The rule of show don't tell is kind of the same as, "leading by example". You show people how to live by doing it yourself, or you show people what's going on by writing about what's happening. You leave the "why it's happening" up to the reader to unravel.
Here is an excerpt of Stephen King just describing his life, and why he writes, in the prologue to his book, "Just After Sunset":
"And now, let me get out of your way. But before I go, I want to thank you for coming. Would I still do what I do if you didn't? Yes, indeed I would. Because it makes me happy when the words fall together and the picture comes and the make-believe people do things that delight me. But it's better with you, Constant Reader."
After reading this a few times, I realised that he's being a bit sneaky. He's showing us - not telling us - why we would want to be writers. Not for the fame or the popularity or the money. But because we love writing. Even in his prologues - the parts removed from his story telling - he's still a master of show don't tell.
So why would we want to use this technique? There are a few reasons I can see why we would want to use "Show Don't Tell":
1. You engage the reader more by showing them what's going on. Saying, "Sally loved Harry" is one step removed from everyday life. In everyday life, where we can see what's going on and where we actually see the symptoms of love, we can be moved emotionally and engage a lot more than just being told, "this is this". Readers want to be transported and feel like they're living in the story, not feel like they're being told it.
2. You don't want to insult the reader. By explicitly spelling something out for the reader, you're almost suggesting that they aren't able to interpret the symptoms and come to the right conclusions themselves, so you'll just tell them instead.
3. Sometimes there may be multiple causes for one set of symptoms. And who are you to tell the reader that they should interpret something in a specific way, if there are many ways to interpret it? Moreover, you might be missing a chance to fully show the rich, colourful diversity of something's origins by attempting to explain it. In attempting to explain it, you would make it bland through black-and-white over-simplification.
4. It's a sign of poor writing, in and of itself. If you need to resort to telling the reader how to interpret something, you haven't shown something well enough for the reader to come to the same conclusion as what you're trying to say. If you haven't described the symptoms of, "Sally loving Harry" well enough, the reader won't have come to the conclusion that the writer wants them to, so the writer will be forced to tell the reader.
The fourth point reminds me how I feel about art, as well. If the artist has to tell you what the art represents rather than showing something well enough for the viewer to come to the same conclusion, the artist hasn't done his job well enough. "Show don't tell" is really a sign of quality.
5. I got talking to a friend over dinner the other day and he started talking about how he found it really off-putting how some people try to publicise how a picture gives them inspiration. For one picture, on a sunset, someone wrote, "chasing the sunset into the ocean". To me it seemed like this was a "show don't tell" moment. But what was wrong with this?
It's like he was trying to add a narrative to his own life. To tell the listeners/readers the story he liked, rather let the truth just lie bare. Beware of trying to paint colours of the narrative you like over the wall of your life. If it the paint is too thin, the viewer will still easily be able to see the cracks in the wall.
No comments:
Post a Comment