CONTRADICTION – SHOW DON’T TELL?
Writers are forever being commanded to Show, Don’t Tell! The rationale is that your readers must be able to see, hear, taste, smell and touch. In other words – be descriptive!
Sounds good, and we agree as long as it suits the writer’s purpose and as long as it is appropriate. Writers often have to tell. Beware of blanket rules. Writers must be proficient with -
narrative writing,
descriptive writing and
expository writing.
One size does not fit all.
In terms of descriptive writing – show, don’t tell - you are commanded to do this in one breath but in the next breath writers are sternly reminded to avoid adverbs and adjectives!
Nice try! The only problem is – adjectives and adverbs are descriptive; they are essential to showing. Telling writers to show, don’t tell but don’t use adjectives and adverbs is tantamount to saying you may go into the water provided they you don’t get wet.
The Advisors provide an example or two of how to Show, Don’t Tell. These examples are invariably preceded by a disclaimer that says “while Show Don’t Tell sounds easy to do, it is not.” One wonders why.
The examples they present of “poor writing” are exaggerated samples of writing that no one would write to begin with. One example has a man going into a store where he sees a gorgeous girl. She ignores him and he leaves. That’s it.
The sample consisted of three simple sentences. The “improved” version contained 14 sentences. This translated into 10 lines versus 3 lines of the “poor” version. It was an entirely different narrative and not surprisingly it was filled with simple adjectives and adverbs in addition to adverb and adjective phrases.
Two sentences in the narrative describe the girl’s arm. We read her arm is the “most perfect” and later it is, “long, slender, graceful” with “sinewy muscle and smooth skin.” That’s six adjectives to describe an arm. It is precisely the sort of writing that the Advisors rail against as immature and wrong headed.
This does not help a writer. Anyone who says “don’t do this” or “follow me” has an obligation to provide substantial reasons for anyone doing so. This writer insists on a Rule of Ten – ten examples to support any position.
Based on the number of things a writer must never do, a writer would be wise to ignore all of the edicts and rely on the same thing that writers always relied on, natural ability, common sense, an ear for speech and language, copious reading and analyzing the writings of successful authors. Last, it doesn’t hurt to review some of the rules of English.
The - -dare we say Industry? – of Dubious Advisors is an example of too many cooks in the kitchen.
They are getting in each other’s way. This supports the criticism previously noted that it is our perception is that too many “Advisors” lack the requisite knowledge of English to be making broad and sweeping commandments concerning the English language. The result is unintended consequences.
Too many do not seem recognize the many forms that language takes like the role of prepositional phrases even while they use (and condemn) them or babbling that you should not use – ing endings. The list goes on.
To be charitable, it is either that, or Advisors are repeating what they have heard from people whom they believed to be credible sources of information. That credibility may consist of nothing more than someone having published something. Publishing does not of and in itself confer expertise. It simply means someone liked what the person wrote. Someone else may have rejected it or it may have been self published.
Writers must be -
- proactive
- skeptical
and personally review the rules and forms of the English language. Language is or should be your area of expertise.
Self-reliance is key.
Writers are forever being commanded to Show, Don’t Tell! The rationale is that your readers must be able to see, hear, taste, smell and touch. In other words – be descriptive!
Sounds good, and we agree as long as it suits the writer’s purpose and as long as it is appropriate. Writers often have to tell. Beware of blanket rules. Writers must be proficient with -
narrative writing,
descriptive writing and
expository writing.
One size does not fit all.
In terms of descriptive writing – show, don’t tell - you are commanded to do this in one breath but in the next breath writers are sternly reminded to avoid adverbs and adjectives!
Nice try! The only problem is – adjectives and adverbs are descriptive; they are essential to showing. Telling writers to show, don’t tell but don’t use adjectives and adverbs is tantamount to saying you may go into the water provided they you don’t get wet.
The Advisors provide an example or two of how to Show, Don’t Tell. These examples are invariably preceded by a disclaimer that says “while Show Don’t Tell sounds easy to do, it is not.” One wonders why.
The examples they present of “poor writing” are exaggerated samples of writing that no one would write to begin with. One example has a man going into a store where he sees a gorgeous girl. She ignores him and he leaves. That’s it.
The sample consisted of three simple sentences. The “improved” version contained 14 sentences. This translated into 10 lines versus 3 lines of the “poor” version. It was an entirely different narrative and not surprisingly it was filled with simple adjectives and adverbs in addition to adverb and adjective phrases.
Two sentences in the narrative describe the girl’s arm. We read her arm is the “most perfect” and later it is, “long, slender, graceful” with “sinewy muscle and smooth skin.” That’s six adjectives to describe an arm. It is precisely the sort of writing that the Advisors rail against as immature and wrong headed.
This does not help a writer. Anyone who says “don’t do this” or “follow me” has an obligation to provide substantial reasons for anyone doing so. This writer insists on a Rule of Ten – ten examples to support any position.
Based on the number of things a writer must never do, a writer would be wise to ignore all of the edicts and rely on the same thing that writers always relied on, natural ability, common sense, an ear for speech and language, copious reading and analyzing the writings of successful authors. Last, it doesn’t hurt to review some of the rules of English.
The - -dare we say Industry? – of Dubious Advisors is an example of too many cooks in the kitchen.
They are getting in each other’s way. This supports the criticism previously noted that it is our perception is that too many “Advisors” lack the requisite knowledge of English to be making broad and sweeping commandments concerning the English language. The result is unintended consequences.
Too many do not seem recognize the many forms that language takes like the role of prepositional phrases even while they use (and condemn) them or babbling that you should not use – ing endings. The list goes on.
To be charitable, it is either that, or Advisors are repeating what they have heard from people whom they believed to be credible sources of information. That credibility may consist of nothing more than someone having published something. Publishing does not of and in itself confer expertise. It simply means someone liked what the person wrote. Someone else may have rejected it or it may have been self published.
Writers must be -
- proactive
- skeptical
and personally review the rules and forms of the English language. Language is or should be your area of expertise.
Self-reliance is key.