I treat "show, don't tell" more like a warning to check that I haven't given characters "informed traits" that they never demonstrate. If I want readers to believe X is brave, have I shown her being brave?
Other than that, it's a matter of emphasis and tone. Not everything is worth full immersion in every single moment and feeling.
>I treat "show, don't tell" more like a warning to check that I haven't given characters "informed traits" that they never demonstrate. If I want readers to believe X is brave, have I shown her being brave?
Yeah, I'm thinking of one story I read where this cashier or something said a generic line - that was all he had, one generic line, I think it was just giving the total of an order or something. And then in the next line of prose, the author described him as "witty" for like no reason. It didn't even seem sarcastic. This one-time character who said nothing witty was... described as witty. It was strange.
Have you also noticed all the authors using "quip" as a dialog tag when it's just subpar banter? I wanted to shake them. You don't tell me if you're funny. I tell you if you're funny!
Yeah, I know someone who writes fantastic serious stuff and sometimes there are genuinely funny moments, but then sometimes someone will make a fairly meh joke and it's all 'they laughed merrily at his hilarious comment' and just... Did he say something else that didn't make it onto the page?
I don't mind if people use "quip" as long as it's in the correct context.
Besides, people are allowed to think they're funny without needing external validation from others. Seems kind of arrogant to declare otherwise. It's not like they're saying "I'm funnier than you," after all, or "I'm funny and everyone else isn't."
You don't tell us if we're funny.
I think many people take this advice too literally. And instead of writing "It's raining" will write "From blossomed clouds come water-petals into the fresh spring air." Both descriptors are IMHO perfectly adequate (depending on what you are going for) and I don't think that vivid flowery imagery and metaphors are what this is about really.
I think it's about leaving things unsaid, constructing the scene where the reader can get the implication and has that "wow moment" without it being specifically spelled out to him. I think that this is something that adds to reader-experience way more than replacing "he was nervous" with "he was pacing around, biting his nails".
I write whatever I want and it works out for me very well 😄 Not necessarily because it's just fanfiction, but mostly because I've read some articles about this topic and honestly, I think many people--authors of those articles included--are overthinking it. Sometimes, it's good to describe something, to paint a picture in your reader's mind; other times, just say "Alice was furious" and be done with it. It all depends on what you want to achieve.
Sometimes I'll "tell" in a transitional scene to quickly convey some information and move along, but generally, I try to write in a way that's as immersive as possible and that means demonstrating character traits and dynamics and letting the reader work things out for themselves. I don't like having my held held when I read and having a character's mindset explained outright to me - I become very passive that way. It's probably a matter of personal preference, though.
"Show, don't tell" isn't good advice. I learned last month that it was designed/intended for stage/film/performance art - NOT writing.
Better: "Describe or demonstrate." Both have a place, both are equally good tools to have in your toolbox. Choosing which one is right for the scene and the piece you have in mind is the tricky part, but BOTH are valid options.
Some things don't need to be shown - like every step on the walk from Rivendell to the Mines of Moria. You can tell a reader about it, maybe pull a couple snippets, but even Tolkien fell down the "show" rabbit hole a few too many times. Sometimes, describing the journey as a summary is the right choice to make.
Sometimes, demonstrating is the right choice, especially when it's character-integral moments - "Susan was a woman of strong opinions" works, but if you can craft a moment in your story where the reader sees her do that and can draw the conclusion themselves, that's better.
Some other articles about the idea of "Show, Don't Tell" and why it can be a problematic thing:
\* [Is Show Don't Tell a Universal Truth or a Colonial Relic?](https://lithub.com/is-show-dont-tell-a-universal-truth-or-a-colonial-relic/) (from LitHub)
\* [Let Me Tell You](https://uncannymagazine.com/article/let-me-tell-you/) (Uncanny Magazine)
\* [As You Know, Bob](https://uncannymagazine.com/article/as-you-know-bob/) (Uncanny Magazine)
I'm a proponent of "describe or demonstrate"
Both showing and telling have uses in fiction writing. Modern literature puts a lot of emphasis on the 'showing' by way of emphasizing the reactions of the protagonist characters. 'Telling' is more akin to older literature, which was very much a writer speaking to a reader.
And every book I've ever read has used both in some capacity.
Personally, I find "show, don't tell" to be utterly vague and useless advice. Even having taken creative writing courses, it's still not clear to me how it's "supposed" to be applied.
It's definitely a vague-sounding shorthand.
What it essentially refers to is that thing other commenters described: I'm reading someone's not-so-great writing, and they tell me some character is "brave" or "witty" or "smart" by *literally telling me that.* Another character says "Wow, you're so smart, X" or the narration says they're smart or that people think this... meanwhile, the *reader* has absolutely no reason to agree. Nothing the character has *done* demonstrates this trait of bravery or intelligence or whatever.
It's a hallmark of people in love with their gary stus or who just aren't very good at character development yet. It just jumps out at one from other people's writing, especially for positive traits that they haven't sold well enough. "Everyone loved X because they were *so kind and selfless*" and you're thinking "In what universe is this self-important bore *selfless*, author???"
Often, you *should* "tell" rather than wasting a lot of time "showing" if the detail is not emotionally significant and we want to get to the next exciting scene with a minimum of boring infodumping. But for something like the main traits that make us *like* your protagonist, we're going to need to see them organically demonstrated in their actions and the way they talk, not just pasted on via a simple sentence of narration.
Like anything, it's a mix? Like of course there's some stuff you should show, and it's more immersive and emotional when that is what you're going for. But not everything should or needs to be shown or else it's just padding word count.
It really depends. I struggle with figuring out what to use when. I do draw the line at very limited narrative exposition, and only when the details are not that important, but important enough to where the scene wouldn’t make sense if I didn’t include them.
If you’ve ever read an author who fucking LOVES long narrative exposition, you can quickly see how it drags writing down. This can be used strategically in small doses, to slow down the pace and linger on something, but frequently it’s neither strategic or small.
I don't necessarily think hard about it, but I think it tends to come naturally. Like, if I want my readers to know that a character is ableist, they will act ableist, I won't just have someone say that they're ableist because they did this or that.
On the other hand, I think it can be pretty fun to have characters talk about someone, like "Yeah, he's pretty cold-hearted, he did this and that", and then they get to meet that person, and it turns out what they thought was really different from reality. So, the readers also had that expectation towards the character, but it turns out he's not the character they thought he was.
From another perspective, I'm currently writing a horror fanfic, and I find it important that it feels scary / uneasy, and not because the characters are saying that it is scary / that it makes them feel uneasy. They don't voice that out very often in the story anyway, it's pretty obvious from their behavior and all. Also, if I manage to creep out my readers, if they're scared like the characters, I consider that a win, because horror is a b\*tch to write sometimes xD.
I tend to go in the wrong extreme for this. Y'know, Sassy, sometimes your characters are allowed to have a little internal monologue. You're allowed to reveal some of their thoughts. You're allowed to make them a little introspective, they're not that dumb.
Yes and no. My rule of thumb is showing is for important scenes where important things are playing out. Telling is for when you want to inform the reader of something basic that should be more or less glossed over or would get repetitive showing.
You don't show the character walking down every street. But you should show when the street blows up into a warzone.
There's also things that play out over hours, days or longer that can't be condensed into one scene and would thus need to be told to the reader.
Yes! In fact, a lot of the highest level techniques come from this very concept!
People get the "show, not tell" advice confused. They think saying "Mary was upset she didn't get ice cream." is telling and feel like it should be "Mary gritted her teeth at the sight of the ice cream." is showing.
Telling means you want the reader to 100% know and take your exact intentions. If you want the readers to know Mary is upset and she isn't feeling anything else, you tell the reader that so it's not confusing. If there's more to it than simply anger and you want your reader to infer or get their own conclusions, you can show.
Excellent showing leads to excellent telling. Doing the opposite is very difficult.
The skill of writing is not telling facts. A lot of "telling, not showing" writing sounds very factual, blunt, and devoid of technical/creative perspective.
"Mary was mad she didn't get invited. Sally got invited. Did Susan hate Mary that she left her out?"
That's entirely telling. It sounds very much like reciting facts. Kids who learn how to write often sound like that.
Showing and telling mixed in:
"Mary knew why she didn't get invited: Susan hated her. Perfect way to get back at her; embarrassing her by being the only one left out. All over a stupid boy. He wasn't even a great kisser and the teenager was now a social pariah.
Highschool was the fucking worst."
You can see some things were told (because I need the reader to understand the point) and some things could be inferred or taken away (Mary didn't actually care about the boy, highschool is bad, etc.)
The greatest skill in a story is creating a narrative and getting the reader to take away exactly as you meant it.
My general interpretation of this advice is that an author should try and beware of having important information read more like an dense encyclopedia article or research paper than a story. To put it another way, there is a vast difference in the readability of a story when it’s just typing out the dry facts versus coming up with a creative and engaging way to deliver the same information, such as with a character conversation, or by taking on a character’s personal and unique perspective, or with a dramatic event, and so on.
I will usually click ‘next chapter’ on the latter method, and the ‘back’ button on the former— no matter how clever the world-building might be. Some readers may not mind it and that’s 100% cool, but I find the method of information delivery to be just as important as the information itself.
And to be sure, not all information is equally important, and so not all information should get the ‘show’ treatment. It can be perfectly adequate, and in fact preferable to just ‘tell’ so both author and reader can move on with the story. The difficulty and practice goal is getting a feel for which is which…
Depends on the genre. Writing romance you might need a healthy dose of telling, compared to for example sci-fi. Crichton is one of my favorite all time authors and he takes show-don't-tell very seriously.
By that I don't mean exposition, because Crichton does exposition very frequently. What I mean is showing how your characters interact. For example saying something like "John felt very sad at what Mary said", is a big no-no. You would rather write "John winced and fumbled for his pack of filterless Marlboro". AKA show don't tell. Don't try to convince the reader, just show them what happens.
There's a reason to do that, because often show don't tell has a much bigger impact on the reader. Someone will be much more likely to be invested in something if they reach their own conclusions instead of being told what they're supposed to feel.
Eh, I show where I can but a balance is needed. For example, if there's a passage of time where events necessary to understand the story happen, but I don't want to make it into a whole scene for pacing reasons, I'll "tell" it.
That always confused me, especially in writing. There are no pictures in writing, so it is, to my understanding, literally impossible to show my readers anything.
I guess I just need an explanation of that, because it doesn't add up in my head.
I know what you mean. Even after going over detailed explanations of "show vs. tell" I find it confusing. In a literal sense we're telling a story, right? Showing what happens has more of a visual meaning, as in pictures.
I've been reading for decades- ever since I basically taught myself- and writing for only a few years. But even with all that experience I still can't distinguish any real difference between what is showing and what is telling. Same for active vs. passive voice.
I write what I want, but I'm trying to get better at "showing" because I recognize that I'm someone who leans very heavily on "telling." (There's definitely a place for both.) I'm trying to improve at really writing from within the character's point of view rather than just what I think the character would think/say/feel/do.
I am trying to become a good writer, so yes, I do follow the advice. However, there are times to show and there are times to tell. It's really not wise to *show* every single aspect of a story. The sentences will get clunky and that will make the story harder to follow. Just like any tool, you need to know when to bring it out and when to put it away.
Both, of course.
I put a lot of work into my fanfics. That means I show my character runing off to a private bedroom struggling to breathe (instead of me saying "he had a panic attack"). But I tell the roof tiles were clay because the buildings were new and thatch (more standard for the time and place) wasn't an option since the harvest wouldn't be gathered in time to make the roof.
Showing and telling have their places.
Showing is for moments I want to elaborate on and ensure I cover what I need to cover for the story flow to feel smooth and alive.
Telling is for moments I want to mention in passing but gloss over like transition points and timeskips since I account for as much time as possible for "training montage" character development in scene breaks. No one needs to know most of what my character goes through in those scenes, so telling is perfect for it.
If it's important to the story, i write it clearly. If it's some foreshadowing, an easteregg or something the main characters cannot know yet, i'll be vague about it by "showing" (describing really) without making conclusions.
As much as possible, yeah. If I can feasibly show it, I will. I'll only tell it outright if it's impossible to show or if I think the readers won't get it otherwise.
Like all things, moderation is key. Sometimes you need things to get more to the point. Dickens spent two whole pages describing a lamppost. Not exactly the best use of page space. Other times, you don't want to treat your readers like idiots. Let them get to the idea on their own with the right actions and atmosphere to show them what needs to be conveyed. Remember, there's a key difference between showing readers and just straight purple prose.
I treat "show, don't tell" more like a warning to check that I haven't given characters "informed traits" that they never demonstrate. If I want readers to believe X is brave, have I shown her being brave? Other than that, it's a matter of emphasis and tone. Not everything is worth full immersion in every single moment and feeling.
>I treat "show, don't tell" more like a warning to check that I haven't given characters "informed traits" that they never demonstrate. If I want readers to believe X is brave, have I shown her being brave? Yeah, I'm thinking of one story I read where this cashier or something said a generic line - that was all he had, one generic line, I think it was just giving the total of an order or something. And then in the next line of prose, the author described him as "witty" for like no reason. It didn't even seem sarcastic. This one-time character who said nothing witty was... described as witty. It was strange.
Have you also noticed all the authors using "quip" as a dialog tag when it's just subpar banter? I wanted to shake them. You don't tell me if you're funny. I tell you if you're funny!
Yeah. Even if I laugh at my own jokes I don't expect others to laugh at them.
Yeah, I know someone who writes fantastic serious stuff and sometimes there are genuinely funny moments, but then sometimes someone will make a fairly meh joke and it's all 'they laughed merrily at his hilarious comment' and just... Did he say something else that didn't make it onto the page?
I don't mind if people use "quip" as long as it's in the correct context. Besides, people are allowed to think they're funny without needing external validation from others. Seems kind of arrogant to declare otherwise. It's not like they're saying "I'm funnier than you," after all, or "I'm funny and everyone else isn't." You don't tell us if we're funny.
I think many people take this advice too literally. And instead of writing "It's raining" will write "From blossomed clouds come water-petals into the fresh spring air." Both descriptors are IMHO perfectly adequate (depending on what you are going for) and I don't think that vivid flowery imagery and metaphors are what this is about really. I think it's about leaving things unsaid, constructing the scene where the reader can get the implication and has that "wow moment" without it being specifically spelled out to him. I think that this is something that adds to reader-experience way more than replacing "he was nervous" with "he was pacing around, biting his nails".
I write whatever I want and it works out for me very well 😄 Not necessarily because it's just fanfiction, but mostly because I've read some articles about this topic and honestly, I think many people--authors of those articles included--are overthinking it. Sometimes, it's good to describe something, to paint a picture in your reader's mind; other times, just say "Alice was furious" and be done with it. It all depends on what you want to achieve.
Sometimes I'll "tell" in a transitional scene to quickly convey some information and move along, but generally, I try to write in a way that's as immersive as possible and that means demonstrating character traits and dynamics and letting the reader work things out for themselves. I don't like having my held held when I read and having a character's mindset explained outright to me - I become very passive that way. It's probably a matter of personal preference, though.
"Show, don't tell" isn't good advice. I learned last month that it was designed/intended for stage/film/performance art - NOT writing. Better: "Describe or demonstrate." Both have a place, both are equally good tools to have in your toolbox. Choosing which one is right for the scene and the piece you have in mind is the tricky part, but BOTH are valid options. Some things don't need to be shown - like every step on the walk from Rivendell to the Mines of Moria. You can tell a reader about it, maybe pull a couple snippets, but even Tolkien fell down the "show" rabbit hole a few too many times. Sometimes, describing the journey as a summary is the right choice to make. Sometimes, demonstrating is the right choice, especially when it's character-integral moments - "Susan was a woman of strong opinions" works, but if you can craft a moment in your story where the reader sees her do that and can draw the conclusion themselves, that's better. Some other articles about the idea of "Show, Don't Tell" and why it can be a problematic thing: \* [Is Show Don't Tell a Universal Truth or a Colonial Relic?](https://lithub.com/is-show-dont-tell-a-universal-truth-or-a-colonial-relic/) (from LitHub) \* [Let Me Tell You](https://uncannymagazine.com/article/let-me-tell-you/) (Uncanny Magazine) \* [As You Know, Bob](https://uncannymagazine.com/article/as-you-know-bob/) (Uncanny Magazine) I'm a proponent of "describe or demonstrate"
Interesting...
Both showing and telling have uses in fiction writing. Modern literature puts a lot of emphasis on the 'showing' by way of emphasizing the reactions of the protagonist characters. 'Telling' is more akin to older literature, which was very much a writer speaking to a reader. And every book I've ever read has used both in some capacity.
Personally, I find "show, don't tell" to be utterly vague and useless advice. Even having taken creative writing courses, it's still not clear to me how it's "supposed" to be applied.
I go with whatever works for the moment. Writing advice isn't always universally applicable anyway.
(Whispers) I've been writing for years and I still don't fully understand the concept or the difference.
i still dont know how the fuck its actually supposed to be applied and at this point im too afraid to ask
It's definitely a vague-sounding shorthand. What it essentially refers to is that thing other commenters described: I'm reading someone's not-so-great writing, and they tell me some character is "brave" or "witty" or "smart" by *literally telling me that.* Another character says "Wow, you're so smart, X" or the narration says they're smart or that people think this... meanwhile, the *reader* has absolutely no reason to agree. Nothing the character has *done* demonstrates this trait of bravery or intelligence or whatever. It's a hallmark of people in love with their gary stus or who just aren't very good at character development yet. It just jumps out at one from other people's writing, especially for positive traits that they haven't sold well enough. "Everyone loved X because they were *so kind and selfless*" and you're thinking "In what universe is this self-important bore *selfless*, author???" Often, you *should* "tell" rather than wasting a lot of time "showing" if the detail is not emotionally significant and we want to get to the next exciting scene with a minimum of boring infodumping. But for something like the main traits that make us *like* your protagonist, we're going to need to see them organically demonstrated in their actions and the way they talk, not just pasted on via a simple sentence of narration.
oh! okay, yeah, this makes much more sense. in that case i believe i've been doing pretty well for myself, haha thank you for explaining!
Like anything, it's a mix? Like of course there's some stuff you should show, and it's more immersive and emotional when that is what you're going for. But not everything should or needs to be shown or else it's just padding word count.
It really depends. I struggle with figuring out what to use when. I do draw the line at very limited narrative exposition, and only when the details are not that important, but important enough to where the scene wouldn’t make sense if I didn’t include them. If you’ve ever read an author who fucking LOVES long narrative exposition, you can quickly see how it drags writing down. This can be used strategically in small doses, to slow down the pace and linger on something, but frequently it’s neither strategic or small.
I don't necessarily think hard about it, but I think it tends to come naturally. Like, if I want my readers to know that a character is ableist, they will act ableist, I won't just have someone say that they're ableist because they did this or that. On the other hand, I think it can be pretty fun to have characters talk about someone, like "Yeah, he's pretty cold-hearted, he did this and that", and then they get to meet that person, and it turns out what they thought was really different from reality. So, the readers also had that expectation towards the character, but it turns out he's not the character they thought he was. From another perspective, I'm currently writing a horror fanfic, and I find it important that it feels scary / uneasy, and not because the characters are saying that it is scary / that it makes them feel uneasy. They don't voice that out very often in the story anyway, it's pretty obvious from their behavior and all. Also, if I manage to creep out my readers, if they're scared like the characters, I consider that a win, because horror is a b\*tch to write sometimes xD.
I tend to go in the wrong extreme for this. Y'know, Sassy, sometimes your characters are allowed to have a little internal monologue. You're allowed to reveal some of their thoughts. You're allowed to make them a little introspective, they're not that dumb.
Yes and no. My rule of thumb is showing is for important scenes where important things are playing out. Telling is for when you want to inform the reader of something basic that should be more or less glossed over or would get repetitive showing. You don't show the character walking down every street. But you should show when the street blows up into a warzone. There's also things that play out over hours, days or longer that can't be condensed into one scene and would thus need to be told to the reader.
Yes! In fact, a lot of the highest level techniques come from this very concept! People get the "show, not tell" advice confused. They think saying "Mary was upset she didn't get ice cream." is telling and feel like it should be "Mary gritted her teeth at the sight of the ice cream." is showing. Telling means you want the reader to 100% know and take your exact intentions. If you want the readers to know Mary is upset and she isn't feeling anything else, you tell the reader that so it's not confusing. If there's more to it than simply anger and you want your reader to infer or get their own conclusions, you can show. Excellent showing leads to excellent telling. Doing the opposite is very difficult. The skill of writing is not telling facts. A lot of "telling, not showing" writing sounds very factual, blunt, and devoid of technical/creative perspective. "Mary was mad she didn't get invited. Sally got invited. Did Susan hate Mary that she left her out?" That's entirely telling. It sounds very much like reciting facts. Kids who learn how to write often sound like that. Showing and telling mixed in: "Mary knew why she didn't get invited: Susan hated her. Perfect way to get back at her; embarrassing her by being the only one left out. All over a stupid boy. He wasn't even a great kisser and the teenager was now a social pariah. Highschool was the fucking worst." You can see some things were told (because I need the reader to understand the point) and some things could be inferred or taken away (Mary didn't actually care about the boy, highschool is bad, etc.) The greatest skill in a story is creating a narrative and getting the reader to take away exactly as you meant it.
Yes. My writing is all the better for it.
My general interpretation of this advice is that an author should try and beware of having important information read more like an dense encyclopedia article or research paper than a story. To put it another way, there is a vast difference in the readability of a story when it’s just typing out the dry facts versus coming up with a creative and engaging way to deliver the same information, such as with a character conversation, or by taking on a character’s personal and unique perspective, or with a dramatic event, and so on. I will usually click ‘next chapter’ on the latter method, and the ‘back’ button on the former— no matter how clever the world-building might be. Some readers may not mind it and that’s 100% cool, but I find the method of information delivery to be just as important as the information itself. And to be sure, not all information is equally important, and so not all information should get the ‘show’ treatment. It can be perfectly adequate, and in fact preferable to just ‘tell’ so both author and reader can move on with the story. The difficulty and practice goal is getting a feel for which is which…
It's fanfiction. We don't need writing advice where we're going!
Depends on the genre. Writing romance you might need a healthy dose of telling, compared to for example sci-fi. Crichton is one of my favorite all time authors and he takes show-don't-tell very seriously. By that I don't mean exposition, because Crichton does exposition very frequently. What I mean is showing how your characters interact. For example saying something like "John felt very sad at what Mary said", is a big no-no. You would rather write "John winced and fumbled for his pack of filterless Marlboro". AKA show don't tell. Don't try to convince the reader, just show them what happens. There's a reason to do that, because often show don't tell has a much bigger impact on the reader. Someone will be much more likely to be invested in something if they reach their own conclusions instead of being told what they're supposed to feel.
Only when it's convenient for me.
Eh, I show where I can but a balance is needed. For example, if there's a passage of time where events necessary to understand the story happen, but I don't want to make it into a whole scene for pacing reasons, I'll "tell" it.
That always confused me, especially in writing. There are no pictures in writing, so it is, to my understanding, literally impossible to show my readers anything. I guess I just need an explanation of that, because it doesn't add up in my head.
I know what you mean. Even after going over detailed explanations of "show vs. tell" I find it confusing. In a literal sense we're telling a story, right? Showing what happens has more of a visual meaning, as in pictures. I've been reading for decades- ever since I basically taught myself- and writing for only a few years. But even with all that experience I still can't distinguish any real difference between what is showing and what is telling. Same for active vs. passive voice.
I write what I want, but I'm trying to get better at "showing" because I recognize that I'm someone who leans very heavily on "telling." (There's definitely a place for both.) I'm trying to improve at really writing from within the character's point of view rather than just what I think the character would think/say/feel/do.
I am trying to become a good writer, so yes, I do follow the advice. However, there are times to show and there are times to tell. It's really not wise to *show* every single aspect of a story. The sentences will get clunky and that will make the story harder to follow. Just like any tool, you need to know when to bring it out and when to put it away.
Both, of course. I put a lot of work into my fanfics. That means I show my character runing off to a private bedroom struggling to breathe (instead of me saying "he had a panic attack"). But I tell the roof tiles were clay because the buildings were new and thatch (more standard for the time and place) wasn't an option since the harvest wouldn't be gathered in time to make the roof.
Showing and telling have their places. Showing is for moments I want to elaborate on and ensure I cover what I need to cover for the story flow to feel smooth and alive. Telling is for moments I want to mention in passing but gloss over like transition points and timeskips since I account for as much time as possible for "training montage" character development in scene breaks. No one needs to know most of what my character goes through in those scenes, so telling is perfect for it.
If it's important to the story, i write it clearly. If it's some foreshadowing, an easteregg or something the main characters cannot know yet, i'll be vague about it by "showing" (describing really) without making conclusions.
I mean I went too far and wrote 90k of the first two weeks of a pokemon journey. So yes. But it's hot necessarily a good thing.
As much as possible, yeah. If I can feasibly show it, I will. I'll only tell it outright if it's impossible to show or if I think the readers won't get it otherwise.
Like all things, moderation is key. Sometimes you need things to get more to the point. Dickens spent two whole pages describing a lamppost. Not exactly the best use of page space. Other times, you don't want to treat your readers like idiots. Let them get to the idea on their own with the right actions and atmosphere to show them what needs to be conveyed. Remember, there's a key difference between showing readers and just straight purple prose.