![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Let's talk about the realism of communication in fiction.
There are things that happen in fiction that just don't happen in real life. Harry Potter turns out to be a wizard, Horatio Hornblower raids a fort with six guys and a grappling hook, and kicks ass, and in a fanfic, Xander Harris gets pregnant and has Clem's babies. But that's not the kind of don't happen I'm talking about.
I'm talking about how difficult it is, really, to have your nails bite into the pad of your palm so hard you draw blood. How rarely anyone in text has to go to the bathroom in fiction. How everyone hears and understands everyone else's dialogue unless they aren't meant to. How dreams so often hold the answers, and how so many scents are individually definable even by characters who aren't vampires. What I don't mean to talk about are the unrealistic fic clichés: how everyone's hair is always silky, how Buffy always smells like vanilla, sex is always good and meaningful and breaking down crying is a norm. Those things, which we all can agree are unrealistic, are just bad writing. But what about the things that happen in text, that don't happen in RL, but actually make the text better writing?
For instance, what about everyone perfectly hearing each other all the time? In a story, you only write a character asking, "what?" if there's a good reason. It can be a small reason--to show character A isn't listening, to have character B pitch a fit because A isn't listening--but you do not throw it in there for no reason at all, just because it's realistic that sometimes people don't hear each other or understand what each other are saying at first. In fact, as much as it gets harped on that dialogue should be realistic, that it should sound like things people would actually say, look at some good writing and you will see that this isn't entirely true. Good dialogue cuts to the chase; it's not as drawn out as real speech; it gets the point across quickly unless there's a narrative reason for it not to. There's a great meta on writing good dialogue here; in it,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
penknife describes several of the things we might do in normal speech, such as small talk, which you may not want to include in dialogue.
The main thing that happens all the time in text, which I don't see in RL, is the way characters interpret each other through means other than speech, particularly through the eyes, but also through body language. For instance, do eyes really "darken" in lust or anger? I understand what this phrase means--there is a change in a person, when (s)he becomes suddenly enraged or turned on; perhaps their pupils even dilate a little? But isn't it more a lowering of the brows, a changing of posture? And is it always possible to tell whether the emotion suddenly thrumming through this person is lust, or anger, or actually something else entirely? And is it really as often visible in RL as it is in text?
It's not only eyes darkening in text; they change color a lot too, and sometimes other characters can interpret the different colors. It's that, the interpretation, that really gives me pause. It's a lame cliché of romance novels that lovers can see "their love for each other blazing in each other's eyes" . . . but in every type of fiction I've ever read, specific emotion is actually readable in others' eyes. Certainly, general expressions are readable irl--you can sometimes tell if someone is sad or angry or what have you. But just as often in fiction, someone is trying desperately to conceal their emotions, but "their eyes give them away". Perhaps you can read conflicting emotions in someone's face, but can you really read that specific of an emotion just someone's eyes? I think I read somewhere that the mouth is actually the feature capable of the most expression (well, sure, it has all those muscles around it). How did it get to be a trope that the eyes are the window to the soul? Do you, as an audience, really believe that you can read that specific of an emotion in someone's eyes?
And speaking of specificity, I said I believed you can read general expressions in people's faces. I think you also can with their body language. Again, you can tell if someone's upset or hurt or guilty or happy. But these are really general, broad umbrellas of emotion, under which there can be other, more specific emotions--but we really only see the general emotion, and guess what's beneath the surface. Another thing you see a lot in fiction is something like, "she saw he was angry, but could see the emotion was directed inward, not at her". If you know the person well, and he has given evidence that he's more likely to blow up at himself rather than you--well, sure, but the point is, when someone looks angry, they look angry. He could be frustrated with what they're working on, he could be confused at her, angry at it, shocked by a nasty memory from years ago--you just don't know. But in text, it seems as though so often characters' bodies reveal what lips cannot.
I have questions, a theory, and a personal observation. Personal observation: Since I have trouble expressing strong emotions through speech, I would just love it if someone could read my body language. I can't bring myself to actually tell people I'm sad and need comfort, and wouldn't it just be great to have someone look at me and see it? But instead, I have just as much trouble expressing myself through my body--lots of time people think I'm angry when I'm not; when I'm at my most sincere I'm often accused of lying; and when I'm sad I've never once had anyone ask me what was wrong due solely to the emotion writ on my face (if you'll excuse the arcane expression. It's quite depressing, actually). But I try to be very careful and observant of the people around me, and I'm often confused by/wrong about what those around me feel, too. Sometimes I can tell when someone is upset--that's one of the easiest emotions to catch--but I don't know whether it's sadness or anger or frustration, or at whom it is directed, or why.
My theory is this: lots of us feel this way. I don't know if that's true, but I find that more often than not all of my little personal tragedies have been experienced elsewhere tenfold by people stronger than me, and that they're actually not so much tragic but very normal, in the course of life. My guess is that everyone wishes, fairly often (obviously not all the time) that others could read their "true" emotions. Even people who have no trouble spilling their guts verbally still (I'm guessing) would want people they love to be able to just look at them when they need a hug, and say, "hey, you look like you need a hug!" They do not just want to verbally express their anger; they want other people to see their anger so that the recipient of said anger knows just how strongly he has hurt or profoundly he has affected the angry one. My guess is that most of humanity kinda has an ache to be known, and recognized for who they really are. And my theory is that text is a world in which that is so much easier.
There's misunderstandings in text. There are fics 500 pages long in which two characters do absolutely nothing but misinterpret what the other is thinking. And yet, so often when such situations are resolved, those same characters can read the truth in each other's eyes, can feel it in each other's kiss. And while that might be a bit of lame, cliché, lack of realism that a beta reader should probably nip in the bud, there are so many moments in every kind of fiction in which people read each other's eyes and faces and bodies and movements in a way that I think most of us only dream.
This is true with all kinds of fiction--on tv, Buffy can read Angel's face and know what he means. And through such a medium, it's incredibly important that an actor be the sort of person who can make his face more readable than is actually normal. But even these expressive faces aren't enough, I think, for us to be able to read exactly where they are coming from. Without the necessary dialogue, actions, and events to back up what we see, we'd be lost on what a character is thinking or feeling. Fiction (should) provide(s) the necessary dialogue, actions, and events (unless we're meant to misunderstand the character for narrative purposes, of course), but RL (obviously!) doesn't always.
My questions are these: do you think that the ability to read eyes/body language in fiction (especially text) is exaggerated, as compared to the ways people read each other in RL? Do you think the exaggeration (if it exists) is a representation of people's actual (perhaps secret) longing to be better communicators? Do you think the exaggeration is beneficial to fiction, or detrimental? Does it give you a happy (as it does me) if someone can read "THE TRUTH" in someone else's eyes, even when it doesn't seem realistic? Is it a cliché that should be gotten rid of? Are there other small details such as this in fiction, that don't happen in rl, that make for a better story? Is it a better story, or just a more comfortable story?
In the end, fiction is there to fulfill needs you can't in RL. But the needs addressed deal with everything from happy endings to rape fantasies, and there are so many types and genres so as to address the many different needs of many different people. And yet this much smaller, mundane fantasy--that we can communicate better than I believe we actually can--appears so universally in fiction, that I wonder whether it's a need we universally feel ... or whether I just kinda suck at communication (except through writing, of course. I can usually get my point across fairly clearly, long rambling meta posts notwithstanding), and this means of understanding each other is actually more real and true to life than I give it credit for (maybe I'm a pessimist, have an extremely negative outlook?). Lastly, it's interesting to observe that this "fantasy" kind of communication I'm talking about is so touchy feely. It's about bodies, about face to face contact, about touch and movement and sharing the air we breathe. And yet, as I pointed out, it seems to appear most often in text--the most nonimmediate, impersonal kind of communication we have.
I'm talking about how difficult it is, really, to have your nails bite into the pad of your palm so hard you draw blood. How rarely anyone in text has to go to the bathroom in fiction. How everyone hears and understands everyone else's dialogue unless they aren't meant to. How dreams so often hold the answers, and how so many scents are individually definable even by characters who aren't vampires. What I don't mean to talk about are the unrealistic fic clichés: how everyone's hair is always silky, how Buffy always smells like vanilla, sex is always good and meaningful and breaking down crying is a norm. Those things, which we all can agree are unrealistic, are just bad writing. But what about the things that happen in text, that don't happen in RL, but actually make the text better writing?
For instance, what about everyone perfectly hearing each other all the time? In a story, you only write a character asking, "what?" if there's a good reason. It can be a small reason--to show character A isn't listening, to have character B pitch a fit because A isn't listening--but you do not throw it in there for no reason at all, just because it's realistic that sometimes people don't hear each other or understand what each other are saying at first. In fact, as much as it gets harped on that dialogue should be realistic, that it should sound like things people would actually say, look at some good writing and you will see that this isn't entirely true. Good dialogue cuts to the chase; it's not as drawn out as real speech; it gets the point across quickly unless there's a narrative reason for it not to. There's a great meta on writing good dialogue here; in it,
penknife describes several of the things we might do in normal speech, such as small talk, which you may not want to include in dialogue.The main thing that happens all the time in text, which I don't see in RL, is the way characters interpret each other through means other than speech, particularly through the eyes, but also through body language. For instance, do eyes really "darken" in lust or anger? I understand what this phrase means--there is a change in a person, when (s)he becomes suddenly enraged or turned on; perhaps their pupils even dilate a little? But isn't it more a lowering of the brows, a changing of posture? And is it always possible to tell whether the emotion suddenly thrumming through this person is lust, or anger, or actually something else entirely? And is it really as often visible in RL as it is in text?
It's not only eyes darkening in text; they change color a lot too, and sometimes other characters can interpret the different colors. It's that, the interpretation, that really gives me pause. It's a lame cliché of romance novels that lovers can see "their love for each other blazing in each other's eyes" . . . but in every type of fiction I've ever read, specific emotion is actually readable in others' eyes. Certainly, general expressions are readable irl--you can sometimes tell if someone is sad or angry or what have you. But just as often in fiction, someone is trying desperately to conceal their emotions, but "their eyes give them away". Perhaps you can read conflicting emotions in someone's face, but can you really read that specific of an emotion just someone's eyes? I think I read somewhere that the mouth is actually the feature capable of the most expression (well, sure, it has all those muscles around it). How did it get to be a trope that the eyes are the window to the soul? Do you, as an audience, really believe that you can read that specific of an emotion in someone's eyes?
And speaking of specificity, I said I believed you can read general expressions in people's faces. I think you also can with their body language. Again, you can tell if someone's upset or hurt or guilty or happy. But these are really general, broad umbrellas of emotion, under which there can be other, more specific emotions--but we really only see the general emotion, and guess what's beneath the surface. Another thing you see a lot in fiction is something like, "she saw he was angry, but could see the emotion was directed inward, not at her". If you know the person well, and he has given evidence that he's more likely to blow up at himself rather than you--well, sure, but the point is, when someone looks angry, they look angry. He could be frustrated with what they're working on, he could be confused at her, angry at it, shocked by a nasty memory from years ago--you just don't know. But in text, it seems as though so often characters' bodies reveal what lips cannot.
I have questions, a theory, and a personal observation. Personal observation: Since I have trouble expressing strong emotions through speech, I would just love it if someone could read my body language. I can't bring myself to actually tell people I'm sad and need comfort, and wouldn't it just be great to have someone look at me and see it? But instead, I have just as much trouble expressing myself through my body--lots of time people think I'm angry when I'm not; when I'm at my most sincere I'm often accused of lying; and when I'm sad I've never once had anyone ask me what was wrong due solely to the emotion writ on my face (if you'll excuse the arcane expression. It's quite depressing, actually). But I try to be very careful and observant of the people around me, and I'm often confused by/wrong about what those around me feel, too. Sometimes I can tell when someone is upset--that's one of the easiest emotions to catch--but I don't know whether it's sadness or anger or frustration, or at whom it is directed, or why.
My theory is this: lots of us feel this way. I don't know if that's true, but I find that more often than not all of my little personal tragedies have been experienced elsewhere tenfold by people stronger than me, and that they're actually not so much tragic but very normal, in the course of life. My guess is that everyone wishes, fairly often (obviously not all the time) that others could read their "true" emotions. Even people who have no trouble spilling their guts verbally still (I'm guessing) would want people they love to be able to just look at them when they need a hug, and say, "hey, you look like you need a hug!" They do not just want to verbally express their anger; they want other people to see their anger so that the recipient of said anger knows just how strongly he has hurt or profoundly he has affected the angry one. My guess is that most of humanity kinda has an ache to be known, and recognized for who they really are. And my theory is that text is a world in which that is so much easier.
There's misunderstandings in text. There are fics 500 pages long in which two characters do absolutely nothing but misinterpret what the other is thinking. And yet, so often when such situations are resolved, those same characters can read the truth in each other's eyes, can feel it in each other's kiss. And while that might be a bit of lame, cliché, lack of realism that a beta reader should probably nip in the bud, there are so many moments in every kind of fiction in which people read each other's eyes and faces and bodies and movements in a way that I think most of us only dream.
This is true with all kinds of fiction--on tv, Buffy can read Angel's face and know what he means. And through such a medium, it's incredibly important that an actor be the sort of person who can make his face more readable than is actually normal. But even these expressive faces aren't enough, I think, for us to be able to read exactly where they are coming from. Without the necessary dialogue, actions, and events to back up what we see, we'd be lost on what a character is thinking or feeling. Fiction (should) provide(s) the necessary dialogue, actions, and events (unless we're meant to misunderstand the character for narrative purposes, of course), but RL (obviously!) doesn't always.
My questions are these: do you think that the ability to read eyes/body language in fiction (especially text) is exaggerated, as compared to the ways people read each other in RL? Do you think the exaggeration (if it exists) is a representation of people's actual (perhaps secret) longing to be better communicators? Do you think the exaggeration is beneficial to fiction, or detrimental? Does it give you a happy (as it does me) if someone can read "THE TRUTH" in someone else's eyes, even when it doesn't seem realistic? Is it a cliché that should be gotten rid of? Are there other small details such as this in fiction, that don't happen in rl, that make for a better story? Is it a better story, or just a more comfortable story?
In the end, fiction is there to fulfill needs you can't in RL. But the needs addressed deal with everything from happy endings to rape fantasies, and there are so many types and genres so as to address the many different needs of many different people. And yet this much smaller, mundane fantasy--that we can communicate better than I believe we actually can--appears so universally in fiction, that I wonder whether it's a need we universally feel ... or whether I just kinda suck at communication (except through writing, of course. I can usually get my point across fairly clearly, long rambling meta posts notwithstanding), and this means of understanding each other is actually more real and true to life than I give it credit for (maybe I'm a pessimist, have an extremely negative outlook?). Lastly, it's interesting to observe that this "fantasy" kind of communication I'm talking about is so touchy feely. It's about bodies, about face to face contact, about touch and movement and sharing the air we breathe. And yet, as I pointed out, it seems to appear most often in text--the most nonimmediate, impersonal kind of communication we have.