Point of view

[FifthView]

Tizania tried to ignore the pain as she pulled herself against the jagged bark of the Muster tree. Only a thin canopy of soggy leaves screened her from the throbbing hum of the gathering crowd. Heart jumping to her throat she choked a quick prayer that she wouldn't be seen. Between the leaves she could barely make out the familiar shape of the tall blue, pointed hat worn by the sorcerer. Soon he would be only feet from where she crouched, scratched and bleeding, pressed against the Muster bark. Magic was something she had never considered, but in this moment, for the first time, she wondered what it would be like if she could just reach out one finger and blow him away? Turn him into a cat? A frog? Freeze him on the spot into a statue of ice. The thought brought a small smile to her lips but didn't prevent the multitude of panicked butterflies from popping in her stomach. It was only a fantasy. Her small talent in healing wasn't real magic. Not compared to the power of the sorcerer.

This thread is prompting me to start another, although I'm not going to do so yet, heh.

I think that closeness when dealing with third person POVs must be some seamless commingling of two narrators. I'll call it the double-narrator for now. There's the actual narrator who is not the character, and then there's the hint (at least) that the character is narrating sometimes.

As a quick example from the above, take the clause The thought brought a small smile to her lips. She doesn't see that smile herself, and I wonder whether she'd have the presence of mind to realize that the smile she feels upon her face is small. "The thought brought a smile to her lips." What's the difference between these two, after all, if not a non-character narration adding detail? Many other things in the above passage, particularly the adjectival modifications, fall into this same category. She may well feel that bark is jagged, that the leaves are soggy, that the prayer she utters is quick (probably even an unworded prayer, just a quick flash through the mind), but these words don't come to her conscious mind so she's not narrating.

There is a kind of unreality, especially when we fold in thoughts that can more easily be hers: Turn him into a cat? A frog? Freeze him on the spot into a statue of ice. & possibly, It was only a fantasy. These are Tizania consciously assessing the objective reality and thereby giving some narration to it, I think, or at least functioning like a narrator.

So we have bits like a character narration but a lot of other detail that she herself would not consciously add.

In a way, the unreality is similar to the unreality of a first-person past tense narrative that is meant to be read as if events are happening now, heh. Tricks of the trade.

I think that getting into the head of a character while writing third person and trying to write from her... consciousness?...can actually backfire, create some distance. Details are lost, specifics might be lost. She's not consciously thinking these things—she might be seeing the sorcerer's tall blue, pointed hat, but all she's thinking is "sorcerer"—and this can ultimately create distance, paradoxically. This is like the dilemma of using a close 3rd person approach with an MC who lives on a planet that has no moon: How to get across this fact? In other words, operating only from within the mind of the character means that a lot of details a reader would need can be lost, simply because the character wouldn't think about x, y, z detail consciously.

This morning I flipped through Dune and found examples of "double-narration" in the omniscient approach Herbert used. I'd mentioned using direct thoughts, and also mentioned slipping into present tense, for creating closeness or at least a sense of being "in the moment." Herbert's omniscient dips in real close whenever he head hops:

Jessica fell silent, staring at him in the green light of the glowglobes, seeing the demoniacal stiffness that had taken over his expression. She shifted her attention to Jamis, saw the brooding look to his brows and thought: I should've seen that before. He broods. He's the silent kind, one who works himself up inside. I should've been prepared.​

Obviously, the direct line to a character's present thoughts would create closeness, heh. But this offers the opportunity for letting a character assess situations or comment on what's happening, much in the way a storyteller narrator might in some other types of omniscient third.

 

[Steerpike]

This morning I flipped through Dune and found examples of "double-narration" in the omniscient approach Herbert used. I'd mentioned using direct thoughts, and also mentioned slipping into present tense, for creating closeness or at least a sense of being "in the moment." Herbert's omniscient dips in real close whenever he head hops:

Jessica fell silent, staring at him in the green light of the glowglobes, seeing the demoniacal stiffness that had taken over his expression. She shifted her attention to Jamis, saw the brooding look to his brows and thought: I should've seen that before. He broods. He's the silent kind, one who works himself up inside. I should've been prepared.​

Obviously, the direct line to a character's present thoughts would create closeness, heh. But this offers the opportunity for letting a character assess situations or comment on what's happening, much in the way a storyteller narrator might in some other types of omniscient third.

May be semantics, but isn't this still just third person omniscient? The omniscient narrator can provide the thoughts of any character. I do agree that it lends more closeness to the narrative.

When it comes to third limited, if the narration includes details not perceptible to the character, I view it as a break or violation of the POV that has been established (which may be intentional or not).

The double-narrator idea is interesting. I do see that, for example, in works by writers like Dennis McKiernan, though there is probably more of a delineation between the two in what he is doing.

 

[Heliotrope]

lol. Most of the stuff you are mentioning is due to my limited skill, not anything I did intentionally. POV is something I would like to delve into and discuss more deeply. It's something I struggle with. I'm writing from first person a lot and I find and I'm still using phrases like "I heard, I felt, I saw..." I'm pretty ruthless about culling them but they still pop in there. You are correct about the above example you gave about the smile. If it were to be full close third a lot of that stuff would have to be cut. I was going for more of a third omni... and there does have to be a strange intermingling of narrators. It would be fun to explore all this in another thread.

 

[FifthView]

I don't think I've ever suggested giving details not perceptible to a character when writing in third limited.

But the issue here, I think, is defining what is perceptible vs narrative.

In Heliotrope's paragraph, there are many things perceptible to the character, such as the roughness of the bark and the sogginess of the leaves, but these might not arise to the level of conscious attention in the character. I myself am sitting at a desk, and for much of the time–until right this moment!–I wasn't thinking about the sensation of the seat against my backside, heh. Nonetheless, that sensation is perceptible. If I wrote a third limited scene about a character such as myself, I might include mention of the soft, cushiony leather chair even if the character is consciously focused on the forum post he's writing and not thinking about the chair. This level of detail lets a reader know the milieu; but, it's a narrative trick that an outside narrator does.

In third limited, there's always an outside narrator, someone besides the character telling the story.

Third omniscient is not really much different. I've thought sometimes that these distinctions are simply categorizations of different types of the same general thing, the sorts of hairs that scholars and others split. "The omniscient narrator can provide the thoughts of any character" – so can the narrator of a third limited story, heh. Just put the two characters in different scenes or chapters and not hop from one to the other from paragraph to paragraph, and stick to each in turn.

The third limited does stick to adding detail that is perceptible to that character while writing narrative involving that character. I'm not going to write about the writer writing a forum post and mention that outside his office and down the road a monster has just pulled itself up out of the ground, heh. But when Herbert is writing his head-hopping omniscient, he pretty much sticks to that character's perceptions also. There is a different type of omniscient, the storyteller type or god-omniscient type, that might mention the monster arising from the earth and setting its sights on the unsuspecting Mythic Scribes member who thinks that the only important thing in the world is writing about writing, heh. (More important than, you know, actually doing his day job, hah.)

May be semantics, but isn't this still just third person omniscient? The omniscient narrator can provide the thoughts of any character. I do agree that it lends more closeness to the narrative.

When it comes to third limited, if the narration includes details not perceptible to the character, I view it as a break or violation of the POV that has been established (which may be intentional or not).

The double-narrator idea is interesting. I do see that, for example, in works by writers like Dennis McKiernan, though there is probably more of a delineation between the two in what he is doing.

 

[FifthView]

If it were to be full close third a lot of that stuff would have to be cut.

Oh, I disagree. Or at least, if it needed cutting, it wouldn't be a POV issue I think.

But Helio, most of the time I read your writing I'm floored by how good it is, heh. So I don't really know what you mean by "my limited skill."

 

[Heliotrope]

Oh, I disagree. Or at least, if it needed cutting, it wouldn't be a POV issue I think.

But Helio, most of the time I read your writing I'm floored by how good it is, heh. So I don't really know what you mean by "my limited skill."

Oh gosh, thanks that was a nice little confidence boost for the day!

If you could forward that sentiment to Strange Horizons before I submit my next peice I would really appreciate it

 

[FifthView]

Oh gosh, thanks that was a nice little confidence boost for the day!

If you could forward that sentiment to Strange Horizons before I submit my next peice I would really appreciate it

Heh, I should have specified that I was talking about the prose, not completed works, since I've not read your completed stories.

Your example in this thread prompted many of my current thoughts. If I'd entirely rewritten the original paragraph, I would not have ended up with something much like yours. Yours works for me; I can read that kind of writing and easily find myself absorbed into the story. But as far as writing in that style? Heh, not so much. A lot of threads, a lot of discussions, a lot of examples of writing (here on MS), have given me a taste of your stylistic tendencies–and they are not like my own! But this has also led me to more fully consider how different approaches can lead to closeness in third person.

 

[Heliotrope]

I know, I only jest.

Heh, I should have specified that I was talking about the prose, not completed works, since I've not read your completed stories.

Your example in this thread prompted many of my current thoughts. If I'd entirely rewritten the original paragraph, I would not have ended up with something much like yours. Yours works for me; I can read that kind of writing and easily find myself absorbed into the story. But as far as writing in that style? Heh, not so much. A lot of threads, a lot of discussions, a lot of examples of writing (here on MS), have given me a taste of your stylistic tendencies—and they are not like my own! But this has also led me to more fully consider how different approaches can lead to closeness in third person.

Yeah. Let's do a thread on this. I would love to learn some tricks on how people approach POV, and how they manage to fit voice and style into the mix.

 

[FifthView]

Yeah. Let's do a thread on this. I would love to learn some tricks on how people approach POV, and how they manage to fit voice and style into the mix.

We seem to fall into this pattern of my mentioning something, not committing to a new thread, then you start it.

In this case, I thought maybe this thread might be appropriate, because it's addressing closeness and POV, which are the subjects of the thread, and I don't know that the answer to Rkcapps's concern is, certainly, "Write like Heliotrope." * Anyway, I'm going to use that excuse for why I just posted these comments here today rather than start the new thread.

There is something relating to MRUs in all this, which could give it another spin deserving of a new thread, but my general barely-founded impression is that the topic of MRUs might be groan-inducing.

*Edit: There is my tiny jest. Actually earlier today, reading in the random thoughts thread and thinking of writing a scene about a school bus driver and his unruly passenger, I myself thought about trying to "write like Heliotrope"—and I came up short. It was like hitting a brick wall while trying to drive that bus. And yet, if I want that up-close, intimate third....

 

[Heliotrope]

I saw that and wanted to enter your contest, but knew you would never commit to actually posting it

i agree this thread is appropriate because we can use the OP's example as a jumping off point. I added a bunch of personal, POV thoughts, but you are correct, I also added a bunch of microtension that wasn't there, and it could have even been better if I'd focussed on MRU's.

And I know, my instinct is to always show how I would do something, but the intention is never "write like me". It is a nasty habit, however, but I'm not sure, sometimes, how else I would illustrate my point?

But let's move on.

I have noticed, since you brought up Dune, that close third seems to be a fairly modern phenomenon? Am I correct in this? The big writers on the early twentieth century kept the reader close by mostly writing in first... Hemingway, Harper Lee, Fitzgerald, Vonnegut, Faulkner all wrote in first. The other, especially for fantasy and sci-fi, used a sweeping third omni. Close third seems to be something introduced, perhaps, in the past seventy years, and I almost feel that the switch came from the popularity of cinema. Close third is the most cinematic of the POV types?

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

Heliotrope, please don't stop giving concrete examples. I love to have working examples, and when I read your latest in this thread, I was like, yeah, I want to emulate that.

 

[Aurora]

I wanted an "in the moment" perspective and I felt third person did that but I think I should've used first person. I think 'meh' my work would get by but a first person perspective could make it pop. For example, this is my first paragraph:

Tizania clung to the thick trunk of The Muster Tree. Soggy leaves screened her from the throbbing hum of the gathered crowd. Her heart thumped. If she hid here, perhaps the sorcerer might skip her until next year? What were the chances? Nil, nil and none again. Not with her luck. Jelly fingers barely suctioned her to the tree. What if she possessed magic? Her kind of healing wasn’t considered magic, was it? She despised magic but the fact no one had been chosen at a Syphon Day ceremony in twenty years did not prevent a multitude of panicked butterflies popping in her stomach.

I feel like an observer but the idea of changing it is daunting (due to my physical challenges).

Write in the pov that is most comfortable to you. Some writers prefer first to third to omniscient. Identify which you enjoy the most, which one brings you closest to the story because that's all that matters.

One gal from my former writing group wrote intriguing stories in first. When she tried third, her struggles with that pov were visible. We encouraged her to continue writing in first because it's her strong suit.

Go with whichever point of view you are strongest in.

 

[FifthView]

I have noticed, since you brought up Dune, that close third seems to be a fairly modern phenomenon? Am I correct in this? The big writers on the early twentieth century kept the reader close by mostly writing in first... Hemingway, Harper Lee, Fitzgerald, Vonnegut, Faulkner all wrote in first. The other, especially for fantasy and sci-fi, used a sweeping third omni. Close third seems to be something introduced, perhaps, in the past seventy years, and I almost feel that the switch came from the popularity of cinema. Close third is the most cinematic of the POV types?

I think that cinematic is a form of objective POV, so actually on the surface cinema and close, intimate third are opposite?

Being able to switch from character to character, with a focus on each, might be similar to the way cinema focuses on different characters depending on the scene.

I don't know if there's a direct relationship between the rise of cinema and close third.

I added a bunch of personal, POV thoughts

Yeah, you know, in trying to isolate my natural tendency and why your approach feels so foreign to me when I try to write like you, I think it might be related to the fact that I tend more toward an objective style and away from so much subjectivity. I don't stick to a purely objective approach, but I trend there, or at least I limit the subjectivity. I can't say too much about this, because I feel I haven't really found my voice yet. More accurately, I'm simply not satisfied with the voice I've managed to cobble together, heh.

But enough of me. Your mention of the cinematic form caused a light bulb to go off. Let's look at that first sentence of yours:

Tizania tried to ignore the pain as she pulled herself against the jagged bark of the Muster tree.

The objective facts of the scene are one thing. But this suggests a subjective, or at least personal, reality, right off the bat. If this were just a scene about a girl hiding, afraid of being selected by the sorcerer...Why would you instantly go for that narrowband feeling of pain caused by the jagged bark? Heh. That's zooming really in to her very private, personal, self-contained, very in-the-moment sensation. This doesn't fit the order of MRU, but nonetheless it's an objective reality—jagged bark—and her personal reaction to it (cause-effect) even if in this case that reaction is also an objective reality (i.e., real pain.) But then she reacts to that objective reality of pain by trying to ignore it, heh. This zooming-in to the moment is something I've seen in a lot of what you've posted.

The first part of your paragraph is thick with this, that zooming in on each moment's objective reality and how it affects her. Then you move into the abstract but subjective thinking with Magic was something....

Imagine writing the paragraph from a purely objective POV and how different it would be, heh.

 

[Heliotrope]

I think that cinematic is a form of objective

Imagine writing the paragraph from a purely objective POV and how different it would be, heh.

Do it! I would have no clue how to even begin!

 

[Heliotrope]

I think the example you gave, of her hiding against the tree, is cinematic, and here is why...

When I'm writing I always try to write from the POV of the character, obviously, because I feel (and this is my own personal opinion) that emotion and character is what story is all about. I consider writing as a sort of exercise in method acting. So when writing a scene, like a girl hiding behind a tree, my first thought is "If I were hiding behind a tree, what would I be doing? What would I be feeing?" As an avid outdoors-woman I have leaned against my fair share of trees and none have been too comfortable. I imagine if I were this poor girl, it would not feel great to have to press myself against a tree... however, given the circumstances I had better try to ignore the pain.

Tizania pulled herself against the jagged bark of the Muster tree would probably be the objective, but it gives the reader nothing to hold on to other than a faceless, emotionless girl.

Think of it like you, as the writer, are the director of the film. Do you want your movie to start out with the camera focussed on the girl's back as she clings to the tree? Or do you want to give the audience a face right away? An expressive face, showing some emotion? The emotion acts as the hook, or the microtension. Something the reader can cling to. Too often, when I see objective writing it is like a dark figure in a dark room, saying some dialogue or thinking about some distant backstory. There is no face, or emotion or sense of place or time.

Tizania tired to ignore the pain as she pulled herself against the jagged bark of the Muster tree. Is like the camera opening up to a face. The girl is maybe wincing. Or cringing. Leave that up to the reader because exact specifics of what it looks like don't really matter to the story at large. All that matters is that she is trying to ignore the pain of the bark on the tree...

It's the difference between the film starting out with the image of a faceless girl hugging a tree, or opening a scene with the face of a girl, wincing in pain, as she clings to a jagged tree. One has an interesting story behind it, the other doesn't.


And THAT is the most important part. The emotion is the hook. Why is she trying to ignore the pain? If it hurts, why doesn't she just pull away? Why does she have to cling to a tree that is causing her pain? I must read on to find out...

 

[Heliotrope]

Tizania clung to the thick trunk of The Muster Tree. Soggy leaves screened her from the throbbing hum of the gathered crowd. Her heart thumped. If she hid here, perhaps the sorcerer might skip her until next year? What were the chances? Nil, nil and none again. Not with her luck. Jelly fingers barely suctioned her to the tree. What if she possessed magic? Her kind of healing wasn’t considered magic, was it? She despised magic but the fact no one had been chosen at a Syphon Day ceremony in twenty years did not prevent a multitude of panicked butterflies popping in her stomach.

Just for fun, though, I'll write it out totally objective, Hemingway style Equally as good (I LOVE Hemingway. Just different. Note, you still need to add in the hook of the pain, but in a different way).

Tizania clung to the thick trunk of the Muster tree. The sharp, jagged bark dug into her fingers and she thrust them into her mouth. They tasted of blood. She whispered a prayer and her skin stitched itself back together. The pain dissipated. Soggy leaves screened her from the throbbing hum of the gathered crowd. Her heart thumped. Beyond the leaves the sorcerer scanned the gathered people, eyebrows furrowed. A thin sheen of sweat had gathered on his brow, staining his blue hat a deep violet. He waved his arm at the people impatiently, releasing a shower of glowing sparks. In unison they separated, giving his flowing robes a wide path. Tizania closed her eyes.

 

[FifthView]

Just for fun, though, I'll write it out totally objective, Hemingway style Equally as good (I LOVE Hemingway. Just different. Note, you still need to add in the hook of the pain, but in a different way).

Tizania clung to the thick trunk of the Muster tree. The sharp, jagged bark dug into her fingers and she thrust them into her mouth. They tasted of blood. She whispered a prayer and her skin stitched itself back together. The pain dissipated. Soggy leaves screened her from the throbbing hum of the gathered crowd. Her heart thumped. Beyond the leaves the sorcerer scanned the gathered people, eyebrows furrowed. A thin sheen of sweat had gathered on his brow, staining his blue hat a deep violet. He waved his arm at the people impatiently, releasing a shower of glowing sparks. In unison they separated, giving his flowing robes a wide path. Tizania closed her eyes.

I think this isn't entirely objective. You had challenged me to try a purely objective version, but I thought I might not be able to, heh. This is because it's so, so easy to slip in non-objective narration by accident, and also I'm not 100% on board with what might be considered a break in the objective POV.

Basically, you are on the right track, although I'm not sure we are on the same wavelength re: a cinematic POV. I think Orson Scott Card used that term, but I haven't actually read what he had to say about it, heh. So I've equated it to Objective, mostly because when I think of watching a movie, I think about how information is relayed to me. Most of the time, that info is only what is in the observable (sight and sound.)

So someone who is feeling pain caused by rubbing against rough bark....we can only know that pain if the director shows us something that will lead us to believe the character experiences pain. She might jerk her hand back, wave it fast, look at it, and the camera will then focus on her palm, showing bloody scratch marks. These are observable things, objective things.

In your example, here are the places I think you might have broken the objective POV:

• They tasted of blood.
• The pain dissipated.
• Her heart thumped.
• impatiently
• giving

The thumping heart is iffy for me in this case. Technically, it is an objective fact, because hearts beat. But can anyone else in the world, sans magical abilities, not lying against her skin, not using a stethoscope know it is thumping? (Is it observable?) And besides, why not say that it beat? Why thump? That's giving a subjective interpretation of what it's doing, or at least comes across (for me) as the author trying to give it more meaning (describing her internal, emotional state) in a tricky way, heh.

The same sort of personal experience, subjectivity is being used in the taste of blood and the pain dissipating.

Impatiently is a subjective evaluation. Now, I think it's true that moviegoers can interpret behavior to infer an emotional state; but the objective delivery is the actor making those moves and expressions. That's what we see.

I'm a little on the line with "giving" also. Maybe they aren't giving him anything but instead are being terrified he'll unleash those sparks upon them if they don't get out of the way, heh. Giving interprets an emotional state or a mental orientation, something that's not observable. So, not objective. In unison they separated, and he walked between them would be the objective delivery? (And giving those robes a path?)

In objective narration, you can still give subjective info...by objectifying it! Heh, silly use of term, there. Basically, you can make it objective by putting it into dialogue: "Damn, this jagged bark hurts," Tizania said. The content of the speech is subjective, but the speech itself is an objective thing, something anyone within earshot can hear. (Relating this back to MRUs, this also means that M can be someone saying something in dialogue, to which the POV character reacts.)

Think of it like you, as the writer, are the director of the film. Do you want your movie to start out with the camera focussed on the girl's back as she clings to the tree? Or do you want to give the audience a face right away? An expressive face, showing some emotion? The emotion acts as the hook, or the microtension. Something the reader can cling to. Too often, when I see objective writing it is like a dark figure in a dark room, saying some dialogue or thinking about some distant backstory. There is no face, or emotion or sense of place or time.

Well, I suppose there is bad objective narration and good objective narration. An expressive face can be given in prose, a muttered curse, sudden tears, whatever.

The girl is maybe wincing. Or cringing. Leave that up to the reader because exact specifics of what it looks like don't really matter to the story at large. All that matters is that she is trying to ignore the pain of the bark on the tree...

Can't quite agree with you there. This would mean all movies are basically failures. But there are different ways of delivering the same info. The wince, the waving of the hand, the bloody marks are delivering the reality of the pain to the reader. We could just as easily tell the reader, Tizania felt pain. Or we could show them a scene of what is happening and allow them to make that mental leap. I like the fact that you used ignored in your first version, because this adds other information about her personality; and, you phrased it so that the pain itself became an objective reality. Tricky, tricky. But you could show her placing her hand back upon the bark, maybe placing her other hand too, and pressing against it to give the same info of ignoring the pain.

Edit: But a lot of the above is going off topic, maybe. I'm curious to know whether a purely objective narration can nonetheless create a sense of closeness, but I'd mentioned it mostly to contrast with what you do, the way the subjectivity can create a feeling of closeness. Plus, although I said I trend a little away from subjectivity, a little more toward the objective, this doesn't mean I know how to write pure objective narration well, heh, and I don't even try. But I don't use subjectivity like you do, or not as much of it.

 

[FifthView]

Addendum: But now, minutes after leaving the abstract above, heh, the thought has occurred to me that your not-quite-pure version of the objective narration is much closer to what I do than your very close and subjective first version, heh. Takes me awhile, sometimes, to see what's staring me in the face.

 

[Heliotrope]

No, it's bloody hard for me to write purely objectively lol! Probably impossible. I know that it is common for writers to be "warm" (subjective) and "Cool" (objective). We are on opposite ends of the spectrum perhaps. I think it is possible for an objective (cool) writer to be very close... Hemingway is the example I typically use. His works make me feel things that I know are inherently "real" and "true" and yet he never exposes emotion on the page. He does however, write almost totally in first person, and he often does explicitly write out thoughts.

 

[Rkcapps]

Fascinating discussion I love it

Back to POV, nothing distracts me more as a reader as when I read published authors who "head swap" throughout a scene. I find the story harder to follow. I've seen it done so many times, I deduce agents mustn't mind if the story is strong enough. Makes me think, "just get the story out" but I do wonder why the "head swap" wasn't edited out in later drafts. Someone has clearly made a call of story v rules. I prefer to the sticking with one character per scene but if a story (as a reader) takes me beyond that, I admit, I'll follow the story.

Much the same applies with objective v subjective. I'll read either - in order to go on story's journey. I'm easily pleased! There comes a point when we, as writers, must find the niche of our story. And we each eventually find our own niche, but this discussion makes me focus and realise I fall into half/half. I like the objective (in that I try focus and describe what the characters' see or hear) and the subjective (because I like to tie an emotion to the objective state to connect with the reader on an emotional level). You've both helped me see that. Thanks!

With the heart thumping, I'm trying to capture that moment when your heart beats so loud in fear that you hear it. Like the moment you lie awake in bed, hear a noise and you think someone who shouldn't be is in the house. My heart thumps - and races (I've had lots of these moments! Invariably my imagination!). Couldn't that be considered objective? Or perhaps "thumped in her chest"? except that makes me feel I'm telling and I should leave the reader to infer, don't you think? Or perhaps that simply boils down to personal preference?

Ignored is a tricky choice. I see that now and see your point FifthView. I wonder it's more a voice thing. I'm going to have to ponder on that. Do I edit out my voice but stay true to show v tell? I'm finding more and more that words ending in "ed" sound alarm bells in my head that I may be telling and I may need to edit the telling out in a subsequent draft. I lean more toward the rule because I'm still at a stage of my writing where I need to abide by rules not break them.

Much food for thought