Show vs Tell and the Good Writer

Sep 26, 2009 17:39

"Good writing may offend him by being either too spare for his purpose or too full. ...Nor would he be content with "I was terribly afraid' instead of 'My blood ran cold'. To the good reader's imagination such statements of the bare facts are often the most evocative of all. But the moon shining clear is not enough for the unliterary. ...But still more, they will want the hieroglyph--something that will release their stereotypical reactions to moonlight (moonlight, of course, as something in books, songs, and films; I believe that memories of the real world are very feebly operative while they read."

"What they therefore demand is a decent pretence of description and analysis, not to be read with care but sufficient to give them the feeling that the action is not going on in a vacuum--a few vague references to trees, shade and grass for a wood, or some allusion to popping corks and 'groaning tables' for a banquet. For this purpose, the more cliches the better."

"When a good writer leads you into a garden he either gives you a precise impression of that particular garden at that particular moment--it need not be long, selection is what counts--or simply says 'It was in the garden, early'. The unliterary are pleased with neither. They call the first 'padding' and wish the author would 'cut the cackle and get to the horses'. The second they abhor as a vacuum; their imaginations cannot breathe in it."

-An Experiment in Criticism

Typos mine, bold mine.
Previous post
Up