First off, let me start off by saying that I'm all about showing instead of telling. But when I received my latest batch of critiques, I can't help but realize that the rule has gotten way out of hand. For example, I wrote this description of the city: "The first noticeable thing about entering any major city in White Asche was the smell. A putrid stench of human waste, animal carcasses, and rotting produce. But they didn't call the area by Barious's gate with its brown water and black mud Shitbrook for no reason. A group of half-naked men emptied a cart of the stuff just as Ingrid passed by." I thought this was a pretty good description, but this was the feedback I got, "Show us how putrid this is." I've seen that before when I mention in passing "There was bread on the shelf" and someone inevitably goes, "Well what kind of bread?" Part of me is thinking, "Who bloody cares? It's bread. It has no baring on the story. In fact, I don't think I ever mention bread again. So imagine it to whatever damn bread you want!" I'm currently reading the book "The Last Amazon." Great book, but it also has a lot of tell. The author will describe for example, childbirth, but there isn't one character in the actual story itself that ever gives birth. And I know why. The Amazons are a complicated group of people, and the writer's intent was for us to know as much about them as possible, but can't fit the entirety of their culture within the scope of the story. So I'm wondering if it's more a case of "Show as much as you can" then it is, "Always show and never tell." What do you think?
I think that there's a confusion here as to what show means and what tells means within the concept encapsulated by the phrase Show vs. Tell. When those two words come together as a single concept, they take on different meanings. Show does not necessarily = more detail. Example concerning the bread you mention and the putridness you also mention. Let's just pretend we're talking about bread that has gone off: Tell: A mouldy loaf of bread sat on the shelf. Show: It was hard to know if what was on the shelf had once been a loaf of bread or if it was a large dead rat. My money was on bread, but to look at it, it was pretty fifty fifty. It's not about more detail, but the kind of detail and the way you present it. In my show example I haven't really given you more detail. I haven't described its color or its shape or its smell. I've made a comparison that triggers certain relationships of an emotive quality.
I think the difference between these two examples is pretty big. The putrid city can be shown better because it could be an important setting detail. It has the potential to make your setting pop in the reader's mind. If you tell here you might be missing an opportunity to really engage your audience. When I want the setting to really stand out, I try to have the character(s) interact with it in some way. And in this sentence specifically "The first noticeable thing about entering the city..." is telling your audience exactly what you want them to notice. If you just drop that little filter at the beginning, it's a lot less tell-y. "[Specific city name] had the stench of human waste, punctuated by rotten animal carcasses and produce." You're giving the same information in this example, but it feels less like telling to me. The bread line is different because it seems pretty inconsequential, so you can either tell the detail or omit it completely - your choice. (Unless, of course, it is important to your story.) But you could name the type of bread as well. This one doesn't stand out to me like your first example. These are just my opinions. Hope it helps!
'Show' zooms in close. 'Tell' sees from afar. Good writing is a mix of both. The things you show are (1) critical to plot/character or (2) carefully selected to establish a unique setting. Whenever you decide to show, the pacing slows down, so there is a real drawback to it that shouldn't be ignored. It's definitely not the case that showing is better than telling because either can be used to poor effect. It's all about timing. What's worth slowing down for? So I'm in agreement with you. I didn't see all of this in the context of the surrounding paragraphs, but in general, yes, you should always be telling, and you do it while you show. Speaking to the bread issue. Sometimes you can just switch a word and get effortless detail. You don't have to call it a "loaf of bread garnished with rosemary" or a "half-eaten ciabatta dusted with cornmeal," just call it a "loaf of rye." It's a sort of empty background detail. Maybe they meant that. It's a pretty effortless boost of detail. And I'm not going to pretend as if doing that is always better. Nothing is absolute. I feel your main description here is a mix of show and tell, so I think it's pretty good. We all have unique perspectives though. Here, do you want my edits? Every major city in White Asche greeted travelers with its smell: a putrid stench of human waste, animal carcasses, and rotting produce; <4>, <5>, and <6>; <7>, <8>, and <9>. But they didn't call With its brown water and black mud, the area by Barious's gate was called Shitbrook for a reason. As Ingrid passed by, a group of half-naked men emptied a cart of the stuff sludge across the cobbles. Here's the sum of my thoughts: "Major" is somewhat implied and can be lost without harm, I think. condense the first line to make room for . . . . . . a triple tricolon! Fill in 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 with more detail. 9 should be the longest. ("the reek of unwashed bodies in bloom," or something to that effect) definitely chop "But" leading off that second line. Really, that's all that needs to go there, though I shifted phrases just to get the noun closer to the verb. The last line's edit is optional. Usually, it's best to list the events in order. (She is passing and then they empty.) As a bonus, if that comes first it lets you expand the ending. I'm a little nervous about the last two lines now having a similar structure, but you don't have to slavishly break the sentence structures every time. There's always a trade-off, just like show/tell. If this were my work, I'd be focused on those two sentences in later edits though. It's just how I am. If you're looking for ideas/inspiration about how many ways an old city can smell, look at the opening paragraphs of this book: Perfume, the Story of a Murderer. Just use Amazon's 'Look Inside.' The fun starts from paragraph 2. It's also a perfect example of repetition called "diacope."
