Showing and telling, in my experience, is more a matter of determining what pieces of information are really greater ideas in the story that need to be built up and thus should afford the reader's attention. Learning when to tell and how to show sufficiently goes hand in hand with learning to spice up your narration, write description, and give every paragraph a purpose. Yes, telling can be used to help fill in the reader on background information that can't really be cut without causing confusion, but is still needed to provide context. Yes, virtually all stories technically tell details on some level all the time- they tell details that would slow things down if they were shown instead, and tell minor details whose exact manner is not the point of the story. Yes, telling could be used in a topic sentence of sorts, in places where a "topic sentence" actually contributes something.
One thing that took me a long time to understand is that most pieces of information could be considered showing or telling in different contexts.
Say if your protagonist is visiting their good friend Bob in his home-turned painting studio to get the scoop on a plot point, in a story where Bob's painting abilities and gallery appearances make some of the plot happen. In this context (and most contexts), simply saying "Bob was a passionate artist." and then having Bob let Protag into his home with no mention of what's in there would be pure telling, and not sufficient for this part of the story.
But if you mentioned Bob answering the door in paint-stained clothes, his lopsided grin, reddened eyes, and messy hair, the stacks of new canvases and painting supplies next to his door, the stench of oil paint and turpentine wafting through the place and mixing with the smell of coffee brewing (combining with the red eyes and messy hair to show he was probably up painting all night), the paint-coated half-bath stinking of turpentine he's commandeered for paintbrush cleaning, and the tarp-covered spare room where he actually paints, all that would show Bob's an artist. Unpacking and showing all of that contributes to the greater idea that Bob is an artist- it lets the reader see for themselves, builds atmosphere, and shows evidence of Bob being an artist that makes the reader believe that. But if none of that was mentioned... then what the hell are we looking at?
Sure, not all of those are strictly required to adequately show Bob's an artist, especially not if Bob and Protag just hang in the kitchen because Bob doesn't like people seeing his stuff before it's done. Simply saying in the narration that Bob doesn't like people seeing his incomplete work can add to showing his artist-ness here since a lot of creatives don't like showing incomplete things, and could also serve the dual purpose of showing a different piece of information- that Protag respects Bob as a friend and lets him have his space. Showing how Bob pours coffee for the two of them and how he and Protag drink it while they talk if there's nothing noteworthy about them is not necessary here, so stating those things is fine.
Now, in another context, some of what I just said would be showing might be considered telling. Let's say your protagonists are instead a pair of police detectives who have never met Bob before and don't know anything about him, and Bob is a suspect in a murder investigation. In this case, instead of telling in narration that Bob doesn't like people seeing his incomplete work, you might want to show this instead by having the detectives ask if they can have a look around, and then Bob frowning and saying, "Do you really have to? My piece isn't done yet. It's still too wet to cover up." In the context of a murder mystery, showing Bob saying this about himself makes him look suspicious and implies that he has something to hide, further showing that Bob is a suspect. I don't write murder mysteries, but I think deepening the pool of suspects is likely a good thing.
The detectives assure Bob that they won't say anything about the painting and get his permission to look around. When they get to the paintbrush-cleaning bathroom, since they're searching it, you'll probably want to show how the bathroom has been commandeered for paintbrush cleaning instead of simply stating that, such as mentioning the paint-stained counter and floor, the giant can of turpentine, the brushes soaking, and how turning on the bathroom fan didn't really help.
In short, understanding showing and telling goes hand in hand with many aspects of learning to write in general, but showing should be your default. I finally understood the principle behind the rule when I learned that every line of your story should serve a purpose, whether that's moving the plot, building a character, worldbuilding, adding atmosphere, contributing to a theme, etc. Lines that tell often only accomplish one of those, while lines that show often accomplish more than one. If you have a line that tells, accomplishes only one thing, and doesn't have an actual reason behind it, consider unpacking it until you get something that does more.
Springhole
has another good article that explains it a bit more. I also saw this article from Chuck Palahniuk
that doesn't literally state "show don't tell", but offers another interpretation of the same concept.
What people refer to as showing generally revolves around the "six senses", the normal five and the character's intuition. Nine times out of ten, you should be describing what someone would see or experience from the point of view of either a character in the scene, or some omnicient narrator standing in for the reader. This takes some practice, because normall when we see that someone is mad, we say to ourselves "huh, that person looks mad." But that's inaccurate, what actually happens is that we see outward signs of anger, and comparing those signs to the context deduce that someone is mad. Sometimes we do this so quickly that we aren't even aware of it. But that's what human beings do—we constantly scan the environment around us, note the various actions and objects around us, and quickly come to a conclusion regarding what those actions and objects mean to us. Generally, we take this process so for granted that we only pay attention to the conclusions, and ignore what happened in our heads.
But an author cant do that. If you simply present readers with conclusions (ie, "Sally was angry"), it wont "feel real". Thus, if you want the readership to become fully engaged in the scene, you have to recreate what it would feel like to be there, and that means describing those outward signs of something, actions and objects present in the scene, and let the readers come to their own conclusions.
Of course, you should only describe objects and actions that are relevent to the plot or theme of the work. And this is hard, because it means that every scene has to be filled up with relevent detail. Ideally, every scene is full of things that are happening or are there, and everything that is happening or is there is useful either as a plot element, foreshadowing, or setting the tone. Coming up with enough relevent detail is hard—it's what most of the craft of writing consists of. But don't worry, it comes with practice.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Crystal Glacia put it excellently!
Really, with a few exceptions, showing is almost always preferable. It makes for richer, more vivid prose that's more enjoyable to read. Also, readers like to figure things out for themselves and it gets really old reading a piece where the author obviously didn't trust anyone to understand the words on the page.
Here's a few more examples where it's ALWAYS better to show than tell:
- Describing scenery or anything else you could use sensory details for.
"Opulent buildings lined the main street of the capital city, each whitewashed sparkling clean, with gilded golden detailing and colorful stained glass windows. People bustled through the streets in their fine clothes, laughing and singing in preparation for the festival."
As opposed to: "The city was beautiful. The people were happy that the festival was today."
- Character emotions.
"When he looked back, Rachel had a vicious scowl on her face, her teeth clenched, her eyes narrowed to slits."
As opposed to: "Rachel was extremely mad."
- This one's especially important: The abilities, talents, and attributes of your characters. Avoid Informed Attribute and Informed Ability at all costs, because readers rarely ever believe it without being shown (especially when an author seems particularly desperate to convince them via Telling.)
"Tony scooped the exhausted bee up in his palm and placed it on the table, then poured out a bit of his soda for the tired insect."
As opposed to: "Tony was a really nice person who cared about things that were weaker than him."
"Mary appeared with her hair done up in an impossibly complex up-do, her eyeliner and eyeshadow carefully applied in perfectly precise stripes of color, and her clothes immaculately pressed."
As opposed to: "Mary was vain and put a lot of work into her appearance."
"Superguy slammed his fist into the brick wall. It instantly shattered into a hundred pieces."
As opposed to: "Superguy was extremely strong and had a super-punching ability that allowed him to knock down walls with no effort."
Showing is more immersive, telling is quicker. In my experience showing is in general, more entertaining and engaging. Telling isn't bad per say, but it should be woven into the narrative in some way. A character instructing another, Naïve Newcomer is a trope for a reason after all. In this case it is usually less awkward to introduce it over time instead of an info dump, no one likes being lectured.
Stoned hippie without the stoned. Or the hippie. My AO3 Page, grab a chair and relax.I've been curious about this myself, but when it comes to Show, Don't Tell, where does monologues fit in? Especially in third-person limited point-of-view, how much details do we need to know about what the character is thinking in response to certain events, and how much should be left up to interpretation?
Like, if the protagonist was just talking to his obnoxious rival, would it be enough to show them just looking annoyed? Would it be okay if the narrative goes into the protagonist ranting about how annoying their rival is?
If you write "Reb continuously placed one foot infront of the other, using them to pull the rest of his body forward" rather than "Reb walked", you're probably taking show don't tell a little too far unless you're trying to say something about Reb by describing it so mechanically.
Character emotions and personality traits are something that's better to show, as noted by above posters, though it can be difficult if you're trying to describe feeling that the character isn't outwardly expressing.
You say I am loved, when I don’t feel a thing. You say I am strong, when I think I am weak. You say I am held, when I am falling short.You only show (or tell) stuff that moves the plot forward. A monologue serves the purpose of revealing how egotistical the character is (unless you are writing a first person noir thriller). Describing the setting sets the overall emotional tone of the scene. And so on. In a finished work, you are only supposed to include elements that are strictly needed to tell the story. Even "he walked" gets cut if it doesnt meet that necessity.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Here's another good example of showing vs telling.
Telling: The cat was angry.
Showing: The cat arched its back upward and hissed, baring its sharp fangs, and all of the hair on its tail fluffed up.
I often struggle with showing and telling as well, so a lot of these posts have been really helpful. And yeah, Springhole has great articles on this stuff and writing in general.
Edited by TwilightPegasus on Sep 27th 2019 at 2:31:13 PM

All my sources from Wikipedia to Stephen King has told me to show instead of tell when writing a story. After all, showing is more concrete - less passive. So that got me curious. What would be a prime time to tell instead of show?
I\'ve done some digging around, and from what I can tell it seems that the art of telling could be occasionally spun into the beginning of a paragraph. It\'s used as a topic sentence of sorts. Otherwise, narration may be necessary as time skips or to fill in background info.
But off the top of my head that\'s all I got. You all have any thoughts to share?
What does signature do?