top of page


If you're a writer (and honestly, even if you aren't), chances are you've heard the age-old adage, 'show, don't tell'. There's a reason this seems to be the go-to advice of all time- and that's because nobody wants to sit through a novel that reads like a manual (looking at you Dune). 'Show, don't tell' is generally accepted as the quintessential writing advice, but what exactly does it mean? How do you know when you're telling and no longer showing? Is it okay to tell sometimes? I'm glad you asked because that's exactly what I'll be discussing in this post.


Simply put, 'show, don't tell' exists as a shorthand to stop writers from falling into the trap of a boring, monotonous tempo that drains all life out of the story. Telling takes all the joy out of reading and reduces a story to a list of sequential events rather than the all-consuming, life-giving experience that it should be. What are some devices and techniques we writers can use to facilitate this 'showing'?


What is 'Telling?'

'Telling' is simply relaying information. It's a step-by-step rendition of all the events in a scene as they occur(ed). The reader will know everything that happened but nobody could accuse them of enjoying how they learned it. It removes all the flair and the art from the storytelling. An example of 'telling' is:


Mary went to the park. There she sat on the bench at the west-end corner and ate her strawberry ice cream while she waited for Johnny. Johnny arrived ten minutes later carrying the morning newspaper and his cellphone. He greeted Mary before sitting down next to her and they were both quiet for a few minutes. He wondered if he should risk trying to hold her hand after the last time, and decided against it. She was too unpredictable. After ten minutes of silence, she reached for his hand.


Why is this 'telling'?

'Telling' is passive. It almost makes the reader feel like they are reading a laundry list. It paints a picture, so the reader knows exactly what is happening, but it's also quite detached. As a result, it's easy for the reader to feel unconnected to the story and not quite care as much as they would if the information was relayed more actively.


What is 'Showing?'

'Showing' is narrative writing as it was meant to be. It's the writer taking the reader for an exciting ride, using all the tools available to them. It's being a word magician, able to create an immersive world within which the story takes place. An example of 'showing' is:


Mika rubbed her hands together before shoving them in her pockets. She let out a sigh and watched the breath as it left her body. She shivered and walked on. Of all days for that stupid car to not start, she thought with an acute annoyance. That's the last time I do anything nice for my stupid brother!


Why is this 'showing'?

'Showing' is active. It makes the reader inhabit the character. It often gives us information in a live, yet indirect way. For example, we know that it's very cold, yet we weren't told that directly. But Mika is shivering, and that happens when someone is cold. So there is space for us to interpret the information, and to actively engage with it.


How does Showing compare to Telling?

A good way to think of 'showing' is allowing the reader to inhibit the character or to be an actor in the play. 'Telling', in contrast, is making the reader an audience member watching the play.

'Showing' assumes the reader is smart enough to fill in the gaps, and because the reader has to participate in understanding the story by filling in those gaps- they are more engaged. In contrast, 'telling' implies the reader needs to be spoon-fed every detail. As a result, the reader's mind can (and usually does) easily start to wonder.


To demonstrate, let's look at the same scene told differently.

You could write it like this:

Tony boarded the 6 pm train at Penn Station, sitting through one stop before getting off in Newark. The train was five minutes late, he assumed due to all the people from New Jersey. Tony resented having to leave New York, even for one evening. He hoped the lady would be waiting for him at Newark Station.


You could also write it like this:

Tony looked at his watch and rolled his eyes, the train was already five minutes late to leave. It was as if people didn't know how to use the subway. He looked around. It's probably all the people from New Jersey. He resented having to leave New York, even for one evening. At this rate, he'd only arrive at 6:21 pm. That lady better be waiting for me at the Newark station.


In the example above, the two passages give the reader the same information, but one is more interesting than the other. The first passage is passive and demonstrates what we call 'telling'. It tells us exactly what is happening but has a way of feeling detached (perhaps even clinical), like the story is happening over there.


The second passage is active and demonstrates what we call 'showing'. It feels to the reader that the story is happening here and now. It makes the reader curious about Tony. Why does he dislike people from New Jersey? Why is he irritable? Why is he going to Newark? Who is the lady waiting for him in Newark? All these questions result in the same thing, the reader keeps reading in hopes of finding the answers. The reader gets hooked.


Is it ever a good idea to 'Tell'?'

All of this talk of 'show, don't tell' can sometimes lead writers to think they must 'show, never tell', but this is simply not true. 'Telling' or writing in a more passive voice can be a great tool for storytelling. It's the most natural way to tell a story (because most stories are of events that have already happened) and as a result, is the default for most writers. Thus, developing the skill of 'showing' is in a sense an upgrade to the writing technique. It's useful for adding urgency and excitement to a scene, but not all scenes need that. In fact, for some scenes, an overly active voice would detract from the essence of the message being conveyed.


Think of a situation where the writer wants to convey just how bored the character is- writing an active scene would defeat the purpose. In such a case, 'telling' is the only option- but you can tell better. Let's look at an example:


Passive: Lina was bored sitting on the deck. There wasn't a single thing to do. She picked up the bright green tennis ball and threw it in the air before she caught it, feeling how firm and fluffy it was. She threw it again, this time with her left hand before she caught it with her right. She sighed and threw it up in the air again.

Telling: I can tell the character is bored and I also feel bored.


Passive: Lina looked around her on the deck, failing to find anything exciting to do. Picking up the bright green tennis ball, she threw it in the air before catching it, feeling how firm and fluffy it was. She threw it again, this time with her left hand before catching it with her right. Sighing, she threw it up again.

Telling better: I can tell the character is bored, but I am not bored.


The differences here may be subtle, but over the course of an entire manuscript, they compound to make a net positive or negative impact. Thus, the story will crystalize into either an excitedly engaging or a deadly boring reader experience.

Remember: It's never okay to bore the reader.


Conclusion

In summary, 'showing' is passive and thus dull in comparison to 'telling' which is active. Showing puts the reader in the middle of the action while telling dictates it to them. Wherever possible, a writer should opt to 'show' and not 'tell. That said, 'telling' is not synonymous with bad writing. There are instances when a more passive tone is better suited for a particular passage. Good writing is as much about discernment as it is all the technical components.


All a writer has to do is keep the reader hooked enough to get to the next page, then the next, all the way until the end. This is no easy feat, so devices like the one I just illustrated are important for keeping the writing interesting and exciting. Good writing is also about developing a personal style that suits you. Some authors are naturally more passive while others are more active. Often the art is in how these are blended together to produce the desired outcome.


Take advice and experiment, but in the end, the most important thing is to make sure your voice is preserved, and that your writing sounds like you. The rest is just details.


Happy writing,

Nonjabulo




Base your character on a real person.

If I had to give a single point as advice, that would be it. Why? Because in basing your character on a real person you automatically tick all of the other boxes we'll discuss below. This is because any person you know in real life will have standout characteristics, strengths, weaknesses, quirks, etc. They will also be quite consistent in their displaying of these characteristics and that's how you know them as being John, or Mary, or Suzie.


The process I'm going to describe below will help you to create fictional characters that feel as real to you-and more importantly your reader- like the people you know.


Let's consider what makes a person/ character real?

The very things that make a person real are the same ones you'll need to focus on in the creation of your characters. When I think of any person in my real life, I can break their characteristics into a few categories that help me to create a somewhat thorough character sketch. These categories are:


Main Descriptor/ Characteristic

This is the one word that comes to mind when you think of someone. Yes, everyone is complex and made up of many different and sometimes contradictory traits, but everyone also has a core characteristic around which their personality seems to be built. It's the first word you think of when you try to describe them.


An example is loud- some people are just loud. When you think of them you automatically imagine a commanding voice; if they are in a room- it's them you hear. Some people are the opposite, you would first describe them as quiet. Other people are funny; or sensitive; or opinionated- you know people who have something to say about everything- that's a characteristic. Think of it this way, if you can count on it, it's probably their main characteristic.


To illustrate the point, let's pretend we're at a party.

If you can always count on Suzie to be cracking a joke- then she's likely funny as a main characteristic. If you can always count on Jeff to be the center of attention at parties- he's likely charismatic as a main characteristic. If you can always count on Andrew to be in a corner by himself- he's likely quiet and/ or shy as a main characteristic, and so forth.


Strengths or Best Qualities

This is straightforward. Every person has some good qualities, even the 'bad guys'. It just might take some more effort to recognize them in people who lead with their weaker qualities and whose personality is mostly tied to that part of themselves- but they are there. For example, a serial killer can be (and probably would be) meticulously clean. Now, they are obviously a terrible person, but cleanliness is still a virtue. Your character doesn't have to be a good person to have good qualities. Examples of good qualities that can belong to any person, good or bad, include: always on time; being polite; being clean; etc.


Weaknesses or Worst Qualities

This is also quite straightforward. Every person has some bad qualities, even the best among us. In some people, the bad qualities are even embedded within the good ones. For example, well-known public speakers and leaders are typically charismatic and magnetic- but they could also be conceited. In fact, it would be very easy for them to be so. This is a mix of good and bad qualities that (in this specific person) actually depend on each other.


Another example is a very smart person (positive), but who has no patience for people that they perceive as having a lower intellect (negative) than them. Negative traits don't have to be tied into positive ones, however. Whether overall 'good' or 'bad', any person can be untidy, lazy, or rude- all of which are negative traits.


Quirks/ Unique or Interesting Traits

These are fun. These are the things that can make you scratch your head about a person, things that don't quite fit their overall character sketch and as a result, stand out. They give a person a streak of uniqueness that makes them interesting and are often a contradiction of what one might expect about said person.


For example, a pacifist might enjoy shows or movies that depict gruesome violence. This is strange because one would expect a peace-loving person to shun all forms of violence. Another example is if our meticulously clean serial killer from before was actually a passionate advocate for, as well as a regular volunteer at local soup kitchens. This is odd because we wouldn't expect someone who kills at will to be particularly interested in the needs of the poor or to support programs designed to help sustain life. Quirks give a character depth and a grey area.


Make them consistent.

Have you ever watched a show or read a book that ended in a way that made you feel robbed? There can be many reasons for this, but one of the most common is a character acting- for lack of a better term- out of character and in a way that is inconsistent with who they've been up until that point. It feels like a betrayal to the character the audience has grown to know and love/hate. This is often a result of a writer needing to wrap up a story quickly and get to a specific conclusion. A good way to think about inconsistency is if a particular scene or event made you go, 'Huh?!'


An example is the Game of Thrones finale. In the end, it felt like Daenerys Targaryen was suddenly a power-crazy, dragon lady who didn't care whom she hurt. This is a far cry from the smart, intuitive, freedom-bringing, ambitious woman that had been developing throughout the seasons. She was always fierce, but equally compassionate. The ending leaned into her fierceness but with none of the compassion- and it felt off.


Note: It's one thing for a character to grow and change over time, even extremely so- this can be done, and it can be done well. But, importantly, who the character is doesn't change, they just grow and evolve in a certain direction. It's another thing altogether to make your peaceful character kill everyone at the end with no real and believable explanation. It might be interesting, but it doesn't quite stick. It doesn't make sense.


Let's explore how bad timing/ tempo can betray a characters consistency:

If your character has spent 3 quarters of the story being a staunch feminist who never wants to get married or play a typical wife role; it will feel very off if in the last quarter of the story she meets Prince Charming, abandons all her previous beliefs and is cleaning and cooking four-course meals for fun. This sudden change in character is jarring and almost comical. Now if this is the intended effect, then great. If not, you need to rework how these changes can follow a more natural and gradual timeline or give enough context and background for such a change to make sense.


How can you do this?

Go back in time in the development of your character and begin to lace in these characteristics so they aren't new and sudden. Perhaps her backstory is that her mother, who was a typical wife, was painfully betrayed by her father and she vowed she would never let the same thing happen to her. She may have self-sabotaged a few relationships when she felt herself getting too close to someone out of fear of turning into a woman like her mother.


If at the 3 quarter mark in the story, she suddenly has a breakthrough where she's forced to examine her behavior and decides to no longer live out of fear (let's say she has a great therapist), then her sudden change in character won't be so jarring. It will make sense. And, if written well, it can become the sweet ending that romance readers love so much. It's all in the explanation and timing.


Talk to your character:

Really. Have an internal or written conversation with your character. This will help you to know if they are real enough. Real people have opinions. Think of any real person you interact with regularly, be it your sibling, a coworker, a friend, or the girl at your local supermarket- that person has opinions. Even if you're not exactly sure how they feel about certain things, you can probably guess because you know them. You can probably guess, for example, how they feel about climate change or golf or vaccines, etc.


You need to be able to hold a free-flowing conversation with your character (or better yet, two of your characters) and have them stand their own. Make sure they are real and full of dimension. You can practice this by steering the (pretend) conversation to topics that make them angry or happy and have them take on these emotions. This exercise can also help you to make sure that you haven't created an offshoot of yourself, which is a trap authors can easily fall into (ask me how I know). So, this exercise will help you see how the character differs from you. If they don't differ at all, you need to go back to the start.


Get creative.

As with most things, there are no real rules. Think of these points as guides to help you build a solid character sketch. From there, add or subtract to it as you will and as you need to to get your desired outcome. Keep in mind that the most memorable characters of all time have been complex and interesting. Whether they are good or bad is secondary. Write characters you would feel excited to bump into because the idea of talking to them is interesting to you.


Lastly, remember that as with all things in writing- this will be a continual work in progress. Finding the right balance will take time and practice so do your best to enjoy the process.


Happy character development.


Sending my best,

Noni

The key to being a successful freelance copywriter is clients.

You need clients. The key to finding, and closing your most ideal clients is being able to identify them. Who do you want to write for? Who are you best equipped to write for? Who is a natural fit for your voice and writing style? Knowing the answers to these questions will allow you to narrow in on the clients that are most likely to just fit with you and vice versa. This natural affinity is so important because not only does it make your job easier by allowing you to be more efficient, but it also enables you to set up your work in such a way that it's an enjoyable experience for you. Writing about topics you like for people you like is so much better than writing about topics you don't care for, for clients that stress you out. The difference is in knowing your ideal clients.



So, how do you figure out your Authentic Copywriter Voice?


Click to take the Quiz below.

I created a fun, quick quiz that can help you do just that. It's seven questions that you can complete in under two minutes- so you have no excuses. The entire quiz is designed to help you figure out what kind of writer you are and what sort of content would suit you best to create. Then using this knowledge, I help you figure out what sort of clients are most likely to be your ideal match.


I hope this helps you to move closer to making your copywriter dreams a reality.


Noni























bottom of page