I am very cautious about starting to give writing advice. Why should anyone believe me, a writer who’s never published anything, when there is so much writing advice out there on the internet – some of it even good?

However, this thought struck me, I shared it on Twitter, and people found it useful. So, here is the same thought in longer form.

Show Don’t Tell isn’t about one thing

Show Don’t Tell is one of the most common pieces of writing advice, and it’s so common that it’s not always helpful. Let’s look a bit into why, and what it really means.

First, Telling. Telling is straightforward statement. A slightly longer format where that straightforward statement adds background to the story is known as exposition, and you can see why some people include exposition in their definition of Telling.

“She was angry and in a hurry.”
“He wore perfume.”
“She had been unemployed for most of the last three years, after cheap imports from Mars had ruined the slurf-mining industry.”

You can even do it in dialogue:

“You might already know this, Bob, but a few years back everyone started buying their slurf from Mars, and I went out of business”

Telling communicates information. However, it doesn’t communicate emotion, doesn’t create empathy, and doesn’t create immersion in your world. Your readers want to be there, to feel what your characters are feeling, to care about them, to wonder what is going to happen and why.

Almost by definition, Telling is the clearest and briefest way to let your reader know something. But, even so – particularly in the form of exposition where it’s not needed – can slow down the narrative.

When is it helpful to engage in Telling? Essentially, when you just need to convey something. If a character flies from London to New York and nothing much happens, you can just state that.

Now, with Telling covered, let’s talk about Show.

Show means two things – Evocation and Implication

One common piece of Show advice is from the playwright Anton Chekhov: “Don’t tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass.”

That is to say, give your reader sensory details which will help immerse them in your world.

A: “He wore perfume.”
A1: “He smelled of roses and camomile tea.”

Already better! The reader has something more specific, and possibly unexpected. They can paint a mental picture and engage better with the scene.

One could take this a step further and expand on not just sensory details but also meaning.

A2: “Leaning in to kiss him, I caught the scent of roses and camomile tea. My heart leapt as I realised he cared enough to make an effort.”

Great! There’s even more meaning there. In fact we’ve broadened it out to not just include sensory detail, but also an interaction between characters. In this case, we have moved closer to the character in doing so.

However, this isn’t all there is to Showing.

Using Implication

Consider this from Ernest Hemingway:

“If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them.”

Now, this is something quite different: Leave out key details, and allow the reader to reach their own conclusion. We are, after all, built to interpret the world around us not simply be told about it.

This is the second way of Showing.

For instance:

B: “She was angry and in a hurry.”
B1: “She smashed her fist into the table. ‘I don’t have time for this,’ she snapped.”

If I asked you how that character was feeling, you’d say ‘she was angry and in a hurry’. Indeed, without even being asked the question, the reader probably has a stronger sense of the character being angry and being in a hurry than they do from just being told it.

Now let’s go one further:

B2: “She hit the table so hard that dust rattled off the wine-glasses. ‘I don’t have time for this’ she snapped, in a voice like a displeased sawblade.”

Now we have both more sensory detail (the dust rattling) and implication (the wine-glasses have gathered dust, so the bar they’re in is either struggling or poorly run). We also have metaphor; sawblades neither talk nor have emotions, but still the ‘displeased sawblade’ line is vivid and adds impact.

Of course, some might object that I’m telling people that this character’s voice is like a displeased sawblade. I would say that anyone who makes that objection really hasn’t understood the point of ‘show don’t tell’.

Are these really different things?

Now, are these really different things? They work very well together. If you add sensory detail to your implication, or implication to your sensory detail, usually the result will be better.

But, you don’t have to do both.

For instance, let’s take the example of our perfume-wearing man, and put him in an interaction.

The Tell version of this interaction:

C: “She leant in to kiss him, but instead burst out laughing because of his gauche taste in perfume.”

Now two Show versions. One with sensory detail and interiority. One zoomed out as if it were a screenplay.

C1: “Leaning in to kiss him, I caught the scent of roses and camomile tea. Christian Dior pour homme. The first thing a tasteless businessman in a hurry would grab off the shelves. I though of him spraying eau de cologne on his neck as he sat on the Underground on his way here, and burst out laughing.”

C2: “She leant in to kiss him, but faltered, then sniggered and finally laughed.
‘What?’ he asked. ‘What have I done wrong?’
‘I’m sorry,’ she said. ‘I just can’t kiss a guy who smells of Dior.’”

Are either of these Tell? No. Are they the same? Also no. The pure implication approach is much drier, and uses fewer words. It also relies more on the reader having enough context to understand the interaction. The right answer about which to use at any point will really depend on your characters, your setting, your context, and the tone you’re adopting.

Conclusion

Show Don’t Tell is advice that’s used very broadly, and inconsistently. People use it when they mean they would like more evocative, sensory language. They also use it when what they want is more implication.

I’d find it much more helpful for people to think about State, Evoke and Imply. To me this distinction really clarifies what it is we’re thinking about in each case.

What do you think?