Andy Egan at Philosophy from the 617 responds to some of the debate Henry’s Harry Potter post produced, and in doing so brings up an interesting point about how we judge fiction. Lots of people say that in fiction, especially visual fiction but also in written works, the author should show the audience what happens, not tell them what happens. But what exactly does this rule mean?
One first-pass thought is that it’s something like this: when you’ve got a choice between making something true in the fiction directly (by, e.g., writing down a sentence that expresses the proposition you want to make true), or making it true by saying a bunch of lower level stuff that entails it (or demands that we imagine it, or whatever), you should always do the second. In other words, it’s always better to force the higher-level facts by explicitly fixing the lower-level facts. But that’s pretty clearly crazy- it calls for books written entirely in the vocabulary of microphysics, which would be incredibly long and boring and incomprehensible and awful.
Andy goes on to argue that there’s some privileged intermediate level of detail that’s appropriate for writing at in particular the “level of description that our imaginative faculties operate at”. I’m not entirely sure what that is. Are concepts like CHAIR - things I can easily imagine but which I always imagine as having more detail than just being chairs - at the “level of description that our imaginative faculties operate at”? I don’t know, but perhaps we can work out an appropriate privileged level.
(In these cases I always think the class of monomorphemically lexicalised maximally precise concepts can play a crucial role. But that’s probably just because I (a) read too much Fodor and (b) use too much jargon. So ignore that suggestion.)
But I think the better response is just to accept the allegedly absurd conclusion that Andy offers. The “show, don’t tell” rule does imply that everything should be written in microphysics. But it isn’t the only rule authors should follow. Among other salient rules, there’s the “keep it simple, stupid” rule, not to mention the rule against repetitiveness. If we wanted to try and find one rule for writing it would look something like “Show rather than tell as much as possible consistent with keeping the work accessible to the average reader and not being boring and …” Or, in slightly fewer words, “Show rather than tell as long as ceteris are close enough to paribus”. But once you’ve said that you may as well go back to the simple “Show don’t tell” rule, remembering that if you forget the other rules it will have fairly silly consequences.
I think a better phrasing, rather than “always use the lower-level stuff”, is “rather than telling your audience what you wish them to observe, tell them what you think will enable them to deduce what you wish them to observe”. This implies a different level of detail for different assumed audiences. If you’re writing for people who can deduce human-level activities from observation of subatomic particles, fine, but most books aren’t written for that audience.
It’s a lot simpler, isn’t it? ‘Show, don’t tell’ always strikes me as a handy way of helping writers to remember to not treat the reader as a fucking moron. (sic., but I split my infinitives without any guilt.)
Brian, I think you’ve quantifier-shifted Andy’s conclusion. It’s not that there’s a single appropriate level of description at which all fiction should operate—it’s that, for each bit of fiction, there’s an appropriate level at which it should operate.
So you could say something like, “Mauritania and Ruritania had been at war for three years, and the 17th regiment had been bivouacked in town for a week. A soldier was sitting outside Laura’s door. He jabbed his bayonet into the ground, pulled it out, and jabbed it into the ground again. The front lawn was covered in uprooted flowers and dirt.” (Of course, you would want to make it much better.)
This has some very high-level description of countries and regiments, and some low-level description of the soldier’s actions and the state of the lawn. It skips the intermediate-level description of the soldier’s boredom and the chaos inflicted on Laura’s tidy existence by the occupation. This is appropriate—well, it would be appropriate if this were actually good fiction—because the reader’s imagination operates at these different levels. We can imagine Laura sitting in her house, thinking about the war, and watching the soldier.
Incidentally, it’s worth noting that rules for good fiction are incredibly loose. “Show don’t tell” is really writing-workshop talk for “Move to a lower level of description.”
Here’s my thought:
Perhaps the “Show, Don’t Tell” rule is grounded in the subjective paradigm (which, as far as I understand it, is the idea that the truth cannot be communicated, or that a person cannot learn the truth from someone else, but rather must experience it for themselves, and therefore the best way to teach someone is to create a situation conducive to their having such an experience). If the rule is based on this, then perhaps what an author needs to do in order to follow it isn’t to express propositions by stating other propositions which entail what they wish to express. Instead, it would be by doing whatever they need to within the writing to allow the reader to experience the truth of the proposition they want to communicate. So if they want to convey that ‘the woods are dangerous,’ some bad ways to do it would be to simply state the proposition, or to describe the ways in which the particles composing the wood and those composing the characters stand in relation to one another. But perhaps a good way to do it would be to create suspense, by drawing out descriptions of events, or giving the reader plot-relevant knowledge that the characters lack, or by making the descriptions of the characters stand in stark contrast with those of their surroundings . . . the use of symbolism, foreshadowing, and also manipulation of the medium of communication (altering sentence length, or using assonance, alliteration, etc.) are some other ways an author might create an experience for readers, rather than simply telling them about it. This is what I think the “Show, Don’t Tell” rule is getting at.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve always assumed that “show don’t tell” was a reference to the distinction in classical poetics between mimesis (“showing,” ie what drama does) and diegesis (“telling,” ie what narrative does). All fictional narrative is, strictly speaking, diegesis (except for quoted speech), but the “show don’t tell” maxim seems to me to express the realist view that fiction should. as far as possible, approach the condition of drama by making the mediating voice of the narrator as “invisible” as possible. (As such, of course, it’s a highly tendentious and disputable maxim.)
Richard Johnston, posting after I stopped typing, demonstrated his superior grasp of one of those other maxims: “Be concise, dammit.”
Bringing in other rules would definitely do the trick, but to the extent that I’ve got intuitions about this, it seems like there’s just no pressure at all to run all your descriptions in absolutely bottom-level terms. Not clear how much weight that ought to have, but it’s something.
Matt’s right about what the claim was supposed to be- the right level of description’s pretty clearly not constant. There’s actually a pretty nice explanation of that if what’s going on is multiple-rule-interaction type stuff, but it’s harder to explain on my (ripped off from Ishani) not-yet-a-theory. And we have to cash out “level of description that our imaginative faculties operate at”, which I happily admit is a pretty appalling hand-wave as it stands. Still…
Why all the fancy analysis? People are wired to be curious - and “show, don’t tell” caters for this. People enjoy using their mental models of the world to fill gaps - it’s just going with the flow of their neurology.
“Show, don’t tell” was a maxim of the New Critics, and a principle valued at mid-century (that would be the 20th). Flannery O’Connor, for example, used it as her mantra.
The point is not only that different kinds of writing work well in different contexts, but that both literary AND critical styles change. What’s considered good literature now may not be “good” in 50 years. So saying what authors should or shouldn’t do is a tricky proposition.
Oh dear — I’m sound pretty Postmodernist, aren’t I?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review