![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lobelia321Words can conjure up a very strong mood. When I write a fic full of words like 'delightful', 'ecstatic', 'gorgeous', that is a fic suffused with happy uncomplicated attraction. When I want angst, I need words like 'scream', 'dazed', 'sluggish', 'horror'.
Sometimes, no plot explanation is needed. The words themselves are enough.
E.g. If a character, say Ned (as per icon) is confused, I can write:
Ned felt confused.
Or I can write:
A confused shiver ran up Ned's spine. (using the body as a metaphor)
Or I can write:
The foliage rustled in confused bursts. (displacing Ned's emotion onto the exterior environment)
This latter technique I learned from David Mitchell and I love it. It is me. It gets the word I want in without being too direct. But the effect will still be conveyed because of the power of the word confused to conjure up the emotion, no matter to whom or what the word is being attributed.
Alternatively, I can leave out the word confused altogether. I can write:
Clouds stuttered across the sky in staccato bursts.
That conveys something more open. That something may include 'confused' but the reader may get other emotions and effects from the sentence. It's displacing emotion onto the exterior environment but not using a word that Ned could actually feel. I can't write Ned felt staccato. So perhaps this is a kind of metaphor twice removed: staccato is a metaphor for something (which may, in my own reading, include the emotion 'confused' but which may, in other readers' reading, be a variety of emotions), and then that something (let's say it is 'confused') is a displaced nature metaphor (confused clouds) for Ned's own confusion.
This last example sentence can also conjure a parallel to Ned's body: The clouds stutter. Ned's heart stutters.
I am not sure how these devices relate to the popular notions of 'show' and 'tell.' I suspect, actually, that metaphors work outside the realm of both 'show' and 'tell', and operate on another level.
Let me think about this further. The word confused is a 'tell' word. It instantly tells me about an emotion, and in reading it I can't help thinking of that emotion. In that sense, 'telling' can be very effective.
The staccato bursts, by contrast, don't 'tell' me about an emotion. They 'show' me the movement of clouds. I have no insight into any interior feelings of Ned -- directly. I make connections to Ned's state of mind in my own head. I 'tell' myself what Ned is feeling (which may be 'confused' or perhaps also 'angry' or 'uncertain' or 'drunk' or whatever else fits my or your idea of staccato bursts).
One could argue that the confused shiver running up Ned's spine is also a 'show' device. I am being shown a shiver. However, a shiver cannot be confused. Confused is an interpretation of the shiver, and for me, this interpretation is a type of 'telling'.
There is no right or wrong in any of these devices. In some contexts, the words Ned felt confused express just what is needed. In other contexts, this may seem too blunt or too unimaginative and I might wish to choose the staccato bursts. And in yet other circumstances, the staccato bursts may be too over the top and distract from the action, and I may choose the confused foliage (if I want to draw attention to the setting) or the confused spine (if I want to emphasise Ned's body).
I think the thing is to know all your options and pick the one that works for the effect you want, and not to close any option down.
For an earlier and perhaps less nuanced rant of mine on the topic, see show vs tell.
Sometimes, no plot explanation is needed. The words themselves are enough.
E.g. If a character, say Ned (as per icon) is confused, I can write:
Ned felt confused.
Or I can write:
A confused shiver ran up Ned's spine. (using the body as a metaphor)
Or I can write:
The foliage rustled in confused bursts. (displacing Ned's emotion onto the exterior environment)
This latter technique I learned from David Mitchell and I love it. It is me. It gets the word I want in without being too direct. But the effect will still be conveyed because of the power of the word confused to conjure up the emotion, no matter to whom or what the word is being attributed.
Alternatively, I can leave out the word confused altogether. I can write:
Clouds stuttered across the sky in staccato bursts.
That conveys something more open. That something may include 'confused' but the reader may get other emotions and effects from the sentence. It's displacing emotion onto the exterior environment but not using a word that Ned could actually feel. I can't write Ned felt staccato. So perhaps this is a kind of metaphor twice removed: staccato is a metaphor for something (which may, in my own reading, include the emotion 'confused' but which may, in other readers' reading, be a variety of emotions), and then that something (let's say it is 'confused') is a displaced nature metaphor (confused clouds) for Ned's own confusion.
This last example sentence can also conjure a parallel to Ned's body: The clouds stutter. Ned's heart stutters.
I am not sure how these devices relate to the popular notions of 'show' and 'tell.' I suspect, actually, that metaphors work outside the realm of both 'show' and 'tell', and operate on another level.
Let me think about this further. The word confused is a 'tell' word. It instantly tells me about an emotion, and in reading it I can't help thinking of that emotion. In that sense, 'telling' can be very effective.
The staccato bursts, by contrast, don't 'tell' me about an emotion. They 'show' me the movement of clouds. I have no insight into any interior feelings of Ned -- directly. I make connections to Ned's state of mind in my own head. I 'tell' myself what Ned is feeling (which may be 'confused' or perhaps also 'angry' or 'uncertain' or 'drunk' or whatever else fits my or your idea of staccato bursts).
One could argue that the confused shiver running up Ned's spine is also a 'show' device. I am being shown a shiver. However, a shiver cannot be confused. Confused is an interpretation of the shiver, and for me, this interpretation is a type of 'telling'.
There is no right or wrong in any of these devices. In some contexts, the words Ned felt confused express just what is needed. In other contexts, this may seem too blunt or too unimaginative and I might wish to choose the staccato bursts. And in yet other circumstances, the staccato bursts may be too over the top and distract from the action, and I may choose the confused foliage (if I want to draw attention to the setting) or the confused spine (if I want to emphasise Ned's body).
I think the thing is to know all your options and pick the one that works for the effect you want, and not to close any option down.
For an earlier and perhaps less nuanced rant of mine on the topic, see show vs tell.