I'm glad to see this thread has generated discussion and I do feel that the main point here (at least as I understand it) of not relying too heavily on directly desciptive narrative is a good one.
I do think, however, that the main example used by AS falls flat. The idea makes sense - tell the same story twice, once giving us all the details in a narrative lump and once with a great deal more finesse. As she says:
The problem is that the stories here are not the same. The second story picks up where the first one left off and gives us almost none of the same information as the first one. Certainly there is a mention of Donny's father, but everything else is completely new; it is not simplyPlease allow me to illustrate this with two openings from a hypothetical story, the same scene written two different ways.
but something quite different, and that is where the problem lies. The stories don't show us that the same scene can be written two different ways but that there are different ways to write different stories, and that misses the mark of the original point.the same story, opening by “showing”
Nonetheless, the point itself remains valid.