I'm not sure if I've just become really aware of this for some reason or if my book really does have an inordinate amount of mentions of what people are doing with their eyes. Does anyone else have this?

I'm wondering if it's a tic of mine that I need to watch out for or where words like 'looking' are similar to 'said' in that they just become invisible within the description.

I have exactly the same thing, so I can't say whether it becomes invisible to anyone who isn't looking (ha!) out for it. I seem to use "gaze" and "look" more than anything - if I put something like "his eyes followed her," then I just imagine little eyeballs running around on legs, like those M & Ms in the adverts.

I do to. I think there may be too many on any given page (five on one of my pages, a copy-editor pointed out, but two of them were the 'it looked like' sort)- and perhaps that's partly because it is one of the simplest alternatives to 'said'. But it can also be about the rhythm of the interchange between characters: 'I looked at him and then said...' builds a pause and an implied thought into the moment, without you having to tell about either.

And what I found myself describing rather pretentiously to an editor as the 'choreography of eyes' is terribly important, too: as well as being a pacing device in the writing, it's about point of view, character, emotional tension, relationships. I always know exactly who's looking at who, just as I know where they are in the room, how close they are physically, what they're noticing about each other's bodies, movements.

Emma

I do to. I think there may be too many on any given page (five on one of my pages, a copy-editor pointed out, but two of them were the 'it looked like' sort)- and perhaps that's partly because it is one of the simplest alternatives to 'said'. But it can also be about the rhythm of the interchange between characters: 'I looked at him and then said...' builds a pause and an implied thought into the moment, without you having to tell about either.

And what I found myself describing rather pretentiously to an editor as the 'choreography of eyes' is terribly important, too: as well as being a pacing device in the writing, it's about point of view, character, emotional tension, relationships. I always know exactly who's looking at who, just as I know where they are in the room, how close they are physically, what they're noticing about each other's bodies, movements.

Emma

<Added>

Huh? sorry, don't know why that's in twice.

I've got a similar problem with hair: my characters are forever fiddling with it, having it blown across their faces, hiding behind it etc. I'd say if you're becoming aware of it, Jess, it's something you'll need to go back and read for during editing (I'm going to have to run a seek-and-destroy with some of mine). But a certain amount of looking is standard and probably even necessary, like stage directions. Remember, the vast majority of communication is non-verbal, so as a writer you do have to insert some indication of that side of dialogue.

Thanks. I think it is, like Emma and Lammi say, that I am always aware of where people are looking in a scene, because it's such an important part of how we communicate our feelings etc. I guess for now the thing is to put them in as it seems necessary and then be really aware of it while I'm editing.

Things like this are interesting, aren't they? the things we scatter through our writing. I've already had to remove about a dozen too many things that were caramel coloured...

I realised that all the not-there or walk-on female partners of important characters in the current beast began with 'J' - Jean, Jane, Jo, Jenny and Janet...

Emma

My characters smile too much.

Deb

That's a point, I've got FAR too many people whose name begin with L.

I've made a point of having different initials for the first names of all my main characters and main supporting characters. I think it does make it easier to read.

Deb

I usually do too - main characters names are so important, and that's just one part of the decision about them. I think it was because it was minor/invisible characters that I didn't think beyond, 'what sort of name would she have...'. J is a very common letter for names, of course, becaus of all the 'John' derivatives - of my list, only Jenny isn't one.

I got into trouble from someone on WW for being rule-bound (me!), for saying that I too stick to the different letters rule.

Oh God yes (in answer to the original question) I have so many so-and-so looked at so-and-so's. Sometimes I use 'find' to see how many, and it's just scary. Sometimes they smile too much, too, but really that's just a slightly more specific version of the same syndrome. I do try to prune them while editing, when too many jump out at me.

Glad it's not just me.

Re names, i was told my names were too similar, which I could see, so I changed an Ellie to Nicole, and it seemed just right, but I couldn't for the life of me find an alternative for my Emma - went through Emily (defo not the same), Isobel, Jenny and finally Jessie, but it still doesn't feel right for that character.

I have eyes, smiles ect, but doesn't human (and in my case, inhuman) communication rely a lot on these things anyway?

JB

Poppy, how right you are: Emma and Emily are definitely not the same.

JB's 'inhuman' made me thank that this whole problem be worse if our characters had three eyes, or the kind that operate independently. Just think how complicated the choreography would be then.

Emma

If it's any consolation, I've just found, on the millionth edit, four 'angrilys' in the space of six pages. Lots of v cross people in my novel!