Show, Don't Tell

[M. Le Renard]

Alright! A writer's section! New forum looks great.

Anyway, I thought I'd do another one of these posts on various fiction hazards. This one's about the famous (infamous?) phrase "show, don't tell".

Now, from my experience, my English teachers from elementary onward taught me exactly the wrong meaning of this phrase, or else I completely misinterpreted it. It wasn't until recently that I finally learned what was wrong with how I approached it, and why it was wrong.

Let me start with the incorrect interpretation: "showing means using lots of descriptive words, to 'show' the reader a picture of what's going on". The correct response when you hear this is 'absolutely not'. Let me explain with the following two examples.

Example 1, from one of my all-time favorite books, Eragon [/sarcasm]: "A tear slid down his listless face and evaporated in the sunlight, leaving a salty crust on his skin."

Now that you've read that, ask yourself this: what was Mr. Paolini trying to show us? A good answer would be someone who's despondent about something. And sure, it brings to mind an image of someone crying; someone who's sad. But there's something dreadfully wrong with Mr. Paolini's approach; he may be trying to show you sadness, but what is it that he concentrates on the most?

Answer: the tear. Read it again: what we're getting is a more-vivid-than-necessary picture of a tear sliding down someone's face and drying. This kind of imagery might be good in an experimental poem about water, but that's not what we're wanting to read right now. A little context: Eragon's mentor died. Do we care what Eragon's tears look like? Personally, I'm more interested in his face, his body, his eyes; things you can actually read and see emotion.

Now compare to example 2, from Something Wicked This Way Comes: "'Well --' The salesman walked about three feet, stopped and hunched his shoulders. Suddenly he seemed aware of house windows or the cold sky staring at his neck. He turned slowly, sniffing the air. Wind rattled the empty trees. Sunlight, breaking through a small rift in the clouds, minted a last few oak leaves all gold. But the sun vanished, the coins were spent, the air blew gray; the salesman shook himself from the spell."

I hope I don't even need to say why this passage is better; it FEELS like a storm is coming; we even get a picture of the salesman's personality, how he acts, how he thinks. Everything in it does what it's supposed to do, and that much more.

So you want to be careful that you're not just getting caught up in the poetry of your description. Mr. Paolini has the right idea; at least he's not just telling us that Eragon is sad, but he's not showing us the right images. Mr. Bradbury, however, manages to write poetically and coherently. He's not writing a screenplay; he's writing a novel.

Which makes clear my next point: showing isn't just about description. You can tell me exactly how many leaves a tree has, what color its bark is, how many knots are in the wood, and the angle at which the roots burrow into the ground, but you're still just describing a tree. It's boring; nothing is happening. Everything in your writing must contribute something to the work as a whole; if all you want is to create pretty images, go write poetry.

One more thing--and this is very important: your job as the author is not to be specific. If you describe every minute detail in the most flamboyant, extravagant terms, the reader is just going to get bored. Why, you might ask? Because you're not letting him do anything himself! Don't let the language distract the reader from what's going on.

So basically, the key phrase here is 'action with purpose'. Don't just tell me what something looks like, or what someone is feeling, or anything lame like that. Tell me something that shows that that is the case. And, most importantly, let me figure it out for myself.

Hopefully that made sense. This concept (for me, at least) is pretty difficult to master. And if you read any of my writing, you'll be able to see that. But I hope at least that this essay steers people in the right direction.

[Vore Writer]

This is one of the more hardest things I'm trying to work with, and it's the one thing I know I don't have to feel ashamed about. A couple of writers at another forum I went to told me they have the same problem.

[Bowtoid_Obelisk]

Alright! A writer's section! New forum looks great.

Anyway, I thought I'd do another one of these posts on various fiction hazards. This one's about the famous (infamous?) phrase "show, don't tell".

Now, from my experience, my English teachers from elementary onward taught me exactly the wrong meaning of this phrase, or else I completely misinterpreted it. It wasn't until recently that I finally learned what was wrong with how I approached it, and why it was wrong.

Let me start with the incorrect interpretation: "showing means using lots of descriptive words, to 'show' the reader a picture of what's going on". The correct response when you hear this is 'absolutely not'. Let me explain with the following two examples.

Example 1, from one of my all-time favorite books, Eragon [/sarcasm]: "A tear slid down his listless face and evaporated in the sunlight, leaving a salty crust on his skin."

Now that you've read that, ask yourself this: what was Mr. Paolini trying to show us? A good answer would be someone who's despondent about something. And sure, it brings to mind an image of someone crying; someone who's sad. But there's something dreadfully wrong with Mr. Paolini's approach; he may be trying to show you sadness, but what is it that he concentrates on the most?

Answer: the tear. Read it again: what we're getting is a more-vivid-than-necessary picture of a tear sliding down someone's face and drying. This kind of imagery might be good in an experimental poem about water, but that's not what we're wanting to read right now. A little context: Eragon's mentor died. Do we care what Eragon's tears look like? Personally, I'm more interested in his face, his body, his eyes; things you can actually read and see emotion.

Now compare to example 2, from Something Wicked This Way Comes: "'Well --' The salesman walked about three feet, stopped and hunched his shoulders. Suddenly he seemed aware of house windows or the cold sky staring at his neck. He turned slowly, sniffing the air. Wind rattled the empty trees. Sunlight, breaking through a small rift in the clouds, minted a last few oak leaves all gold. But the sun vanished, the coins were spent, the air blew gray; the salesman shook himself from the spell."

I hope I don't even need to say why this passage is better; it FEELS like a storm is coming; we even get a picture of the salesman's personality, how he acts, how he thinks. Everything in it does what it's supposed to do, and that much more.

So you want to be careful that you're not just getting caught up in the poetry of your description. Mr. Paolini has the right idea; at least he's not just telling us that Eragon is sad, but he's not showing us the right images. Mr. Bradbury, however, manages to write poetically and coherently. He's not writing a screenplay; he's writing a novel.

Which makes clear my next point: showing isn't just about description. You can tell me exactly how many leaves a tree has, what color its bark is, how many knots are in the wood, and the angle at which the roots burrow into the ground, but you're still just describing a tree. It's boring; nothing is happening. Everything in your writing must contribute something to the work as a whole; if all you want is to create pretty images, go write poetry.

One more thing--and this is very important: your job as the author is not to be specific. If you describe every minute detail in the most flamboyant, extravagant terms, the reader is just going to get bored. Why, you might ask? Because you're not letting him do anything himself! Don't let the language distract the reader from what's going on.

So basically, the key phrase here is 'action with purpose'. Don't just tell me what something looks like, or what someone is feeling, or anything lame like that. Tell me something that shows that that is the case. And, most importantly, let me figure it out for myself.

Hopefully that made sense. This concept (for me, at least) is pretty difficult to master. And if you read any of my writing, you'll be able to see that. But I hope at least that this essay steers people in the right direction.


That's one of the reason I keep slipping into dialogue based work. I keep mixing up what details are worth stretching and what just needs to be said. I'm experimenting with a new way of writing my short stories, and I'm hoping with the added organization my work will shape up some.

[TakeWalker]

One more thing--and this is very important: your job as the author is ot to be specific. If you describe every minute detail in the most flamboyant, extravagant terms, the reader is just going to get bored. Why, you might ask? Because you're not letting him do anything himself! Don't let the language distract the reader from what's going on.

Ahh, it's healing to hear this said aloud (as much as anything online is 'aloud'). I've realized lately that my writing isn't nearly as descriptive as it used to be, and in some respects, I could stand to add a bit more. But I always justify it by saying that I'm letting the reader fill in the unimportant details; if a person's facial appearance or clothing are important to the story, then I'll let the reader know, and they can use my images instead.

And in reference to your example, well, Ray Bradbury is infinitely cooler than the snot-nosed momma's boy who wrote Eragon. There's almost no comparison to be made, and perhaps that's the best comparison there is.

[M. Le Renard]

I'm experimenting with a new way of writing my short stories, and I'm hoping with the added organization my work will shape up some.
Short stories are a whole different monster than longer works. Since you have less room to work with, you have fewer excuses, which makes getting the details just right all the more important. But you can also play around more with the form, like you said you were doing... and actually, that's probably really good practice.

And in reference to your example, well, Ray Bradbury is infinitely cooler than the snot-nosed momma's boy who wrote Eragon.
Exactement mes sentiments.:) I just figured it'd be a good juxtaposition of styles. And it's real easy to find examples of bad writing in Paolini's books. One of the two works I never could bring myself to finish. The other was Salamandastran, by Brian Jacques.

[TakeWalker]

Exactement mes sentiments.:) I just figured it'd be a good juxtaposition of styles. And it's real easy to find examples of bad writing in Paolini's books. One of the two works I never could bring myself to finish. The other was Salamandastran, by Brian Jacques.


Hah, no comment.

Except, I'm gonna comment.

I've honestly been reading Redwall books for years. Even the newest ones. Even the ones that made me go, "This is horribly written, and it's written for people half my age anyway; why am I reading this?"

Jacques began the series very well, but his quality has degraded over time, not to mention he's succumbed to a gross formuliacity like some other authors (coughPiersAnthonycough). His books anymore are just cookie-cutter copies of one another, with new good and bad guys, in one of three possible settings.

But those otters are just so darn cute! ^____^

[M. Le Renard]

Hey; I'm not trying to put the guy down. I just happened to be unfortunate enough to read that one of his books first. By the time I figured out that it was about a great warrior destined to defeat an evil king, I put it down. I think he might have used every fantasy cliché possible in that one.

But I've never read the original Redwall books. Certain people I know and respect really enjoyed them, so they must have something to them.

[TakeWalker]

My problem with Redwall these days (oh God, going off topic) is that all continuity has been lost. The first... oh, dozen or so had storylines or at least characters who recurred or were referenced. Then after Bella died (I think it was Bella), that sort of went out the window, and the only common things are mentions of Martin, Redwall itself, and Salamandastron. Maybe occasionally you'll get a rundown of previous badger lords, but that's it. Each novel is pretty much stand-alone, and you can get the gist of everything that's going on from the same jubilant feast that happens in every damn book.

And if I sound bitter, it's not so much because a series that was once a true favorite has become overhashed literary detritus, but more because I keep reading it and I don't know why. D:

[M. Le Renard]

Eh... off topic not a problem. This is probably the extent of the responses I'll get to this thread anyway, if the past is any indication. :)
but more because I keep reading it and I don't know why.
Sounds like me reading the Wheel of Time. And now the guy's dead, halfway through his final book. I think I heard somewhere that his son's finishing it, though, so at least there will be some kind of closure. But I really did waste a lot of good time on those books.
Seems like long-winded fantasy series often have the problem of becoming formulaic. That's why I've set up mine so that can't possibly happen. I think. At least with Redwall the books are short, right?

[TakeWalker]

Seems like long-winded fantasy series often have the problem of becoming formulaic.

I think I can understand the reason they become formulaic. If you've got something people like, there's no reason to change how you do it. The problem may in fact be more that some authors don't know when to stop a good storyline. They have to keep milking a world setting for monetary reasons. (And here I'm quite certain publishers are behind convincing authors to do so.)

There's a journal somewhere on FA that addresses a similar issue in comics, Western vs. manga. Oh look, here it is! (http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/204841/) Western comic writers just can't give up on a universe, is the argument. I'd characterize the two genres as suffering from the same illness.

[Mameoyashi]

I agree and disagree with this actually. While vast amounts of description, and irrelevant descriptions annoy me and put me to sleep.... I don't mind the small details every once in awhile. The tear description on it's own, sure is lacking. But if you put that alongside of other descriptions of body and mind that will convey the emotion I think it would belong. It just adds a small touch, which as a reader I do appreciate seeing. As long as it's not overused, I like seeing the small details described every once in awhile.

[Kindar]

One more thing--and this is very important: your job as the author is not to be specific. If you describe every minute detail in the most flamboyant, extravagant terms, the reader is just going to get bored. Why, you might ask? Because you're not letting him do anything himself! Don't let the language distract the reader from what's going on.


one of the place where vagueness is an extremely powerful tool, is in describing "beautiful" people. mainly because one person's definition of beauty will vary from the next.

in tryingto be specific and describing what *you* consider tobe beautifil then you run the risk of turning off some of yur raders who don't agree with you

[M. Le Renard]

Western comic writers just can't give up on a universe, is the argument. I'd characterize the two genres as suffering from the same illness.
So far as, say, the shit fiction Wizards of the Coast and the like puts out, yes, but actually, not so much mainstream fantasy. Most of those are more like Dragon Ball and Naruto, in that they go on forever, but do actually stop at some point. But you are absolutely right about publishers coercing their authors into putting out the same shit book after book. I'm probably going to have a real hard time getting published, because I'm hard-headed and don't really care about money.
While vast amounts of description, and irrelevant descriptions annoy me and put me to sleep.... I don't mind the small details every once in awhile.
Well, that brings up the point of how relativistic 'good' writing is. Obviously you can't please everyone. Maybe a better rule would be what you said; don't go overboard.
one of the place where vagueness is an extremely powerful tool, is in describing "beautiful" people.
That's a good point. I think it also applies to good and evil. You can expound on how noble and wonderful your hero is until the reader wants to gag; that doesn't necessarily mean the reader will also think he's good. Conversely for villains. So yes, in cases like these, where again relativism comes into play, you really don't want to push any ideas on your reader.

[DerDoberman]

I think the trick to good writing, really, isn't a bunch of imposing descriptors but an expansive vocabulary. You don't have to say something like, "He was so evil that he liked to kick puppies on a daily basis." Instead "He was the most vile man to ever walk the earth." Here, saying, "He was evil" would certainly be telling, but even using a thesaurus to find words like atrocious, hideous, or malicious would enhance someone's writing (although it's good to understand when you've gone too far, for example, if you decided to use flagitious or pernicious. Stick instead to words a majority of people understand).

Idk, this is generally my theory on descriptive writing. Know what needs describing and try to use good synonyms instead of lengthy descriptions.

[M. Le Renard]

Well... but even if you say 'he was the most vile person ever to walk the earth', you're still just telling the reader that he was vile. Word choice doesn't really have anything to do with it. I'm not a real big fan of the thesaurus, myself (makes things sound a bit unnatural, I think... but that's just me).
What you want to do instead is show that he is vile somehow. Like... have him kick a puppy and laugh about it. Rather than 'He was so evil that he liked to kick puppies on a daily basis,' you could just say 'He liked to kick puppies on a daily basis.' Or even better, 'Every day he made certain to kick a puppy.' That way, the reader can just pick up that this guy is a total jerk by how he acts, rather than having you say out and out that he's evil.
Get my drift?

[Poetigress]

Exactly. But show it in the action, as you've alluded to -- that is, instead of merely saying "Every day he kicked a puppy," go with "As he left the house, the neighbor's puppy was sitting on his doorstep again with those inane wide eyes and that lolling tongue. He kicked it, smiled a bit to hear the yelp--louder than yesterday's--and whistled as he continued down the street."

Obviously you can't do this with every single aspect of everything in your story, or you'll wind up overloading and boring the reader (not to mention loading up your word count), so some telling is unavoidable. But for the important stuff, let the reader see it and hear it for himself. Trust that, if you set the scene properly, your reader will be intelligent enough to figure out what the character is like. (I don't think anyone's going to be inviting our puppy-kicker to the neighborhood potluck. Unless you're in a really odd neighborhood.) :P

[Kathmandu]

I believe it should fit the story. An action packed spy-adventure story doesn't need a detailed description of the lovely lace doilies in a Jane Austin-esque manner nor do you really need to describe the intricate wood-grain patterns and glossy finish on a rifle stock while describing a gritty WWII battle. It happens though, Laural K. Hamilton is notorious for this, she will interrupt an intense, life or death struggle by describing her or someone else's shoes.. I will strangle someone if I read "Blue and white Nikes with a green swoosh," again while a vampire leaps for her throat... The mark of a good writer is learning how to use descriptive prose in the right measure.

[M. Le Renard]

stuff
Right. Your example is better. I guess the main point is that it's good to be indirect about certain things, so that the author doesn't become a character in the novel whose name is God. Only Kurt Vonnegut is allowed to do that. :wink:
An action packed spy-adventure story doesn't need a detailed description of the lovely lace doilies in a Jane Austin-esque manner nor do you really need to describe the intricate wood-grain patterns and glossy finish on a rifle stock while describing a gritty WWII battle.
Another good point, which kind of goes along with what I said about keeping the details integral to the story. If you start waxing lyrical about the clouds while someone's getting murdered, your reader's going to go, "wtf?" and put the book down.

[zontan]

I object to your opinions and substitute my own.

Okay, that's not actually true, but it was fun to say.

I liked Eragon and Redwall (although, yes, they did eventually get repetitive and recently I finally had to go, "alright, sigh, I'm not reading Redwall anymore." Which royally sucked, by the way. I hate admitting I've gotten too old for something I loved, whether it be Animorphs or the Disney channel. But moving on). Anywho, Salamandastron was probably not a very good place to start.

Yeah... I have pretty much this exact same problem. I knew I had it, and it made me mostly think my stuff sucked (because I've read some good stuff that doesn't have that problem and I've never been able to properly imitate it, which annoys me).

I agree with Poetigress and I while I agree with DerDoberman's recommendation of a good vocabulary, I don't agree with his use of it.

Yay. That's my three cents. Feel free to steal it. *wanders off*

[Oni]

Alright! A writer's section! New forum looks great.

Anyway, I thought I'd do another one of these posts on various fiction hazards. This one's about the famous (infamous?) phrase "show, don't tell".

Now, from my experience, my English teachers from elementary onward taught me exactly the wrong meaning of this phrase, or else I completely misinterpreted it. It wasn't until recently that I finally learned what was wrong with how I approached it, and why it was wrong.

Let me start with the incorrect interpretation: "showing means using lots of descriptive words, to 'show' the reader a picture of what's going on". The correct response when you hear this is 'absolutely not'. Let me explain with the following two examples.

Example 1, from one of my all-time favorite books, Eragon [/sarcasm]: "A tear slid down his listless face and evaporated in the sunlight, leaving a salty crust on his skin."

Now that you've read that, ask yourself this: what was Mr. Paolini trying to show us? A good answer would be someone who's despondent about something. And sure, it brings to mind an image of someone crying; someone who's sad. But there's something dreadfully wrong with Mr. Paolini's approach; he may be trying to show you sadness, but what is it that he concentrates on the most?

Answer: the tear. Read it again: what we're getting is a more-vivid-than-necessary picture of a tear sliding down someone's face and drying. This kind of imagery might be good in an experimental poem about water, but that's not what we're wanting to read right now. A little context: Eragon's mentor died. Do we care what Eragon's tears look like? Personally, I'm more interested in his face, his body, his eyes; things you can actually read and see emotion.

Now compare to example 2, from Something Wicked This Way Comes: "'Well --' The salesman walked about three feet, stopped and hunched his shoulders. Suddenly he seemed aware of house windows or the cold sky staring at his neck. He turned slowly, sniffing the air. Wind rattled the empty trees. Sunlight, breaking through a small rift in the clouds, minted a last few oak leaves all gold. But the sun vanished, the coins were spent, the air blew gray; the salesman shook himself from the spell."

I hope I don't even need to say why this passage is better; it FEELS like a storm is coming; we even get a picture of the salesman's personality, how he acts, how he thinks. Everything in it does what it's supposed to do, and that much more.

So you want to be careful that you're not just getting caught up in the poetry of your description. Mr. Paolini has the right idea; at least he's not just telling us that Eragon is sad, but he's not showing us the right images. Mr. Bradbury, however, manages to write poetically and coherently. He's not writing a screenplay; he's writing a novel.

Which makes clear my next point: showing isn't just about description. You can tell me exactly how many leaves a tree has, what color its bark is, how many knots are in the wood, and the angle at which the roots burrow into the ground, but you're still just describing a tree. It's boring; nothing is happening. Everything in your writing must contribute something to the work as a whole; if all you want is to create pretty images, go write poetry.

One more thing--and this is very important: your job as the author is not to be specific. If you describe every minute detail in the most flamboyant, extravagant terms, the reader is just going to get bored. Why, you might ask? Because you're not letting him do anything himself! Don't let the language distract the reader from what's going on.

So basically, the key phrase here is 'action with purpose'. Don't just tell me what something looks like, or what someone is feeling, or anything lame like that. Tell me something that shows that that is the case. And, most importantly, let me figure it out for myself.

Hopefully that made sense. This concept (for me, at least) is pretty difficult to master. And if you read any of my writing, you'll be able to see that. But I hope at least that this essay steers people in the right direction.

In other words,

You are saying that "showing" is the act of describing something without precisely descibing that something in order for the reader to make their own conclusions and not become bored with "to the point" information?

To me, that seems more like "making things vauge yet entertaining."

Personally, I'll use Microsoft Encarta's definitions of the verb showing.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/show.html


Random information: I just learned that the word showing can also has a noun based definition.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/showing.html

[Poetigress]

If it helps, instead of "telling vs. showing," I tend to think of it as "summarizing vs. dramatizing."

your job as the author is not to be specific. If you describe every minute detail in the most flamboyant, extravagant terms, the reader is just going to get bored. Why, you might ask? Because you're not letting him do anything himself!

I missed this part on the first read-through, and I'm a little confused by it, too. To me, the author must be specific -- "dachshund" instead of just "dog," "ice cream sundae" instead of "dessert" -- to create a vivid world for the reader to enter and become involved in. If the reader doesn't have some level of visual description and detail, he's not going to be able to do anything himself, because he won't have anything to hang on to.

The trick is, yes, of course you don't want to overload the text with every single detail regardless of importance. You want the telling detail, the one that provides some insight into the character, setting, or situation.

[M. Le Renard]

By less-specific I guess I meant more in the amount of details you choose to describe.
Using certain specific details are great, as long as you don't go overboard with them, and as long as they somehow bring something else to the story. Maybe a good example is in describing a room; you can talk for hours about what kind of furniture is in the room: a couch, two Lazy-E-Boy chairs, a television, carpeting, etc. But that's boring. If you instead describe it as, say, a living room with orange shag-carpeting and a yellow couch/bed that had its best days in the 1960's, you get a much better picture. All I'm doing there is describing two things; the room might be filled with other stuff, but you don't necessarily need to describe what those things are to get a picture of the room. The reader's not going to memorize every object that's in the room, so all you need is to give enough details (specific details, yes) so that a good-enough picture forms in the reader's head.
I wonder if that makes any sense...

I like this; FA is actually becoming more like a writing forum I used to frequent, where I had to back myself up and revise my ideas.

[Vore Writer]

Obviously when it comes down to it, it all depends on what the writer feels is important to mention. For me, unless it's important and/or it'll help tell the story, I won't even bother mentioning it. When it comes to a living room, who cares? Everybody should know what's in that room. When it comes to the dog, unless the person has a strong dislike towards a certain breed, why bother? If the dog is going to take part in one minor scene, is giving it a breed that important?

[caeldragon]

As a new guy here and preeminently a writer, I would like to say that I enjoyed reading this thread because it made me think of how well I was writing, and made me want to continue with this information in mind. I would also like to point out that plot is much harder to be original with than the other elements of writing, and just because someone's craft is off and the plot is "cliched", the story as a whole can be captivating and immersive. I admit that I'm old fashioned and like some of the cliched fantasy drivel like the WotC books, but while you're reading, feel free to internal (maybe externally) critique someone's craft, but ask yourself if the characters, setting, and overall story is entertaining. True creativity (to me) is the ability to make ideas come to life through whatever your outlet is. Craft is not as important as having good ideas to work with, because craft can always be improved; if you find someone's style to be engaging, encourage them and make suggestions for improvement on their craft. Good writers are hard to find without us (existing writers) scaring them away by saying their craft sucks (in not so many words.)

That's enough from me. Just felt I'd add my thoughts. Bwar.

[Poetigress]

Craft is not as important as having good ideas to work with, because craft can always be improved; if you find someone's style to be engaging, encourage them and make suggestions for improvement on their craft.

I agree with this in principle, but to be honest, from a practical standpoint, if the craft aspect of the work is really lacking, I might not even make it to the end of the story to find out whether the concepts or characters were any good. :| Sometimes I enjoy critiquing, and sometimes I just want to read -- if I'm in the latter mood, I'll probably just move on to something else without getting past the first few paragraphs. It's not always fair, but that's how it goes sometimes. *shrug*

[Xioneer]

I like to think I am guarded against many common pitfalls by my writing style and pace. Ideas come so fast I just try to move on to the next point or concept without getting bogged down in details on the first draft, a trick I am struggling to learn. I love details and painting a scene, but I cannot afford to dally on some aspects of detailing for fear I will lose interest and my storms of plot ideas.

First drafts are great. You can beef them up later or butcher them apart and then recraft the laborious parts straight to the point with all the neccessary descriptions and details. I mostly only ghost first drafts and look to pass my material along for rewriting and polishing, being a plotter and concepts writer foremost and lacking in actual immersion into dialogue modus, personality painting, rich descriptions and all the important aspects that really make a tale interesting. However, few want to clean up after a lazy writer, no matter how creative he may be at rough writing. Usually, the only one with the patience and passion to polish even the best of stories is yourself.

[Tiarhlu]

I got a comment on fanfiction.net once saying that I too was telling, not showing. This left me confused because I was really sure that I was actually showing a lot. I think your (original post) description makes sense, but I'm still a bit confused. I always thought I was a pretty good writer, and even college professors have said as such, so I don't know anymore.

So the difference between showing and telling is if the description is for the right things? Also, say the character/s is walking down the beach, and it's a great day out, and I want to describe things that are making the day so great to help give a visual of the scene, and perhaps help to augment why the character is happy to be out. Is that not okay if it doesn't directly tie into the action?

[Poetigress]

So the difference between showing and telling is if the description is for the right things?

Well... not exactly. Showing is depicting the scene in such a way that the reader is there experiencing it alongside the character, and depicting the character's emotions and reactions within the scene. Telling is stating outright what the character is thinking or feeling, without letting the reader experience or figure it out for themselves.

For example (I haven't been awake all that long right now, so forgive me if this is horrible), let's say your character is walking along the beach brooding because he just found out his girlfriend has been cheating on him.

Showing:
He stood and watched the waves roll in, one after the other, while the salt spray cooled the tears on his cheeks. Each wave broke in a hissing roar, and he waded out into the breaking surf, letting them hit him, letting them rush over his head in hopes of drowning out that one thought he couldn't escape.

How could she?

And more importantly, why hadn't he seen?


Telling would be more like:

He stood on the beach and watched the waves roll in. He still couldn't believe what had happened. He couldn't believe that she would do such a thing, and that he hadn't been able to see it coming. He felt stupid and helpless and angry, and he had thought that coming to the beach would make him feel better, but it wasn't working.

There's some gray area in this, of course. Telling and showing can wind up being mixed in the same paragraph. And you can't show every little thing about the character or the story -- some things you'll have to summarize, especially if it's backstory, the events that happened before the story takes place. Generally, though, readers feel more "there" and more connected to the characters if they can be right there, seeing what takes place, than if they're listening to a narrator tell them the story.

Hope that makes at least a little sense... >^_^<

[TakeWalker]

And never rest on your laurels if someone tells you you're a good writer. Even a teacher. c.c;;

[Alchera]

Show, Don't Tell is not something to always follow in writing. It has to be balanced--can't show everything.

[NaomiMaru]

I've only read the first post, but I think this is great advice, and might help me in my own writing.

[comidacomida]

The only thing I can contribute to this conversation is as the devil's advocate:

Read "A Tale of Two Cities".

NEVER let wordiness get in the way of telling a story. Sometimes there is no problem with saying a character is sad... there is not always a need to wax philosophical on the character's actions at the time. Knowing when to show and not tell and when to just lay it out for the reader is the sign of a good writer.

[Clothoverlord]

It took me forever to realize, but recently it just hit me that the whole point of writing fiction isn't just to tell the reader what's going on. Writing fiction is about making the reader feel. If readers want a bland, emotionless explanation for human nature, they'll read some detatched non-fiction book. It's all about making them empathize, so just being descriptive isn't going to bring that about. It's like killing a joke; you have to describe just the right thing for the right amount of time to bring out the humor. Same thing with a story.

[M. Le Renard]

Read "A Tale of Two Cities".
True, what you say, of course (though now I can't remember if this didn't get brought up earlier in the thread). And yet so many people still love that book to death.
I should just start putting a disclaimer at the beginning of these kinds of threads:
"Warning: despite the recommendations in this thread, do not stray from the path to Nirvana in your writing."

[Versilaryan]

I actually disagree with you, but on a few minor points. I will agree that implying key factors is a good storytelling device. I will agree that instead of saying that something happened, you should describe how it happened. What I won't agree on, however, is your definition of "show, not tell."

What you describe is mood, a completely different thing from description. Granted, mood is highly dependent on your description, but it's an entirely different country with its own culture and history. If you watch a horror movie, and you get to that point where the violins are tremolo-ing a high note and you are on the edge of your seat, you are feeling one of the most easily recognizable effects of mood: suspense. What makes you feel that suspense? Maybe the feeling that the ground will give beneath you and you will be sent plummeting to your doom. Maybe the werewolf that will suddenly leap out of the shadows and devour you alive.

The reason it's so difficult to get a firm grasp of is that there is virtually no concrete definition or technique for creating it that writers can give you. To create mood is to utilize universal symbols and connotations in order to create a sort of "gut feeling" in the reader. Take the opening scene of Chapter 1 of my story, Prince of Thieves, for example (well, close enough to an opening scene). I describe Rychaeth Leithyr as a "wraith" flitting between the shadows. I do /plenty/ of blatant showing in that scene where he breaks into the house. The trick in that was to do so while creating a quiet, dark feeling to the scene. That is the mood.

So, yeah. I hope I clarified a few things. Describing something is the "show, not tell" part of writing a story. However, /how/ you describe it leads to the mood of the story, one of the most important literary techniques to keep a reader interested. Two completely separate things, there.

[M. Le Renard]

Sure: 'showing' or 'telling' is the technique you use to get a mood across properly. They're two different things, but one relies on the other. If you just state 'he was very sad', it won't create quite the same mood as if you wax on and on about him slamming his fists into the wall while tears stream down his contorted face, blah blah blah.
I was trying to describe in that first post the merits of the technique of 'showing' versus that of 'telling', and what that infamous little phrase actually means. I think it's sort of implied that this is what you do to create and maintain a certain 'mood'.

[Versilaryan]

What you described /was/ the mood. The "showing not telling" part refers to this.

"There were bodies littering the battlefield."

That's telling. This is showing.

"Battered bodies littered the battlefield. Blood flowed freely from open wounds and gathered in crimson pools contaminated by the powdery dirt kicked up from the battle. Some of the blood seeped down into the earth through minuscule cracks and crevices in the dehydrated field. Dry, brown grass blew listlessly in the scarce breeze, each dying blade thirsting for a single drop from an overcast sky.
"A single ray of light pierced through the dry air and for a brief instant, a single body was illuminated. The body wore the brown uniform of a soldier. A scratched, gray helmet lay alone slightly to the side, still grasped by a desperate hand in death. By the other hand lay a black, gritty, unpolished pistol, still loaded and cocked. The gun pointed to another body not much different from the former. The only difference lay in the splotches of color on their uniforms; one sported a bullet hole though his head, and the other through his stomach--both sources of the godless streams and pools that crisscrossed the battlefield."

All I did was elaborate on something. Well, I did a bit more than that. During the whole thing, I concentrated on finding the right words that would symbolize what I wanted to go for, age-old archetypes that will hit certain notes in peoples' heads. That's how you create mood. You don't just write and write more about something.

(Now that I think about it, something like that would be a nice addition to your guide. Better to show how you can elaborate with some of your own examples instead of just quoting two books and saying why one's better. Like they say, "show, don't tell". =P)

What I'm saying is that you elaborate to show instead of telling. If you take it a step further and utilize the showing to show what you want to show /how/ you want to show it, you create mood. IMO, that "infamous little phrase" is just a means to set beginning authors on the right path to discover how to utilize mood and tone. Simply showing isn't enough; I've read plenty of stories where there is /a lot/ of showing and virtually no telling, yet no sense of mood. Likewise, I've read a few stories where there is more telling and virtually no showing, but there still is an amazing sense of mood. Yes, they are closely interconnected, but having one does not guarantee the other.

[M. Le Renard]

I swear to the gods, if one more of these threads becomes an argument about semantics... :-)

We're getting on a completely different subject, here, which, I think, is called 'tone', the tone of a piece, which involves a lot of different writing mechanics. All I was trying to get across in this thread was how to do halfway decent description passages, and to discuss that particular phrase. To make those descriptive passages fit into a story, you will need to worry about word-choice, etc., a.k.a. 'mood', but like I said that's a whole other can of worms.
You seem to have a lot to say about it, though... you could always start a new thread called 'mood'.

(Now that I think about it, something like that would be a nice addition to your guide. Better to show how you can elaborate with some of your own examples instead of just quoting two books and saying why one's better. Like they say, "show, don't tell". =P)
Or 'show' what I mean by using examples from other works.

[FourLetterWord]

That's telling. This is showing.

You actually told rather than showed both times. It makes for a good demonstration of why showing isn't always necessary, but you've missed the mark on what the distinction actually is.

A better example is this:

Telling: "Brad's wife's death devastated him. All that was good in him was somewhere down under that lake, cold and dead."

Showing: "He was weeping. It was such a silly thing--he'd grabbed four plates for the dinnertable when he only needed three--but he couldn't stop."

Both are declarative, both give you information, but the second lets you infer what the former tells you: that Brad's wife's death devastated him.

[Versilaryan]

No, tone's another thing altogether. Mood is the feeling the reader gets from reading it, and tone is how the narrator comes off to the reader. It's just like your tone of voice when you speak. Just from listening to someone, you can usually tell if they're angry, sad, or being sarcastic. When you read a story, you can tell from the word choice how the narrator is narrating. Charles Dickens tends to have a lot of very sarcastic moments in his works. In "The Sound and the Fury", Jason's section is clearly angry and bitter. Something like this is harder to do in third-person narration, but it's not impossible.

And it's completely different from elaboration and mood.

Mebbe I'll make a thread clarifying the differences as I see them, or something.

EDIT: Inference is yet /another/ completely different thing. A useful tool in developing mood and tone, but not a part of showing. Showing is just plain, flat-out detailing. Anything else you might do, such as connotations of words, word choice, inference, euphemism, or what have you now, isn't a part of showing. If you force the reader to infer something, you aren't exactly showing them, are you?

The big point of my arguments is that there is a large difference between "showing", or flat-out detailing and elaboration, and utilizing other literary devices to further whatever point you might want to make. Mood, tone, and inference all fall under that category of "other literary devices" and all have different effects.

[FourLetterWord]

EDIT: Inference is yet /another/ completely different thing. A useful tool in developing mood and tone, but not a part of showing.

You are mistaken, both in what you believe I meant and in your point to reply to it.

http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/creative/showing.htm <- pro click zone that should clear up your confusion

[M. Le Renard]

Showing is just plain, flat-out detailing.
Ohhh.. now I see where the trouble is. See, this is what I meant in the original post about how to incorrectly interpret that phrase.
Let me see if I can put it another way.... using a really banal example. Let's say I have five apples. To get across the information that I have five apples, I can do one of two things: tell you that I have five apples and expect you to believe me, or take out the five apples and display them for you to see. In the first case, I'm just telling you I have five apples: telling. Sometimes useful, in many other circumstances very boring and untrustworthy. In the second case, you can see the apples in my hands and count them, and thus, in a sense, you can infer that I have five apples: showing. You're more engaged in the process, making it more exciting for you, and you can see for yourself that I do indeed have five apples.
I'm hoping with that example the question of mood disappears and you can see what I'm getting at. Telling would be giving the reader a list of facts, whereas showing is getting the reader to understand the situation some other way, like using images (generally best when dealing with emotions or other intangible things).
In your example, all the images you list are 'telling' the reader what the scene looks like, but the choice of images and languages 'shows' the reader a scene of desperation, grislyness, the like as well (again, intangibles). You're not saying, 'the scene was really bloody and depressing,' but the reader can still see that in the writing. A case of the word producing a thousand pictures, to reverse that old saying.
Maybe that makes it clearer what I mean?

[Versilaryan]

What I saw when I read your reply was something among the lines of, "You need to make the reader infer to say you're actually 'showing' something." Yes, inference is a nifty tool in showing. Yes, tone is another nifty tool in showing. Yes, mood is an even better tool in showing. In that link, the writer points that out. It goes even further into stuff about focal points and what you want the reader to focus on. But that's, again, entirely different.

I think the big problem here is that we all have different definitions of "showing". My definition is simple imagery and elaboration on broader statements in order to have descriptive, more concise statements that show all the steps involved in a scene instead of just making broad, all-encompassing statements that don't allow for much in the way of mood and tone. Your definition, I guess, is that the showing encompasses /everything/ involved with the words themselves and how you can utilize those words to achieve certain effects. I have other words and descriptions for the various ways you can do that.

If we're arguing personal descriptions of vague, abstract terms, then it might be a good idea to just drop the argument. I'm not going to change the entirety of how I think of writing and literature anytime soon. Nobody's right, and nobody's wrong. Let's agree to disagree before furry drama starts up.

EDIT: What you've got in that last big paragraph is exactly what I mean when I say "mood". When I say showing, I say that I take out those five apples and let the person see for himself that I have five apples. Nothing complicated involved with that. That's it. I don't let the person infer that I have five apples or what color the apples are or anything like that. I just show them the apples. If I want to achieve a certain effect in my writing, I use the other methods. In my opinion, just because a good writer /always/ wants to achieve an effect with his or her writing, people mix up the literary devices with simple elaboration. Hopefully, that clarifies my viewpoint a bit.

[M. Le Renard]

Well, I suppose we two are continuing to argue because ours is the definition accepted by probably 95% of the writing community. Or so it seems to me. Just a case of defending the status quo.
In any case, I think we all agree on the general principles at work here, so whatever terms we might use to describe them is kind of a moot point. As you said. I'm definitely going to set up an accepted definition of the term I might choose to discuss next. This must be the 4th time in four threads that the discussion turned to semantics.
Bloody writers.... ;-)

[FourLetterWord]

I think the big problem here is that we all have different definitions of "showing". My definition is simple imagery and elaboration on broader statements in order to have descriptive, more concise statements that show all the steps involved in a scene instead of just making broad, all-encompassing statements that don't allow for much in the way of mood and tone. Your definition, I guess, is that the showing encompasses /everything/ involved with the words themselves and how you can utilize those words to achieve certain effects. I have other words and descriptions for the various ways you can do that.

I'm not quite certain what you'd like me to say. Your definition doesn't match the commonly held one. It behooves you to update your definition. I'm sure your term was perfectly workable, but for the purposes of talking to other writers (in locations such as this one) you'll need to adopt the common vocabulary if you intend to get anywhere.

Attempting to redefine terms like showing vs telling, mood, and so on has little purpose. New insight about those things? Yes, absolutely, share away. But just changing the word? No, there's no point to that.

[Versilaryan]

I've gone with those definitions for as long as I remember hearing them. I don't plan to "update" my vocabulary; as long as people understand what I'm talking about, it's fine. It's clear that we're talking about the same thing and we all agree that elaboration on broad, unclear sentences will lead to the development of mood and all that fun stuff that we want in order to make our stories more enjoyable. Arguing over the names of abstract notions is pointless. Especially given that the only thing I disagreed with you on was the simple fact that I liked to narrow things down a bit more with my definitions. >_>

We can all agree that elaboration and "showing" is good for stories? Good. End of a rather pointless argument.

[Muawiyah Hirate]

I suppose that's why I like Phillip Lovecraft's "Dagon" so much. We never know what the creatures he encountered on the island really look like sans what the speaker describes as what is simple "a macabre combination of man and fish". The way he is vague allows us to fill in the details and create our own monsters, and I've adopted that into my horror writing. I rarely, if ever, flesh out a monster for the reader; instead, I let them think up their own ghosts, ghoulies and things that go bump in the night.
Now I've fleshed out a monster before, but only becuse it was important for the reader to know specifically what the monster looked like. In one of my horror shorts, "The Dresden Home", I merely describe the monster as "what looked like a pig or dog of some sort....with the face of a man". That can be a whole lot of things depending on how you look at it. In another horror short "Inquisitor's Kiss" (which I haven't yet posted to FA), I describe the Inquisitor and what he's wearing because it as important to know what his role was and what he looked like.

Which is why very litle horror fiction impresses me anymore.

Personally, I disagree with you there. True, "showing" is better than "telling", but "feeling" is better than both.
Writers are too obsessed with either adding in copious and unrequired amounts of gore or sex to their pieces, it's the fact that they focus more on the monsters and less on the characters.
I won't lie to you, the supply room scene in "House of Leaves" scared the piss out of me. Why? It doesn't describe what he's seeing, he's describing his feeling. The pure, primal terror he transfers to the reader without even so much as giving this monster a corporeal form is frightening enough. Which is why "House of Leaves" is an amazing book without the weird page setup. The fact that we never see the monster that left the gashes on Zampano's floor, that Hollaway saw, or that attacks the narrator is terrifying in itself. Danielewski doesn't let the monster hog up the spotlight, instead, he transfers it to the characters; so that way we can feel. The narrator is not telling you what's going on, nor are they showing you what is happening, they are making you feel what they feel; which, in my opinion, puts you on a more intimate level with the writing and lets you really connect with the characters and "really get into" the book". And that's the only way horror fiction can really scare anyone.

O'course, that's just my view.

[Roose Hurro]

This reminds me of something I read a long time ago. Some well-known author, who's name I unfortunately can't quite remember, presented a short passage of a story he confessed was simply too frightening to finish. I remember it involved a man who kept finding pieces of meat left at his door... meat that didn't come from any known animal. No monster seen, but that short passage did leave behind a feeling of deep dread. Too bad the author never finished writing it, far as I know. The story definitely seemed headed in a very horrifying direction.

Indeed, the whole purpose of writing is to stimulate feeling. Whatever works, use it....


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jaslazul]

We can all agree that elaboration and "showing" is good for stories? Good. End of a rather pointless argument."Show, don't tell," like most famous, overdramatized sayings, has situations in which it is useful and situations in which it is not. Sure, show all the important things, but please, don't show the unimportant ones. I don't want to have every little thing done in the story shown to me. I want to be told some of it. Showing everything takes far too much space and can be very confusing--or boring--for readers.

On detail: some things require detail, and some things require rough description. It's the distinction between the two that matters. The readers don't want to read thorough descriptions of mundane things that don't affect the plot at all. They want to read thorough descriptions of unique things which actually have meaning. In other words, feel free to describe the car the protagonist drives if you feel it's important, but please don't describe every car he passes on the way to work.

It's equally easy to describe or show too much and to do it too little. Maintaining a balance is important.

[lobosabio]

Personally, I disagree with you there. True, "showing" is better than "telling", but "feeling" is better than both.

But how do you create feeling? You don't just wave a magic wand and - poof! - it appears.

[Muawiyah Hirate]

But how do you create feeling? You don't just wave a magic wand and - poof! - it appears.
Technically, if you wave a pen fashioned like a wand enough, you can make it appear.
That aside, I haven't had much sucess with recreating deep emotional feelings in third person stories. With first person, however, it's easier.
It's where you get the reaer deeply emotionally involved with a character. You sort of, engross them in how the character feels when in a articular situation. Allow me to use an excerpt from Danielewski's House of Leaves:

"I get a glass of water. I walk out into the hallway. That's a mistake. I should have stayed near people. The comfort of company and all that. Instead, I'm alone, running through a quick mental checklist: food poisoning? (stomache's fine) witdrawls? (haven't been on a gak or Ecstacy diet for several months, and while I didn't smoke any pot this morning -my usual ritual- I know THC doesn't create lasting physical dependancies). And then, out of the be-fucking-lue, everything gets substantially darker. Not pitch black mind you. Not even power failure black. More like a cloud passing over the sun. Make that a storm. Though there is no storm. No clouds. It's a bright day and anyway I'm inside.
"I wish that had been all. Just a slight decrease in illumination and a little breathing difficulty. Could still blame that on a blown fuse or some aberrant drug related flashback. But then my nostrils flare with the scent of something bitter & foul, something inhuman, reeking with so much rot & years, telling me in the language of nausea that I'm not alone.
"Something's behind me.
"Of course, I deny it.
"It's impossibleto deny.
"I wanna puke.
"To get a better idea try this: focus on these words, and whatever you do, don't let your eyes wander past the perimeter of this page. Now imagine just beyond your peripheral vision, maybe right behind you, maybe to the side of you, maybe even in front of you, but right where you can't see it, something is closing in on you, something so quiet you can only hear it as silence. Find those pockets without sound. That's where it is. Right at this moment. But don't look. Keep your eyes here. Now take a deep breath. Go ahead and take an even deeper one. Only this time, imagine how fast it will happen, how hard it's gonna hit you, how many times it will stab your jugular with its teeth or are they nails?, don't worry, that particular detail doesn't matter, because before you have time to even proess that you should be moving, you should be running, you should at the very least be flinging up your arms-you sure as hell should be getting rid of this book-you won't have time to even scream.
"Don't look.
"I didn't.
"Of course I looked.
"I looked so fucking fast I should of ended up wearing one of those neck braces for whiplash."

Now that quote scared me. I had to look behid me and stare at the blank wall I was leaning against before I went back to reading the book. Very little has ever jarred me that much.
That would be an excellent example of how to demonstrate feeling. The narrator explains in gut-wrenching detail the deep primal fear he felt.
Like I said, I havent been really sucessful with 3rd person and I haven't tried it with 2nd person yet, but you can do something like that in st person POV with sucess.

[M. Le Renard]

After a bit of thought, I'm gonna' relegate this to a nuance you have to learn for yourself, because I don't think there's a set way to make someone feel something. In first-person you can play around as much you want, of course, because it's someone telling someone else a story; it becomes more an oral tale written down, which by that virtue means that the reader is more involved. Third-person it's a bit harder, simply because it's impersonal by definition, and that's where most of your techniques like 'show, don't tell' come in handy; you have to be able to make the reader feel what the characters are feeling, but from a distance.
But since there's no set guideline for WHEN to show and WHEN to tell, you kind of have to go with gut instinct. Some people are good at it, others not so much, but it always can come with time and patience and lots of advice from other folks.
That's kind of why I didn't go into the actual pertinence of this little phrase in real writing; it's not something you can just lay out for somebody in six easy steps. I just wanted to let people know how to use the tool properly, you see. Getting into 'feeling' and the like would take a whole book to delve into, and possibly very little would end up being solved.
Unless you can break that horror passage down into something concrete, of course.

[Muawiyah Hirate]

After a bit of thought, I'm gonna' relegate this to a nuance you have to learn for yourself, because I don't think there's a set way to make someone feel something. In first-person you can play around as much you want, of course, because it's someone telling someone else a story; it becomes more an oral tale written down, which by that virtue means that the reader is more involved. Third-person it's a bit harder, simply because it's impersonal by definition, and that's where most of your techniques like 'show, don't tell' come in handy; you have to be able to make the reader feel what the characters are feeling, but from a distance.
But since there's no set guideline for WHEN to show and WHEN to tell, you kind of have to go with gut instinct. Some people are good at it, others not so much, but it always can come with time and patience and lots of advice from other folks.
That's kind of why I didn't go into the actual pertinence of this little phrase in real writing; it's not something you can just lay out for somebody in six easy steps. I just wanted to let people know how to use the tool properly, you see. Getting into 'feeling' and the like would take a whole book to delve into, and possibly very little would end up being solved.
That's mostly what I do, go with my gut. Granted, I have proofreaders whenever my gut goes wrong, but I mostly just wing it.
Me, as a horror writer, prefers the first person view maily because it's a lot more personal and allows you to tinker around a bit more with character's emotions and development and focus less on aesthetics and atmosphere (both of which are important in horror writing, I'm not trying to place a greater importance on one moreso than the other). It , in my opinion, allows you to play a whole lot more with the reader's mind by introducing little character nuances that are hard to spot, but that we understand.
And that's why I have a hard time writing in third person. I'm not good at being an omniscent and impersonal at the same time. Plus, repetitive "He/she/it" followed by a slew of adjectives tends to quickly become trite for me. Maybe it's different for some people, but I prefer what I do.

And that horror passage was just an example of how to use feeling effectively in order to frighten a reader. It's not meant to convey much of anything. It's just a particular excerpt I like for its fright value.

[Calhanthirs]

Going over some posts in this thread.
I've never cared to read Eragon. I've read Redwall stories for light 'escapism'(sort of like a movie you know that isn't too deep but you like it anyways and the guy gets the girl in the end.), but, like McCafferey's pern novels, they became quickly formulaic.
With the posts on the apples.True, that may work if you(the writer) is right there, however when your x-thousand miles away, and the only way you can communicate to the reader is via written word that doesn't exactly work. Now if you really want to show and not tell, we'd all be reading picture books.
My fiance is a real stickler for simply telling, and with as little detail as possible. She does what I call 'actor box' scenes. I'm sure you've all seen plays in which the entire set decor is done with black wooden boxes and its up to us do decide what they are(table, door, couch, wall etc..)
My problems in my story that I've uploaded the first part to:
One, I'm not sure I've shown that Jessica is a frigid, wealthy, and intimidating character quite well enough, especially in the scene where she's trying to order a drink. I also want to show that she knows when its a good time to torment/dispose of some idiot who displeases her, and when to withhold herself from what she wants to do.
Two: Are my scenes too short before I jump to another scene?

[ciaron]

wow... all this time i was trying to avoid doing the correct way of writing, hehe thanks man, you helped more than you know!