Swords and Dark Magic: Showing versus Telling and Narrative Pace

To escape the my "cherubim" three-year-old niece who is happily terrorizing my folks house (where I'm currently lodging in the guest room), I've exiled myself to a local Starbucks to write this post.

I don't mind Starbucks. I like their brewed coffee, which is not unique but consistent. But they play their music too damn loud. *Grumble.*  

Today I'm taking a break from my "Aesthetic Analysis of Genre Fiction." I thought I'd do something more light-hearted and return my extended review of Swords and Dark Magic: the New Swords and Sorcery (edited by Jonathan Strahan and Lou Anders).

Here are links to the other posts: Swords and Dark Magic, an Extended Review

The third story in Swords and Dark Magic is titled "Bloodsport" and is written by Gene Wolfe. I identify Wolfe with The Fifth Head of Cerberus, and so discovering him in this anthology was somewhat of a surprise.

Though it had its moments, this story wasn't my favorite. His prose style here is just not to my taste. It felt like he was writing more in the mode of epic poetry as opposed to realist fiction, which I think is a key register for good fantasy.

The tone I think he was trying to strike was "mystical," or "lyrical." In this way his prose style suggested that of Ursula K. LeGuin in the Earthsea Trilogy. Don't get me wrong: I love Ursula K. LeGuin; but she can pull it off.

Let me try to be more specific by referring to a specific passge from the story. Here is a passage the relates the victory of the main character in the "Bloodsport."

His head struck the wretched stony soil of the black square first, and I feared a broken neck. Yet he lived, and I was mewing and moving when they bore him away. The spectators were not pleased with me, but I was pleased with myself; it is winning that matters, not slaying. (81, my emphasis)

The first two sentences show the narrative events as they happen; the third and final sentence tell us about the narrative events as they happen. The slogan, "show, don't tell," is often bandied about in creative writing classrooms, and I think it generally applies in terms of contemporary tastes in fiction.

Sometimes writers need to work against this largely accepted proverb. Writers too heedful of this risk doing nothing but showing and never telling. The consequence? Concrete narrative events can become stifled in what narrative theorists call retardation. In other words, sometimes, "The spectators were not pleased with me," is better than, say (let me try my hand at some retardation...),

"The spectators foamed at the mouth, grit their teeth, howled in rage! They were like a great tide, ebbing and flowing, crashing against the pier brake. I stood there and narrowed my eyes and turned my thoughts to their many horrible faces: chins jutted, tongues waggling, fists raised in the air defiantly like so many the bristling hairs on the nape of a slavering dog."

Wow. That was intense. And it also retards the narrative flow.

Events don't continue forward until the indulgent showing ends with some telling.

With that said, Gene Wolfe--for my tastes--did too much telling in this story and not enough showing.

Telling, I think, lends itself to specific aesthetic effects. For example, you can really intensify action with telling. The simplicity of the linguistic device really enhances it. You can also, I think, speed the narrative up. Here is some pure telling:

A boy was born. He grew up, found a career, was married, had children, and retired. He died.

This is a pretty lame story, and yet--AND YET! it traverses the entire life of a character. The temporal range is, say, 70-80 years. And it's only telling. I could do some showing, but it would retard the plot.

A boy was born. As a newborn he never cried. He would often stare into nothingness, as if transfixed by an invisible specter. He grew up, found a career, was married, had children, and retired. He died with that same look fixed on his face. 

This story is much more interesting. Nevertheless, in terms of narrative speed, it is slower.


Writing fantasy that is heavy on the "telling side" can be done and has been done; but I think it tends to create a more "fairy tale" tone rather than a "fantasy" one. There are writers who I think can do this. Without a doubt, LeGuin pulls it off. Another comparable writer is Andre Norton. With Gene Wolf's "Bloodsport's" emphasis on a chess-like game, it resembles Andre Norton's somewhat widely know--at least by D&D enthusiasts--Quag Keep (this was, to my knowledge, the first Dungeons and Dragons novel).


I would arbitrarily give this story a 3/5 in relaton to the stories in the anthology. Let me back up and give numbers to the other ones:

Steven Erikson, "Goats of Glory": 4.5/5
Glen Cook, "Tides Elba: A Tale of the Black Company":2.5/5

Oh, and by the way, I recently was referred to a full review of this anthology, if you're interested. Here it is: Review of Swords and Dark Magic on SFFWorld

This is a great site with a lot of good information on it and a very friendly forum. Check it out.

Here is a relevant but brief exercise: Write a 20 word story and try not to show. Focus on core narrative details. Then write a 60 page story and do some showing, i.e. highlight some sensory details. Then write a 350 word story and show even more.