After watching this- the first time, I was all gung ho for Show not Tell. Well, the channels name escapes me but not the impression . ‘ Interiority’ is my new buzzword. How is it even possible to get into the protagonists head without telling? This is why the book is usually better than the film version. Without interiority your basically writing a film arnt you? One needs to maximize the mediums strength.
@@chriswest8389Perhaps the appropriateness of access to a character's thoughts is a little more justified when you have a close POV, like 1st person or Close 3rd person POVs. The more you step back in POV, like in a general 3rd person (more objective) POV it would seem to me less access to thought and more on the surface focus is more fitting for that chosen POV? Then again, 1st person narration is really dialogue directly with the reader, so access to their thoughts feels more natural. All in all, it would be good if they described narrator nuances in relation to this theory.
@@chriswest8389 I thought the advantage of a novel over a film or a play is that the writer and reader can get inside the character's head. Chris, I expressed similar thoughts to you which I'll paste here: So you're not allowed to show a character's thoughts and feelings? Then what does Hemingway's, Joyce's, and Woolf's stream of consciousness explore if not thoughts and feelings. This video sounds like a recipe for a screenplay, and left me more confused about this subject.
Its so easy to want to tell, so we can make sure the reader feels what we hope they do. But Ive been writing for games for a while now, and many of those games go through extensive user-experience tests. When a reader is told how to feel, it greatly reduces the impact of the story beats. It dulls the experience. Misunderstanding the intended emotions of a character is sometimes the goal, so we can catch the reader off guard later on. This video provides a very intuitive explanation of the concept so thank you!
Wow, Tim! I watched this and immediately thought about this quote that I am paraphrasing here: “Great teachers show you where to look, but not what to see.” I can’t undue what I’ve already published, but my writing will go on a whole new trajectory starting today. Thank you!😎 Onward and upward... #positivebeatsnegativeeveryday
After looking at Tim's examples, I have a better understanding of what he means: both background information and point-of-view are highlighted green, i.e. as objective information. The problem i see is that a lot of critiquers will still see that stuff as TELLING and say it's "bad" (not noticing how the writing would be much worse without that information). I'm not sure this is, therefore, about showing versus telling and it might be better just to do away with the whole distinction.
This is by far the best SHOW v TELL video I've watched, and it's the most comprehensible one to me, so I think you so much for that! Great video and lesson. Thank you.
I like to point out the instances when telling is what you’re suppose to do and Harry Potter, so JKR, is a great example for a two big ones. A) imagine the first paragraph of the first book, it’s all telling and B) if JKR was to show instead of tell everything, a school year would be a lot longer, and extremely boring, so for large swaths of time the reader is simply told what happened over the last few weeks and how they felt about it.
Tell helps clarify what's going on, dispel the double meaning or understand how we go here. The particularity with Hemmingway is that even if scenes focus on present, you have to use past and future lines to understand what the character was thinking. It's by reading more it make sense.
Honestly, after listening to and reading dozens of explanations and having writing coaches try to explain it, this explanation nails it. It's an awesome video, and I am subscribing and have hit the bell icon-thanks.
Can you help me understand what you mean by "thought"? Because when you write first person, everything is kind of thought. In your example from The Hunger Games, you could take several sentences as thoughts that you put in the green category. e.g. "of course she did." "This is the closest we will ever come to love." "The last thing I needed was another mouth to feed."
Same here. I was reading the Mistborn Excerpt and some parts marked green I'd mark blue. "Leisurely. Careless. Free.", this bit reads like what one would think of the snowflakes. Someone could pick up the careless aspect of it, other could focus on the whiteness or the weightlessness of the snow. "They seemed so uncaring. What would that be like?", again I feel like this is so particular to the POV character. The video was great, as usual. I just need some help understanding this a bit further. Thank you!
@@gethbond From my perspective, deeply subjective and emotional narration is precisely what makes fiction so engaging, unless we want our fiction to resemble a scientific paper or news report. The only problem I find with a line like, "Jane grew sad," is how beige it is. "Jane wept," isn't necessarily much more engaging. It's more visual, but it's still beige. >> Jane's grief consumed her, plunging her into an emotional abyss from which no lifetime's worth of tears could offer any solace. The vibrant colors of the world faded into the coldest greys, and all she could remember was the lifeless body of her child. Now that's starting to become evocative and engaging. Consider a very objective and empirical line like, "Joe perspired in the outdoors with its clear skies, a temperature of 96 degrees F, and 15% humidity." We can make that far more subjective by focusing more on describing how the weather _feels_ to Joe and/or the narrator: >> Sweat poured profusely from Joe's body against the scorching heat of the sun." Just reporting things objectively as they are often lacks evocative power. In fact, that's precisely how prose tends to start reading like exposition is when it's reporting things exactly as they are as though the narrator is Spock. It's either that or just being too beige. It's through the filter of describing how things _feel_ which tends to create engaging prose. Even in films which let us see/hear things exactly as they are, they often require the musical and subjective filter of a soundtrack to help better engage and move audiences; the music reframes the scene and helps us see it more through a biased and emotional lens.
At the Hunger games she writes " I think he still remembers how I tried to drown him in a bucket..." -and THAT is not telling? Not only she passes on thoughts to us but also the cat's thoughts??!!
@@stevedimitriou7038 S.G covered this contingency didn’t he? It’s past tense but the writer is still showing not telling. No adverbs at least to Tell us what we Should be feeling a
This concept had alluded me until now. Thank you for clarifying. I see it opening up my learning to express thoughts and feelings more eloquently through the action. It also is a function of metaphor which, in order to have unconscious impact, follows the same rule. 🙏
Could you use example of classics? Every time I read a classic, I have the feeling they didn't follow any rule, but their books were still amazing. I am reading War and Peace, and The idiot, and I love the way the books are written, and there is a lot of telling I them.
When I decided to learn craft it was because I had an idea for a story I wanted to tell. I decided I wanted to tell the story in this person omniscient. While researching POV, I came across some “writing authorities” who said that Third person omniscient is passé. Many classics were written that way but more modern works are not. Perhaps that accounts for the disconnect between what you’ve been reading and this advice. I can’t say for sure. However I can say that before I started learning craft, I never thought about how writing styles and trends come and go - just like clothing, hairstyles and music.
Thanks for your video. I do appreciate your explanation of showing. I will only say that it is also necessary in business and many types of writing and sharing -- to be complete. Not leave anything out. Much of the world runs at a furious pace. If you do not say everything (to the best of your ability), there may only be one chance. I labeled my notes about your video, "Visible and invisible data". A lot of my writing is about organizations. Much of what goes on is invisible. There are many humans and computers involved. To solve most of the harder problems, I have to talk about who knows what, how they feel, what motivates them, and what motives will get groups into and out of trouble. Also there are many technologies now where mental activity is mapped in real time. The "feelings" come from sensors all over the body, and inside. And from memories of feelings and their associations in the past. The internal discussions in words come from very specific parts of the brain. At global scale, when groups of a few ten million people are working on a common topic - both consciously and unknowingly - the feelings and motives are somewhat hidden, but revealed nonetheless. And, very important to predict most likely outcomes. At global level, anticipating events can save millions of lives. Your internal model of your wife's choices and likely actions are a critical part of anticipating her needs and wants. If you were not empathetic (having a model of her), you could only interact on the surface. Animals mostly do not talk to each other, but can sensitively understand and adjust to the moods, thoughts, and feelings of those around them. By close observation, and by mimicking imputed feelings internally to model the behavior of others. I highly value such awareness, care and sensitivity in organizations of all sizes. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
I’ll echo the comments a couple others have left in that this disregards common writing advice to frame everything from the POV character’s perspective… how their description of the green affects how they think and feel. Interiority is a major element of fiction writing; it’s what creates empathy between the characters and the reader. This advice to use >95% green writing contradicts that. So yeah. Now I’m completely lost.
Look at my examples. First person is still describing what the senses can pick up. The direct discussion of thoughts and feelings is still few and far between, even in a great memoir. - Tim
You can learn about a person's interiority based on the way they respond to their external reality. Progressive complications and crises are moments in stories where the decisions a character makes reveal internal facets.
@@StoryGrid StoryGrid, I posted this comment elsewhere, but I'm reposting it here. Please answer this for me, because this video leaves me confused: So you're not allowed to show a character's thoughts and feelings? Then what does Hemingway's, Joyce's, and Woolf's stream of consciousness explore if not thoughts and feelings. This video sounds like a recipe for a screenplay, and left me more confused about this subject.
Great explanation, thank you! But I have a question. In the Princess Bride example, I read it carefully and can see what Tim is talking about, how it is almost all showing. Amazing. But there are two short lines that I'm confused about how they can be showing. 1. "The spot could not have been lovelier:" Is this not telling the reader how to feel about the spot? 2. After the death of the Sicilian: Buttercup said "Oh" 'because she had never been next to a dead man before.' Is that also not telling? Two tiny spots, but understanding them would go a long way to shedding light on my confusion. Or maybe a better example of my confusion is in the excerpt from The Shining. "Ullman was the type of man who would file such lapses away in a mental Rolodex for later consideration." How would one describe that as showing and not telling? And help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Great take! I do feel, you're missing one component. There's more leeway if you're writing 1st person instead of 3rd. Or? It does become a balancing act in this case, and perhaps that would be a cool follow-up vid.
No. There’s not. Look at my examples. First person is still describing what the senses can pick up. The direct discussion of thoughts and feelings is still few and far between, even in a great memoir. - Tim
I was reading the Mistborn Excerpt and some parts marked green I'd mark blue. "Leisurely. Careless. Free.", this bit reads like what one would think of the snowflakes. Someone could pick up the careless aspect of it, other could focus on the whiteness or the weightlessness of the snow. "They seemed so uncaring. What would that be like?", again I feel like this is so particular to the POV character. The video was great, as usual. I just need some help understanding this a bit further. Thank you!
I think the key is that in the samples where red and blue were marked, they were tagged as "felt", "thought", "wondered" - which means the author disrupted the flow of the narrative to tag the feeling, the thought, specifically as a feeling or thought. "I felt relieved" - this would be marked red. "I sighed. Thank God they were gone." would be marked green - there is a physical/external response (sighing) and a feeling: "Thank God they were gone" but I did not break the narrative to say, "Thank God they were gone, I thought." Also, I would suggest that the color coding is good but can sometimes have its drawbacks when trying to explain. For instance, TECHNICALLY, every response to an external stimulus would be "red" because every response originates internally. Green is external sense data; Red and Blue are internal. Green is showing; Red and Blue are telling. Was this helpful? (As a sidenote - if you find that your characters are spending a huge amount of time in their heads in a scene, it may be that what you need is another scene that better expresses in sensory terms (sense data) what is being expressed internally; basically, discovering ways to move from the head to the stage. )
Not sure I vibe with this, but still an interesting video. I'm missing a bit of explanation how showing doesn't necessarily has to mean a neutral dry description. I get the feeling that something is missing in this video.
I usually enjoy your videos and find them useful, but I strongly disagree with this one. There's nothing wrong with doing a bit of telling every once in a while, particularly when a story or chapter is written from a particular character's point of view. Understanding a character's thoughts and motivations helps readers connect with said character. If you can't express your character's thoughts or feelings, you end up with a film script rather than a novel -- all exteriority, no interiority. There's a reason why most people prefer novels to film scripts -- they love to delve into a character's psyche! What 'show, don't tell' really means, as I understand it, is to be subtle in your descriptions of feelings and emotions. Not everything needs to be spelled out; sometimes it's better to allude and allow your reader to draw the necessary inferences. However, there's nothing wrong with conveying thoughts and feelings per se. Nothing whatsoever.
I agree and disagree with this. Every response you have to an external stimulus is a red expression, first. I also agree with allowing the reader to participate -- and I think that you and Tim are actually saying the same thing but that something triggered you in how he presented it. His examples also clearly show the use of tagging thoughts as feelings as the reason why they were tagged, which means all nuance and subtlety is lost and you are telling the reader directly this is what I think and feel. Which, in some cases may be needed when other options are not. I do not agree that it should be used as a shortcut to avoid deep work. If you have to tell me that you are expressing from red or blue, then as a reader, I'm going to toss your book in the DNF box for donations to Goodwill. Again, I agree that it's ok to offer some directly tagged thoughts and feelings. But if you are spending the vast majority of each scene -- and this is a common problem I see in self-publishing more often than not -- then I immediately conclude that you did not care enough about the story to show it and the dynamics of it; or, you think that as a reader I am too dumb to figure it out. Second, when you are constantly telling me how you think and feel, you are denying me the pleasure of immersing myself in the story by constantly reminding me that you are there telling me that how I interpret it and imagine it is wrong.
I follow this 100% as a matter of logic, for everyone other than the PoV character in a given chapter. Of course we can't know the thoughts or feelings of other characters, but we ARE inside the heads of my PoV characters. That's what makes them the PoV, isn't it? For example, I'll use a sentence from my old novel series. ''Emily took a rare, on-the-job shot of whisky to ease her rising panic.'' This tells the reader why she took a shot, because it is from her perspective. If the chapter was from another character's point of view, it may read, ''Emily poured a shot, and to his surprise, she lifted it to her lips and downed it.'' Again, I put 'to his surprise' which we can only know because we are seeing it from this nameless character's perspective. Would you call that telling? I feel like the advice in this video is good, but a bit too simplistic and rigid, unless I misunderstood something.
I think this is great advice. Suppose (in a novel), though, the protagonist has a scene where they are alone and reacting to something like the inciting incident. It's pretty much a given that you will need to be putting what the protagonist is thinking or feeling, though, right? Are we saying that is an outright bad scene idea?
It’s clear that the vast majority of our writing should be “showing” on-the-surface objective/sensory information. Can you do a video someday that explains under what specific circumstances in a narrative is it beneficial to “tell”, delving into the character’s feeling and thought information?
I respectfully disagree with the idea that the vast majority of info should be objective and with the way it's distinguished here coming from a scientific background. For example, a massive chunk of the excerpt he posted from The Hunger Games would be red/blue in my assessment, dealing with the POV character's thoughts and feelings. >> [...] the other side of the bed is cold. [red -- "cold" is subjective; an objective assessment would accurately describe temperature] >> She must have had bad dreams [...] [blue -- subjective assessment] >> In sleep, my mother looks younger [...] [blue] >> Prim's face is as fresh as a raindrop [...] [blue] >> [...] world's ugliest cat. [blue] >> He hates me. Or at least he distrusts me. [blue/red] >> Scrawny kitten [...] [blue -- "scrawny" is subjective; objective would be to accurately describe mass and anatomical details] >> But Prim begged so hard [...] [blue] >> This is the closest thing we will ever come to love. [blue/red] I can keep going and going. This is not objective, empirical narration in the slightest! This is deeply subjective and emotional first-person narration. And this is what I enjoy reading most in fiction. If the focus is maximally objective, then it'll start to read like an academic paper or textbook. Even The Princess Bride excerpt has loads of red and blue in ways I don't think were highlighted properly. "Vizzi was waiting for him [...] The spot could not have been lovelier [...] lay helpless [...] surveyed the situation [...]." Even "small handkerchief" is subjective; to a smaller person like a child, the handkerchief might even be perceived as large. It doesn't say anything about the objective size of the handkerchief, only subjectively what the POV character thinks and feels about its size. An objective description of its size would be "26cm^2". The only thing I ever found problematic with "telling" and delving deep into subjectivity, as with the case of, "Jane grew sad," is how beige and dull the writing is. "Tears poured from Jane's eyes," isn't much more interesting to read. It's like reading, "The handkerchief spanned 26cm^2" [boring]. >> Jane's grief consumed her, plunging her into an emotional abyss from which no lifetime's worth of tears could offer any solace. The vibrant colors of the world faded into the coldest greys, and all she could remember was the lifeless body of her child. Now that's starting to become interesting and evocative to read, but this is still extremely subjective and going far beyond what an external observer can sense with the five senses. Contrary to popular advice, making things more subjective is often the way to make writing more engaging and evocative. For example, instead of describing the weather outside more objectively as "mostly clear, 96 degrees F, and with 15% humidity", it might be described more subjectively and evocatively as "scorching hot" or even as an "inferno" -- especially if the POV character is not used to this type of weather. As with visual arts, the most evocative paintings (and even photographs) don't necessarily capture the subject as objectively as a person with a camera mindlessly snapping away at the subject; often they describe what the artist feels/thinks about the subject as much/more than the actual subject. Screenwriting needs to focus almost exclusively and accurately on sensory information, but screenplays aren't meant to entertain readers; they're meant to accurately communicate to filmmakers a plan for shooting the film. From my perspective, conflating screenwriting goals with the goals of literature is like seeing photorealism as the ultimate goal of visual arts. Literature, in contrast to screenwriting, possesses the unique feature of being able to dive deep into the thoughts and feelings of POV characters, and I think it's worth exploiting that feature quite a bit in many cases.
@@darkengine5931 WOW! Interesting... just came across your comment. I'll take a look. You delved into a green/red/blue analysis quite deeply. That's fantastic.
@@miggseye Cheers! I might be biased too much being an overanalytical STEM type, and hardly a creative writer myself (I wish and envy talented writers). Perhaps I'm interpreting "objective" too pedantically. But I worry that focusing so much on "show vs. tell" at least in terms of "objective vs. subjective" or "sensory vs. emotional" might risk very dry and clinical writing of the sort I don't want to read (as an avid reader at least, despite my lack of writing skills) -- especially in this day and age. If we're in a bar together and you are to describe a beautiful woman to me in a way where you want me to see her independent of your biases, the first thing I'll be tempted to do is interrupt you and ask for a photo or a video. We live in an age of technology where it's easier to share visual/auditory information even more easily than words. If all you want to do is paint a picture of a beautiful woman in my head, I have streaming TV and movie services at my fingertips for that as well as the entirety of the internet. But if you're describing to me how you personally find her beautiful -- complete with your biases -- then you are communicating something entirely different. You are no longer describing how she should look to my eyes (for which I'll find all your attempts inferior to a photo), but to your eyes for which no photo can ever replace your description. As long as you can do so without boring me with an excess of tired clichés, you will have my full interest not in terms of what the woman actually looks like but in terms of how she looks like to you and how she makes you feel. All you have to do is captivate my interest, and my interest these days in literature is less so in perceiving things objectively (especially in terms of visual/audio sensory information) and more in perceiving things as a narrator or POV character perceives them. No film, TV show, photo, video, or audio clip can compete with that if you do it well. And for attempts at the most objective attempts to describe sensory details, touch/smell/taste are much more interesting to me now since our information age still doesn't let us touch/smell/taste things through our computer and TV screens.
Sorry. Good advice, but bad, bad execution. More specifically. 1. The Harry Potter excerpt is presumably marked all green (yellow on my screen) but it is riddled with their thoughts, like 'Shooting stars all over Britain? Owls flying by daylight? Mysterious people in cloaks all over the place? And a whisper, a whisper about the Potters . . .' are Mr Dursley's thoughts. 'It was no good. He’d have to say something to her.' are Mrs Dursley's thoughts. 2. 'Mrs. Dursley looked shocked and angry. ' is telling, not showing. It is not the facts, but the author's opinion or interpretation of the facts. The facts are that his face reddened, his muscles tensed, he made that low growling sound in the back of his throat that he was won't to do at such moments, and his left hand began trembling from gripping the armrest so fiercely. That is showing.
And the reason why Rowling is telling us that Mr Dursley was angry is precisely because he is not. He is acting only. This is a trick, the misdirection Rowling relies heavily on. What she tells you is a lie; what she shows you is true.
How much shall the blurb tell? I think it's better not to tell the reader who is hero and who is villain, who are the most important members of the cast, etc. In other words, to tell the readers for whom they should root, instead of making them root for someone based on what they see the characters actually do. On the other side, you have to tell them enough that they assume this story is probably a good read for them, which includes that there are characters for whom they would root.
SO the plate fell from Andy's hand and crashed on the floor is showing but if he has internal dialogue its telling? one of the best things about books is you can hear what they are thinking if you don't put anything in about their internal conflict your story is one dimensional EVERYTHING IS A BALANCE TO MUCH IN SIDE THOUGHTS IS BAD NOT ENOUGH IS ALSO BAD SO IF ANDY'S PLATE BROKE AND NOTHING BAD HAPPENED OUTWARD AND YOU DIDN'T SHOW THE READER THAT IT WAS HIS DIED MOM FAVORITE PLATE BUT HE NEVER GOT TO SHOW HIS EMOTIONS OR HIS DAD WOULD HURT HIM BUT ONE ELSE WOULD CARE THE PLATE GOT BROKE IT WAS JUST A LITTLE THING THAT MEANT NOTHING TO THE READER SO YOU LOST YOUR CHANCE TO HOOK YOUR READER JUST A THOUGHT
If I may humbly suggest: this interpretation of showing here comes off far too literal. It sounds like some necessary nuance is covered by the "un-boring" video, however this is an excerpt from a Ted-Ed video "How to Write Descriptively" (sourced from a story titled "Secret Identity") "Billie's legs are noodles. The ends of her hair are poison needles. Her tongue is a bristly sponge and her eyes are bags of bleach." The problem this demonstrates here is Billie's legs _aren't_ noodles. The ends of her hair _aren't_ poison needles. These aren't details that are obvious to everyone on the surface, it is telling us indirectly things we might be able to infer both on *_and_* under the surface. The Ted-Ed narrator gives the counter example "Billy feels nauseated and weak." as a poor substitute. While the word "feels" is present we may be able to infer that Billie feels nauseated and weak at a glance, arguably putting it closer to the (green) surface than the final passage does with its imposing metaphors. So in my opinion, the middle-ground passage (more akin to the Story Grid advice) might look something like this: "Billie's stride is uneven. The ends of her hair are split and thinning. Her tongue is cracked and drying, her lower lids pallid, and swollen." These are on the surface details, giving us indirect information (Billie is sickly) with some carefully chosen descriptive words, like "stride" instead of "walk" and "pallid" instead of "pale." I feel like there is at least some suggestion in this video that the above would be a better "showing" passage because of how each detail is literal, and surface evident. Yet the example passage is far more vivid. Yes it is reliant on metaphor, which may not, in the strictest sense be necessary for showing, but this upgrades the passage to a type of showing that is more interpretive, more based on feeling, _more_ (rather than less) subjective. I think it's less that you are trying not to tell, as you are trying to hide your tells. Even something this simple: "It seemed to Bryan as if Maverick was the kind of guy who could snap a horse in half." To some people this is fine. It's not even literal. "Maverick could snap a horse in half." Is still way better, right? We're not filtering out the thoughts or feelings of the protagonist, we're just taking out subconscious barriers distancing us from them.
@@chriswest8389 Actually it seems to me most people claiming expertise say it's more wordy to show rather than tell, but there are reasons this doesn't seem to be true, so long as the book has actual scenes, and isn't just some fictional history.
@@futurestoryteller That’s what I’ve been thinking.It may have been this site, I can’t say for sure,it that divides the show vs tell into primary and secondary aspects. 3rd tier would be non essential- leather shoe as they call it in the film industry, X marks the spot.I’m not sure here either but whatever side of the divide they come out on ,secondary concerns should take up less space- less words, time energy and psychic energy. Since I’m more familiar with produce not print- novels and because the latter appears significantly more difficult- descriptions, I’m trying to make each scene as if your watching a film or television play . My description seems to be Showing, what do you think, because it’s unfolding in real time- novel time rather than film time. I could be wrong, but the only time I’m telling is to give context to the action AND dialogue. Some punctuation and only as necessary. Somewhat related, I think it’s relevant I came across a site that has a colour code that sheds light on this Three strikes here, the sites name escapes me, he comes out squarely in favour of Show- Green as if we’re watching things unfold in real time. Red is feeling but things should be inferred. No telling:” He said angrily”. As for ‘ blue’ the Philiphosophy and maybe theme should be organic and hidden otherwise your characters are mouth pieces- two dimensional. I’m new at all this. Just some thoughts. Ta for your response. Mine ,Too wordy😁
It works the exact same. This is why memoirs are so hard to write and so many of them are poorly written... because they are full of the author describing their thoughts and feelings. Pick up one of the great, masterwork memoirs and take a look. It's written like great fiction... mostly Green language. - Tim
THIS is WHY I am writing my books. I HATE showing in writing. This is why I like Dune... all the thoughts are explained, their reasoning, their motives, history that serves as context... I despise when a writer expexcts me to "figure out" what people are thinking and feeling based on their actions, because I generally guess wrong. People do not think or act like I would in their situation. It is not logical or intuitive. No matter how many times people say this is a rule for "good" writing, I will NEVER agree. This is why my books must be written and must exist in this world, to run counter to this "read the subtext and body language" garbage that never says the same thing to me as is intended by an author.
@@StoryGrid It's clearly not hubris. I note quite emphatically how poor I am at reading and deciphering subtext and body language. Books like the ones I am writing, that ignore the "show, don't tell" advice, MUST exist in this world for readers who do not find that style to be to their liking. All my life, I have been misinderstood as people read into what I say and do, meanings and intentions that do not exist. I have been acvused of jumping to conclusions when I venture a guess as to what someone else means, when I simply reached a different conclusion from the same information. That "rule" needs to be classified as advice for a writing style, and must come with several caveats and reasons for use, like any other literary tool. * pacing and clarity should always be weighed against the need for the word bloat and ambiguity caused by and required to describe things that could otherwise be told. (Sometime you want to linger on something to give it emphasis or importance in the story as something you do not want the reader to miss -if you ALWAYS show, you lose this tool. Sometimes ambiguity is good, if you do not want to outright tell the reader some fact that is meant to be a clue or foreshadowing to be picked up later, or to demonstrate the perceptivity or intellect of a character, such as a detective.) * are you confident that you can adequately describe what you are trying to show? * could the things you are showing be misinterpreted to mean something else? Is the action you have chosen, or detail you have included, specific to a certain region, country, or familiarity with a pop culture reference?
@@NameNotAChannelI'd be interested to get your feedback to my writing, since you describe your reactions as uncommon and that you struggle to understand intended meaning. You also explained yourself extremely well in your second comment, so you would probably give detailed reviews. I would, or course, return the favor and read/provide feedback for your writing as well if you'd like.
@@NameNotAChannel Word bloat comes from elaborating on thought and feeling, too. Look how many words you devoted to saying "showing is difficult, and I'm worried I get it wrong because I don't know my audience." Instead of fighting SG over the existential need for telling in prose, just try to practice using a few of the tools. The SAM is useful for audience awareness.
@@feruspriest this is a comment section post. My aim here has been for clarity of relating my thoughts, not telling a story. However, even in my writing, I would rather devote words to clarity of thought than playing a game of charades with my audience. I don't tell everything in my writing, either... as I noted, showing is a tool that can be useful to cause ambiguity and allow events to play out without revealing details to dive into at a better time, when it won't detract from the pacing or emphasis of a scene. As to the word bloat of both... sure, you could spend as much time showing as you can in a person's thoughts, and I generally like examining thoughts in books, rather than actions, so you can fully understand another person's perspective. However, when I usually see this argument made, the derision is placed on brief telling moments that people think should be shown instead, like showing anger, instead of describing an action as being done angrily. The "sho"w version of that description will invariably be much longer than using that "telling" descriptor. THIS is the word bloat I am refering to.
interesting video these are good tools to edit script, seeking to enhance emotional narrative. but only to the writer that has already mastered the why telling the story. Neo are you done w those pills yet ? thankyou for the clear classification, Cheers from Rio !
Honestly, whenever I hear that people have trouble understanding some concept my "emperor's clothes" alert gets activated. So here's a thought: maybe there is NO clear-cut difference between showing and telling in a novel...? A novel is not a movie or a game - you cannot literally "show" anything, you are telling people what is happening. TELLING. And let us not kid ourselves, narration is never neutral. Here's another thought: one of the great things about books is that they allow us to experience the world from the author's perspective. But the more you focus on being neutral, on "just showing", the less of your perspective is communicated to the reader. And yet another thing: for many of us readers a lot of the pleasure comes from things that CANNOT be "shown". How do you "show" the emotions of your characters? The typical advice is to describe their behavior and physical symptoms - heart thumping, face getting red, pacing angrily etc. But this is physiology, not emotion. An emotionally rich novel needs a lot of telling, and that's that.
So.. I went to a writers workshop and the guy that reviewed my first chapter told me I did a great job of showing, not telling. Then I started sending out queries and agents have told me the opposite.
Okay, I can agree that writing should be mostly "green," but I don't think this scheme covers everything on the page. There's also background information. If you don't TELL the reader crucial things about the world of the characters, they won't be able to infer what's important to the character. Showing all the relevant background information can be, I'd argue, MORE tedious than an infodump. How do I know? Because I've been writing novels that are all showing for years, and the most common critique I get is that readers don't know (or care about) what's going on. It is perfectly okay to tell the reader the relevant information in a fun or interesting way.
So you're not allowed to show a character's thoughts and feelings? Then what does Hemingway's, Joyce's, and Woolf's stream of consciousness explore if not thoughts and feelings. This video sounds like a recipe for a screenplay, and left me more confused about this subject.
This doesn’t even make sense if you’re writing 1st person. I include plenty of my point of view characters internal dialogue and I can’t imagine not having it that way.
This advice is very misleading because it leaves out the element of point of view. You should actually spend significant space on the page writing about the blue and red zones, but doing it in a green way. This is done with POV techniques. Yes, show, but you've gotta show the blue and the red happening in characters. Deep POV is very popular for modern audiences and why people who try to write like Hemingway now don't find an audience.
I thought the same. I didn't see your comment until after I left mine. I also think show vs tell has to do with how you phrase something, and not just the type of information. For example, ''The girl looked nervous,'' is telling, while, ''She averted her eyes and wrung her hands,'' is showing. Neither sentence breaks the rule outlined in this video because the word 'looked' allows for the possibility that she isn't nervous, and only appears to be, but the second sentence shows what is happening and lets the reader interpret the girl's behavior rather than having to trust the narrator that she looks nervous. The second sentence is better, because it allows the reader to observe the scene, while the first forces them to imagine what 'nervous' looks like.
And something that has been talked about before in the podcast and the video is that idea that you present@@TheSecretsOfSorsa. I responded to @gethbond above so that might help also to clarify. All POV stems from Red and Blue; how you present it and how you tag it determines if it is external (showing) or internal (telling); its about presentation. "God help me with this one." is showing, because I am not tagging it as a thought or feeling -- I thought or I felt or I imagined -- or any of those words that draw you out off the stage and into the amorphous internality of red and blue. All of the points are valid and it is only a different understanding that is leading to the conflict - which is similar to @storygrid Tim want to rearrange the cabinets. 😁
Good point. I agree with his statement to some degree of course, but He said to apply green 95% of time. Meaning theres only 5% of your book you can dedicate on the characters feelings. First of I dont think most Readers (me included) want to read descriptions like "he didnt move but his heads color went from paper White to a fuming red" all the time. And secondly sometimes as an author, you want to give a clear image how the character is exactly feeling. "He felt stunned. Didnt know how to react. But Anger was rising within him." Thats clearly telling, but I also think it is showing the reader exactly how the character is ticking. I believe a Reader Doesnt want to infer everything. Sometimes the Reader comes to conclusions the writer didnt want them to. Sometimes you want to be clear, especially with your POV characters.
@@Lachgummei I know that an editor for Baen gave me the same advice. Clearly, some will take it to extremes and try not to have any feelings or thoughts without realizing that its the tagging that is important, not the expression of them. Now, in the example you gave - "He felt stunned" - clearly that is red. If you write that and find it valid, then you will keep it and that's ok. Now, there might be a reason that you indicate this - maybe he didn't want someone to see his being stunned; or maybe the act of being stunned was inconsequential to the action to follow. The advice given to me was this: Is it necessary for the reader to know directly how the character felt? In the case where it is - then show the character moving through the feeling where they will move into thought and make a decision, which affects the direction of the story's next move. Also, a lot of writer's do not understand how to translate a feeling - so anger to them becomes a physiological chess game; anger, for example, indicates a lack of choice. So, saying simply: He didn't know how to react. - is enough for the reader to understand what is happening without being told he felt stunned or anger rising in him. As a reader, "he didn't know how to react" is more interesting to me because now I'M wanting to know more and how he will react.
@@dreamslayer2424 thanks for the interesting reply. I like the thought of telling being used if it is necessary. Guess thats what it comes down to. Maybe the author wants to Highlight the occasion. Lets continue the example: maybe the character is being shown as very calm and collected before. There Was nothing that could shake him up, but now that happened..." It Highlights the significance of what happened and pictures the character in a new light. I kind of agree that "Anger was rising within him" might be unnecessary, because you can probably judge from his next action, but if the feeling is that new and special you could keep it to put emphasis on it. But that would probably be a special case then (and fall under the 5%) Another "occasion" for stating feelings could be trying to hint at your characters history. For example: "the Air was cold. He liked it." Why does he like it? Is he from the north? Is he tough? Why is he tough? Thats why I also like what you said about following up Stating feelings with Internal dialogue and reaching a decision. Maybe you dont necessarily need a decision, but maybe some hints for the reader to get to know the character more. Like in the form of reminiscing the Old times, or simply comparing climates after a flight. Maybe you can bring it down to: stating feelings is okay if the author has an ulterior motive behind it? What that motive is can vary
I’m struggling. I need further clarification on how to execute deep POV (third person close) within the bounds of this concept. It seems to me that if POV characters (avatars?) are the lens through which the reader experiences the story; and if Author follows the POV rules for third person close, then everything that happens in the scene is by definition being processed through the POVs senses. Therefore, I can see how the majority of the scene should theoretically be designated green on the basis of content. If that holds water, then It seems to come down to the writer mastering communicating the majority of the scene in a way that could be experienced by the five senses if it popped up like a hologram and played itself out in front of us. I think the key for me to implement the concept will be to cling to the POV rules for third person close. The character can only know, react to, describe etc. the sensory input they take in during the current scene or previous ones or things that happen off stage. But what about interiority - the blue and red (thoughts and feelings)? Access to other than the POV character’s thoughts during one scene constitutes head hopping which is, generally speaking, a POV “no no” - so there should be no blue or red content connected to non POV characters in the scene that isn’t just dialogue between characters: “John, you really pissed me off this time!You always take your mother’s side instead of mine and I’m sick of it!” 😂😂 That leaves my question about the POV character’s thoughts (interiority) which I think of as a hallmark of deep POV. It’s “inconceivable” to me (The Princess Bride) that interiority would be limited to less than 5 to 10% of the story! So, that’s my source of confusion because third person close is a prevalent POV used today - and I love experiencing interiority of the POV character. I find it immersive and interesting to experience the POV character’s on-the-nose reaction to what they have just experienced in a scene: when a handsome stranger enters the conference room I’m fine “hearing” my POV character think “He’s smoking hot!” That, instead of “showing” how her pupils dilate, her pulse quickens and she shifts in her seat. Just share the thought / reaction, save the extra words and get on to the next beat. Thoughts are relatable. How many times have we all seen someone we find physically attractive and had that same or a similar thought / reaction? And we remember the associated physiological components too, don’t we? Question: Maybe it’s semantics, but is Author showing or telling us the POV character’s thoughts when he employs interiority? In real life, Tim said the only person’s thoughts we can 100% know are our own.; but, don’t we “become” the POV character in the scene? Therefore, aren’t the POV character’s thoughts by extension the Reader’s thoughts? If that’s true, then we are neither being shown nor told the thoughts of the POV character. We simply come into the awareness or know / experience the POV character’s thoughts - just as we experience / know our own thoughts in real life. To sum it up, I feel like scenes written in deep POV, when written according to the POV rules as I understand them, are almost by default green text situations - if green text is defined as the communication of experiences based on sensory perception only. The trick is to write it that way. Lastly I just watched the videos where he talks about how we can and should still valence our writing while we show our reader what’s happening: The man sat in the chair versus Everyone watched as the preppy, new guy on the block eyed the filthy, old lawn chair for several seconds before he perched himself on the edge of it and nearly toppled over.
Ah yes the old show don't tell rule. Here is a perfect example of why it's false. Edgar Allan Poes - The Raven. To this day people are completely clueless that there is no raven in the poem. There never was a raven. It doesn't matter that Poe even hints at it, they still miss it. The show don't tell rule is false. Because it makes the assumption that the readers are smart enough to know something they clearly don't. Thats why it's called storytelling instead of storyshowing. Very simple. People like to believe they are much smarter than they actually are. If they can't even figure out there is no raven, how they will they be able to figure out anything else? Poe tried his best. He did an outstanding job and yet the so called smart readers who want to be shown and not told didn't get the message. Even though Poe made it as clear as he could without spelling it out. And yet here we are with people to this day trying to argue that the raven is actually real when it doesn't even exist.
@StoryGrid it's kind of cheating to pull one clip from someone's writing to show that they always follow your advice. But also, this doesn't. Half of the things you highlighted in green should have been blue. This excerpt is mostly thoughts.
@@caseyhinkson9043 I read the first Mistborn book recently, it actually inspired me to put more character thoughts into my own work. There's points where he does it five or six times, or even more, on a double page. Now I'm re-reading Dune leading up to the movie sequel, and Herbert does it ALL OVER THE PLACE too. I LOVE getting inside the character's heads, both in what I'm reading and what I'm writing.
@@StoryGrid I have to agree with other commenters. I feel this excerpt has lots of blue, at least I would have colored it blue, but it is highlighted green. Makes me think I haven't really grasped what you wanted to explain in this video.
I've heard: "Know *when* to show and when to tell." I think that's better advice than: "Show, don't tell."
After watching this- the first time, I was all gung ho for Show not Tell.
Well, the channels name escapes me but not the impression . ‘ Interiority’ is my new buzzword.
How is it even possible to get into the protagonists head without telling?
This is why the book is usually better than the film version.
Without interiority your basically writing a film arnt you?
One needs to maximize the mediums strength.
@@chriswest8389Perhaps the appropriateness of access to a character's thoughts is a little more justified when you have a close POV, like 1st person or Close 3rd person POVs. The more you step back in POV, like in a general 3rd person (more objective) POV it would seem to me less access to thought and more on the surface focus is more fitting for that chosen POV? Then again, 1st person narration is really dialogue directly with the reader, so access to their thoughts feels more natural.
All in all, it would be good if they described narrator nuances in relation to this theory.
@@chriswest8389 I thought the advantage of a novel over a film or a play is that the writer and reader can get inside the character's head. Chris, I expressed similar thoughts to you which I'll paste here: So you're not allowed to show a character's thoughts and feelings? Then what does Hemingway's, Joyce's, and Woolf's stream of consciousness explore if not thoughts and feelings. This video sounds like a recipe for a screenplay, and left me more confused about this subject.
The value of this content is crazy. Please, please keep it coming!
Could not agree more and I’ve seen hundreds of hours of writing advice.
The content of this channel is so good that I can safely "auto-like" every single video before even watching it. Thank you, Tim and crew.
Its so easy to want to tell, so we can make sure the reader feels what we hope they do. But Ive been writing for games for a while now, and many of those games go through extensive user-experience tests. When a reader is told how to feel, it greatly reduces the impact of the story beats. It dulls the experience. Misunderstanding the intended emotions of a character is sometimes the goal, so we can catch the reader off guard later on. This video provides a very intuitive explanation of the concept so thank you!
Wow, Tim! I watched this and immediately thought about this quote that I am paraphrasing here:
“Great teachers show you where to look, but not what to see.”
I can’t undue what I’ve already published, but my writing will go on a whole new trajectory starting today.
Thank you!😎
Onward and upward... #positivebeatsnegativeeveryday
After looking at Tim's examples, I have a better understanding of what he means: both background information and point-of-view are highlighted green, i.e. as objective information. The problem i see is that a lot of critiquers will still see that stuff as TELLING and say it's "bad" (not noticing how the writing would be much worse without that information). I'm not sure this is, therefore, about showing versus telling and it might be better just to do away with the whole distinction.
This is by far the best SHOW v TELL video I've watched, and it's the most comprehensible one to me, so I think you so much for that! Great video and lesson. Thank you.
I like to point out the instances when telling is what you’re suppose to do and Harry Potter, so JKR, is a great example for a two big ones. A) imagine the first paragraph of the first book, it’s all telling and B) if JKR was to show instead of tell everything, a school year would be a lot longer, and extremely boring, so for large swaths of time the reader is simply told what happened over the last few weeks and how they felt about it.
Tell helps clarify what's going on, dispel the double meaning or understand how we go here.
The particularity with Hemmingway is that even if scenes focus on present, you have to use past and future lines to understand what the character was thinking. It's by reading more it make sense.
This is perhaps the most direct representation of this I’ve ever seen. Thank you.
This is the best explanation I've heard for this concept.
Every time I watch your videos, I get so pumped to write! However, I need a lesson on passive voice so I can spot it with ease. Pretty please!
Hell yea
This is hands down the best breakdown of show don't tell I've ever seen, practical, actionable and understandable. Thank you!
Honestly, after listening to and reading dozens of explanations and having writing coaches try to explain it, this explanation nails it. It's an awesome video, and I am subscribing and have hit the bell icon-thanks.
Can you help me understand what you mean by "thought"? Because when you write first person, everything is kind of thought. In your example from The Hunger Games, you could take several sentences as thoughts that you put in the green category. e.g. "of course she did." "This is the closest we will ever come to love." "The last thing I needed was another mouth to feed."
Same here. I was reading the Mistborn Excerpt and some parts marked green I'd mark blue.
"Leisurely. Careless. Free.", this bit reads like what one would think of the snowflakes. Someone could pick up the careless aspect of it, other could focus on the whiteness or the weightlessness of the snow.
"They seemed so uncaring. What would that be like?", again I feel like this is so particular to the POV character.
The video was great, as usual. I just need some help understanding this a bit further.
Thank you!
Not to spam this point, but you guys might find my recent comment useful. I imagine you'll find it if you sort by new.
I replied to @gethbond above, which would apply here as well.
@@gethbond From my perspective, deeply subjective and emotional narration is precisely what makes fiction so engaging, unless we want our fiction to resemble a scientific paper or news report.
The only problem I find with a line like, "Jane grew sad," is how beige it is. "Jane wept," isn't necessarily much more engaging. It's more visual, but it's still beige.
>> Jane's grief consumed her, plunging her into an emotional abyss from which no lifetime's worth of tears could offer any solace. The vibrant colors of the world faded into the coldest greys, and all she could remember was the lifeless body of her child.
Now that's starting to become evocative and engaging. Consider a very objective and empirical line like, "Joe perspired in the outdoors with its clear skies, a temperature of 96 degrees F, and 15% humidity." We can make that far more subjective by focusing more on describing how the weather _feels_ to Joe and/or the narrator:
>> Sweat poured profusely from Joe's body against the scorching heat of the sun."
Just reporting things objectively as they are often lacks evocative power. In fact, that's precisely how prose tends to start reading like exposition is when it's reporting things exactly as they are as though the narrator is Spock. It's either that or just being too beige.
It's through the filter of describing how things _feel_ which tends to create engaging prose. Even in films which let us see/hear things exactly as they are, they often require the musical and subjective filter of a soundtrack to help better engage and move audiences; the music reframes the scene and helps us see it more through a biased and emotional lens.
At the Hunger games she writes " I think he still remembers how I tried to drown him in a bucket..." -and THAT is not telling?
Not only she passes on thoughts to us but also the cat's thoughts??!!
@@stevedimitriou7038 S.G covered this contingency didn’t he? It’s past tense but the writer is still showing not telling. No adverbs at least to Tell us what we Should be feeling a
The examples are appreciated.
This concept had alluded me until now. Thank you for clarifying. I see it opening up my learning to express thoughts and feelings more eloquently through the action. It also is a function of metaphor which, in order to have unconscious impact, follows the same rule. 🙏
Could you use example of classics? Every time I read a classic, I have the feeling they didn't follow any rule, but their books were still amazing. I am reading War and Peace, and The idiot, and I love the way the books are written, and there is a lot of telling I them.
When I decided to learn craft it was because I had an idea for a story I wanted to tell. I decided I wanted to tell the story in this person omniscient.
While researching POV, I came across some “writing authorities” who said that Third person omniscient is passé. Many classics were written that way but more modern works are not.
Perhaps that accounts for the disconnect between what you’ve been reading and this advice. I can’t say for sure.
However I can say that before I started learning craft, I never thought about how writing styles and trends come and go - just like clothing, hairstyles and music.
Thanks for your video. I do appreciate your explanation of showing. I will only say that it is also necessary in business and many types of writing and sharing -- to be complete. Not leave anything out. Much of the world runs at a furious pace. If you do not say everything (to the best of your ability), there may only be one chance. I labeled my notes about your video, "Visible and invisible data".
A lot of my writing is about organizations. Much of what goes on is invisible. There are many humans and computers involved. To solve most of the harder problems, I have to talk about who knows what, how they feel, what motivates them, and what motives will get groups into and out of trouble. Also there are many technologies now where mental activity is mapped in real time. The "feelings" come from sensors all over the body, and inside. And from memories of feelings and their associations in the past. The internal discussions in words come from very specific parts of the brain. At global scale, when groups of a few ten million people are working on a common topic - both consciously and unknowingly - the feelings and motives are somewhat hidden, but revealed nonetheless. And, very important to predict most likely outcomes. At global level, anticipating events can save millions of lives. Your internal model of your wife's choices and likely actions are a critical part of anticipating her needs and wants. If you were not empathetic (having a model of her), you could only interact on the surface. Animals mostly do not talk to each other, but can sensitively understand and adjust to the moods, thoughts, and feelings of those around them. By close observation, and by mimicking imputed feelings internally to model the behavior of others. I highly value such awareness, care and sensitivity in organizations of all sizes.
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Thank you. Now I understand
Fantastic explanation, thank you. Great content 👏🏼
I thought i would never understand, you are best teacher ever 🥺💐❤️
This is wonderfully explained.
Terrific coaching. Thank you!
This was... awesome. Thank you
Very Well Explained!
I’ll never be able to read a book the same 😆. I love it! Thanks for sharing. This helps me a lot!
I’ll echo the comments a couple others have left in that this disregards common writing advice to frame everything from the POV character’s perspective… how their description of the green affects how they think and feel. Interiority is a major element of fiction writing; it’s what creates empathy between the characters and the reader. This advice to use >95% green writing contradicts that.
So yeah. Now I’m completely lost.
Look at my examples. First person is still describing what the senses can pick up. The direct discussion of thoughts and feelings is still few and far between, even in a great memoir. - Tim
You can learn about a person's interiority based on the way they respond to their external reality.
Progressive complications and crises are moments in stories where the decisions a character makes reveal internal facets.
@@StoryGrid StoryGrid, I posted this comment elsewhere, but I'm reposting it here. Please answer this for me, because this video leaves me confused: So you're not allowed to show a character's thoughts and feelings? Then what does Hemingway's, Joyce's, and Woolf's stream of consciousness explore if not thoughts and feelings. This video sounds like a recipe for a screenplay, and left me more confused about this subject.
Great explanation, thank you! But I have a question. In the Princess Bride example, I read it carefully and can see what Tim is talking about, how it is almost all showing. Amazing.
But there are two short lines that I'm confused about how they can be showing.
1. "The spot could not have been lovelier:" Is this not telling the reader how to feel about the spot?
2. After the death of the Sicilian: Buttercup said "Oh" 'because she had never been next to a dead man before.' Is that also not telling?
Two tiny spots, but understanding them would go a long way to shedding light on my confusion.
Or maybe a better example of my confusion is in the excerpt from The Shining. "Ullman was the type of man who would file such lapses away in a mental Rolodex for later consideration."
How would one describe that as showing and not telling?
And help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
Very powerful and clear explanation. Keep it
Very powerful and clearly explained. Keep it coming Sir
'Misery' is almost only telling instead of showing and it's a fantastic book.
Great take! I do feel, you're missing one component. There's more leeway if you're writing 1st person instead of 3rd. Or? It does become a balancing act in this case, and perhaps that would be a cool follow-up vid.
No. There’s not. Look at my examples. First person is still describing what the senses can pick up. The direct discussion of thoughts and feelings is still few and far between, even in a great memoir. - Tim
thank you so much.
I was reading the Mistborn Excerpt and some parts marked green I'd mark blue. "Leisurely. Careless. Free.", this bit reads like what one would think of the snowflakes. Someone could pick up the careless aspect of it, other could focus on the whiteness or the weightlessness of the snow. "They seemed so uncaring. What would that be like?", again I feel like this is so particular to the POV character.
The video was great, as usual.
I just need some help understanding this a bit further. Thank you!
I think the key is that in the samples where red and blue were marked, they were tagged as "felt", "thought", "wondered" - which means the author disrupted the flow of the narrative to tag the feeling, the thought, specifically as a feeling or thought. "I felt relieved" - this would be marked red. "I sighed. Thank God they were gone." would be marked green - there is a physical/external response (sighing) and a feeling: "Thank God they were gone" but I did not break the narrative to say, "Thank God they were gone, I thought."
Also, I would suggest that the color coding is good but can sometimes have its drawbacks when trying to explain. For instance, TECHNICALLY, every response to an external stimulus would be "red" because every response originates internally. Green is external sense data; Red and Blue are internal. Green is showing; Red and Blue are telling. Was this helpful?
(As a sidenote - if you find that your characters are spending a huge amount of time in their heads in a scene, it may be that what you need is another scene that better expresses in sensory terms (sense data) what is being expressed internally; basically, discovering ways to move from the head to the stage. )
Super helpful! Thank you!!@@dreamslayer2424
You are very welcome@@gethbond
Not sure I vibe with this, but still an interesting video. I'm missing a bit of explanation how showing doesn't necessarily has to mean a neutral dry description. I get the feeling that something is missing in this video.
I usually enjoy your videos and find them useful, but I strongly disagree with this one. There's nothing wrong with doing a bit of telling every once in a while, particularly when a story or chapter is written from a particular character's point of view. Understanding a character's thoughts and motivations helps readers connect with said character. If you can't express your character's thoughts or feelings, you end up with a film script rather than a novel -- all exteriority, no interiority. There's a reason why most people prefer novels to film scripts -- they love to delve into a character's psyche! What 'show, don't tell' really means, as I understand it, is to be subtle in your descriptions of feelings and emotions. Not everything needs to be spelled out; sometimes it's better to allude and allow your reader to draw the necessary inferences. However, there's nothing wrong with conveying thoughts and feelings per se. Nothing whatsoever.
I agree and disagree with this. Every response you have to an external stimulus is a red expression, first.
I also agree with allowing the reader to participate -- and I think that you and Tim are actually saying the same thing but that something triggered you in how he presented it. His examples also clearly show the use of tagging thoughts as feelings as the reason why they were tagged, which means all nuance and subtlety is lost and you are telling the reader directly this is what I think and feel. Which, in some cases may be needed when other options are not. I do not agree that it should be used as a shortcut to avoid deep work.
If you have to tell me that you are expressing from red or blue, then as a reader, I'm going to toss your book in the DNF box for donations to Goodwill.
Again, I agree that it's ok to offer some directly tagged thoughts and feelings. But if you are spending the vast majority of each scene -- and this is a common problem I see in self-publishing more often than not -- then I immediately conclude that you did not care enough about the story to show it and the dynamics of it; or, you think that as a reader I am too dumb to figure it out.
Second, when you are constantly telling me how you think and feel, you are denying me the pleasure of immersing myself in the story by constantly reminding me that you are there telling me that how I interpret it and imagine it is wrong.
Does this work for non fiction too?
I follow this 100% as a matter of logic, for everyone other than the PoV character in a given chapter. Of course we can't know the thoughts or feelings of other characters, but we ARE inside the heads of my PoV characters. That's what makes them the PoV, isn't it?
For example, I'll use a sentence from my old novel series.
''Emily took a rare, on-the-job shot of whisky to ease her rising panic.''
This tells the reader why she took a shot, because it is from her perspective.
If the chapter was from another character's point of view, it may read, ''Emily poured a shot, and to his surprise, she lifted it to her lips and downed it.''
Again, I put 'to his surprise' which we can only know because we are seeing it from this nameless character's perspective.
Would you call that telling? I feel like the advice in this video is good, but a bit too simplistic and rigid, unless I misunderstood something.
I think this is great advice. Suppose (in a novel), though, the protagonist has a scene where they are alone and reacting to something like the inciting incident. It's pretty much a given that you will need to be putting what the protagonist is thinking or feeling, though, right? Are we saying that is an outright bad scene idea?
It’s clear that the vast majority of our writing should be “showing” on-the-surface objective/sensory information.
Can you do a video someday that explains under what specific circumstances in a narrative is it beneficial to “tell”, delving into the character’s feeling and thought information?
I respectfully disagree with the idea that the vast majority of info should be objective and with the way it's distinguished here coming from a scientific background. For example, a massive chunk of the excerpt he posted from The Hunger Games would be red/blue in my assessment, dealing with the POV character's thoughts and feelings.
>> [...] the other side of the bed is cold. [red -- "cold" is subjective; an objective assessment would accurately describe temperature]
>> She must have had bad dreams [...] [blue -- subjective assessment]
>> In sleep, my mother looks younger [...] [blue]
>> Prim's face is as fresh as a raindrop [...] [blue]
>> [...] world's ugliest cat. [blue]
>> He hates me. Or at least he distrusts me. [blue/red]
>> Scrawny kitten [...] [blue -- "scrawny" is subjective; objective would be to accurately describe mass and anatomical details]
>> But Prim begged so hard [...] [blue]
>> This is the closest thing we will ever come to love. [blue/red]
I can keep going and going. This is not objective, empirical narration in the slightest! This is deeply subjective and emotional first-person narration. And this is what I enjoy reading most in fiction. If the focus is maximally objective, then it'll start to read like an academic paper or textbook.
Even The Princess Bride excerpt has loads of red and blue in ways I don't think were highlighted properly. "Vizzi was waiting for him [...] The spot could not have been lovelier [...] lay helpless [...] surveyed the situation [...]." Even "small handkerchief" is subjective; to a smaller person like a child, the handkerchief might even be perceived as large. It doesn't say anything about the objective size of the handkerchief, only subjectively what the POV character thinks and feels about its size. An objective description of its size would be "26cm^2".
The only thing I ever found problematic with "telling" and delving deep into subjectivity, as with the case of, "Jane grew sad," is how beige and dull the writing is. "Tears poured from Jane's eyes," isn't much more interesting to read. It's like reading, "The handkerchief spanned 26cm^2" [boring].
>> Jane's grief consumed her, plunging her into an emotional abyss from which no lifetime's worth of tears could offer any solace. The vibrant colors of the world faded into the coldest greys, and all she could remember was the lifeless body of her child.
Now that's starting to become interesting and evocative to read, but this is still extremely subjective and going far beyond what an external observer can sense with the five senses.
Contrary to popular advice, making things more subjective is often the way to make writing more engaging and evocative. For example, instead of describing the weather outside more objectively as "mostly clear, 96 degrees F, and with 15% humidity", it might be described more subjectively and evocatively as "scorching hot" or even as an "inferno" -- especially if the POV character is not used to this type of weather. As with visual arts, the most evocative paintings (and even photographs) don't necessarily capture the subject as objectively as a person with a camera mindlessly snapping away at the subject; often they describe what the artist feels/thinks about the subject as much/more than the actual subject.
Screenwriting needs to focus almost exclusively and accurately on sensory information, but screenplays aren't meant to entertain readers; they're meant to accurately communicate to filmmakers a plan for shooting the film. From my perspective, conflating screenwriting goals with the goals of literature is like seeing photorealism as the ultimate goal of visual arts. Literature, in contrast to screenwriting, possesses the unique feature of being able to dive deep into the thoughts and feelings of POV characters, and I think it's worth exploiting that feature quite a bit in many cases.
@@darkengine5931 WOW! Interesting... just came across your comment. I'll take a look. You delved into a green/red/blue analysis quite deeply. That's fantastic.
@@miggseye Cheers! I might be biased too much being an overanalytical STEM type, and hardly a creative writer myself (I wish and envy talented writers). Perhaps I'm interpreting "objective" too pedantically.
But I worry that focusing so much on "show vs. tell" at least in terms of "objective vs. subjective" or "sensory vs. emotional" might risk very dry and clinical writing of the sort I don't want to read (as an avid reader at least, despite my lack of writing skills) -- especially in this day and age.
If we're in a bar together and you are to describe a beautiful woman to me in a way where you want me to see her independent of your biases, the first thing I'll be tempted to do is interrupt you and ask for a photo or a video. We live in an age of technology where it's easier to share visual/auditory information even more easily than words. If all you want to do is paint a picture of a beautiful woman in my head, I have streaming TV and movie services at my fingertips for that as well as the entirety of the internet.
But if you're describing to me how you personally find her beautiful -- complete with your biases -- then you are communicating something entirely different. You are no longer describing how she should look to my eyes (for which I'll find all your attempts inferior to a photo), but to your eyes for which no photo can ever replace your description. As long as you can do so without boring me with an excess of tired clichés, you will have my full interest not in terms of what the woman actually looks like but in terms of how she looks like to you and how she makes you feel.
All you have to do is captivate my interest, and my interest these days in literature is less so in perceiving things objectively (especially in terms of visual/audio sensory information) and more in perceiving things as a narrator or POV character perceives them. No film, TV show, photo, video, or audio clip can compete with that if you do it well. And for attempts at the most objective attempts to describe sensory details, touch/smell/taste are much more interesting to me now since our information age still doesn't let us touch/smell/taste things through our computer and TV screens.
Does that mean we cant say the thoughts of a character?
Sorry. Good advice, but bad, bad execution. More specifically. 1. The Harry Potter excerpt is presumably marked all green (yellow on my screen) but it is riddled with their thoughts, like 'Shooting stars all over Britain? Owls flying by daylight? Mysterious people in cloaks all over the place? And a whisper, a whisper about the Potters . . .' are Mr Dursley's thoughts. 'It was no good. He’d have to say something to her.' are Mrs Dursley's thoughts.
2. 'Mrs. Dursley looked shocked and angry. ' is telling, not showing. It is not the facts, but the author's opinion or interpretation of the facts. The facts are that his face reddened, his muscles tensed, he made that low growling sound in the back of his throat that he was won't to do at such moments, and his left hand began trembling from gripping the armrest so fiercely. That is showing.
And the reason why Rowling is telling us that Mr Dursley was angry is precisely because he is not. He is acting only. This is a trick, the misdirection Rowling relies heavily on. What she tells you is a lie; what she shows you is true.
How much shall the blurb tell?
I think it's better not to tell the reader who is hero and who is villain, who are the most important members of the cast, etc. In other words, to tell the readers for whom they should root, instead of making them root for someone based on what they see the characters actually do.
On the other side, you have to tell them enough that they assume this story is probably a good read for them, which includes that there are characters for whom they would root.
I feel like this is genre dependent. Sometimes a characters thoughts and feelings are a huge part of the story, are they not?
SO the plate fell from Andy's hand and crashed on the floor is showing but if he has internal dialogue its telling? one of the best things about books is you can hear what they are thinking if you don't put anything in about their internal conflict your story is one dimensional EVERYTHING IS A BALANCE TO MUCH IN SIDE THOUGHTS IS BAD NOT ENOUGH IS ALSO BAD SO IF ANDY'S PLATE BROKE AND NOTHING BAD HAPPENED OUTWARD AND YOU DIDN'T SHOW THE READER THAT IT WAS HIS DIED MOM FAVORITE PLATE BUT HE NEVER GOT TO SHOW HIS EMOTIONS OR HIS DAD WOULD HURT HIM BUT ONE ELSE WOULD CARE THE PLATE GOT BROKE IT WAS JUST A LITTLE THING THAT MEANT NOTHING TO THE READER SO YOU LOST YOUR CHANCE TO HOOK YOUR READER JUST A THOUGHT
If I may humbly suggest: this interpretation of showing here comes off far too literal. It sounds like some necessary nuance is covered by the "un-boring" video, however this is an excerpt from a Ted-Ed video "How to Write Descriptively" (sourced from a story titled "Secret Identity")
"Billie's legs are noodles. The ends of her hair are poison needles. Her tongue is a bristly sponge and her eyes are bags of bleach."
The problem this demonstrates here is Billie's legs _aren't_ noodles. The ends of her hair _aren't_ poison needles. These aren't details that are obvious to everyone on the surface, it is telling us indirectly things we might be able to infer both on *_and_* under the surface.
The Ted-Ed narrator gives the counter example "Billy feels nauseated and weak." as a poor substitute. While the word "feels" is present we may be able to infer that Billie feels nauseated and weak at a glance, arguably putting it closer to the (green) surface than the final passage does with its imposing metaphors. So in my opinion, the middle-ground passage (more akin to the Story Grid advice) might look something like this:
"Billie's stride is uneven. The ends of her hair are split and thinning. Her tongue is cracked and drying, her lower lids pallid, and swollen."
These are on the surface details, giving us indirect information (Billie is sickly) with some carefully chosen descriptive words, like "stride" instead of "walk" and "pallid" instead of "pale."
I feel like there is at least some suggestion in this video that the above would be a better "showing" passage because of how each detail is literal, and surface evident. Yet the example passage is far more vivid. Yes it is reliant on metaphor, which may not, in the strictest sense be necessary for showing, but this upgrades the passage to a type of showing that is more interpretive, more based on feeling, _more_ (rather than less) subjective.
I think it's less that you are trying not to tell, as you are trying to hide your tells. Even something this simple:
"It seemed to Bryan as if Maverick was the kind of guy who could snap a horse in half."
To some people this is fine. It's not even literal.
"Maverick could snap a horse in half."
Is still way better, right?
We're not filtering out the thoughts or feelings of the protagonist, we're just taking out subconscious barriers distancing us from them.
Yes. It’s less wordy too. Usually, from what the pros say, generally a good thing.
@@chriswest8389 Actually it seems to me most people claiming expertise say it's more wordy to show rather than tell, but there are reasons this doesn't seem to be true, so long as the book has actual scenes, and isn't just some fictional history.
@@futurestoryteller That’s what I’ve been thinking.It may have been this site, I can’t say for sure,it that divides the show vs tell into primary and secondary aspects. 3rd tier would be non essential- leather shoe as they call it in the film industry, X marks the spot.I’m not sure here either but whatever side of the divide they come out on ,secondary concerns should take up less space- less words, time energy and psychic energy.
Since I’m more familiar with produce not print- novels and because the latter appears significantly more difficult- descriptions, I’m trying to make each scene as if your watching a film or television play . My description seems to be Showing, what do you think, because it’s unfolding in real time- novel time rather than film time.
I could be wrong, but the only time I’m telling is to give context to the action AND dialogue. Some punctuation and only as necessary.
Somewhat related, I think it’s relevant I came across a site that has a colour code that sheds light on this
Three strikes here, the sites name escapes me, he comes out squarely in favour of Show- Green as if we’re watching things unfold in real time. Red is feeling but things should be inferred. No telling:” He said angrily”. As for ‘ blue’ the Philiphosophy and maybe theme should be organic and hidden otherwise your characters are mouth pieces- two dimensional.
I’m new at all this. Just some thoughts.
Ta for your response.
Mine ,Too wordy😁
@@futurestoryteller Story Grid is the name of the channel.
@@chriswest8389 Is that meant to be some kind of bizarre joke? That's the name of this channel.
How does this work with memoir, when you want to share your thoughts and feelings on an event or issue?
It works the exact same. This is why memoirs are so hard to write and so many of them are poorly written... because they are full of the author describing their thoughts and feelings. Pick up one of the great, masterwork memoirs and take a look. It's written like great fiction... mostly Green language. - Tim
P.S. I added a memoir example: timgrahl.notion.site/Excerpt-Eat-Pray-Love-Memoir-2f223af9a7374a279e020ad0363ba3d3?pvs=4
THIS is WHY I am writing my books. I HATE showing in writing.
This is why I like Dune... all the thoughts are explained, their reasoning, their motives, history that serves as context... I despise when a writer expexcts me to "figure out" what people are thinking and feeling based on their actions, because I generally guess wrong. People do not think or act like I would in their situation. It is not logical or intuitive.
No matter how many times people say this is a rule for "good" writing, I will NEVER agree. This is why my books must be written and must exist in this world, to run counter to this "read the subtext and body language" garbage that never says the same thing to me as is intended by an author.
That's some top-notch hubris you got there. Good luck 👍🏻 - Tim
@@StoryGrid It's clearly not hubris. I note quite emphatically how poor I am at reading and deciphering subtext and body language. Books like the ones I am writing, that ignore the "show, don't tell" advice, MUST exist in this world for readers who do not find that style to be to their liking.
All my life, I have been misinderstood as people read into what I say and do, meanings and intentions that do not exist. I have been acvused of jumping to conclusions when I venture a guess as to what someone else means, when I simply reached a different conclusion from the same information.
That "rule" needs to be classified as advice for a writing style, and must come with several caveats and reasons for use, like any other literary tool.
* pacing and clarity should always be weighed against the need for the word bloat and ambiguity caused by and required to describe things that could otherwise be told. (Sometime you want to linger on something to give it emphasis or importance in the story as something you do not want the reader to miss -if you ALWAYS show, you lose this tool. Sometimes ambiguity is good, if you do not want to outright tell the reader some fact that is meant to be a clue or foreshadowing to be picked up later, or to demonstrate the perceptivity or intellect of a character, such as a detective.)
* are you confident that you can adequately describe what you are trying to show?
* could the things you are showing be misinterpreted to mean something else? Is the action you have chosen, or detail you have included, specific to a certain region, country, or familiarity with a pop culture reference?
@@NameNotAChannelI'd be interested to get your feedback to my writing, since you describe your reactions as uncommon and that you struggle to understand intended meaning. You also explained yourself extremely well in your second comment, so you would probably give detailed reviews. I would, or course, return the favor and read/provide feedback for your writing as well if you'd like.
@@NameNotAChannel
Word bloat comes from elaborating on thought and feeling, too. Look how many words you devoted to saying "showing is difficult, and I'm worried I get it wrong because I don't know my audience."
Instead of fighting SG over the existential need for telling in prose, just try to practice using a few of the tools. The SAM is useful for audience awareness.
@@feruspriest this is a comment section post. My aim here has been for clarity of relating my thoughts, not telling a story.
However, even in my writing, I would rather devote words to clarity of thought than playing a game of charades with my audience. I don't tell everything in my writing, either... as I noted, showing is a tool that can be useful to cause ambiguity and allow events to play out without revealing details to dive into at a better time, when it won't detract from the pacing or emphasis of a scene.
As to the word bloat of both... sure, you could spend as much time showing as you can in a person's thoughts, and I generally like examining thoughts in books, rather than actions, so you can fully understand another person's perspective.
However, when I usually see this argument made, the derision is placed on brief telling moments that people think should be shown instead, like showing anger, instead of describing an action as being done angrily. The "sho"w version of that description will invariably be much longer than using that "telling" descriptor. THIS is the word bloat I am refering to.
interesting video these are good tools to edit script, seeking to enhance emotional narrative.
but only to the writer that has already mastered the why telling the story.
Neo are you done w those pills yet ?
thankyou for the clear classification, Cheers from Rio !
Honestly, whenever I hear that people have trouble understanding some concept my "emperor's clothes" alert gets activated. So here's a thought: maybe there is NO clear-cut difference between showing and telling in a novel...? A novel is not a movie or a game - you cannot literally "show" anything, you are telling people what is happening. TELLING. And let us not kid ourselves, narration is never neutral. Here's another thought: one of the great things about books is that they allow us to experience the world from the author's perspective. But the more you focus on being neutral, on "just showing", the less of your perspective is communicated to the reader. And yet another thing: for many of us readers a lot of the pleasure comes from things that CANNOT be "shown". How do you "show" the emotions of your characters? The typical advice is to describe their behavior and physical symptoms - heart thumping, face getting red, pacing angrily etc. But this is physiology, not emotion. An emotionally rich novel needs a lot of telling, and that's that.
So.. I went to a writers workshop and the guy that reviewed my first chapter told me I did a great job of showing, not telling. Then I started sending out queries and agents have told me the opposite.
Okay, I can agree that writing should be mostly "green," but I don't think this scheme covers everything on the page. There's also background information. If you don't TELL the reader crucial things about the world of the characters, they won't be able to infer what's important to the character. Showing all the relevant background information can be, I'd argue, MORE tedious than an infodump. How do I know? Because I've been writing novels that are all showing for years, and the most common critique I get is that readers don't know (or care about) what's going on. It is perfectly okay to tell the reader the relevant information in a fun or interesting way.
So you're not allowed to show a character's thoughts and feelings? Then what does Hemingway's, Joyce's, and Woolf's stream of consciousness explore if not thoughts and feelings. This video sounds like a recipe for a screenplay, and left me more confused about this subject.
This doesn’t even make sense if you’re writing 1st person. I include plenty of my point of view characters internal dialogue and I can’t imagine not having it that way.
so basically it is all about what you can see
This advice is very misleading because it leaves out the element of point of view. You should actually spend significant space on the page writing about the blue and red zones, but doing it in a green way. This is done with POV techniques. Yes, show, but you've gotta show the blue and the red happening in characters. Deep POV is very popular for modern audiences and why people who try to write like Hemingway now don't find an audience.
I thought the same. I didn't see your comment until after I left mine. I also think show vs tell has to do with how you phrase something, and not just the type of information.
For example, ''The girl looked nervous,'' is telling, while, ''She averted her eyes and wrung her hands,'' is showing. Neither sentence breaks the rule outlined in this video because the word 'looked' allows for the possibility that she isn't nervous, and only appears to be, but the second sentence shows what is happening and lets the reader interpret the girl's behavior rather than having to trust the narrator that she looks nervous. The second sentence is better, because it allows the reader to observe the scene, while the first forces them to imagine what 'nervous' looks like.
And something that has been talked about before in the podcast and the video is that idea that you present@@TheSecretsOfSorsa. I responded to @gethbond above so that might help also to clarify. All POV stems from Red and Blue; how you present it and how you tag it determines if it is external (showing) or internal (telling); its about presentation. "God help me with this one." is showing, because I am not tagging it as a thought or feeling -- I thought or I felt or I imagined -- or any of those words that draw you out off the stage and into the amorphous internality of red and blue. All of the points are valid and it is only a different understanding that is leading to the conflict - which is similar to @storygrid Tim want to rearrange the cabinets. 😁
Good point. I agree with his statement to some degree of course, but He said to apply green 95% of time.
Meaning theres only 5% of your book you can dedicate on the characters feelings. First of I dont think most Readers (me included) want to read descriptions like "he didnt move but his heads color went from paper White to a fuming red" all the time. And secondly sometimes as an author, you want to give a clear image how the character is exactly feeling. "He felt stunned. Didnt know how to react. But Anger was rising within him."
Thats clearly telling, but I also think it is showing the reader exactly how the character is ticking. I believe a Reader Doesnt want to infer everything. Sometimes the Reader comes to conclusions the writer didnt want them to. Sometimes you want to be clear, especially with your POV characters.
@@Lachgummei I know that an editor for Baen gave me the same advice. Clearly, some will take it to extremes and try not to have any feelings or thoughts without realizing that its the tagging that is important, not the expression of them.
Now, in the example you gave - "He felt stunned" - clearly that is red. If you write that and find it valid, then you will keep it and that's ok.
Now, there might be a reason that you indicate this - maybe he didn't want someone to see his being stunned; or maybe the act of being stunned was inconsequential to the action to follow. The advice given to me was this: Is it necessary for the reader to know directly how the character felt? In the case where it is - then show the character moving through the feeling where they will move into thought and make a decision, which affects the direction of the story's next move.
Also, a lot of writer's do not understand how to translate a feeling - so anger to them becomes a physiological chess game; anger, for example, indicates a lack of choice.
So, saying simply: He didn't know how to react. - is enough for the reader to understand what is happening without being told he felt stunned or anger rising in him. As a reader, "he didn't know how to react" is more interesting to me because now I'M wanting to know more and how he will react.
@@dreamslayer2424 thanks for the interesting reply.
I like the thought of telling being used if it is necessary. Guess thats what it comes down to. Maybe the author wants to Highlight the occasion.
Lets continue the example: maybe the character is being shown as very calm and collected before. There Was nothing that could shake him up, but now that happened..."
It Highlights the significance of what happened and pictures the character in a new light.
I kind of agree that "Anger was rising within him" might be unnecessary, because you can probably judge from his next action, but if the feeling is that new and special you could keep it to put emphasis on it.
But that would probably be a special case then (and fall under the 5%)
Another "occasion" for stating feelings could be trying to hint at your characters history.
For example: "the Air was cold. He liked it."
Why does he like it? Is he from the north? Is he tough? Why is he tough?
Thats why I also like what you said about following up Stating feelings with Internal dialogue and reaching a decision.
Maybe you dont necessarily need a decision, but maybe some hints for the reader to get to know the character more. Like in the form of reminiscing the Old times, or simply comparing climates after a flight.
Maybe you can bring it down to: stating feelings is okay if the author has an ulterior motive behind it?
What that motive is can vary
I’m struggling. I need further clarification on how to execute deep POV (third person close) within the bounds of this concept.
It seems to me that if POV characters (avatars?) are the lens through which the reader experiences the story; and if Author follows the POV rules for third person close, then everything that happens in the scene is by definition being processed through the POVs senses. Therefore, I can see how the majority of the scene should theoretically be designated green on the basis of content.
If that holds water, then It seems to come down to the writer mastering communicating the majority of the scene in a way that could be experienced by the five senses if it popped up like a hologram and played itself out in front of us.
I think the key for me to implement the concept will be to cling to the POV rules for third person close. The character can only know, react to, describe etc. the sensory input they take in during the current scene or previous ones or things that happen off stage.
But what about interiority - the blue and red (thoughts and feelings)? Access to other than the POV character’s thoughts during one scene constitutes head hopping which is, generally speaking, a POV “no no” - so there should be no blue or red content connected to non POV characters in the scene that isn’t just dialogue between characters: “John, you really pissed me off this time!You always take your mother’s side instead of mine and I’m sick of it!” 😂😂
That leaves my question about the POV character’s thoughts (interiority) which I think of as a hallmark of deep POV. It’s “inconceivable” to me (The Princess Bride) that interiority would be limited to less than 5 to 10% of the story!
So, that’s my source of confusion because third person close is a prevalent POV used today - and I love experiencing interiority of the POV character. I find it immersive and interesting to experience the POV character’s on-the-nose reaction to what they have just experienced in a scene: when a handsome stranger enters the conference room I’m fine “hearing” my POV character think “He’s smoking hot!”
That, instead of “showing” how her pupils dilate, her pulse quickens and she shifts in her seat. Just share the thought / reaction, save the extra words and get on to the next beat. Thoughts are relatable. How many times have we all seen someone we find physically attractive and had that same or a similar thought / reaction? And we remember the associated physiological components too, don’t we?
Question: Maybe it’s semantics, but is Author showing or telling us the POV character’s thoughts when he employs interiority?
In real life, Tim said the only person’s thoughts we can 100% know are our own.; but, don’t we “become” the POV character in the scene? Therefore, aren’t the POV character’s thoughts by extension the Reader’s thoughts?
If that’s true, then we are neither being shown nor told the thoughts of the POV character. We simply come into the awareness or know / experience the POV character’s thoughts - just as we experience / know our own thoughts in real life.
To sum it up, I feel like scenes written in deep POV, when written according to the POV rules as I understand them, are almost by default green text situations - if green text is defined as the communication of experiences based on sensory perception only. The trick is to write it that way.
Lastly I just watched the videos where he talks about how we can and should still valence our writing while we show our reader what’s happening:
The man sat in the chair versus Everyone watched as the preppy, new guy on the block eyed the filthy, old lawn chair for several seconds before he perched himself on the edge of it and nearly toppled over.
Don't tell what characters are feeling? We read books for a reason tho...
What have you done to the cabinet? Darling, you obviously haven't thought about the blue, the red, or the green.
I mean, I guess it's true that you should only show if everything counts as showing.
Dude, I feel you on rearranging the cabinet. Hell hath no fury like ruining the spice cabinet organization of the Mrs...
Ah yes the old show don't tell rule. Here is a perfect example of why it's false.
Edgar Allan Poes - The Raven.
To this day people are completely clueless that there is no raven in the poem. There never was a raven. It doesn't matter that Poe even hints at it, they still miss it. The show don't tell rule is false. Because it makes the assumption that the readers are smart enough to know something they clearly don't. Thats why it's called storytelling instead of storyshowing.
Very simple. People like to believe they are much smarter than they actually are.
If they can't even figure out there is no raven, how they will they be able to figure out anything else? Poe tried his best. He did an outstanding job and yet the so called smart readers who want to be shown and not told didn't get the message. Even though Poe made it as clear as he could without spelling it out. And yet here we are with people to this day trying to argue that the raven is actually real when it doesn't even exist.
Read Frank Herbert or Brandon Sanderson, massively successful writers who contradict this repeatedly. I'm sure there's many more too....
Are you sure about that? timgrahl.notion.site/Excerpt-Mistborn-799820b5da51407f8f975d234d0b649f?pvs=4 - Tim
@StoryGrid it's kind of cheating to pull one clip from someone's writing to show that they always follow your advice. But also, this doesn't. Half of the things you highlighted in green should have been blue. This excerpt is mostly thoughts.
@@caseyhinkson9043 I read the first Mistborn book recently, it actually inspired me to put more character thoughts into my own work. There's points where he does it five or six times, or even more, on a double page. Now I'm re-reading Dune leading up to the movie sequel, and Herbert does it ALL OVER THE PLACE too. I LOVE getting inside the character's heads, both in what I'm reading and what I'm writing.
@@StoryGrid I have to agree with other commenters. I feel this excerpt has lots of blue, at least I would have colored it blue, but it is highlighted green. Makes me think I haven't really grasped what you wanted to explain in this video.
@@Jonaelize I responded to @gethbond above - that might help in understanding how it is marked.
I'm so glad I'm not married. Imagine having to constantly deal with someone who starts arguments for no reason.
I think you may have missed the point of the video. - Tim
@@StoryGrid It was just an off-topic comment. The video teaches valuable information, and I greatly appreciated it.
Do stay single.
XD this video brought out the anti-fans