According to publishers, writing coaches, editors, and English professors all over the world “Show, Don’t Tell” is a fundamental rule in storytelling. The underlying theory is that it encourages writers to immerse readers in their narrative through vivid descriptions, actions, and dialogue rather than relying on direct exposition of the characters’ thoughts, actions, and motives. This technique can make stories more engaging, characters more believable, and emotions more impactful. But what exactly does “Show, Don’t Tell” mean, and is it the only way to create engaging stories?
I’ve been messing around with this particular blog post for a long time. Nearly 3 years ago when I started on my publishing journey, I wrote the original outline of this but felt like I didn’t have any expertise to actually put these thoughts to print. If my books were a total flop, it would have been the height of hubris to poo-poo the only bedrock rule in publishing today. But now that I’ve got 2 novels out there and more than 5k books sold, I feel like it’s not fully ludicrous to comment on how much I disagree with this idiom, or more accurately, the application of this idiom in today’s editing culture and reviews.
At its core, I believe that the concept is to help writers create a scene that is full of different textures, details, and characters. The barest elements of any scene are the facts of what’s happening and the actions being taken along with the main characters’ reactions to those actions. But in practice, editors and critics use “show don’t tell” to try and kill all base descriptions of emotions and inner monologues, even when those descriptions are inside a longer description of the scene.
And sometimes, you just need to get to the point and move on.
Have you ever read a book that tried to avoid all direct exposition? I have, and they are not what I would consider great literature. Also, the showing kind of narrative is much more verbose than some direct exposition which, when paired with the general understanding that a novel should be under 100k words (another rule that a lot of the great authors fully ignore) , means that the story often ends up thin, like butter spread over too much bread.
Also, sometimes I just don’t need to know that much about the character. There are times when telling is far more efficient than showing. Summarizing certain events or information can help maintain the story’s pace, especially when the details aren’t crucial to the plot or character development. Take the following “showing” description of a main character’s morning:
“Elizabeth woke much earlier than the rest of the household, as per usual, and, after donning her front closure day dress without the help of a maid, spent some time at her correspondence before going down to the kitchen for a scone and apple to take on her morning walk.” – 50 words.
It’s full, and certainly paints a picture of Elizabeth’s morning. But is it really necessary? Was there anything of note in the correspondence? Is the walk this morning special? Do we really need get this much detail that functions as merely a bridge between waking up and getting to the important bit. Here’s a telling description that takes up much less space:
“Elizabeth woke early and, after her usual morning routine, found herself at the top of Oakham Mount before the sun was above the trees.” – 24 words
Less than half the above, AND now we’re ready to introduce the real scene which is some encounter with Mr. Darcy or Wickham or whoever at the top of Oakham Mount.
Exposition is necessary to provide context, background information, and explanations that help the reader understand the world, characters, and plot. Overloading the narrative with scenes and actions for every piece of background information can bog down the story.
Finally, the cardinal sin of “show don’t tell” purists ‑ character emotions. It is just the truth that there are times when the short direct explanation of emotion is actually more powerful than some showing description of emotion. Imagine after some devastating action or a hurtful dialogue exchange, say a botched and rejected proposal, the author provided the following:
“He wept.”
verses
“The tears came out silently and rolled down his face without permission. They tasted salty on his chapped lips and stung slightly.”
I can see, based on the general narrative style of the novel, going with either of these two, but the second is not obviously superior to the first. Effective storytelling often involves a balance between showing and telling. Understanding when to use each technique can significantly enhance the narrative.
I am not the first to write a blog post about how Jane Austen would not have made it past the developmental editor of a publishing house today. It’s often cited that her most famous opening line is a prime example of “telling.”
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” – Pride & Prejudice
Our lady, the great Jane Austen also used a lot of telling all throughout her books. Austen frequently uses “telling” to introduce her characters and their traits. In “Emma,” she directly informs the reader about Emma Woodhouse’s qualities and circumstances:
“Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her.” – Emma
This direct approach quickly establishes Emma’s privileged position and sets the tone for her character arc.
Austen also uses “telling” to delve into characters’ minds, providing readers with direct access to their thoughts and emotions. In “Sense and Sensibility,” Elinor Dashwood’s feelings are explicitly stated:
“Elinor was to be the comforter of others in her own distresses, no less than in theirs.” – Sense & Sensibility
Austen also takes an inordinate amount of time in other passages to describe everything about a scene. The trees, the smell of flowers, the sway of the carriage, fabrics, candle glow, corridor drafts, stilted posture, agitated pacing, … … … It almost feels like there is no balance in her narrative style. Either she is telling you bluntly that
“Mr. Darcy smiled.”
or that
“Darcy, in wretched suspense, could only say something indistinctly of his concern, and observe her in compassionate silence.”
No in between. No compromise.
But maybe this is exactly why her stories are so compelling and her books are still in print today. She is uniquely herself. Reading her books or her letters to her beloved sister and nieces feels the exact same. She did not have one voice for herself and another for her novels. Austen created enduring stories and characters. She created a new genre of literature with realistic women’s romance, and she did it without following any of the modern rules of writing.
There are a million writers out there today, and I absolutely love that with the advent of self-publishing and e-books, more voices have been able to find their audience. But with that expanded field of competitors, it sometimes feels like publishers and reviewers are often punishing authors for their unique voice. A writer’s unique voice often dictates how they navigate the story and the rules of writing, including the balance between showing and telling. Some narratives benefit from a more introspective, expository style, while others thrive on dynamic, immersive scenes. The key is to use both techniques in service of the story, allowing the writer’s voice to guide the reader naturally through the narrative. The goal to creating art is certainly NOT to be a cookie cutter, Stepford wives, Pleasantville creator. Unless of course the story is a dystopian thriller.
Helping an inexperienced writer understand the difference between a showing passage and a telling passage is valuable to their development. And coaching someone who is writing only the barest of stories full of direct action, to direct action, to emotional exposition without any scene building will help them be better. But being a militant editor/reviewer about “ly” adverbs and the occasional, effective use of exposition is annoying.
Austen often uses direct exposition to introduce characters and provide social commentary while using dialogue and action to reveal deeper emotions and relationships. Her narrative voice is both witty and engaging, seamlessly blending show and tell. This is why she has persisted. Austen wrote art that 200 years later, after several major shifts in language and societal upheavals, still say something true and relatable about being a young woman.
My actual advice to anyone who wants to write, is just write what you feel is true. Don’t worry about the rules. If the story is good enough, the rules don’t matter. Just ask Jane.
Come find me at all the usual spots!
Check out my Instagram for Indie Author recommendations
and fun book content.
Leave a Reply to suzanlauderCancel reply