"Her eyes rested on his face."

"Fred's eyes flicked to the side."

Ugh! Argh! Why aren't they still in their eye-sockets?

But I'm finding it hard to deal with what people are looking at without having to mention eyes. I know you can talk about gaze etc. but it sounds repetitive and unnatural if overused. Does anyone else have this eyeball problem? Is it just me who thinks "eyeball" when eyes are mentioned? Has anybody written anything about how to deal with this?

I have had this exact problem (although I doubt I could have put it as entertainingly!) and I sit back with my popcorn and await the wisdom of others...

The question is whether or not you mean 'eyes' or 'gaze' (or glare, etc). So, someone rolling his eyes can mean they are literally doing that - in their sockets, to show exasperation or whatever. But 'his eyes ran around the room, over the table, up her dress and on to her chest' is somewhat on the anatomically suspect side.

Thog's Masterclass has plenty of examples; in fact, there are a couple in the latest Ansible: http://news.ansible.co.uk/a300.html

I've got my eye on you. (So please stay nearby as the optic nerve only stretches so far.)

Have to say, I don't have a problem with this and it annoys me when people pick up on it when it's clear what's meant. I saw a reviewer criticise someone for writing "his hand rested on her shoulder" with the comment "had he amputated it?"

To me it was totally clear what was meant and a perfectly good way of expressing it. I think perhaps this is something that writers obsess about and readers never notice.

I wouldn't have a problem with writing "Fred's eyes flicked to the side" (or reading it for that matter) but if you do, why not change it to focussing on what he's looking at rather than the action of the eyes? Eg "Fred concentrated on the mantelpiece but then risked a glance back at her face. It was still stony." Or, "It was obvious that Fred was looking anywhere but at Lucy."

Alternatively, if you're finding the eyes are starting to grate, it may be not the action of the eye/balls themselves but the fact that you're over-using it as a way of expressing action. If I start to think "dammit, why isn't there another way of saying she chewed her lip?" then it's usually a sign that the fault is not with my vocabulary but with the fact that I'm over-using the image full stop. So the solution is not to get out the thesaurus but to talk about her bitten nails or the fact that she can't stop tapping her foot against the floor.

Thog has a masterclass? Who knew?

I think I must have a literal mind. It used to really bug me on the Underground to see that sign saying "Keep feet off seats", as though you might have a bagful of feet that you were thinking of inconsiderately placing where someone might want to sit.

I think you're right, Flora, part of the reason is probably that I'm overusing eyes to express expression (if you see what I mean).

I don't really agree with it not being a problem eyes are moving around all over the shop. It shows the author may not be in control of his materials - and let's face it, certainly with Thog's examples, it's pretty clear they're not for much of the time. But mainly I think it raises your point:

I wouldn't have a problem with writing "Fred's eyes flicked to the side" (or reading it for that matter) but if you do, why not change it to focussing on what he's looking at rather than the action of the eyes? Eg "Fred concentrated on the mantelpiece but then risked a glance back at her face. It was still stony." Or, "It was obvious that Fred was looking anywhere but at Lucy."

i.e. the author should be focussing on what the character is looking at and why he's looking. Authors - maybe affected too much by movies/TV - tend to have their characters constantly 'looking' at other characters, or throwing their eyes their way. But while an actor may or may not put meaning into such an action, in written form the author has to find ways to show us the meaning.

It can often be possible to suggest the looking without mentioning it and, for some reason, use of the imperfect tense (was/were doing, etc.) can help.

She opened the door noiselessly. He was hurriedly turning the pages of her address book.

He pulled up half-way between the two bridges. Across the river a man was climbing out of a small boat onto a dilapidated jetty.

The use of the imperfect tense in each of the second sentences (i.e. their incompleteness) to me somehow automatically suggests that their content is being observed by the subject of the first sentence.

Even without that, it's often the case that the reader will understand that what's being described is being observed, so that 'look', 'see', 'gaze', etc. are redundant. Having said that, I'm constantly finding myself writing stuff like 'He looked out across the...'

Chris

I also sometimes have a rather literal mind, perhaps thanks to being too fond of comedy which plays on double meanings. So, for example,

"Her eyes rested on his face."

does conjure up rather an odd image to me. However:

"Fred's eyes flicked to the side."

doesn't. I think it really comes down to whether you're trying to do too much with the imagery, or else are using "eyes" when you mean "gaze", "glance", "glare" or whatever.

lol, I tend to take all these literally too! As in 'his eyes roamed all over her body'... yeuch!

And 'keep your eyes peeled'... was ever a more disgusting figure of speech invented?

I agree with Chris, that a lot of the time, you only need to show what the character is looking at, not tell the reader that they're looking. I think this habit might stem from too much movies and TV, so the author is unconsciously describing camera moves.

Some great advice here.

I think maybe part of my problem is that I'm trying to show I'm in my protagonist's POV so need to have it be him that's looking. I've only just realised this, reading your comments. I need to have him doing other stuff!

Sometimes, I think eye movement can be a telling gesture (but not as often as I think, probably). One of my favourite American authors wrote something like, "his eyes cut sideways", which I thought was a very expressive way to describe a shifty character glancing with possibly evil intent at someone. But I think I'm making a beginner's mistake of trying to dsecribe facial expression through the mechanics of bits of anatomy and I need to find a broader range of tools. This thread has been very helpful! I'm going to print it all off.

Another interesting topic.

As a writer, I make myself be aware of the 'eyes resting on face' thing, but as a reader, I'm pretty sure if the story's good enough and I'm really enjoying it, occasional phrases like this just pass me by.

I suppose that's really the test, isn't it? If there's enough engagement with what's going on, character and plot-wise, maybe people just read on without pausing to notice such phrases, as long as they're not happening on every page? Or is that too simplistic a way of looking at things?

I think that's true, Astrea. If I'm reading a good author, I don't mind the eyeballs thing when I notice it and probably am not aware of it that often but if I've just started a book by a new author and don't trust them yet, I notice the eyeballs thing and it feels like a bit of a red flag.

Great thread title

If you're in your protagonist's pov the reader will take it for granted it's the character that's doing the seeing - you don't need to tell them that as well by showing the mechanics of looking?

For me, being shown the mechanics takes me further from (makes me more 'outside'the character - whereas just being told what they are seeing has the effect of drawing the reader closer. It's the difference between observing a character and inhabiting them.

<Added>

When will I learn that you can't put punctuation within brackets here without it tranforming into a winking smiley?