Anton Chekhov has a famous writing quote. "Don't tell me the moon is shining: show me the glint of light on broken glass."
I never really understood that until recently. Something shows something or someone tells someone something.
For example, let's say you have a man named Richard who angered a woman named Mary and you wanted to describe her anger to someone. You have two options. You can tell the person about it or you can depict Mary proving it.
Tell: Mary was furious at Richard.
Show: Mary punched Richard in the face.
Which of the two is more interesting? There are two ways to find out if your story is telling information instead of showing it: the use of "to be" verbs such as "was" and "had", and the character is not actively involved.
I think of it this way. A narrator tells. A character shows. It is the nature of a reader to be more interested in what a character is doing, saying, and feeling than what a narrator relates. The narrator is an innately distant figure, a disembodied voice with little connection to the reader (unless the narrator is the character such as in first-person, but that's another thing altogether.) Because of this, it is better to use a character whenever possible.
Narrators have their place. Sometimes a writer must just give out information and be done with it. Not everything can be said in dialogue. Dialogue is great for giving information, but it can't be the sole provider of it. That would turn the characters into vending machines.
However, characters work a lot for a writer. They can do and say things. If the character has a natural opportunity to provide information, take it.
There is one time when telling should not be an option. Action scenes. Such scenes focus solely on the characters. The narrator should not be in the room. I would also limit the narrator during dialogue. The characters are talking. Tell the narrator to shut up unless he has a desperately needed tidbit.
Though just because a narrator tells things does not mean he does not have to use active verbs. Here is a paragraph from my fantasy novel Deathdealer where my omniscient narrator describes the city of Adalin.
"The next day, the quartet stood at one of the several entrances to the Adalin port. It rivaled the capital in size, boasting scores of merchant ships on top of hundreds of smaller fishing boats. Finding the right ship proved a difficult task, as people swarmed the docks like a hive of bees. Sailors and fishermen hurried to get their respective vessels ready to sail. High tide approached, and the sun peeked out of the peaks of the mountains."
There is not a "to be" or passive verb to be seen, but it is still a narrator telling, not a character showing. Narrators should be as articulate and powerful as your characters. After all, narration encompasses some of a writer's loveliest prose. Just because the narrator provides needed information in no way means they must be boring about it. Enliven a narrator with good words. Telling does not have to be a bad thing.
I think I've lost the main difference between the two in my rambling. Showing is preferable over telling, but telling is necessary. Characters are more fascinating than a narrator and writers must not forget we write to entertain. Maintaining interest is the most important thing.
So as Chekhov said, give your readers broken glass.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
What do you think? How often have you fallen back on the narrator in a difficult scene?
I never really understood that until recently. Something shows something or someone tells someone something.
For example, let's say you have a man named Richard who angered a woman named Mary and you wanted to describe her anger to someone. You have two options. You can tell the person about it or you can depict Mary proving it.
Tell: Mary was furious at Richard.
Show: Mary punched Richard in the face.
Which of the two is more interesting? There are two ways to find out if your story is telling information instead of showing it: the use of "to be" verbs such as "was" and "had", and the character is not actively involved.
I think of it this way. A narrator tells. A character shows. It is the nature of a reader to be more interested in what a character is doing, saying, and feeling than what a narrator relates. The narrator is an innately distant figure, a disembodied voice with little connection to the reader (unless the narrator is the character such as in first-person, but that's another thing altogether.) Because of this, it is better to use a character whenever possible.
Narrators have their place. Sometimes a writer must just give out information and be done with it. Not everything can be said in dialogue. Dialogue is great for giving information, but it can't be the sole provider of it. That would turn the characters into vending machines.
However, characters work a lot for a writer. They can do and say things. If the character has a natural opportunity to provide information, take it.
There is one time when telling should not be an option. Action scenes. Such scenes focus solely on the characters. The narrator should not be in the room. I would also limit the narrator during dialogue. The characters are talking. Tell the narrator to shut up unless he has a desperately needed tidbit.
Though just because a narrator tells things does not mean he does not have to use active verbs. Here is a paragraph from my fantasy novel Deathdealer where my omniscient narrator describes the city of Adalin.
"The next day, the quartet stood at one of the several entrances to the Adalin port. It rivaled the capital in size, boasting scores of merchant ships on top of hundreds of smaller fishing boats. Finding the right ship proved a difficult task, as people swarmed the docks like a hive of bees. Sailors and fishermen hurried to get their respective vessels ready to sail. High tide approached, and the sun peeked out of the peaks of the mountains."
There is not a "to be" or passive verb to be seen, but it is still a narrator telling, not a character showing. Narrators should be as articulate and powerful as your characters. After all, narration encompasses some of a writer's loveliest prose. Just because the narrator provides needed information in no way means they must be boring about it. Enliven a narrator with good words. Telling does not have to be a bad thing.
I think I've lost the main difference between the two in my rambling. Showing is preferable over telling, but telling is necessary. Characters are more fascinating than a narrator and writers must not forget we write to entertain. Maintaining interest is the most important thing.
So as Chekhov said, give your readers broken glass.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
What do you think? How often have you fallen back on the narrator in a difficult scene?