🚀 go-pugleaf

Crawford asks what is better: Show or tell.

I can't begin to explain in such eliquent(sp?) terms how much a difference
showing my characters action then telling about their actions.  I was stumped
trying to make my antagonist credible until I read his posting and then it
suddenly hit me.  I was telling the reader about my antagonist and not
allowing the reader to discover him on their own.

Unfortunately, my antagonist is one sick individual and this makes my
job harder because I questioned how much show is necessary for the reader
to understand his personna.  In chapter five, I deal with this issue or
should I say, struggle with this issue.  If I were writing the typical
bad guy - good guy novel, I think showing the antagonist would not be as
traumatic.  But, because I am dealing with a repeat offender (i.e. multiple
killer personality) showing his personna and character is taking a toll on
my sensibilities.  Personally, I find what my character does disgusting.
Yet, I feel compelled to show sufficient details so that the reader will
be afraid of this type of character ~~ should they meet them in real life.

I've tried to eliminate much of the offending show and even thought about
changing the antagonists criminal behavior, but I was left without a plot
that sticks to the roof of your mount.  There were too many problems with
that idea.  So I decided to keep my antagonists personna as it is, but
took out some of the trash.  At least I think I did.

So, as Killian points out, show is much better then tell, but harder to
live with sometimes.

Jon  -- He rustled the bushes as she walked past.