This is the nonfiction story of one man's quest to publish a fiction novel:

To reverse my point from last week, is more in-depth description always better?  To fill you in, we worked on a little writing exercise where you had to describe a hot day without using the word hot.  The idea is that it creates more of an atmosphere for the reader.

But is that always a good thing?  For instance, is it more useful for the reader if we write, “he stared in bewilderment” or even simply “he stared bewildered,” then it is to write, “his eyes blinked again and again and again, his jaw hanging down, cocked slightly to the left?”  Does the third one complicate matters more than they need to be?  Does it make something longer than is necessary?  

Sometimes is it better to write “she was shocked” than it is to write “she reeled back in her chair, palms stuck to the sides of her face, eyes as wide and shiny as a quarter?”

Those aren’t the best of examples, but you get my point.  It is better to straight out tell the reader, or is it always preferable to show them? What do you think?