Showing Every Single Movement

You have to leave stuff out. Detailing every single move is almost certain to turn people off, and is unnecessary. For me, I like to use the movement details more as a way to create space and rhythm, or help with mood, rather than for the sake of letting the reader know every exact motion, if you know what I mean.

Agreeing with Jeffo.

Detailing every movement would be tedious for both you and readers.

Use movements, descriptions, etc to show what's important, illustrate depth of character--did he toss the plate in the drawer or set it down just so? Did he wash it first? Inspect for smudges/water spots? Notice the drawer sticking when he tried to close it?

Also useful for breaking up dialogue, so the scene doesn't read like reading a script with no direction--but not so much the reader forgets what was said last.

If the grabbing of the plate and/or the act of placing it in the drawer is of no importance or significance - don't mention them.

fourthing everyone else. Only show the important details. If the way he grabs the plate is important, show it, otherwise just say he put the plate back in the drawer.

A lot depends on the reason for the action. Which is more important, the plate, the distance from the table to the drawer or the movement of him in the room during a conversation? I know this was just an example, but it's something to always be conscious of. Movement and actions should have some purpose to the plot. Does the character even need to be in the room, or is it an afterthought--"After he put away the dishes, Bob went to meet Sue." The reader sort of needs to know that the dishes were cleaned up, but only sort of. It ties the reader to the character and makes him/her more likeable. However, if that particular plate is important for some plot point, such as it later goes missing or is back on the table when the character returns to the room, then the reader absolutely needed to watch for themselves, in the text, that it was put in the drawer.

Only you can decide whether it's important, and why. But if you put it in the book, the reader expects there to be a reason for it.

And as an aside--try to limit or entirely avoid parenthetical insertions like you use in the second example. They can feel to some readers like the character is speaking directly to them. Readers are like voyeurs. They don't like to be noticed staring at the people living their lives on the page.

ETA: cross posted with a number of others, but will leave my comments stand.

I agree with Cathy C - if you mention it, the reader will automatically assume it has some significance. Character actions are a bit like Chechov's gun in that sense - if an action is painstakingly described, the reader will always be wondering why we needed to see it in such detail, and be looking for deeper meaning. If there is no deeper meaning or plot significance, it is likely to make them feel annoyed.

I like little character actions, but as stated above, only if it adds to the story. I do think certain little 'human' actions can build character. So, like maybe your MC almost drops the plate because he's nervous, or he sees his reflection in it and is reminded what a slob he is, or he sees a chip in it from the time Nancy came over and they had a wild night--but Nancy doesn't come over anymore. HTH!

Please leave stuff out! It would get far too tedious if you didn't.

I try to leave out everything "everyday", unless my point is to specifically put forth the emotion of just another humdrum day. That only lasts a couple lines at most.

I can't imagine any story that would need to show someone putting a plate away, to use your example, unless the plate had significance.

Lawrence Block calls detailing too many movements "taking the D train".

In his example, a character is going to take the D train downtown. Some new writers will have the character get up, shower, brush his teeth, get dressed, walk to the train station, buy a ticket, on and on. But if nothing important happens along the way, it's better just to say, "I/He took the D train downtown.

Without knowing context, though there may be none because you may have just made up this sentence as an example, it's always good to see how much movement yu can cut. You have to ask yourself why you even have to mention that is is putting the plate back in teh drawer? Does it even matter to the story? Is something else, even thinking about something relevant, happening at the same time?

If it is needed, can yu write it as simply as, "He put the plate back in the drawer"? Readers will understand that he had to go over to the table and pick it up first.

I'm going to jump on the badwagon.

When it comes to mundane actions, cut them down to only the bare necessities. That doesn't mean you never show a character brusing their teeth or painting her nails. It means you only show those things when the actions are important for some reason - foreshadowing, character development, plot, etc.

i.e.
If the exact nature of how he puts the plate away foreshadows something he will later do when he strangles his mother, then show each step. Otherwise, he puts the plate in the cabinet and you move on.

Editors call that "stage direction" and it is not advised.

One of my favorite pieces of writing advice may come in handy for judging the importance of those directions and whether or not to include them. If a passage is weak/blah/dull, make the sentences accomplish more than one task. So, rather than just showing an action, make it show characterization, or foreshadowing, or tie in the mood of the scene.

Of course there will be a utilitarian need for explanation sometimes. But they're frequently not needed at all. I find that too many stage directions can suck a writer into this downward spiral where they feel like they HAVE to explain what the character is doing, because they said earlier that Character was sitting, but if he walks across the room, then they have to explain that he stood up, and then if he looks a certain way at the Other Character they want to make it clear that Character did not whisper across the room but that he was actually still close to Other Character...etc. etc.

Dig a little deeper to capitalize on what you're really trying to accomplish with those directions (such as create a mood or tension). They'll probably lead you to stronger details. Like the characters standing so close that Other Character's breath fogs Character's glasses, and he can smell the drink on her breath. That's probably more exciting than: left stage, right stage, squat, jump, wiggle eyebrows, frown, furrow eyebrows, scratch head, jump! Ten reps this time!

I tend to have a lot of that in my first drafts and have to go edit it out. Readers make the leaps without even thinking about it.

ETA: I think it can be revealing when you're dealing with characters' proximity to each other, and the stuff it can show about the relationships.

I still try to make the actions have some meaning. If two women are talking in the kitchen and one sits there drinking coffee but the other one can't stop working and just talk, her actions show her character, and though they may be mundane, I have to keep her moving.

SuspiciousCookie said:

Thanks everyone.
How about using actions like that to interrupt dialogue? Since dialogue should contain a little action every once in a while, especially in a particularly long conversation.

Click to expand...

I often handle this by simply feeling for these breaks. If I'm writing dialogue and the flow calls for an interruption to the dialogue, I'll try to add something that gives the reader a sense of the characters...how they are spaced, what/if any important actions they are taking. I usually never have two people talking in the middle of a room with nothing else going on for this reason. They are usually seated at a table with props around them, or in a car or in a room with an environment they can interact with. That way I can say things like the following example

"I don't know why you wear yellow shirts," Amy says, her eyes narrowing behind the clothes rack. "You look way better in cool colors."

If I took 'behind the clothes rack' out, it wouldn't change anything except the visual of where Amy is standing in relation to this setting.

But, I think there are times when dialogue is improved by not adding any interruption, like in the following example

"You were here the whole time?"

"Yeah..."

"Why?"

"I--was waiting for you. I missed you."

There are a lot of back and forths like this one that work fine if they are quick lines of dialogue that work fine in my opinion without interruption.

Only if the action is relevant and meaningful.

If it's a 'particularly long conversation' maybe the dialogue should be more focussed, shortened or tightened, but.

there's plenty of situations where there could be excellent dialogue with relatively little movement.

SuspiciousCookie said:

Thanks everyone.
How about using actions like that to interrupt dialogue? Since dialogue should contain a little action every once in a while, especially in a particularly long conversation.

Click to expand...

If you describe a plate in Chapter One, it needs to be fired in Chapter Three. Or something like that.

Using small actions to break dialogue is a very good thing. Otherwise, dialogue can quickly become talking heads, and talking heads are boring. Read how you're favorite writers use small movement and action to break up their dialogue. Be it a hand gesture. a sip of coffee, a frown, etc., it's what makes the speaker a whole person, rather than a talking head.

If the movement is important, detail it. Otherwise, it isn't really necessary. You don't want to get bogged down in excessive choreography.

I take into account how important the move is, but foremost how fast I want the reader to read that part. If I want the action to seem slow, I detail a lot. If I want a fast reading and fast action, I just leave some things out.

I think it's a good idea to show every movement when you need to slow the scene down.

You have to think in terms of pacing. If she's happy and everything is fine, those movements aren't too important unless you're trying to show us an aspect of the character in that way. Like you show how she digs because she's an awesome gardner or something. And you can do it only once in awhile, don't bore your reader.

And you need to slow down tense scenes. If she's about to disassemble the bomb or her fingers keep slipping with sweat as she tries to open the door because the murder is right behind her...........yup, sometimes tension calls for the ol' slow down.

Read your favorite authors so you can learn to judge these things properly.

Leave movement detail out unless it's actually important to what is happening. When I first started writing, I detailed everything. If the character moved, I noted it. Now, I only note actions unless they carry some sort of relevance. The level of detail the description of the action gets depends on how important and complicated what they are doing is.

James makes a good point though. In dialogue, throwing in some actions can make the world of difference. It breaks up the monotony.

I use detail to manipulate emotional distance. If a scene has an emotional impact on a character, I show how they're doing things so that it reflect their emotions. If it's not as important, I pull back and gloss over the details.