Show don't tell--!

[carole gill]

Surely with a strong narrative, you must tell some things. I notice for instance in Ruth Rendell's very strong third person narrative, she tells a great deal of things in her narrative. She writes about her characters and their situation peppered throughout. Of course she uses dialogue--but she also tells the reader things. I find this extremely effective and interesting. Any thoughts on this?

[I. J. Parker]

The British use more narration than the Americans. I also prefer it because it allows greater density and analysis. Still, you have to find readers who are sufficiently sophisticated to put up with that sort of thing.

[carole gill]

thank you. I guess it is a different style.

[Dana King]

"you have to find readers who are sufficiently sophisticated to put up with that sort of thing"

I don't know if "sophisticated" is the word I'd use. How much to show and how much to tell is always a tricky balancing act. I prefer to figure out the characters' motivations and personalities myself throuhgheir words and actions than to have them told to me. I hate to think that makes me unsophisticated. (I AM unsophisticated, but that's not why.)

On the other hand, a judicious amount of telling can skip over sections and ideas that are just too nuanced or difficult to assume the reader will get it. It's a way to let the reader in on what's in the writer's head, instead of just al the characters.

[carole gill]

Thank you very much for that. yes, I think with the right balance--not too too much narrative it probably works. it's taken me a few years to really get into what I feel comfortable with. I was afraid of describing anything at one point! but i'll just try to get a balance. to, as you say, give the reader perhaps a little extra of what is going on, so as not to be totally dependant on the characters. again, thanks Dana!

[I. J. Parker]

Well, I think the point is that Rendell and other British authors have longer sections of narrative than you find in most American mysteries or thrillers. The "show, don't tell" ideal rules here. Action/dialogue scenes are easy to follow. They are, however, time-consuming to write and waste a lot of space, especially if you have Robert B. Parker style dialogue. They also limit the author severely in revealing character and thought. Keep in mind that adverbs are also frowned upon in the tags.
Not sure why you took the "unsophisticated" personally. I was not implying that authors are unsohisticated, but that many readers are. I deduce this from the fact that dialogue-driven books sell better. It takes a lot of reading experience (both in time and in variety of books) to develop the sort of sophistication that allows readers to feel comfortable with all sorts of styles.
(I should add that my opinion of readers is based on the reading skills of the college students I used to teach: limited, very limited.)

[Dana King]

No worries; I didn't take it personally. (I didn't show my tongue deep enough into my cheek while telling you about it.)

I'm not sure why you consider action/dialog scenes to be, "easy to follow... time-consuming to write and waste a lot of space." Are we as writers that short of time? I consider myself to be greener than most, but are we so concerned with the trees we can't spread things out a little?

I find it easier to maintain interest when I am divining characters' intentions through their words and deeds than I do when I'm told what their intentions and motivations are. I don't think it implies a lack of sophistication at all, on the part of either the reader, or the writer.

[I. J. Parker]

Well, yes and no. There are tongue-tied characters. :)

I find that I can cover more ground more quickly if I don't have to act every scene out. Not all scenes are important enough for me to "show." I do get an occasional comment from a reader (critique group) that he/she wants an encounter dramatizated, so I'm aware of the fact that I skip scenes in order to do other things. I probably do have a fairly large portion of narrative vs dialogue compared to many other American writers. Frequebtly, I also get comments on adverbs and so-called "passive verbs." Besides there seems to be total lack of tolerance for past perfect tenses. :)

Not sure about time pressure, but I take a year for a novel of about 100,000 words or more. This is not counting post-sale revision work. When I say I can cover more ground, that refers to more story.

[Johnny Ostentatious]

Speaking of which, an editor recently told me I should write “the detective felt a knee jabbing his side” instead of “a knee jabbed the detective’s side”. I did the former to keep the scene in the character's point-of-view, since I write in limited 3rd-person POV. Thoughts?

[carole gill]

oh goodnes. I think the former does sound better. The other sounds too brief. at least that's what I think. But would you write then write later that the detective was totally pissed off that his side hurt?! or would you keep the narrative minimal?!

[I. J. Parker]

Your version sounds fine to me. Keep in mind that editors (perhaps in this case a copy-editor?), have their own hobby horses. You can "stet" the passage.

[Dana King]

This looks like a classic "six of one, half a dozen of the other" conundrum. I think I'd try both, see which fit better with the flow and tone of what surrounds it. Both accomplish pretty much the same thing. If you can't decide, stick with yours. I'm big on taking suggestions, but for something at that basic a level, I think the writer's instincts should prevail, unless it's just wholly inconsistent with other similar sections.

[carole gill]

righ! I'll go with instincts. thanks Dana! I'm still feeling my way around. But I won't know unless I try!