Example:
Eloise nodded to the coroner to confirm the identity of the body lying in front of her. She hadn't said good bye to her mother, and now she would never have the opportunity. As the coroner zipped the body bag back up, Eloise noticed that she hadn't spit out her gum yet. The flavor was all gone. It felt like a ball of hard rubber in her mouth. She pushed out through the building doors and stepped into the empty parking lot. Dark clouds were starting to move in, and she was sure it would rain soon. She walked to her car. She noticed a paper cup rolling around on the asphalt, caught up in some gust of wind. She picked it up, fingered the soft edges, and then tossed it into the air where it took flight.
I think lately it has become a trend to have a character "reveal" emotion by doing something like throwing a paper cup up into the air. Somehow, it feels satisfying, but I'm not sure it makes any relevant point.
What do you think? Is this technique B.S.?
This is a great question. I did a post on showing vs. telling a while back after Mary Kole posted that essay on "Good" telling v. "Bad" telling, and I agree with the essay. There are places where you need to tell. I also believe there are places where getting to the emotional core, letting the reader really feel what we are feeling, requires a little author prompting. The gum thing is interesting, but does it really get your gut? I'd love to see you rewrite this piece with a little more telling and maybe a little bit of additional backstory that sheds light on this so we can see reaction that would let us know this piece is going to contribute to the character arc. Does that make any sense at all?
ReplyDeleteMartina
But . . . don't people sometimes do strange things as a result of overwhelming emotions?
ReplyDeleteIn your example, I just took her throwing the cup in the air as more something whimsical rather than emotional. Perhaps it's just me. Now, if she'd shredded the cup, crumpled the cup, or down 'something' to the cup, I might have attributed it to her emotional state. Tossing the cup in the air to see it float away didn't convey emotion . . . at least not to me.
In the real world, confronted with the death of a loved one . . . well, we all react differently. I remember my sister-in-law making the comment about my sister after our father died: she seems so tight, so restrained, as if she's holding everything in. As for me, it was all right to cry in private, just not when I had an audience . . . even if that audience was my family. So, in the fictional world, said character might breakdown in the privacy of their own home rather than when there are others present. Does that make sense?
Great post, btw.
S
I think it's good, in a way, to have to show, but then there are certainly times when telling is just as effective.
ReplyDeleteIn the example you chose to share, I think it would have been so much 'more' for Eloise to spit the gum out as soon as she opened the doors. I mean, if you're going to show. Spitting the gum out, to me, would have meant she was pissed she hadn't gotten the chance to say good-bye to her mother. It would have revealed so much more to me, as the reader, rather than having her pick up a paper cup.
But that's just my opinion.
Of course, also telling that Eloise was sorry she hadn't gotten to say good-bye to her mother would have worked as well. In my opinion.
I agree there has to be a mix of show and tell. After all, the idea of writing isn't to adhere to the "rules" - it's to tell a story. Notice I didn't say "show a story?" Whatever the flow of the story demands - show this, tell that - should be the guide.
ReplyDeleteAnd I was left feeling disconnected from Eloise in this piece - she notices the gum, but does nothing about it? Is she so distant from the death of her mother that she doesn't spare it a thought or two? If that's the feeling the author is going for, then ok, but otherwise I want to feel more emotional connection to a character in such a dramatic scene.
Great question, BTW! :)
Hmm... It's interesting for sure. I think one could get away with it if used sparingly. It might keep the reader on their toes. ;)
ReplyDeleteTo me, it only makes a point if the character processes it. With the gum--she felt she'd been on autopilot, she always spit her gum out with the first sign of flavor loss, she had to get rid of this ball of hard rubber NOW and spit it in her hand. Or with the cup, was this all life came to--disposibility, emptiness?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, that's off the top of my head.
My take on some of these "huh" moments is that the authors are trying to be subtle, to show ambivalence of the characters, to be surprising, to raise questions. When it works, the reader goes away with the unusual imagery in their head, and questions to ponder. When it doesn't work, it merely confuses and perhaps irritates.
ReplyDeleteOr these could be the result of inexperienced writers who have read some of these oblique scenes and think it would be cool to do some themselves. Kinda like a person seeing Picasso's abstract works or Rothko's color block paintings and think they too can do something like that, forgetting they don't have the skills and experiences and thoughts behind these and many other works. So, yes, sometimes I call BS.
The paper cup line reminds me of a scene in "American Beauty" where the artsy kid is filming a plastic bag blowing around in the breeze. If that scene makes sense to you, you appreciate the simple beauty and freedom of a moment that he's trying to capture. If it doesn't work for you, he's just a pretentious weirdo.
ReplyDeleteI think this kind of showing vs telling walks a fine line between the two. It works or it doesn't.
Personally, the paper cup works for me. And it all comes down to personal interpretation, as a writer and a reader.
Adventures in Children's Publishing, I also agree that there are places that need to have telling. Good telling is very exciting for me to read.Sorry if the piece was too short to really allow much emotion in. I just didn't want to waste our readers' time on it since the example was meant to be a bit more random. I do think that it could be revised to be better!
ReplyDeleteScott, that absolutely makes sense. I should say that some of my favorite stories have this sort of thing--but done well. I do like it when a character's emotions are revealed through an appropriate action. Like the cup in this example, though, I wonder if some people do it randomly and hope the reader will fill in the blanks.
Anne, I think you're agreeing with Scott that the right action at the right time would work. I do agree! Ha, when I started writing this example, I thought I would end it with the gum as you suggested, but then that made too much sense, so I picked something random.
Susan, in the end, this example didn't work for you, but I still think it's interesting that you're able to make up an internal story that matches the external action. I think that gets to the heart of what I was trying to say. Maybe the question is: Do readers make a story out of a string of random actions?
T. Anne, You're probably right! And, I think I'm guilty of doing that every once in awhile. I do like to keep readers on their toes!
ReplyDeleteTricia, you're able to make a story out of it too. Does that mean the example worked for you? And, it's interesting how the gum seems to have more emotion for people than the cup!
Yat-Yee, That's how I'm beginning to feel these days with some of the stories I'm encountering. I do try to work hard to figure out if there's more to the "huh" moment, as you put it so wonderfully!
Vincent, thanks for your comment. I wonder then, if it is up to interpretation, whether or not a writer is "cheating" when she or he works this way.
I just read a YA book that did this all over the place and it annoyed the heck out of me. I wanted to say, "Just tell us how she feels! You can use the dreaded 'feel' word a few times, you know. It's not going to kill anybody, and it will probably shave about 2,000 words off your manuscript."
ReplyDeleteLike Susan, I felt disconnected from the character in this excerpt. I think there's a fine balance between using metaphors for showing and using them to drive the story forward. It's easy to let them get in the way and feel like you're being all literary and clever.
I think an experienced and careful writer is pretty on top of showing in a good way. :)
I think the this understated method, which, as you note, is de rigueur in lit fic, relies on the reader reading concrete details into the scene.
ReplyDeleteIn this example: The details of the gum and the cup are provided. Even if the author picked these at random, the imaginative reader will project the metaphor into them. Life has become as tasteless as gum that's lost its flavor! Grief has made her feel as fragile as a paper cup!
What would happen if we replaced the beginning of the paragraph?
Richard handed her an envelope. "I know you have to go, but there's something I've been meaning to ask you."
She flicked the envelope open. A ring fell into her palm. She handed it back to him without a word.
"Just think about it," he said. "I won't give up."
As she left the senator's office, Eloise noticed that she hadn't spit out her gum yet. The flavor was all gone. It felt like a ball of hard rubber in her mouth. She pushed out through the building doors and stepped into the empty parking lot. Dark clouds were starting to move in, and she was sure it would rain soon. She walked to her car. She noticed a paper cup rolling around on the asphalt, caught up in some gust of wind. She picked it up, fingered the soft edges, and then tossed it into the air where it took flight.
The same objects/incidents seem to acquire a different meaning, don't they?
Some remain ominous. Flavorless gum and dark storm clouds still seem pretty glum to me.
A slight change in wording could change this though. If it read, "she had sucked the last drop of flavor from her gum, but still relished the feel of it in her mouth, like hard rubber" and "the clouds crackled with energy, electrifying the air; her damp t-shirt plastered her breasts in the drizzle" -- that would communicate quite a different set of emotions, I think.
The character's emotions are hidden in the setting. Sometimes this works beautifully. Other times, I agree, it's laziness on the part of the author, who is depending on the reader to make metaphors. And sometimes, usually when *I* try it, it comes out clumsy and corny rather than subtle and deep.
I think the this understated method, which, as you note, is de rigueur in lit fic, relies on the reader reading concrete details into the scene.
ReplyDeleteIn this example: The details of the gum and the cup are provided. Even if the author picked these at random, the imaginative reader will project the metaphor into them. Life has become as tasteless as gum that's lost its flavor! Grief has made her feel as fragile as a paper cup!
What would happen if we replaced the beginning of the paragraph?
Richard handed her an envelope. "I know you have to go, but there's something I've been meaning to ask you."
She flicked the envelope open. A ring fell into her palm. She handed it back to him without a word.
"Just think about it," he said. "I won't give up."
As she left the senator's office, Eloise noticed that she hadn't spit out her gum yet. The flavor was all gone. It felt like a ball of hard rubber in her mouth. She pushed out through the building doors and stepped into the empty parking lot. Dark clouds were starting to move in, and she was sure it would rain soon. She walked to her car. She noticed a paper cup rolling around on the asphalt, caught up in some gust of wind. She picked it up, fingered the soft edges, and then tossed it into the air where it took flight.
The same objects/incidents seem to acquire a different meaning, don't they?
Some remain ominous. Flavorless gum and dark storm clouds still seem pretty glum to me.
A slight change in wording could change this though. If it read, "she had sucked the last drop of flavor from her gum, but still relished the feel of it in her mouth, like hard rubber" and "the clouds crackled with energy, electrifying the air; her damp t-shirt plastered her breasts in the drizzle" -- that would communicate quite a different set of emotions, I think.
ReplyDeleteThe character's emotions are hidden in the setting. Sometimes this works beautifully. Other times, I agree, it's laziness on the part of the author, who is depending on the reader to make metaphors. And sometimes, usually when *I* try it, it comes out clumsy and corny rather than subtle and deep.
Opps. Sorry for the multiple posts. Including this one.
ReplyDeleteIt's not BS if you do it really well and use it sparingly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michelle here, and it's refreshing to read her comment. 21st century writing needs to evolve for the short-attention span mind--handwringing aside--so when five words will suffice, don't write a paragraph, no matter how lyrical. Five lyrical words are best, of course, but brevity matters more.
ReplyDeleteThat said, re: floating cup vs. crumpled cup, they convey different emotions. If the protag is in a drifty, powerless state of mind, the floating works. If she's angry, crumpled says it better.
I find 'literary' fiction to be a law unto itself, seemingly stuffed full of people trying to outdo each other in meaningfulness.
ReplyDeleteSometimes you HAVE to tell.
You touch on one of the most difficult aspects of writing.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think it's totally BS with a captial B.
In the literary flow of the metaphor, honesty is the first casualty.
For great examples of haunting, understated prose, check out Courtney Summers books. You're completely in the main character's head without literary roadblocks.
I'm one of those readers who does not want to be impressed with the writer's mastery of description. I want to be impressed with the mastery of characterization.
Which is why, even as a guy, I love Nora Roberts's books. She strikes the perfect balance of show vs. tell. Always.
That's a great question, Davin. I'm often conflicted whether to show or tell (because I'm often tempted to tell). In this case however, I think the paper cup bit didn't work for me- not because the author didn't 'tell' but because I didn't think the 'showing' was good enough- and yes, it did seem a little lazy and too easy. And by this I don't mean that the action should have been less random- people reactions are often not entirely in tune with how/what they are feeling-but the action seemed entirely for effect and somehow didn't ring true (the part- 'and then tossed it in the air where it took flight'). [To be completely honest- I might have felt differently if you hadn't prefaced the piece with 'Is this cheating' and/or if I had read it as a part of a larger piece..:D. I automatically went into critic mode..lol]
ReplyDeleteI actually think 'showing' in a scene such as this can be very effective if done properly, more so than telling. The more I read and write the more I am tempted to 'show' actions without stating explicitly 'why I am doing so'. A set of such actions could be very revealing about a character even if each individual action by itself seems irrelevant. However I think when the author himself/herself doesn't know 'the why' of what he/she is showing, the writing can fail for a reader by seeming gimmicky rather than true. On the other hand if the author uses too much symbolism and tries to fit an action to a scene, again it could seem gimmicky and too 'tied together with a pretty bow' and therefore not ring true. So this question is tricky!!!
Having said that, I don't know if 'show don't tell' rules actually hold- it depends entirely on the showing and the telling and the book, I guess. I am currently reading Middlemarch and thoroughly enjoying all the telling (although she does a lot of showing as well).
Lavanya
I just read a passage in my current book (“Close Quarters”, Angela Thirkell) which I think illustrates the combination of telling/showing beautifully, so I’m just going to quote the whole thing here and let it speak for itself.
ReplyDeleteSetup: the wife of an elderly retired navy man (The Admiral) has just died. A Dr. Ford and a nurse are present, then the Admiral’s daughter (Mrs. Macfayden) and a clergyman (Canon Fewling) arrive at the house:
“Poor father,” said Mrs. Macfayden. “It wasn’t like her to leave you—but she couldn’t help it. She would have stayed if she could. Oh, father, I am so dreadfully sorry. Had she been ill?” …
“No, not ill,” said the Admiral. “She hadn’t been very well for a long time now, but she wasn’t ill. Ford told me she might go suddenly. That’s how I’d like to go when my time comes. I always thought I should go first. But she has gone before me—before me. If we were at sea there would be a light that I could follow, but here, on land, there’s nothing. Nothing.”
[Dr. Ford asks if they want to go upstairs to view the body.]
The Admiral got up very slowly and went to the door, deliberately ignoring the arm that Dr. Ford offered him. But when he got to the bottom of the steep little flight of stairs, he paused.
“I hope I wasn’t being conceited,” he said. “I thought I could go upstairs by myself but I can’t.” Without any fuss Sister Chiffinch gently put her hand under his arm and went up the stairs with him. Mrs. Macfayden and Canon Fewling followed.
The tired body of the wife and mother through so many years was lying on the bed, very composedly, with nothing now to fear. Her husband and her daughter knelt beside the bed. What is there to say at this time? Mrs. Macfayden heard herself saying aloud in a soft voice “Oh, please, please,” but what she meant she did not know. The Admiral had risen and was standing to attention, waiting for his orders. Canon Fewling said a very short prayer. There was a silence and then they went down the steep stair again….
This is slightly off-topic, but I'll throw it out there.
ReplyDeleteAre you still reading slush for SmokeLong, Davin? If so, you probably see tons of attempted literary efforts that ape this method, without quite pulling it off. Or even if they do, the mere fact you read so many stories in this style will make it feel derivative after a while.
Nathan Bransford mentioned how much mind-numbing drivel there is in slush. Frankly, I suspect that even if you read nothing but classics, but had to read a hundred a day, you'd sour on it.
I always feel better about fiction after reading nonfiction for a while and vice versa. Reading different genres, foreign writers and thousand-year-old books helps too.
I think this technique of showing emotion works but it is also just one of many styles to do it that has recently been considered the only style. It certainly is more visual but there are other ways to do it too. They just have to be done much better in order to get published.
ReplyDeleteI know what you're saying and agree w/ what has been said about finding that balance. If the "showing" action is abstract (as in your example) it can come off a little forced. That passage had me rolling my eyes at the gum line. I mean, she's dealing w/ a dead body and cares about the flavor in her gum? odd. But, we should still strive not to tell every emotion, right? It's still a worthy goal.
ReplyDeleteMichelle, the idea of distance is interesting. I get criticized for being a distanced writer a lot, actually. But, I don't think I do this sort of thing that often. Well, maybe I do.
ReplyDeleteTara Maya, you make a most excellent point! And, you have an excellent example to show it. It's interesting because, as you say, it does end up working, at least partially, in both of our examples.
Jolene, I agree with you on doing it well. I think it requires a lot of thought and creativity.
Anne, discussions about the shortening of attention spans depress me so!
Martin, I also worry that I sometimes get into that stuffy competitive mode. I try very hard to center myself often.
Anthony, thanks for your strong opinion and your reading recommendations! I'm not at all familiar with Nora Roberts other than knowing that she's popular.
Lavanya, One of the ideas that makes a lot of sense to me is that the author must know the why of the action. But, I'm also conflicted over that because I think sometimes a writer's intention can be completely different from what the reader takes out of the story.
ReplyDeleteMizmak, that's a lovely example. Thanks a lot for putting it up! For me, Tolstoy is able to work like this too. That's why I admire him so much.
Tara Maya, this post was inspired by my reading a bunch of slush actually! And, I guess the reason I felt the need to bring it up was because I don't know if it's just me or if it's actually the material I'm reading. Lately I've been reading a lot of poetry to clean out my brain.
Taryn, that's a really good point. I think too many people are relying on it, especially in the writing I'm personally encountering.
Tess, Yes! What's bothering me is that some of it seems lazy. I think the actual idea behind it, of showing the emotion is a great one, but it doesn't come easy. It takes a deep understanding of character, and I'm wondering if readers can tell the difference...if there even is one.
Davin- that is a point to consider. For example- I went back and read your example- and realized that the first time I read it- the action didn't work for me because I think the cup became a symbol of Eloise for me and that didn't make sense. But when I re-read it now slowly, the cup became a symbol of her mother (and the act of letting go) and then something sort of clicked. [I think people generally are always in search of symbols to sort of explain their lives to themselves. So in that context this example could work.] . And of course my interpretation could be completely different from what the author intended.
ReplyDeleteAlso,with regard to the the reader's interpretation: I think, if the action that is being 'shown' can stand alone as a manifestation of some recognizable emotion, then irrespective of any metaphor/symbol that the action may be hinting at, the action can still be interesting or relevant to the reader- Does that make sense? For example, I liked the flavorless gum bit (and I don't think I consciously registered any interpretation/symbol)
Lavanya
Just read your response to Tess and I agree!-I do think a reader can tell the difference-and it was sort of what I was trying to get at (about the author knowing the why of certain actions). I don't think a reader maybe able to consciously articulate the difference- but I think the reason something works or doesn't for a reader could (but not always) be contingent on the author's deep understanding of his/her characters. Ofcourse beyond a point everything's subjective.
ReplyDeleteSorry for all the rambling- but I've wondered about this point too, so found the post very interesting..
Lavanya
also too many typos- sorry! (I meant may be- not maybe)
ReplyDeleteErnest Hemingway was a big proponent of the style "in which meaning is established through dialogue, through action, and silences—a fiction in which nothing crucial—or at least very little—is stated explicitly."
ReplyDeleteI think of his style as "just the facts, ma'am" writing. It can make the reader feel outside the characters because the characters are described in terms of their outside actions, not so much their inner monologues.
@ Davin. I had a sneaking suspicion this post was inspired by SFS (Slush Fatigue Syndrome).
I think we have so many fiction writing rules embeded in us that it's too scary to break them. I would tend to show not tell - but mostly because I'd be terrified of a reader throwing their arms up in disgust at my ignorance. As a reader, I'd like somethings to be simply told, I don't want every little thing shown, it would be exhausting.
ReplyDeleteGood for you for questioning this!