By: Terry Odell
A while back, JT Evans contributed a post
about the acronym R.U.E., or “Resist the Urge to Explain,” giving it a
definition I’d never heard before. I thought I’d share my take on the subject
with a more traditional explanation.
As authors, we want to make sure our reader’s “get it,” so
we tend to go overboard with information, explaining far too much.
Here’s an example: "Mary
laughed so hard, she was afraid she'd pulled a stomach muscle. Susie had just
told the funniest joke Mary had ever heard." The second sentence isn't needed; it's
explaining something the reader would be able to figure out in context.
Another pitfall—telling something, then going on to show it.
Let's say you're beginning to understand the "show don't tell" advice
everyone gives you, and you do put the action on the page. For the sake of
example, a simplistic passage might be written as follows:
After Bill cancelled
their date, claiming his aunt was sick, Mary was depressed. She took one bite
of chocolate cake, then pushed the plate away.

Mary had been looking
forward to her date with Bill for weeks, but he'd cancelled, giving some excuse
about a sick aunt. She moved the chocolate cake around the plate with her fork,
then pushed it away.
The reader gets the information, and can see that Mary's
depressed without having to be told. You can use the same to show other
emotions. Maybe Mary was angry, not depressed, after Bill cancelled. Maybe she
throws the whole cake against the wall.
What about this?
Mary's feet felt like
lead. She couldn't run fast enough to escape the man chasing behind her.
Cut the first
sentence. You don't need both. What about: Mary
ran, but her feet refused to move fast enough to escape the man chasing her.
Or, Mary's feet moved as though encased
in lead shoes.
Sometimes, we tell the reader too much.
Mary twirled up two
strands of spaghetti and waited for the excess sauce to drip onto her plate.
Leaning forward, she manipulated the fork into her mouth, then wiped her mouth
with her napkin. She was a very careful eater because she hated getting stains
on her clothes.

Another common place writers need to Resist the Urge to Explain
is in dialogue. Too often, we tack on tags or beats that tell the reader what
the dialogue has already shown. Are you adding adverbs to your dialogue tags?
"I'm sorry," Tom said apologetically.
Those adverbs are usually signals that you're telling
something the dialogue should be showing. They're propping up your dialogue,
and if it needs propping, it wasn't strong enough to begin with. All that
'scaffolding' merely calls attention to the weak structure beneath.
Will your reader notice these differences? Probably not, but
they might not enjoy the read even if they can't explain why. However, agents
and editors are tuned into them, and if you're submitting, you don't want to
send up any red flags.
Check your manuscript for 'emotion' words, especially if
they're preceded by "was" or include "felt." Are you
describing your character's feelings? Don't tell us how your character feels.
Show us.
Check your dialogue tags and beats. Are they consistent with
the words being spoken? If so, you don't need them. If not, your readers will
be confused, trying to reconcile dialogue with the action.

Thanks so much for having me. Show Don't Tell is one of the first thing writers are told, and I hope this post explains it a little.
ReplyDeleteTerry, thanks for blogging and presenting another version. I have heard both versions of RUE, and the good news is authors don't have a patent on the explanation. I agree 1000 percent with you that overkill of adverbs weaken writing and showing is mostly better. There are times, as you know, when for pacing purposes to advance the narrative it's necessary to tell. Telling often is a dirty word in writing. I also agree with J.T. Evans' explanation -- if you have to explain to your critique group what you meant--worse to the reader -- you may never have the opportunity -- you're just saddled with a bad review. Anyway, thank you! I will be referring to this article often!
ReplyDeleteDonnell, we go through this in my crit group. We call it "RWIM" (Read What I Mean). To me, JT's article was something entirely different--it stressed clarity in writing, while today's version of RUE stresses showing over telling, and avoiding overwriting because you don't think a reader will 'get it' without additional explanations. In the end, it's about getting the best story you can out there, and giving labels to the way you do it won't make a whit of difference.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I've heard RUE both ways. A rose by any other name and all that ...
ReplyDeleteVery true. When I run the world, I'm going to call JT's version "Avoid the Need to Explain" to distinguish them. It'll be a long time before that happens. Again, thanks for having me.
Delete