Update and Essays
in which a story was published, and various writing essays
First off, I had a new story published by Aphelion! It is called “Far Down Trodden Paths” and is a Roda story. Be sure to check it out to follow the ongoing mythos of Roda, the wandering cave, and the senseens.
Secondly, I thought mid-week may be an appropriate time to share various thoughts I’ve had over the years with regards to writing, in the form of essays and short forms. In so doing, I can help to reveal a corner of the underside of the process. And, well, they may be of use to someone, even if only for a chuckle.
If you are not seeing the entire post in your email, go to the website or the app!
On Showing and Telling
Despite what some may say, “show not tell” has never been “kill all exposition,” because it’s never been about whether a scene should be told or shown. Sometimes, it’s necessary to tell a scene, and I think we all know it.
For instance, your MC gets on a plane and goes to Paris. Odds are, we need to know this for continuity, but we don’t need the plane ride or the car ride to the airport or customs or security or any of the other nonsense shown… unless it’s important to the story. So we glaze over it. We tell it. Movies do the same thing with a quick montage or two second scene with a plane taking off or whatever. So, here are my thoughts—
Point 1: If the information is important but the scene is not, it’s told. This is not the crux of the show vs tell discussion, at least in my opinion.
So what is the point of the discussion? Well, let’s say you’re in a scene that you are showing. It’s important to immerse your readers in the scene, so they can feel the sensory details your character feels, whatever those may be. It’s important that we use descriptive active verbs that show precisely what is happening. Instead of telling us they had a phone call and now have a sense of urgency, you show the scene, the dialogue, the reactions, maybe the thoughts of the character. That’s showing. Don’t tell me she’s sad, show it, whether with facial cues, dialogue, direct thoughts, or however you choose. Don’t tell me he took a walk in the park, let me experience it—wind in the branches, crunches underfoot, kids playing, the effect it has on the character’s mood. And here’s the biggie (point 1 above) so I’ll repeat it—only do this if it’s important to the story.
Point 2: Showing occurs within a scene, most commonly one that is already being fleshed out (shown).
Point 3: Showing is sensory. Showing is emotional.
“Suggesting” as I’ve seen posited could be showing or telling, depending how it’s written. “Showing” doesn’t mean that everything is shown. That’s just ridiculous. We’re all writers here, trying to entice our readers, and we do it with creating a scene, developing interesting characters, building a world, engaging with dialogue, and/or, yes… sustaining a sense of mystery, wonder, possibility—the list goes one. It’s not even possible to show everything, but if we tried, we would bore the reader silly.
Point 4: What is important to the story? Show that, and nothing more. What moves the story forward? Show that. What would derail the story or destroy its sense of impetus? Don’t show or tell that.
Here’s the thing: You can even show with an exposition scene, although that can get trickier. If you have a scene with exposition or transition, say it’s a fantasy and you’re describing a foreign city, don’t just tell us it’s dirty and it’s people are lazy. Describe it. Maybe the streams flow with trash and nobody bothers to stoop and pick anything up. Perhaps it would be better to show such scenes with your character, rendering such exposition superfluous. That will be up to you as the writer. Maybe before going there, another character tells your MC that the city is dirty and its people are lazy, and when they get there, they see it for themselves (or they don’t, as the case may be). There are many methods, many tools in the kit, and it’s unwise to dispose any out of hand.
That said, “showing” is the meat of the story. It’s what connects us to the characters, the setting, the plot. It is the story. A scene being shown that is written telly is distant, disconnected, and boring. That is what a someone should be corrected for. “You told me the sky is blue. How about you describe it? But no, not even that. Better yet, why is it important that it’s blue? What impact does it have on the character or the setting? Why does the reader need to know?” If you can’t answer these questions, reevaluate, or delete the line/scene, for it’s unnecessary.
Point 5: Showing within a scene is good writing.
One last point—a scene can be “shown” as a cheap way to get across exposition. This is dangerous waters. Mostly this is done with dialogue. Dialogue can be fantastic, but it must feel natural. If you’re using it to convey certain information quick and dirty, you run the risk of forcing it. This is often referred to “as you know, Bob” because the characters have no need of the conversation. It’s for you, the reader’s, benefit. Avoid this. It’s ultimately still telling, not showing, but in wolf’s clothing.
Point 6: No cheap tricks. If you’re going to show a scene, really show it. If you have exposition, figure out how to how to tell it in an engaging way or just show it or cut it.
Also:
Show vs tell boils down to this: write evocatively.
It’s not about exposition—heck, short stories often rely on heavy exposition to tell a complete and concise story. It’s not about spelling out every scene and showing your character’s mundane life.
It is about evoking, ie letting your reader experience your story. Don’t tell them the moon is big, show them its effects on the setting and your characters. Don’t say your MC is sad, show them with expressions or reactions or dialogue or all the above and more.
A story shown jumps off the page and is a memorable read, regardless of how exciting the plot. A story simply told (in this sense) is dry and boring, no matter how high the stakes or clever the twist.
Also:
Sometimes people get caught up in the terminology and like to pretend the word “storytelling” is a gotcha moment. It’s not called “storyshowing” they’ll say. But that’s just another strawman, like pretending advocates of show vs tell want you to do it ALL THE TIME and SHOW EVERYTHING. If you think that, you’ve either misunderstood, or you’re conflating novices spouting their misunderstanding as fact (of which the internet’s full of) with people like me who advocate it as a helpful tool for writing in a more interesting, engaging manner.
Fact is, you can “tell” an entire story (in the macro sense) while still showing (in the micro sense). Your story doesn’t have to be cinematic. After all, the strength of a book is not the strength of the screen. A movie or TV show has directors, actors, a production team to create the setting, the mood, the inflections, etc. A book has the writer alone.
But again, that’s not the point. The point is not to be dull. The point is to bring your story to life. If saying “Tom is sad” helps with that, while describing how or why he’s sad would detract, then by all means.
As for cringy examples of showing—well, anything can be done poorly, and some examples I’ve seen were the kind of writing that could be featured on a “bad writing” forum. There are many ways to incorporate non-POV emotions, be it through facial expressions, body language, tonal fluctuations, awkward gaps, internal thoughts and observations, etc. It’s all at a writer’s fingertips. I don’t know that an example is particularly constructive, because then that becomes the focal point to be torn apart or held up.
Simply saying “he’s surprised,” for instance, may be appropriate in certain situations, but for me, it’s too vague and broad to work. Now I’m thinking about all the ways this person could demonstrate their surprise, and how the POV character knows they’re surprised—obviously there was some cue or another that they aren’t sharing—and so it is left to my imagination, and there are just too many possibilities, and I just don’t know which one to use. I can’t envision it, and so if a story is continually written in this manner, I will not read on. It’s created too much work for me. The story feels lazy and underwritten. Now, don’t take that as a verdict on a writer like, say, Cormac McCarthy, who often uses sparse language to great effect. He is the very definition of evocative and even provocative language in a quick and tidy package.
Granted, it can be overdone or poorly done as well, and some things can be glossed over—I probably don’t need a full description of bodily functions or a grisly murder, and too much description can also take me out of the story. For instance, maybe I already created another vision in my head given certain details earlier, and now a new detail disagrees with the vision, creating a disconnect. Or maybe it’s just overload, and I can’t process it all without pausing and re-reading, which I may not do. Or maybe it’s just not pertinent to the story, be it the plot or the characters or the tone or the style etc.
So there is a balance, and a good writer can feel out these things. Our goal as writers is to work this out in our own stories, and as critiquers or beta readers to point out humbly where a story may be improved and why. “Show don’t tell” is just one of many tools a writer or critiquer may employ, and regrettably often to poor effect due to much confusion on the subject.
On Tropes, Clichés, and Stereotypes
Tropes in fantasy (and genre fiction), in particular, are important. As a writer, read enough to be able to identify them, then choose some to embrace, some to ignore, and some to subvert. The latter is where it gets interesting and can make your story stand out from the derivative crowd.
Clichés are turns of phrases that have become stale with overuse.
Stereotypes are like clichés about people. They are judgments, be they passive or actionable, upon a person or group, often an entire race or ethnicity or religion. They should be avoided (in fiction, I’m talking about, but avoid them in life as well) because they are stale, dull, wrong, too easy, offensive, and/or many other negative descriptors. Do better by your characters, and therefore, your readers. Give them depth. Don’t fall into stereotypical traps, e.g. all writers are alcoholics (I’m not, for what it’s worth!)
Tropes are just common themes or actions or characters or just about anything found in a particular type of story. The reason you don’t abandon them completely is that a reader is expecting some of them. The reason you subvert them is to delight the reader with a new way to look at an old trope.
Common fantasy tropes:
The inn
The chosen one who knows nothing and initially resists but is taught by a mentor of some kind.
The irresistible, charming, good-at-everything hero.
The magical sword or talisman or ring etc
Good vs evil with little to no gray
Wizards, elves, dragons, dwarves
Clichés, on the other hand, should be avoided like the plague since they have already become old hat.
Stereotypes are similar and should be avoided or subverted rather than embraced. For instance, the swarthy Arab-like man is not the bad guy but has a kind heart (and nor are his people the villains and he’s just an outlier). This sort of territory should be tread carefully. If in doubt, don’t do it.
On Genres
What makes a story? Many elements need to come together, and most if not all of these aspects will be present in a given story. So what defines narration? Ursula K le Guin wrote of the difference between a novel and a romance. Novel being a more realistic long-form story, while a romance (in the older sense) took a more romantic look at story, telling an adventure or some other fanciful tale. Today, we divide stories with many more labels.
So let’s look at it, because these various elements are cherry-picked to define whole genres.
Setting—a story that is unique in its setting may be defined as such by its genre, even if it’s not the most important aspect of the story. What is setting? An old west town, or a medieval castle, or New York City.
Theme—this is important in a story, but in many, it’s hidden or unseen by all but the most astute. Others will hit you over the head with it. What is theme? Good vs evil, coming-of-age, survival.
Narrative style—the type of narrative defines the genre and probably the story as well. What is narrative style? Adventure, action, suspense.
Plot—the bit that propels the narrative forward is important and for some, the main point. What is defined by plot? A heist, a whodunit, a spy thriller.
Character—your story doesn’t exist without them, but are they the focal point? Biography, character sketch, first person intimate.
Voice—the narrative voice is inherent even if it’s dry or attempts to hide in the landscape. Others, though, are defined by it. What is voice? Stream-of-consciousness, an engaging narrator, gumshoe.
Content—the make-up of the story may define it, regardless of setting, plot, or anything else. What is content? Crime, romance, science fiction.
Now let’s look at this non-exhaustive list of genres and subgenres that I put together and see where some of these elements fit in. I’ll do a few, but feel free to add in your thoughts in the comments. Note that just because a story may be speculative does not mean it’s defined by content. It means the genre is labeled by content.
Speculative—content
Science fiction
Hard
Soft
Near-future
Alternate reality—setting
Space opera (often called space fantasy and listed with fantasy)
Time travel
Superhero—content
Fantasy—setting
Urban
Second-world
Fairy Tale
Dark Fantasy—content
High Fantasy
Contemporary
Sword and Sorcery
Epic Fantasy—narrative style
Dystopian/Utopian (sometimes listed with science-fiction)
Apocalyptic
Alternate reality
Magic Realism/Fabulism
Punk—setting
Steam
Nano
Splatter
Cyber
Slipstream (this is by definition a cross-genre of literary and light sci-fi at minimum)
Surrealist
Mystery—plot
Cozies
Noir
Private detective
Hardboiled
Crime—content
Capers
Mafia/mob
Police procedural
Heist—plot
Horror
Supernatural—content
Ghosts
Demons
Monster/creature
Body horror
Gothic—narrative style
Occult
Torture
Thriller—plot
Legal
Spy
War/military—setting
Paranormal
Psychological
Medical
Political
Technothriller—content
Ecothriller
Humor/Comedy—content
Slapstick
Parody
Satire
Capers
Literary—theme/character/voice
Stream-of-consciousness
Slipstream
Romance
Erotica
Harlequin
Historical—setting
Paranormal
Spicy—content
Sweet
“Chick-lit”
Western—setting
Traditional
Spaghetti (refers to the fact that Italian filmmakers made it popular, but this style subverts the good vs evil trope into a much grayer population of characters)
Realist (literary crosses with this closely)
Historical fiction
Coming-of-age—theme
Tragedy—narrative style
Melodrama
Family saga
Women’s fiction—content
The list is long and the above is by no means exhaustive, but as you can see, many stories fit more than one. And by the way: Feel free to add to it!
Then we can also define a story by market, e.g. upmarket, commercial, general fiction, etc.
Or by audience, e.g. adult, new adult, young adult, middle grade, children’s.
Perhaps a remix of genres should occur, so we can be consistent on how we define genre, and not cherry-pick one aspect of a story over another, regardless of whether it’s the focal point of the story.
What drives your story? Would you want this included on the binding or the back cover or the front page, perhaps? “Crime, set in Atlanta, riches-to-rags suspense story with a wisecracking narrator.” That gives you content, setting, theme, narrative style, and voice all in one.
I would find that useful.
On POV and Tense
Point-of-view is who we see the story through; it defines the narrator of the story. Most are third person limited (using pronouns like he/she for the main character) or first person (I/me/we). It may be multiple-character limited, in which the story will jump from one character to another in between chapters or breaks.
But there is also third person omniscient, in which the narrator may “head-hop” between characters within a scene, or show things that no character could possibly know. This is because the narrator is a sort of god to the story, knowing all and showing all. This has gone out of vogue, but was most common in sweeping epics.
Second person (you) is less common, but not extinct. It can be off-putting, as if you are the main character and the narrator is speaking directly about you. But when done well, it’s a powerful tool. This is more common in segments, e.g. in a letter or speech within the story, or if they break the fourth wall.
We can also speak of tense. Most stories are written in past tense, but present tense may be used to provide immediacy to the story, as if it’s unfolding before your eyes, or before the narrator’s eyes at the time they wrote it down. The other tenses will be present, of course—backstory is often told in a perfect tense, ongoing happenings in a progressive tense, and future happenings in future tense. But the narration in general will typically be past or, sometimes, present tense.
Finally, we can also speak of the narrator’s motives. They may be objective, in which we get a pretty straightforward account; subjective, in which the narrator’s or character’s opinions and emotions are more paramount; or unreliable, in which the narrator may present false information.
On Passive Voice
Passive voice—like telling and helper verbs and adverbs and purple prose and incomplete sentences and starting sentences with “and” or “but” and ending sentences with prepositions and splitting infinitives and saidisms—has been maligned beyond the intention of reducing overuse to the point of utter annihilation.
While active voice is preferred in prose to move the plot forward dynamically, passive voice has its place. One question to ask is, whose perspective will be most important to the story? The perpetrator, or the perpetrated upon? Sometimes, the latter is a better option. Usually, it is not. Active voice will make the story more present, immediate, and engaging. Choose wisely!
Poetry Preliminary
There are two basic kinds of poetry. Formal verse and free verse.
Formal verse uses a strict rhythm and line length structure, and a fixed rhyme scheme. Various forms exist, for various functions and of varying degrees of difficulty, including the sonnet, villanelle, sestina, and ballad. The most popular form of beat, or rhythm, is iambic, which is one unstressed syllable followed by one stressed syllable. 'a LONE' is an iamb. Pentameter is the most common length of iambic metrics, and refers to the number of iambs within a line of poetry. 'a LONE in SIDE my CAR for ALL to SEE' is an (off the cuff) example of iambic pentameter.
A variation on formal verse is blank verse, which removes the rhymes. One would think, if one were not familiar with poetry, that this would make the writing of such a poem easier. If one sets out to write bad poetry (bad poetry being defined as that which does not efficiently and effectively use sensory details and poetic devices to portray emotions; does not use concrete images and senses with an efficiency of strong language to convey either a concrete moment or an abstraction; it may, on the contrary, tell us about emotions; it may be too abstract and/or obscure and/or personal as to have any discernible bearing on a reader; it may be fairly sound in thought and intention but clumsy in practice; it may use weak verbs, clichés, and redundancy of language; etc.), then it will most likely be true that blank verse will be easier than rhyming verse for the simple reason that one will not need to conform to the limitations of a rhyme scheme.
But in order for a blank verse poem to be good poetry, it will be more difficult to write, and here's why: the human mind has been programmed to expect rhymes when reading a formal poem. If it does not get any, as in blank verse, it will be disappointed unless the poet has the skill to make its end-words important enough, and its lines fluid enough, as to make a reader forget or not care that the rhymes are missing. This is a decidedly tall order. While formal verse is very difficult to do well without forcing rhymes (i.e. rhymes with no relation to each other, or a normal word followed by an unusual rhyme [the other way around is more prone to success], or a word forced against its natural rhythm into a rhyme scheme) or bending beats, it is still the simplest style of poetry one can write. The prospective poet is given a structure to follow, and must simply fill in the blanks.
Free verse uses no set rhythm or rhyme scheme, but it would be great folly to suppose that this means it uses no rhythm or rhyme. Free verse, as any verse, is a slave to its beat; it will fail or succeed firstly on the failure or success of its beat. In free verse, the beat will change from strophe to strophe (strophe being the equivalent of a paragraph in prose; stanza being the same designation in formal verse), or from line to line, or even from phrase to phrase, but it must conjoin fluidly and with purpose. It is typical to match the subject of the poem with its rhythm, same as in formal verse. If one is writing on a gentle spring rain, it will likely fail if its rhythm lends to a quick, choppy read. An exception would be if the poet is seeking irony, in which case the poet will most likely also interlace the text with ironic images and turns of phrases.
Likewise, while free verse has no set rhyme scheme, and often uses no rhyme whatsoever, it is as capable of using rhyme as it is of using any other poetic device, e.g. alliteration, personification, assonance, repetition, metaphor. The rhymes in free verse will be internal, rather than at the end of a line, and may follow whatever structure or lack of structure the poet decides. It is important to remember that rhyming lends a certain significance to a word, makes it stand out on the page. Choose your rhymes wisely, whether in formal or free verse, for they will often be the words remembered in your poem, and in free verse, they should heighten the experience and understanding of the poem. They should lend themselves toward a greater enjoyment of, but also a greater insight into their poem.
In formal verse the line ends and stops; that is, the line itself is a complete thought, and the next line a continuation of that thought but a complete thought in itself. This is called, appropriately, an end-stop. In free verse, enjambment is the rule, and end-stop the exception. Enjambment ends mid-thought, and forces the reader on to the next line to complete the thought, thus quickening the pace and, hopefully, the interest. Good enjambment often has a secondary meaning that is either contradicted or enhanced by the next line. As in all poetry, the end-word, in this case the enjambment, is the most important word in the line, for it is the word that the reader is most likely to recall, the one on which the most emphasis will be placed. It is therefore (often) considered poor enjambment to end on an article, preposition, conjunction or other secondary word. This, as all rules, can be broken by someone who understands why they are breaking it and does so effectively.
I hope this makes it clear that free verse, contrary to popular opinion held by poets beginning in the craft, is not the easiest of the styles. It is thought by its inherent freedom, that by its lack of rigidity and concrete rules, that it would be made simpler and completely up to discretion of the poet. That, as would follow, a poet could do everything and anything he/she pleases in the name of free verse and art. They are right, but if they do not do so with a purpose, with an understanding of why they are applying this beat there, inserting that rhyme there, implying that metaphor there, it will be sheer chaos and cacophony. It will not, in short, be good free verse, much less good poetry.
With great freedom comes great instance of failure; with liberty arises a propensity to err. Rules bind us in; laws keep us honest.
This is true in art as it is in life.
Thank you for reading! Feel free to share and comment! We hope to see you again soon as we return with a brand new story.
I found this post to be useful as a reminder of all the things to be careful with while writing. For example third person omniscient narrator and the nuance of show vs tell. I also learned a lot about how poetry should be written. Thank you. Going to check out this newly published story on Aphelion now.