Casey, if you can't fit any more near-disasters with hippos in, that owl one would be good. Except they didn't have glass, I imagine.

Saturday, that must have been rather astonishing, to have that imprint.

Emma

I've got snakes and scorpions as well...not that anything beats a lusty nobleman

I don't think it's a POV switch, really. The narrator's still telling the story, and she's not saying the owls are bemused, just that their gaze is - i.e. they look bemused to her.

Sorry to be the fly in the soup here, but I see this as a definite and unintentional switch of POV. It's all very well for you, the author to explain what you mean in a forum, but the reader doesn't have that contact, so you either need to make it clear your character is imagining this, or describe the presence of the owls by sound.

POV is a real demon. Very sneaky. I slip up all of the time.

One more thing - there is something bugging me about that sentence. You've got two clauses spliced together with a conjuction. Either drop the "then" and have a simple compound, or put a comma before the "and" and add a second "had". The latter sounds a bit clunky, so I'd vote for the simple compound.

Colin M

Casey I see no problem with your grammar, though I'd have written "We'd". As for the POV - people are always anthropomorphising (???) and imagining animals are doing all sorts of things they're probably not.

I actually found the concept of 'bemused owls' quite funny. At least they weren't 'perverted owls' that watch as she fell asleep and then... er, you get the idea. lol!

Perhaps the owl is only bemused because he forgot to go to specsavers?

Sorry, this is no help, is it? I just wanted to comment on the bemused owls line as I thought it was quite funny.

What's red and white and goes, "Twitt, twooo"?

A sanitary owl!



Colin