Show vs. tell revision exercise

[Michael01]

Below is a couple paragraphs from my manuscript for Estranged Earth, in two versions. The first or original is too telly, so I tried to rewrite it with more descriptive language. The second version omits the last paragraph completely because I just couldn't think of any way to make it more descriptive, and because I thought it might not be necessary anyway. What I want to know is if the second version is an improvement or if it still has too much "telling."

Also, do the second and third short paragraphs seem awkward? Especially the third: do the two sentences appear contradictory?


First version:

The day she met David, her passion had nearly rivaled her confusion. She wondered then why she’d conceded so quickly to David's overture. It simply wasn't like her and yet she'd done so willingly. The boy who moved like a dancer, spoke with precision and refinement, and carried himself with a charming—yet arrogant—demeanor had captivated her. His power over her had caused her to lose self-control.

Was it really so easy to fall in love with someone you didn’t know at all?

But Linda could not deny what she felt for David. Was her love real or a shadow that existed only in her mind?

Linda did not forsake her friends. She merely shared her time between them and her boyfriend. Charlene and Candy were supportive. So was Jane in some ways, because they were best friends, and she soon began to appreciate David.



Second version:

The day she had met David, her heart overflowed with passion and her head inflated with a swirl of turbulent thoughts. She wondered then why she’d opened herself to David's overture without first considering it. Normally she preferred to spend time in conversation with a boy before agreeing to a date, but this time she’d jumped at the chance as if she’d never have another. The boy who moved like a dancer, spoke with precision and refinement, and carried himself with a charming—yet arrogant—demeanor had drawn her into a world of daydreams from which she had no hope of escape.

Was it really so easy to fall in love with someone you didn’t know at all?

But Linda could not deny what she felt for David. Was her love real or a shadow that existed only in her mind?

 

[HareBrain]

It's not a queston of description. These are both telling in the same measure, it's just that the second is, in my opinion, slightly over-written. i prefer the coolness of the first.

Showing would be giving us the scene, the dialogue (showing him speaking with precision and refinement), the details of David's movement, rather than reporting it in summary. But whether you want to do this depends on a lot of things. Sometimes telling is a valid choice to get across stuff the reader needs to know but doesn't need to see happening, because it would interfere with flow, or seem repetitious after another, similar scene, etc. It depends largely on context.

 

[Michael01]

So you're inclined to say that both are telling, but the first version might still work within the context (and it's kind of cool, huh? - mm, thanks!).

I had the idea that the second version was still telling. It just didn't seem like, say "Candy gave Linda a curious glare" as opposed to "Candy glared at Linda through squinted eyes..." It was quite difficult to think of how to revise a short flashback into language that "shows."

However, in that case, this paragraph here would also be "telling":

At that moment, Linda noticed a young man as he passed in the next hall. The way he moved made it seem that nothing was worthy of his observation; yet, his presence commanded attention—even in the mob that surrounded him. Linda found it nearly impossible to divert her eyes. He was not very tall, but his motion was elegant and his muscles defined beneath the white short-sleeve shirt.

(Do I have that right?)

 

[The Judge]

Hi

I think, if anything, there is actually more telling-iness (?) in the second version - the sentence starting 'Normally...' particularly sounded a bit too much. The purple prose was also a little bit over the top for my taste.

Of the two versions, I too greatly preferred the simplicity of the first, though even there I think I'd lose the '... and yet she'd done so willingly' as that seems a little redundant. I don't think you need worry that it is too much telling - the info has presumably got to come across somehow, and to my mind a brisk explanation is better than dragging it all out in dialogue or something.

Second short para I liked and I saw no problem with it. First sentence of third para I didn't like - who was asking her to deny anything? And yes, the two sentences of that para do appear contradictory - they don't seem to work together at all. The second sentence seems to me to be the stronger of the two, and carries on the idea behind the second para, so if I were you I'd keep the second sentence and dump the first.

Fourth para I didn't like at all. This was very tell-y to my mind, and I'm not even sure this info is needed is it? Wouldn't we simply assume that she keeps her friends despite the turmoil of her attraction for this man? And setting it out as you do somehow belittles her romance with him. On the one hand she is in a world of daydreams with no self-control; on the other she's so much in control of herself that she can divide up her time to ensure she still sees Charlene and Candy and Jane. As for Jane beginning to appreciate David - unless you are setting up that she is going to be taking him away from Linda, I really don't see the point of this at all. In fact the more I read that last para the more juvenile it seems - totally at odds with the rest of what you've written.

Sorry, that last remark seems very catty. I didn't mean it to be, but I do definitely think it's below the standard of the rest of your work. Anyway, hope this helps you a little.

J

PS I think you should be referring to David's 'overtures' plural, even if he only propositioned her the once - I don't think it's actually wrong to use the singular, but it certainly sounds odd.

 

[Michael01]

Sorry, that last remark seems very catty. I didn't mean it to be, but I do definitely think it's below the standard of the rest of your work. Anyway, hope this helps you a little.

It helps a lot! Thank you. Yes, I've been hating that paragraph for a while now, so I'd already decided it was coming out even if I kept the first version.

 

[The Judge]

Pipped at the post! (Which is why my entry doesn't refer to your second one, Michael.)

To my mind (but doubtless HareBrain will correct me if I'm wrong) the new para you've written isn't telling, because we are seeing the scene - it's happening right there in front of us. You are showing us how he moves etc, albeit it's filtered through her eyes. I think it would be telling if she were reminiscing later about their first meeting - unless it was done in flashback perhaps?

J

 

[HareBrain]

It was quite difficult to think of how to revise a short flashback into language that "shows."

Do you need to? Others might say differently, but I think if you're going to give a summary of something that's happened, surely better to keep the language from getting too overheated? (Which was the sense of "coolness" I meant by the way though I did think it quite well-written). Get the emotion across when you're showing, but when you're telling (as you must do in a summary like this) then get in, get it across, get out.

However, in that case, this paragraph here would also be "telling":

At that moment, Linda noticed a young man as he passed in the next hall. The way he moved made it seem that nothing was worthy of his observation; yet, his presence commanded attention—even in the mob that surrounded him. Linda found it nearly impossible to divert her eyes. He was not very tall, but his motion was elegant and his muscles defined beneath the white short-sleeve shirt.

(Do I have that right?)

Well, there is a large grey area between the extremes of showing and telling. Again I would say, context - if this is a crucial scene, then the reader should be shoved right in there, and that means well-chosen detail. BTW, I'd query "found it nearly impossible to divert her eyes." That implies she tried, and succeeded with great difficulty. I would suspect she didn't actually try.

 

[daisybee]

I never really get the whole show versus tell thing when I'm writing-but you mostly know it when you read it, if that makes sense.

I think the first is better.

In the other piece you posted, that is definitely leaning more to the showing in my opinion, but seems set in a different tense to the first two.

Not hot with a red pen but:


Linda first noticed David as he strolled through the hall, surrounded by his fans and yet oblivious to their presence. He just stared straight ahead, and moved at his own pace; his lean physique swaying easily, as if to music. She had torn her eyes away that day, but it hadn't taken him long to wear down her protests.

good luck with it.

 

[Michael01]

Sorry, Judge. Yes, it's a flashback.

Do you need to? Others might say differently, but I think if you're going to give a summary of something that's happened, surely better to keep the language from getting too overheated? (Which was the sense of "coolness" I meant by the way though I did think it quite well-written). Get the emotion across when you're showing, but when you're telling (as you must do in a summary like this) then get in, get it across, get out.

Sounds like a good idea. And thanks again for the compliment.

BTW, I'd query "found it nearly impossible to divert her eyes." That implies she tried, and succeeded with great difficulty. I would suspect she didn't actually try.

Good point. Why would you suspect she didn't try?

And Daisybee:

He just stared straight ahead, and moved at his own pace; his lean physique swaying easily, as if to music.

Nicely done. Gives me something to think about.

Okay, I'm thinking about rewriting that paragraph where Linda sees David for the first time because it is, I think, a crucial scene. I might anyway. Besides, the phrase "the mob that surrounded him" apparently misrepresents my intentions...

Thanks again, everyone!