How about that? Want a few pointers on managing show and tell? I spent a few years learning to distinguish show from tell and when tell or show is a best practice and how and why and such. Before I got a handle on show and tell, I remember having vague feelings something wan't working how I wanted it to and, not knowing, feeling frustrated.
Managing show and tell turned out to be more complex than the principle seemed. Distinguishing show from tell is challenging because all written word is, in a close analysis, tell. But show has an elusive quality that, when you feel as a writer you have a grasp on it, it slips away. Show and tell is part of narrative voice, an attribute of the writing elemental discourse. Also part of and perhaps a prime attribute of voice is narrative distance and its influence on show and tell. Adding challenges, the same exact text string in narration might be an artless tell, yet in dialogue might be an artful show.
The latter, that verbatim words can be either show or tell, is one of the trail markers I found for understanding and artfully applying show and tell.
For example: Joel sat on the bench.
Pure tell, and static voice, I might add. Grammatically proper sentence syntax; no mechanical style impropieties there. Yet a shortcoming of the sentence that makes it a tell is it vaguely summarizes and explains an action that is not clearly significant. Significant in the sense of signal and signaling of time. "Sat" is a past tense verb that signals an action has to a degree been completed. In truly completed action, hence a perfect tense verb, the sentence would read, Joel had sat on the bench. Joel clearly is no longer sitting on the bench.
The vagueness of "sat" is it doesn't signal whether Joel just this moment sat down on the bench or whether Joel sitting on the bench is an ongoing action that began some time in the past. A helper word or phrase is indicated. Like "Joel sat down on the bench." "Down" modifies "sat," the adverb "down" signaling the action was just this moment completed and the action of sitting on the bench continues until Joel changes his body posture.
As a spoken statement, the sentence might be show, at least, and the least reason because portraying spoken word depicts an aural sensation shown in the moment of the speech. The spoken sentence becomes both a visual description summarizing Joel sitting down and an aural one imitating Miranda speaking.
The speech is spoken in the moment of the speaking action. Narrative distance is close to the moment of the speaking action, from Miranda's voice. Miranda is the person speaking about Joel's action. To a degree, where the speech took place is given: from Miranda. Though where she spoke is not. Additional context and texture development, like setting, would develop where, when, what, why, and how Miranda speaking matters to the dramatic action. Additionl persons or a person who hears Miranda speaking would portray additional who context of the setting. Who, when, and where are largely context; what, why, and how are largely texture. They overlap and blend, though, every-which-a-way.
"Joel sat on the bench," Miranda said.
Perhaps signaling more meaning is indicated in order to transcend the stale yet not quite static significance of Miranda's speech. Emotional attitude will serve most. Say Miranda is disgusted by Joel's action. Why? Maybe the bench was recently painted.
"Silly Joel," Miranda said, "he sat in wet paint on the bench."
"Silly" clearly expresses Miranda's emotional attitude toward Joel sitting in wet paint.
One sentence, who development of persons: Miranda and Joel; where and somewhat when setting development: a bench sat on and wet paint sat in, past tense verbs signaling when and pending further clarification of an absolute when Joel sat; emotional attitude: "silly"; and sensation: aural sensation of speech spoken in the now moment of the setting. "Silly" and "wet paint," the "telling detail" descriptions that distinguish Joel and the bench somewhat for a time from all other Joels and benches and speaks to an antagonism, a causation, and a tension moment, albeit comparatively minor tension.
Sitting in paint, a problem, hence antagonism, that causes Miranda to react, the reaction thinking Joel is silly, and tension, perhaps empathy for Joel sitting in wet paint, and arousing curiosity about at least why Joel sitting in paint matters.
That's the five principal qualities of showing a scene: description, action both physical and dramatic, conversation, emotion, and sensation. This is show's mischief for developing a scene.
Loooking back to before when I didn't understand show and tell, I remember my confusion and frustration. I remember that working it out was an onerous chore. I remember that no amount of advice or suggestion or anyone telling me or showing me how to use show and tell did more than give me a few hints. I remember the intense satisfaction of figuring it out. I remember that, looking back, overcoming show and tell's mischiefs was passing through an ephemeral curtain that is yet an impenetrable wall. I see now I can look back through the curtain but can't go back through the wall.
[ April 07, 2013, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
An interesting post. In showing rather than telling, I tend to use action/movement or dialogue. When using dialogue however, it is essential to be artful in how it is done. In one story I'm writing I want to get out some information about a particular culture. I managed this, without using exposition, through the dialogue and interaction of two characters over an entire chapter.
However, it's also important to set up such disguised info-dumps. I set up the interaction between the two characters and the topic of conversation in the previous chapter.
I have seen others use dialogue as a badly disguised info-dump where their characters sprout out great slabs of speech that is clearly the author indulging in exposition.
Like everything else in writing, thought and preparation beforehand is essential. As is being mindful of your reader's sensibilities. Abuse them at your peril.
Phil.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
I'm intimately familiar with forms of artless dialogue, one of which is explanation and summary blocks. Weekly television crime tragedies, situation farces, medical tragedies and farces, and made for television movies especially exhibit this and that types of expanations and summaries that could be more artfully shown than given as dialogue tells.
One signal that an artless dialogue explanation or summary block is coming begins with an As you know, Bob, setup. "As you know, Bob, the number seven is a number that a human mind uses to express elaboration or exaggeration: seven feet tall, seven samurai, seven deadly sins, seven leagues." "Uh-huh, Dave, and a number of instances or things, you know, that a human mind can grasp, barely, unlike, say eleven."
Disguised dialogue As you know, Bobs, try to hide explanation or summary blocks using colloquy, echo, non sequitur, and squabble conversation, four fundamental, otherwise dynamic dialogue methods. "Where did you find the murder weapon, Detective?" "I didn't, Mr. Reporter." "Who did?" "Citizen Dumpster Diver did." "Was the weapon a knife, Detective, as Madam Medical Examiner said in the autopsy report?" "Knife-like, I suppose, Reporter. It was one blade of a sewing scissors."
A signal of a disguised As you know, Bob, conversation in written word is portraying lengthy and quick back-and-forth exchanges lacking or expressing limited dramatic context and texture, like showing other descriptions, sensations, actions, and emotions, as not given above in the second example.
A treatment for As you know, Bob, dialogue is to show and fully develop the circumstances in the moment and location of their discovery. Instead of a Dumpster diver finding the knife off scene, the detective would be present and maybe the reporter when the Dumpster diver found the scissor blade. If the reporter is the viewpoint character, direct description of the action shows the scissor's discovery from the reporter's perspective. An investigative unit searches the alley outside the murder scene's building. Patrol officers corral street people for interrogation. Blood on one's clothing results in him or her revealing the scissor blade, and so on, in scene.
On the other hand, for the sake of pacing, when a more fully developed scene and perhaps limited dramatic situation slows down the action, when the circumstances are transitional toward a more dramatic impact scene, or when a dramatic irony emerges, for examples, sometimes a brief explanation and summary block will serve.
Managing "exposition" and "info-dump" mischiefs, for me, was a matter of unraveling their meanings for a writer. Exposition meant introductions before the term became a shorthand word for dull summary and explanation. Giving backstory that first introduced circumstances before developing a narrative's dramatic influences led to how the term exposition is now used.
The ancients first gave the pedigree, their backstory, of the personas of a drama as exposition introductions, the begats from the first issue of the gods forward. Not giving the agonistes' (characters) lineage first might draw the audience's ire and hurled stones for the blaspheme. Yet long and drawn out summaries of pedigrees bored audiences, so they arrived fashionably late. So dramatists strove to encourage audiences to arrive early so they didn't disturb the performance mid scene. Dramatists ever more cleverly dramatized exposition openings, until sometime mid nineteenth century, experimental dramas began to dispense with them altogether, instead, artfully interleaving introduction details while the action unfolds.
"Info-dump" arose as a term from workshop critique, again, a shorthand term, for commenting on long, dull summary and explanation blocks. Other devices came into being that more artfully give essential information. False document interludes is one artful example. Epigraph excerpts from fictional documents, a fictional encyclopedia, for example, open the Dune saga's novel chapters.
If introducing a villain or the early formative events of a protagonist in an opening is critical to setting up the action, a brief dramatic prelude chapter or section in scene will serve instead of a backstory summation and explanation or "info-dump."
[ April 07, 2013, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by History (Member # 9213) on :
Thank you, extrinsic. All great stuff as usual. I don't see any 1st 13 by you anywhere and would love to read one of your stories. Of course if you are a pro and "slumming it" perhaps I have, but you've provided no examples here.
Respectfully, Dr. Bob
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
Yes, I've experienced the, 'As you know, Bob' explanation in a lot of beginning writer's work and always tried and point out its shortcomings. It's almost, if not worse than, the deus ex machina contrivances I've seen used. In fact, I used such a device in the second story I wrote and as the story reached its climax the inconsistencies caused by such a device in the plot made me realise I would have to re-evaluate the story.
Showing is easy once you think about whose POV you are writing in. That character is the person who sees and feels what's going on. It's okay to tell that POV character information they may not have witnessed, but if they're in a position to 'see' the scene unfolding, then showing that scene through their eyes and sensations is the only option.
I think far too many people do not anchor themselves sufficiently in the POV character's frame of reference, and so, loose sight of what must be shown and what can be told.
Phil.
Posted by rcmann (Member # 9757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: Showing is easy once you think about whose POV you are writing in. That character is the person who sees and feels what's going on. It's okay to tell that POV character information they may not have witnessed, but if they're in a position to 'see' the scene unfolding, then showing that scene through their eyes and sensations is the only option.
I think far too many people do not anchor themselves sufficiently in the POV character's frame of reference, and so, loose sight of what must be shown and what can be told.
Phil.
Yes! Exactly!
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
quote:Originally posted by History: Thank you, extrinsic. All great stuff as usual. I don't see any 1st 13 by you anywhere and would love to read one of your stories. Of course if you are a pro and "slumming it" perhaps I have, but you've provided no examples here.
Respectfully, Dr. Bob
You're welcome, History.
A few years back I posted a couple unpolished thirteen lines excerpts. My diction and organization and content and writing skills at the time didn't suit the form nor the audience. Subsequent revised drafts of those completed narratives tried on other audiences fared well.
I'm considering drafting and posting a purpose-written excerpt that fits the thirteen-lines format and audience. In the interim, I'm busy finishing up galley proofs for a short story collection that will publish later this spring. The collection will publish online under my real name. Privacy and other concerns prevent me from posting a link to the collection here.
I strongly believe the hard bright line between artful self-promotion and unseemly gloating runs where singing my own praises aloud robs an audience of doing so. I will know I'm successful when audiences generate word-of-mouth buzz about my work without prompting from me. Res ipsa loquitor, the thing speaks for itself.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: Showing is easy once you think about whose POV you are writing in. That character is the person who sees and feels what's going on. It's okay to tell that POV character information they may not have witnessed, but if they're in a position to 'see' the scene unfolding, then showing that scene through their eyes and sensations is the only option.
Phil.
What about recasting preliminary draft scenes so the viewpoint character is present for dramatic events? C.J. Cherryh labels this principle K.I.T., for Keep In Touch with a viewpoint character, not per se a protagonist, but definitely a subjective character who a narrator or objective character observes like a camera's objective or lens.
Subjective character: character observed; objective character: observing character; and third, influence character: character who influences subjective character. A first-person narrator theoretically may be all four personas to degrees and often is in character-emphasis narratives.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
I think "show not tell" is a poor framing of the issue. I think mainly the point is to engage both the reader's inductive and deductive reasoning.
For example, I could *tell* you that Mrs. Smith is a self-centered, or I could illustrate that with the following exchange:
quote:Mrs. Smith intercepted the asparagus plate, cut the tips off and dumped them onto her plate.
I couldn't believe my eyes. "What are you doing?" I demanded.
"Oh, don't you know dear?" she said. "Those are the best part."
When you read "Mrs. Smith was self-centered," your deductive faculties set up certain expectations which hopefully are met by subsequent events; but while that statement gets a certain expectation-setting job done, it's very limited. C.S. Lewis once defined literary value is the property of rewarding repeated readings, and if you read "Mrs. Smith was self-centered" fifty times in a row you'd get exactly the same thing out of it. Chances are different people get more or less the same thing out of it; and if they don't, that won't necessarily come out unless action (showing) in the rest of the story brings out their differences in interpretation.
The illustrative incident, on the other hand, is open-ended. Readers get more from the writer's unconscious picture of Mrs. Smith than what he intends (to illustrate her self-centeredness); some readers might focus instead on her social obliviousness. An illustrative incident usually carries greater implicit possibilities, and readers will surprise you with observations that as the writer you immediately know are true, but which never occurred to you.
One thing that occurs to me is that this dichotomy between setting expectations and creating impressions can be exploited, for example to establish an unreliable narrator:
quote:Mrs. Smith is so self-centered.
Just the other day she came up to me and hit me up for money. "Can I count on you for a donation this year to the Children's Relief Fund?" she asked.
Every year she shakes me down for that charity of hers, even though she knows I'm always short fo cash. This year I'm saving up for a larger motor for my cigarette boat.
Here, thought the narrator is *telling* you things, he's revealing more than he intends -- that *shows* you what he is really like. It's telling on one level and showing on another.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
"Show, don't tell" is a noble writing principle, misused as a shorthand expression for when a scene's dramatic import is underrealized. Realizing a scene's full drama easily is challenging. However, the best practice term is show and tell, like in grade school student classroom presentations. Much is taught and learned in grammar school for writers' benefits. After all, fiction writing is advanced make believe.
Those examples of "Mrs. Smith is so self-centered" also illustrate how a tell in one scenario might be a show in another. While the sentence tell directly states to readers a perhaps narrator viewpoint, the show sentence might be the objective character's viewpoint thought about Mrs. Smith, hence closer narrative distance in the moment, location, and circumstances of the dramatic action, the thought anyway.
Closer yet narrative distance and stronger show would portray the exchange between Mrs. Smith and the objective character in the moment, location, and circumstances of the event, rather than a few days after the event as a recollection.
I was just about to pose an explication of the principles for showing and narrative distance using the previous "Joel sat on the bench" example. This Mrs. Smith example demonstrates the principles to a degree.
I may yet, showing how I would expand on the Joel, sat, bench so it transcends its insignificance, meaning neither Joel nor the bench are significant, signal nothing special, and "sat" also being insignificant from vaguely expressing time. Who is Joel? Where is the bench; is anything special about the bench? When did Joel sit on the bench? What does Joel sitting on the bench mean dramatically? Why? How?
As part of the explication, I might go into explaining what drama is. As Gustav Freytag explains (tells) and shows at length in Techniques of the Drama's chapter "What is Drama," summarized, a passionate competition, a clash of wills, contending forces in opposition, be they internal or external or both.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
Since I seem to have this problem more than most I should have responded before now.
Nice discussion here and helpful too.
Now I'm trying to get in every five human senses every two pages. Dean Wesley Smith says that is how he takes care of the Show problem. He advised me to do it that way.
Sometimes when I do try for Show I think I end up somewhere half and half. I change a sentence with all Tell and it still seems to be too much Tell even I see it as a lot closer than the original.
David says that we do need some Tell, I believe that has been covered already, so not to try to make it all Tell.
I think the Masters were more narrative or had more Tell in their writings which might be part of my problem since I read many of them as a kid.
Posted by rcmann (Member # 9757) on :
quote:Originally posted by LDWriter2: Since I seem to have this problem more than most I should have responded before now.
Nice discussion here and helpful too.
Now I'm trying to get in every five human senses every two pages. Dean Wesley Smith says that is how he takes care of the Show problem. He advised me to do it that way.
Sometimes when I do try for Show I think I end up somewhere half and half. I change a sentence with all Tell and it still seems to be too much Tell even I see it as a lot closer than the original.
David says that we do need some Tell, I believe that has been covered already, so not to try to make it all Tell.
I think the Masters were more narrative or had more Tell in their writings which might be part of my problem since I read many of them as a kid.
With respect, just because DWS, or some other writer does it a particular way doesn't mean it's the proper way for you. As you finished your post by mentioning, fashions change. There is no such thing as a right way or a wrong way to tell a story. There is only effective and ineffective.
ALL writing is telling. What we need to do is TELL the story in such as way as to grip the reader's interest. Sometimes that means invoking an emotional reaction, sometimes it means just ramming in a piece of necessary information and going on with our story, and sometimes it means including a piece of narrative description.
There is no wrong way. Certainly the old masters were not wrong when they spent time on extended descriptions. Remember Treasure Island? Recall the description that RLS made of the lagoon, and a how it looked to the boy when he was in the crow's nest? Could any photograph be clearer?
It's all telling. Sometimes you tell it in First Person, sometimes in Second, sometimes in Third. Sometimes in all knowing god mode, sometimes in confused child whimpering in the dark mode. But you are telling, any way you approach it.
BTW, I certainly respect Mr. Smith's established record as a successful writer in terms of making money. But honestly? I don't enjoy his stories very much. Just my personal opinion.
Posted by Brendan (Member # 6044) on :
extrinsic said:
quote:I strongly believe the hard bright line between artful self-promotion and unseemly gloating runs where singing my own praises aloud robs an audience of doing so. I will know I'm successful when audiences generate word-of-mouth buzz about my work without prompting from me. Res ipsa loquitor, the thing speaks for itself.
I think History was politely requesting you to show your mastery of technique rather than tell us. Using your own examples within a discourse such as above may not be the most appropriate forum, as you point out above. But there is an appropriate forum to demonstrate any such mastery - the challenges.
The primary purposes of the challenge forum is to practise, particularly around the constraints set by particular challenges, and then to learn what did and didn't work for a range of people - more than would usually give feedback on F&F. But a secondary purpose is to spar with fellow practitioners, and by doing so earn their respect, whether that be as a master of technique and/or as a learner of technique. As you would not doubt know, respect of an analyst is very different to the respect of a practitioner, but being respected as a practitioner will enhance the respect received for the ability to analyse. Counter-wise, the avoidance of testing oneself against one's peers only adds to the feeling that one is being lectured at by someone who believes themself superior when they are simply being analytical. (Now, I have read enough of your posts that I genuinely believe that superiority is NOT your motivation, and so wish that you continue to avoid that perception.)
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Brendan,
I understand what History wrote. I feel I responded sufficiently and clearly to his questions and added a reason why my work will not be untimely nor injudiciously promoted or publicized by me.
I don't think you understood my post, nor appreciate private reasons why I don't participate as you suggest. One of many of which, I'm finishing up a formal and grueling course of study that's taken ten years to complete and has consumed a great deal of my time and creative energies during that time.
Mission accomplished, in one more month, a mission I set out upon half a century ago, with numerous detours delaying the way, and knuckled down to twenty years ago, and really, really got serious about ten years ago. Next month, then I'm gone on to another leg of my Poet's Journey. I'm gonna knock some hardballs into the infield, maybe some into the outfield, might even be a few over the fence, and if I'm really on my game, into orbit.
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
I understand your reasons, extrinsic, and I do appreciate the time you devote to 'instructing' some of us in the finer points of the craft of writing.
As I have said before, after chewing over your posts a few times, I have learned a great deal about craft and mechanical style. The trick now, of course, is can I put it into practice?
Btw, I'm blatantly self-promoting just in case I decide to go the self-publish route. I'm so blatant I sicken myself; and yet I'm as shy as a church mouse compared to some self-promotion I've seen.
Phil.
PS. I solemnly promised myself not to emulate Faust.
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
LD, why place limitations on your own writing. While DWS may be a successfully published author, that doesn't mean he knows anything about writing, just marketing.
Having a mantra like, "I must include all 5 senses in every two pages." focuses your mind on a mechanical task and not on a creative one. If you had a character in a situation where they're hiding and terrified, and all they can hear is the beating of their own heart, and the tension is rising; would you pause to add the sense of smell, breaking the suspense?
Adding 'colour and movement' to prose is an exercise best done in draft twelve, not the first--or even second.
Just my take on it.
Phil.
Posted by Brendan (Member # 6044) on :
Careful Grumpy. While I agree with your sentiments on focusing on the creative task, I think it goes too far to state that DWS's success "doesn't mean he knows anything about writing". Apart from public success, he has won a Writers of the Future Award and been nominated for the Bram Stoker award and the Nebula Award throughout his career - these last two being peer based awards. And he is rapidly gaining a reputation as being one of the best teachers of writing (and writing marketing). These suggest that he knows a lot about writing.
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
Brendan, one man's sage is another man's fool. I am not disparaging DWS, simply stating a truism. His style of writing may not be my style of writing and nominations for peer based awards are meaningless. I've read Bram Stoker and Nebular award winning authors stories. Some are above par, most are mediocre.
I prefer to think for myself, not follow the mob. And again, I will reiterate, being published and successful, does not impart wisdom, simply hard earned cash. It would seem that you are arguing that because he is published and acclaimed by his peers, he is the font of all wisdom. If that were true, Barbara Cartland would be the type of writer we should all aspire to be.
I have read numerous posts on DWS's blog and find most to be self-serving and full of trite platitudes. I have chosen to eschew his advice and look elsewhere for information with more depth and veritas.
I'm afraid we must agree to disagree.
Phil.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
LDwriter2,
Writing the five senses is sensation context and texture: visual, aural, olfactory, tactile, and gustatory. The sixth sense of writing is emotional feeling. I feel that feeling is the most important of the senses. The sight of a sunset may feel soothing or terrifying, for example. Putting feeling into words is a challenge.
I don't limit my writing of content and organization of senses to every two pages; I limit it to each scene, any one of which could be ten or fewer words or four thousand or more. I also don't limit a scene's content and organization to senses; preferring to include credible, logical, and artful flow as indicated of Description, Introspection Action, Narration, Emotion, Sensation, Summarization, Exposition, Conversation, Recollection, Explanation, Transition; Setting, Plot, Idea, Character, Event, Discourse; Antagonism, Causation, and Tension: DIANE'S SECRET SPICED ACT.
No one writing voice suits every story, reader, writer, or literary era. The old masters did, indeed, write in a strong narrator voice. The strongest model they had from which to emulate and by decree of censors and moral auditors was scriptures, which are written in almost pure narrator voice and tell. Mid nineteenth century, the prescriptive blinders came off, though. Early twentieth century technological and social innovations put literature within reach of everyone. Consequently, the varieties of topics and subjects and voices expanded exponentially.
One important to me feature for appealing to an audience I learned from stories I've recently written is suiting audience comfort zones demands a degree of accessible narrator voice; in other words, a degree of open narrative distance. Because many if not all have read some of the old masters and scriptures, reading ease and comprehension is aided by a degree of narrator voice.
Variety is the SPICE-D, especially D for discourse, of writing, in all things, as well as life. Varying narrative distance from strong narrator voice to strong character voice and any and all blends between suits audiences' sensibilities and sentiments and comfort zones. And not the least worthy of consideration, short prose demands a greater degree of narrator voice, summarization and explanantion, and tell, than long prose. The old printer's adage and recent filmmaking adage, Cut to the chase, speaks to why readers want some summarization and explanation telling, because reading time budgets may be brief: two thousand words, fifteen minutes; four thousand words, thirty minutes; sixty thousand words, six hours.
[ April 08, 2013, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: As I have said before, after chewing over your posts a few times, I have learned a great deal about craft and mechanical style. The trick now, of course, is can I put it into practice?
Btw, I'm blatantly self-promoting just in case I decide to go the self-publish route. I'm so blatant I sicken myself; and yet I'm as shy as a church mouse compared to some self-promotion I've seen.
Phil.
PS. I solemnly promised myself not to emulate Faust.
I believe you can and will put what you learn into practice, whether you learn from others or me, or every source you can bring to bear. The learning process begins with desire or a want wanting satisfaction, yes, a dramatic complication, spreads into an exploration at the limits of reach, turns back on the journey into trial and error processes of application practice, not the least of which is intution empowered by what's been learned the hard way, that becomes a fully developed and realized product and products' outcomes. Gosh, sounds like a plot. You have shared that that's your process.
Ulitmately, I believe your success will rely on what you learn from yourself though. You will pick up a few pointers here and there, but in order to stand up from the fray, you'll learn on your own what works for you that also appeals to your audiences.
On reason I don't need to vigorously self-promote is I have both a stong understanding of marketing principles and publishing culture and a demanding product expectation.
[ April 08, 2013, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brendan: And he [Dean Wesley Smith] is rapidly gaining a reputation as being one of the best teachers of writing (and writing marketing). These suggest that he knows a lot about writing.
The best teacher of writing is the student teaching the self. The best teacher of writing of all time is the first one, the first one a writer experiences, probably Mom. My best writing mentor is Aristotle. Though I've read hundreds of writers writing about writing and been mentored by hundreds and thousands of in-person and writers and other language arts writers on writing. Limiting oneself to one guru is a disciple following a well-worn path. If that's your schtick, that's your schtick. It's not mine. I disagree on at least a few points with every one of the poetics rhetorics I've studied.
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
The old saying that goes something like, "those who can, do; those who can't, teach" ignores the very real possibility that "those who can" may not be able to teach because they don't really know how they "do" and because teaching requires a very different skill set from doing.
Learn from whomever you can, and apply what you learn as it fits with how you "do." Share what you learn, and you may actually become better at understanding how you "do." That is one of the basic premises of how this workshop is intended to work.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
I think there is no reason to challenge anyone who is making a positive contribution. And remember Confucius, who said, "Do not impose upon others what you do not wish for yourself." Personally, I do pretty well with novel openings -- my shortcomings as a writer crop up later in the story. But even so, I wouldn't want to be judged on a thirteen line sample of an opening I'd submitted for *feedback*
If someone submits a sample for feedback, it is wisest to confine oneself to giving feedback. Avoid passing judgment on the writer unless he asks for that. Even then I'd take care, in fact I'd probably keep my trap shut.
Now as for usefulness, I think this is one of the most interesting discussions we've had here in a long time. "Show not tell" is probably the most widely accepted piece of advice given to writers. Everyone treats the rule's meaning as self-evident, but I don't think it is. Inquiry into the meaning of the apparently self-evident always leads to esoteric-sounding territory. Try proving 1 + 1 = 2 to someone who doesn't like abstract math.
The temptation is to shy away from the issue, to adopt a simple concrete proxy rule like "use all five senses every two pages." That happens to be a wise rule of thumb, but wise for reasons utterly distinct from "show not tell." Some readers need stimulation of their sensory imagination, and most readers find a story of unremitting dialog or monologue to be wearying. At best such a rule might jog you out of writing autopilot mode and remind you you've got other narrative matters to attend to.
"Show not tell" is about how you get a point across.
Let's say you're writing an space epic about an explorer. He's brave and intelligent, but sometimes a bit hasty. He has a tragic past. Now: how does the five senses rule, useful though it may be, help you get those points across? It's beside the point we're discussing here. Telling is simply handing a reader facts, like this: "Captain Smith was a brave and intelligent space explorer, although sometimes a bit hasty. He had a tragic past."
Showing is leading a reader to a conclusion rather than handing it to him. You show Captain Smith in action, and eventually a thought like this passes through the reader's mind "Hey, this Captain Smith is sure brave and resourceful, but he seems to jump the gun in certain situations. I wonder that's because of some kind of terrible thing that happened to him that affects his judgment in those situations?"
Think back to your school days. What was more rewarding, being told a fact to memorize, or discovering it for yourself?
Even if you tell a reader a certain fact, you still ought to present evidence supporting it. Suppose you say "Captain Smith was young, but audacious and brilliant." Find, but pretty soon you'd better show Smith doing something audacious and brilliant, otherwise a reader may choose to form his own own opinions (e.g. "this writer is lazy and boring.")
Now, as extrinsic pointed out right at the very top of this discussion, all "showing" is done by "telling". It's an apples vs. oranges comparison. Telling is the act of putting facts on a page. Showing is an effect created by clever choosing of those facts, so that the reader's imagination takes the bit and runs where you want it to go.
Posted by Brendan (Member # 6044) on :
MattLeo said:
quote: I think there is no reason to challenge anyone who is making a positive contribution.
I have three points to make about this – one that is about the generality of this statement, and a couple about the specifics that led to this statement.
Firstly, I respectfully disagree – I think there are valid reasons to challenge even those people that make positive contributions. On this forum there is the criterion that it has to be done civilly, which I personally think is critical towards making the conversations here so interesting and in-depth. I think that it is entirely valid to ask even a significant contributor “Do you practice what you preach? Is there a way that we can validate that?”
Secondly, please do not think that History and I were ganging up on extrinsic. Dr. Bob’s motivation was entirely curiosity. I was the one to put the “challenge” layer over the discussion. Here is why.
I interpreted the following from extrinsic’s reply to History. “I (extrinsic) tried this years ago but came to the conclusion that the audience here doesn’t suit my stories. I may be willing to draft some purpose-written examples, but believe that edges into the territory of self-promotion for which I have some strong beliefs about. Privacy is important to me and I do not want to lose my anonymity. Therefore I won’t be able to comply to your request.” (Extrinsic, is this a reasonable summary?)
Now each of these do have some merit. But each of these are also arguable in their merit. (For example, the audience has changed over the years, so who is to know that the audience won’t suite without trial?) I have few qualms about him holding these concerns. But I also saw that this didn’t cover all options available to extrinsic if he wanted to address the question of practising what is preached. The challenge forum was a potential way through this dilemma because (a) it provides a forum that can validate the ability to practise what is preached, in part because it is a forum purposed for practise, (b) the anonymity issues are the same as posting to this forum, (c) the audience that gives feedback is generally larger than F&F, so there is a greater chance that least one is on the same wavelength, and (d) the constraints tend to force people outside their comfort zone and that is understood by the audience (thus my point about “respect as a learner of technique”), so there is no real loss of face involved with trying something different. This last point even goes some way towards addressing sensitivity to criticism as the underlying reason, but this was not identified by extrinsic as an issue.
The issue that this doesn’t fully address is the idea that entering a challenge is a form of self-promotion. Well, I suppose it is. In the same way that writing a post in this forum is a form of self-promotion, only in this forum such a post is promoting one’s ability to write analysis rather than practise the artform of writing. It is not as direct as, say, referencing one’s own experience and formal training, but it is still a demonstration that may be construed as self-promoting. However, it can also be argued that the anonymity available, which extrinsic holds dear, counters this in both forums as there is no direct link back to his real name.
Which brings me to my third point. The ability to do is different to the ability to analyse. As KDW pointed out, one can “do” without being able to analyse what one “does”. And visa versa, one can analyse and understand theory without being able to put it into practise. However, respect held for someone that can do both is typically higher than toward one that can only do one or the other. Especially if one, an amazing ability for analysis, puts the person in the position of a teacher, which implies a difference in power and a potential default position of superiority (whether intended or not). Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to be curious about how, or even whether, one can practise what one preaches. So yes, in a sense I did propose a challenge, prompted from my own and other’s curiosity, that extrinsic seems to have declined. But I also made it clear that avoidance of meeting that challenge comes with a risk of being perceived as having a superior attitude, even if that attitude doesn’t really exist. Extrinsic is still well within his rights to decline the challenge, just as I am able, within the spirit of the forum, to extend (and now defend) the challenge. If he does decline, I simply conclude that his ability to practise what has been preached is unvalidated, which is different from being invalid. But it will color how I read his posts, simply by recognising they are limited to his obvious strength in analysis.
PS: Please do not take this as a request to stop analysing and posting here, extrinsic. You have an audience, myself included, that does appreciate what you analyse.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: LD, why place limitations on your own writing. While DWS may be a successfully published author, that doesn't mean he knows anything about writing, just marketing.
Having a mantra like, "I must include all 5 senses in every two pages." focuses your mind on a mechanical task and not on a creative one. If you had a character in a situation where they're hiding and terrified, and all they can hear is the beating of their own heart, and the tension is rising; would you pause to add the sense of smell, breaking the suspense?
Adding 'colour and movement' to prose is an exercise best done in draft twelve, not the first--or even second.
Just my take on it.
Phil.
Obviously he doesn't know everything...I doubt Isaac Asimov knew everything and when he was alive he was considered the Top tier of SF writing. Since then he seems to have slipped a couple of levels but still I would read what he would say if he had said anything about the how-tos of writing.
But Dean has the same problem I have, Show. He beat it with the five senses every two pages thing. Working on Show wasn't getting me very far so I asked him about it. He told me. But I try to do both, which might be my problem, so I still work on Show yet also work on getting the five senses in. I'm not sure if it's every two pages, I usually don't count but it's close.
BTW Dean does three revisions, two deal with copy editing not story revisions. His wife does the same I believe with revisions and the senses. And she could very well be a better write than he is. In fact she has a segment on writing in WotF 28 where she explains some of this.
And to answer your question about the guy hiding. I may not put smell in that moment but maybe just before they hid or were trying to find a place to hide. But smell can be used to raise the tension.
Something like "What? Oh...No! That rotting flesh stench, I thought I lost that zombie but he's coming....
So bad-he's just outside my tiny briar...No!"
I've read stories where smell is used like that.
Posted by Brendan (Member # 6044) on :
Grumpy:
quote:And again, I will reiterate, being published and successful, does not impart wisdom, simply hard earned cash. It would seem that you are arguing that because he is published and acclaimed by his peers, he is the font of all wisdom.
extrinsic:
quote: Limiting oneself to one guru is a disciple following a well-worn path. If that's your schtick, that's your schtick. It's not mine.
Both of these are in posts that reference my post above. I feel a bit strawmanned by this.
My argument was against throwing out the perspective of a successful writer simply because he is successful. To be successful as a writer, one needs to write sufficiently well to get past a stringent set of gatekeepers, something that only a small percentage actually achieve. To be successful as a teacher of writing, one needs to understand both people and the writing process enough to help other people through that same set of gatekeepers. These measures are meaningful, regardless of ones opinion on the quality of DWS's stories.
My argument did NOT go to the opposite extreme and suggest he was "the font of all knowledge" or my "guru". I didn't get close to implying that. Further, I wouldn't even consider him to be anywhere near the most influential person in my journey in learning to write - some here on this forum have been far more influential. But he is one I am open to learning more from.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
Some of this has probably been stated by others first but I wanted to say it too.
quote:Originally posted by rcmann: With respect, just because DWS, or some other writer does it a particular way doesn't mean it's the proper way for you. As you finished your post by mentioning, fashions change. There is no such thing as a right way or a wrong way to tell a story. There is only effective and ineffective.
ALL writing is telling. What we need to do is TELL the story in such as way as to grip the reader's interest. Sometimes that means invoking an emotional reaction, sometimes it means just ramming in a piece of necessary information and going on with our story, and sometimes it means including a piece of narrative description.
There is no wrong way. Certainly the old masters were not wrong when they spent time on extended descriptions. Remember Treasure Island? Recall the description that RLS made of the lagoon, and a how it looked to the boy when he was in the crow's nest? Could any photograph be clearer?
It's all telling. Sometimes you tell it in First Person, sometimes in Second, sometimes in Third. Sometimes in all knowing god mode, sometimes in confused child whimpering in the dark mode. But you are telling, any way you approach it.
BTW, I certainly respect Mr. Smith's established record as a successful writer in terms of making money. But honestly? I don't enjoy his stories very much. Just my personal opinion. [/QB]
I have partially responded to this already. But it seems to me and other writers like David Farland support the need to use sensory description, that it does add to the tale. It tends to draw the reader in better. But yeah, you don't need every sense in every scene. Dean's idea is every two pages not every scene. Some scenes are much longer than two pages but not all go that long.
BTW I believe he got that from someone else but I forget who.
And of course some narrativity is okay. David deals with that too. Not every scene needs to be described completely, that is part of learning to write.
And we all need to learn our way of writing but experimenting with what works for many writers is one way we learn.
Posted by rcmann (Member # 9757) on :
I didn't mean to sound like a know it all. Just blathering my opinion.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: Y Showing is easy once you think about whose POV you are writing in. That character is the person who sees and feels what's going on. It's okay to tell that POV character information they may not have witnessed, but if they're in a position to 'see' the scene unfolding, then showing that scene through their eyes and sensations is the only option.
Phil.
Going way back to this but I never responded to it.
I think that is what the five sense thing is all about. With sight you have to put in how the MC sees something. Just not what is there the reader needs to know about.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:But I also made it clear that avoidance of meeting that challenge comes with a risk of being perceived as having a superior attitude, even if that attitude doesn’t really exist.
Which is why I think it best not to issue such a challenge, and in the unfortunate event that one is issued that it is best to forget about it quickly.
I should perhaps amend my statement to this: I see little good coming from issuing a challenge to someone to prove his skill *here*, and much potential for mischief if such a challenge is accepted.
The principle difficulty is that your curiosity can't reasonably be answered by a 13 line excerpt. This is not to say that the 13 line test isn't useful; it's often remarkably revealing; but one thing it can't tell you is whether an author is any good. For that you have to read the entire work.
One thing I try to do is test common beliefs about writing against my personal library. Going through my personal library, there are many great books, but in very few cases is the greatness of a book apparent in the first thirteen lines. The value of the thirteen line exercise is that it shows certain habitual weaknesses. It seldom tells you about strengths, and even then only gives an incomplete picture. Good writing isn't just about avoiding technical mistakes.
It's sensible, in my opinion, to decline a challenge that comes with unreasonable expectations. If you want to know whether somebody here is any good, you'll have to do the work and offer to do a critique of an entire work. And you're not entitled to form an opinion (in my opinion) about that writer because he declines. You have no right to demand anyone show you his unpublished work.
So where does that leave you with respect to opinions about writing expressed here? Same as with *any advice: you have to take it with a grain of salt. Compare advice from established writers and you'll quickly see that they contradict each other. Take the issue of rewriting. Dean Wesley Smith and Robert Heinlein advise against it. Earnest Hemingway and Madeleine L'Engle advise doing lots of it. Which side is right?
Both sides are right, because good advice isn't about stating universal and eternal truths. Good advice is about stating what the person listening needs to hear. How many times have we seen authors endlessly reworking a manuscript with little or no improvement? That person needs to listen to DWS. How many times have you seen a writer turn out one sloppy story after another with little or no improvement? That writer needs to listen to Papa Hemingway.
I think Jane Austen said it best (although she may have cribbed it from Milton): Everything nourishes what is strong already. Take what is useful from what people say here and refrain from reading too much into it.
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
Brendan, I didn't mean to make some snide suggestion that you considered him the font of all wisdom, it was simply a turn of phrase. If I offended you, I apologise.
I have looked into DWS's advice, blog posts etc and decided early on that his style and suggestions were not something I'd agree with enough to actively think about them, let alone incorporate them.
One thing that I have learned recently, and it supports MattLeo's thoughts above somewhat, is that I need to find out what works for me as a writer. Not someone else's idea of how it should be done, I've tried that and it doesn't work for me. However, it may work for you.
Phil.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Ethos is the rhetorical appeal on point as to whether any given writer writing about writing ought to be ignored or followed or selectively sampled. Ethos is appeals to and from credibility, along with logos: logic; pathos: emotion; kairos; the opportune moment; and decorum: suiting one's words to the subject matter, to each other, the occasion, and the audience, these are rhetorical appeals.
Dean Wesley Smith, David Farland, Orson Scot Card, C.J. Cherryh, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Anne McCaffrey, Ray Bradbury, Donald Maass, Dwight Swain, Noah Lukeman, Jack Bickham, Jerome Sterne, John Gardner, Robin Lakoff, Percy Lubbock, Seymour Chatman, Ernest Hemingway, Anton Chekhov, Stephen Toulmin, Harold Pinter, Edgar Allen Poe, Herman Melville, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Gustav Freytag, Virgil, Aristotle, Sophocles, Plato, Socrates, some fiction writers, some agents, some dramatists, some critics, some poets, some philosophers, some rhetoricians, some linguists, each has written about writing and tens of thousands more have as well. Their credibility as rhetoricians emerged because of what they wrote about writing and that their writing about writing expressed new knowledge from close analysis of their own and others' creative writing. Res ipsa loquitor in either case. Not who they are, but that their words spoke for themselves. They joined the conversation that writing is and contributed meaningfully. Their creative writing, in the cases of those who did, established a different credibility from their rhetoric writing. Though their prose rhetoric and linguistic rhetoric overlap, the differences are night and day.
To hold anyone to a lesser standard as somehow unworthy of sharing what he or she has learned for the greater good of all is to deny that that individual can learn, can learn by sharing, and is some way a lesser being than any other participant in the human conversation by dint of expressing an opinion from a supposed inferior position.
Very little I've posted on these forums is new knowledge. I will recast what I've learned from others, more than paraphrase: reimagine what I learn in order to strengthen my understanding of the principles I write about.
When I do, and I have, develop new knowledge, sharing it, I'm trying it out before a usually discerning peer review group, developing the principle's finer points through discussion, and sharing so that others may make it their own in their own unique way, as I do with both others' and mine own material.
Whether my ethos carries an assertion or proposal over objections, disagreement, or emotional reactions matters little to me in a final analysis, because differences of opinion are at least causes for reconsideration and strengthening my claims; because they are rejections of ancient, tried and true, noble principles valid before and still valid today and for the foreseeable future and as widely accepted, if sometimes misunderstood, as they were when whoever first explicated them. Rejecting them diminishes their noble contributors' contributions to the conversation and everyone's since who has enhanced the principles' understanding and reaffirmed these principles' validity and credibility.
Frankly, I delight when my knowledge is tested, because I might learn more, because I can feel comfortable that what's uniquely mine will remain so, and because I appreciate that variety is the spice of life. Too spicey at times for my liking, but spicey nonetheless.
Modernity: a belief that everything old is worthless and everyting new is valuable, is a many edged sword. We writers today stand on the shoulders of ancestor giants who came before us but were at one time early in their journeys less than us from not having as many giant shoulders to stand upon.
[ April 09, 2013, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Brendan (Member # 6044) on :
quote: But I also made it clear that avoidance of meeting that challenge comes with a risk of being perceived as having a superior attitude, even if that attitude doesn’t really exist.
MattLeo:
quote:Which is why I think it best not to issue such a challenge, and in the unfortunate event that one is issued that it is best to forget about it quickly.
Except that I already said:
quote:an amazing ability for analysis, puts the person in the position of a teacher, which implies a difference in power and a potential default position of superiority (whether intended or not).
In other words, the risk is already apparent, and declining a challenge only exacerbates the risk. Accepting the challenge offers a way (by not means guaranteed) of diminishing that risk.
"Forgetting about it quickly" is only sweeping the issue of perception under the carpet, and someone else, someday, will bring it up again. And they are unlikely to be as polite about it as this. It has happened before. In that day, no-one will be able to say "Look over here. I like this. End of story." The element of doubt will remain.
The points about the 13 being insufficient to show greatness, or even good story writing skill, are valid. But that is not the purpose of the challenge. The purpose of accepting a challenge is to be comrades-in-arms, accepting and giving criticism, operating under the artificial limits of the individual challenges, equally and humbly with others, and thus demonstrating a non-superior attitude. That, much more than any "great skill", undermines any accusation of superiority. That, along with the willingness to experiment and learn from mistakes, earns the "respect as a learner of technique". It is of secondary value that it will prove (or otherwise) the ability to apply some of these techniques, but that is of reduced importance within the context of a "learner" model.
I do not "demand" that he show us his work, though I do ask. But I also have pointed out risks which he will need to consider - they carry no threat, veiled or otherwise, from me, personally. If you perceive that, I apologize, I have great respect of extrinsic's knowledge and persistence on this forum.
Posted by Brendan (Member # 6044) on :
Phil, thanks, I appreciate your comment. I was in an argumentative mood, almost belligerent, when I wrote it. I think I reveal more of my heart in the post above this one - but that is on a different topic.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Studying folkloristics, I came across the concept of peer pressure as a social method of cautioning, instructing, correcting, and controlling culture group behaviors. I was suprised that folkloristics takes a different approach to the topic than sociology and other social and mental health sciences. Rather than determining whether peer pressue is a social ill or a social strength or its intents are, folkloristics analyzes and interprets peer pressure's motifs, expressions, functions, and meanings.
Fundamentally, peer pressure's social function is to enforce in-group identity conformance. No one individual may stand out above, below, behind, or laterally from the group and remain a member of the group. However, the group's emotional and social healths are enhanced by deviations.
I understand these risks. I also understand peer pressure has historically given rise to tragic outcomes from dangerous precedents. Further, conformance, to a degree, is socially necessary for social beings' social health. However, conformance is the anathema of creativity. Actually, folkloristics has identified that deviance from normative behavior is a direct though cognitively indirect consequence of enforced isolation and alienation from a social group, as is creativity as a means for reconnecting and reintegrating with a social group.
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
No problems, Brendan. We all have our moments of raging against that long dark night of creative angst.
extrinsic, not sure I understand your last post. I'm a non-conformist by nature; we have traffic laws in Australia, but I regard them as advisory only. In over 40 years on them thar roads, I've received two tickets. It's a game I play; catch me if you can, but if I do the crime (usually) I'm happy to pay the fine.
I think the biggest bludgeon peer-groups have is that those on the outside, or being pushed to the outside, feel they a missing out on some 'secret' wisdom. It's a powerful allure and a deterrent. The truth is that a peer-group is a collection of individuals who have forgotten that co-operative association is preferable to coercive, emotional blackmail.
I know what I know, I think what I think and I'm as close to God as I want to be. However, tomorrow any of that may change; in fact it definitely will. We either learn and evolve or we become static and extinct.
Phil.
Posted by Brendan (Member # 6044) on :
It is probably true that conformity to social norms and creativity are difficult bed partners. Many societies have shown that. However, there are some interesting exceptions. England, whose stratified class system, one would expect to have had a low creativity, actually has very high creativity which helped it (ironically) create some leading egalitarian nations around the world (USA, Canada, Australia etc). De Bono believes that the power of one word - eccentric - enabled the generation of creativity without simultaneously creating a threat to the social order. On the other hand, Japan created very different mechanisms, and is both an extremely conformist society and an extremely creative society.
So while conformity is in essence stopping creativity, by the very definition of the word conformity, collaborative creativity not only exists, but can be a stronger and more efficient model towards creative outcomes. (Can be, not always, because of this tug of war between the goals of stability and creative change inherent in any social system.) An interesting podcast on collaborative creativity can be seen here. This is by John Seely Brown, onetime head of PARC, and self confessed "Head of Confusion". (For those that don't know about PARC, if it weren't for PARC, there would unlikely have been a computer revolution - at least, not as we know it. They developed the original proof of concept for such applications like laser printing, windows software and GUI's, micro computers, networked computers, bitmap screens, LCDs, laser discs plus numerous other applications.)
So too in writing, the many different forms of collaboration (from co-writing, to critiquing, to community novels etc.) can result in mediocrity or incredible thrusts of creativity. It all depends on how they manage the interactions.
[ April 09, 2013, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Brendan ]
Posted by redux (Member # 9277) on :
quote: His style of writing may not be my style of writing and nominations for peer based awards are meaningless.
I doubt they are meaningless. I am sure nominations are quite flattering to those in the position to receive them.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
Well, it seems this thread about "show not tell" has gone off the rails, and we're unlikely to make further progress on that topic. But I'll weigh in on a few of the side issues raised.
Advice: I think even the best advice should be taken a starting point for your own personal experiment. It's important to explore the useful scope of that advice before you make it a hard and fast rule for yourself.
Five Senses Rule: My initial reaction to this rule was that it was probably a good idea, but not really about "show not tell". After reflection I think it may have more bearing on "showing" for writers whose stories are more action-oriented than mine.
Dean Wesley Smith: DWS's way of giving writing advice reminds me a bit of Strunk and White's *Elements of Style*, whose popularity is largely due to the reassuring way it has of proposing rules with a breezy air of conviction.
DWS is controversial because of his career choices. This makes people question his advice, which is a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. DWS is no doubt worth listening to, but nobody's advice should be believed implicitly.
By the way, I can't ever recall reading a DWS novel, although I probably have at some point. Any suggestions for his best work? I may do a Writer's Book Report on it.
Conduct Online That Might be Construed as Confrontational: George Bernard Shaw once remarked that academic politics was so vicious because the stakes are so low. Imagine what he'd say about blogging. It's so easy for technical discussions to devolve into personal struggles. I think the best policy is to restrict challenges to *on-topic* challenges.
For example note my first post above, in which I give my view on the matter of "showing" vs. "telling". Note how I illustrate that position with several examples. Had I not done so, it would have been reasonable to demand that I back up my assertions with some concrete examples. What would *not* have been reasonable would be to ask me to prove to you I'm a good enough writer to command your respect. That challenge is off-topic.
As to the impressions posters may leave here, it is certainly wise to consider that when posting, but in the end any reaction you have to a post belongs to you. Your feelings are soley your own responsibility. They have to be in a forum like this.
I think cultivating an ability to step back and question your initial reactions is of great value to a writer. Real people talk past each other as much as they talk with each other; until you can get beyond the false certainty of an emotional reaction you won't be able to create believable characters and conflicts.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: extrinsic, not sure I understand your last post. Phil.
One meaning I intend is that writing is a folk group: Hatrack is a folk group, with attendant functions, processes, roles, and expressions unique to the group's shared identity as writers, including centrifugal and centripetal forces and esoteric and exoteric influences. In terms of show and tell, folk groups engage in a wide and deep variety of show and tell presentations that enhance and enforce group identity.
How show and tell any given writer uses is unique to an individual writer; however, we writers use the term as one of many motifs, albeit shorthand, for expressing our shared writer identity. The same could be said of a Renaissance scholars' folk group using terms like alterity, mendicant art and architecture, or modernity, for examples.
I can tell you-all I'm a successful writer (editor, publisher, critic, reader too), but showing I'm a successful writer is what you-all deeply desire. Protecting my privacy at this time means more to me than exposing my publishing successes. My ethos is not to me dependent at this time on my kleos, another lesser-known rhetorical appeal related to pedigree, genetic and social standing, and how one's reputation and prestige are perceived publicly therefrom, which, my kleos, is also on point.
Posted by MAP (Member # 8631) on :
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic: I can tell you-all I'm a successful writer (editor, publisher, critic, reader too), but showing I'm a successful writer is what you-all deeply desire. Protecting my privacy at this time means more to me than exposing my publishing successes. My ethos is not to me dependent at this time on my kleos, another lesser-known rhetorical appeal related to pedigree, genetic and social standing, and how one's reputation and prestige are perceived publicly therefrom, which, my kleos, is also on point.
No offense, but not all of us deeply desire this. Some of us don't care one way or the other.
Personally, I don't need any qualifications from anyone here. You either make a good point or you don't, and I don't care if you're Stephen King or have barely squeaked out five sentences in your first story, I give each of your posts equal weight.
If I wanted writing advice from professionals, I would read their blogs or their books on writing (and I have). If I wanted to be lectured to by an academic, I'd take a course on creative writing at the local University, but I don't come here for those things.
I've always seen Hatrack as a study group not a lecture hall. Where we all are on relatively equal footing, and everyone has the right to express their opinions freely. Honestly, I've learned the most here because of that, because this always felt like a safe place for me to express my ideas and philosophies about writing, and getting others' feedback on them has helped me reshape and rebuild those ideas. That to me has always been the value of this forum.
Lately, I've seen the same people posting over and over again, and while many of the discussions have been interesting and sometimes insightful, I wonder why more members aren't apart of the conversation. I think that newer writers may feel intimidated or that they haven't the experience or the credentials to join in. And, no offense Brendan, but your challenge to extrinsic only seems to suggest this, that extrinsic has to prove that he is a good writer before we will take his posts seriously. Maybe that isn't what you meant, but that is how I read it.
I just want to say that no one has to prove anything to me, and I think others here agree with that. If this is your first time here, and you feel intimidated because others seem to have more experience or education or writing skills than you, don't let that hold you back. Feel free to enter the conversation and give your opinion or ask a question and get involved. I believe it will make you a stronger writer. It certainly has helped me.
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
What MAP said.
If you don't feel ready to give your opinion, then ask questions.
RULE #1 for questions: There is no such thing as a stupid question.
(There may be questions for which some consider the answer to be obvious, and if that is the case, those who do are invited to ignore the question.)
But, please, don't hesitate to ask a question that you really don't know the answer to.
People around here love to answer questions.
Posted by Foste (Member # 8892) on :
Yeah, what MAP said. One should always strive to improve no matter how good we think we are.
And by and large I am comfortable being me. I like myself. Except on those days when I break out crying in front of the mirror. And eat a lot of ice cream.
Posted by History (Member # 9213) on :
I'm reminded of the father who bought his sons their first bicycles--not just any bicycles, but super Schwinn 5000s: tiger-painted argon welded steel frames, 10-speed gearing, stainless steel chains, spring-enforced leather saddle, with a kickstand, side mirror, carrier, and bell. He took all the pieces out of their cardboard boxes and expounded on the bikes' features over the course of hours while he built them. When he finished, he turned around and discovered the boys were gone. In the distance he heard children laughing. Walking behind his house, he discovered the boys and their friends joyfully riding the cardboard boxes down the hill.
Posted by Reziac (Member # 9345) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury:
People around here love to answer questions.
The short definition of "writer".
Hmm... here's a concept, generated by Ex's first post (I haven't read the whole thread yet) and KDW's:
Show is generating questions. Tell is answering them.
Which causes more interaction?? of and with the reader, writer, character, setting, and plot??
Discuss.
My brain hurts.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattLeo: DWS is controversial because of his career choices. This makes people question his advice, which is a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. DWS is no doubt worth listening to, but nobody's advice should be believed implicitly.
By the way, I can't ever recall reading a DWS novel, although I probably have at some point. Any suggestions for his best work? I may do a Writer's Book Report on it.
Two things here.
You could very well have a point with DWS's advice but also he is controversial because he goes against the mainstream at times. Or as he puts it he targets Sacred Cows when it comes to writing and publishing. People don't like it when you go up against their cherish beliefs.
Second: the first book that comes to mind is his Star Trek "Hard Rain". I like it. It's almost two stories at once. Of course there's the Tenth planet series by him and his wife.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic:
I can tell you-all I'm a successful writer (editor, publisher, critic, reader too), but showing I'm a successful writer is what you-all deeply desire. Protecting my privacy at this time means more to me than exposing my publishing successes. [/QB]
That is understandable but every time you say something along those lines I get curious.
Wish there some way to research it. Posted by Reziac (Member # 9345) on :
quote:Originally posted by LDWriter2:
Wish there some way to research it.
There is, and I have, but you'll have to find it for yourself. Posted by History (Member # 9213) on :
quote:Originally posted by LDWriter2:
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic:
I can tell you-all I'm a successful writer (editor, publisher, critic, reader too), but showing I'm a successful writer is what you-all deeply desire. Protecting my privacy at this time means more to me than exposing my publishing successes.
That is understandable but every time you say something along those lines I get curious.
Wish there some way to research it. [/QB]
Yes, LD. But extrinsic is stating his concern for privacy (maybe he's Salinger back from the dead! )exceeds his concern (or lack thereof) of being seen as the emperor who has no clothes. What we think of him personally he cares not.
It is about "the writing."
His participation on the Forum permits him to share with those of us in the trenches, what knowledge he has gained in his study of the art and craft of writing. His interest in writing, at least as a Hatrack Member, is academic, in contrast to most of our Membership whose interest is to share samples of our work to obtain direct feedback and, in cameraderie, provide it in return. Extrinsic post's on writing are mostly objective, and the rest of us provide mostly subjective critiques.
Whether Extrinsic's knowledge has or has not born fruit and resulted in his ability to write well, be published, and/or receive acclaim as a writer is information he insists he will not share.
Perhaps this is best.
One can then focus merely on the knowledge of the art he shares and judge it solely on any intrinsic value it may possess to help in one's own writing.
Or one can chose not to and follow one's own path, one's own joy.
Respectfully, Dr. Bob
Posted by History (Member # 9213) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reziac:
quote:Originally posted by LDWriter2:
Wish there some way to research it.
There is, and I have, but you'll have to find it for yourself.
Now that's just being cruel, Reziac. Posted by wirelesslibrarian (Member # 9513) on :
Not specifically about show and tell, but this post up now at Writer Unboxed has some points relevant to the discussion.
In Media WTF! That's classy and classic! Thanks for the link wirelesslibrarian.
Posted by MAP (Member # 8631) on :
quote:Originally posted by History: I'm reminded of the father who bought his sons their first bicycles--not just any bicycles, but super Schwinn 5000s: tiger-painted argon welded steel frames, 10-speed gearing, stainless steel chains, spring-enforced leather saddle, with a kickstand, side mirror, carrier, and bell. He took all the pieces out of their cardboard boxes and expounded on the bikes' features over the course of hours while he built them. When he finished, he turned around and discovered the boys were gone. In the distance he heard children laughing. Walking behind his house, he discovered the boys and their friends joyfully riding the cardboard boxes down the hill.
History, I'm not sure if my post reminded you of this story, but if it did, I think you missed my point. I'm certainly not suggesting we cast aside bikes for boxes.
My point was that the posts should speak for themselves. If extrinsic's posts are useful to you, and you learn something from them, then it doesn't really matter if he is a published writer or not. If you discovered that he was Salinger back from the dead, that really doesn't change anything he's said.
Do we need everyone to list their credentials so we know who to listen to, or are we intelligent enough to consider the ideas being presented and determine if they are logical and reasonable and if they work for us?
If Schwinn bicycles are of high quality, than they are good bicycles with or without the name brand stamp. The ride should speak for itself.
[ April 10, 2013, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: MAP ]
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by History: I'm reminded of the father who bought his sons their first bicycles... When he finished, he turned around and discovered the boys were gone. In the distance he heard children laughing. Walking behind his house, he discovered the boys and their friends joyfully riding the cardboard boxes down the hill.
Different strokes, I guess. when I was a kid parents would have handed me the box and I'd have spent joyful hours assembling then customizing the bicycle to my preferences. I'd have hacksawed off the seatpost to save weight, shortened and rerouted the cable housings, and mounted a clothespin to the fork (for holding a baseball card).
I have very early memories of the mechanisms around me. I remember how the tray on my high chair latched on; it used steel clips on the underside of the tray, which snapped into the chromed frame of the high chair (this was the 60s -- the chair was chrome and red vinyl). I remember the drop gate mechanism on my cradle; it ran on pair of steel rails attached to the frame with round head phillips screws. There were sliding springs on the rails that prevented the gate from coming to a crashing stop when lowered. I used to play with the springs; I discovered that by spinning them around the rail I could suspend them against gravity until the spinning slowed. I don't think it's normal to have such early memories.
Another early memory was disassembling and rebuilding my mother's camera. The spring on the shutter mechanism was tricky for little fingers. I needed a pair of locking forceps, which we didn't have. Oddly enough when I grew up I married a woman who has a similar childhood memory of an unauthorized rebuild of a mantle clock.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Show and tell must go on! Interesting that parts of the discussion have turned to show and tell: History's description of children's joys of bicycles and the boxes in which they came, descriptive show; MattLeo's recollections of childhood rivets and chrome, descriptive show.
More fascinating yet, though I'm flattered other parts of the discussion use my username and persona for personalizing and illustrating ethos principles, all pride aside, those discussions transcend my Hatrack persona and symbolically represent larger-than-life forces and writing principles through a kind of selected every-person identity association. Use of tangible, so to speak, personas to represent larger-than-life intangibles like, say, a large group that similarly or oppositionally identifies with ethos' principles and values is a magical writing show. Showing intangible personas through tangible personas is a noteworthy writing method based on the principle of personaliizing, personifying, and humanizing a circumstance. Exquisite.
[ April 10, 2013, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by History (Member # 9213) on :
quote:Originally posted by MAP:
quote:Originally posted by History: I'm reminded of the father who bought his sons their first bicycles--not just any bicycles, but super Schwinn 5000s: tiger-painted argon welded steel frames, 10-speed gearing, stainless steel chains, spring-enforced leather saddle, with a kickstand, side mirror, carrier, and bell. He took all the pieces out of their cardboard boxes and expounded on the bikes' features over the course of hours while he built them. When he finished, he turned around and discovered the boys were gone. In the distance he heard children laughing. Walking behind his house, he discovered the boys and their friends joyfully riding the cardboard boxes down the hill.
History, I'm not sure if my post reminded you of this story, but if it did, I think you missed my point. I'm certainly not suggesting we cast aside bikes for boxes.
My point was that the posts should speak for themselves. If extrinsic's posts are useful to you, and you learn something from them, then it doesn't really matter if he is a published writer or not. If you discovered that he was Salinger back from the dead, that really doesn't change anything he's said.
Do we need everyone to list their credentials so we know who to listen to, or are we intelligent enough to consider the ideas being presented and determine if they are logical and reasonable and if they work for us?
If Schwinn bicycles are of high quality, than they are good bicycles with or without the name brand stamp. The ride should speak for itself.
Hi, MAP,
Per usual, people see what they will see in what I write--and not necessarily what I intend (if I fully know what I intend). That is, perhaps, the way it should be.
I concur with you, but only to a point. Evidence-based claims is essential, and not only within my own medical profession. In this case, they need not be any particular author's (or Hatrack poster's), but without evidence, we are left with only hearsay.
Respectfully, Dr. Bob
P.S. What my little parable means to me: The deconstruction of the craft of writing runs the risk of extracting the fun and magic out of it.
Or: Instead of dissecting what to do (or should do), I prefer just to do.
Or: I prefer the "show" over the "tell." Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
Extrinsic -- may I suggest we find some way to structure this inquiry into the matter of show vs. tell? I feel this is a fruitful topic, but one which evidently has a lot of detours into other topics (e.g., my bicycle induced flashback to my childhood).
Perhaps we should start by listing questions or ideas we have about showing and telling. I'll throw out a few questions.
(1) Is "telling" always bad? Are there times when you should tell rather than show?
(2) Given that all writing is in a literal sense, "telling", is showing something that has degrees (more showing or less showing), and is there an optimal degree of showing to do?
(3) How does showing affect reader perceptions of pacing? Does more showing feel faster or slower, or either depending on context?
(4) What aspects of the story are subject to the "show not tell" rule, and are there special concerns in handling each of those things (e.g. plot, setting, character, theme, backstory)?
As I said, I have some tentative opinions about these matters. For example I believe there are times when more showing is quite bad for a story. There's a certain kind of scene that I often run across in which one or more characters travel from point A to point B. There is no point to the scene other than to *show* the process of the characters starting at A and ending up at B. Since nothing significant happens in these scenes, they tend to attract narrative clutter. "As you know, Bob" dialog flourishes in them, although not necessarily so poorly disguised.
Usually a story benefits greatly by cutting these travel scenes, so much so that two characters getting in the car is a critique red flag for me. But on the other extreme you have the quest story which is nothing *but* colorful scenes filling up the space between A and B. You could reduce much of Lord of the Rings to this: "after many adventures, Frodo and Sam arrive at the foot of Mount Doom." Very few scenes in Lord of the Rings are actually necessary to move the plot forward.
So is there some kind of untenable middle ground between "after many adventures, Frodo and Sam arrive at Mount Doom" and the whole three volume enchilada?
Oh, and Dr. Bob -- sufficiently advanced technique is indistinguishable from magic.
Posted by KellyTharp (Member # 9997) on :
I like your ideas, Matt. Though I tend to agree with your Lord of the Rings comparison, but only the movie version. The books were mostly filled with tons of lineages . . . who came from what king and was sired by who, etc. I find that when I write, because I see it so clearly in my head (like a movie) that I need to get it out of my head and so do a lot of "getting in the car" scenes. However, during the editing process I find that I can cut almost all of it, 85% of the time. I think in sci-fi, you can't take the scenery for granted. If you're on Earth, then there is a lot of "yeap, been there-seen that", so less is okay. Anyway, that's my two cents.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
MattLeo,
All four question categories are useful avenues for show and tell examination and explication. One difference I might suggest considering is letting go of value judgments of the good and bad or better and worse kind. Works, doesn't work; weak, stong; short, long, etc., may facilitate a more dynamic discussion.
Also, since we're discussing show and tell, using examples to show show and tell, and tell show and tell might be a best practice. Toward that end, I recommend a freely accessible, online model short story, so as not to exclude anyone who might not have read the story before. And since we may substantially exceed fair use doctrine allowance of the model story's quantity posted as excerpts, that the story be one from the public domain. This means published prior to 1923, which may be a benefit since many short stories priorly are expressed in traditional, frequent telling narrative voices. Lots of tell to filter through and evaluate whether parts are more show or tell or degrees between extremes. Further, since by default first person narrator stories have closest narrative distance, a first person story. Lastly, as short stories tend to be more tell due to their brevity and so as not to burden discussion participants with too onerous a reading selection, a short one is probably a best practice.
I can't think of more useful models than short stories by Edgar Allen Poe.
"The Cask of Amontillado," 1846, 2,300 words, is Project Gutenberg's most downloaded Poe short story, after the poem "The Raven" and the novel The Fall of the House of Usher.
"The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge. You, who so well know the nature of my soul, will not suppose, however, that I gave utterance to a threat. At length I would be avenged; this was a point definitely settled—but the very definitiveness with which it was resolved, precluded the idea of risk. I must not only punish, but punish with impunity. A wrong is unredressed when retribution overtakes its redresser. It is equally unredressed when the avenger fails to make himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong."
[ April 10, 2013, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by rcmann (Member # 9757) on :
Showing requires more work, in most cases, on the part of the reader. Therefore, it is writing 'up' to the reader. It also helps to clarify things. Like teaching in the form of a proverb, or a parable, helps to seat a concept in the mind of a student. Teachers always use examples when trying to get across a new idea, because the human mind operates more efficiently that way.
The example from Poe illustrates an exception to that idea - the circumstance where the writer establishes in intimate, on-on-one relationship with the reader. Poe specialized in that type of story, and 'telling' is the only way it can be done.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Behind Poe's telling in "The Cask of Amontillado" is a great deal of showing. The direct address to readers feels intimate from the power of written word to be a private experience.
However, the intangible features of unreliable narration, five or six varieties of irony expressed, and at least one potent message behind the tangible meanings of the story give readers matter to engage their creative imaginations through, hence showing more than the tangible, literal meaning of the superficial telling words.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
It occurs to me that unreliable narration necessarily entails showing. The reader extracts from the narration something that the narrator did not intend to tell, but unconsciously shows. Naturally the *author* intends for you to know these things, even if the narrator does not.
I'm all for looking at Poe, but the fondness of Victorian writers for elaborate rhetorical flourishes obscures the point. Let's look at the opening of *The Cask of Amontillado* as a modern writer might render it:
quote:I was sick of Fortunato's continual abuse, but when it rose to the level of insult I swore I'd get revenge. In fact not only would I get my revenge, I'd get away scott-free. It wouldn't count as revenge unless he realized I had taken my revenge and would never be punished for it.
In this passage there are the things the narrator tells you -- that Fortunato abused and insulted him, and his opinions on the art of revenge. There are things he does not tell you, like the exact nature of the abuse and the insult in question. And then there are the things you figure out for yourself -- and that in my opinion is the "showing".
For example, Montressor does not react openly to behavior he sees as abusive or insulting as a normal person would. Instead he makes a *secret* resolve. This *shows* us that he is not forthright, but rather secretive and deceptive. In fact we quickly see that he maintains a counterfeit facade of warmth and friendship toward Fortunato, so Montressor obviously is an accomplished manipulator and liar -- and that is "showing", because we reach that conclusion on our own.
Montressor's manipulative behavior throws the omission of the supposed insult into new light. He is *telling* the listener that the insult justly deserved death, but the fact that he is not forthcoming with the details warns us that Montressor is being deceitful. Most readers I think would feel some distrust toward him because of this, even if it is not conscious. This distrust is reinforced throughout the story as Montressor manipulates Fortunato, repeatedly pretending to encourage him to turn back while at the same time playing on his alcoholism to drive him forward. Why would he be less manipulative towards the readers?
And the very fact that Montressor has developed such an elaborately worked-out personal philosophy of revenge also "shows" the reader there is something disturbingly wrong with him. Most readers would instinctively feel this is abnormal.
There's another significant piece of showing just before Montressor places the last brick in place:
quote:My heart grew sick; it was the dampness of the catacombs that made it so. I hastened to make an end of my labour.
So Montressor is not devoid of human reactions like empathy and horror, he's just so dissociated from them he misinterprets them as purely physical symptoms. This Poe "showing" us that Montressor is, in 19th C parlance, "morally insane".
I think showing in all its forms isn't about piling on details, but engaging the reader's imagination and reason so that he comes up with his own ideas about the story. These are usually, but not always, conclusions you intend for him to reach. When readers surprise you with something you know is right, then I believe you've done a good job "showing".
This example is a kind of showing that's near and dear to my heart: character revelation. But I think there's other kinds of showing too. For example in action or suspense you want readers to infer more danger than you explicitly tell them about, because readers feel their own conclusions more keenly than ones they're handed. That happens in *The Cask of Amontillado*; Montressor's cunning manipulation of Fortunato foreshadows the sadism of his plans, and that creates suspense.
I still think the quest story is an acid test for "showing" skills. The very nature of a quest story is that it consists of a sequence of more or less arbitrary encounters. As a writer you have to transform those encounters as something meaningful.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Emulation exercises build writing skills. Changing the circumstances or voice of a piece, or both, reinvents and reimagines the original and may lead to an update for a piece that's lost a degree of its timeliness and relevance for contemporary audiences.
Preserving craft and voice features in the process might be a best practice, though. Ironies are one of the stronger voice features of this Poe story: verbal irony, situational irony, dramatic irony, dark comedy drama and farce irony, courtly irony, and Socratic irony. For example, Montressor's narrative voice is flirtatiously ironic, confidently self-assured, and ironically in a sophisticated register. His overstatement, "The thousand injuries of Fortunato," obviously ovetstates the circumstances. Montressor might as well have thought Fortunato gave a million injuries, a hundred and one, or ninety-nine. A verbal irony in that Montressor knows he idiomatically expresses an exaggerated though intolerable situation that actually means he's okay with impersonal slights (perhaps unintended: injuries) but not okay with personal insults. Also a situational irony in that Montressor obviously is not okay with a few impersonal slights, not if one perhaps unintended insult is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Montressor's sophisticated register develops his aristocratic identity, a show, yet the vagueness of the exact nature of Fortunato's slights and insult give a lie to Montressor's actual degree of sophistication, a show. He mimics the dialect of his social station but doesn't conform to his station's social duties, one example of which is he commits a craven, scandalous crime far beneath his station that could embarrass his peer cohort. A situational irony in that he speaks the talk but doesn't realize his wicked thoughts and acts counter his belief he acts above reproach, "with impunity."
"The Cask of Amontiilado" expresses an anti-aristocrat sensibility, hence the aristocratic voice shows a contrast between the reality of Montressor's craven personality and his presupposed sophistication. The voice and contrary behavior shows a message that even supposedly sophisticated individuals are subject to the same human frailties and failings as average folk. They put their pants on one leg at a time, too.
This thematic undercurrent is a feature of the Realism movement and its countering of Romanticism's poetic justice and renewal of Predeterminism. Noble behaviors, self-sacrificing behaviors, good acts, so to speak, are not typically rewarded in Realism. Actually, for Realism, one might say no good deed goes unpunished, as in real-world life, is more prevalent. Evil is not punished either. In other words, little or no poetic justice in Realism.
Though Montressor is high-borne and in Predeterminism conventions could do no wrong, he commits a guilty act, a mens rea, by concealing his wicked actions and outcomes from oveerseeing eyes that show he knows he's committed a wicked, self-serving act.
Other thematic undercurrents shown include idiosyncractic reimaginations of several other truism idioms: adding insult to injury, revenge is a dish best served cold, after cooler heads prevail and as cruelly cold-tempered as practical; the straw that broke the camel's back, and inverting of the cultural motif of a court jester as the wise, knowledgable, and cynical witty fool archetype. Fortunato as the clown, who otherwise would be the prankster, unwittingly becomes the literal butt of a cruel and fatal prank. The aristocrat Montressor, name meaning my treasure, exacts his revenge, vengeance, and retribution upon his court jester. ---- Quest stories' strengths in the show department are in part from new and exotic settings and personas a protagonist experiences. A protagonist's emotional reactions to new experiences might have an edge of what J.R.R. Tolkien calls exotic secondary settings. Writers writing in contemporary settings showing how the places they are intimately familiar with are exotic is challenging. Contrarily, artfully showing places a writer isn't familiar with so that readers imaginations fill in the gaps as intended can be equally as challenging.
Note how Poe uses nitre deposit descriptions as telling details to show the deepening and time-marked qualities of the catacombs. And how Montressor's fixation on the nitre deposits develops his character as the drama unfolds. Montressor's destination quest journey through familiar catacomb territory is nonetheless vivid and exotic.
[ April 11, 2013, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
extrinsic and MattLeo, an interesting discussion that I will freely admit is so far over my head I feel as if I've sunk into the earth ten feet.
That's not to say it doesn't have its place or purpose, however, I would guess I'm not alone here in saying that I'm struggling with 'basic' show and tell; I am so far away from using an unreliable narrator to 'show' character flaws as to wonder if I shouldn't go back to writing with crayons.
What you are talking about is a refinement to show and tell that I will, no doubt, hunger to learn later on in my journey learning the craft of writing. And, on that point, let me say it was quite a shock for me to realise I've only been 'exploring' the art of writing for three years and two weeks. It seems like forever, and I've learned so much in so short a time. Prior to that time, I'd struggle to write a half page letter.
So much to learn, and so little time. And a gift of understanding is what I really want for Xmas.
Phil.
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: extrinsic and MattLeo, an interesting discussion that I will freely admit is so far over my head I feel as if I've sunk into the earth ten feet.
That's not to say it doesn't have its place or purpose, however, I would guess I'm not alone here in saying that I'm struggling with 'basic' show and tell; I am so far away from using an unreliable narrator to 'show' character flaws as to wonder if I shouldn't go back to writing with crayons.
Phil -- given what I've read in your comments I doubt this conversation is over your head. It's more likely that my writing is unclear and sometimes off-topic.
Also, the Poe example might not be your kind of writing. Take a look at this example, from chapter 9 of Anthony Hope's PRISONER OF ZENDA. Mr. Rassendyl has gone to a midnight meeting with his enemy's mistress in a summerhouse. She informs him that it is a trap, then the enemy's henchmen show up on the steps of the summerhouse's only entrance. They negotiate with Rassendyl in obvious bad faith; they want him to open the door so they can get a clear shot at him. Rassendyl picks up an iron tea table to use as a shield and prepares to rush them:
quote:I went and fumbled with the latch. Then I stole back to my place on tiptoe.
"I can't open it!" I cried. "The latch has caught."
"Tut! I'll open it!" cried Detchard. "Nonsense, Bersonin, why not? Are you afraid of one man?"
I smiled to myself. An instant later the door was flung back. The gleam of a lantern showed me the three close together outside, their revolvers levelled. With a shout, I charged at my utmost pace across the summer-house and through the doorway. Three shots rang out and battered into my shield. Another moment, and I leapt out and the table caught them full and square, and in a tumbling, swearing, struggling mass, they and I and that brave table, rolled down the steps of the summerhouse to the ground below. Antoinette de Mauban shrieked, but I rose to my feet, laughing aloud.
De Gautet and Bersonin lay like men stunned. Detchard was under the table, but, as I rose, he pushed it from him and fired again. I raised my revolver and took a snap shot; I heard him curse, and then I ran like a hare, laughing as I went, past the summer-house and along by the wall. I heard steps behind me, and turning round I fired again for luck. The steps ceased.
"Please God," said I, "she told me the truth about the ladder!" for the wall was high and topped with iron spikes.
This whole scene is worth studying if you're an action writer, because it's a masterpiece of adventure writing. The things that set this scene apart from lesser action scenes are the manipulation of pacing, the building and releasing of tension, and the way Hope uses the "show not tell" principle to immerse the reader in the scene.
This really is fundamental stuff, which is what makes it hard, even for extrinsic, who's made a formal study of these matters.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
I don't see particular difficulty analyzing the scene, nor misunderstand the appeal of the novel for its audience. Hope wrote in a Britsh aristocrat's late nineteenth century voice, an ocean and half a century away from Poe, for one. Each has a degree of voice's register sophistication.
Further, the credible and logical antagonism, causation, and tension features of the scene are set up priorly and continue development in the scene's moment, location, and circumstances. Readers care and are curious about Rassendyl due to identifying with him through the developments: tension, and tension is more about what readers know beforehand than in the moment of revelation and reversal, which the latter are tension reliefs that causally lead into reraising tension.
Note how Hope priorly sets up the situation by arranging the three gunmen close together so that Rassendyl's tea table shield can mow into them. Logical and timely prepositioning. The gunmen's clustering shows their inexperience or bravado or both. Rassendyl doesn't remark or think in the moment about their obvious inexperience or impractical fire discipline.
One feature of the scene that stands out, that Rassendyl is aware only of the sensations that matter in the moment, place, and circumstances and timely reacts to them through thought reactions and actions. His thoughts and actions are reactive rather than deliberative, an action feature of adventure heroes' action scenes that might as well be engraved on stone as a law, if there weren't artful exceptions to the method and principle. Anyway, Rassendyl doesn't dwell on body posture, setting details, look in on the scene as if an observer seeing himself proactively acting. He doesn't narratively mediate his own actions consciously or otherwise. He acts and shows his actions in the moment, location, and circumstance.
Of description, action, introspection, conversation, sensation, and emotion--scene fundamentals--emotion is most provided by Rassendyl's disregard of possible harm and somewhat matter-of-fact reporting in a degree of sophisticated diction and syntax. Unlike Poe, however, Hope uses brief and abrupt sentences varied somewhat in length, syntax, diction, and complex and compound and simple main clauses, apropos for dynamic action scenes and their pacing and tension.
Rassendyl doesn't notice the byplay of light and shadow in the moment, for example, how Poe might use Impressionism's chiaroscuro imagery to express intangibles, like emotions, instead, relying on reader imaginations to fill in details developed earlier and emerging as the scene unfolds.
Emotions for example, by the time of this scene, readers know Rassendyl enough to know he is not hotheaded, but is a mite prone to surprising and daring frontal confrontations when cornered. Hence, showing his ire and fear fight or flight response, all the while calm-headedly doing what must be done if he's to survive.
[ April 12, 2013, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
First of all, it is absolutely true that Hope does a superb job of stage-managing this scene. That may be more akin to carpentry than fine art, but it's still a job well done.
What I'm particularly interested in the Zenda scene are the many things that the reader knows about it without being told. Because the readers haven't been told these things, they must necessarily have been shown.
For example if you read very closely (or perhaps not closely at all, like a naive reader) you'll see Rassendyl is not calm-headed in this scene. He's giddy, almost intoxicated with fear and excitement. Rassendyl's tunnel vision contributes to that perception, as does his somewhat hysterical laughter and his desperate prayer that the ladder be where it is supposed to be. This is a top-notch adventure writer using his showing skills to draw the readers into a heightened experience. That happens to be different than how you'd do it in horror, or literary fiction, but it's still showing.
Your point about the rhythm of this scene is spot-on. If you go further back there is a very long stretch of dialog, each line consisting of 10-15 words. This shows an interesting property of dialog, it's power to distort the reader's perception of pace. Pace is an entirely subjective phenomenon; while dialog necessarily delays the action in a story, in the right circumstances it can build tension and create the perception that things are happening quickly.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Not surprisingly, reading dialogue for average reading rate readers is directly equal to average speaking rate: roughly one hundred fifty words per minute. This speaks to how readers' perceptions of story time's passage during dialogue is about equivalent to narrative time's passage. Attribution tags and thought, description, action, sensation, and emotion portrayals, as well as other narrative modes: narration, summarization, exposition, recollection, explanation, and transition; may shorten, lengthen, or suspend story time's passage, while narrative time may be equal to, longer than, or shorter than story time's passage.
This is growing deep. Perhaps MattLeo and I might return to the lower hanging fruit of the show and tell tree, rather than our wont for attending to treetop fruits.
Please, post examples of summary and explanation tell sentences for analysis and perhaps trial reworking into show passages.
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic: Please, post examples of summary and explanation tell sentences for analysis and perhaps trial reworking into show passages.
Maybe that could be a writing challenge?
Someone pick a basic "tell" sentence, such as "It was cold outside." Participants write up to 13 lines "showing" that.
Maybe there could be more than one "tell" sentence to rewrite in the challenge?
Posted by Reziac (Member # 9345) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury: Maybe that could be a writing challenge?
Someone pick a basic "tell" sentence, such as "It was cold outside." Participants write up to 13 lines "showing" that.
Maybe there could be more than one "tell" sentence to rewrite in the challenge?
That sounds like fun. How many different stories can we show from respeaking one brief tell? Here's a quickie:
As usual it took me ten minutes to bundle up like an Eskimo. Even so, after half an hour doing the barnyard chores, I had snot icicles hanging from my nose and blue spots on all my fingers.
Posted by Reziac (Member # 9345) on :
quote:Originally posted by History: P.S. What my little parable means to me: The deconstruction of the craft of writing runs the risk of extracting the fun and magic out of it.
Precisely what I got from it. Posted by MattLeo (Member # 9331) on :
You guys don't give yourselves enough credit. I've seen plenty of Hatrackers' mss by now and without exception you're a lot more advanced than you seem to think. I mean, maybe none of us are Hemingway or C.S. Lewis, but "It was cold outside" isn't much of a challenge.
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic:
Please, post examples of summary and explanation tell sentences for analysis and perhaps trial reworking into show passages.
Let me throw out some examples that I think are more of a challenge to the level of writers we have here.
(1) The dragon was terrifying.
(2) He found the view from the top of the cascade awe-inspiring.
(3) Talking to him made her nervous, but she did her best to hide it.
(4) He entered the haunted room; it was a scary thing to do.
(5) She tried this "chocolate ice cream" stuff he offered her; it wasn't like anything she'd ever had before, but it was pretty good.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Heading toward a challenge, when I finish up prior obligations demanding attention, in about a month more, then a decompression break for a couple weeks.
In the meantime, we can practice show and tell expansions, right?
Scene development inventory:
Plot development:
Antagonism: problem and want forces in opposition
Causation: cause and effect, action and reaction, stimuli and response
Tension: evoking empathy and curiosity
Discourse modes for scene development
Description
Sensation
Conversation; dialogue
Action; both physical and dramatic
Introspection; thought
Emotion: attitude toward subject matter
And narration, summarization, exposition (introductions), recollection, explanation, and transition modes as indicated
Setting development: time, place, and situation
Idea or theme development
Character development
Event development
Context and Texture development: who, when, where, what, why, how question answers
Use any selected items or all of the above to fully realize a scene's meaning.
[ April 16, 2013, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I haven't had anything to contribute to this interesting discussion...but I want to thank MattLeo for contributing his examples, which give me some food for thought about my own work.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
A preliminary look at examples provided:
From Ms. Dalton Woodbury; "It was cold outside." No overt plot devlopment. Neither a problem nor a want stated directly or implied. Cold outside could be desired if winter sports are wanted. Similarly, cold outside could be a problem. No causation. No tension. Perhaps a degree of voice in that the sentence is exclamation-like. The syntax is a tipoff. "It" is a sentence expletive, meaningless until the pronoun's subject referent "outside" is expressed. Thus a possible interjection sentence of the exclamation kind. However, the sentence used as dialogue would benefit from artful context and texture setup beforehand.
The idiomatic sentence's strength is its everyday conversation usage, hence, used in dialogue, the sentence could be a show; otherwise, a summary and explanation tell that expresses only that the outside of the observer persona's setting is cold. All the words in the sentence are vague and nonsignificant, signaling little, if any, meaning. Significant or significance in the sense of clear person, time, place, and situation expression. The sentence is ripe for development expansion.
MattLeo's: "(1) The dragon was terrifying." Possible problem implied.
"(2) He found the view from the top of the cascade awe-inspiring." No significance development. Strongest of the five examples of a summary and explanation tell.
"(3) Talking to him made her nervous, but she did her best to hide it." Clear problem.
"(4) He entered the haunted room; it was a scary thing to do." Problem implied.
"(5) She tried this "chocolate ice cream" stuff he offered her; it wasn't like anything she'd ever had before, but it was pretty good." Want implied and satisfied.
I'll be back to expand Ms. Dalton Woodbury's example, albeit by making assumptions and projecting drama onto it. Its seeming straightfowardness belies its challenges. Note its similarity to the often cited and deprecated weather report opening tell, "It was a dark and stormy night."
[ April 16, 2013, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
The problem with: "It was cold outside." is that there is no particularity. What is it? The air was cold, the ice underfoot, the mood? The variable in the whole equation is the word 'It'.
By defining that single word, a whole new universe of prose opens up before the writer. A new take on: It was cold outside, could take the following format:
The pain of my loss left me empty, devoid of feeling or passion. I am now become an instrument of destruction, my heart as cold as a glacier; and just as slow and inexorable in its pursuit. Outside, I look upon the handiwork of my blossoming vengeance. It is cold outside, indeed; despite the flowers of spring.
A hasty example, however I think it demonstrates that 'defining' what 'it' is changes the whole dynamics of the simple statement.
Phil.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Grumpy old guy,
You use the power of symbolism for expessing tangible forces to show intangible forces in opposition. Like imagery, which is visual sensations that show intangibles through use of visual tangibles. Cold used as symbolism can mean an external force, say, of rejection, shunning, and the like pressing inwardly, or internal forces, say of a mood, an attitude, or the like, pressing outwardly, or both outward and inward forces.
The power of weather for showing more than ambience, like external and internal forces, is its symbolism usage. Hence, an artful reason and a strategy for deploying show when describing weather. More artful yet is when implied meaning is accessible in the moment of reading and transcends its directly stated meaning. This is de dicto meaning, of the word, becoming de re, of the thing, meaning expression. Exquisite.
And you use the three principle meaning spaces of animacy: interior, inside or indoors, and outside or outdoors. Similar animacy meaning spaces: here, there, and yonder; us, them, and those people, too.
Symbolism and imagery are advanced writing principles. Use of variant animacy meaning spaces within a scene are even more advanced. Animacy in sociology is the comparative pecking order standing of other persons and things an individual perceives relative to her or himself. For example, God, country, king, family, self, kine, and kit, and other describes a traditional pecking order.
Animacy in semantics is the comparative sentience and aliveness of a noun. Mrs. J.R. Higgins is more sentient and alive than man used impersonally, for example. Man more than dog. Dog more than tree. Tree more than soil. Heart more than glacier. Bread more than wheat grains. And so on.
[ April 17, 2013, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
Showing "It was cold outside" depends on creative choices, assumptions, and intents. I chose not to use any of those four words, a self-imposed rule.
Brown maple leaves swept across the bald yard, tumbled, crashed, leapt into shoreline black rush grasses. A dented aluminum john boat turned keel up on the beach lay tied to a narrow and short pier deck. Ice slabs rippling on the shore's shallows caught nightshade light from a sinking oval moon. Frothy bergs, churned into frozen foam by stirring waves, broken loose from the ice pack, floated still and high on the dark river's ebbing tide.
Detective Baxter turned back from the picture window, the sole window of the stifling hot one-room shack, interior framing bare. Neighboring fishermen down the river had called in complaining a strong odor came from the cabin. The dead fisherman sat on a threadbare couch in front of a blaring portable television. No immediate signs of foul play: no firearms, no visible wounds
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
Now I feel firmer ground beneath my feet. IMHO, in the extract above, the entire first paragraph is the narrator 'telling' me about what's going on on the other side of a plate glass window.
As extrinsic's editor, I would advise, "Now, look 'ere lad. Begin the scene in Baxter's POV. He's in an overly warm room; make me feel the dryness of his throat, his lips, the scratchiness of his eyes, the beads of sweat forming on his brow and upper lip. He looks outside, noticing the john boat rocking in the wind, he opens the door and is instantly assaulted by a howling gale that drives ice particles into his cheeks like stinging needles. It grabs the fedora he had pushed back from his forehead in the heat of the room and flings it carelessly into the night..."
Just a thought.
Phil.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
I intended to demonstrate that in spite of using strong show technique a show can feel like a tell, in isolation at least. Narrative distance is open in the first paragraph from limited context and texture, mostly not expressing who observes the setting outside, partly from relative rather than absolute where and when, and also from little correlation to what, the dramatic situation, and how and why to the dramatic complication.
Such openings signal a narrator's involvement and voice will foreground from time to time so that multiple viewpoints can be expressed as a narrative unfolds. However, the voice is unsettled from abrupt transitions between what is essentially setting backstory to the situational backstory of the detective's summarized sensory perceptions.
The first paragraph is a vignette, a setting sketch. The second is a transition to an incomplete character sketch. The focal character I envisioned is the fisherman. The detective's interest is investigating the cause of death.
The opening here is intended as an afterlude, a prelude opening of a modular short story where the timeline is nonlinear but develops accessibility as the fisherman's saga unfolds. A challenging structure to compose and arrange. The mystery of the fisherman's death is the dramatic complication I intend.
However, by default of readers' natural inclinations, the first paragraph as a disembodied mind's nonvolitional thoughts about the outside setting defaults to feeling like narrator voice and then defaults in the second paragraph to the detective as anchor character and voice by dint of naming him. By the third modular paragraph, the nonlinear timeline begins to unfold and the narrator's identity and involvement as well.
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
Upon reflection, I had assumed the opening paragraph was indeed intentional, giving, as you said, a shallower POV for the narrator. However, it still doesn't make me 'feel' the cold, it just tells me what's going on; and that's mainly about the wind, but I can't envision its howling force or biting cold.
I guess my preference for a deep third person POV is coming through.
Phil.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
The first short story of mine presented to a workshop years ago was unanimously panned for starting to close in narrative distance. The complement was less than helpful in their comments, only that it felt too close and narrow in focus.
It took me a long time to uderstand what they meant, to recognize what wasn't working for them, and why. Open and progressively closing narrative distance was the group's comfort zone preference. Mine is start close and progress closer. They were used to traditional narrative openings where a disembodied narrator introduces the action, characters, setting, and other introductory circumstances through backstory.
Alternatively, a large challenge of in medias res openings that may begin close is to manage the introductions and backstory all the while moving the action forward. Deep third person character voice is one useful method. I favor deep third person, too. Putting that voice together with in medias res and managing introductions and moving the action ahead in timely tension and tension relief has plagued me.
My muse prohibits me from using the four-letter word for air motion.
[ April 30, 2013, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: extrinsic ]
Posted by Grumpy old guy (Member # 9922) on :
Reviewing some of the things I've jotted down, here and there, I think I can do a passable job beginning a story in medias res. For me, it's all about picking the focus of the opening; character, milieu or dramatic complication--back-story can come later.
By later, I mean it may still be in the same chapter but I wouldn't dare try and add more in-depth back-story within the same scene. And, re-reading this:
quote:and moving the action ahead in timely tension and tension relief has plagued me.
I get the feeling that you may be trying to force the issue, rather than allowing it to unfold as it wants to. Perhaps you need to spend a moment indulging in some pantser style writing?
Personally, I dislike in medias res openings. In fact, I don't think there is a single instance of such an opening in all the books in my library.
Phil.
Posted by extrinsic (Member # 8019) on :
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: I get the feeling that you may be trying to force the issue, rather than allowing it to unfold as it wants to. Perhaps you need to spend a moment indulging in some pantser style writing? Phil.
I write an intuitive-planned blend. I might begin by planning a structure or free-association writing or switching around to both during drafting. Many of my early beginnings are practices, experiments, method or voice exercises. One quality they have in common, struggling for personal meaning that's larger than life. By larger than life I mean appreciable meaning for others. The fisherman's story from above is a new beginning for a short story as an exercise struggling to understand the recent abrupt departure of a sibling.
A fair portion of the works I've read begin in medias res. Several of my favorite short stories begin in medias res. The writers favor openings of that sort. Thinking about it, I've come close to understanding the method and favor the closeness of its narrative distance. Perhaps a discussion of the method might help to more firmly grasp the method. I'm certainly studying the method used by my favorite writers. Realizing the distinctions of that method from other methods was half the struggle. For one, that in medias res is much more than in the middle of things, like beginning in character voice in the moment, place, and situation from the outset of the action.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
perhaps I have, but you've provided no examples here.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)