So the question really is how to elevate one's writing.

Not to be facetious, but... Duh. Yes.

whatever works

Ditto.

My motivation for this thread is that I've realised some things I thought worked didn't and vice versa...

The airy-fairy approach of getting in touch with your inner art and finding the true answer through intuition and gut feeling is, of course, the ideal... It is also the basis of every physical skill you use regularly but, in exactly the same way as physical learning, you need to do a lot of practice and experimentation to provide your intuition with the raw data it needs to intuit. Case in point, I can now feel when a horse is about to buck and I intuitively know how to ride that... But only because of prior learning, experimentation and conscious effort (plus some interesting falls...). Ditto writing judgement.

Telling has a bad name because it's dull and awful when it's done badly. If it's done well, readers accept it.

So, as it seems we are universally in agreement that there is a place for telling, I'm trying to get more of a grasp on the difference between good and bad.

For example, I've used tell in the past as a form of de-emphasis... Trivia that is required to satisfy the detail oriented but not worthy of discussion. Or, worse, detail that would distract from the story I want to write to a point where it is a different story about something else entirely.

I've also used it to stay within a viewpoint - where a character can only know things she has seen, but needs to find out key points, she might be told later... And because that dialogue is unlikely to be scintillating, I might report she was told rather than the scene it was shown.

Finally, and I think this is key, I think there is a huge emphasis given by reader expectation. Some genres demand that every aspect of a couple where there is tension should be covered in depth. Other genres probably focus at a different level. To me, a fight is not interesting simply because there is tension. It is only interesting if it has significance to the plot, and yet the daily niggles and tensions of couples cohabiting are important as colour... Even if the specifics are not.

I know it must all, ultimately, come down to gut feeling, but I also want to train my gut.
G

But that's just inadequate showing/bad writing Gaius - isn't it?

Well, yes, but equally bad in both cases, I think!

My point remains; an unequivocal assertion is less prone to misinterpretation than a(n already interpreted) description of a nuanced symptom. That is true no matter how well or badly it is done.

something like, not this, obviously, but

But, yes, I agree that kinda thing works for me.

ha ha - sorry I didn't mean your writing was bad! Just that that particular example was kind of wilfully ambiguous to prove your point.

Ok, showing requires the reader to interpret, agreed, but so does all writing. Saying "she was happy" still requires us to infer how and why with the possibility that we jump to the wrong conclusion. And maybe that ambiguity is there for a reason. If Billy is the POV character and doesn't know why Shona's crying, then neither should we.

Flora, I think one of the reasons I find this difficult to explain is because it's not really described by terms like Show or Tell. By 'elevate' for example - and that well not be the right word - what I mean is to get your writing to a state of conscious simplicity in which you're not working out whether to show or tell; you're just following the trail of something special.

I work with a lot of writers and would say that one of the common problems is that they don't push themselves enough. I don't mean in terms of discipline (although that's quite often a problem, too); it's more to do with going for great rather than the okay. It's challenging yourself to be better. To get to better you have to understand show and tell thoroughly; then you forget it and just go.

Having said all that, I might argue that everything's actually show. The best kind of telling still carries that special magic; it isn't just a load of clunky exposition. So perhaps I'm saying that getting hung up on whether or not to show or tell can be an avoidance of pushing oneself harder.

I'm saying that getting hung up on whether or not to show or tell can be an avoidance of pushing oneself harder

But, in this case, it is the opposite...

As such, judgemental statements like yours, Terry, are not exactly helping the discussion here.

As per everything I have said so far; I am aware that I want to get to an intuitive grasp of this, and I thought I already had, but I am reappraising that understanding because I don't think that it was working.

And that is pretty much the definition of pushing yourself; discovering a gap in your understanding and striving to bridge that gap.

G

Yes to "show don't tell" being nonsense as it stands, because you need both. The problem with beginners, you could say, isn't that they Tell, it's that they Tell badly, and/or in the wrong places.

I suppose I do swap between showing and telling and close POV and distant and all that malarky, but I never consciously think about it or analyse why something works or doesn't.

I think this is typical of most of us - either from the beginning, or once a sensitivity to show/tell or any other technical issue, has been wired in.

I think one of the crucial uses of Telling is to fill in bits which need to be known, but don't need much detail (the middle of a party - or a sex scene - or a battle - when the crucial moments of change are at the beginning and the end, say).

That said, you can (and usually should) still make your Telling very Showy IYSWIM.

<Added>

"The best kind of telling still carries that special magic; it isn't just a load of clunky exposition."

I tried to analyse a bit of Wolf Hall the other day, in the context of S&T and psychic distance, and you can't.

Partly because it's all coming to us through the character's consciousness, the psychic distance varies, but there's nothing that doesn't both Show and Tell.

Yes, some parts of the narrative cover many years or miles very quickly - they Summarise and Inform (two of my alternative words for Telling) but such is the vividness of the language that they also Illustrate and Evoke (= Show) at the same time...

Apologies for the daft capitals - just trying to make the point about using these as concepts, not just verbs.

As such, judgemental statements like yours, Terry, are not exactly helping the discussion here.

Well, I tried. What I'm reacting to is the kind of thing I challenge in myself and get others to challenge in me. Challenge is always less comfortable than rationalising. If you find it judgemental, then all I can say is you're not listening right.

I'm not sure how you know it's not helping anyone else, by the way. What I detected in the way you put this subject together was that you could probably push through to another understanding of it. You say you have.

And that is pretty much the definition of pushing yourself; discovering a gap in your understanding and striving to bridge that gap.

I only half agree with this. Understanding is important but maybe not so much as exploration. Understanding might be just bringing the unknown back to where you are now (bridging the gap), instead of going to it and letting it inform how you write.

I know you'll take this as criticism but saying that what follows is pretty much the defintion of - tends to close down the subject, rather than open it up.

I'll try and come at this in a less (apparently) confrontational way. When I have a writing problem I try to find someone who's worked with the same problem and find out what they know. Sometimes what they tell me is uncomfortable but then I expect it to be. Change usually is.

You know what Terry - I think you're brilliant! I think if I ever manage to write another novel and I need some help, yours is the paid input I would seek.

When I have a writing problem I try to find someone who's worked with the same problem and find out what they know.

CF: This thread.

Seriously, Terry, you know I respect your writing knowledge and input, but the fact that I open a discussion is only evidence that I am opening a discussion on something.
G

Catkin, thanks; it's appreciated!

Gaius,

It might help if I explain how things tend to go for me on WW. I scan the forum topics and if one looks interesting I read the introductory post. Then I have to decide whether or not to add anything.

Now, as you probably know, I have sometimes got people's backs up on WW. This has rarely been my intention. I simply get inspired to run with something and do. Sometimes, I suspect that someone is not going to like it. Okay. But then I feel this site can be rather comfortable at times - maybe too far to the soft side of support. While just about everything I've learned has come with a prod or kick or explosion to my ego.

So, sometimes I just think what the hell, I'll say what I know to be true and see what happens. What quite often happens is that someone gets upset but others get interested. I sometimes get WWmails from people who want to discuss the subject more. Great; then it's worth it.

So, yes, you opened a discussion; but part of that discussion for me is how you're coming at the subject. Has to be that way. So I have a little dig at what I believe is a bit of an intellectual approach (recognise it because I've often done the same), then try to show (hem hem) how I come at it from the lessons I've learned.

Which I believe is part of the discussion. It might be you feel I'm not open enough to the discussion. I don't think that's the case; perhaps more that I've got something I feel could help and in that respect it isn't really discussion material as such; it's experience.

Terry

Terry,

I have a little dig at what I believe is a bit of an intellectual approach

Yes, that is precisely the contribution that I suggested was not adding. Firstly, I see no reason for you to "have a dig" rather than simply state your position. Secondly, your position is self-contradictory; I cannot, as you suggest, discuss this with others who've been through the same unless I open a discussion, which is what I have done. Thirdly, the inverse-snobbery in objecting to my manner of discussing a subject is breathtaking - yes, it is an intellectual analysis, it has to be, this is after all, a discussion; the intellectual exchange of ideas. This is the way I do fact finding, by opening a discussion and seeing what people come up with.

So...

Yes, please argue your case, please do participate, but also keep it on the subject.
G

Gauis, it's a real shame you've decided to insult me. This discussion could have gone somewhere interesting, I think. I don't really appreciate being told to keep it on subject, by the way. Or being called a snob. All that says is I'll have to tip-toe very carefully next time you want to discuss a writing subject. Or just not bother at all.

it's a real shame you've decided to insult me

Many, many times - usually while getting my head around something you might have said in a report. So far, however, not even once on any Internet forum.

I've been tying myself in knots about this at a micro level. I'm editing and come across a sentence like 'His face clouds'. We all know what it means, and I like it actually, but then I worry it's a) a cliche b) telling. Or is it a kind of shorthand? I dunno.

What about 'She scowls.' Is that telling? I start thinking I need to be more specific. 'Her brow contracts', that sort of thing. Or maybe even the very gesture is a cliche?

And if you're writing in first person, does that legitimise this kind of shorthand? If my protag would describe it as scowling, does that give me a free pass?

I'm sure I'm completely missing the point somehow. I keep thinking that if I were a better writer, none of this would be an issue.