I was inspired for this topic by The Closer Look's recent video essay on YouTube with the title Show Don't Tell Is Terrible Advice:
It's a great video. i like to let videos like that run in the background while I'm doing the dishes or whatever.
He essentially argues that "Show, don't tell" is bad advice because it misunderstands the actual problem. He thinks that the actual writing mistake "show don't tell" is trying to address is "intrusive exposition". By that he means exposition that feels so out of place that the reader/viewer/player (he refers to books, movies, tv shows and video games) immediately feels that the exposition is not integrated into the narrative but is so obviously there for the sake of informing the reader that it is borderline a fourth wall break.
He argues further that there is nothing inherently better about showing over telling if telling is done right, and that blind adherence to the "show don't tell" advice can lead to very convoluted attempts to show something that could much more easily and much more effectively just be told. Rather than clinging to "show don't tell" he prefers to categorize exposition in three types:
1) "intrusive exposition" which is what you want to avoid
2) "immersive exposition"
3) "dramatic exposition", the gold standard for good telling
As an example for "dramatic exposition", he points to the famous Darth Vader line "No, I am your father!" It's blatant telling, but it's dramatic exposition that naturally integrates into the narrative, moves the story forward and has the viewer invested. The line doesn't feel out of place, and it's not just there for the audience. Nothing would have been gained by coming up with some convoluted setup where the viewer and Luke himself realize that Darth Vader is his father in some other, more showy way. It's one of the most famous moments in movie history for a reason.
He presents his argument in much more detail and I can only encourage you to check out the video. But I want to bring it back to our stories now. I tend to agree with the point the video essay makes but I want to add to that.
I always interpreted "show don't tell" as meaning to say that you should not just narrate important moments in a story from a distance or introduce a character by dumping a wall of exposition text onto the reader. But I also sometimes see "show don't tell" being applied to microbeats within a scene, essentially saying you should avoid flat out saying what a character feels or thinks but always show it through body language, facial expressions or actions they take. And that is something I fundamentally disagree with. I would like to give two examples from my own writing, the first is just one line, the other a small scene.
The opening line of Late Satisfaction
In my story Late Satisfaction I begin the story with the line:
This is blatant telling. But I think telling is the right choice here. I could of course have begun the scene with him flipping a table, throwing an object, screaming in rage or whatever. But not only would that be convoluted, it would not bring across that the anger he feels is directed at himself. Whatever you come up with, I don't think you will be able to show this self-directed anger as clearly and as poignant as that simple sentence.He was furious with himself.
I would argue that the sentence as it is immediately hits the reader with emotional intensity and naturally raises the question: "Ok, why is he so angry at himself?" Even if I was able to find an action to describe that self-directed anger, it would still dilute the impact of the moment because I would have to place that action in a space and a context that would divert attention from the "Why does he feel that?" that I want to be the hook and explore in the rest of the first paragraph. If he broke a chair for example, then the reader might not just ask "Why is he angry at himself?" but "Is somebody else there who sees this?" or "Will this action have consequences for him?" By clearly naming his internal state I have the attention exactly where I want it to be.
I find the idea that we should not tell readers about thoughts and feelings of characters explicitly weird. To me, the major advantage that our medium has over film or theatre is that we can clearly label internal states of characters and explore them in depth. Why would I go out of my way to imitate the cinematic language of films that has to rely on body language, facial expressions or actions to convey emotion? And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I never do that. Describing body language can be a very effective way to communicate what I want to bring across. I just reject the notion that one is inherently superior to the other. Labeling thoughts, emotions and motivations clearly is a tool we have at our disposal in our medium that more visual media don't have such easy access to and I think it can be used very effectively even if that is technically "telling" instead of "showing".
The opening scene of the final chapter of Record Chaser
A bigger example for my understanding of "show don't tell" is the opening scene of the final chapter of Record Chaser. You don't need to read the scene to follow my argument, but it might be useful context. Should take you 3 minutes maybe, and no, it's not a major spoiler for the story.
► Show Spoiler
I could have replaced this entire seen with the following:
To me, that would be an example of horrible telling. The introduction of the protagonist of this chapter and a costly choice he makes to inform the reader about his loyalty to his friend is narrated and summarized from a distance. If I had written that and somebody would have commented "You should show us this, Claire, not just tell it." I would fully agree. When I use "show don't tell" as a piece of advice I usually point out passages like that in a story.After Claire's text had woken him up, he quickly got dressed and was now on his way to her. Nora had not been happy with his decision to go to Claire in the middle of the night, her usual jealousy making her believe that Claire had bad intentions. For 10 minutes he had argued and pleaded with Nora until he ultimately decided to leave without her blessing. He knew full well that this might be the end of his relationship with Nora, but he simply couldn't ignore a friend in need asking for his help.
However, within that scene I wrote are beats that use telling instead of showing. For example:
This labels Nora's facial expression, it doesn't describe her pouting, narrowing her eyes, giving him the side-eye, her teeth gnawing or whatever you might come up with. In that moment in the scene Jason just reached out to her, he tried to be open and transparent, appealed to her empathy by making her try to imagine what if it was one of her friends asking. But this is not a moment I want to linger on. This is a transition to the next emotional beat in the scene and saying that she had a disgruntled look on her face is shorthand for "She's not buying his explanation". So I'm not letting the reader come to the conclusion that her face looks disgruntled, angry or annoyed by describing her face, I just label it. And I think that it is fine. I would never pick a moment like that in a scene and give the "Show don't tell" advice for such a transitional micro beat.Nora had a disgruntled look on her face.
Another moment where I clearly tell the audience about Jason's motivation and what he feels is this:
This is telling. And I see absolutely nothing that would be gained here by showing his fear instead. On the contrary, to me this is a clear example where our ability to directly label the internal state of the character is an advantage we have over film. I don't see the point in showing his fear here like a movie would have to. Honestly, I think most movies would just have him say this out loud which would not necessarily be bad dialogue but would definitely add some implications for the characters. Because now Nora would have to ignore or dismiss a very open display of vulnerability which would make her less likable. By clearly naming this fear in his thoughts, it is easier to let the characters talk past each other.He was trying to come up with any reason that could have made Claire send that message, but nothing plausible came to mind. That was what frightened him the most.
---
So if I had to summarize what a good application of "show don't tell" means to me it would be this: Avoid narrating key information to the reader from a distance. Key plot and/or character moments should be narrated as a lived in experience and not be provided as part of a detached summary. But for individual moments within a given scene, explicitly telling what a character thinks, feels or wants can absolutely be the right choice. More than that, our ability to do that is a strength of our medium that more visual media don't have (easy) access to. So if used correctly, telling can elevate a story to the next level and strict adherence to "show don't tell" if interpreted in such a narrow way will do more harm than good.
What do you think? What's your stance on "show don't tell"? Do you agree with me? And how conscious are you of the classic advice while you are writing your stories?
