Well. Usually, it is better writing (and reading) to show instead of tell. It generally comes in two varieties. The basic 'show things instead of telling', and the slightly more complex 'what you actually show contradicts what you've told us'.
Telling :: "It's okay," Islington lied. He was very angry.
Showing :: "It's. Okay," said Islington, though he refused to meet her gaze.
Telling & showing contradiction :: You've probably seen this around. It's when the narration says how smart or brave or persuasive a character is, and yet they never actually act/do anything smart or brave or persuasive.
So, like, if the narration talks about how smart and charming Islington is, but he never ever notices things (murder clues, social cues, whatever) on his own and also has to have them pointed out by Westminster, and if he never actually charms anyone during conversation, that's a failure of telling things you can't support with showing.
Of course, sometimes it's better to tell than show, but when you've had ten years of people going "no no, show don't tell, of course, that's what everyone agrees makes better writing, always" it can be difficult to accept that and play around with some telling.
In the specific example of having an aromantic character, you can show that they're aromantic until the cows come home, but because (a) not all people know about/accept asexuality, and (b) some readers will passively/actively ignore things like that for their own reasons (e.g. like you), that showing is probably only going to be noticed by aces. But having to elegantly slot in a "no I'm not interested in anyone - no I'm neither straight nor gay - no, really, I'm not waiting for the right person to come along, it's not a side-effect of anti-depressants etc. etc. etc." conversation, especially in a secondary world setting, is difficult. I mean, you don't get (good) stories going "Islington does not have a girlfriend, because he is homosexual".
no subject
Telling ::
"It's okay," Islington lied. He was very angry.
Showing ::
"It's. Okay," said Islington, though he refused to meet her gaze.
Telling & showing contradiction ::
You've probably seen this around. It's when the narration says how smart or brave or persuasive a character is, and yet they never actually act/do anything smart or brave or persuasive.
So, like, if the narration talks about how smart and charming Islington is, but he never ever notices things (murder clues, social cues, whatever) on his own and also has to have them pointed out by Westminster, and if he never actually charms anyone during conversation, that's a failure of telling things you can't support with showing.
Of course, sometimes it's better to tell than show, but when you've had ten years of people going "no no, show don't tell, of course, that's what everyone agrees makes better writing, always" it can be difficult to accept that and play around with some telling.
In the specific example of having an aromantic character, you can show that they're aromantic until the cows come home, but because (a) not all people know about/accept asexuality, and (b) some readers will passively/actively ignore things like that for their own reasons (e.g. like you), that showing is probably only going to be noticed by aces. But having to elegantly slot in a "no I'm not interested in anyone - no I'm neither straight nor gay - no, really, I'm not waiting for the right person to come along, it's not a side-effect of anti-depressants etc. etc. etc." conversation, especially in a secondary world setting, is difficult. I mean, you don't get (good) stories going "Islington does not have a girlfriend, because he is homosexual".