'nother Mike (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mbarker) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
writercises2018-10-03 02:05 pm
mbarker) wrote in writercises2018-10-03 02:05 pm
Entry tags:
TECH: Don't Say It! (Moldy oldie)
Original Posting Nov. 10, 2017
Writer's Digest, March 1994, pages 6, 8, and 9, have an article by Nancy Kress with the title Don't Say It! The subtitle says, "Telling readers too much will shatter the illusion your story creates."
Nancy starts out by reminding us that every story is an illusion. The reader "wants to be transported… to wherever your story is set, temporarily absorbed into a world different from his own. He wants to be someplace else, somebody else. He wants magic. And he wants you to be the magician."
Now, your job is to help him forget the mechanics of what's happening and get lost in the illusion. Don't stop in the middle and explain! In other words, show, don't tell. You've heard it before, right?
Nancy goes through some examples.
Wearing it on their sleeves. "At the sentence level, a common form of show-plus-tell is the naming of emotions that the pros has already dramatized." Several examples show us fear in physical reactions and dialogue, anger, and so forth… And the additional phrase or sentence that tells us the character is afraid, angry, and so forth. Adding those extra explanations probably was intended to make sure the reader got it, "but the subtle effect is there, weakening your illusion." That's right, it makes it harder for the reader, not easier. After all, Nancy points out, "In real time, nobody wears lapel labels proclaiming their emotions. We can only infer emotions and motivations from how people behave. Let us do the same with your characters."
I knew that. Next, Nancy turns to factual information that readers probably already know. King Lear by William Shakespeare, or Dallas, Texas and so forth. The problem of course is that it's hard to figure out what information the readers probably know. "Which references need brief identifications and which don't?" Mostly, assume your readers know more. If it's crucial to understanding the action, see if you can make the context clear it up.
When the summary is less than its parts? In paragraph and scenes, telling where you've already shown something often is a summary sentence. After all, you want to make sure that readers understand how significant it is, so you summarize it. In technical writing, fine. In fiction? All you're doing is diluting the impact. Show us the humiliation, the blaming, the hatred, and so forth. Don't tell us about it. Seriously, don't explain your tricks!
The moral of the story! Yes, old-time fables often ended with a little aphorism explaining everything. Not nowadays. No author overkill, please. Even if it's subtle and complex, don't reinforce it by stating it boldly. Give us a little bit of action, maybe a symbolic this or that. Don't worry, no one will miss your moralizing.
The inevitable trade-off. Now, does skipping gratuitous explanations mean that your fiction is shorter? Actually, no. You have to give us the clues so we can interpret it. That means more character gestures, dialogue, reactions. More descriptions, more reflection by the character. It may even mean more scenes! Ideally, shorten your story by tightening the prose, but also make it longer by increasing drama. Cut the telling, but add dramatic showing.
Nancy ends with a great little paragraph. Here it is:
"Tell me a story," we all say from the time we're very small. But we don't mean it. What we need is, show me a story. Dazzle me with a story. Create the magic. And don't explain what the magic is. I can already see it for myself – there, filling the stage, flowing from your open palms.
Nice, right?
So, show, don't tell. Close-up, watch out for naming emotions. Watch out for factual information that the reader already knows. Get rid of those summaries, and turn morals into dramatic actions. Go through your story and turn the telling into showing.
Writer's Digest, March 1994, pages 6, 8, and 9, have an article by Nancy Kress with the title Don't Say It! The subtitle says, "Telling readers too much will shatter the illusion your story creates."
Nancy starts out by reminding us that every story is an illusion. The reader "wants to be transported… to wherever your story is set, temporarily absorbed into a world different from his own. He wants to be someplace else, somebody else. He wants magic. And he wants you to be the magician."
Now, your job is to help him forget the mechanics of what's happening and get lost in the illusion. Don't stop in the middle and explain! In other words, show, don't tell. You've heard it before, right?
Nancy goes through some examples.
Wearing it on their sleeves. "At the sentence level, a common form of show-plus-tell is the naming of emotions that the pros has already dramatized." Several examples show us fear in physical reactions and dialogue, anger, and so forth… And the additional phrase or sentence that tells us the character is afraid, angry, and so forth. Adding those extra explanations probably was intended to make sure the reader got it, "but the subtle effect is there, weakening your illusion." That's right, it makes it harder for the reader, not easier. After all, Nancy points out, "In real time, nobody wears lapel labels proclaiming their emotions. We can only infer emotions and motivations from how people behave. Let us do the same with your characters."
I knew that. Next, Nancy turns to factual information that readers probably already know. King Lear by William Shakespeare, or Dallas, Texas and so forth. The problem of course is that it's hard to figure out what information the readers probably know. "Which references need brief identifications and which don't?" Mostly, assume your readers know more. If it's crucial to understanding the action, see if you can make the context clear it up.
When the summary is less than its parts? In paragraph and scenes, telling where you've already shown something often is a summary sentence. After all, you want to make sure that readers understand how significant it is, so you summarize it. In technical writing, fine. In fiction? All you're doing is diluting the impact. Show us the humiliation, the blaming, the hatred, and so forth. Don't tell us about it. Seriously, don't explain your tricks!
The moral of the story! Yes, old-time fables often ended with a little aphorism explaining everything. Not nowadays. No author overkill, please. Even if it's subtle and complex, don't reinforce it by stating it boldly. Give us a little bit of action, maybe a symbolic this or that. Don't worry, no one will miss your moralizing.
The inevitable trade-off. Now, does skipping gratuitous explanations mean that your fiction is shorter? Actually, no. You have to give us the clues so we can interpret it. That means more character gestures, dialogue, reactions. More descriptions, more reflection by the character. It may even mean more scenes! Ideally, shorten your story by tightening the prose, but also make it longer by increasing drama. Cut the telling, but add dramatic showing.
Nancy ends with a great little paragraph. Here it is:
"Tell me a story," we all say from the time we're very small. But we don't mean it. What we need is, show me a story. Dazzle me with a story. Create the magic. And don't explain what the magic is. I can already see it for myself – there, filling the stage, flowing from your open palms.
Nice, right?
So, show, don't tell. Close-up, watch out for naming emotions. Watch out for factual information that the reader already knows. Get rid of those summaries, and turn morals into dramatic actions. Go through your story and turn the telling into showing.