![[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.
no subject
I'm sorry, I got nuthin.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Such a fascinating post!
(no subject)
no subject
But, then, I spend a lot of my time looking at faces for cues (consciously so) in an effort to avoid foot-in-mouth disease. It doesn't feel *that* unreal to me: I notice a shift in the set of a face, and because the eyes are where I'm usually looking, I'll often think of it as something seen in someone's eyes, though the jaw and the lips and the cheeks were silent partners in the deal.
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.
I've had people swear this in real life, too. "My eyes do such and such at so an so a time." I'm not sure if I believe it. I do know that mine shift along the grey-blue-green range depending on the light, on if they're bloodshot, and on what my pupils are doing. So if I'm upset, and it's made me slightly teary, one could purple up my expressions by saying something along the lines of: "Her eyes glinted wet and turquoise with unspoken upset." and not have it be to much of an exaggeration.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Second: I love it when you ask these questions, even when I'm incoherent.
Third: typos ahoy. I'm sorry. I'm wicked sick, okay?
The ability to read people, in general, I think, is the pointas, are, excessive, commas. Sorry.
I fall into the eye-reading trap as I write fic, but for me it's always been a combination of body language, facial expression, eye movement, and 'tells' learned over years in the boardroom and the bedroom. (Hey! That's like something out of a fic. I may be wicked sick, but I rock.)Anyway...
It all hinges on how well you know another person. I've seen my spouse's eyes change color in anger, absolutely. They get lighter when she gets turned on, and yeah, there's pupil dilation and all that. The little lines deepen around them when she's worried -- you'd never see it if you didn't know her extremely well. And the eyes going from deep brown to black? Seen it. Believe it.
I think there are people who are better able to read body language and are more attuned to it than others. It's part of the whole -- and I don't mind when it's exaggerated slightly in fic. Think about how it's used most often -- in sex scenes. Isn't that one time when we use body language the most in RL -- (outside of reading intent in work settings *g*) -- we make that judgement about when to lean in for a kiss or whether or not nibbling on that earlobe or unhooking that button is advisable based on a look, the lightness of a touch, the heat coming from your intended's body, and yes, the look in their eyes. We certainly don't talk it to death -- uh -- do we?
But that said...
These 'expressions' like eye color changes are such convenient storytelling shorthands that they're nearly irrisistable, especially for writers who lack confidence. In some cases its just crap characterization: I'll use DB as an example. His whole face is engaged when he's in deep -- and he just lets his body follow. I've seen him accidentally 'forget' he's Booth as he walks -- he holds his breath in his upper body and his shoulders fold and he's Angel.
I had a point.
*fans self*
Um, that point being his expressions are really subtle and difficult to describe (Unless he's saying words like "shplunkin' team")so it's always better to find another action or movement to describe feeling/sentiment/action beyond the darkness of his eyes. So I watch is hands, what he does with the chip, how he holds his height, the looseness or tightness of his gait and work from there. I try anyway. Makes it more interesting to write,which, by the way, I am, so I'd better get back to it.
Make sense? Don't know. Did I say I'm wicked sick?
(no subject)
bathroom breaks
There should be more of them in fic. I have had my characters use the bathroom, and I think it's a fine thing because it's fairly atypical. (And there's Jossian precedent: potty-shy Jonathan in Me-hee-co, remember?)
I'd lov to see these scenes:
Anya having a pee has got to be one of the most wonderful things I can imagine: door open, talking to Xander.
Gunn and Spike at the W&H urinals. Priceless.
Season 1 Buffy talking to Willow through the stall during study hall.
Booth and Zack in the men's room of the Jeffersonian. Now there's color changing as Booth's blood pressure rises.
Cordelia bitching about Angel's cheapness as reflected in the quality of AI's toilet paper.
We always wash our hands, unless we're Spike. But only because there's no running water in the alleys where he pisses and he doesn't carry Purell.
There should be a Buffyverse Potty Break Ficathon.
Re: bathroom breaks
Re: bathroom breaks
Re: bathroom breaks
no subject
It is. But it's also plot dependent. Any realistic fic involving a character based upon my mother, for example, would feature 75% of "What? What?" and various repetetion... where the annoyance would rapidly outstrip the humor and characterization value. And so, the actual fic would paper over that and make her better at listening to avoid that.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Also this: "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" made me go "this is so me!" but as you said, that's probably the case for a lot of people. Personal specific examples: I remember very often in high school I was accused of looking really annoyed when I was merely amused, and when I was growing up, my dad consistently interpreted my "bored" face as "worried."
Personally, though, I wouldn't like for people to automatically see when I'm sad, because I prefer to keep that stuff to myself until I'm really ready to share. That's something that I love in fiction, that I think is better in fiction, that I wouldn't want to transfer over into the real world. Always having silky hair and great sex, on the other hand...
(no subject)
no subject
No. If anything, most text relies too much on *telling* us how people are feeling and not enough on *showing* us.
People use visual cues to communicate far more than they realize. We're so dependent on them for day-to-day interaction that we don't even know we're using them. According to one study, only about 7 per cent of communication comes through words alone. The rest comes from facial expression, tone of voice, and especially body language.
You may *think* you're not that good at reading people, but you're probably a lot better at it than you realize. Women tend to be more highly attuned to emotional cues than men; and the better we know someone, the more attuned we become. So it's not unrealistic to say that a woman "saw it in her lover's eyes." We do it all the time, without even realizing it. (It may not be *completely* in the eyes, but it's in his/her face, posture, gestures, tone of voice, etc.)
That's not to say that all women are experts on communication; but statistically speaking, odds are you're better at it than the average man.
(no subject)
no subject
I think that a lot of it is necessary in order to make it interesting.
(no subject)
no subject
I think that it's easier for people who know each other well to interpret body language, because there's a huge amount of context for it--you know how the person has reacted in many similar cases in the past. I know that my girlfriend and I can 'talk' in body language--not hugely complicated stuff, but stuff "I like/don't like that," "I'm happy/sad/bored/etc," "What a hoser!" "Good God, will she never shut up?!" I doubt I could do the same with a stranger; I wouldn't know what the cues meant for that person.
(no subject)
no subject
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?
Absolutely. I've actually been struck with this in my own writing. I use the eyes thing a lot. I use it even more if I don't catch myself. It's occurred to me before that it's unrealistic and can be overdone easily, and so I've been more conscious of it, but I still use it.
Do you think the exaggeration (if it exists) is a representation of people's actual (perhaps secret) longing to be better communicators?
That had never occurred to me, but I can see how it would make sense. You said it here, who doesn't want a lover or a friend to see emotions without being told. It's a very pretty, and very appealing idea.
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?
Those are excellent questions that I'm not sure I have answers to. Yes, personally it does make me happy when someone can read "The Truth" in someone else's eyes, especially if they are characters I care about. I guess the beneficial/detrimental question would depend on the story. In anything with a heightened-reality feel, I think it probably helps. Writing fiction is often about reframing rl so that it has narrative unity, so that there's more order to it, and in that context no, I don't think it hurts. If the story is supposed to accurately reflect the mundanity of real life or something, then I would say it is detrimental.
I'm very tired and I may not be explaining adequately. If I'm not I will elaborate tomorrow.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2006-12-13 20:47 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
I think fiction writing is always stylized. It's not real life; it's an approximation where we smooth off the rough edges, facial expressions (and eyes) are heightened, dialog flows much more smoothly than in real life.
I have heard David Mamet called a very naturalistic dialog writer. I find that funny because I think he's one of the most mannered writers I've ever read (well, seen). But his dialog plays well and it's not til later that you realize that nobody talks like this.
I think it's the same in well written fic. If it's written correctly you're swept up in the emtions being displayed and everything flows naturally. It's not until later that it occurs to you that it's unlikely her eyes flashed green.
(no subject)
no subject
Tarantino may be an exception to this rule - he does small-talk so well.
To answer you question, I think how well people interpret others depends very much on how willing they are to trust their "gut feelings", which I define as the instinctive interpretation of signs needed for any individual or species to survive. If you think too much, you can often convince yourself that your gut-feeling is wrong, when it isn't. So I think, for some people it's wishful thinking, and for some it actually is possible to interpret body language quite well.
"text - the most nonimmediate, impersonal kind of communication we have."
I don't think text is really like this - because we interpret the word and make the pictures in our brain, even though we may not receive exactly what the author intended, I think whatever we reconstruct can be a more immediate experience than watching a play or TV.
no subject
I'm a bit rusty on fic but are the stories you're reading really saying that when character X reads specific emotion Y in character Z's eyes that X's interpretation is necessarily correct? If so I'd agree that was unrealistic but if not and it's more that X is able to form an opinion (which may be completely misjudged) of Z's state of mind from their facial expression/body language then I disagree. X would just be doing what psychologists call mentalising, creating a mental model of other people's states of mind. This is something most people start to do around the age of four and it seems so natural that we do it all the time without thinking too hard about whether our model might be completely wrong and what exactly the evidence for it is. To use a BtVS example I recall much of fandom being highly dismissive of Spike getting his soul because they were convinced from "the way JM played the part" that he had intended to get the chip out. And yet, as you point out, although his facial expression and general demeanor indicated that Spike was angry that alone wouldn't be enough to determine what he was angry about.
As to why descriptions of the eyes are so often used as indicators of the character's state of mind I think there's a good deal of scientific evidence for eyes and eye contact being of paramount importance in human communication. One example I'm familiar with is the research showing that autistic people (who are demonstrably bad at reading faces) show extremely reduced rates of eye contact during social encounters, many find it stressful and deliberately avoid look at the eyes, instead focusing on the mouth and the lower half of the face.
no subject
I, for one, get a bit annoyed at this point when people can "read" entire sentences in their partner's eyes. It's one thing to see a look of tenderness, but another to divulge motivation. I know that after six years of knowing my husband, I can tell when he's depressed, but I can't always tell when his anger/frustration is directed at me or not, even with talking. So it seemed unrealistic to me for a character to know that so-and-so is "angry at himself" unless she has prior knowledge of how he works, as you mentioned.
Of course it's a valuable shorthand. I don't need to hear about every potty break or breakfast. That's taken for granted unless it's a plot point. But talking with one's eyes, communicating paragraphs with body language, seems like a way to get out of exposing a character's motivations. It seems too easy.
At the same time, it's a very comforting thought, and I'm by no means immune to the effect. I don't really have much to add to your analysis above. I think we'd all like to be understood in that way from time to time, and most of us, anyway, would like to think we could be that sensitive to others' emotions. But we're not. Not most of us, anyway.
It's a great romantic device, having people fall into each others' arms because they finally understand that look. But it's not realistic, I don't think.
no subject
As regards eyes, I find it can be very hard not to over-emphasise the eyes and hands of a speaker. I don't know if this is just me. It got so bad in my latest story I eventually had to just adopt it as a theme and start making deliberate use of what was originally a fault of repetition. I think this tendency partly comes from said literary conventions - there is a large stock of eye and hand descriptions. But also because in terms of simple actions that can quickly convey a message to a reader the eyes and hands trump the rest of the face and body every time. You can sometimes do things with legs if the person is sitting down, but otherwise as regards posture you can have someone standing up straight or slumping and that's about it. Hands though can be used as props to gesture and hold and touch and dozens of other things. Whilst eyes are infinitely useful because so much can be conveyed simply by where a character is looking as well as by the length of their gaze - a glance is not the same as a long stare. Add the emotions on top of that and eyes become a very convenient package for conveying a lot of info fast.
no subject
There is one thing about (over)use of eyes in fiction: I've often read and heard that it's a sure tell that the writer is female. For a long time I thought that it's just because most of online fandom people and roleplayers are female, but then I noticed abysmally overused flashing-stormy-darkening-with-hate-or-anger eyes on chechen terrorists and gangsters (with otherwise extremely closed-off body language) in Yuliya Latynina's thrillers (she's a renowned journalist and, obviously, female). After that I started to look out for eyes in professional fiction and never found any in books written by males. I have no statistics on the subject, but it does seem that showing specific emotion (or any emotion, really) though eyes is a female concept.
no subject
Anyway. I agree with you about the whole looking at someone's eyes as a way of telling expression is a cliche. I think it happens in romance novels the most, but it does seem into other fiction- fanfiction especially. If at all possible, I think it's important that the other give other cues as to what the character's thinking as well- facial expressions, hand gestures, body language, etc. I mean, the eyes can be important in determining what someone thinks/feels, but they can't be the only way that characters get their information.
As for me, my rational mind (the Hermione part of me) has taken a couple of psychology courses and knows that it's cues on the face/body that lead people to discern thoughts and feelings. My mystical mind (the Luna part of me) likes to think that us being able to tell what each other thinks and feels is part of a universal connection between human beings. You know, you could call it a psychic phenomenon, but it's also a universal conscious (or would it be universal unconscious?).
Um. I don't know if that made sense. But I think I can tell people's general emotions fairy well- if they're feeling sad, happy, confused, angry, tired, sick, etc. It's the more subtle emotions that I can misinterpret. I'm pretty good at telling when someone needs support, encouragement, and a hug, though. I like to think of myself as intuitive. =)