What is Correct way of Showing and Telling?

[RepresentingWrath]

It's been so long since I watched that, I'm not sure what the context of the briefcase even is anymore. I watched that nearly a decade ago, and only once. It was a decent movie, but not the best by Tarantino.

The context is, two killers look around for a briefcase, it's very important, it's a macguffin, we never get to know what is inside. Also, Tarantino got pissed off with fans asking what's in the briefcase because he wanted fans to decide what is inside.

 

[Gray_Mann]

Also, Tarantino got pissed off with fans asking what's in the briefcase because he wanted fans to decide what is inside.

Than yeah, I wouldn't appreciate that. Might be why I never watched it again.

 

[3guanoff]

there is only one correct way, and that is the guanoff's way!

 

[Deleted member 84247]

there is only one correct way, and that is the guanoff's way!

Who the heck is that? I only know a 3guanoff

 

[beast_regards]

That's why I prefer narration in 1st person.

It's simply easier to manage.

The character whose perspective we follow (usually the protagonist) not only knows how he is feeling at the moment (I.e. I am sad) but could also very easily make an inaccurate assessment of themselves (i.e. I am not easy to anger)

If you write from the perspective of the protagonist and he says (even to himself):

"I am not easy to anger." ... and then he gets angry anyway...

...then's it is considerably more acceptable (even if he lies) than the same done in 3rd person.

"John was difficult to anger." The claim in 3rd person would always, always be regarded as "telling, not showing"

If you write in 1st person, you would have either complain:
A) Not consistent (which is because the readers couldn't comprehend an unreliable narrator)
or
B) Self-insert (because readers don't know that 1st person doesn't equal self-insert and rarely knows what self-insert actually is)

If you write in 3rd person you will always, always get:
"Show not tell"

 

[PancakesWitch]

This is exactly why you should read more novels and books, especially of the genres you're interested in writing. You can then apply how you see these novels and books apply these methods into your own story. Nobody taught me anything I just did what I saw in the books I enjoyed reading.

 

[melchi]

Don't show all the times. You should try to balance showing and telling. It's hard, and there is no way to do it from the get go. You should write more and rely on your own feeling and experience. Editing helps, but there's no such thing as 'perfect' writing. You will always find pieces you don't like, so doing nothing but edits will lead you to nowhere.

This,

Sometimes telling is better. Showing for everything uses up more word count. Too much word count and readers will start to think the story is bloated. "Show" the important stuff and speed through the side stuff by "telling"

 

[JayMark]

I get annoyed when authors tell me a character is happy. Or that the character is cool, or has a cheerful disposition. I really hate that. But I might do it myself sometimes and there are rare instances where it is the best option. If I find it in my own writing during edits I strive to kill it.

 

[Story_Marc]

Here you go. An actual, actionable lesson.

 

[JayMark]

I tried to write like Charles Dickens once and then I realized that besides myself and a few elitists, nobody reads Charles D because they want to anymore.

 

[Sekstifire]

The context is, two killers look around for a briefcase, it's very important, it's a macguffin, we never get to know what is inside. Also, Tarantino got pissed off with fans asking what's in the briefcase because he wanted fans to decide what is inside.

I think the point is less that you're supposed to decide what's inside and more that it's a joke about macguffins. Like there are a lot of stories where the macguffin is pretty generic, so just knowing that it's important and people want it is enough to understand what's going on.

It's similar to the noodle incident from Calvin and Hobbes. We're never outright told what the noodle incident was but we get enough context clues to infer that Calvin at some point caused a hilarious catastrophe at his school involving noodles. Thinking about what that incident could have been is funnier than if we were actually told what happened.

Notably the briefcase wouldn't work on an audience that wasn't familiar with macguffins or if it wasn't clearly presented as one, and the noodle incident would be less funny if we didn't have Calvin's other hijinks to go off of.

 

[Kalliel]

Just show them that you can tell.

 

[Sekstifire]

You know
I once saw someone said that you should let readers guess stuff on their own like characters true feelings or intention or else the mystery and feeling of discovery will disappear

Kinda depends on where you are as a writer. For some people that's really good advice because they're not letting the readers do any thinking or giving the characters room to grow*.

For other people that's terrible advice because they aren't giving readers enough information.

Overall you gotta sorta track what your readers do and don't know at any given point and try to give them enough information that they know what's going on and can maybe figure some things out for themselves but not so much that they feel bored or belittled.

* If you're always super explicit about what your character's feeling and why they do things, especially at the beginning of the story, then it sorta limits them. You want some wiggle room for if/when you learn something new about them.