The need for writers to show, not tell

Suppose a hotel describes itself as “quiet”.

The adjective reports the conclusion the hotel wants. A more useful sentence describes the undisturbed night in a room facing the street, or gives the measured sound level after midnight. The reader receives evidence and reaches the judgement. “Delightful”, “innovative”, “caring” and “premium” work the same way. They may be accurate, but the copy has asked the audience to accept a verdict without seeing the case. Concrete action is harder to dismiss: the account reaches its first result in three steps; an employee resolves the inconvenient problem; a product allows something previously difficult.

Detail still needs selection. Ten descriptions of sunset will not help when the relevant fact is that the train failed to arrive. Showing works when the object, sequence or consequence lets the intended meaning be reconstructed. Extra description can hide the point as effectively as an empty adjective.

An abstract claim can be tested with one question: what would this look like to someone who did not write it? “Reliable” becomes the failure avoided. “Difficult” becomes the dependency that broke. The observable event belongs in the sentence. The adjective may still be used, but the hotel description now includes the distance from the lift, the glazing and the time deliveries begin outside.