Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/29926
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/29926
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I agree you must tell some things; but I think you can embed those tellings in a "showing":

* * *

Anna shifted the sword on her back for the tenth time since morning, the strap refused to rest in that long worn dent at the end of her collar bone, and kept slipping toward her neck. Her luck, she'd reach for the sword and miss the god damn handle. Marcus said something behind her, and she missed it. She stopped short. "What?"

He caught up. "I said, why are you walking so fast?"

"I hate this goddam sword!"

* * *

Personally I think it is stronger if I **tell** you what is going through her mind, both indirectly (the sword "refuses" to behave) and directly (she wants the sword handle in a precise spot she can reach blindly. I do **tell** what she is thinking, without saying "she thought." I just report the thought as silent mental dialogue.

**I think** of the "Show Don't Tell" admonition as avoiding impersonalization and generalization. These distance the reader from the characters.

"Jim felt patriotic" is poor because "Patriotic feelings" are not precise enough for the reader to turn those feelings into ramifications or predictions about Jim's behavior. Is he about to give his life for his country, or tie on his red-white-and-blue Uncle Sam apron and pour some charcoal in the grill?

Is it the Fourth of July and some astounding Fireworks? Or is it the Fourth of July and Jim is remembering his fifteen year old self attending the military funeral of his warrior father?

Of course I do have to **_tell_** you what Jim is thinking, just like I'd have to tell you what he does, but then I am telling you something precise and specific.

The same goes for "Jim felt sick", "Jim felt angry", "Jim loved Marcia". Would you write "On their first date, Marcia said something that made Jim fall in love with her" and leave it at that? So enough said, now Jim loves Marcia?

Of course not; it is far too ludicrously non-specific and the reader cannot imagine anything from it. So that would be an extreme case; but the same idea applies with less force to generalizations like "sick" or "frustrated".

I'd agree with Orson Scott Card that in the end everything is "tell". I have to tell you Jim threw the coffee cup at Rachel, missed her head by an inch, and broke the glass on the microwave door.

For me at least, Show Don't Tell means to be more specific and concrete in description, and that _tends_ to take many more words and involve more action and specific emotions. Feeling "irritated", for Anna and her sword, influences her behavior and mental imagery in a specific and concrete way in the moment of this story. So much so that I don't have to tell you she is "irritated".

The same will be true for other generalizations one might be tempted to use; if they apply they should **mean** something in the moment, and perhaps in the future: Anna being forced to use an unfamiliar sword can have ramifications later, either positive or negative. (e.g. Marcus and Anna are ambushed, Anna dispatches four attackers before Marcus can engage one: then says, "I still hate this sword.")

Original score: 2