Telling, as important as it may be, is not always very interesting, and in truth it is the showing that gives writers their flair. Bad writers can easily slip past the artistic and into the bedraggled zone of amateurish over-exhausted metaphors and campy diction. Overuse - or simply poor use- of showing can result in long winded speeches about superfluous aspects of the text. Many artists and academics may disagree with me, but I'm sure the populous of general readers may be nodding in agreement. As writers, both academic and artistic, we often forget that then main consumers of our work are not overly interested in the specific flora which happen to match the colour of bricks with which the tertiary protagonist's house is built, and they are not going to bother to deduce you said this to show the character's personality.
Is it Marigold?
No, it's Forsythia, so the character is light-hearted and springy.
My main point here: be careful with showing off. That said, Indulge a little, show off a bit, but follow the French method and restrict yourself to two bites. If the imagery over-extends and the details cloud up what matters, you will lose your readership.
Showing, for those of you who are lost and wondering why this mad man is ranting so, involves giving hints and clues to readers instead of simply giving them the facts.
"Charlie was old." a sentence from my previous article Sometimes it's good to tell is telling. The same sentence reformatting in showing would look something like:
"Charlie's leathery skin bunched into wrinkles on his face. His large work callused hands told archaic tales of the rise and fall of empires."
Writers have fun with showing off. Showing makes literature art and not just made up stories. Without showing literature would hardly differ from newscasts and scientific articles, but too much of it can seem so very flowery.
I like the links you imply between 'showing,' 'the show' and 'showing off'--it's neat that the meanings hidden in language can often be so instructional.
ReplyDelete