GojiBean
Your resident irradiated Kaiju King
Hoyo!
"Show, Don't Tell."
This is arguably the most brain twisting and hair pulling axiom of storytelling, regardless of the medium through which it's being used (such as film, tv, video games, novels, manga, short stories, etc).
Today, I'm going to take a stab at trying to demystify what "Show, Don't Tell" truly means and how to best make use of the axiom's guidance to maximize the effect of your storytelling across the board. Key phrase is "trying to." Whether I succeed or not will be up to you once you're done reading. Lol.
So, let's get started!!
According to what I've learned about storytelling from reading books like those of the master Robert McKee's book "Story," and watching video essays, taking online classes, etc, "Show, Don't Tell" can best be defined as an axiom of storytelling that warns against substituting "passive explanation" for "dynamic dramatization."
What does that mean?
It simply means that to most effectively communicate the nature of your scene and/or characters within the scene, you must present each element in the most honest and direct way possible without overtly stating the obvious as that could be seen as you trying to ham fist information down the reader's throat which is likely to turn them off to reading more of what you have to say or show them.
For example:
NOT "Show, Don't Tell" - Ashley angrily pounded the desk with her fist and screamed at the top of her lungs "GET OUT!! ALL OF YOU GET OUT!!" She whipped her fists about in an uncontrolled rage nearly taking the frightened heads of her friends and family clean off as they scurried desperately towards the exit before slamming the door shut leaving her to stew quietly in the overboiling soup of fury she'd become.
What's wrong with this example?
Technically, nothing is wrong with this example. The above sequence states the information needed to understand the situation clearly. However, the questions can be asked "is this doing the most effective job it could," and "is the audience having their hand held a little too much?"
I would argue the answer to both questions are "No," and "Yes," respectively.
No, the scene isn't doing the most effective job it could because it's using words which force emotional information down the throat of the reader which many of the actions being taken have already shown you to be true. An example is Ashley pounding her fist into the desk. You don't need to be told via narrative text that she's angry. Her fist hitting the desk, followed by screams to "GET OUT!" could only be seen as rage. Saying she slammed her fist into the desk angrily is being redundant and, in my opinion, is insulting the audience's intelligence and their ability to glean the information about her mental and emotional state in this scene.
Yes, the audience is having their hand held a little too much for many of the same reasons as stated above. Audiences today who are above the age of 7 are usually pretty good at interpreting emotions via actions taken without needing to be told what emotions are present. As well, Ashley being described as (aka "told to you") "stewing in the overboiling soup of fury she'd become" is not nearly as effective as writing the scene in a way that shows what she's doing and what she's feeling.
The same scene WITH "Show, Don't Tell" - Ashley pounded the desk with her fist. "GET OUT!! ALL OF YOU GET OUT!!" She whipped her fists about, many of the intended strikes barely missing the heads of her friends and family who dashed to the exit while bumping into and nearly tripping over one another before slamming the door behind themselves. Ashley stood alone in the center of the room with white-knuckled fists clenched and trembling at her sides, and breathing deeply with heavy shoulder rises and falls with tears rolling silently down her face.
What's wrong with this example?
Again, technically there's nothing wrong. And while some may argue this one feels like it has a bit more word fluff, there can be no denying that this version of the scene avoids the pitfalls of the first. Nowhere are you told what Ashley or the friends and family are feeling. You are shown through actions and body language. Nowhere is it told to you that something is intended to be interpreted a certain way. It's left to you to do the interpreting.
This is the essence of "Show, Don't Tell." To present the scene and/or your characters in an honest, straightforward manner where the audience is given all of the information they need to understand exactly what's going on and how everyone's feeling without a single emotional adjective (like "angrily" or "desperately") being shoved in their face as if to say "this is how you're supposed to feel."
The use of "Show, Don't Tell" is rather straightforward, but it does require some practice.
To effectively use "Show, Don't Tell," you have to ask yourself a few questions before you write anything. Those questions could be anything along the lines of the following:
1) Am I forcing emotions using adjectives like "happy," "angry," "sad," etc?
If you find yourself wanting to use emotional adjectives like "happy," "angry," etc, stop yourself from using them and figure out how to show someone reading that the emotion you are going for is present in the character and the scene as it is happening. For example, if the character is happy describe their smile and their open body language like, "Her smile stretched ear to ear as she jogged ahead, looked over her shoulder, and chuckled with a hand up by her mouth and a light blush in her cheeks." Nobody needs to be told this female character is happy. It's obvious in the description and the fact she's smiling so big and chuckling with a blush in her cheeks. She's elated. Over the moon. And you don't need to write a single emotional adjective to force those emotions down the reader's throat.
2) Am I telling my audience something rather than showing them by forcing my character to step outside of who they are?
If you've ever asked yourself "would my character actually do, say, or think this?"... Then no, they wouldn't. The moment you question whether or not your character would or would not do, say, or think in a certain way you're already undermining your faith in the natural thought and reaction processes of your character which will, inevitably, force them out of character if you proceed.
Let's say you want a specific event to happen like a brawl in a bar, but your character was written to be a pacifist and someone who avoids conflict. Would they realistically start a bar brawl? Well, it would help if we had more information like whether or not this character steps outside their pacifism if they get too drunk. For the sake of argument we'll say it's written in their CS that even when drunk they're a kindly pacifist who avoids conflict. So, let's ask the question again. Would they realistically start a bar brawl?
No, they wouldn't. If they're drunk they wouldn't do it. And if they're sober they obviously wouldn't break this character trait either because they live firmly in their belief of pacifism.
So how can this character accomplish the goal of the bar brawl? They can't.
If you force them to change who they are either while sober or drunk just to start this desired bar brawl, you've broken their character and effectively done the same thing as ham fisting an emotion down the reader's throat in previous examples. You've forced something unnatural for the sake of making something happen or be understood in the way that you want it understood which is not natural to an audience who isn't sharing your emotional processes.
Forcing emotional adjectives and having your character step out of themselves to force an action/event to occur so you can get a specific reaction from the reader are both examples of writer stepping into the realm of "Tell, Don't Show" in different ways. And while this is not inherently the wrong thing to do, it's not the right thing to do either.
3) How can I relay the information about who my character is after without stating it openly?
Always ask yourself this question even if the other questions before or after it are slightly different from what I've shared so far.
For example, let's say you have a character who's a leadership figure in a war. They're in a war tent, and they're extremely worried about the battle their forces are about to enter because they're outnumbered and they don't have enough information about the kinds of equipment the enemy has, or how they could make best use of the environment against the enemy. There seems to be no silver lining. No light at the end of the tunnel. No hope for victory.
How do you, as the writer, show the reader this character in this scene and describe the mindset they're in?
Well, that's up to you. For the sake of demonstration, here's an example of how I might set and enact this scene using the principle of "Show, Don't Tell."
Through the palpable silence of the war tent whose entrance folds flapped gently in the breeze, he sat at his table with a map of the soon-to-be battlefield laid out before him. Five small triangles were drawn on the South side to represent his forces. Fifteen slightly larger triangles were drawn in the North, representing the enemy. Each of those enemy triangles contained a question mark representing the unknown factor...
"General, the enemy's been spotted." Came a booming voice behind him.
Entering the tent, the Commander saw it remarkably empty save for the desk and chair, as well as other small objects on the desk itself.
"How many?" The General asked.
"It's exactly as we feared, sir. They outnumber us three to one on every front."
The map was suddenly crumpled in his fist. Immediately, he let go of it and tried to flatten it again using the ink bottle and a few other objects on the desk.
"Their armaments?"
"From what our scouts reported the first three lines all carry rifles or longbows, sir."
"... Fuck." He muttered quietly.
"We've also got confirmation of no fewer than twenty cannons, sir."
The General's head slowly lowered as he analyzed the edges of the map. In particular his eyes spent a long time hovering over the Southern border of the map, the empty space behind them.
"Sir, your orders?"
With the sword of Damocles hanging over his head, his eyes having glazed over as he slowly turned around, he took a deep breath and put on his officer's hat. He held up the map and used a match to light it, setting it in the cigar ash tray on the desk. Other documents were burned one by one as well while the Commander watched with a quivering lower lip. Finally, the document containing their orders signed by the Senator who gave his approval for this operation was folded and placed into his breast pocket. With everything set and the important documents burned, he turned to face the Commander.
"My orders are that we meet them as planned."
"... Sir." The Commander replied softly.
He held out his hand to the Commander. Hesitating only a moment, the Commander clasped arms with him and each gave a short, sharp shake while smiling with their eyes beginning to well with tears.
"It's been an honor, Commander."
"Sir... Likewise."
Together they turned on their heels and exited the tent to mount their steeds and approach the battlefield at the front of their meager forces while the enemy amassed against them opposite the battlefield...
This scene was a little lengthy compared to previous examples. But the reason for the length is two fold.
1) To properly give time do understand how the mindset of each man changed in the scene
2) To give context to the conversation, choices, and characters, for anyone reading for the first time who may have missed something earlier in the story that's being told before this scene takes place
In any given scene there needs to be time allowed to develop the emotions and motivations of every character in the scene. If you rush from one emotion to the other, it's not wrong. But it will serve to devalue the intended effect you were aiming to achieve. Readers inherently desire the chance and time to understand the characters and want to see the changes as they happen. While you could certainly make the argument that a lot of the changes are happening all at once because the scene is meant to be frantic, remember this... You control the flow of time in your posts.
Time can be slowed as much or as little as you want in your posts. And sometimes the best thing to do for the purpose of showing your audience all of the information you want to show them is to take that direct control and slow things down. Let your written words of description provide context clues rather than overt statements, and take your time selecting and placing them. Even in frantic scenes where you want things to be moving quickly, slowing time down in the reader's mind's eye is always a legitimate way to give yourself the time needed to provide that information. If you force it all in rapid succession, you're relying on the reader's mercy to forgive the onslaught of information and trusting them not to skip ahead and make their best guess as to what happened, and why.
Finally, context is important in everything we do because it's all written, which means it's both non-verbal and non-physical. We use words to describe the physical and fill in the verbal. But nothing will replace an actual tone of voice, inflections, pitch, and intensity coupled with body language and facial expressions. So, using our words to properly describe all of these elements in a way that shows the audience rather than tells them the information you want them to perceive is essential.
Context also pertains to the characters themselves.
Who are they? What are their best traits? How and why does what they say and what they do impact others around them? And why should we care?
Well, what would you guess about the General I wrote about? Who is he? Why is he here? How does he think? What does he want? "What kind of leader is he?"
Would you believe me if I told you that the answers to all those questions are staring you in the face as you read my example scene? Did you find the answers on first reading? If not, here's the summary:
- Who is he? This one's the obvious. He's the General, the leader of all their forces.
- Why is he here? He's the subject of his government. Specifically the Senator who signed the document for their mission to confront the enemy on this field which has effectively signed their death warrant.
- How does he think? He thinks ahead as is evidenced by the tent being largely empty. If he planned for this battle to last, the tent would have more in it to prepare for further analysis of the situation and deliberation with other military leaders as the campaign dragged on. But instead, it's empty. Temporary. Also, given his analysis of the hopelessness of their situation, why is he looking at the edges of the map? He's thinking about possible escape routes. However, he knows the consequences of them and so he never thinks about them again. He's a true fighter. Though he may have lapsed momentarily, he quickly disregarded his fears and meets his fate head on. As well, he knows he's marching to his death. Yet he clasps arms with his friend, the Commander, and rides to the front of the lines to face the enemy with his men behind him.
- What does he want? It's obvious. He wants to live, but he's bound by duty. His momentary lapse at looking to the edges of the map for escape routes, and then disregarding them and choosing to confront his death proves that as much as he wants to live, he lives for duty first and foremost. Even though he knows he's going to die, duty comes first.
- What kind of leader is he? A good one. He's done his best to gather intelligence as evidenced by his drawing of the map and the question marks in the triangles, but it wasn't enough. They only gathered the necessary information to understand their enemy's firepower right now before the battle. When it became clear they were going to die he faltered, but reaffirmed his resolve and chose to meet his death like a man. He takes the forefront of the battlefield ahead of his men leading properly by example and doing what he can to be where his men need him to be. In the lead.
All of this information was described in detail using context clues in the way I set each aspect of the scene. Each of them needed time to be taken in and understood. And even if it wasn't conscious on first reading you aren't surprised by any of the information I've shared about these aspects of the character of the General, are you? Everything makes sense because everything in the post, though not stating any of the information overtly and pushing it in your face, showed you everything you needed to know to understand that this is all true of him.
This was a lot to cover and I know that it might have made "Show, Don't Tell" fedl a lot more complicated than it needs to be when taking it all in for the first time. And that's a legitimate criticism of almost any of my tutorials as I always look at things in way more depth than I need to.
While it's true that "Show, Don't Tell" means a lot and demands a lot from us as writers to make the best use of it, at the end of the day the concept is simple: Keep things simple, keep them honest, and make sure not to force emotions, actions, or events down your reader's throat in ways that could be considered unnatural.
If you want to convey emotion, show the emotion.
If you want to convey a desire for action, show the build up to and the execution of the action (for example, the hesitation before a first kiss followed by the kiss itself and the surprise by the recipient before the gentle surrender and reciprocation of the love they share as they embrace equally and press their lips together all the more aggressively).
If you want something to happen, it has to make sense and be honest and true to the character. If it's not, don't do it. Either let someone else do it for whom it makes sense, or wait until later in the story when your character has changed and developed in a way that properly facilitates it.
Litearlly show. Literally, don't tell. Or, at least try not to tell any more than you have to.
You have the power in your words and descriptions to show us everything and tell us nothing, leaving it all up to our own interpretive ability and trusting us to see the context clues you're laying in our path along the journey.
It's up to you to use them.
Cheers!
~ GojiBean
"Show, Don't Tell."
This is arguably the most brain twisting and hair pulling axiom of storytelling, regardless of the medium through which it's being used (such as film, tv, video games, novels, manga, short stories, etc).
Today, I'm going to take a stab at trying to demystify what "Show, Don't Tell" truly means and how to best make use of the axiom's guidance to maximize the effect of your storytelling across the board. Key phrase is "trying to." Whether I succeed or not will be up to you once you're done reading. Lol.
So, let's get started!!
What Does "Show, Don't Tell" Mean?
According to what I've learned about storytelling from reading books like those of the master Robert McKee's book "Story," and watching video essays, taking online classes, etc, "Show, Don't Tell" can best be defined as an axiom of storytelling that warns against substituting "passive explanation" for "dynamic dramatization."
What does that mean?
It simply means that to most effectively communicate the nature of your scene and/or characters within the scene, you must present each element in the most honest and direct way possible without overtly stating the obvious as that could be seen as you trying to ham fist information down the reader's throat which is likely to turn them off to reading more of what you have to say or show them.
For example:
NOT "Show, Don't Tell" - Ashley angrily pounded the desk with her fist and screamed at the top of her lungs "GET OUT!! ALL OF YOU GET OUT!!" She whipped her fists about in an uncontrolled rage nearly taking the frightened heads of her friends and family clean off as they scurried desperately towards the exit before slamming the door shut leaving her to stew quietly in the overboiling soup of fury she'd become.
What's wrong with this example?
Technically, nothing is wrong with this example. The above sequence states the information needed to understand the situation clearly. However, the questions can be asked "is this doing the most effective job it could," and "is the audience having their hand held a little too much?"
I would argue the answer to both questions are "No," and "Yes," respectively.
No, the scene isn't doing the most effective job it could because it's using words which force emotional information down the throat of the reader which many of the actions being taken have already shown you to be true. An example is Ashley pounding her fist into the desk. You don't need to be told via narrative text that she's angry. Her fist hitting the desk, followed by screams to "GET OUT!" could only be seen as rage. Saying she slammed her fist into the desk angrily is being redundant and, in my opinion, is insulting the audience's intelligence and their ability to glean the information about her mental and emotional state in this scene.
Yes, the audience is having their hand held a little too much for many of the same reasons as stated above. Audiences today who are above the age of 7 are usually pretty good at interpreting emotions via actions taken without needing to be told what emotions are present. As well, Ashley being described as (aka "told to you") "stewing in the overboiling soup of fury she'd become" is not nearly as effective as writing the scene in a way that shows what she's doing and what she's feeling.
The same scene WITH "Show, Don't Tell" - Ashley pounded the desk with her fist. "GET OUT!! ALL OF YOU GET OUT!!" She whipped her fists about, many of the intended strikes barely missing the heads of her friends and family who dashed to the exit while bumping into and nearly tripping over one another before slamming the door behind themselves. Ashley stood alone in the center of the room with white-knuckled fists clenched and trembling at her sides, and breathing deeply with heavy shoulder rises and falls with tears rolling silently down her face.
What's wrong with this example?
Again, technically there's nothing wrong. And while some may argue this one feels like it has a bit more word fluff, there can be no denying that this version of the scene avoids the pitfalls of the first. Nowhere are you told what Ashley or the friends and family are feeling. You are shown through actions and body language. Nowhere is it told to you that something is intended to be interpreted a certain way. It's left to you to do the interpreting.
This is the essence of "Show, Don't Tell." To present the scene and/or your characters in an honest, straightforward manner where the audience is given all of the information they need to understand exactly what's going on and how everyone's feeling without a single emotional adjective (like "angrily" or "desperately") being shoved in their face as if to say "this is how you're supposed to feel."
How To Use "Show, Don't Tell"
The use of "Show, Don't Tell" is rather straightforward, but it does require some practice.
To effectively use "Show, Don't Tell," you have to ask yourself a few questions before you write anything. Those questions could be anything along the lines of the following:
1) Am I forcing emotions using adjectives like "happy," "angry," "sad," etc?
If you find yourself wanting to use emotional adjectives like "happy," "angry," etc, stop yourself from using them and figure out how to show someone reading that the emotion you are going for is present in the character and the scene as it is happening. For example, if the character is happy describe their smile and their open body language like, "Her smile stretched ear to ear as she jogged ahead, looked over her shoulder, and chuckled with a hand up by her mouth and a light blush in her cheeks." Nobody needs to be told this female character is happy. It's obvious in the description and the fact she's smiling so big and chuckling with a blush in her cheeks. She's elated. Over the moon. And you don't need to write a single emotional adjective to force those emotions down the reader's throat.
2) Am I telling my audience something rather than showing them by forcing my character to step outside of who they are?
If you've ever asked yourself "would my character actually do, say, or think this?"... Then no, they wouldn't. The moment you question whether or not your character would or would not do, say, or think in a certain way you're already undermining your faith in the natural thought and reaction processes of your character which will, inevitably, force them out of character if you proceed.
Let's say you want a specific event to happen like a brawl in a bar, but your character was written to be a pacifist and someone who avoids conflict. Would they realistically start a bar brawl? Well, it would help if we had more information like whether or not this character steps outside their pacifism if they get too drunk. For the sake of argument we'll say it's written in their CS that even when drunk they're a kindly pacifist who avoids conflict. So, let's ask the question again. Would they realistically start a bar brawl?
No, they wouldn't. If they're drunk they wouldn't do it. And if they're sober they obviously wouldn't break this character trait either because they live firmly in their belief of pacifism.
So how can this character accomplish the goal of the bar brawl? They can't.
If you force them to change who they are either while sober or drunk just to start this desired bar brawl, you've broken their character and effectively done the same thing as ham fisting an emotion down the reader's throat in previous examples. You've forced something unnatural for the sake of making something happen or be understood in the way that you want it understood which is not natural to an audience who isn't sharing your emotional processes.
Forcing emotional adjectives and having your character step out of themselves to force an action/event to occur so you can get a specific reaction from the reader are both examples of writer stepping into the realm of "Tell, Don't Show" in different ways. And while this is not inherently the wrong thing to do, it's not the right thing to do either.
3) How can I relay the information about who my character is after without stating it openly?
Always ask yourself this question even if the other questions before or after it are slightly different from what I've shared so far.
For example, let's say you have a character who's a leadership figure in a war. They're in a war tent, and they're extremely worried about the battle their forces are about to enter because they're outnumbered and they don't have enough information about the kinds of equipment the enemy has, or how they could make best use of the environment against the enemy. There seems to be no silver lining. No light at the end of the tunnel. No hope for victory.
How do you, as the writer, show the reader this character in this scene and describe the mindset they're in?
Well, that's up to you. For the sake of demonstration, here's an example of how I might set and enact this scene using the principle of "Show, Don't Tell."
Through the palpable silence of the war tent whose entrance folds flapped gently in the breeze, he sat at his table with a map of the soon-to-be battlefield laid out before him. Five small triangles were drawn on the South side to represent his forces. Fifteen slightly larger triangles were drawn in the North, representing the enemy. Each of those enemy triangles contained a question mark representing the unknown factor...
"General, the enemy's been spotted." Came a booming voice behind him.
Entering the tent, the Commander saw it remarkably empty save for the desk and chair, as well as other small objects on the desk itself.
"How many?" The General asked.
"It's exactly as we feared, sir. They outnumber us three to one on every front."
The map was suddenly crumpled in his fist. Immediately, he let go of it and tried to flatten it again using the ink bottle and a few other objects on the desk.
"Their armaments?"
"From what our scouts reported the first three lines all carry rifles or longbows, sir."
"... Fuck." He muttered quietly.
"We've also got confirmation of no fewer than twenty cannons, sir."
The General's head slowly lowered as he analyzed the edges of the map. In particular his eyes spent a long time hovering over the Southern border of the map, the empty space behind them.
"Sir, your orders?"
With the sword of Damocles hanging over his head, his eyes having glazed over as he slowly turned around, he took a deep breath and put on his officer's hat. He held up the map and used a match to light it, setting it in the cigar ash tray on the desk. Other documents were burned one by one as well while the Commander watched with a quivering lower lip. Finally, the document containing their orders signed by the Senator who gave his approval for this operation was folded and placed into his breast pocket. With everything set and the important documents burned, he turned to face the Commander.
"My orders are that we meet them as planned."
"... Sir." The Commander replied softly.
He held out his hand to the Commander. Hesitating only a moment, the Commander clasped arms with him and each gave a short, sharp shake while smiling with their eyes beginning to well with tears.
"It's been an honor, Commander."
"Sir... Likewise."
Together they turned on their heels and exited the tent to mount their steeds and approach the battlefield at the front of their meager forces while the enemy amassed against them opposite the battlefield...
This scene was a little lengthy compared to previous examples. But the reason for the length is two fold.
1) To properly give time do understand how the mindset of each man changed in the scene
2) To give context to the conversation, choices, and characters, for anyone reading for the first time who may have missed something earlier in the story that's being told before this scene takes place
In any given scene there needs to be time allowed to develop the emotions and motivations of every character in the scene. If you rush from one emotion to the other, it's not wrong. But it will serve to devalue the intended effect you were aiming to achieve. Readers inherently desire the chance and time to understand the characters and want to see the changes as they happen. While you could certainly make the argument that a lot of the changes are happening all at once because the scene is meant to be frantic, remember this... You control the flow of time in your posts.
Time can be slowed as much or as little as you want in your posts. And sometimes the best thing to do for the purpose of showing your audience all of the information you want to show them is to take that direct control and slow things down. Let your written words of description provide context clues rather than overt statements, and take your time selecting and placing them. Even in frantic scenes where you want things to be moving quickly, slowing time down in the reader's mind's eye is always a legitimate way to give yourself the time needed to provide that information. If you force it all in rapid succession, you're relying on the reader's mercy to forgive the onslaught of information and trusting them not to skip ahead and make their best guess as to what happened, and why.
Finally, context is important in everything we do because it's all written, which means it's both non-verbal and non-physical. We use words to describe the physical and fill in the verbal. But nothing will replace an actual tone of voice, inflections, pitch, and intensity coupled with body language and facial expressions. So, using our words to properly describe all of these elements in a way that shows the audience rather than tells them the information you want them to perceive is essential.
Context also pertains to the characters themselves.
Who are they? What are their best traits? How and why does what they say and what they do impact others around them? And why should we care?
Well, what would you guess about the General I wrote about? Who is he? Why is he here? How does he think? What does he want? "What kind of leader is he?"
Would you believe me if I told you that the answers to all those questions are staring you in the face as you read my example scene? Did you find the answers on first reading? If not, here's the summary:
- Who is he? This one's the obvious. He's the General, the leader of all their forces.
- Why is he here? He's the subject of his government. Specifically the Senator who signed the document for their mission to confront the enemy on this field which has effectively signed their death warrant.
- How does he think? He thinks ahead as is evidenced by the tent being largely empty. If he planned for this battle to last, the tent would have more in it to prepare for further analysis of the situation and deliberation with other military leaders as the campaign dragged on. But instead, it's empty. Temporary. Also, given his analysis of the hopelessness of their situation, why is he looking at the edges of the map? He's thinking about possible escape routes. However, he knows the consequences of them and so he never thinks about them again. He's a true fighter. Though he may have lapsed momentarily, he quickly disregarded his fears and meets his fate head on. As well, he knows he's marching to his death. Yet he clasps arms with his friend, the Commander, and rides to the front of the lines to face the enemy with his men behind him.
- What does he want? It's obvious. He wants to live, but he's bound by duty. His momentary lapse at looking to the edges of the map for escape routes, and then disregarding them and choosing to confront his death proves that as much as he wants to live, he lives for duty first and foremost. Even though he knows he's going to die, duty comes first.
- What kind of leader is he? A good one. He's done his best to gather intelligence as evidenced by his drawing of the map and the question marks in the triangles, but it wasn't enough. They only gathered the necessary information to understand their enemy's firepower right now before the battle. When it became clear they were going to die he faltered, but reaffirmed his resolve and chose to meet his death like a man. He takes the forefront of the battlefield ahead of his men leading properly by example and doing what he can to be where his men need him to be. In the lead.
All of this information was described in detail using context clues in the way I set each aspect of the scene. Each of them needed time to be taken in and understood. And even if it wasn't conscious on first reading you aren't surprised by any of the information I've shared about these aspects of the character of the General, are you? Everything makes sense because everything in the post, though not stating any of the information overtly and pushing it in your face, showed you everything you needed to know to understand that this is all true of him.
In Conclusion
This was a lot to cover and I know that it might have made "Show, Don't Tell" fedl a lot more complicated than it needs to be when taking it all in for the first time. And that's a legitimate criticism of almost any of my tutorials as I always look at things in way more depth than I need to.
While it's true that "Show, Don't Tell" means a lot and demands a lot from us as writers to make the best use of it, at the end of the day the concept is simple: Keep things simple, keep them honest, and make sure not to force emotions, actions, or events down your reader's throat in ways that could be considered unnatural.
If you want to convey emotion, show the emotion.
If you want to convey a desire for action, show the build up to and the execution of the action (for example, the hesitation before a first kiss followed by the kiss itself and the surprise by the recipient before the gentle surrender and reciprocation of the love they share as they embrace equally and press their lips together all the more aggressively).
If you want something to happen, it has to make sense and be honest and true to the character. If it's not, don't do it. Either let someone else do it for whom it makes sense, or wait until later in the story when your character has changed and developed in a way that properly facilitates it.
Litearlly show. Literally, don't tell. Or, at least try not to tell any more than you have to.
You have the power in your words and descriptions to show us everything and tell us nothing, leaving it all up to our own interpretive ability and trusting us to see the context clues you're laying in our path along the journey.
It's up to you to use them.
Cheers!
~ GojiBean
Last edited: