I prefer stories with good prose over a lot of dialogue any day.
I can give a specific example of what I mean. Orm the Beautiful by Elizabeth Bear, which is available on the web at Clarkesworld Magazine, is mostly prose. I loved it, and I love her style. How is aspiring to write like that wrong? Or, am I missing something bigger?

You could also read OSC's explanation of show vs tell in one of his writing lessons found here: http://www.hatrack.com/writingclass/lessons/lesson13.shtml

Both are good and will help you, OSC's is cheaper (free).

"Showing" doesn't have to be dialogue. Books that are stuffed with prose (I haven't read the one you use an example), are often so thick because the author refuses to "tell" anything, and shows everything. Rather than writing "John was terrified," such an author, following the "show, don't tell" rule would write, "John felt the clamminess of his hands as he clasped them together, trying to still their uncontrollable shaking. His breath came in ragged gasps. He squeezed his eyes shut. Dear God, please don't let me die, he prayed.

Frankly, a lot of the time, I think "Jon was terrified" is a better, more powerful, more readable option.

"Show, don't tell" is kind of like "don't end a sentence with a preposition." Most of the time, it's the right thing to do. But, sometimes, as Winston Churchill said with regard to the latter grammatical rule when an aide corrected one of his speeches, "that is an imposition up with which I will not put."

You can show through prose as easily as through dialogue. When you tell, you are summarizing events for the reader, in a sense. Now, there is a place and time to do even this, but generally to tell a story you want to show it.

Here is an example of telling:

Suzy was in a bad car accident and nearly died.

I won't give the counter example of showing here, because it would be long. There may be a time to tell us, simply, that Suzy was in a bad car accident and nearly died, but if this is at all important to the story, you probably want to show it to us...the accident, the aftermath, the rush to the hospital in an ambulance, the tense moments of waiting to find out if she would live or die...

I'm actually rushed at the moment. I'll come back a little later and try to give you a fuller explanation of showing vs. telling. It might help if I saw the piece that got flagged -- as it's flash fiction, I can probably find some time to look at it over the weekend if you want to send it to my e-mail ady. Either way, I'll come back with a better explanation of this topic a little later on. IMHO, this is one of the most important things for a young writer to understand and one of the first things, when grasped, that makes writing come to life.

P.S. Seems to have been a simul-post there...just wanted to ad that I think showing emotion is one of the most important imes to use showing rather than telling. If you want your reader to feel what the character is feeling, to really KNOW they are scared, then you need to go through the clammy hands and the prayers to God rather than just saying, "John was terrified." But as with everything else, it is the affect on the reader that you're going for that matters. If you don't want that connection, then summarize it.

If the story is about Suzy's recovery from it and the impact the accident had on her life, you are going to need to show it with all it's bone crunching, metal twisting horror. If Suzy is a character the MC meets and interacts with telling me/the MC "Suzy was in a bad car accident and nearly died" is probably okay.

It's a story telling device/ choice. If the scene matters to the story, you probably want to have the reader experience it first hand. Otherwise "telling" or summarizing the incident either in prose or dialog will probably be okay.

There are really two types of telling, and because I've never heard anyone else talk about this I'm going to make up some terms. I'll all them global and local telling.

Global telling deals with scenes, such as the car accident. There are times to show scenes and times to skim over them or refer back to them in brief.

Local telling deals with all the little things within a scene, and I think this is more likely to be a problem. This is when you're going alone, showing us Suzy's car accident, but then just after the car does five flips and just before the ambulance comes along, you say something like, "Suzy was in bad shape." Well, what do you mean? Does she have broken bones? Are they poking out of her sleeve? is she conscious? With a scene like this, you can even make choices about exactly how much blood and guts to show, but probably anything would be better than saying, "Suzy was in bad shape."

To use an example that doesn't have so much potential for controversy...let's say Suzy and her boyfriend, John, are having a fight. Here are ways you can skip over parts of the fight and tell it:

Suzy was angry with John.

Suzy told John exactly what she thought of him.
***

Instead, you might illustrate the first through simply showing the argument. If John says something clearly hateful, such as, "You're a selfish b****" then there really isn't much need to tell us that she's angry at all. It's pretty much a given. You could follow up with some internal thoughts or attitudes from Suzy, which would help to show her anger.

The second example really does require dialogue. If someone is talking, then it's dialogue. That's the tool we have as writers to show that.

***