(Contains potential spoilers for Chapter 11)
If there's one rule I have to constantly remind myself of when writing fiction its "show, don't tell". I think that writers often get so wrapped up in the worlds they build in their heads that they assume that everyone else would be equally enthralled with them, leading some authors to write great long descriptions of places and devices in their work… which, in most cases, are dreadfully tedious.
People don't experience reality as descriptions: they just experience it. In fact, they usually perceive the majority of their lives - no matter how fantastical they might be to us - as everyday and commonplace. That's how people experience life, and in general, it's how readers prefer to experience a fictional world: as something communicated via the interactions of the characters, not as long, detailed descriptions.
An example from my own work: in a scene in today's instalment of Resonance, Joshua holds up his phone to make a call. The phone refuses to connect, because it doesn't recognize his face to unlock the device. Originally, I had a bit of text that described the biometric scanner in the phone and how it was used as a security pass, but then realized that kind of technical detail wasn't important. It's certainly not important to Joshua, who only wants his phone to work. And it's not important to the reader. The one part I left in was the fact the phone failed to recognize his face, emphasizing how much Joshua has been physically affected by the attack. That's important, not how it works.
There are, as always, exceptions to this rule: descriptions have the advantage of being concise, imparting a lot of information very quickly, and sometimes they're simply the best way to communicate what you need to say. Solar One in Resonance is a good example of that, as are details of the Palestinian crisis, although I've tried to break up descriptions of the latter by placing them throughout the text.
However, if you want people to empathize with something, descriptions don't cut it. That's one reason why I have Joshua actually experience Gaza and a tiny portion of the hardships that exist there. (It's also the reason why those TV ads at 3am for Animal Rescue don't just feature statistics, but also photos of sad kittens).
There are some genres in which heavily descriptive passages work well: most militaristic post-apocalyptic stories fetishize weapons and gear, for example, so it's entirely appropriate to provide lengthy descriptions of them in that context.
While Resonance is not that type of story, I'm always tempted to "tell". Joshua doesn't recognize most weapons: they're not part of his particular knowledge set, and since the story is written from a first-person perspective, it wouldn't make sense for specific weapon models to be identified. One exception is the AK / Kalashnikov, which is easily recognized as the iconic "bad guy gun", at least to Western audiences. So it makes sense for Joshua to know when one is waved in his face… but again, not to the point of model numbers or further detail.
Writing "show" vs. tell is hard. One way I've found to rid myself of the "temptation to tell" is to write backstory first, sometimes in a narrative form, knowing that most of it won't appear directly in the final text. Laying down the bare facts allows me to come back to those sketches later as research: "Here's something that is important for the reader to know. But the character(s) already know and live with this every day: how can I communicate that to the reader while allowing the scene to flow in a natural and interesting way?"
"Show" does make the reader work a little harder: they're forced to pick things up by implication and driven to make inferences, as opposed to receiving facts as direct statements. But on the whole, it's a more subtle, enjoyable and rewarding experience: readers are more engaged in making those connections in the story, filling any gaps with their imagination.