show and tell.

magic15

Hi everyone I would apprecaite your counsel on that subject particularly on that subject 'Show & tell. how to do it properly and write it, I have read the books but would like some more suggestions especially since I seem to telling more than showing I.e, 'Unfortuanetly for him all he got at the other end was an electronic beep and message to call back later' this is telling isn't it rather than showing isn't so I would like any suggestions of how to do former rather than the latter, its not easy although I will reread my writing books be having another go.
Phil.

Webbo

Hello Phil,
When it's things physically happening, you have no option but to tell, to an extent. The "show not tell" advice is really concerned with more abstract or emotional matters, so instead of, for example, "Peter was sad to get the answerphone again", you might try illustrating Peter's mood through his actions, without directly stating it. In your sentence, I'd say the only place you could show rather than tell would be the "Unfortunately for him". That he got the answerphone would have to be reported one way or another (although perhaps something a little more dynamic?)
So how about something like:

"He picked up the receiver and dialled the numbers his fingers knew by rote. He was already hanging up even before the answerphone kicked in." which I hope conveys a sense of his frustration.
or
impatiently enthusiastic for a new love (and somewhat overblown, but you get the idea!): "He punched in the numbers. That honey-tinged voice was only a few seconds away now. 'CLICK. BEEP. Leave a message.' Where was she? He dialled again."

casey

This is the narrator telling us what happened. To show us, you would have to say something like:

He swore softly as the phone beeped and told him to call back later. i.e. Tell us what HE did, felt, heard, etc. (action) not what the phone did.

Show: make visable, display, or demonstrate
Tell: relate

Hope this helps

Dwight

The more 'inside the head of the point of view character' you can be, the easier it is to 'show'. So:
He dialled, balancing on the edge of his chair, and hissed through his teeth as he drummed his fingers.
"Click. Beep. Leave a message."
Rats! He knew he'd have to leave it, until after that damned conference.

Carol

Others have already said what I would have too.

Liz

Damn and blast it, she thought to herself. Not only have the others said it, they said it better than I would have been able to. She sighed and went back to her chicken carving.

magic15

Thanks everyone going to make a fresh start today a some stage.

Stan2

All the best with the restart.

louise

Dean Koontz tells at the end of his novels, and it's so frustrating after a brilliant story. He is summing up the story after a dramatic end, and it slightly ruins it for me. So, even the great do it!

Show, makes your story longer.
Tell, sums it all up.

Red

If you want to see a great example of lots of telling and no showing, read Twilight.

casey

I'm amazed at the number of published books that are all telling, when us writers are told: show, show, show. I find it quite frustrating. Even well known and best selling authors do it. Arggh...

Dwight

There is a case for telling. It wouldn't work to show all the way. Narrative links, for instance, and other places where the pace calls for a quick explanation of what happened. The need to show returns when you want your reader to 'experience the scene' as they say. That's where the senses come into play and help the reader to live it first hand alongside the protagonist.

dorothyd

Yes, there is a case for telling but subtly. Not overwhelmingly. Reading Howard Spring at the moment, The Houses In Between, the narrative of an elderly lady recalling her entire life, so some of it is telling but the majority of it is showing. It is so finely balanced you hardly notice it is there.