Welcome to A Novel Approach. I hope that what I write within this newsletter inspires you while it helps you write better. In keeping with my penchant for double-meanings, I chose the title of the newsletter because you can interpret it several ways.

Literally, a novel approach is a new approach. I hope this will be a new approach (for you) to learning how to write a novel. I am always on the lookout for new ways to learn to make my own writing better, and I look forward to sharing those methods (and ones I've used in the past) with you.

If you look at it differently, a novel approach can also mean learning to write a novel by approaching it in parts. For instance, I will take the building blocks of novels - plot, character, dialogue, setting, description and such - and try to make them understandable to you. A piece at a time.

After all, a novel is quite an undertaking. It makes it less intimidating and overwhelming to break it into parts. One word at a time, if you will.

The last reason I chose the name is that I thought I might (only might) try to show you parts of one of my novels in progress with "before and after" bits to show you exactly how I improve my novels.

No matter how you look at it, though, I hope these novel writing tips will speed you on your way in writing your own book. Good luck on your journey!

How to Show Don't Tell
In All the Right Places

Early on in my writing career, that happened often enough. And I didn't know what it really meant.

I learned, eventually, and now it's one of the things I edit for in my novels. Showing, not telling as much of the story as possible. There are exceptions, and those exceptions have to do with the importance of the information and the characters involved.

Yes, sometimes, you should tell, and not show. If you tried to write an entire novel in "show"-mode, you and your reader would both end exhausted.

So, what's the difference, and when do you use each?

Show and Tell Isn't Just For Kindergartners

When someone says you need to show, not tell your story, it usually means you've not only "told" it, but told it flatly. Telling doesn't have to be dull and lifeless. Done right, it's as good as showing, and certainly, at times, the better way to write a section of your novel.

Neither method is good or bad, right or wrong, as long as you do them both well and use them when it's appropriate.

You may have read good novels that were written mostly as "showing". You may also have read good novels that were primarily "told". I find that most novels read best if they're a combination of showing and telling.

So when is it better to "show"?

The main characters should mostly be introduced and developed through their own actions, conversations and thoughts. That's showing.

Get us right in there, looking through the protagonist's eyes, feeling what she's feeling, hearing what she's thinking. If you can do that, and do it well, your readers will be pulled along right to the end of the book.

Not every scene with your main characters needs to be shown, though. Sometimes, the plot point, even if it involves the main characters is better told quickly, through narrative. That's why I said you should combine showing and telling.

But what about the minor characters? What about incidental information that needs to be conveyed, but isn't paramount to the plot?

Those are the other times to "tell" the story. For such characters, we can see them from another's viewpoint. In the same light, snippets of information can be "told" quickly and succinctly, keeping the novel's momentum going.

Great, you say. But I still don't get it. I want an example.

Alright. Here's an example.

Time For The Real Show and Tell

1 - The teen had midnight black hair and dark blue eyes. And a vivid red scar on his left cheek. No one could miss noticing him. He drew eyes everywhere he went with his exotic, foreign appearance, and his thin build concealed in baggy clothing.

Yuck. That's the "telling" you'll get told off for. Bo-o-o-oring! If you give a laundry list of details like this, you'll scare your readers faster than Stephen King can. And not in a good way.

Let's try again, with "descriptive" telling.

2 - Avid eyes followed him everywhere, gawking at his dark, foreign eyes and hair, his spindly teen body ill-disguised in shapeless clothing. It made him self-conscious, as if he hadn't already been enough so because of the crimson scar that marred his left cheek.

That's still telling, but we're much closer to the character now, and the descriptive phrases are much more specific. If you're going to "tell" a story, that's what you want to aim for.

Now, let's see if we can "show" the same scene.

3 - He felt the eyes, like needles prickling all down his back and hunched further into himself as if that would stop them ogling him. The scar on his left cheek burned as their whispers floated behind him in the corridor. He trod faster, trying to escape their tangible dislike.

Now we're seeing through this character's eyes, feeling what he's feeling. That's showing.

The only other thing you need to decide is whether this character is a viewpoint character and thus, his scenes shown more than told. If not, you can use something like version two. If he is important, and the stares of the others important to the plot, by all means, put us front and center by showing us his actions and reactions.

Just remember, it's all a balancing act.

I'll leave you with a quote, one that's quite appropriate for the theme of this issue. I couldn't have described the difference between telling and showing more succinctly.

Don't say the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream. - Mark Twain