Most advice for writers online seems to impart information the adviser does not truly understand, advice unable to capture the nuance and complexity of writing (and reading).
The concept that is probably the most misunderstood and misused is “showing vs telling,” followed by the disdain of adverbs.
The best example of “showing” in English literature is Ernest Hemingway’s short story Hills Like White Elephants. Because it is written in strict 3rd Person Objective, the reader only sees and hears what a camera would see and hear:
The woman brought two glasses of beer and two felt pads. She put the felt pads and the beer glass on the table and looked at the man and the girl. The girl was looking off at the line of hills. They were white in the sun and the country was brown and dry.
“They look like white elephants,” she said.
“I’ve never seen one,” the man drank his beer.
“No, You wouldn’t have.”
Some of the best examples of “telling” can be found in fiction for children and young adults. If you’ve read the Harry Potter books, you’ve read thousands of pages of examples of “telling.” Here is an example:
Harry had taken up his place at wizard school, where he and his scar were famous … but now the school year was over, and he was back with the Dursleys for the summer, back to being treated like a dog that had rolled in something smelly. The Dursleys hadn’t even remembered that today happened to be Harry’s twelfth birthday. Of course, his hopes hadn’t been high… .
Variations of the following are provided all over the web as an example of the sin of “telling:” She was cold.
The prescription offered to correct this mistake, transforming it from “telling” to “showing,” is always along the lines of: “The snow swirled around her. She blew on her hands then pulled her scarf tighter around her neck.”
Both are examples of scene setting description that do not tell you anything about the character’s thoughts and feelings, nor advance the plot. And because they do not function as either character or plot development, that the first tells what the second shows, is irrelevant with regards to the prescription against “telling.”
The only meaningful difference between these two examples is that the first is a very efficient description and the second is a less efficient description.
Here is another example from Hills Like White Elephants:
The American and the girl with him sat at a table in the shade, outside the building. It was very hot….
You’ll notice that Hemingway comes right out and tells you it is very hot. In the nearly 100 years that this story has been subjected to literary criticism, this sentence has never been flagged as “telling,” because it tells you nothing about the characters and doesn’t give away the story. The title does that.
A succinct, efficient description is all that is needed here, because the weather is not the point. Hemingway could delete this sentence and it would have no effect on the story. If the temperature was to marry the mood of the characters, it would be cold.
If Hemingway had spent 3-4 sentences establishing that it was hot, showing that it was hot, the reader would have been lead to believe that the temperature was important, because the time spent on detail is how an author clues the reader into what matters and what doesn’t.
Another example from Hills Like White Elephants:
They sat down at the table and the girl looked across at the hills on the dry side of the valley and the man looked at her and at the table.
This is perhaps the most perfect example of “showing” you will ever find. It is so perfect, the reader may not even pick up on the significance of this scene until after having read the entire story.
Many online writing gurus implore writers to more write elaborate, lengthy descriptions, full of novel metaphors, in order to avoid “telling.” But unless you are a very talented writer, following this advice will usually only serve to draw attention to your writing, which for me at least, is a much greater sin than “telling.” It risks annoying, distracting, or boring the reader, especially if you are composing metaphors. Metaphors are extremely hard to get right and extremely easy to get wrong, and everyone always assumes that they get them right, but they don’t, and readers pay the price.
How elaborate a description should be, whether you set the scene efficiently or inefficiently, shouldn’t be determined by an arbitrary rule about showing and telling (and it is arbitrary–all dialog is “showing;” if a character says “I’m cold” it does not count as “telling”). The amount of detail provided should be based solely on the needs of the story both at that moment and as a whole. And your actual skill as a writer.
I find that elaborate descriptions are best left to exceptional writers, and that encouraging writers, in general, to be unnecessarily verbose, does their writing more harm than good.
Most writers, and surely all readers, would be better served by Elmore Leonard’s tenth rule on writing: “If is sounds like writing, rewrite it,” than they would by having two extra sentences added to convey that a particular character was cold, so as to avoid the appearance of “telling.” Readers don’t want to be constantly reminded that they are reading as they read.
I’m not saying that “She was cold” is necessarily better than “The snow swirled around her. She blew on her hands then pulled her scarf tighter around her neck;” I’m saying that “The snow swirled around her. She blew on her hands then pulled her scarf tighter around her neck” is not necessarily better than “She was cold”. It is artificial to compare them out of context, which is how they are always compared by the writing gurus.
I would probably opt for just “the snow swirled around her.” From that it is obvious she is cold, the reader learns it is snowing, and unless her being gloveless is important, and unless the scarf will prove important later on, as a reader, I don’t care. It’s detail I don’t need. My mind provided her with the appropriate attire as soon as I learned she was outside in the snow.
Writers need to evaluate our writing as a reader would; ask ourselves: If I read this in a book I didn’t write, would I like it? Would I even care? We also must trust our readers, have faith that their imaginations will be able to bring our stories to life. While no reader wants to have to play games figuring out how things look, at the same time, they don’t want the way things look to interfere with their enjoyment of the story itself. A reader’s mind will fill the void.
The following paragraph is, for me, the most beautiful in the English language. I am honest enough with myself to know that it would take me six months to write even a shadow of it. But it provides a good rule of thumb for evaluating elaborate descriptions: the more elaborate the description, the greater the demand that the description be beautiful, and that it be used primarily to establish tone and subtext, to create an emotional response in the reader:
A few light taps upon the pane made him turn to the window. It had begun to snow again. He watched sleepily the flakes, silver and dark, falling obliquely against the lamplight. The time had come for him to set out on his journey westward. Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling on every part of the dark central plain, on the treeless hills, on the Bog of Allen and, farther westward, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling, too, upon every part of the lonely churchyard on the hill where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead.
The last paragraph of James Joyce’s “The Dead”
(The last sentence of that paragraph surely ranks with the best poetry ever written).
You’ll notice Joyce had no fear of adverbs. I’m not sure when or how the war against adverbs began. I know Steven King is a champion of the cause to rid the world of adverbs, somewhat disingenuously given the frequency of adverbs in his own writing.
My guess is that the same misunderstanding about “showing vs telling” gave birth to it. Adverbs can certainly be misused, but they are simply another form of efficient description. And as the above excerpt shows, they’re critical to creating a sentence’s cadence and tone.
Even Hemingway, the most famous Minimalist writer of all time, used adverbs freely. His writing, like all Minimalists, is absolutely efficient, but his sentences are beautiful nonetheless:
The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.
Not only did he use adverbs liberally here, he repeatedly uses one of the most reviled adverbs of all: very. And he does so with great success, because no sentence ever written has been harmed by making it more pleasing to the ear, which is why the very’s are there.
The beauty of any sentence comes always from its cadence, and cadence is created primarily by adverbs and the word “and” (and commas too — they are the punctuational equivalent of “and,” but multiple commas in a short stretch can sometimes become confusing). Many misunderstand this, I think, assuming that the beauty comes from the words. There is not a single fifty-cent word in either Joyce’s paragraph or in Hemingway’s. They both used everyday language. They just used everyday language in exceptional ways.
Far more important than showing or telling or adverbs is being conscious of what you are doing when you write and why you are doing it and what you hope it will achieve. You should be able to explain why you made the choices you did — every one of them. If you can’t explain it, you should probably cut it.
A useful tool for both writers and reviewers is LiteraryDevices. net . It has definitions and examples of the all of the various types devices employed and available to writers.
[T]he term Literary Devices refers to the typical structures used by writers in their works to convey his or her message(s) in a simple manner to his or her readers. When employed properly, the different literary devices help readers to appreciate, interpret and analyze a literary work.
Literary Elements have an inherent existence in a literary piece and are extensively employed by writers to develop a literary piece e.g. plot, setting, narrative structure, characters, mood, theme, moral etc. Writers simply cannot create their desired works without including Literary Elements in a thoroughly professional manner.
Literary Techniques, on the contrary, are structures, usually words or phrases, in literary texts that writers employ to achieve not merely artistic ends, but also give readers a greater understanding and appreciation of their literary works. Examples are: metaphor, simile, alliteration, hyperbole, allegory etc.
In contrast to literary elements, literary techniques are not an unavoidable aspect of literary works.
I’ll leave you with the best refutation of the assertion that adverbs weaken sentences that there is:
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
The last line of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby
Verbs were meant to be modified and they were meant to be modified by adverbs.
This list could also be titled “Why We Should Write”…
It is my contention that: In the modern world, Reading is no less than a Superpower.
In this post I will explain the thinking behind this, and share 7 reasons why you should consider make reading an integral part of your daily life.
So sit back, strap in, and turn on, dear reader, while I expound upon…
View original post 1,150 more words
The following is an excerpt from the essay To Write on The James Franco Review.
The site does not appear to allow reblogging, or we would have.
But to show up is a political act. To write is a political act. To question is a political act. If I have found no other answers, I have those certainties, and it is that which grounds me as a writer and editor. The great myth of this country has been that there has been one static, unassailable narrative, one righteous and unbending truth. I now know that as artists, we destabilize that. We ask questions, of others and of ourselves. We create opportunities for others to ask questions. We tell different stories—some overtly political, others less so, many intensely personal—and insist on their inherent value. We show that not only are our voices rightfully part of the narrative of America—we are the narrative, in all of our bewildered, enraged, tragic, hilarious, glorious, divergent truths.
Karissa Chen is the author of the chapbook OF BIRDS AND LOVERS (Corgi Snorkel Press 2013).
It’s an excellent essay, whether or not you are consciously aware of the political subtext in your own writing, or in writing generally.
The author of Fifty Shade of Grey was probably not consciously aware of the political subtext of her “adaptation” her own Twilight fanfiction, or even of Twilight itself, yet the book is overtly anti-feminist, a blatant endorsement of income inequality and classism, and, ironically, an indictment of BDSM, which it ostensibly celebrates — depicting it as dangerous, emotionally manipulative, and as a means of gaining complete control over another human being (in true BDSM, the submissive is always the party in control in the relationship. When this isn’t the case, it isn’t BDSM but sadistic abuse).
You really can’t ask for more than that.
The difference between writers who are consciously aware of the fact that what they write is political and those who are not, might simply be a function of whether or not they are readers who require verisimilitude in their fiction (regardless of genre and setting).
Due to our unfortunate experience with the editorial service offered by Kirkus Reviews, we needed to master the proper use of to lie and to lay.
We thought we’d share what we learned with you in case it might be helpful to you, if you have also had difficulty mastering how to use them. Additionally, a very helpful guide on how to use lie and lay can be found here.
When our first Kirkus editor changed all of our laids to lays and our second Kirkus editor changed all of our lays back to laids, we set about trying to learn the rule for ourselves once and for all (it turned out that both editors were wrong — both lay and laid mean putting, but what was being done was reclining).
[A full account of our experience with Kirkus Editorial can be found here ].
After struggling to make sense of some very obtuse grammarians, we realized that the distinction is really very easy to keep straight as long as one keeps in mind what lie and lay actually mean.
To Lie is to recline or rest horizontally.
To Lay is to put or place something somewhere.
Lie — recline or rest / Lies or Lying — reclining or resting / Lay* — did recline or rest / Lain — had reclined or rested
If you lie, you recline. If it lies it is reclining. If you are lying, you are reclining. If you lay*, you did recline. If you have lain, you have reclined.
Lay — put or place / laying — putting or placing / laid — put or placed
If you lay, you put. If your are laying, you are putting, If you laid, you have put.
(*When using lay to mean reclined or rested, only do so if the reclining or resting has already taken place, and it makes sense to use it in conjunction with the word did. i.e did lay. If, however, the person is in the act of reclining, is currently reclining, or has already reclined, use lie, lies/lying, or lain respectively.
Did lay is likely the source of all of the confusion, but just remember that while it is possible that you did lay on the bed, it is not possible that you did lay the keys on the table, because lay, meaning put, is present tense, and you cannot be both putting and having put at the same time. Having put is having laid).
The “Recline/Put Test:” When choosing between lie or lay, lain or laid, lying/lies or laying, see if your sentence makes sense if you swap lie or lay with put or recline.
If put doesn’t make sense when you swap it for lay, you need to use lie. If recline doesn’t make sense when you swap for it lie, you need to use lay. For example:
Was he [laying][putting] in bed? No, he was [lying][resting] in bed.
Had he [laid][put] in bed for days? No, he had [lain][rested] in bed for days.
[Did] he [lay][rest] in bed yesterday? Yes, he [did lay][rest] in bed yesterday.
He [lays][puts] back in the chair. [BAD]
He [lies][reclines] back in the chair. [GOOD]
Keep in mind that lie will be followed by an adverb that answers when, on what, and/or in what direction :
- lie down over there
- lies down over there
- is lying down over there
- had lain down over there
- did lay down over there
Lay will be followed by a pronoun or a noun:
- lay it down
- laying it down
- laid it down
So once you lay something down, it is lying where you laid it.
We hope this helps! Some additional posts that may be helpful as well: our post on our proofreader, Chereese, who we highly recommend; our post about our experiences using AutoCrit, an online substantive editing program that we also highly recommend; and our post about the various things we’ve learned over the past year, Publishing: Odds and Ends and Lessons Learn.