Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25750
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25750
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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.

Original score: 1