The more I think about it, the more it seems to boil down to whether or not the emphasis is on the act of sensing, rather than on the object being sensed. I think if you include sensory words such as "to see", "to hear", "to know", "to realize", etc., you are drawing attention to the *act* of sensing, rather than to what is being sensed. Probably just fine if that is the intention.
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Earl Borah <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Nat Russo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But how do you avoid these types of constructions in internalization? > When > > a character is internalizing they *know* stuff. They *realize* other > > things, and then they *decide* to plow on through to the next scene. On > > occasion they even <gasp> see or hear things :) > > Don't tell me "Joe was thinking about this when he realized that and > decided to do this thing." > > Have Joe review what he knows with a friend, the friend ask him a > question that lets him give his "Aha!" moment verbally, and then they > can decide together. At least, that's one way to do it. > > I just read the beginning of another book where the author has to have > the inevitable "In case you're just joining us, we're going to review > what happened in all the other books of the series, without boring the > longtime fans to tears" section. He does a good job - not just > recounting the events, but having the character reflect on his > feelings about those events and how those feelings are affecting him > right NOW. He doesn't have to "realize" anything after that - just > look up, and declare the thing he just "realized" as an important > truth. > > Anyway, that's a non-author's perspective. Your mileage may vary, > valid at participating retailers only. > > -- Sent from my Crappy Laptop (tm) using a poor excuse for a web browser.
