Can we talk about inactive action?

Devil Ledbetter · Feb 24, 2012

Maybe there is already a term for this; if so, please enlighten me. I coined this term to cover all of the small things characters do (or don't do) that aren’t really action so much as they are bodily reactions, infinitesimal movements, the making of faces, eyeball movements and the non-act of refraining from doing things.

I'll limit the measuring stick to anything a character could manage to do within the confines of an MRI machine. Or, for those of you not familiar with that particular claustrophobic torture, anything one could manage to do within the confines of a severely undersized coffin.

Bodily reactions

Blushed/reddened/cheeks heated
Chill up/down spine
Shivered
Trembled
Heart pounding/beating widely/fluttering
Stomach clenching/churning/doing somersaults or other intestinal gymnastics
Sweating

Infinitesimal movements

Shifted
Glanced/glared/looked/squinted/gazed/rolled eyes/blinked et al
Stirred
Twitched
Quirked
Bit lip
Winced
Sighed
Breathed in/took in a breath
Breathed out/let out a breath

Non-movements

Resisted/fought/held back the urge to
Fought or held back a reaction
Hid a grin/frown/wince etc.

I will give you that these things are certainly needed sometimes. It's their overuse that's really starting to stand out for me. Maybe it's getting overdone as we attempt to write in very close POV and "show" everything. Maybe I'm crazy and the only person getting bugged by this stuff. But I hate getting to the end of a scene and feeling like nothing happened other than characters made faces at each other and resisted small urges and weathered involuntary bodily responses and intestinal gymnastics. Too much inactive action becomes pointless filler and sludge in the gears of a story's forward motion. That's getting to be my opinion, anyway.

It seems like the amount of inactive action needed in part depends on the type of story. I'd expect to see less in an action novel than in a romance. Romance, particularly, seems to be laden with this stuff as the POV character notices every minute twitch and quiver in herself and in her love interest. Even so, it can get cloying pretty quickly. I start to feel like I'm trapped in the MRI machine with the twitchy character.

The bodily reactions, particularly, can be easily overdone. When something terrifying is happening, it might be a go. But on a daily basis, how often does the average person really blush or get a chill up their spine or find their heart pounding wildly? Even when something terrifying is happening, the person with the wildly beating heart may be too wrapped up in, say, escaping the terror-inducing stimuli, to contemplate her shivering spine or sweating palms.

Worse, too much involuntary bodily response can make the character come across as a basket case, a bundle of raw nerves twitching and sweating and wincing and trembling at even the smallest things. Another problem is these inactive actions can become quite repetitive resulting in the scenes feeling too similar as the same minor responses are repeated. No matter what the characters are doing, in every scene someone will shiver, someone will glance, someone will blink, someone's stomach will clench, someone will sigh, someone will draw in a breath someone will wince … and at the end I'll wonder if that isn't the 10th time I've read the same scene.

Another thing it can do to characterization is make the POV character seem intensely self-absorbed. Those who report their every blink and sigh would be considered boors. I don't think it's much different for characters in novels. Likewise, if we're obviously noting every tiny movement of someone else, we can come across as kind of creepy.

I've really started to watch for inactive action when editing my own stuff, and others' too. When I spot it, I stop and ask what it's doing there and whether enhances or detracts from a given scene. Usually it's not adding anything worth adding.

Do you notice inactive action in your own writing? In books you read? There must be some other frequently used involuntary responses and minute gestures that I've not listed here. Can you add to the list?

Have I lost my mind?

Celia Cyanide · Feb 24, 2012

In acting, I have studied micro-expressions, little facial movements you make to convey emotions. It is so subtle that it helps with the line delivery. Most people don't even notice it's there. The problem is, when you describe something like that in a novel, it's no longer subtle. And it's hard to justify describing something like that when most people don't even notice when they see other people doing it.

SomethingOrOther · Feb 24, 2012

Mr Flibble · Feb 24, 2012

No, you haven't lost your mind.

I think what gets me about these things (and I'll hold my hand up and say, yes, I probably have overused them at one time or another. *smacks wrist*) is that they are so often used in a predictable manner that doesn't add anything. I find I use them when I'm being lazy (or if I write when I'm too tired)

It's like with details for instance - we often say use the telling details, rather than bung in everything. We should also only use the telling movements/actions/reactions.

What I mean is, say 'He winced'. Now if the scene is 'He stubbed his toe and winced'. Meh. It's an expected reaction. If the scene is 'His wife said how much she loved him, darling, and he winced' - now that is a more telling/revealing inactive action, because it's not expected.

I also think, when something along these lines is really needed (and it is, sometimes) then it can be reworded so it's at least more interesting.

So it's not their use that bugs me so much, as the fact they could be used so much better.

ETA: Holy cow, that's a typo and a half! lol.

MAP · Feb 24, 2012

This is a good post. And I've been thinking about similar things a lot lately.

When I (a real person) is scared or angry, I never think about my physiological response. I'm too focused on the moment to notice my heart racing or that I'm trembling. It is usually after the threat had passed that I notice these things.

But in reading and in my own writing, heart racing seems to be the first thing that comes up when someone is scared or threatened.

I think it is because we are told to show the emotion, and most of us, including myself, tend to go to showing the physiological response to the fear or anger, but really I think we should show the thoughts instead. What is the person thinking and feeling internally at the time.

This is something I'm still working through, so I'm glad you started this post. I'm curious as to what others have to say.

RichardGarfinkle · Feb 24, 2012

These do get overused.

I suspect their common use is close to the problem of unmoving characters in puppetry and animation where lack of motion looks strange.

I think that the big problem comes from the idea that writing should be visual (which it isn't). People think that characters need description. What they need is presence, a sense in the mind of the reader that the character exists and is taking part in the action.

While actors can use small actions to imply things about their characters this does not work as well in writing since the small action takes up the same amount of writing space as a big action.

e.g.
He dabbed his mouth with a handkerchief.

and

He summoned Cthulu from the vasty deeps.

MoLoLu · Feb 24, 2012

Very interesting thread. Great OP too, got me thinking about how I describe some scenes and what can be done to bring a point across.

MAP said:
I think it is because we are told to show the emotion, and most of us, including myself, tend to go to showing the physiological response to the fear or anger, but really I think we should show the thoughts instead. What is the person thinking and feeling internally at the time.

Agreed and disagreed.

I think there are times where noting the reaction is a bad idea. I also think there are times where it adds more. The art's probably determining which one to use when.

Three stupid examples:

The hunter stalking his prey is going to be focused on that. He'll notice his hand's shaking as he draws the string and the arrow trembles.

Someone who finds a penguin in his living room is more likely to wonder what on earth that penguin's doing there (or run away) than notice that his eyebrows furrowed or whatever.

The guy who's just told his wife he wants divorce is likely to notice her reaction. Reason: He's looking at her and not doing it himself. He can't see in her head. Maybe he'll wonder how she reacts but he'll also be watching for her reaction.

Devil Ledbetter · Feb 24, 2012

I thought of another one, gritting her teeth.

I agree with Celia that it's no longer subtle when it's written down. And speaking of acting, maybe part of the problem with the eyeball movements and facemaking is relying too much on visuals, as though the story is a TV program. Perhaps this is is only tangentally related, but I notice many SYW entries fail to adequately set the scene and/or leave out all senses except vision.

I also agree with Idiots that these gestures/responses are needed at times, but usually when they're not expected/assumed.

Somethingorother, that image is hysterical. :ROFL:

If that typo isn't enough to make everyone run screaming from the notion of ever using "shifted" again, I don't know what would be.

Map, I thought the edict to "show" everything might be where all of the heart racing came from. Again, nothing wrong with heart racing per se, as long as there is sufficient justification for it. Where there is not enough to justify an extreme bodily response it can make the character seem like an emotional wreck.

Devil Ledbetter · Feb 24, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
While actors can use small actions to imply things about their characters this does not work as well in writing since the small action takes up the same amount of writing space as a big action.

e.g.
He dabbed his mouth with a handkerchief.

and

He summoned Cthulu from the vasty deeps.

I think you've nailed a big part of the problem, right there.

Charlie Horse · Feb 24, 2012

Great post Devil. I blame this trend entirely on our obsession with the phrase "show don't tell." Yes, we do need to show how our characters react to a situation such as fear and try to avoid writing a line like "He was scared to death" (both telling how he felt and using a tired cliche). But inventing involuntary bodily movements is nearly as bad.

Bringing this up, however, made me think of a single line addition I just made to a book I've considered complete for quite some time. In submitting the first 20 pages I was skimming them one last time to see if maybe I needed to put a last minute polish on it and I added the line in bold:

At that moment he knew what must be done. Standing up and grabbing her by the hand he proclaimed, “Then I will free you.” A bold move to be sure, but one she didn’t resist.
“I have no doubt you will.” She smiled even bigger, staring at the point of their contact. “But first several things must occur.”

To help you understand it's significance, the character speaking the line is named the Untouchable One, who is basically the daughter of God. She's the one creation God has kept for himself, who has now fallen in love with my MC. In my mind, this is a small gesture that is natural and improved the scene by about 1000 percent. So like all writing tools these small gestures do have a purpose, and like all writing tools they fall flat when overused.

Modog814 · Feb 24, 2012

Totally agree. Personally I don't have too many problems with the infinitesimal movements or non-movements, but I know I'm a huge culprit in those bodily reactions. And that's despite knowing this and consiously trying to avoid them.

Also in my first drafts alot of my characters end up speechless

RichardGarfinkle · Feb 24, 2012

Charlie Horse said:
Great post Devil. I blame this trend entirely on our obsession with the phrase "show don't tell." Yes, we do need to show how our characters react to a situation such as fear and try to avoid writing a line like "He was scared to death" (both telling how he felt and using a tired cliche). But inventing involuntary bodily movements is nearly as bad.

I've always hated "show; don't tell." Writing is not a visual medium. It descends from the oral art of storytelling. When arguing show don't tell, I tend to replace it with, "tell, but tell well."

Devil Ledbetter · Feb 24, 2012

Charlie Horse said:
In my mind, this is a small gesture that is natural and improved the scene by about 1000 percent. So like all writing tools these small gestures do have a purpose, and like all writing tools they fall flat when overused.

I absolutely would not want writers to quit using these things altogether. It's a judgment call as to whether they're needed. 1000% increase in scene effectiveness is a metric I can get behind.

I have a scene where a character is overwhelmed by stage fright. He ends up in the bathroom with the runs, and everyone is furious with him for ruining the gig. In his case, I pushed his bodily reactions over the top, to the point where it actually mattered to the story.

BethS · Feb 24, 2012

I lump all that under what I call "stage business," which includes not only body language and intestinal gymnastics, but things like picking up or setting down cups, turning, standing, sitting, whatever. It's the stuff that writers use to fill in the corners around the dialogue. Sometimes it can be good and useful, and when artfully done, it's known as underpainting, and can include all manner of incidental, brief, but interesting description.

But in the hands of learning writers or poor writers, body twitches and the like can take over like crabgrass. I prune it ruthlessly when it starts showing up in my work.

gothicangel · Feb 24, 2012

Devil Ledbetter said:
I have a scene where a character is overwhelmed by stage fright. He ends up in the bathroom with the runs, and everyone is furious with him for ruining the gig. In his case, I pushed his bodily reactions over the top, to the point where it actually mattered to the story.

I suffer from an severe anxiety disorder. If you are writing about a character who suffers from such a disorder, panic attacks are purely physiological in effect [and psychologically triggered.] Although I would point out, for him to have such an effect, he would have to be exposed to the stress for a prolonged time [I also suffer from IBS, and the effects are akin to gastro-entritis style symptoms.]

RobJ · Feb 24, 2012

Yeah, I think in some cases it's inexperienced writers trying to show too much, and sometimes perhaps people confusing movement with action.

Mr Flibble · Feb 24, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
I've always hated "show; don't tell." Writing is not a visual medium. It descends from the oral art of storytelling. When arguing show don't tell, I tend to replace it with, "tell, but tell well."

Indeed. I also think these generic inactions are often telling rather than showing (imo), and sometimes rather hamfistedly at that. Instead of telling us what the characters body is doing, show us what the feeling is making the character do. (I think...I'm working this out as I write!)

I'm trying to think of how to show (HAH!) what I mean.

Okay, like this. In one of my books, a character is faced with the woman he loves being pretty much dead. I could say that grief choked his throat, or he cried or...I could 'tell' you what his body is doing.

Instead he blunders about, tries to open a door, can't understand why it won't open (it's locked), tries to open a window because he has to have air and when he can't, punches the glass out. I try to show the grief in his actions. Not in what his heart is doing, but what he is doing.

Writing something 'visual' isn't the same as showing, not when you get to the nitty-gritty of it.

Talltree · Feb 24, 2012

Insightful

RichardGarfinkle said:
These do get overused.

I suspect their common use is close to the problem of unmoving characters in puppetry and animation where lack of motion looks strange.

I think that the big problem comes from the idea that writing should be visual (which it isn't). People think that characters need description. What they need is presence, a sense in the mind of the reader that the character exists and is taking part in the action.

the small action takes up the same amount of writing space as a big action.

e.g.
He dabbed his mouth with a handkerchief.

and

He summoned Cthulu from the vasty deeps.

This is very insighful input and I think one that will have a profound input on my writing.

I find myself using words (verbs) such as :
glared
sighed
shifted
jerked
twitched
bit lip

show vs tell was the motivation. However it didn't feel right , like I was showing anything. or maybe it did not not show enough or felt very generic and impersonal. All of them were - when I notice , reactive verbs - a characters reaction to a cause .

I don't know the technical term for it, but inactive action is as good as any - forgive me , I'm a novice and don't know the writers' jargon.

But you're right, while I do want my writing to be visual, a half dozen words can be used to show a small or big action and in a movie I'd rather watch my characters being dynamic and acting on something rather than twitching and flinching in reaction everytime someone surprises them, if you know what I mean.

Even a half dozen words can convey so much and I'll be more mindful now of how I can convey more meaningful action and emotion - pack more punch in less words.

Thanks for the insight - it proved to be timely for me!

Captcha · Feb 24, 2012

I tend to use them when I'm trying to avoid too many dialogue tags, or when I need a break in a long speech by a character.

I agree that they can be overused, but I'm not sure what to use instead of these tools, for those purposes. Ideas?

RobJ · Feb 24, 2012

Captcha said:
I tend to use them when I'm trying to avoid too many dialogue tags, or when I need a break in a long speech by a character.

I agree that they can be overused, but I'm not sure what to use instead of these tools, for those purposes. Ideas?

Said?

Mr Flibble · Feb 24, 2012

RobJ said:
Said?

Is a dialogue tag which he wants to avoid?

If you need a beat, try to make it unique. Fit the character (or at least the narrator's voice)

Generic is boring. Give a bit of interest. Something a bit different.

Buffysquirrel · Feb 24, 2012

Much as I would like to disagree....

Try again, fail better? For me part of it definitely is the search for those beats that stop the page being endless dialogue.

Captcha · Feb 24, 2012

Yeah, as a dialogue tag, "said" works. But there are times when, despite conventional wisdom, it really doesn't seem invisible, at least to me. I'm thinking especially of times when more than two people are speaking, so you need to identify the speaker, and when the lines of dialogue are short, so that the "said" would actually be a significant proportion of the text. eg.:

"We need to do something," Andrea said.
"I know," Bryan said.
"We all know," Chris said.
"The problem is figuring out what to do," Bryan said, "And then finding a good way to do it."
"Something that doesn't get us all killed," Chris said.
"Yeah. We need to do something like that," David said.

To me, those "said"s are not at all invisible. Replacing at least some of them with small actions seems like a viable solution, and maybe that's one of the justified times for using this technique?

I also don't think "said" works to break up a long speech. I mean, it works once, but you can't keep attributing the dialogue, not when you've already done it. So for me, the micro-actions are useful there, too.

Are these just cases where it's good to use micro-actions, or are their substitutes?

sol_ · Feb 24, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
I've always hated "show; don't tell." Writing is not a visual medium. It descends from the oral art of storytelling. When arguing show don't tell, I tend to replace it with, "tell, but tell well."

Yes, yes, yes. And great post, OP! Very insightful - and useful - post. Food for thought.

RobJ · Feb 24, 2012

Captcha said:
Yeah, as a dialogue tag, "said" works. But there are times when, despite conventional wisdom, it really doesn't seem invisible, at least to me. I'm thinking especially of times when more than two people are speaking, so you need to identify the speaker, and when the lines of dialogue are short, so that the "said" would actually be a significant proportion of the text. eg.:

"We need to do something," Andrea said.
"I know," Bryan said.
"We all know," Chris said.
"The problem is figuring out what to do," Bryan said, "And then finding a good way to do it."
"Something that doesn't get us all killed," Chris said.
"Yeah. We need to do something like that," David said.

To me, those "said"s are not at all invisible. Replacing at least some of them with small actions seems like a viable solution, and maybe that's one of the justified times for using this technique?

Sure. A combination of tags and beats would work fine. You might also consider how the dialogue could be restructured.

Captcha said:
I also don't think "said" works to break up a long speech. I mean, it works once, but you can't keep attributing the dialogue, not when you've already done it. So for me, the micro-actions are useful there, too.

You don't need to keep attributing a long speech when it's the same speaker. You must have come across long speeches in the books you've read? And combinations of tags and beats?

Can we talk about inactive action?

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie

SomethingOrOther

-

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

MAP

RichardGarfinkle

Second Edition and Second Laughter

MoLoLu

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,

Charlie Horse

Speaking in metaphors

Modog814

RichardGarfinkle

Second Edition and Second Laughter

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,

BethS

gothicangel

Toughen up.

RobJ

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Talltree

Good readers make good writers

Captcha

RobJ

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Buffysquirrel

Captcha

sol_

RobJ