Writing : "Tell, Don't Show" Writing Advice from Lee Child.

In a way adverb use is another example of telling rather than showing. It's a shortcut when it comes to not having to show. It's a good idea to try to avoid them, but sometimes using an adverb is the best way to convey something.

Yes, and BEE knows how to write with purpose. He isn't lazy about usage, he is playful with words. He knows the rules, and how and when to break them for effect. A rule, for having been broken, is no less a rule. Rule does not equal law. Devon, show me an example, from your writing, where 'adverbs [...] allow you to keep moving at a fast pace.' For writers like you and I, these rules allow us to grow as writers--like children, new writers need boundaries and guidelines to prevent us from taking shortcuts that harm our development.

Bradley-

So what? My position is Showing=bad. Showing and Telling= good. If adverbs can be used effectively, who cares if it means that you tell instead of show?

A healthy balance between dramatization and exposition allows a story to flow better and develop characters well. Stories that rely too much on dialogue ony give a capsule of where characters are in the moment and not their journey they took to get to that moment. Too much "showing" also can effect pace negatively as lesser scenes are dramatized to the negative effect of overall plot. While, I think it is a great idea to "show" important scenes, I really don't care about dramatizing routine scenes that are only there to advance the plot.

Adverbs often just read like shit. Instead of using an adverb to modify a verb, choose a verb that would otherwise have the same meaning as the adverb and the verb together. Sentences read much better this way. But don't do it if the only possible word choices or words that people usually don't know.

Talking about doing too much "showing" in reference to limiting adverb use is kind of silly considering you need very little extra text to compensate for not using an adverb. I'm much more concerned with adverbs creating awkward sentences than telling rather than showing. Too much showing can have a negative impact on a story, but I don't think too much showing is related to lack of adverb use at all. Trying to limit adverb use results in better writing. Not using adverbs no matter what will result in the occasional clumsy sentence.

“We’re not story showers,” Child said. “We’re story tellers.”

I don't agree.  We're writers.  I have a friend who is a story teller.  He can tell a story like nobody else.  He's all body movement and exageratted faces and voices.  He knows the craft of story telling.  He can tell a joke like a motherfucker.  

He can't write.

Writers have a different bag of tricks.  They are different crafts with many overlaps in function, style, and substance.

(not saying that good storytellers can't be good writers (and vice versa), just that 'we're story tellers' is a little black & white to me.  The term 'story teller' or 'tell a story' is just a nice way of putting it, not the definition of what we do or are.)

BH -- I was expounding, not attacking.

Dialogue is showing. 

"I bought a puppy from a homeless man for ten dollars," he said.  (showing)

vs.

He said that he had bought the puppy from a homeless man for only ten dollars.  (telling)

bryanhowie-

I know that. That is why I didn't put the word "tell" in quotes in that first sentence (like I did here, lol). But point being, you don't "show a story". You tell one (or to be more accurate, you write one or you read one. You don't show one, unless you directly hand it to the reader yourself). My point is that you should use both dramatization and exposition in stories (as some others have pointed out, depending what the story calls for at that point).

As far as "showing action" that is really exposition and has nothing to do with dramatizing a scene (and doesn't really have to do with "Show, not tell." which is about dialogue). In fact, you can argue that you are just "telling" the reader what the character is doing.

CHiZine Publications' Matt Moore wrote a blog post about adverbs a couple of days ago:

http://mattmoorewrites.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/the-avoid-adverbs-rule-is-very-wrong/

Okay, so "Show vs. tell" is bad advice (and not a rule for god's sake). “Usually show rather than tell, but not always” is a good advice. But there are exceptions considering there is the occasional good story or novel that is mostly summary rather than scene.

When I edit someone's manuscript, I often highlight something and write the comment, "Show, don't tell." I don't highlight the entire document and write, "Show, don't tell." Everything is on a case by case basis.

There is hardly any fiction that is all showing and no telling. Attempting to do this because of "the rule" is ridiculous.

Unless it's essential to use a flashback, it's better to "tell" about it in a single sentence or so if possible.

A lot of "showing" can just be omitted rather than using "telling" to speed up the pace. You don't need to know every little thing about a character's day. Only stick to what's important. Also, when it comes to "telling," you don't need to know every little thing about a character. These sort of things are on my mind at the moment since I've been reading a lot of Stephen King recently and it's his biggest weakness. Regardless, I suppose some people may like that he does this.

Writing is stronger when characterization is expressed through showing rather than telling. Rather than writing pages and pages of backstory and exposition to tell about a character's past history, personality, and behavior, it is much preferable to show these things during scenes as they occur.

Don't tell the reader that your character is a dick. Instead, show him being a dick.

In the case of "showing" past history, it's a bit tricky, so telling it a little here and there is perfectly fine and it's usually preferable to do it "in scene" rather than in a flashback, but not always. 

And no, "show, don't tell," isn't only about dialogue. It's only about it to a small degree. When writing dialogue that serves to give information to the reader, it must not be a conversation that people would never have in real life. Don't have one character tell the other character things that he obviously already knows. Don't have characters tell each other things they obviously know when there's no reason for them to be telling each other these things (except to provide information to the reader).

I don't think you even have to sign up for it.  You just click on the link and it's there.  

If you ain't mad enough to bare knuckle box, you ain't mad. And if you ain't mad, I don't want to hear it.

Life is full of disappointments. Like right now I'm disappointed no one got the reference I just made.

Two words that mean nothing to me are 'smile' and 'laugh'.  In a story I critique, if I see any form of those two words, I usually ask "Is there any other body language you can use that conveys the emotion you're trying to demonstrate?"

People smile for too many reasons.  They grin, smirk, and beam.  They do a lot of things with their lips.  But for very different reasons.  And if it's just "he smiled," I have no idea what that emotion is supposed to be in some cases.

Laughing makes me feel like I (the reader) am supposed to think something is funny.  I hate it when a character laughs and I don't.  If you can show amusement in any other way than smiling and laughing, I don't feel the pressure to find something funny when it isn't funny to me.

There are exceptions, of course.  But I think these two words tell me what I should be feeling instead of showing me how the character feels.

* Doubly bad if these words are used as speech tags.  I can't hear somebody laughing words.  They laugh, talk, laugh.  "I ate the pizza," she smiled.  No, sir, I do not like that.

There are rules

I try to approach them as guidelines.  It's a semantic argument, but 'rules' sounds like black & white thinking.

In the end, it is YOUR story.

In the end, it's their story.  You give it out.  You share it.  It's the reader's to interpret.  That's how I think of art.

I go for other people's reactions, since the important part isn't that the reader be attracted to her, but the reader understand that X is attracted to her.

It sounds like I'm a grumpy, old man who hates it when other people are happy.

"I hate smiles and laugher.  And kitties."