I was recently asked on Twitter why I feel that "Show, don't tell" was poor writing advice that had been given to me. I figured it might be helpful to reproduce my response to that question in a new thread. Here goes: 1/

I have various reasons. It is a muddle of a maxim that has been used to push an anti-didactic literary aesthetic. As Viet Thanh Nguyen says, it "depoliticizes, because it discourages the possibility of saying explicitly political things." http://blog.pshares.org/index.php/killing-the-messenger-a-dual-interview-with-charles-baxter-and-viet-thanh-nguyen-on-the-importance-and-the-stigma-of-didactic-apia-fiction/ 2/

The literary critic Wayne C. Booth also gave a great analysis of the maxim, in 1961, in his book The Rhetoric of Fiction (I think in the opening chapter). He rightly views the maxim as misleadingly polarising two approaches to story-telling. 3/

It favours the first approach—“all /showing/ and rendering... and objectivity” and equates the other approach—“all /telling/ and subjectivity and preaching”—with artistic failure. Highly recommend you read Booth’s analysis. 4/

The emphasis on rendering can lead to a heavily descriptive, observational style of fiction-writing—fine for some, but the maxim’s status as foundational and seemingly basic wisdom has elevated this approach to writing and tends to reduce openness to other possibilities. 4/

And that’s my biggest objection: its canonical status, esp. in creative writing instruction. Again, see Viet Thanh Nguyen: “My feeling is that ‘show, don’t tell’ can be done well or badly, but its triumph is that many writers and readers can’t see an aesthetic outside of it.” 5/