It’s one of the oldest writing “rules” in the book, and probably dates back to the time they were carving stories on stone tablets: Show don’t tell. You hear this all the time. Here’s what “show don’t tell” means.
UPDATED 5/30/19
What show don’t tell means
With the understanding that “if it works it works,” and there are always exceptions, in general: universal emotions should not be “told.”
It’s not interesting to be told that Brad is sad or Mary is merry.
Instead, we should be shown how the character is reacting to their feelings.
We should see Brad crying or Merry jumping for joy.
Why we find reactions interesting
I’m of the opinion that we read books in order to get to know our fellow humans better. We are empathetic animals and are able to put ourselves in the shoes of characters, and thus, we have a pretty keen idea how we’d be feeling in any given situation the characters find themselves in.
And emotions are universal: we all feel sad, angry, happy, emotional, etc. etc. But how we react to those emotions are completely and infinitely different. That’s what we find interesting when we’re reading books and it’s what show don’t tell means.
Being told that a character is “angry” is not very interesting. We’re reading the book, we know his dog just got kicked, of course he’s angry! It’s redundant to be told that the character is “angry.”
More interesting is how the character reacts to seeing his dog kicked. Does he hold it in and tap his foot slowly? Explode? Clench his fists?
Even if it’s a first person narrative and the character knows he’s “angry,” it’s more interesting for the character to describe how he’s feeling or what he’s thinking rather than saying, “I was so angry!”
Other applications of show don’t tell
This also applies to:
- Physical descriptions – It’s not interesting to merely hear that someone is “pretty.” What characteristics make them pretty?
- Characterizing relationships – It’s not interesting to only hear that two people are “close.” How are they close? What do they do together?
- A character’s thoughts – Rather than diagnosing your characters, show them teasing things out and being more vague with their thinking, just like a regular human being.
Basically, whenever describing something, especially something universal: specificity wins. That’s what show don’t tell means.
Need help with your book? I’m available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!
For my best advice, check out my online classes, my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.
And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!
Art: Thurston the great magician
PurpleClover says
Thanks for the post. I struggled with this a while back with my PB's and just when I thought I had it down I started on adult fiction. The advice follows you! But it is good advice.
I've read books where I felt like it was a bunch of gobbledygook because there were no descriptions (older books mind you). We were told exactly what the character was thinking. It can be boring.
Very good advice and a great reminder! I'll never be done editing my novel! haha.
Jenn
Ink says
Huzzah.
Robert McGuire says
If only this and other "rules" were characterized as "guidelines" instead. Writers would tie themselves in knots less.
Like you say, there are exceptions. No point in belaboring them, but coincidentally, I was just reading an interesting discussion of this in Wayne Booth's "The Rhetoric of Fiction" where he explores why this rule has become so commonplace (as of 1960 when he wrote the book) when so many exceptions abound. The question for him is how does a work have the effect that it has — be it vivid or weak — regardless of how it follows this rule. Highly recommended book.
dan radke says
Why just today I harvested a field of rice on Farmville, a Facebook application. So I really get ya on the whole rice farming thing.
Hard work!
Steve Axelrod says
Good, useful post. But even more essential is showing scenes rather then summarizing them (with the usual exceptions). Possibly the worst sentence ever:
"He was one of the great wits of Europe and he held the entire table spell-bound for hours."
Sounds nice; gives us nothing. This man's 'wit' is a judgment for us to make, not the writer … after WE hear the anecdotes and witticisms that all those other figments of the author's imagination loved so much.
Margaret Yang says
This can be carried over to exposition. Instead of paragraphs of neutral (boring) description, you can make it more interesting by showing the description through the POV character's eyes. A place is just a place. How a character sees a place is something interesting to read.
Anonymous says
I've come to know this topic as telling is often bland writing, simple statements where showing is use of contrasts, comparisons, metaphors. Telling is just the nail. Showing is the hammer that slams the nail home and "shows" by way of expression what is being felt, what reaction is sparked by encounter and emotion.
Telling is sttating and sometimes that's really all the present situation calls for; a simple statement may go a lot further than a wordy comparison but at most times, writing is taking that extra step to expand the idea or drawing the reader into a thought with careful prose.
So much depends on the emotion in particular, the pace the writer wants to keep and whether or not he wants the reader to move on with a flow or make them pause to think.
Show is, without a doubt 9/10 times, but the occasional tell keeps the story moving forward.
Jerry B. Flory
Ken Hannahs says
This is totally something I try to do. Another important part of showing would be staying in the correct POV. It's verrrry easy to say a dog is sad, but if the POV does not belong to the dog, we can only say that what the dog did to show that he was, indeed, sad.
Anyways, this is my first post on your blog… love it. Spectacular insight into the creatiion of the novel. I started my own novel (and subsequent blog) because of your upbeat encouragement to author wannabees.
You can expect my query letter in about a year's time. 🙂
Tracey S. Rosenberg says
Absolutely.
I was thinking about this today when I was out for a walk. I could tell you for hours that I had a really good boss at my last temp job, who was treated his staff well and never abused his power, or I could mention that on the day there was free ice cream, even though he was the person checking every three minutes to see whether the free ice cream had arrived, he still made sure that all the staff members ended up ahead of him in line.
Now I want ice cream…favorite ice cream flavors? I'm going with cookies and cream.
Andrew the author says
Good post. I read it and it made me happy. Then I considered it thoughtfully.
I know I've been guilty of combining the showing and the telling. I've definitely had to edit out redudant phrases like, "He clenched his fists in anger," which is redundant.
susiej says
Nice pics of combine but I was thinking you were talking about freerice.com- great site.
Build vocabulary for all that showing while feeding the world.
Bane of Anubis says
What about telling how angry the character is (e.g., Jimmy was so pissed he wanted to slit 'dog-kicker's' throat. — it's telling, but it's showing a bit of the character, too, IMO — something that you probably wouldn't expose via dialog, and hopefully not through action :)? I guess it comes down to that whole balancing act (how much to tell and how much to let percolate through the cracks), and, as stated, it's that specificity that defines the character more than anything.
Cory Clubb says
Thanks for this Nathan. I thought I understood it, but then again it's always nice to hear the golden rule again in simple words.
-CC
Nathan Bransford says
BofA-
I still think that's that telling too much. It's clear that the guy is pissed, so saying he's so pissed he'd do X feels redundant.
Bane of Anubis says
Nathan, I see what you're saying, but my point was more about telling a thought that might be outside the bell curve (e.g., showing that the kid's a potential sociopath).
Ray Rhamey says
Here's how I summarize show v. tell in my book/blog:
"telling" is dispensing information
"showing" is evoking experience
Susan Quinn says
I believe in all things in moderation – including the showing and the telling. Most people err too far on the telling side, so I can see why SHOW not TELL is the mantra.
However, too much, or perhaps the wrong kind, of SHOW and the story can seem blank – as if the reader has to fill in too much, and the writer is no longer evoking the feelings they want the reader to have.
I think this is especially a danger in children's fiction, where children may not be able to interpret all those situational or body signals (although never underestimate those little guys and what they know!).
What do you think, Nathan? Especially now that you've written Jacob Wonderbar. Do you feel there is a different balance for kidlit vs. adult?
Nathan Bransford says
Susan-
Interesting question. I think to some extent it's universal, and kids, particularly by the time they reach 8-12 are extremely perceptive about emotions, even if adult behavior can be somewhat mystifying. So I don't know that there should necessarily be more telling in children's literature, even if context is very important.
Marilyn Peake says
Saw your photo of the rice harvest on Twitter. Awesome!
I found the topic of your blog today very timely and exciting. I’m doing the final edit of my novel right now (well, technically, I’m taking a few minutes break right now, but will get right back to it). After scrapping a couple of endings that just didn’t work, I realized it was because I had lapsed into "telling". Most of the time when I get stuck in writing a story, or the whole thing seems to fall completely flat, it turns out that I’m "telling" and I need to create more sensory details to "show".
A short story that gave me fits while writing it was REPO GIRL AND THE FORTUNE FAERIE because I kept lapsing into "telling". When I finally started "showing", I had a short story that eventually got published. I opened the story with the following paragraph:
———
A brilliant half-moon cut through clouds like a scythe, retreating into blackness. Next to it, a rocky planet pulled scraps of celestial light into its skin; then shimmered like an isolated diamond in the cold night sky. Brittle leaves, nothing more than scraping sounds and grayish ghostly shapes, skittered down the street within the midnight gloom.
———
And, in the following excerpt, I tried to show the antisocial characteristics of Donella Bard, an evil faerie working as a repo girl in the human world, and the fear of an old woman having her house repossessed while caring for her grandchildren:
———
Moments later, Donella entered the room with Abigail, the young girl looking dazed, clutching her pink teddy bear tightly against her chest. Again, the repo girl sang with the voice of jingling bells, and Adam sat up, rubbing his eyes. After the boy stuffed a few things into a duffel bag, Donella allowed Mrs. Hamilton to get dressed and pack her own small suitcase.
Leading everyone downstairs, Donella sighed as the old woman insisted her grandchildren dress in layers and wear hats, gloves and scarves. When they were finally bundled up against the cold night air, the cloaked figure led the evicted troupe outside and passed them off to another member of the repo team. "Show them where the homeless sleep, Mannie."
"Yes, ma’am. You want me to take ’em to the shelter?"
"Give them a choice, let them exercise their free will." As Donella laughed and threw back her head, bits of light glittered in her diamond earrings. "Show them the homeless shelter, and show them the most popular sidewalks where the bums camp out. Let them choose."
Mrs. Hamilton’s eyes grew wide as saucers, drawing in the last rays of moonlight before the illuminated slice dipped behind darkened clouds.
patty says
I don't know — I like being told that a character is handsome, beautiful, ugly, etc. In fact, if an author skimps on physical descriptions of people and places, I'll throw the book down. There's no point in reading the story if I can't see it in my head.
An attractive person can have blond hair and blue eyes. So can an ugly person. Describing someone's physical characteristics isn't enough; the narrator needs to make a judgment. The first line of "Gone With the Wind" is "Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful," and that was an important point for the narrator to make. If all Margaret Mitchell had done was "shown" how men reacted to Scarlett, the reader would come away with the impression that Scarlett was a stunning beauty. And she wasn't. And that was one reason she drove the female characters crazy — she wasn't all the pretty, but her charm made men believe she was.
I also like being told how a character is feeling. An example I often see is "Telling is saying 'X was angry,' showing is saying 'X slammed the door.'" But how many people actually slam doors when they're mad? Except for children and drama queens, not many. Anger is something people usually show through their expression and tone of voice. And that's not something a reader can see. It's something the reader needs to be told. The narrator acts as the reader's eyes.
I think that "show don't tell" has made for books that lack clarity. Readers don't make nearly as many intuitive leaps as some people seem to believe. One reason Harry Potter was so popular was because J.K. Rowling's narrative style was so vivid. We knew exactly what the characters looked like, what Hogwarts looked like. We knew that the killing curse was a jet of green light, and the disarming curse a jet of red. It was so easy to see in the head.
Also, telling helps with pacing. Showing takes a lot more room than telling. Telling is very useful for scenes that need to be there but don't need that much emphasis.
I'm not a big fan of "show, don't tell." I prefer "show and tell." Show what needs to be shown, tell what needs to be told.
Nathan Bransford says
Patty-
That may have been the first part, but this is the whole paragraph: "Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful, but men seldom realized it when caught by her charm as the Tarleton twins were. In her face were too sharply blended the delicate features of her mother, a Coast aristocrat of French descent, and the heavy ones of her florid Irish father. But it was an arresting face, pointed of chin, square of jaw. Her eyes were pale green without a touch of hazel, starred with bristly black lashes and slightly tilted at the ends. Above them, her thick black brows slanted upward, cutting a startling oblique line in her magnolia-white skin . . ."
I'm not saying that a value judgment can't or shouldn't be made, just that it helps to be specific rather than general, which I think is the point of the "rule."
Marsha Sigman says
My heart skipped a beat as I saw that Nathan had finally posted on Monday morning.
My fingers shook as I clicked on his name. Eyes darting back and forth, I drank in the latest shot of information he so generously poured his followers.
I sighed as I sat back in my chair. My day was complete.
Thermocline says
I'm with Susan that you can take Showing too far and not leave any mystery into a character's motivation. If it's not necessary to ensure the reader understands why the MC fidgets with her right thumbnail every time she hears a train whistle then leave it out. You're giving your readers an opportunity to bring their own explanations along for the ride. That's way more fun than being spoon fed all the details.
Fawn Neun says
I think Farmville is ruining my marriage. :/
Ulysses says
Thanks. I tried to say the same thing here after reading too many as-yet-unpublished short stories.
I'm always amazed at how many people don't get this. But then, I can no longer remember how long it took me to really understand it.
Susan Quinn says
Nathan –
I think you hit it . . . "context is very important". I'm amazed how much my kids will get what I'm trying to say in a chapter, even though I don't come right out and tell them in the story. As long as I evoke a situation they can relate to (put it in a context they can understand, even if it's on another planet), they can interpret the SHOW pretty well.
Laura Martone says
I'm with Patty – somewhere between "showing" and "telling" is a good place to be, IMO.
And one other point… the concept of "show, don't tell" is truly the BANE of my existence – hardest concept for me to master. Period. (Sorry, BofA.)
ryan field says
These are some great examples of showing and telling. Simple and easy to grasp.
This is important for writers to understand. And it doesn't get much better than this post.
Marilyn Peake says
patty,
One of the best novels I've ever read that combines telling and showing is HISTORY: A NOVEL by Elsa Morante. Morante’s descriptions are so vivid, I had to look very closely to notice that she also includes very short statements of judgement about how bad the situations she’s describing were.
Heidi Willis says
Great timing on this post!
I just got revision notes back from my editor and her favorite thing about the chapter we are working on is a paragraph where the main character is trying to decide which monopoly piece to pick. There is a reason she doesn't want each one.
I didn't set out to make a point about the personality of the character in that scene, but apparently it shows more about the character than I could even have tried to spell out.
I knew my character really well by this point. I wrote from inside her head, so I stopped trying to explain things about her and just tried to tell her story.
It's great when that kind of writing begins to come organically.
Tabitha says
Exactly!
Show = Action
It's not *that* a character does/feels something, it's *how* he does/feels it.
People express emotions in unique ways, so we writers need to know how our characters experess their emotions. Then we need to show the reader those mannerisms. It makes our characters unique and real. As a result, it brings the reader closer to them.
Great post!
Scott says
Telling is to alleging, as showing is to "proving". Sort of.
patty says
Nathan,
I agree with you that specific is better than general. Calling a character pretty, without saying anything more about her appearance, doesn't do much for the reader, because the reader doesn't know what the narrator finds pretty.
On the other hand, saying Scarlett has black hair, green eyes, a pointed chin, and a square jaw doesn't mean all that much without the value judgment, the "arresting," to let us know that while she might not be conventionally beautiful, she is attractive.
That's the problem I have with "show, don't tell." It scares writers away from words like "arresting" — from value judgments. As a reader, I like those. Especially if the story is first person or close third person — the value judgments tell you a lot about the narrator, including whether the narrator is reliable.
Marilyn Peake —
Thanks! I'll have to check that out.
Ink says
Patty,
Interesting discussion.
Yes, slamming a door is not necessarily effective, but that's not because it's showing, but because it's a cliche – it's bad showing. Showing alone won't do it… you have to do it well. Same goes for telling… most of the time it's boring, unless you do it well. Both have their place (though it's safer to weight things toward the former).
And those vivid details in Rowling are vivid, usually, because they are shown rather than told. But whether you're showing or telling I think, as Nathan said, the devil (that vivid little bugger) is always in the details.
In the end it's about evoking something with words… and details allow depth. The problem with telling is that it's too often used as a shortcut. "John is angry." Well, yes, but that's rather a Coles Notes version of all that is really happening. Details, on the other hand, push the reader beyond the obvious… they offer specifics about a character, a place, an event. And, oddly enough, the more specific something is, the more particular and different, the more people will universally people will connect with it, or so I've found.
My best,
Bryan
Anonymous says
Jose glanced at his watch. "5 more minutes,Boris. Good dog." He patted his golden retriever on the head. He wished he could give his elderly dog a longer walk, but the meeting at work would be patricularly urgent today.
Jose gave an irritated sigh as he felt his cellular vibrate again. Opening the phone, his eyes widened as he read the text message: "JOSE: MEETING OFF, CLIENT PULLED OUT. SO SORRY."
Damn. Did they know? is that why they'd backed–
Just then Boris emitted a high pitched YELP. Jose turned to see a middle-aged man in a suit and tie kick his dog a second time with a brown leather loafer.
"This mutt is blocking the crosswalk!" the man said, who then started to cross the street but had to stop as a bus began a sharp right turn.
Jose saw the look of anguished surprise on Boris face as the dog went down. Saw the bus turning…registered the complete absence of expression on the face of the man who had probably just broken his long-time companion's ribs.
Later, Jose would blame his actions on getting news of the botched account moments before the canine assault. But to everyone who knew him–even to himself, Jose would decide in retrospect, what he did next would test him in ways he could never imagine.
[good balance of show and tell or no?]
Kristen howe says
Thanks Nathan. I struggle with this all the time, like with those pesky red flag no-no words. This helps.
Mira says
Good god, I think I'm in love with Scarlett O'Hara. Gorgeous description.
Almost as gorgeous as that picture of the rice harvesting. I never knew how rice was harvested. And now I do.
I learn so much on this blog.
Speaking of which, seriously, this is a really helpful post. Since I write mostly in first person voice, it can be very easy to forget this, and fall into one lines, like "I felt angry." But that does not engage the reader. This is good to remember.
Helen says
THE CHILDREN'S BOOK by A.S. Byatt breaks the show don't tell rule more than anything I've read in ages. Lots of 'she was pretty' and informative stuff on the arts-and-crafts movement and paris exhibition etc.
It somehow seems to fit in the context of turn-of-the-20th-century England. I think it's because lit tended towards being more telling when grand old victoria was filling the British throne, dictating to the colonised masses. Perhaps the show don't tell dictat only applies in certain contemporary contexts?
word verification: Patetor. Latinate expression for father who prefers to remain on his sofa, watching gardening programmes.
scott g.f.bailey says
Junot Diaz' "The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao" is almost entirely telling. There are few dramatized scenes; it's pretty much a long monologue that, while looking inside the characters' heads, still relies on lots of "she was disappointed" and "he never forgave them." Pulitzer Prize, though.
Mira says
Oh, re. the show vs. tell with the Scarlett O'Hara description – it's sort of…um, mixing up a few things.
My sense of what Nathan is saying is related to emotions: show, don't tell emotions.
It's almost impossible to describe something – like someone's appearance – without doing some telling. But that's different than an emotional experience.
The point is that showing emotions engages the reader's empathy and they start to live the story vicariously through the protagonist – which is the whole point. Telling keeps the reader at a distance.
So: 'John felt angry' is an intellectual idea. The reader thinks.
But: 'John's fist clenched and sweat popped out on his brow' is a viceral experience. The reader feels.
AM says
I’ve always been a fan of 99.5% showing with a pinch of telling.
Marilyn – Thanks for sharing the excerpt. Nice.
Nathan Bransford says
scott-
That's true. So much of OSCAR WAO is in the voice. Books like that put the quotation marks around "rules."
scott g.f.bailey says
Nathan: "Wao" is a big, sprawling mess of a novel that breaks all sorts of "rules," but it's a great book. I love it despite its flaws. Which is not to be taken as an object lesson by other writers. Without Diaz' unique voice, it wouldn't be a great book.
Kristi says
An agent at a conference I attended this past weekend discussed "telling AS showing" which was interesting and not anything I could relate here in a comprehensible manner – that's why he's the agent I guess.
Great post. 🙂
Travener says
Don't tell me what you mean, Nathan. Show me!
:>
http://www.thebiglitowski.blogspot.com
jjdebenedictis says
Oh! Oh! Serendipity like whoa!
I'm currently doing a series of blog posts on the nuts-and-bolts of how to show instead of tell.
The first one is here.
The second one is here.
I hope at least some of you will pop by! 🙂
Anonymous says
Funny how reading this thread makes it seem as though everyone understands the adage; but when critting online I'd say fully half of the authors don't actually get it.
TKA says
Not all those rice harvesters are in the bounteous fields. I'm sure you remember following them down hwy 20 – a worthy exercise in learning to relax and go with the flow (of slow traffic):)
Ink says
Anon,
It's always easier to see than do…
Vacuum Queen says
Hey…my son's writing assignment (6th grade) last week was to write 2-3 sentences that rewrite each boring sentence "using descriptive voice." His sentences were:
1. He was a slow runner.
2. The flowers looked pretty.
3. I like cookies.
4. She didn't like being tall.
5. The stadium got really loud.
I think…could be a good exercise to your bloggers as well. ?