There was this very interesting thread of videos that popped up on TikTok one time which was essentially just making fun of the way physical actions are described in, typically, romantic works. And not the sexy actions. But things like he “his eyes darkened” or “his mouth curled into a grin.” Because these are a bit silly taken out of context.
What was interesting to me were the number of people in the comment sections of these videos (and some of the video creators themselves) who seemed to genuinely struggle with either envisioning or understanding what these physicalities looked like. And I’ve never had that problem. I can see “his eyes darkened” in my head with perfect clarity.
But I’m also an actor.
I started on stage at a very early age then transitioned into voice as an adult. So while my screen-training is limited, there’s still been a lot of work done there in terms of physical acting. You actually use a lot of facial expressions and smaller body movements in voice acting, even outside of mocap. More importantly I study acting. Because I’m an actor. So I’m realizing as I read these comments I have no idea what’s “normal” in terms of how people visualize written physicalities. Do I have special knowledge that I didn’t realize I had? Is it because my brain is wired differently? Is it because I also enjoy a wide variety of different visual mediums?
That sent me down a spiral of okay where is this disconnect happening because I started seeing it as a two-part situation. You have being able to visualize and realize the physical acting but then you also have the language we’ve developed to describe these physical acts. And the latter is a bit of a learned skillset.
Let’s say we go back to our “his eyes darkened” example. One interpretation I’ve seen is that this is in reference to pupillary action. That his eyes literally darkened due to his pupils going wider in arousal. While that’s certainly a reasonable interpretation, it presumes that this constellation of language is literal. It also sort of forgets that it’s used in a few different kinds of narrative contexts that one single physiological reaction wouldn’t necessarily cover. And I daresay it’s way more common to see this phrase as a shift in facial mood. A combination of head tilt and eye movement. The latter is how I’ve always seen it, and I can point to specific film references. But as it stands this expression remains unclear among readers, so how did the written language of books evolve to spit out this specific phrase to note this specific tonal change in facial expression? Especially if we’re not in agreement, at the end of the day.
But this is a decidedly ambiguous phrase. What about others within this group of descriptions? “Chewing her bottom lip” should seem straightforward. It’s a gesture of worry that, in this case, is actually pretty literal. It’s rolling the bottom lip between the front teeth. “Looking up/down through their eyelashes” is an interaction between head tilt, eye position, and lid drop where the character is quite literally looking through the curtain of their eyelashes. It implies a sultry or shy expression, often with the added detail of a height difference. These seem very straightforward on the surface. At the same time, I’ve also seen people express confusion over what these phrases are supposed to mean.
We can only conclude, from this, that this language is simply not nearly as universally effective as it seems on the surface. But that, of course, raises the question of why?
If you come across a passage involving an action that confuses you, what’s the first reaction? If you’re confused by lip chewing, for example, do you attempt to sort out what lip chewing is meant to be by pressing your teeth to your lips? Is that enough to put the pieces together of what that expression is supposed to look like? What if you don’t, personally, perform this action when you’re worried?
I’ve seen a very long conversation (connected to these same threads) about glasses. Namely, what does “pushing them up their nose” mean. A glasses wearer like myself knows what that means immediately, but, sure, maybe someone who doesn’t would have to take a moment to consider the intricacies of the action.
Even in these scenarios, though, we’re still faced with an interesting question. Has our hypothetical confused reader (a model built on forum and social media posts) never seen anyone perform these actions? Because most if not all of these textually described actions are part of the broader language of physical expression. Even if their real life exposure was limited, movies and TV shows and animation and illustration all use these exact same cues in the visual space.
So where in this assembly line of meaning are people getting lost? If it’s a matter of simply learning the linguistic code around body language, perhaps it can be chalked up to inexperience with written text. But if the language can’t be parsed on its own, it fails to serve its intended purpose. If this group of readers simply aren’t able to make the connection, then is there anything to actually do about that? Is it fixable? If it’s fixable, what does that “fix” look like?
Or, is it possibly a symptom of a media education and literacy environment that doesn’t properly cross-pollinate between text and visual mediums?
Pixels and Pins Studio 