Show, don't tell. Misuse of term?

For a long time now, "show, don't tell" has been emphasized over and over in the writing realm. And while I understand the concept, I've realized that the term itself seems to have skewed the meaning of what it really is.

According to those who use the term "show, don't tell," telling is writing with few details, basically reciting a story on a surface level, while showing is writing with details that bring the reader to an understanding of what's really happening so they can envision it in their mind.

At first glance, the term seems to fit quite appropriately. But on closer inspection, I've realized that it really doesn't make that much sense. (Remember, I'm talking about the term, not the concept.) Movies show. Picture books show. But do words really show?

To give an example of what people mean by "show, don't tell," if I wrote, "She was angry," that really doesn't give readers much to visualize - they have to imagine everything themselves, which may or may not fit what the scene is trying to get across. But if I wrote, "She clenched her fists as her eyes burned with cold fury," the reader will receive a whole new picture. The character is livid. She's more than just angry and now we can visualize her expression and depth of anger.

From other writers I've talked to, they would express that my above demonstration is one of "show, don't tell" because of the difference in details between the two sentences. However... are not both sentences telling? You see, written words are just that. They are letters that form words that form concepts on flat pieces of paper (or screens as it were). Every detail is a form of telling. For how can a story be told in writing without telling?

Here's where I think I differ from the popular term. Let's use my above example. "She clenched her fists as her eyes burned with cold fury." What about, "She squeezed the muscles in her fingers in order to form a fist and applied pressure while her eyes displayed her inner feelings wrought with a burning of cold fury." Or what about, "She willed her brain to signal the nerves and muscles within her fingers so that they would clench and fold in at the knuckles to grip the flesh of her palm..." Or what about, "She processed what to do next and her thoughts became a command to her brian to signal the nerves and muscles within her ten fingers in order to bend at the knuckles and move the bones therein, shaping a fist to grip the flesh of her palm through which the blood flowed..."

See where I'm going with this? Where do the details stop? If "show, don't tell," truly means just that, then how much showing is required until it is satisfactory?

But we both know that the point isn't how much detail, but the quality of detail. And this is where I think the key lies. You see, it's really not about showing. Written words cannot show. We say they "paint pictures" and we say that they "create vivid scenes," and it's true - the words put pieces together in the action of "painting" and "creating." But in reality, it is the reader's mind that forms a visual of the end result, not the words. The only thing the words can do is stimulate the brain into forming the correct picture for the reader to see.

Therefore, the term, "show, don't tell," basically doesn't work. I can't show you anything with my written words. I can only tell it in a way that you will see it in your mind.

The concept of "show, don't tell," is very clear and easy to grasp. But the term itself, I believe, is misused. Because of this, if I were to advise any other writer, I would tell them to, "don't just tell - tell with detail."

My conclusion? I think the concept of "show, don't tell" is most certainly valid and a very important part of quality writing. However, I do believe the term is used incorrectly and should it be explained to a novice writer, one should take care in explaining the meaning of the term, not just using examples to back it up.