Is "Show, Don't Tell" good advice for writers?
show is just purple prose, say what u mean don't beat around the bush like an obscurantist
It's great advice if they are writing for a visual medium, which is where the advice originally came from. It is taken too literally and to broadly by some novelist who it's advice was never originally intended, which ends up killing the pacing of purely textual works by bogging everything down.
>>24964161It's good advice for bad writers trying to become slightly less bad writers.>>24964168You can show without being a faggot about it.
>>24964161The creator sidelined the existence of lesser-used synonyms."Aghast", "morose", "elated", "peeved", could have done just as well in making such bland sentences read less childishly/amateurly.
>>24964161It's a good advice, but shouldn't be followed all the time. It's advice, not a rule. That's the difference between a mediocre and good writer.
>>24964161That's screenwriting advice
>>24964161>man is happy>women are sad and irratated
>>24964161I do the latter when screenwriting but mostly the former for novels.
>>24964298know what else might be good advice then? tell, don’t show.
No
>>24964161left is better in this case
>>24964161Know when to tell, know when to show
>>24964330>>24964439I don't know much about screenwriting.Shouldn't the actor or director be able to interpret in their own way what "happy" or "sad" might look like.
It only means anything if you're a "plot" driven pop lit device.
>>24964161I recently read some YA tripe a friend of mine wrote and it had these incessant descriptions of the characters' facial expressions, like the "show" examples. It was irritating and felt amateurish. I really don't care that the character narrowed his eyes for the third time this chapter, thanks.
>>24964172>You can show without being a faggot about it.This is what Hemingway is about.
>>24964462what a pretentious faggot
>>24964448Don’t ask don’t tell.
>>24965780I don‘t listen to faggots about not being a faggot
>>24964161"showing" has to be done with moderation. if you have lots of description of characters in your story, being obsessed with this "technique" will just turn your prose into an agonizing pantomime.
It's advice for beginners. If you've been writing for years and have to constantly be reminded "show don't tell" then you should probably become a journalist because novel writing isn't for you.
This is something you tell a 10 year old when they try to write their first story and it is basically just a terse summary of things that happen without any detail. You explain to them that it is more engaging if he describes things for the reader, to draw them into the scene. "Show don't tell" is how you phrase it to them, so they can remember the advice easily. Then eventually he gives you a story that is overstuffed with florid descriptions of absolutely everything and you have to have a conversation about pacing and priorities. It seems most people on this board, and on reddit probably, never got that second discussion.
>>24965783He looks like a complete schlomo, which he also is
No, too reductive. You should show sometimes and tell others, and when to do either is completely stylistic.
I read a story recently that was all telling and it was a boring slog. Then I read a story that was all showing and it too was a boring slog, and it was 10 times longer. The truth is: slow down and show the dramatic parts, speed up and tell the boring but necessary parts.
>>24964462>In the beginning, God created the skies and the landCan't find the particular translation he's getting that from
>>24964161>Brevity is the sovl of witNuff said
