As the title suggests, I made this thread to discuss writing with an omniscient narrator while still obeying "Show vs Tell".

The reason I have trouble wrapping my head around this concept is that an omniscient narrator knows everything, including the minds of all their characters. Show vs Tell demands that you always have to reflect the character's reactions, or only hint at their inner motivations. How do you describe the mental state of characters without simply reflecting it upon their actions as a body.

I find this important to ask because I find stories that describe the mental states of characters allow me to immerse myself in the story much more readily, increasing my enjoyment of the story.

My question is this: how does one balance between the omniscience of the narrator and showing as opposed to telling?

Why not ditch traditional narration altogether, and use 1st person.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

708384

Don't ask me. One of my biggest problems. Eyes on this for advice.

708384 I choose a Lemony Snicket Rout and have the narrator be informed and opinionated(a good chance to add comedy) but not all knowing.

Even in first person though, why make the narrator completely omniscient? Have the narrator shoot guesses at such things.

The difference between:

Twilight was clinically depressed.

And:

I could tell by the way she carried herself, she was having a really bad day.

Ta da! The whole reason I like 1st person so much is because the narrator is not omniscient. Or if they are, the writer kinda sucks at it. But you could just make your -bleh- 3rd person narrator simply ignorant to such things, and require them to guess.

708399 <- More or less.

708384
You've kind of answered your own question. An omniscient narrator knows all, and for a narrator, can tell all. That's the keyword there: CAN. Not must. While the narrator knows all, he need not tell all, for he is naught but an observer with a finer eye for detail. Just as folk legends become distorted by narrators over the years, so does the role of the narrator. It's not his tale, but he tells it as he wants to.

708403

I think it's less about not giving away information than a style pointer about illustrating what you want to say with examples that let the reader imagine it for themselves, especially since one of the whole selling points of prose is how it lets you examine characters' inner lives. But instead of telling how a character feels, show what it's like to feel that way - Just like in real life, where we have to intuit people's inner states from their actions instead of just having some kind of perfect clarity. Someone can say they feel a certain way, but that's really just another behavior we have to interpret. Consider:
"Jim was sad."
vs.
"Jim was overcome with a kind of disappointing emptiness, a feeling that maybe things shouldn't be this way, but that no one had any say in the matter."

Or in dialog, consider:
"Why did you do that!?" Jim said angrily.
vs.
Jim pounded his fist on the table. "What the hell were you thinking!?"

I think "Show Don't Tell" is more of an exhortation to come up with your own novel (har) ways to generate insight into characters' thoughts and actions instead of just using shorthand, everyday words that convey just the basic idea.

708410 But then the question becomes when to show and when to tell. And I suppose omniscient is a little strong, though then one has to ask what to keep the narrator out of in terms of knowledge.

708384
I listen with eager eyeballs to the advice portrayed in these comments.

708420
There's also the fact that sometimes the ways you think up to 'show' instead of 'telling' simply doesn't fit the character your portraying.

708397 708424 Hey man, it's part of why I posted this in the first place.

708399 Makes sense, and it is useful within the genre of comedy, but no one wants to hear snide, opinionated remarks when they read about Fluttershy burying an animal that died under her care. So that covers a base for one genre tag.

708426 Oh, that's a good point. One has to balance it out with the characters. I mean, showing Pinkie being red-vision-mad, murderously so, might be difficult.

708431 If you have read the series of unfortunate events, then you know that it can work for ANY genre.

708426
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but yeah: If what you thought up isn't working, then you just keep thinking.

708431
Unless ya know... you're going for the whole Pinkamena thing.

708433
That was a very depressing book series...

Why are you so set on an omniscient narrator? Is it integral to the plot? If not, I would recommend you scrap it for a more limited narrator.

If it is, then you should probably have the narrator knowing that he's retelling a story and, as such, have him choose to withhold certain information. For the good of the story, of course.

708422
Your problem isn't 'Show vs Tell' so much as the control of information. And the answer to that is somewhere between style and how much you trust your audience to pick up clues.

I play close to the chest, or try to, only telling me readers the bare minimum of information so that they can follow along without being lost while still not necessarily seeing what's coming next. The narrator might know everything, but that didn't mean he has to give it to the audience.

708436 It was so god damn GOOD though!

Fuck, I need to adapt it for MLP...

708433 I did read the first book. So I suppose the opinion of the narrator can be used to... tint? the entire work or scene? Like rose colored glasses, or black shades if you're getting into darker fiction.

708420 So one can be colorful in the language, but not purple. Use words that don't need a dictionary to understand, but don't be afraid to mention specific thoughts, so long as you truly go into detail?

708393 708384
That may not fit what Reginald wants, and some people aren't any good at 1st person. Like me.

And this is just my thoughts on the subject. To have a narrator is pretty neat, because you don't have to focus on the character specifically. For example.

As he stepped off the train, the awful smell of smoke, unwashed bodies of stallions, and blood from the nearby Stockyards assaulted him. He smiled and lifted his head up to further take in the scent. He thought he would like it here.

This can imply so many things, it'd take forever to list them all! The secret I find to doing this, is focusing on the environment, and then have your character react to it. It can show a lot of things.

Hope this helps!

708444 The narrator is dismal, but he can make some situations gruesomely funny.

708436

Oh, I don't know...lots of people died, and that's always a plus.

I would like to direct everyone to this blog post by the extremely talented bookplayer: http://www.fimfiction.net/blog/95320/tell-dont-show-yes-you-read-that-right.

This is some of the best advice I've seen regarding show vs. tell, which is always stated as a show-is-better-than-tell, when it is not always the best way to go about writing. It is, like most things, about moderation. Getting information across in an entertaining and engaging way requires some give and take, not only from showing, but also from telling. If there is information that needs to be given for the narrative to work, sometimes it's better just to tell it rather than trying to show it. The secret is finding the right mix of show and tell.

As a general rule of thumb in my own writing, is I never tell during dialogue if I can show. A character stomping a hoof and shouting gets across 'mad' in a more engaging way than just saying they're mad. Action description is a different story, one I'm still learning by paying attention to criticism, but it seems to come down to a balancing act between two things: energy vs. ambiance. A writer needs to get both across while taking away as little or as much of the other as is called for. Because the more ambiance the give the scene, the less energy there is and vice versa. If you need something to be fast-paced, high-impact, you keep the showing to a minimum and rely on more telling description to keep things moving forward. Whereas if you're going for low-energy ambiance lay on the showing.

It, like everything, comes down to playing things by ear. And to relate this to the question, it's about a blend of showing and telling, dictated by what you need the scene to accomplish. An omniscient narrator knows everything, not only a character's inner workings, but how many molecules are in a blade of grass. Sometimes it's appropriate for the narrator to share either fact, but sometimes it isn't.

Writing is vague, and the real answer is it takes practice to find what mix works and what mix doesn't. Just don't get too caught up in the whole show don't tell thing. It's often true, but not always.

708450
That would be an interesting read.

708454
Hmmmm, so it basically a 'you learn through trial and error' sort of thing?

708458

That's certainly a part of it. It's something that can be expanded and developed without writing necessarily; sometimes critical reading can net a better gain than writing something. If there's a scene in a fic, or a book, that you really like and it stuck with you as really working, go back and reread it. Dissecting why it's so engaging can help you make similar choices in your own writing. It's surprising how often things are straight-up told instead of shown when I've done that. It's all about crystallizing something in a reader's mind. Sometimes that's best through florid description, sometimes it's best through dialogue, and sometimes it's best with a simple factual statement.

708475
Thanks for the advice

708454

I like the advice the blog post gives, but I don't particularly like the "no one knows how you should write better than you do" message. It's entirely possible for a person to have no bloody clue about how they should write, and promoting that kind of message just makes people more liable to go "screw the critics" and continue writing badly, believing that they're secretly literary geniuses.

708454

That link is most appreciated. Will have a good read-through later today, when I get back. Thank you! o/

~
Don't forget TWG's IRC-channel! Find info here.

708504

If I presented the idea that no one knows better than the writer, my apologies. The point I was attempting to get across is that there is no golden equation and figuring out what is the best mix is subjective, not only to the readers and writers, but to the purpose of the scene itself. Unfortunately there is no right answer and the only way to get a knack for it is to pay attention to what works and what doesn't. Paying attention to what works and what doesn't is difficult, and one of the best ways to do it is to listen to feedback and criticism. It can point you in the direction of what things to work on if you're left in a place where you have no idea where to go to improve your abilities. But, sadly, there really isn't a universal fix for determining show vs. tell aside from practice, seeing what works for you, and what works for your audience.

708504
Ah, but being criticized is a big part of trial and error. If you weren't criticized, how would you know what your errors were?

708521
Do you ever do any editing?

708534

I occasionally edit for people, although generally I have too many writing projects on my plate to do it consistently. I'm not particularly good at editing, anyway.

708542 Lol, just curious. You sounded like someone who could edit. And I agree with the your statement about there being no 'perfect' way of writing show or tell, its all opinionated. Some people like more show than tell, and some like it the opposite, more tell than show...

708547

My problem is I'm too nice to edit properly. The best editors know how to be harsh, and I can't do that right.

708556
lol

708384 I personally would recommend avoiding the omniscient narrator except when it gives the story some benefit. For example, in a character-centric story, it could be used to show how each character in a conversation/situation is interpreting (and misinterpreting) the situation and what the other characters are saying.

In a story with a sweeping plot, the omniscient narrator can jump around from place to place to give a bird's-eye-view of the progress of events.

With regard to your question, as others have said in this thread, the trick is to withhold information strategically. Just because the narrator has access to every piece of information does not mean that the reader needs to know them.

I generally think of there being 3 varieties of 3rd person narration, and in each type, this is not a problem for a different reason. 3rd Person Omniscent is usually used the way people mentioned above: as a conscious storyteller. I can't actually think of a story where Omniscent is used when there isn't a distinctive voice for the narration that colors the telling of the story itself, and sometimes even interacts with the audience.

3rd Person Objective (movie camera) is probably the most boring, but is very easy to avoid telling, because the idea is that you describe what is happening without being inside anyone's head.

3rd Person Limited is my favorite, and what seems to get the most interesting results in modern fiction (IMHO). That's where the narrator follows around and knows the thoughts of just one character. You can tell for them, but must show for everyone else. But even there, the advice given above about describing the thoughts running through the character's mind instead of just saying "she panicked" is very good advice.

Really, I don't see why you would ever use Omniscient unless you wanted to have an all-knowing narrator, either a story-teller or a character after-the-fact or a narrator that is implictly you as the author.

Regarding the benefits of telling, you can think of that as conservation of detail. Generally you should spend an amount of time describing something based on how important it is. If you describe a tree for three pages, that tree had better be central to your story, thematically at least, if not plot-wise. If something has no plot significance, no background significance, and no thematic significance, and doesn't help establish setting or mood, well it isn't worth focussing on in much detail.

708384

My question is this: how does one balance between the omniscience of the narrator and showing as opposed to telling?

My favorite trick is to enter the viewpoint of a given character (or group of characters interacting together) completely for as long as they are 'center stage' in the story. I limit myself to what they know or understand, and play things out - as best as I am able - within that limited viewpoint. This affects their dialog, inner monologue, and actions.

For example, say I have just finished writing a section from the viewpoint of an antagonist, and moved to the protagonists.

In that example, the reader, and I as author, know that something bad is going to happen soon, that a plot is afoot, and perhaps much more besides. But the protagonists have no way to know any of that, so I play out any scenes with them just like I was running a tabletop role-playing game with them... they can only act or speak about what they could reasonably know, from their limited view. I partition my mind so that the big picture is temporarily out of my thoughts. I deliberately choose to focus only on their narrow view, and then let their thoughts and actions proceed naturally from that viewpoint.

If something must be revealed to the reader that a character knows, I have the character tell another, or discover the information, or work it out inside their own head, step by step. Always, I try to make information revealing an active event - something that must be worked out, or discussed, or gradually pieced together. I try to express the character's mental states, as much as possible, by what they do, rather than by telling the reader.

Example, Telling, rather than Showing (Bad Version):

Telson was nervous and afraid. He wanted to talk about the event at the falls with Janet, but he did not want to admit how upset he was. Telson said "Janet, the event at the falls..."

Example, Showing, rather than Telling (Good Version):

"Janet..." Telson's fingers fiddled with the cup, the tea inside splashing slightly, burning his hand. He instinctively brought his shaking hand to his lips. "I know the bit at the falls may have upset you, but..."

By replacing the 'he said, she said' stuff with physical business, I show the reader Telson's emotional state through his actions. The reader must interpret his feelings as they would in real life, and this draws them in closer, making them more likely to feel. Most people have probably had an experience where they tried to hide their nervousness and failed a bit, because their body gave them away.

By having Telson suggest that Janet was the frightened one, he is projecting his own state onto her, which strongly suggests that he is the one who is upset, and this is his way of avoiding admitting the fact.

These are some of my tricks and techniques, maybe they will be useful in your grab-bag of writing tools as well.

I went to sleep, and in my dream a little bird came and gave me this take on it, in between all the parasitic monster attacks and naked singularities:

"Show Don't Tell" isn't a principle of informing the reader so much as a style mnemonic to get you to ask yourself "how do you know?"
We spend our lives interpreting the world from the cues around us, and then appending labels to them in our own head, but the labels aren't out there in the world, they're just our conclusions about it - And so it goes with writing: You're creating a world, and the reader can figure out a good deal about that world, its characters, and your story from the cues you give, and s/he is going to draw unique conclusions about it in any case. Letting him or her put together a personal mental model of the world of the story is not only going to be more engaging, but is going to feel more true-to-life because that's what life is like.

So when you're describing something, don't feed the reader your own ideas and conclusions about what's going on, but ask yourself how you would have figured it out had you been there, and then provide the reader those same cues.
We don't see a little caption pop up over someone's head in a movie showing us their emotional state, we look at their facial features and body language, and listen to their word choice and tone, and that tells us what we need to know. And in life we don't instantly know our own emotional state by the single word that customarily describes it, but attach that label afterwards based on more specific impressions and sensations. So when you're informing the reader and you find yourself using a generic adjective like "big" or "nice" or "stinky," ask "how do I know this, myself?" and then give them the same details that would draw you to that conclusion.
You know something is big because it's taller than the treetops and casts a shadow over half the town.
You know someone is nice because they do things to make others comfortable without being prompted.
You know something is stinky because it stings your nose, upsets your stomach, and reminds you of garbage.
etc.

I don't think I'm completely sure what Show vs. Tell means, but from what I do know, I would much rather read or write stories that show instead of tell.

First, let me explain with an example. Let's say that Scootaloo has had a miserable day because Diamond Tiara and Silver Spoon had been picking on her. It's been raining outside and she finally got home to get out of the rain.

Tell: The door creaked open and Scootaloo stepped inside, muddy water dripping off of her and onto the floor. She closed the door behind her and just stood there. The filly thought about everything that had happened that day. She was very sad, she hated how those two bullies always picked on her. It just made her so miserable. She gritted her teeth and, almost without noticing began to cry.

Show: The wooden door quietly opened up to reveal an orange filly with a violet mane. Murky water dripped off of her and formed puddles on the floor underneath. She slowly walked into the house, her hooves barely lifting off of the floor as she gently shut the door behind her. After it closed, she remained still, not moving from where she stood. The words of the two cruel fillies echoed through her mind as she clenched her jaw. She adorned a slightly confused look, wondering why- even though she had escaped the rain- droplets were still gently rolling down her face as they blurred her vision.

Now, which one was better to you? (Not the best example, but I guess it works.)
For me, when an author 'tells', they are just informing me of what is blatantly obvious. It always seems to really take away from the story. It's kind of like how a joke isn't funny any more if someone explains it.
Also, showing is much more descriptive and it adds to the work and its quality.

Anyways, please excuse me if I misinterpreted what you meant by "Show vs. Tell", but there's my opinion

I'd be lying if i said I read all the above responses, but I doubt anyone has actually tried to accomodate your omniscient narrator. And even without an omniscient narrator, there are other modes wherein you'll want to discuss the thoughts of at least one character directly. This doesn't have to violate show vs. tell.

I will borrow the earlier 'tell' example 'Twilight was depressed'. If we can read Twilight's mind or not, that's pretty much flat out telling.

Now, without access to her mind, we might avoid telling by describing body language or recent conversations she's had. Evidence available to outside observers.

With access to her mind, we can show by breaking down depression into components and describing how that depression affects how twilight thinks, makes decisions, and interacts with the world from her point of view. (It may help to have been depressed yourself at one point or read personal descriptions of depression to achieve the right pitch, and same for any other mental state you're trying to show from 'inside').

Rough Example:
Twilight tried to focus on the list of things she had to do today, but it just didn't hold her interest. Maybe she'd made a checklist... whatever. Spike could take care of it. She found she didn't particularly want to do much of anything. She rolled over and tried to go back to sleep, but that proved just as elusive. Lying there, staring at the wall, was an acceptable compromise.

Basically, you can show the specific nature of their thoughts rather than summarizing them into neat packages for the reader.

"show don't tell" is, along with many old-wives tales, in the category of things that may have been a good advice at one point in time, but which has been simplified to much and turned into a "one-solution-fits-all" that it's become a truly horrible advice, capable of outright DESTROYING the prose of many budding writers. If one actually where to follow this consistently, you reach completely riddiculus conclusions, a better approach would be to look at what the different styles of writings are good at and use them where appropriate.

For example, a situation where telling is usually a no-no its to present character traits relevant to the story. In order for a trait to "count", it has to affect the plot in some way, to raise the stakes, otherwise it may not be there.

However, there are other situtions where "telling" about a character is EXACTLY the right thing to do, Terry Pratchett uses it to great effect in Discord. The reason this work is partially because of his very entertaining voice, but mainly because the traits present has no real impact on the story, yet knowing them helps the story feel alive rather than populated by nothing but main character and cardboard people.

To take a specific eample from another brittish humorist: In the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy by douglas adams, there's a whole bit in the beginning about how the guy tearing arthur dents house down is distantly related to Ghengis Khan. It has no bearing on the plot at all, but it helps to make the scene more interesting by giving the character an identity beyond a plot device to set the story in motion. If you tried to "show" this aspect of the character, you'd bog down the story with unimportant detail and you'd miss the entire point of the digression which is to set up the very quirky universe by giving such a weird detail to just a minor character.

Another example of when telling is very good its for settings. Yeah, you could have this scene where the main character comes to New York and immediately gets robbed, ranted at and offered a chance to become a model or whatever, but it'd just feel extremely contrived. Better to take a page from your favorite travelouge writer and exposit away about the city.

"show don't tell" is a good example of what I call "second tier chliches", that is, mistakes people make while trying to avoid the most common newbie mistakes. On the whole I feel that too much writing advice pushes people into erring towards blandness simply because something bland also won't include all that many obvious mistakes. BUT, being bland and forgetteable is a mistake in and of itself, it's one of the ONLY real mistake you can make in writing.