Show vs Tell a new perspective

[Jay Greenstein]

Now you're kind of just referring to the type of narration that is happening. "My arms hurt" is 1st person, "His arms hurt" is 3rd. The omniscient narrator's job is to summarize the character's sensations, even if the character doesn't go as far as talking to themselves.

The "person" you tell the story in is an authorial choice and has nothing to do with viewpoint, or telling/showing. Except in dialog, only the narrator uses those personal pronouns and the narrator is not on the scene, and so must be the dispassionate reporter. There is not a trace of difference between:

Sam walked to the garage to get his car.
and
I walked to the garage to get my car.

In both cases the same person walked to the same garage for the same reason. And neither example is "showing" because it's told in synopsis. Life is lived in real-time. A synopsis can only come from an external observer, reporting events.

In Sam's viewpoint the act of going to the garage is incidental, because he is not saying, "I'm getting my car...I'm getting my car...I'm..." as he walkes. Instead, h's focused on what has his attention, and what he feels needs to be done.

In Sam's viewpoint,the trip might be something like:

As Sam walked to the garage he thought about What Sean said, and if perhaps he was right. But though the walk took several minutes, as he slid behind the wheel he was still unable to decide if he should head for the party or just go home. Going home seemed the safest thing to do. But in the end, the safe way accomplished nothing, so he...

Obviously, the reader knows the issues involved, while we don't, but notice that for Sam, as for you and I, the trip to the garage is incidental. And had there not been something that mattered to the plot to present, there'd be no reason for mentioning the trip.

Notice that there is no narrator talking to the reader, or explaining Sam's motive and history. The trip to the garage serves the purpose of ticking the scene clock three times (walking, getting in the car, and leaving) to give the illusion that time is passing in the scene as Sam mulls over his next move.

We also learn a bit about Sam's character, and how important that trip to the party must be to him when he rejects the safe course of action.

Great writing? No, it's a quick example of how placing the reader into the protagonist's viewpoint, to calibrate their responses to that of the protagonist, differs from the "tell me a story," reporter's approach.

Hope this clarifies.

In addition,

 

[Onyx]

The "person" you tell the story in is an authorial choice and has nothing to do with viewpoint, or telling/showing. Except in dialog, only the narrator uses those personal pronouns and the narrator is not on the scene, and so must be the dispassionate reporter. There is not a trace of difference between:

Sam walked to the garage to get his car.
and
I walked to the garage to get my car.

In both cases the same person walked to the same garage for the same reason. And neither example is "showing" because it's told in synopsis. Life is lived in real-time. A synopsis can only come from an external observer, reporting events.

In Sam's viewpoint the act of going to the garage is incidental, because he is not saying, "I'm getting my car...I'm getting my car...I'm..." as he walkes. Instead, h's focused on what has his attention, and what he feels needs to be done.

In Sam's viewpoint,the trip might be something like:

As Sam walked to the garage he thought about What Sean said, and if perhaps he was right. But though the walk took several minutes, as he slid behind the wheel he was still unable to decide if he should head for the party or just go home. Going home seemed the safest thing to do. But in the end, the safe way accomplished nothing, so he...

Obviously, the reader knows the issues involved, while we don't, but notice that for Sam, as for you and I, the trip to the garage is incidental. And had there not been something that mattered to the plot to present, there'd be no reason for mentioning the trip.

Notice that there is no narrator talking to the reader, or explaining Sam's motive and history. The trip to the garage serves the purpose of ticking the scene clock three times (walking, getting in the car, and leaving) to give the illusion that time is passing in the scene as Sam mulls over his next move.

We also learn a bit about Sam's character, and how important that trip to the party must be to him when he rejects the safe course of action.

Great writing? No, it's a quick example of how placing the reader into the protagonist's viewpoint, to calibrate their responses to that of the protagonist, differs from the "tell me a story," reporter's approach.

Hope this clarifies.

In addition,

It doesn't. You keep offering examples of what not to do without answering the basic question of what to do. I agree that changing POV doesn't show anything, hence my example.

You've covered the negatives multiple times, can you provide a positive? How does one show that a character is exhausted?

 

[Jay Greenstein]

It doesn't. You keep offering examples of what not to do without answering the basic question of what to do.

What to do? That's easy. Your local library's fiction writing section is filled with the views of the pros in publishing, writing, and teaching. Make use of them. To write like a pro you need to know what the pro knows. No way around that.

Were your goal to build a house the people to go to for advice are those who do it for a living, and are honored for their product. You may not agree with their advice, but you do know that it works for them.

Seems to me that it makes more sense to dig up the views of someone who has sold a million books than someone who hopes to someday do that.

“Michaelangelo did not have a college degree, nor did Leonardo da Vinci. Thomas Edison didn't. Neither did Mark Twain (though he was granted honorary degrees in later life.) All of these people were professionals. None of them were experts. Get your education from professionals, and always avoid experts.”

~ Holly Lisle

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

'He who can does; he who cannot, teaches' (George Bernard Shaw)—got it.

 

[Onyx]

What to do? That's easy. Your local library's fiction writing section is filled with the views of the pros in publishing, writing, and teaching. Make use of them. To write like a pro you need to know what the pro knows. No way around that.

Were your goal to build a house the people to go to for advice are those who do it for a living, and are honored for their product. You may not agree with their advice, but you do know that it works for them.

Seems to me that it makes more sense to dig up the views of someone who has sold a million books than someone who hopes to someday do that.

“Michaelangelo did not have a college degree, nor did Leonardo da Vinci. Thomas Edison didn't. Neither did Mark Twain (though he was granted honorary degrees in later life.) All of these people were professionals. None of them were experts. Get your education from professionals, and always avoid experts.”

~ Holly Lisle

The fact that you can't provide a single simple example of what you think is "showing" leads me to the inescapable conclusion that it doesn't exist.

Especially when you bill yourself as one of the "pros" that we are supposed to look to for advice. Or your friend the Snowflake, who also has a website consisting of the appearance of advice designed to sell a product.

All you had to do was quote a single sentence, and you couldn't even do that after you've been asked five times.

Here's me "showing" what reading that Randy Ingermanson webpage you linked to is like:

How to talk about nothing, by Onyx, the Criminally Insane Marketer of Monetized Advice about Nothing:

Well, some people think that talking about nothing is hard, but I'll tell you - it all comes down to one simple secret. Further down the page we'll come to that secret.

When you are able to master the secret of writing about nothing, people will ask you "Hey, this really seems to be about nothing." And they will be right!

You see, the secret to not writing about anything IS to write about nothing! Sounds complicated? Well maybe. But as anyone who has almost written nothing knows, it all comes down to planning. I offer all the steps necessary to plan nothing with my 3,2,1 Nothing Formula. But you don't need to buy the Formula right now, because I have a lot of nothing to share.

Confused? Good. The first step in embracing nothing is to let go of whatever you might think something AND nothing might be. Let's look at the Formula:

But first, let me assure you that the Formula is top notch, and that no amount of reading about nothing will ever feel like you've actually gotten to somewhere. Back to where we left off:

Nothing has two levels:
1. Large scale nothing, and;
b. Even larger scale nothing.

And when you subscribe to my newsletter, the secret to both levels of nothing will be clear as they are when you started reading. But wait, there's nothing more to come.

Did you understand anything so far? I hope not, and I'd like to hear from all of you who know nothing about something now, or vice versa. Keep those emails coming in!

 

[HareBrain]

Wow! That can be nothing other than a character slowly dying from a paralysing toxin. Were you at that party too?

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

One similar, yes. Hey! I'm getting good at this.

 

[The Judge]

I rather think we've had enough of members critiquing other members' posts, no matter how deeply felt the need to respond.

If anyone has anything to add to the "new perspective" raised in Vkalfieri's opening post, let's hear it. Otherwise a period of silence would be welcomed.

And as we're all providing helpful quotes, here's mine: Empty vessels make the most noise.