Telling vs. Showing

        Chapter one of The Rhetoric of Fiction explains the differences between an author telling a story and showing one. Wayne C. Booth explains that whether an author is showing or telling his readers about one’s characters, one must use some type of trickery to guide the readers throughout the narrative.

       Authoritative telling in early narratives place more restraints on their readers, so that an author can direct their judgments and beliefs about the characters in the story. The author leaves little room to assume anything about the individuals in the narrative. Readers are told that Job is “perfect and upright,” and Odysseus is a hero without giving any explanation as to why these statements are true. The author decides what we will know and how we will feel about each person and their actions.

     Showing is now seen as the superior technique, and has become the preferred method for writing modern literature.  By using this method, the readers are given more freedom to engage with the characters. The author allows their readers to experience the things that are present, so that they can use their own discernment about each individual’s role in a book

.

     The speaker can never completely be erased, but there are subtle ways to create an illusion that the speaker is not present. An author can achieve this as long as one does not shorten a conversation, compact an experience into an unbelievable time span, or provide commentary in the narrative. These methods are still not without fault, because Booth explains that anytime the author changes the point of view or decides to reveal more about one character than another, the author reappears.

     Booth reveals throughout the chapter how each method has their own faults, but still has the ability to be effective. While reading this chapter I believe it is difficult to say any one exists without the other. Where exactly does one draw the line when labeling whether an author is showing or telling his or her readers?