POV slip vs. reasonable assumption? (Page 1 of 2)

Whose POV? That is the question.

If you're writing from Father Romano's POV and he sees Connor's eyes close and his brows furrow, then the first example is a POV slip, because it's not possible for Father Romano to know if Connor is concentrating, or praying for the event to be over, or whatever. In that case, removing the words, 'in concentration', would correct the error.

If, in another case (say, in another chapter), you were writing from Connor's POV, there would be no POV slip in this example, because of course Connor knows what he's thinking.

JUST REMEMBER you can't zoom back and forth from the POV of one character to that of another, paragraph to paragraph. That's called head-hopping, which becomes disorienting to the reader. Bad form.

Absolutely. Go for it JP.

It’s a POV slip.  But more importantly, it’s an intrusion by the author to explain an expression/action.  The better solution is to come up with a description that, when coupled with context, does the work of conveying the emotion or action without the writer interfering to explain it.  It’s ostensibly no different than the weak: “He clenched his fists in anger.”   

Another issue is this: “He turned his head slowly from side to side.” To me this not only adds nothing to the notion of “concentration,” it confuses what’s happening. 

I’ll bet if you concentrated really hard you could come up with a way of describing intense concentration without having to explain to the reader that your character is intensely concentrating.

Frankly, I imagine that context is enough to let the reader know what Connor is doing without the added text (and associated handwringing).

Basically, if you have to explain an expression or a gesture, then your description failed.

If you feel fettered and straitjacketed by the modren highbrau sensibilities, you can show us that the assessment belongs to your PoV character.

The reader will never get this unless you explain it through dialogue or speculation (or it’s happened before and is already explained).  This is simple enough to do.  Have your POV character (afterward) ask what Connor was doing with the head turning thing, and have Connor explain it.  Without finding a way to make the reader understand, it’s just a confusing movement.  It’s also possible to get inside your POV character’s head and let them speculate.  ...moving his head from side to side, as if scanning, searching for something within.  (rough, but you get the drift).  The POV character speculating through indirect or direct internal dialogue is also a way to “explain” the gesture of intense concentration.  So, putting it all together, you get:  Connor clenched his eyes shut and proceeded to move his head slowly back and forth, as if searching with his mind.  Again, rough, but this gives you better concentration and solves your POV problem.  With direct internal dialogue, you get: (in italics) What’s he doing?  Can he see ... with his mind?

My latest attempt. The reference to radar suggests he's scanning, which is confirmed the next time he speaks.

Technically, he might still be smelling a fart. :-)

As though listening to locate a sound ...

Y'all do realize you're being a lot harder than all but the most wantonly particular readers.

But it's the care the writer takes in conveying his/her message that determines the ease with which the reader understands and enjoys the story. Why make it hard to plow through your writing when, with a little care, your work can be a joy to read?

(Sorry, not sorry to believe that readers would rather relax into the flow of a story than have to take notes in order to keep up. We left that 'required reading' thing in the schoolroom. Unless, of course, you write textbooks.)

LOL

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any successful writer that would agree with the statement:  “the story’s flow is the crucial thing.”  I think this is particularly bad advice on a site like this where we are all more or less beginners, even those of us who have published multiple works — or we wouldn’t be here.  And as beginners, learning all aspects of craft is crucial.  You can always find a writer that is the exception to the rule, but generally speaking, understanding and being disciplined with POV is a basic writing skill, just like grammar and punctuation, and shouldn’t be minimized. 

Undisciplined writers usually end up as hacks.

I concede: hacks are legion.  I concede: some make good money at it (and judge that a success).  There are also plenty of writers who created unappreciated art in their time and died paupers—but whose work was later revered and will live for the ages.  Like I said: you can find examples that support any thesis.  (You can also find people who still purport the world is flat.) 

It is said, “You write what you like to read.”

I concede: some writers aspire to be nothing more than hacks. If being a hack is your thing, and you want to carry that torch, then God bless you—screw POV and spelling and consistent verb tense—embrace the color purple, clunky sentences, clichés, lousy metaphors—boldly split your infinitives, aim for mediocrity and books that only get puff reviews from your on-line confederates (who don’t bother to actually read them, but give a bs review and 5-stars in hopes you’ll return the favor so they can be a “5-star success” while their ranking is 3,455,456  in the “hack wannabe” genre and they sell six copies in as many years), aim to go where so many have gone before, instead of blazing your own trail, and hack on ...

However, some writers write for a different purpose.  They aim to constantly perfect their craft and strive to create something that outlasts them.  There’s a place in this world for all kinds.  Maybe don’t discourage them from striving for something more while you settle for something less.