so that its not too on-the-nose. Glad to see someone has taken this issue on. In my Gotham Writers Workshop classes on fiction, people were chastised for that very thing quite often. Sometimes it’s just parroting the rules, rather than weighing out the impact.

    Commented Toni Denis on March 31st, 2009.
  2. nice to see some attention paid to this popular workshop topic. would have enjoyed some more opinion on where it works and doesn’t work (expanding on “Think Henry James”). glad I added to my RSS reader–will keep reading.

    Commented Sean on April 4th, 2009.
  3. Thank you! You explained that well and a light bulb went on! I got it! I am looking forward to your next comment…I am dealing with the exact subject before I resubmit a piece.

    Commented youngster65 on May 4th, 2009.
Leave your own comments about this post: