Show the reader..

i don't think it is so much "out of date" john ... it is just better to show than to tell ... characterisation is a good case in point ... instead of saying "malcolm was a nervous type and particularly hated cats" which is telling and rather dull ... you could actually depict malcolm BEING nervous ... "malcolm jumped whenever the door opened" and have him reacting to a real cat ... "as the cat landed on malcolm's lap a sheen of sweat appeared on his upper lip and he grasped the arms of maisie's chair" i don't suppose that is a gripping example ... but it may make the point ...

I think it is useful to write a list of say, twelve characteristics which the character has - likes, dislikes, habits, hopes, fears - then, even if you only show the reader two or three, this backstory filters through slightly and prevents you using sentences like "malcolm was a nervous type and particularly hated cats". Like Fish, I don't think its a particularly new thing, it is just general good advice. Don't try to force it, just think more about letting character unfold through actions rather than summary. It is always a bit scary, and you think "I haven't said anything about Malcolm, I need to show that he's something, not just this bloke in a story", but relax into it and it'll work. I used an example on the front page recently from Jonathan Franzen. This is not verbatim, but near enough. "Your father spilled pecans all over the cellar floor, he was carrying a ten pound bag downstairs. " "Why was he carrying pecans down into the cellar ? " asked ___, idly rearranging the tulips. "He was going to shell them, he wanted something to do in his chair. " See how much you learn about three characters that way, as opposed to the writer saying, the mother has a fraying grip on reality and finds her husband a chore, the daughter is concerned, but not very concerned and doesn't connect to the mother and the father is giving up on life.

i'm not sure how much i agree with the 'show not tell' approach. 'show not tell' relies heavily on the perceptiveness of the reader. but how perceptive are most readers? looking at the comments on TC, particularly with regard to the poems, but true of the prose also, most of the readers don't seem to be picking up on even the most basic facts that the poem/story is relating. i also quite like being told things. i don't think Fish's 'Malcolm was a nervous type...' is that boring.

An interesting comment Chant - show don't tell does not a good character make. James Bond we see drinking martini, dressing smartly and romancing women, but we don't know a damn thing about him - he's a very cardboard character. There's nothing beneath the immediately apparent. The books are slightly better, in that you get a feel that he loathes women. Can you be too subtle for your readers ? I suppose it is possible, but I'm an optimist and tend to think that people who read short stories are reasonably intelligent. Regarding TC, I wonder if it is that old problem of people imagining that short stories are supposed to follow the "Tales of the Unexpected" Model. The one flaw that show don't tell does avoid is that horrid thing where a writer trots out a list of features thinking that the character work is done (Archer did this a lot)

and look how popular Archer is.

At the risk of being a "dumber-downer" I might suggest a mixture, especially in shorter piece. Franzen had a long time to build up a picture of his characters. If I'm writing something that's 1500 words, I'd better get to the point quickly, or just leave a lot unsaid and let the reader fill in the gaps with whatever they want (a bit dangerous, that). I think the great advantage of writing over film is that you CAN tell and are not limited to showing. Wolfe goes on and on about this in one of his recent essays about the novel. By tell, I would mean the internal dialogue and landscape of the characters, not just endless descriptions of the weather and furniture. That could be interesting as well if the character is obsessed with weather or furniture. Anyway, each reader brings their own predisposition to a piece. I found the reactions to my story The Grand Two Bit Ballroom very interesting. I received a few emails from folks and each one of them focused on something completely different about the story that affected them. I certainly would agree, though, that a laundry list of character traits would look silly. "Derik is nervous, sweats a lot, has green eyes, smokes, drives a Ford, was born in Barcelona, ....."

the characterisation in short pieces is an interesting one ... and whilst i feel the show don't tell advice does hold good i think there is much more to it than meets the eye ... although i can't express how or why i am very aware that in some stories a character is turned on a sentence and as a reader i see a lot more about the character than is explicit in the story ... i suppose this is the back story that andrew speaks of ... and in the hands of a good writer it comes through ... there seem to me to be factors about writing which make it work which i can't break down and analyse ... some spirit or something that comes through ... and i think people are often unaware of how they do it themselves ... personally i never write with a "menu" of tricks in my head ... i am not that aware ... and there isn't a successful "recipe" to follow ... there are tips however ... and these are useful ... but i think the best writers use them unconsciously ... like cooking ... i think ... there is an additional element to writing that makes it really work ... in the kitchen two people can make the same dish with the same ingredients and one will taste better ... an indefinable extra that is something to do with the cook ... i realise this isn't helpful at all but i just wanted to say it ....

The difference between the two cooks is maybe one of them puts a little spice in his/her food, which gives it something extra. Also maybe one cook cooks from their heart and enjoys doing what they're doing, whilst the other is just cooking to a recipe book, and because their not putting their heart into it - just trieing to hard to get it correct - it comes out like something mass produced in a factory. When you write you got to write from the heart, let your imagination go places, and enjoy it like you would enjoy playing a good playstation game. I think if you enjoy writing something it shows through in your writing and the reader enjoys reading it as well, regardless of whether it is methodically correct or not. Just got to enjoy doing it, if your not enjoying writing something - then you should stop and write something else because it will show through in your writing. You just got to use whichever method works best for you. As a narrator or a show-don't-tell vibe. Just put your heart into it. I don't think it matters which way you do it, use whichever method you feel most comfortable with and just go for it! I like reading stuff that isn't perfect - I love to see beautiful mistakes at times, as it gives the piece a feel of humaneness, sometimes perfect pieces bore me. There is something about raw emotion and description which has an edge to it - which technically correct pieces don't have. *** I like Steven King man, I wouldn't call his stuff a turgid mass of prose. I like him cause he writes a good imaginative story. But I'am that kind of person, I like reading fantastical, wierd, imaginative stuff. Anything that takes me away from this world for a while and puts me in a place were wierd stuff happens. I guess its all down to taste, some people like that sort of thing and some don't. When i buy a book I want to be taken somewhere else. I love imaginative fiction. But it isn't everybodies cup of tea. You can't please all the people all the time, but you can please some of the people some of the time. But what's most important is whether your pleasing yourself when you write, do you write with an animated smile on your face or a pained scrunched up expression. If your writing with an animated smile on your face, then your doing something right (or write.)

christ, Funky, only you could come up with a simile like 'playing a good playstation game'!! i think if you're producing a sustained piece of writing you'll do both - sometimes write with a scrunched up expression, sometimes with an animated smile. sometimes writing comes easy, often it doesn't, just like life. if you're writing with an animated smile all of the time (just as if you're living with an animated smile all of the time) then you're one lucky motherf.u.c.k.e.r! of course, some people are story-tellers and what they're attempting to do is take the reader out of himself, take him somewhere else. and i like those kind of books - i'm a devoted fan of Diana Wynne Jones's fantasy writing, and, as a teenager, i super-enjoyed the first series of fantasy books (The Belgariad) by David Eddings. i like the fantasy and sci-fi genre, i just found that Stephen King 'It' book super-boring. but there is also another kind of writer who wants to write about life as honestly as they possibly can - here truth is the target, not an exhilirating read. it is this kind of writer who is constantly under threat, i feel, because people would much rather be taken out of themselves than be invited to consider a picture of life as it is. i feel that this latter kind of writer is particularly necessary, because i personally am a bit of a misanthrope, and feel that human beings have a tremendous capacity for self-deception. there needs to be someone out there telling it as it is, not how we would like it to be.

Thanks for all the advice I did find it all useful

yeah chant, I dig what your saying. I've never read 'It' by Stephen King so I can't comment on it. I guess why sometimes people want to be taken out of themselves is most of the time they're face to face with life and don't want to sit down and read about it. It's ok sometimes, but sometimes it's hard going. but that's just me, different strokes for different folks, probably makes me quite shallow i guess. Nah I don't always write with an animated smile, but what I meant is I enjoy doing it. It feels like probably one of the best forms of entertainment you can have with yourself; on par with dreaming. I like nothing better than to slap on some music in my stereo, have a good non-alchololic drink by my side. ( I gave up alcohol) and just type away, letting my imagination go where it wants to. The music helkps to take me places. That's the kind of writing I like doing best, and also the kind of writing I like to read best. Magical fiction is my favourite man, I find it difficult reading and writing anything else. Maybe I am a bit shallow, I don't know. Jus my genre I guess, or maybe my age. Maybe I'll grow to appreciate the other type of writing when I get a bit older. I do like poetry though, I love poetry, can't write poetry to save my life, but I love it. That's not magical fiction - that is kind of telling it as it is but in a creative way. I aint knocking any kind of writing though, jus saying what kind of thing I like, each to his/her own. Got to do what you like doing best, or writing and reading becomes a bit of a chore. *** but your right dude, there do need to be some who tell it as it is.

Actually chant... it is really good reading stuff that tells it as it is.. I made the effort today to deliberately read that kind of thing.. to challenge myself a bit.. and I really enjoyed it. I think maybe I was closing my mind to stuff.. you helped expand my mind a bit there... nice one. Your right dude..

I like the sound of this 'magic realism' I think I will take on board your advice in my future stories, maybe make the magical in them more ambiguous. That way I can bridge the gap between telling it like it is and magical fiction. Cheers chant you've inspired me. Never thought about it like that. Your a star!

I posted a story last week called "Our Man in Alexandria" Unfortunately, due to getting caught in the language filter over a weekend, it sank without notice. Anyway, this is the first such piece i've written in the magical realism vein, and humorous. If someone has 15 minutes to kill, could you let me know what you think?

I really enjoyed it Justyn - thought it was good. The language was clear and concise, easy to read, not too wordy, I followed the story pretty easy. Was absorbing, the kind of thing that doesn't make you want to hit the back button on the browser. The kind of story I like - I read it in no time at all, a lot less than 15 minutes. Ambiguous in that you never really get to find out who or what the mysterious Akim is, or what on earth the coffins are about.. or maybe you do and I missed something. But I like it that you don't - because you are left to imagine it for yourself as the reader, and that can be more satisfying than having it all explained to you. I can't really say a bad word about it Justyn, if that's your first attempt at magical realism then I look forward to your next stories in that vein. thanks for sharing it, it was just the kind of thing I needed to read right now - nothing too heavy, something light and entertaining - really took me to another place. Opened my imagination up a bit. I need that kind of stuff man, as I take life way too seriously. * though I am now completely confused about what 'magic realism' is - gonna have to do some serious research on that genre I think.

Thanks for the feedback. I like it when I write something that is open to different interpretations, depending upon the reader. I did have an explanation in mind for the coffins and who Akim is, but I'll just leave it ambiguous.:)