Q&A with Anna Walls discussion

Part 1:

This is an excellent post about showing rather than telling from Writing While the Rice Boils - http://writingwhilethericeboils.blogs... - Posted by Debbie Maxwell Allen

Jeff Gerke started out with two pieces of advice:
Don't summarize--dramatize.
Don't narrate--illustrate.

Telling. Gerke explained that telling is when you stop the story to explain something. He asked, "When does the reader want the story to stop?" The answer is "never". Telling is easy, economical, and fast, but it's boring, like a lecture.

In normal conversation, we explain what we mean, so it's natural to do that in fiction. But as writers, we want to make the reader curious, which keeps them from putting the book down. Gerke says, "Resist the urge to explain."

There are three types of telling:
Backstory, where the author tells anything that happened prior to the current action.
Exposition, where explanation is inserted into the story.
Explanation of character motives, where authors don't trust the reader to understand why a character acted as he did.

Showing. This requires thinking like a filmmaker. If the camera can't "see" it, we don't know about it. Instead of telling the reader that a character feels nervous, show the beads of sweat on his upper lip, and his hands trembling. Showing makes the writer work harder and spend more words, but as Gerke says, "What you sacrifice in exactitude, you more than gain in reader engagement."

Gerke quoted author Tim Downs: "Lecture [telling] hands people the answers. Story [showing] makes readers ask the right questions." Downs also mentioned that showing and telling is like an easter egg hunt. Telling is where you leave the eggs in plain sight for the smallest children. Showing is where you hide the eggs for the older kids, and they have to work harder to find them. Readers who "figure things out" feel much more satisfied.

Part 2:

From Writing While the Rice Boils - http://writingwhilethericeboils.blogs... - Posted by Debbie Maxwell Allen

Once you've determined that a section of your manuscript is telling (see Part 1), it's time to make some changes. You've taken away the reader's curiosity. Now give it back.

What NOT to do:
Remember to ask yourself, "Can the camera see it?" Gerke says there are three ways writers try to "show", when they're really telling. Check to see if you've tried these inadvertently.

Telling in quotation marks. This is dialogue solely for the purpose of explaining something you think the reader needs to know. Usually, it's two characters who both know the same information and talk about it anyway.

Like this example: "As you know, Sally, John Smith was a medic in the war." And Sally responds, "Right, Jim. He endured some difficult situations."

Sneaky telling. Usually only a few words, but they slip in information that the camera can't see. Like: "Of course," said the former war medic. Sneaky telling undermines your reader's curiosity.

Flashbacks. Though some are done well, others are just long passages of telling in quotation marks. Flashbacks are usually not as necessary as the writer thinks they are. Ask yourself, "Does the story really need this?" If so, Gerke suggests considering a prologue. He believes chronological storytelling is stronger.

What TO do:
Which do you prefer: an informed reader, or an interested reader? Interested readers don't put books down. Informed readers glean enough details to satisfy their curiosity, and stop reading.

Action. Have the character demonstrate the information. Gerke mentioned that in the first Indiana Jones movie, a narrator does not tell the audience that Indy is an archaeologist, and talented with a whip. We see him in action. Our medic above, could rush to assist in a car accident.

Scene. For information that is very important, Gerke suggests creating a scene around the information that needs to be revealed. The more important the information, the more time you can spend in this scene.

The Dumb Puppet Trick. Gerke advises using this technique only five percent of the time, and using the first two most often. A "dumb puppet" is any character who genuinely doesn't know what's going on, and has a reason to ask. This could be a child, a reporter, a tourist, a student or intern.

A variant of the "dumb puppet" is to make your characters argue. People blurt out all kinds of information they both know while arguing.

Is it ever alright to "tell"? Gerke pointed out that there is only one time where it's ok to tell. Two conditions must be met: the reader wants to know, and the story can't go on without the reader understanding this information. In order to get to this point, the writer puts in a lot of hard work getting the reader pulled into the story.

Gerke says it's like a bank account. The writer puts in multiple deposits of reader engagement before they can make any withdrawals (telling), or they will overdraw their account.

E. Stephen Burnett asked this question yesterday:
Still, one question: everyone says "show, not tell," but so many published authors (even good ones, even classic authors) violate that "rule." Are there perhaps some exceptions Jeff mentioned? I also wonder if he listed reasons -- besides the obvious, "they sell books so it doesn't matter" -- why published authors are able to get away with explaining their characters and exposit the plots all the time.

It's true that published authors have a wider latitude in "breaking the rules". But I often wonder how much better their books would have been if they had followed the rules more closely. What do you think?