You know how we love to talk about how pat answers and cliches in fiction do more harm than good - leaving the story flat, the reader unsatisfied?
Yeah, well I feel that way when I read or hear people talking about Showing Vs. Telling in fiction. Mostly what I hear is pat answers and what is increasingly becoming cliche definitions. I understand this is mostly an attempt to find a simple answer to a complex question, yet I get the feeling that in our search we've forgotten that the question IS complex. Multi-faceted. Difficult.
Ah, difficult. How we do run from difficult. All of us do it to varying degrees. But the vision of the fiction writer is to embrace difficult (do you recall Patti Hill's wonderful imagery of wrestling an octopus into a mayonnaise jar?) We eat difficult for breakfast.
My goal for this post is not to be the teacher in the front of the room with all the answers. I'm so over myself about needing to have all the answers. Instead, my goal is to open the discussion and invite you to wrestle with the complexity of creating the story world through the device of showing.
What Showing ISN'T.
We often see people explaining showing vs. telling in terms similar to this: Telling is just saying what a character is doing. Showing is describing what the character is doing.
Not so much.
It isn’t enough to describe events in detail – there must be a purpose for both the details you are describing and the characters that are performing the actions.
What is often left out of the showing vs. telling discussion is that there are reasons why a writer would choose to use either telling or showing at different points in the story. There are aspects of your story you are best to tell - details of time and place, clothing details, sometimes setting a scene up quickly requires telling because to show it all would distract from the story.
Showing isn't detail - showing is story.
Telling isn't lack of detail - telling is story.
Let me give you and example:
She hurried down the path toward the dark palace, the cloak draped over her arm. The birds over head sang their goodnight song. She shouldn't have stayed so long at her friend's house. She walked faster, picking the hem of her skirt up with her free hand. She pushed a low hanging branch out of the way as she hurried past. She reached an opening in the trees that lead to the valley that would take her to the doors of the palace. She stopped and draped the cloak over her shoulders and tied it at her throat. She checked inside the bag that was slung across her torso. Fire sticks, water, a small cloth, her Father's book of Hope and a forgotten apple.
She pulled the apple out of the bag and bit into it. She made quick work of the apple and threw the small core and stem into the forest behind her. She slapped at her dress, removing most of the dust from its folds, then took the small cloth from her bag and wiped at the stains around the hem of her dress. She replaced the cloth and stepped into the grassy meadow. It was wet with evening dew. She picked up her skirts and rushed on toward the place gates.
Showing galore, right?
Nope.
For all the detail about what the character is doing, the passage is still telling. It’s flat. A list of mundane activities being spelled out in succession. It doesn't connect us to the story world.
The above passage is missing essential components of showing - and this brings me to the point I made at the beginning of this post - the literary device of showing is complex. It isn't one thing - it is made up of several other devices used together to create the illusion of reality.
I want to touch on two components of showing that I feel are essential. Point of View (POV) and subtext. Then, I want to invite you to share your perspectives, insights, and knowledge.
Parts of Showing
POV:
POV is a pillar of “showing” – it’s a brace for the concept, because POV not only introduces characters to the reader, it grounds the reader immediately, creating a safe and trustworthy place. Without POV what we are left with is a picture of what a character is doing – but we don't know or care about the character. POV establishes how the reader will relate to the novel and the subject matter. It sets the tone and takes the reader by the hand, leading her deeper into the story.
Let me just say, I'm not talking about whether you tell your story in first person or third person or if you write in present tense or past tense. I'm referring to POV as the presenting characters in a well rounded sense, utilizing character information from their mental, emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspects. POV that is a multi-dimensional presentation of character that begins the moment the novel opens and continues to develop until the end of the book.
Let’s get back to our example. The author of this scene tells us the character hurries and races, but there is nothing to ground us to the character – who is she? What is she thinking? Why are her actions important to me as a reader? There is no glimpse of the inner world of this character. And that, in part, makes the scene telling rather than showing.
A second component of showing that I want to talk about is subtext.
I started my creative life as an stage actor - I still have sawdust between my toes. A huge part of learning to act was learning to portray subtext, the hidden but most truthful motivations and meanings of a characters words and actions.
Subtext is more easily recognized by its absence - oh blah, the story is flat and clichéd - than it is by its presence -the words lingered long after I put the book down.
In his book, The Art of Subtext: Beyond Plot, Charles Baxter says subtext is ". . . the realm of what haunts the imagination: the implied, the half-visible, and the unspoken." He also uses the phrase, "unspoken soul-matter".
It may sound mysterious, but it isn’t as vague as it may sound at first brush. It is the art of leaving something unsaid about the stated theme and mood of the book. Your story has a plot, setting, a theme, a message – all of which are stated in the book, through story and the things you explore.
Subtext is used to paint depth of meaning into the pages of your story. It is felt by the reader more strongly than if you stated the meaning. It is the ultimate tool of showing vs. telling.
Rather than me giving definitions of subtext – lets do a short exercise.
Settle on a character. Could you from the book you are currently working on, one you're recently read. Or one you make up for the exercise. Got one? Good.
So, your character says, “I don’t understand why you’re arguing with me.”
Imagine a scene – a snapshot in your mind where one character is saying this to another character. Very quickly – what are you seeing in your snapshot? Write it down.
Now, think about the same line of dialogue, but add a subtext of meaning – the character still says "I don't understand why you're arguing with me." but what the character is feeling underneath the statement - what the character truly means to say, but cannot is: “I want you to love me.”
Write the scene with this subtext.
What changes in your scene when you add the subtext of “I want you to love me”?
Something that would change for me would be the way the character is standing, perhaps her posture, or what she does with her arms and hands. The expression on her face changes, the tone of her voice – the way she says the words, not in the clipped tones of someone in charge, but in pleading bleats that trail off, and lack conviction.
Okay, those are two components of showing. But, of course there are more. This is complex. Share your thoughts. What confusing things have you heard about showing and telling? How have you worked with the device in your own writing? Can you share a great example of telling? Share!
