The Art of Implication or Show Don’t Tell is for Losers

I’m a fervent believer in the old adage Show Don’t Tell. We’ve all heard it. We all hate it. We all know it’s essential for good fiction — the writer’s Golden Rule. It reminds us that simply telling a story isn’t enough. We have to bring the story alive through choice details that make the simple statement redundant and useless.

So, why do I say that it’s for losers?

Because, lately, I’ve come to realize that the adage doesn’t do the work. I’ve been reading a lot of works in progress by unpublished writers, and I repeatedly come across the same issue. It’s an issue, I myself, have to deal with. It’s not that we’re bad writers. It’s not that we don’t know the adage and put it to good use. The issue is that we don’t use it as widely or was deeply as we should.

First, lets look at the adage itself. Show Don’t Tell only mentions one of the senses. While our mentors might mean to use all the senses, it’s not evident in the statement — and as we all know, words are powerful things. They work on us even at a subconscious level, and the amount of times new writers forget about the other four (or five depending on the story you’re telling) backs me up. As many of us have heard before, genre fiction is immersive. Our readers don’t just read the worlds we create. They live in them. If we were writing scripts, showing the world might be enough. But novel and short story writers must use every sense to make their worlds real. Readers must smell the newly turned earth of the farmer’s field, taste the smoke of the soldier’s recently exploded bunker, feel the slick sweat of the rebel about to be put to the question.

Second, the adage doesn’t encompass the most important aspect of putting across a powerful story — emotion. You can’t show emotion with any power anymore than you can tell it. For example, showing a facial expression is about as informative as just saying that someone’s happy. And depending on how it’s carried off, saying that someone’s happy is easier to understand. But you can imply emotion. When we describe the smell of our farmer’s new turned earth, we imply the satisfaction of  the fruits of a plowed field. When we describe the feel of our rebel’s slick sweat as he awaits his torture, we feel his terror, his discomfort. Emotion, my friends, is the universal language. A reader may not understand a character’s political or religious views. They may not understand how a character’s background may motivate their actions, but they will understand a character’s emotions. Emotions are the true connective tissue between a character and a reader.

For this reason, I’ve come to think that the adage should actually read Imply Don’t Tell. I mean, that is what we’re talking about when we Show, right?

Which brings us to my third reason that Show Don’t Tell is inadequate. Show Don’t Tell is primarily a tool for narrative. We use it for description. We use it for action. But when was the last time someone told you to Show Don’t Tell a piece of dialogue? Doesn’t really work, does it? And when was the last time you realized, or were told by a reader, that your dialogue is flat, repetitive, overwrought, over-simplistic, or just plain unbelievable? That’s happened to all of us. Great dialogue implies subtext, motive, tension without saying it allowed. Great dialogue implies physical and/or emotional danger. When one character asks a question, the person answering doesn’t give a direct answer. They answer a little to the side, in a round about way. And even when they do answer directly, they do so with loaded words that imply more than they’re saying.

So, I put to you all, when you’re writing or revising and you come across a telling statement, don’t wonder how you can show it. Wonder how you can imply it. For, when you think about it, implication is what we’re best at. We can’t in reality, make other people see what we see, feel what we feel, no matter how good a wordsmith we are. If that’s what you want to do, go become a movie director. Writers can only imply with these paltry things we call words and hope the reader get’s somewhere close to the point. By implication, we leave a few cracks for the reader to fill in the gaps, and that is half the fun of reading.


4 responses on “The Art of Implication or Show Don’t Tell is for Losers

  1. Brandon M Lindsay

    I think you’ve raised a very important point here. Writers have always said to Show, but not Tell, but rarely do you see a discussion about the meaning of such a statement, much less its application, context, and limitations. It’s precisely that lack that causes a lot of new writers to stumble when it comes to description. Not that such knowledge is easy to impart; it isn’t. But I think that’s exactly why we need to talk about it, so bravo on doing so.

    Regarding the other senses, I do agree that they can help to develop a more complete picture in the reader’s head, but I do think that it is necessary to keep in mind the proportion to which we actually use a given sense. We use our eyes far more than the other senses, and our eyes tell us a lot more. I remember reading a book where the main character was basically a bloodhound. Even during the climax, they would, in essence, stop and smell the roses. Those added olfactory details were unnecessary, unrealistic, and irritating in the extreme. I would caution against using too much detail from senses we don’t use quite as often. Excellent post!

  2. leigh Post author

    @Brandon M Lindsay
    Very true, Brandon. Anytime the forward movement of the plot stops to “smell the roses” for any reason, is never a good thing. Simply having the description of a scent or sight, isn’t enough. It has to mean something.

    That’s why I think sensory details should imply something else – especially an emotion. That way, what might have been simple description of a smell or taste or touch, gives the reader something more to experience while still giving keeping the story’s momentum.

  3. Colette

    This is an excellent subject and excellent post. I think one of our challenges as writers is to add these details, implied and otherwise, so they flow smoothly with the story. Anytime we stop to tell, describe, or even imply without keeping the forward motion of our story, we’re likely to lose our reader’s attention.

  4. clancy

    Awesome point. There are times we must tell and times we should imply. I like that. Far easier to wrap my brain around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *