What are ways to "Show, don't tell" without simply listing bodily actions?

Body language and facial expressions work miracles. Using your example, if a person is scrunching their eyebrows, gritting their teeth, and glaring, we can safely assume that they are angry. The other sentence is kind of extraneous, passing into 'tell' territory.

Speech patterns are another good way to show emotions, for example a person who is angry may swear, repeat words, shout, cut off their sentences, or might be too angry to speak at all.

posted almost 10 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

Piper‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0

I consider the author's job to assist the imagination of the reader, so they can sense the scene and feelings of the characters.

The difference between showing and telling is that showing describes a scene and telling gives us a fact and leaves it to the reader to imagine on their own. such "facts" tend to be abstractions, like "angry", that can evoke very different imaginative experiences amongst readers, which means the author did not do a very good job of assisting them:

Showing narrows "angry" down to how Andy shows anger, or how Andy's anger affects Briana. So the body language is definitely more descriptive and specific about Andy's anger, but visual reaction is only ONE sense, and we have a dozen of them: I don't expect Andy's anger to evoke any sense of smell or taste or tactile senses, but we can sense the emotion in words.

To show better, consider the consequences of the facts you want to list. Andy is angry. Okay, why does this fact matter? What happens because Andy is angry? Yes, he has some look, but you are bored with that. Does he use shocking profanity when angry? Or is he repressed and use replacements for profanity? How does his tone of voice change, is he cold and measured and threatening, or does he get louder? Does he have a violent reaction and throw the snow globe against the wall? Or a pencil? Or slam his hand on the desk?

How does Andy's anger affect the person he is angry at? Do they wilt, or grow defensive, or are they a fighter that returns his anger in kind? What about their words? How do they feel?

Remember you are assisting the reader's imagination in experiencing (not just seeing and hearing) your story. Showing requires moving from the abstract fact to concrete details that leave very little choice in the reader's imagination, so they are imagining what YOU imagined.

To do that requires you more fully imagine the details of the scene, the choreography and feelings of the characters in the room, which is work, so you can pick the most salient few details that can stand for the whole scene.

If all you can think of is bodily movements, I suspect you are not fully imagining the scene, you are stuck in the trap of trying to describe a movie. But in a screenplay, all they do is tell "Andy is angry," and leave that up to the actor and director to portray visually (unless you tell them Andy is angry, and kicks the cat across the room).

Often, trying to describe the appearance of human feelings will fall into cliché and purple prose. It is better to show the consequences of the particular concrete type of anger Andy is feeling, to constrain the reader's imagination to that, and appeal to the reader's other senses: The meaning conveyed by the volume and pacing of the voice, the word choices (profanity or otherwise) made by the angry person, the actions they take in anger, whether effective or not (e.g. pounding the desk or throwing something or roaring is not really accomplishing anything.)

The consequences upon other actors in the room, how do they feel and react? Do they feel sympathy, or empathy? Are they angry too? Are they afraid of Andy, or concerned about the damage he might do to the room? Do they worry/fear he will do something rash and out of control, or do something cold and calculating that could be even worse?

More fully imagine the scene and characters, the choreography of how people move and take action, the consequences of the anger instead of the anger itself. That can include consequences in a POV character's mind: Skip the physical details; they sense he is "angry" and this triggers memories of similar anger in their life, some breakup or disappointment or betrayal.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3156 reputation 2 1399 613 37

The question is a good example of why show don't tell is bad advice. It results in all sorts of silly overblown and tedious writing.

Give them evidence, let them infer is getting a little closer to the mark, but it still runs afoul of the basic writing rule which is to be a clear and direct as possible.

The real key here is to consider how we experience the emotions of others. The anger of strangers is mostly annoying. It might be a little bit frightening if they are violent, but otherwise it does not move us. The anger of those we know, on the other hand, engages our sympathy. We feel the sharpness and anguish of their anger because we know why they are angry, what they had hoped for and what they have lost. We fear for them, of for those they might harm, because we are invested in the story and its outcomes.

Our reaction to the anger of a character, therefore, is not based on the immediate description of that anger. Florid description of physical symptoms of their anger will be merely annoying unless they give us a reason to fear for their health of conduct (which we only do if we are invested in the story).

But set it up right, make us love or hate the character, make us understand what they love and value, and then show the betrayal that robs them of that thing, and you hardly have to describe their anger at all.

When words fall flat it is almost always because the thing they describe has not been set up properly. No amount of florid detail, no piling on of evidence from which to infer the emotion, makes any difference at that point. It is simply too late.

The storyteller achieves their effects through the power of story, not through the force of language. "Show don't tell" deceives us into thinking we can solve story problems with tricks of language. The play's the thing in which we catch the conscience of the king.

posted almost 8 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Mark Baker‭

4371 reputation 12 1104 744 58