# POV Character Facial Expressions in tight 3rd Person Limited



## BWFoster78 (Oct 29, 2013)

Not sure if this is going to be a question or a rant...

Okay, take a character going from happy to sad.  If it's the non-POV character, you'd do something like:

His face fell.  (Granted, you could probably find a better expression, but go with me for simplicity's sake)

If it's the POV character, however, you can't do that.  Since the camera is from his eyes out, you can't see his face.  Therefore, you get something like this:

He felt his face fall.  (Granted, I hate the alliteration, but, again, go with me)

However, "felt" is a bad word in tight 3rd person limited.  If he feels it, you can just say it.  Which leaves us with:

His face fell.

I'm so confused...


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 29, 2013)

I'd still probably just say his face fell. Even in a tight third person POV, you don't need to add the 'felt.' It's implied. How did the character know his face fell? He felt it. No need to phrase it that way, because since we're in a tight POV we understand that this is the character's perception based on what he felt.


----------



## Chilari (Oct 29, 2013)

If he's not the POV character, I'd focus on visual elements - "his face fell and his hands fell to his sides."

If he is the POV character, I'd focus on emotional elements or close-POV actions (things he is doing, not things that happen to his expression) - "his heart sank and he looked to the floor."

Basically, I'd chose actions and descriptions that either (a) nobody else can see either or (b) have a greater visual change for him than for others - he's looking and the floor, that means what he sees changes and it's implied that his posture has changed too. To observers, he might have sloughed a bit and they're not making eye contact any more, but they still just see him standing there, while he sees the floor and things on the floor near to him, instead of the horizon, the other characters, the window, the books on the shelf, etc.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Oct 29, 2013)

Chilari said:


> If he is the POV character, I'd focus on emotional elements or close-POV actions (things he is doing, not things that happen to his expression) - "his heart sank and he looked to the floor."
> 
> Basically, I'd chose actions and descriptions that either (a) nobody else can see either or (b) have a greater visual change for him than for others - he's looking and the floor, that means what he sees changes and it's implied that his posture has changed too. To observers, he might have sloughed a bit and they're not making eye contact any more, but they still just see him standing there, while he sees the floor and things on the floor near to him, instead of the horizon, the other characters, the window, the books on the shelf, etc.



For (a) you mean something like "his throat tightened"?
That can't be seen, but only felt, so him feeling it would be implied, right?

Or, for option (b) "he fell silent and looked away"?
I guess in this case looking away might be a bit vague, but couldn't it also imply that  he's avoiding looking at what he previously looked at?


----------



## Chessie (Oct 29, 2013)

For the POV character, I try to give the reactions that I personally feel when my emotions shift...so like Svrtnsse mentioned the throat tightening, or hands tensing, etc.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 29, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I'd still probably just say his face fell. Even in a tight third person POV, you don't need to add the 'felt.' It's implied. How did the character know his face fell? He felt it. No need to phrase it that way, because since we're in a tight POV we understand that this is the character's perception based on what he felt.



I tend to agree with this viewpoint.  Those who would say that the camera is wrong are, I think, mistaken.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 29, 2013)

I'm with Chilari on this one.   

You can certainly use the implication that your POV "felt" something but I don't think it's as powerful.  Not wrong, just not as powerful.

Typically, I try to consider how psychosomatic cues register on the human mind. Are they cues that we tend to notice visually, like a grin? If so, I'd reserve those for a character outside the POV. My tendency is to focus on cues, within the POV, that are experienced internally or in a more tactile sense (a chattering jaw for instance, to invoke an understanding of terror or cold).  

There are always exceptions of course. Recently, I wrote a chapter for a collaborative project where the POV is intentionally manipulating her face because she is acting. She wants others to notice certain cues because she is attempting to beguile them. In this case, I'm using body language I'd usually consider visual (and therefore reserved for outside the POV). But, it is made clear that these expressions are a conscious choice of the character, and by design, rather than a reaction.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 29, 2013)

Chilari said:


> If he's not the POV character, I'd focus on visual elements - "his face fell and his hands fell to his sides."
> 
> If he is the POV character, I'd focus on emotional elements or close-POV actions (things he is doing, not things that happen to his expression) - "his heart sank and he looked to the floor."
> 
> Basically, I'd chose actions and descriptions that either (a) nobody else can see either or (b) have a greater visual change for him than for others - he's looking and the floor, that means what he sees changes and it's implied that his posture has changed too. To observers, he might have sloughed a bit and they're not making eye contact any more, but they still just see him standing there, while he sees the floor and things on the floor near to him, instead of the horizon, the other characters, the window, the books on the shelf, etc.



While the point is well taken, it kinda feels like James T. Kirk facing the no-win scenario - simply change the rules.  

The implied question is: is it okay to point the camera at the POV character in this situation?


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 29, 2013)

I'm not saying there aren't approaches that might be better or more powerful in approaching any given scene, but the original question was whether you can use 'His face fell' in a tight 3rd person POV, or whether you have to include explicit mention that he 'felt' it. I maintain that you can just say 'his face fell' and it works just as well as saying 'he felt,' even in a tight POV.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 29, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> The implied question is: is it okay to point the camera at the POV character in this situation?



Two answers: 

1) It is always OK to break POV if you feel the need to do it and can do it effectively, so yes, in the absolute sense it is OK; and

2) If you want to do it without breaking POV, I think you're still OK in this particular case, and will always be OK in situations where the words you use can reasonably be the product of the POV character's perceptions, because you aren't really pointing the camera at the POV character in that situation, even though at first blush it may appear that you are.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 29, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I'm not saying there aren't approaches that might be better or more powerful in approaching any given scene, but the original question was whether you can use 'His face fell' in a tight 3rd person POV, or whether you have to include explicit mention that he 'felt' it. I maintain that you can just say 'his face fell' and it works just as well as saying 'he felt,' even in a tight POV.



Yes, I'd agree with that. Also, this brings attention to how tight we're in the POV at this point. The camera can zoom in and out at will. So, if you want to stay really close inside the POV's skull then I'd lean towards internal or tactile reactions. If we want to pan out a bit, while still remaining in 3rd, I think an expression like "his face fell" works fine.   

Personally, I tend to gravitate toward very close & tight POV use. Therefore, I don't typically pan the camera out a lot, spending more time in close. It's not "wrong" to do so however.


----------



## Jabrosky (Oct 29, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> The implied question is: is it okay to point the camera at the POV character in this situation?


For my part, I prefer to treat third-person limited as the camera hovering over the person, or maybe a little behind, rather than straight through their eyes. Think of the third-person view option in RPGs like Skyrim for example. That way I can get a good view of my PoV character even if there are limitations to my perspective. The straight-through-their-eyes approach you seem to be advocating would make more sense for first-person in my humble opinion.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 29, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> The straight-through-their-eyes approach you seem to be advocating would make more sense for first-person in my humble opinion.


This can be done just as effectively in tight 3rd limited if you're adept at portraying emotion.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 29, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> The implied question is: is it okay to point the camera at the POV character in this situation?



Yes, depending on your intention, as the author. Do you want to simply give us information in a general way by stating "his face fell"? Or, do you want to invoke emotion in the reader by having them share in the experience to a greater degree?  

Both are legitimate approaches depending on your goals for the scene and action depicted within.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 29, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I'd still probably just say his face fell. Even in a tight third person POV, you don't need to add the 'felt.' It's implied. How did the character know his face fell? He felt it. No need to phrase it that way, because since we're in a tight POV we understand that this is the character's perception based on what he felt.



This is what I think too. If you think about it in a slightly different way. For example "He picked up the hot mug." it's implied that he felt the warmth. It'd be odd if you needed to write it as something like "He picked up the hot-feeling mug." or "He picked up the mug, which felt hot."

To me it's the same as having a sentence like this "I saw the plane crash." instead being written as this "The plane crashed."


----------



## Ireth (Oct 29, 2013)

Penpilot said:


> To me it's the same as having a sentence like this "I saw the plane crash." instead being written as this "The plane crashed."



That one, I think, is dependent on context. If character A is telling character B about the event of the crash, which is widely-known but A wasn't a witness to it, "the plane crashed" would be fine. If A was a witness, s/he could still say "the plane crashed", but "the plane crashed; I _saw_ it" would, IMO, have more impact.


----------



## Penpilot (Oct 29, 2013)

Ireth said:


> That one, I think, is dependent on context. If character A is telling character B about the event of the crash, which is widely-known but A wasn't a witness to it, "the plane crashed" would be fine. If A was a witness, s/he could still say "the plane crashed", but "the plane crashed; I _saw_ it" would, IMO, have more impact.



Whoops that was bit of mistake on my part. What I wanted to write was "He saw the plane crash." in a specific context of third person. For example: "The plane sputtered above him as he ran. He dared a look behind, and he saw the plane crash."

It's not a very elegant example, but hopefully, that clears up what I meant. Thanks for pointing this out Ireth.


----------

