Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/38210
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/38210
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

The difference between showing and telling, as it applies to story writing, is whether you create a scene that conveys information, or whether you state the information explicitly. So instead of arguing that everything is telling, let us talk about the decision of whether to show a visual or scene, or whether to state the information explicitly.

The problem with stating the information explicitly is this: It gives the reader something to memorize. For example, "John is brave." If you never show a scene in which John is brave, then presumably you told us this so we would remember it later. You have asked us to memorize something. Which is fine, but if you ask us to memorize more than about seven things, the average reader will lose track and forget, we just can't remember that many disconnected facts. "John is brave. He is tall. He loves dogs." and on and on; after another ten things about John, we don't remember most of it. It is too much to memorize.

That said, if it isn't _important_ for the reader to remember a piece of information for more than a few paragraphs, then telling can be appropriate.

If it is important, then what we (humans) can remember for a longer term (even permanently) is _experiences_. That is the point of both short visuals and scenes, to simulate an experience.

If we _witness_ John being brave in a scene, intentionally risking his life or injury or punishment for some purpose, then we will remember that scene and the author never has to _tell us_ John is brave, we saw it. It was **shown**. We can say the same about John being tall, or loving dogs, or being in love. Visuals and scenes have impact. Explicit "telling" has very little impact, especially with vague words like "sad" or "happy".

So whether to tell or show depends on how important the information is, how the story is paced at the moment (if you can show a scene or visual), and just how difficult it would be to show instead of tell; it can be quite difficult to show some feelings accurately.

To me the rule is to never impart information explicitly if it matters for more than a page or two. If it is a part of the character that drives them or the plot, make a scene to demonstrate it. If John is good with dogs, or engines, or magic, or knows how to fly a helicopter, and that has an impact on the story later: Make a scene to convey it. Don't just say it and expect the reader to remember it five chapters later.

The same goes for an event; if events have significant consequences later in the story, put them in a scene. Not just "John fought and killed Alex," then a hundred pages later some character shows up and says "I am Alex's father!"

The reader will have forgotten Alex, and think _Who's Alex, again?_

We create scenes for the reader's experience; some just have entertainment value, others are there to aid the reader's memory so future scenes will have context necessary for entertainment value.

Within scenes, we state information explicitly (we "tell") that doesn't need to be recalled _outside_ the scene. It is the reader's imagination of these character interactions, assisted by our prose, that makes the whole scene memorable.

Original score: 3