Note: This post was written and intended to go up on May 21. However, due to a coding error, I was unable to post it. With help, I was able to fix it. Hooray! In any case, I apologize for the delay in new posts. With that said, read on to the rest of my original post...
Show, don't tell! (If you've never heard of this phrase, check out http://foremostpress.com/authors/articles/show_not_tell.html for explanation through exercises.)
This classic fiction writing issue came up when I started reading Dragonsbane by Barbara Hambly. Every good writer knows to hook the reader immediately—if you start off slow, you may very well lose your reader's interest in the process. Unfortunately, Hambly did more telling than showing. I understand that exposition has its time and place in writing—in fact it's necessary—but a good writer can still execute exposition via showing rather than telling. As Anton Chekov said, "Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass."
If you read the back of the novel, you think to yourself, "Oh, this books is about heroic characters, magic, and battles with dragons! Cool!" Take a look at the book's cover, where the menacing black dragon Morkeleb cradles a young woman (presumably the female protagonist Jenny) in his claw. What's the situation there? How did these characters get there? Is there going to be a fight? Will the dragon win? As a reader, I'm interested!
The first chapter, however, showed a much slower pace and repeated descriptions. The book starts off set in the northern wilds of the Winterlands, but Hambly seems to take this setting for granted because she fails to show how dangerous this place is and what adaptive skills its denizens must acquire in order to survive there. Rather than saying Jenny Waynest was "tough as the roots of moorland heather" (page 2), I think there were other ways of demonstrating that toughness. Courage, specific magic talents, scouting skills, and battle prowess immediately comes to mind. These traits could be illustrated easily through action so that one never has to say the heroine was tough; the reader clearly understands that she is by what she does.
Furthermore, Hambly failed to show me why I, as the reader, should care why Jenny, a witch, is riding about alone in the Winterlands and fighting three bandits by herself. Why are these bandits considered legitimate threats? They seemed rather stupid and easily dispatched with magic and a halberd so they weren't particularly intimidating antagonists. They didn't appear to be stealing anything or doing anything of notice except lacking hygiene. A team of bandits (or better yet, some kind of militia or mercenaries) attacking a fort or village would have been better. A heroine squaring off against a dragon would have been cooler too. After all, I was promised dragons, right?!
On another note, I found it somewhat odd that Hambly chose to name her main characters Jenny Waynest and John Aversin but confusingly refers to the latter alternatively by his surname or Dragonsbane rather arbitrarily. Personally, I though Aversin would have been fine for a hero's name, but Jenny? It doesn't seem to fit the mood of high fantasy, at least to me. I would have chosen something else to better fit a thirty-seven-year-old witch who is also the mistress to the famous dragon-slayer. Of course, then again, I'm a complete name geek who studies onomastics for fun...
Ultimately, I was disappointed when I finished Dragonsbane. The two male characters, which previously were introduced as main characters, faded to erratic appearances. I was skeptical about the presence and necessity of the gnomes in the story. Why call them gnomes when they were clearly thinly disguised Tolkienesque dwarves? Additionally, I felt there were far too few dragons. The dragon Morkeleb, while described in interesting ways every now and then, was an apathetic character since he didn't appear until more than half-way through the book and the promised battle was simply glossed over. By then I had lost considerable interest since I was growing bored and frustrated since I found the antagonist melodramatic and the plot muddled. Magic, although pervasive, was not clearly defined, leaving room for confusing metaphysical passages that detracted from the storyline. I wasn't really rooting for the characters because I was left wondering, "Why should I care about them? What do they want? What do they get if they succeed? Why does that matter?"
Meh. With all that said, I learned a bit about varying levels of success with showing vs telling in a novel and tropes of high fantasy. It's certainly something to consider for my own writing. Also, when an author promises the reader that dragons will appear, the author should not disappoint!!
After finishing Dragonsbane, I think I'll read either Julie & Julia or Eat, Pray, Love for a change of topic. Let's see how that goes.
Show, don't tell! (If you've never heard of this phrase, check out http://foremostpress.com/authors/articles/show_not_tell.html for explanation through exercises.)
This classic fiction writing issue came up when I started reading Dragonsbane by Barbara Hambly. Every good writer knows to hook the reader immediately—if you start off slow, you may very well lose your reader's interest in the process. Unfortunately, Hambly did more telling than showing. I understand that exposition has its time and place in writing—in fact it's necessary—but a good writer can still execute exposition via showing rather than telling. As Anton Chekov said, "Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass."
If you read the back of the novel, you think to yourself, "Oh, this books is about heroic characters, magic, and battles with dragons! Cool!" Take a look at the book's cover, where the menacing black dragon Morkeleb cradles a young woman (presumably the female protagonist Jenny) in his claw. What's the situation there? How did these characters get there? Is there going to be a fight? Will the dragon win? As a reader, I'm interested!
The first chapter, however, showed a much slower pace and repeated descriptions. The book starts off set in the northern wilds of the Winterlands, but Hambly seems to take this setting for granted because she fails to show how dangerous this place is and what adaptive skills its denizens must acquire in order to survive there. Rather than saying Jenny Waynest was "tough as the roots of moorland heather" (page 2), I think there were other ways of demonstrating that toughness. Courage, specific magic talents, scouting skills, and battle prowess immediately comes to mind. These traits could be illustrated easily through action so that one never has to say the heroine was tough; the reader clearly understands that she is by what she does.
Furthermore, Hambly failed to show me why I, as the reader, should care why Jenny, a witch, is riding about alone in the Winterlands and fighting three bandits by herself. Why are these bandits considered legitimate threats? They seemed rather stupid and easily dispatched with magic and a halberd so they weren't particularly intimidating antagonists. They didn't appear to be stealing anything or doing anything of notice except lacking hygiene. A team of bandits (or better yet, some kind of militia or mercenaries) attacking a fort or village would have been better. A heroine squaring off against a dragon would have been cooler too. After all, I was promised dragons, right?!
On another note, I found it somewhat odd that Hambly chose to name her main characters Jenny Waynest and John Aversin but confusingly refers to the latter alternatively by his surname or Dragonsbane rather arbitrarily. Personally, I though Aversin would have been fine for a hero's name, but Jenny? It doesn't seem to fit the mood of high fantasy, at least to me. I would have chosen something else to better fit a thirty-seven-year-old witch who is also the mistress to the famous dragon-slayer. Of course, then again, I'm a complete name geek who studies onomastics for fun...
Ultimately, I was disappointed when I finished Dragonsbane. The two male characters, which previously were introduced as main characters, faded to erratic appearances. I was skeptical about the presence and necessity of the gnomes in the story. Why call them gnomes when they were clearly thinly disguised Tolkienesque dwarves? Additionally, I felt there were far too few dragons. The dragon Morkeleb, while described in interesting ways every now and then, was an apathetic character since he didn't appear until more than half-way through the book and the promised battle was simply glossed over. By then I had lost considerable interest since I was growing bored and frustrated since I found the antagonist melodramatic and the plot muddled. Magic, although pervasive, was not clearly defined, leaving room for confusing metaphysical passages that detracted from the storyline. I wasn't really rooting for the characters because I was left wondering, "Why should I care about them? What do they want? What do they get if they succeed? Why does that matter?"
Meh. With all that said, I learned a bit about varying levels of success with showing vs telling in a novel and tropes of high fantasy. It's certainly something to consider for my own writing. Also, when an author promises the reader that dragons will appear, the author should not disappoint!!
After finishing Dragonsbane, I think I'll read either Julie & Julia or Eat, Pray, Love for a change of topic. Let's see how that goes.
