People on a writing-related email list were asked to give their pet peeves about writing styles. While most of the answers have been amusing and valid (in my view), one person brought up what he called "the puppeteer syndrome," wherein the writer moves the character's body parts as a frequent device. A couple others chimed in to agree. The examples they gave were things like these:
She threw her arms around him.
She dropped her eyes.
He rolled his head along her shoulder.
He took her head in his hands.
He lifted his arms and put his hands behind his head.
Um...are those so terrible? Not to be a dunce, but: what are we supposed to say when people raise their arms, their eyes; let their heads fall back, etc.? I'm feeling defensive, since I do write things like "dropped her gaze," "threw her arms around him," "tore his eyes away," etc. I don't think I OVER-do it--I can see how that would be distracting!--but to use verbs like "put" or "moved" would be so boring. ("She put her arms around him"--gee, she sounds excited.)
Besides, I've actually been complimented for having a "cinematic" style--i.e., I describe how people are moving, so you can see their gestures and interpret their feelings through those, rather than using the lazier option of just narrating their thoughts.
Example:
"Why was he acting this way?, she wondered. Should she follow him? Should she stay? Should she even attempt to speak to him? Oh, why were men so confusing?"
--That could be said much better by having her take a step toward him, stop, put her hand on a chair, shut her mouth, and turn away again. But maybe that's just me...
Ever the puppetmaster,
Molly
She threw her arms around him.
She dropped her eyes.
He rolled his head along her shoulder.
He took her head in his hands.
He lifted his arms and put his hands behind his head.
Um...are those so terrible? Not to be a dunce, but: what are we supposed to say when people raise their arms, their eyes; let their heads fall back, etc.? I'm feeling defensive, since I do write things like "dropped her gaze," "threw her arms around him," "tore his eyes away," etc. I don't think I OVER-do it--I can see how that would be distracting!--but to use verbs like "put" or "moved" would be so boring. ("She put her arms around him"--gee, she sounds excited.)
Besides, I've actually been complimented for having a "cinematic" style--i.e., I describe how people are moving, so you can see their gestures and interpret their feelings through those, rather than using the lazier option of just narrating their thoughts.
Example:
"Why was he acting this way?, she wondered. Should she follow him? Should she stay? Should she even attempt to speak to him? Oh, why were men so confusing?"
--That could be said much better by having her take a step toward him, stop, put her hand on a chair, shut her mouth, and turn away again. But maybe that's just me...
Ever the puppetmaster,
Molly
Comments
I was saying, authors who pick one habitual gesture and have their character do it fifty times in a book are annoying, too. But I'm too embarrassed to expound anymore. I'll come back when I learn to use my keyboard.
Anyway--absolutely, I hate it when an author decides "What character X does is tug her earring when she's vexed," and then has her do it every scene she's in. Get a new schtick, already.
And yeah, you're right: listing movements like a blow-by-blow sequence of choreography isn't inspiring either. They should have specified overdoing it, rather than just saying "I hate when people make their characters' limbs move!"
Okay, I know it has nothing to do with the thread, but y'all have just made my night.
Could be worse, though. You *could* have sent a very private and suggestive email, meant for a boyfriend, to a TV-fandom mailing list of nearly 1,000 people, by clicking the wrong "nickname" in your email address book. (And no, thank heaven, I didn't do this, but I was on the mailing list in question and enjoyed the subsequent hilarity.)
Thanks for the laugh--I really needed it!
But then, these are romance novelists, and they're big on interior monologue. Eck. :)
And your examples at the end are both fine, but actually quite different. I don't think the "action" method is better than the "voice in the head" method. They both give information that the other doesn't. The first example doesn't tell us that she is probably nervous rather than angry; the second example doesn't tell us what she is nervous about, what she is thinking, or whether she is just indecisive. Granted, those are both just snippets and there would be clues in the rest of the passage. It depends on what you, the author, want us to know. But my point is either can work.
I didn't really think that passage through. :) But I presume the context and characterization up to that point would make it clear which way she felt. If not, something needs to be fixed a lot earlier than this scene.
true that.
'Oh damn! I am sorry I uspet you so,' he said, his voice softer than fresh linen.
She shook her head and turned away, her shoulders quaking with childish giggles. Suddenly his hands were resting placidly on her neck. 'I didn't mean to make you cry. I never knew that calling off my wedding would upset my best friend so much.'
She covered her face with her hands, hoping that he wouldn't see the absolute pleasure in her eyes."
That scene, crap to begin with, is overwrought with physical details. People often use such "tricks" to try to fool the reader into thinking a work is better than its theme allows.
But, I am also a picky editor who often takes out such details when I feel they scream pointless filler or "you are trying way too hard, Kim."
Good advertising copy. :)
Indeed, it's important to develop a good filter when editing one's own stuff (or anyone else's for that matter). The unnecessary details tend to jump out at you after a little practice, and they can be either physical descriptions or interior monologue. I guess bad writing is like porn: hard to describe in exact terms, but you know it when you see it. Which is why I found it overly simplistic for them to say they didn't like it when writers move their characters' limbs. I mean, honestly. We'll have to at some point!
Your post reminded me of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, where women are constantly crossing their arms beneath their breasts. XD
(I gave up on Jordan after 8 or 9 books. Gah. Words, words, words.)
There used to be a website for a group of gals calling themselves the Wicked X Witches, and they'd tear apart sub-par XF fanfic in nasty and spiteful ways. I loved them. But one of their biggest complaints was when people used this kind of language to describe actions of body parts or inanimate objects. To the point where I thought, "Geeze, how *are* you supposed to express that?"
Meh. To each their own, eh?
When I think about it, I get rather annoyed with stories that have too much dialougue and not enough information as to what the characters are doing as they are speaking to one another.
I guess it's different for everyone (Though some of us are more picky)