Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25772
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25772
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Here's an example to consider:

> Peter was most dreadfully frightened; he rushed all over the garden, for he had forgotten the way back to the gate.

Now you may be thinking that this example can't possibly be any good since it tells the reader that Peter was frightened, rather than showing his whiskers twitch or something. Because you always always always have to show, right?

Thing is, of course, that this is a line from one of the most famous and best loved animal fables of all time, Beatrix Potter's _The Tale of Peter Rabbit_.

So how do we reconcile the writing class bromide "show, don't tell" against the work of a great writer? Well, let's look at how Potter handles Peter's emotions in the story.

The story begins with Mrs Rabbit telling her children.

> 'you may go into the fields or down the lane, but don't go into Mr. McGregor's garden: your Father had an accident there; he was put in a pie by Mrs. McGregor.'

And then Peter sneaks into the garden and accidentally bumps into Mr McGregor:

> Mr. McGregor was on his hands and knees planting out young cabbages, but he jumped up and ran after Peter, waving a rake and calling out, 'Stop thief!'

Peter is being chased by a rake-wielding man who put his father in a pie. At this point, the reader knows very well that Peter is frightened. They are frightened for him as well. They don't need to be shown it from his facial expressions. All Potter needs to do is acknowledge it and get on with the story:

> Peter was most dreadfully frightened; he rushed all over the garden, for he had forgotten the way back to the gate.

In the end, therefore, it is not about naming the emotion vs showing outward manifestations of the emotion, it is about telling a story that produces the emotion.

Something to note here in particular is that while this is a story written for young children, Potter does not shy away from the possibility of death. She tells us (yes, tells) right off the bat that Peter's father was killed and put in a pie by the McGregors. This signals us that this is a story in which death is a real possibility. Peter could very easily end up in a pie like his father. And this is what sets up the fear reaction for the reader.

There is no big emotive language here. Mrs. Rabbit's speech is both matter of fact and oblique: "he was put in a pie by Mrs. McGregor." It is the substance of what is said that is crucial to the story, not the language that is used. In fact, the matter-of-factness of Mrs. Rabbit's speech only adds to the effect. Death is not only possible, among rabbits it is routine. Peter could really die. And we know this not because of a great histrionic speech but because of a simple bit of family history.

If you want a better bromide than "show don't tell", one that holds up better when we look at it in the light of the greats, this is the one I would suggest: "Do it with story, not with language."

And if someone critiquing your story tells you at any point that you should show, not tell something, take that to mean that you have not set the incident up properly.

Original score: 3