Racosharko
Fanatically Whimsical
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 937
- Points
- 133
*shrug*this thread is pointed towards people who dwell too much into show, and not enough tell.
Regardless of what you think about "show, don't tell" you should not say something is the example of "show" when it is not.
If this is an example of show, the following should not exist:
I walked down the stairs,filled with enthusiasm and excitement for the new day. A new life even.Sun shone brightly and the skies were clear, a beautiful hue of blue, deep and mesmerising. Every step I take reminds me that this isn't a dream, and I simply couldn't help but giggle at fate.
It was still about half an hour before the lessons start, but I wanted to go there early just in case.
In between of the garden, I saw theoldgardener, Simon hunched on his back.It was still spring, so the patch was barren other than the few sproutings here and there.
"Hello there uncle," I waved at him with a gleeful smile.
He turned around,and was equally happy to see me, "Oh! MC kun, how nice to see you. Isn't it too early though?"
Uncle Simon was a man in his forties, but he was still in incredible shape, with a body that could surely tear down a tree without needing an axe.
He was wearing a white tank top, which had started to become yellow, and wore blue jorts, shabbily made.Knowing uncle Simon, he probably tore the cloth with his own hands, finding using scissors to be too troublesome.
"Ah, yes, but I was actually to excited to stay in my room, so..."
My voice trailed at the end,but it seemed uncle Simon understood,
"It really is nice to be young. You remind me of my first visit to my in laws. I was too nervous to even sleep. Kept tossing and turning the entire time."
In fact, I would say the example of your "show" is more of an example of "tell"
My understanding of "show" and "tell" is pretty close to Kilolo's
what it means by show not tell, is deliberately giving a gaping, yet obvious information about something.
It's all amount to efficiencies, your audience/readers don't have time nor attention to stumble thru too much exposition.
How can one tell if too much, since tolerance varies from person to person? You can't.
But what you can do is to reduce unnecessary things.
How can you decide what is necessary exposition and what is unnecessary exposition?
Everything that can be "shown" through the process of the story is unnecessary, if it can be "shown" it does not need to be "told".
And that is the essence of "show" and "tell", in the world of movie-making it is a matter of time management, time is limited, audience attention is limited. When there are "tells" that are redundancies, we call it "fat" and we trimmed it.
When a script flow with good pacing, the plot moves forward without the audience getting lost because they are going "why?", at the same time they are not bored because they just sat there listening to the history of the world. That balance of the plot moving forward and exposition is the balance of "show" and "tell" when done well, we call the script "tight".
Since one thing leads to another, everything that appears has a purpose and is done in the most efficient way. That is the core of a good movie, you are watching without blinking because almost every second is important and when you look away it is because it is designed to be a downturn in the film...
I have zero interest in what is too much "show" or too much "tell", but if authors want to co-opt screenwriting tools, and argue about what it is, I'd think it is important to know the purpose of "show, don't tell".
It is about the audience experience. and the truth is people don't need to be told things twice and get bored easily.
At no point does "show and don't tell" ever advocate for more exposition. It looks to say more with less.
Last edited: