|
stjerome
|
|
|
|
It seems that the problem of 'telling instead of showing' is one of the most common problems with work posted on the site (including my own). However, when reviewing which category of the eight do you use to rate this important aspect of the writing? Is it included in the Structural part of Pace & Structure or does it cover several categories - Dialogue (i.e. lack of because not being used to move story along)? or Settings (related to the reader rather than brought out in dialogue)? or Characters (described rather than discussed in internal thoughts)? Or do other members just mark down generally across all categories because 'telling not showing' spoils the narrative as a whole? What to do? I'd appreciate other views. Tim
Saint. A dead sinner revised and edited. Ambrose Bierce (1842 -1913)
|
|
sulcus
|
|
|
|
It's a good point that shows up the limitations of categorisation and scoring. I think the closest I can say is it involves the use of metaphor. Oh wait, there isn't a metaphor category is there? Me personally, I'm mainly telling anyway, albeit in a twisted way, because my MC addresses the reader directly as if they were in conversation. The twisted bit comes in the form of the metaphors employed. Meh, whadyagonna do?
"A,B&E", "Not In My Name" and "52FF" (flash fiction anthology) all available on Amazon Kindle"How a psychopath makes sweet love. I can get you ringside. Royal box even."
|
|
sulcus
|
|
|
|
All of which I meant to say that it doesn't boil down to just show V tell exactly. It's a wider question of style, of authorial voice, of how the narrator addresses the reader.
"A,B&E", "Not In My Name" and "52FF" (flash fiction anthology) all available on Amazon Kindle"How a psychopath makes sweet love. I can get you ringside. Royal box even."
|
|
stjerome
|
|
|
|
Quote: sulcus, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 19:42All of which I meant to say that it doesn't boil down to just show V tell exactly. It's a wider question of style, of authorial voice, of how the narrator addresses the reader. I get what you mean, but it still either works or it doesn't - and when it doesn't works it jars. Maybe, based on what you say, Narrative Voice would be the category to rate it in as it's essentially the relationship between the writer and the reader. Tim
Saint. A dead sinner revised and edited. Ambrose Bierce (1842 -1913)
|
|
willow55
|
|
|
|
Quote: stjerome, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 19:59Quote: sulcus, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 19:42All of which I meant to say that it doesn't boil down to just show V tell exactly. It's a wider question of style, of authorial voice, of how the narrator addresses the reader. I get what you mean, but it still either works or it doesn't - and when it doesn't works it jars. Maybe, based on what you say, Narrative Voice would be the category to rate it in as it's essentially the relationship between the writer and the reader. Tim I usually mark it down in character because I find it mostly happens when we're told what's going on in a character's mind instead of being able to see from their gestures/ dialogue/ actions.
|
|
sulcus
|
|
|
|
Quote: stjerome, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 19:59Quote: sulcus, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 19:42All of which I meant to say that it doesn't boil down to just show V tell exactly. It's a wider question of style, of authorial voice, of how the narrator addresses the reader. I get what you mean, but it still either works or it doesn't - and when it doesn't works it jars. Maybe, based on what you say, Narrative Voice would be the category to rate it in as it's essentially the relationship between the writer and the reader. Tim No you're absolutely spot on, either it works as in it feels right, or it doesn't. I said it on a thread elsewhere I basically boil a review down to the strength of the material (story, plot, character) and the style. You'd be surprised at how many people are more than competent at the one, while lacking a bit on the other. Often I'm scoring potential, I like the idea but it's poorly executed. So high marks re material, loer for craft
"A,B&E", "Not In My Name" and "52FF" (flash fiction anthology) all available on Amazon Kindle"How a psychopath makes sweet love. I can get you ringside. Royal box even."
|
|
sulcus
|
|
|
|
Quote: willow55, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 20:27Quote: stjerome, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 19:59Quote: sulcus, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 19:42All of which I meant to say that it doesn't boil down to just show V tell exactly. It's a wider question of style, of authorial voice, of how the narrator addresses the reader. I get what you mean, but it still either works or it doesn't - and when it doesn't works it jars. Maybe, based on what you say, Narrative Voice would be the category to rate it in as it's essentially the relationship between the writer and the reader. Tim I usually mark it down in character because I find it mostly happens when we're told what's going on in a character's mind instead of being able to see from their gestures/ dialogue/ actions. And stream of consciousness fits into that rubric how?
"A,B&E", "Not In My Name" and "52FF" (flash fiction anthology) all available on Amazon Kindle"How a psychopath makes sweet love. I can get you ringside. Royal box even."
|
|
jbenson
|
|
|
|
An emotional bond with a particular character can be lost, or never found, when a writer uses strictly tell in a story or novel. Granted, there has to be a balance, but when it tips toward more tell, then all areas of the novel are being affected. Characters and story because there is no emotional bond, hence no reason to become involved with their lives. Dialogue if conversations come off not sounding real because they are being used as an information dump. Narrative voice-- again, lack of emotional bond with the main character. Might as well be reading a textbook as a novel I want to get lost in for a few hours. Setting, maybe not so much. A lot can be told with setting and still be okay, but again, there is that balance. Language-- I use this one to grade grammar and punctuation, but if a writer is using too much tell, then it comes down to language as well; perhaps a better choice of words is needed to get what you mean across. Might have missed one or two, but I think this gets across where I'm coming from.
|
|
willow55
|
|
|
|
Quote: sulcus, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 20:31Quote: willow55, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 20:27Quote: stjerome, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 19:59Quote: sulcus, Friday, 25 Feb 2011 19:42All of which I meant to say that it doesn't boil down to just show V tell exactly. It's a wider question of style, of authorial voice, of how the narrator addresses the reader. I get what you mean, but it still either works or it doesn't - and when it doesn't works it jars. Maybe, based on what you say, Narrative Voice would be the category to rate it in as it's essentially the relationship between the writer and the reader. Tim I usually mark it down in character because I find it mostly happens when we're told what's going on in a character's mind instead of being able to see from their gestures/ dialogue/ actions. And stream of consciousness fits into that rubric how? Agreed - it wouldn't work if someone was writing in the first person. But other characters are usually reacting to that first person voice so it could happen there. I'm not saying I always mark in under character, but that's where I notice it tends to happen.
|
|
Palache
|
|
|
|
For me, if someone posts a work which is nearly all telling and little showing (and it could be a very interesting story in itself), I usually wind up giving a max of straight fours; i.e. for me 'telling instead of showing' cuts across all categories. But please don't interpret my comment as giving review guidelines for others. I'm just giving my personal response to the pertinent issue raised. A different but related issue I've frequently come across is how to deal with humour. I've reviewed several works that IMO were lacking in a number of categories, but left me laughing out loud. I've tried to factor the humour into language, dialogue (if appropriate), settings, story etc., but I can never find a particular category in which to highlight it. As a result a writer whose trademark is humour may find their kudos dispersed over a number of categories, and have problems with interpretation of the 'overall results'. Last but not least (since so much has been written about reviews recently) if you look at the forest instead of the trees, I think overall the YWO system works.
This post was last edited by Palache, 25 Feb 2011, 23:40
my website
|
Question regarding 'Show not Tell'
25 Feb 2011, 19:35
