Stop Being So Literal!
(show-don’t-tell might not mean what you think)
If there is one piece of writing advice that has stood the test of time, it’s Show-Don’t-Tell (SDT). I remember my undergrad professors saying it 25 years ago, and just as clearly, I hear it in the voices of my favorite writing podcast hosts. It is deeply, inexorably ingrained in writers’ brains, which is great, because it’s great advice —unless writers mistake the message.
Which we do.
All the time.
The problem, I think, occurs when we take the first word – SHOW – too literally. We read SHOW, and we good little rule followers literally try to show the reader something visual: a gesture, an expression, anything that the reader could picture in the mind’s eye. This is cinematic writing, meaning something a camera could capture, and it is a great tool in the writer’s tool box.
But it is not what the SHOW in SDT means.
SHOW does not mean use a facial expression to indicate a feeling. It is not a gesture or a movement. Nor is it a mumble or a scream or a cough or a tone of voice. It is not nails digging half moons into palms. It is not a grimace or a whisper.
Yes, all those things can be part of it. And yes, it is usually something we can see or hear or touch or smell— but it is much more than that.
THE SHOW in SDT means to illustrate by example. To conjure. To use “sharp specifics” (CeCe’s term) that indicate something bigger. A detail that evokes something beyond itself. If you know anything about semiotics, SHOW is an indexical sign.
A few examples:
Telling would be something like this: She was in a dive bar.
Showing could be: Her legs stuck to the plastic barstool.
Telling would be: The child was afraid.
Showing could be: The child hid behind his mother’s leg.
Telling would be: They are wealthy.
Showing could be: Their estate stands on twelve acres.
Each of these SHOW examples puts an image in the reader’s mind, but more than that, it gives them mental space to draw the conclusion you want them to draw (what the TELL is). And that’s a good thing! That’s one of the reasons readers love reading— figuring out the TELL makes readers active participants in your story.
Now, go further. Elaborate on your SHOW examples, give us more SHOW, but, please, for the love of god, don’t only show. You need interiority too. Relying entirely on SHOW details, is a red flag that you haven’t made them subjective. (And in this case, I do mean it literally: each SHOW needs to be seen through a specific point-of-view, even if it is through an omniscient narrator’s POV). If your SHOW is not subjective, you deny your reader the thing they love even more than figuring out the TELL— getting inside another person’s head.
Ergo, you need weave INTERIORITY all though your SHOW:
The estate stands on twelve acres, and even though the snow has just stopped, the driveway is slick and clear. Kate pulls through the gates and parks the truck near the front door. When she steps out, she watches a fat white flake fall to the stone and melt. The driveway hasn’t been plowed, she realizes. It’s heated.
In this random little paragraph we understand that Kate is new to this place, that this place is rich, and she is likely not, and she’s impressed by the heated driveway. It’s just an example, but I promise you can do it with any halfway decent SHOW.
Who wants to try? Leave a comment with your SHOW and I will tell you what I think the TELL is. Let’s play!
Brilliant as always
I have always felt that the opposite is true too. To fix that writing which is too descriptive and meandering, the writer should "tell not show". Sometimes when I read things I want to know what is happening, not what things are. So quick, blunt statements are helpful. For example, in Candide by Voltaire, the narration is very simple and to the point. Alot can happen on a single page, and I think it's because he just "tells" you what's happening without too much fluff. The readers engagement comes from interpreting the characters, their choices, and the events, not the minutiae of various descriptions.