This isn't personal. I just keep getting my chcracters into situations where they are quietly fed up with someone and I have no idea how to properly write the subtle cues, like the following: Luzia puffed her cheeks and let out the breath to show her impatience. It should be noted that she's on the phone with the person she's done with and she's signalling her impatience to someone else in the room. Also, in that same situation, she: Curled a corner of her mouth. For pretty much the same reasons as mentioned above. It's supposed to be that thing you do when you show contempt, more like pulling back one corner than curling (down) really. I changed that to rolling eyes. It's mainly the cheek puffing thing I'm looking to fix.
Not to be pedantic, but a little more clarity on whose POV we are using. I understand the purpose of the gesture, but who is the reporting agent in the scene, Luzia or the other person? If it's Luzia, we can look at more internal engagement, but if it's the other person, then the engagement will necessarily lean to the visual. Which one? ETA: And I certainly don't mean to come off as dismissive, but this concept, taking into account the reporting agent, so often proves to be the source of the How Do I Describe This? problem.
Err... This is where I shamefully come up short. I thought the line itself was clear enough. Let's see if I understood you correctly: I think the POV is the reader. Or, like, a camera recording what's going on. Does that make any sense? I'm trying to describe a picture that shows Luzia is the one fed up with the guy on the phone. For this instance, it doesn't really matter her assistant is in the room. Since he comes up later, it made sense to me that Luzia looks at him when she expresses her feelings, but the scene is not from his POV. You don't come off as dismissive, but I must admit that I'm not sure if the POV is the important bit here. Most of my descriptive problems originate from English not being my first language and googling these specific situations generally gets you nowhere. That said, if you feel like it, I can always use more advice on the theory of POV.
I understand that part. What's missing is the technical POV of the scene, and the reader is not the POV. The scene can be in 3rd omniscient, where the POV is the disembodied 3rd person narrator who doesn't represent any character on set. The scene can be 3rd limited where the POV is still in 3rd person, but we understand that the description is one that is directed by a particular character. It's that character's observation. If this be the answer, who is the person? The scene can be 1st person where the POV character and the narrator are one and the same, in 1st person, with "I" statements, not "He/She" statements. The POV of the scene is the first and broadest filter for descriptions. It defines what is plausible from what is implausible. For example: If the story is in 1st person, from "Jane's" POV, then suddenly giving narrative (not dialogue) details about the inner thoughts of "Joe" is implausible unless Jane can literally read minds. See what I mean?
So glad to see this being discussed, as it pertains to a question of mine. And it fits this thread perfectly, so while we have you in here Wrey, let me ask it thusly: If I understand the 3rd Objective POV properly (and there's a good chance I don't) it's an external POV like a camera eye that drifts near a character but doesn't have access to their thoughts or feelings, no internality. It's the one that most closely approximates a movie, because you see everything visually but get no glimpse of what's going on in a character's inner world. I haven't seen this one discussed in here much if at all. And it sounds like what @Bakkerbaard is using in this scene. Hmm, I didn't really ask a question, did I? I suppose I just want to understand in general if this is a valid POV or not. Because as you said, a character wouldn't be able to see their own expressions and would instead get internal cues for their own reactions and feelings. Could you expound some Wrey Wisdom (Wrisdom? ) on the subject?
Your description of 3rd Objective is certainly correct. I'm leery about assuming that this is the POV in play until the OP confirms because the wording has been vague to this point. Could be Objective, could be Omniscient, Limited has yet to be ruled out.
I think the key here is doing this without the bolded part. Ideally, you'll be showing the reader her impatience via the actions the character is performing. Really what you need to do is make her perform irritated actions so that you can describe them, so the reader can see them and infer that she's impatient. Luzia puffed her cheeks and sighed. Audibly. She stared up at the ceiling and wondered how many more seconds she might endure before slamming her forehead into the nearest wall. Her fingers drummed violently against her thigh, her eyes flickered down towards the red 'end' button on the phone. She turned to her companion and mouthed a silent apology.
Absolutely this one. I don't know if it's the proper thing to do, but elsewhere in the story there are some excursions into 3rd Limited, but I basically stick to 3rd Ominscient. This is exactly why the first idea I ditched was the 1st Person story. I agree wholeheartedly and if I had one of those old viking horns with mead in, I would raise it. I did the part you bolded because I wasn't confident that my preceding description was adequate, or indeed correct. This, and the rest of the example you presented, seems so logical. I mean, it's not fitting for Luzia's character, but when I read it, all I'm really wondering is why I didn't think of that myself. I know all those words, understand them. They just elude me when I write.
