Telling is sometimes better than showing. But when?
Show, don't tell. How often are we told that as writers? But I think this advice is simplistic. Showing is much more interesting than telling, but you can't -- and don't want to -- show everything. Some things are better summarized because they are only of background importance and attempting to show them would bore and lose readers. Don't you agree?
Orson Scott Card wrote up a very nice article for writers on this subject which I read about a year ago; unfortunately, I can't link it because it was (whoa) on paper, and I can't even quote it because the book is on a shelf over 6,000 miles away. But it was a very good book. It helped me feel less like a dangerous rebel in my belief that you shouldn't always try to show everything.
So, if I can presume we are in agreement on this point (but if we are not, or if you simply want to discuss the topic further, please do! I find it interesting and important), I will go on to say that sometimes it's hard to tell whether you should show or tell.
I currently need to convey to the reader that a certain character is uncomfortable with Azilie. I can do this by having long scenes that are of shallow (though not non-existant) value, hoping people pick up on the signs, or I can just sum it all up saying "But [Character] was acting weird." It's not as interesting as gathering that yourself, but I'm not sure the scenes that would be necessary for the information gathering are interesting either.
This is not my favorite part of the book. It's proving very difficult and I don't expect I'll make my deadline because of how much I'm stuck on this part. (I'm even getting bored with it myself by trying to write it out in an interesting "showing" way, which is what makes me think maybe it can't be done. Or at least not by someone of my skill level.) I thin I am going to just go ahead and write the "telling" scene but save the "showing" stuff in case readers complain about this later on. Maybe I can fix it later when I'm not sick of the scene.
Any thoughts, however winding and indefinite, would be appreciated! Have you faced this in your writing? How did you resolve it?
Orson Scott Card wrote up a very nice article for writers on this subject which I read about a year ago; unfortunately, I can't link it because it was (whoa) on paper, and I can't even quote it because the book is on a shelf over 6,000 miles away. But it was a very good book. It helped me feel less like a dangerous rebel in my belief that you shouldn't always try to show everything.
So, if I can presume we are in agreement on this point (but if we are not, or if you simply want to discuss the topic further, please do! I find it interesting and important), I will go on to say that sometimes it's hard to tell whether you should show or tell.
I currently need to convey to the reader that a certain character is uncomfortable with Azilie. I can do this by having long scenes that are of shallow (though not non-existant) value, hoping people pick up on the signs, or I can just sum it all up saying "But [Character] was acting weird." It's not as interesting as gathering that yourself, but I'm not sure the scenes that would be necessary for the information gathering are interesting either.
This is not my favorite part of the book. It's proving very difficult and I don't expect I'll make my deadline because of how much I'm stuck on this part. (I'm even getting bored with it myself by trying to write it out in an interesting "showing" way, which is what makes me think maybe it can't be done. Or at least not by someone of my skill level.) I thin I am going to just go ahead and write the "telling" scene but save the "showing" stuff in case readers complain about this later on. Maybe I can fix it later when I'm not sick of the scene.
Any thoughts, however winding and indefinite, would be appreciated! Have you faced this in your writing? How did you resolve it?