But what is the difference between showing and telling? Is it even possible to favour one above the other? Are there aspects of our lives that can't be shown, and can't be told? Are there aspects that must be shown, and must be told? And what are the wider implications of following this advice? 'Show, don't tell' is, in many cases, very good advice. I take no issue with Chekhov when he says, 'Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint on broken glass'. In his example the broken glass

more »

... s, without a doubt, the better image. The glint of moonlight is more vivid, more striking, and more dramatic than the shining moon. We ask, what broken glass? Broken by whom? Why? How? Where? We do not ask, What moon? Why is it shining? How? Where? The moon always shines, but glass is only broken circumstantially. It is by inviting the reader to consider the circumstance that Chekhov creates the scene: the reader is positioned temporally, because the glass is already broken, spatially, because we are close enough to see it, and atmospherically, because a certain kind of perception is required to see the glint of something lovely in a broken thing, and even those who possess that quality of perception will only stop to remark it if they are in mood to do so.