I am currently reading Everything Is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer. Much of the book is written in the form of the narrator Telling the story (generalizations of what happened) as opposed to showing it (exact, moment to moment details of what happened). Many authors, such as Marquez, almost exclusively Tell in their works, while others do a great deal of showing and telling (earlier Roth). As readers, which style of writing do you prefer- Showing or Telling? What pros and cons do you find in each? And why do you find one to be preferable to another?
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
Your Thoughts on Books That Show vs. Books That Tell
- Thread starter markjb20
- Start date
Peder
Well-Known Member
I tend to slice the apple somewhat differently. Showing versus telling is indeed a time honored division, and often the advice to authors is "show don't tell," in order to present the action directly and make the story more vivid. However, I tend to view the matter in terms of plot versus style, which are two other aspects of telling a story. The plot focuses on "what happens" and why, while style is "how" the story is told. And often I am as interested in style as much as plot, and have read books which are almost entirely style alone. So I think it depends on the author. Skilled authors can make "plot" or "style", or "telling" or "showing" all equally interesting. It seems to me that it all depends on what they have to say and how skilled they are at saying it. I read both kinds and have often put books aside by authors who seemed clumsy at what they were doing, whether in style or plot.
Now back to regular programming -- the question you directly asked.
Now back to regular programming -- the question you directly asked.
I hear you, and I agree: it really does come down to execution. whether showing or telling, it all depends on the author's ability to execute.
I suppose I asked the question because I find that most genre fiction (horror, crime, etc.) are stories that, for the most part, are shown. Simply because they are largely comprised of dialogue and action scenes and because their inherent simplicity usually calls for a more visceral experience than a cerebral one. Literary fiction, as it is called, often contains more telling, and at times this can lead to the writer more or less placing himself on a soapbox and preaching in all his or her infinite wisdom. But as we all know, genre fiction sells far more than lit fiction(especially YA fiction these days) and even though this is clearly due to its simplicity and the fact that its main purpose is to allow people to escape, I wonder if perhaps literary fiction shouldn't try showing a bit more. I think many of us can say we've experienced times when we opened a literary book and did not see the first quotation marks denoting dialogue for the first 30 pages. That can be a bit offputting. Of course, I am generalizing. Some literary fiction does show as much as tell. But simply something to consider.
I suppose I asked the question because I find that most genre fiction (horror, crime, etc.) are stories that, for the most part, are shown. Simply because they are largely comprised of dialogue and action scenes and because their inherent simplicity usually calls for a more visceral experience than a cerebral one. Literary fiction, as it is called, often contains more telling, and at times this can lead to the writer more or less placing himself on a soapbox and preaching in all his or her infinite wisdom. But as we all know, genre fiction sells far more than lit fiction(especially YA fiction these days) and even though this is clearly due to its simplicity and the fact that its main purpose is to allow people to escape, I wonder if perhaps literary fiction shouldn't try showing a bit more. I think many of us can say we've experienced times when we opened a literary book and did not see the first quotation marks denoting dialogue for the first 30 pages. That can be a bit offputting. Of course, I am generalizing. Some literary fiction does show as much as tell. But simply something to consider.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Yes, I also have seen similar distinctions between genre and literary fiction. Genre fiction is almost always described as "action" oriented, while literay fiction is described in other ways. Right now the book in front of me suggests that literary fiction is about the inner life of the characters, while genre fiction is about their outer life, i.e. what happens to them, namely "action."
I read both -- and will reject either -- depending on my mood and purpose, so I tend to alternate, between "heavy" reading and "relaxation." A good mix of spy novels and slow literary fiction suits me just fine.
I read both -- and will reject either -- depending on my mood and purpose, so I tend to alternate, between "heavy" reading and "relaxation." A good mix of spy novels and slow literary fiction suits me just fine.
I hear you. In recent years, my reading habits have been confined almost exclusively to literary fiction. It is not only what I like to read most (the exploration of the complexities of the human condition) but also what I write. However, there have been several times when I felt those books dragged, or perhaps even became too self-involved; literary for the sake of being literary.
As a result, I have found myself exploring more genre fiction lately (admittedly, this is also because I am engrossed in my own work and have no present interest in exploring the profound thoughts of others). I have begun reading Johannes Cabal: The Necromancer- a fun, entertaining romp about a man who sold his soul to the devil and who makes a bet with him because he now wants it back. It is a light fun read, but it is interesting. And I think it would do well for all writers of all kinds to remember that the first rule of storytelling (not writing, but storytelling) should always be to keep the reader interested. It is paramount. That is not to say you have to open every book with guns a blazing, or insert crude jokes or sex scenes on every other page. But a story should always strive to be engaging in its own way, otherwise the reader is unlikely to keep on reading (unless he is reading out of a requirement for school or he forces himself to finish something because everyone else claims the book is 'important').
I think John Gardner, author of The Art of Fiction and my favorite writing teacher, said it best: 'The reader’s first requirement is to be entertained. The second requirement is that the story contain profluence- the sense that things are moving, getting somewhere, flowing forward. The common reader demands some reason to keep turning the pages. If the reader finds nothing to feel suspense about he eventually puts down the book... If the writer writes only of what honestly interests him, and if he thinks of his work not only as thoughtful exploration but also as entertainment, he can not fail to have both immediate and lasting work.'
As a result, I have found myself exploring more genre fiction lately (admittedly, this is also because I am engrossed in my own work and have no present interest in exploring the profound thoughts of others). I have begun reading Johannes Cabal: The Necromancer- a fun, entertaining romp about a man who sold his soul to the devil and who makes a bet with him because he now wants it back. It is a light fun read, but it is interesting. And I think it would do well for all writers of all kinds to remember that the first rule of storytelling (not writing, but storytelling) should always be to keep the reader interested. It is paramount. That is not to say you have to open every book with guns a blazing, or insert crude jokes or sex scenes on every other page. But a story should always strive to be engaging in its own way, otherwise the reader is unlikely to keep on reading (unless he is reading out of a requirement for school or he forces himself to finish something because everyone else claims the book is 'important').
I think John Gardner, author of The Art of Fiction and my favorite writing teacher, said it best: 'The reader’s first requirement is to be entertained. The second requirement is that the story contain profluence- the sense that things are moving, getting somewhere, flowing forward. The common reader demands some reason to keep turning the pages. If the reader finds nothing to feel suspense about he eventually puts down the book... If the writer writes only of what honestly interests him, and if he thinks of his work not only as thoughtful exploration but also as entertainment, he can not fail to have both immediate and lasting work.'
Peder
Well-Known Member
I haven't read Gardner, but it looks like I should, because he states the nub of the matter succinctly and convincingly. I am glad you chose to include that quote, because it is a view I should deliberately keep more in mind as I am now beginning to try writing after many years of reading. To me it is turning out harder than it looks.
I hope you enjoy the forum.
I look forward to seeing you around
Thank you for welcoming me here. I would be glad to read an excerpt of your writing when you are ready to show it. And I can assure you that if you are a beginnning writer, you will find no better teacher than John Gardner. He is nothing short of a master on craft. His two best and most enduring works on craft art The Art of Fiction and On Becoming A Novelist. You would be doing yourself a grave injustice not to pour over his works as you engage in the writing process. Google him and I am sure you will find that much praise abounds. Cheers.
Fantasy Moon
kickbox
I think I would prefer the method of showing as opposed to telling in most cases.
Fantasy Moon...
I hear you. I imagine most people would gravitate towards showing upon initial consideration, or even if they were forced to only pick one and not the other. Fortunately we do not have to do that. As I mentioned in the original post, I am presently reading Everything Is Illuminated. In fact, I just finished it about a half hour ago. It was a very well written book and had a very compelling storyline (several compelling storylines actually- which made it all the better). I say all this to say that Mr. Foer did an excellent job of both showing and telling, knowing precisely when to use which (the mark of an expert craftsman). And I can honestly say that whenever he was telling, his style (a word Peder eluded to earlier) really did a great job of keeping me interested. All in all, it comes down to a great story. Very few people read for beautiful words (I do know some, however). The vast majority of us read because we want to become engrossed in a rich experience; and whether that experience is fun or scary or hilarious or even downright sad and depressing, we want to experience it in as rich a fashion as possible. So whether the story is shown or told, in the end it comes down to execution. I believe a lot of writers, particularly literary writers, could learn from Mr. Foer's approach: Never boring, always daring and inventive, and, ultimately, having said things that were profound, honest and moving. It gets no better than this.
I hear you. I imagine most people would gravitate towards showing upon initial consideration, or even if they were forced to only pick one and not the other. Fortunately we do not have to do that. As I mentioned in the original post, I am presently reading Everything Is Illuminated. In fact, I just finished it about a half hour ago. It was a very well written book and had a very compelling storyline (several compelling storylines actually- which made it all the better). I say all this to say that Mr. Foer did an excellent job of both showing and telling, knowing precisely when to use which (the mark of an expert craftsman). And I can honestly say that whenever he was telling, his style (a word Peder eluded to earlier) really did a great job of keeping me interested. All in all, it comes down to a great story. Very few people read for beautiful words (I do know some, however). The vast majority of us read because we want to become engrossed in a rich experience; and whether that experience is fun or scary or hilarious or even downright sad and depressing, we want to experience it in as rich a fashion as possible. So whether the story is shown or told, in the end it comes down to execution. I believe a lot of writers, particularly literary writers, could learn from Mr. Foer's approach: Never boring, always daring and inventive, and, ultimately, having said things that were profound, honest and moving. It gets no better than this.