Britva415
"Alabaster," my ass
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2022
- Posts
- 7,306
I'm glad you said this and I'm going to springboard off of it into an extension of what I was saying before:I see it as part of characterisation
I don't think it's characterization if one only describes the action/motion/physical appearance of the reflex. If one only "quirks" the character's eyebrow without making clear that it's like you said: When they feel this way. When they're reacting to that specific type of irritation. Or amusement. Or uncertainty. Or attention. Or whatever. Who even knows!
That's not characterization - especially if there isn't any pattern. It would be characterization if the author made clear what the pattern is. I'm a even go as far as to say it's still characterization if there is a pattern and the author doesn't lampshade it, but they instead simply leave it to the reader to figure out the pattern over repeated applications.
It's a problem when the pattern doesn't become clear or the pattern doesn't exist: When dingus quirks an eyebrow in twenty totally different situations and the reasons are only inside the author's head and they don't spell out what the character is experiencing which leads to that reaction, or they don't even know, it isn't characterization, it's caricature.
I'm really hammering on this because it's so prevalent that it's a cliché. "Dingus quirked their eyebrow" is literally an empty cliché. It's empty because very often it's executed exactly like I described above, and it's a cliché because it really is very, very often.
Note: "Dingus" is never the character's name, but it usually is how I wind up feeling about the author who puppeted such character.