Hey /lit/, pleb here.
I'm a Writing 101 level writer. I heard you guys were all geniuses, so I figured I'd ask for your advice.
How do I "show, don't tell" /lit/? What are your best examples of a writer doing this well and a writer doing this poorly?
Please help, /lit/. I don't want to be a pleb forever. I know I'll never be genius tier, like you, and I'll certainly never be good enough for discussion here. I just don't want to be pleb. Please?
Best: Robert Browning - my last dutchess (or really any of his dramatic monologues)
Worst: don't know
Worst: a screenplay for a nolan film desu
Strange Person (acts strange)
Poor: he is a strange person
ok: he is stacking coffee milk capsules when he was bored.
>>7474925
*he was stacking...
>>7474673
>best
Araby by James Joyce.
Nine Stories by Salinger (literally any of the stories)
poorly:
The Bible (at times)
show don't tell is garbage advice because it's super generic and leads to everyone writing like robots
just read a lot and pay attention to why the writing is good independent of whatever nebulous notion of "show dont tell" you have
With picture books obviously.
>>7475105
its more that a proud person sould act like a proud person not like a shy beta.
asshole should also act like a asshole^^
don't just say it^^
let them act naturally
Somewhat retarded advice. The act of writing is telling, no matter what. I've had classmates say this for sentences like "his hair was black."
>"You're just telling us that his hair was black. Can't you show it?"
No, dumbfuck, not without a projector.
>>7475176
thats not what its about dumbfuck
of cause you telling everything.
>"You're just telling us that his hair was black. Can't you show it?"
he is even more retarded!
and you have shown it to me without having to say it ^^
>>7475176
So you're saying, instead of, "his hair was black."
It should read, "his hair looked like the feather's of a crow, a cursed cat, and an obsidian arrowhead I found on my Grandfather's farm when I was a boy."
Right?
Does that not just lead to redundancy or pumping up a work to an unnecessary word count?
"Show it" - make it certain without having to say it directly
"Tell it" - just say/pretend something
example
say/pretend a person is cruel but he dosn't do one cruel thing in the story.
>>7475225
absolutely correct
>>7475225
OP here. Please elaborate. I don't understand between this response and your "his hair was black" example.
You mean for physical looks and descriptions it's fine, but not for personality traits and habits?
Don't explain, but show it happens. For instance, instead of saying "Henry was a rude man", write like "'outta my way you fucking shits,' said Henry, then slapped my girlfriend's ass" or something.
>>7475234
"Show don't tell" is a technique used to describe a characters personality, habits or thoughts. It is not used for physical descriptions (as frequently).
>>7474673
First of all, "show don't tell" doesn't mean never telling but letting the work overall tend toward showing the reader something rather than telling them it point blank. The end goal of this is to allow the reader to engage with the work itself rather than being spoon fed everything, making for a better reading experience.
If a character doesn't like another character, for example, don't say "A didn't like B." Let that come out through the way they interact, through the tone A uses with B, through the way they talk about them to other characters. Your story will be better served this way.
That isn't to say that telling is always bad. There are authors (Joyce Carol Oates comes to mind) whose writing greatly benefits from the bluntness telling can achieve. As with all rules of writing, you have to figure out what applies to your writing and what doesn't, what works with or against your voice and go from there.
Overall, showing makes your work more interesting and adds depth to your work.
>>7475176
You had retarded classmates, then.
>>7475271
and he has shown it without having to say it ^^
>>7475278
kek
MY NAME IS ROBERTO BOLAÑO
>Liz Norton, on the other hand, wasn’t what one would ordinarily call a woman of great drive, which is to say that she didn’t draw up long- or medium-term plans and throw herself wholeheartedly into their execution. She had none of the attributes of the ambitious. When she suffered, her pain was clearly visible, and when she was happy, the happiness she felt was contagious. She was incapable of setting herself a goal and striving steadily toward it. At least, no goal was appealing or desirable enough for her to pursue it unreservedly. Used in a personal sense, the phrase “achieve an end” seemed to her a small-minded snare. She preferred the word life, and, on rare occasions, happiness. If volition is bound to social imperatives, as William James believed, and it’s therefore easier to go to war than it is to quit smoking, one could say that Liz Norton was a woman who found it easier to quit smoking than to go to war.
>>7475245
>outta my way you fucking shits,'
I can't stop kekking
>>7474673
When I first started out writing it was explained to me thus:
Imagine a concrete object, like an apple, and think about some idea or concept that it embodies one level abstracted (in this case, the apple could represent "fruit"). Then think about how "fruit" could be abstracted (to "food" in general). You end up with a ladder like so —
"apple" represents "fruit"
"fruit" represents "food"
"food" represents "survival" (or pick another one, say, "health")
"survival" represents "the circle of life" or "the human condition"
Now, the things at the bottom of that ladder are very abstract topics that a lot of art deals with but it hard to readily understand. "Telling" would be something like "Johnny was fed up with his life", while "showing" would be getting at that abstract idea by describing the waxiness of an apple's skin, or how its juices taste and run down his throat, or the soggy interior left in the wake of a worm.
That could be overly symbolic for your tastes, which is totally fine. Moving around to various parts of the ladder takes nuance that comes from practice and getting feedback.
>>7476257
>fed up
>fed
Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground is all tell, no show
>>7476257
Shit dude. Good post. I upboat. :)
>>7474673
Paint mental imagery in the reader's head. Don't just tell the reader what is going on.
Use adjectives, similies, metaphors, alliteration and other linguistic devices. Use multiple human sense, i.e. sight, sound smell, feeling etc.
You want the reader to construct their own interesting mental image, which kinda means you have to make the reader jump through fun mental hoops.
Write what you want. Don't listen to the shithead McKee who has never manage to write anything decent.
>>7474673
http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/419391/george-saunders-on-story/
Show don't tell is a pleb rule in the first place. Disregard it.
>>7476819
Sappy but basically true. The "Frank was an asshole" section is probably most helpful on a mechanical level for OP
>>7476819
Nice. What a sympathetic guy.
>>7475215
Maybe the obsidian arrow head if the imagery served a purpose, but otherwise, fucking no.
Do not ever compare hair to ravens. It makes you sound 12.
If his hair being black serves a purpose it's probably for comedic effect. Like his hair is greasy Italian black or something actually funny.
A good example of how not to do things is GRRM
>half his characters are legendary warriors
>they never do anything to showcase this, you only hear about their past exploits
