'I asked you a question,' Judd said again.So, opening the paragraph we have where Judd is standing and a brief description of what part of his body is showing us his anger. Next, we have Mick's pov description that Judd is handsome (this begins as a tell - but is qualified). Then we have a straight forward description, but again it's brought back to Mick's pov. We learn what Mick sees in Judd's features. And then we have Mick's thoughts, his weighing up of the situation, of Judd. Which brings us back to character, giving the reader some concrete emotion to link in with, with Mick
Mick looked round. Judd was standing the far side of the car, his brows a knitted line of burgeoning anger. But handsome; oh yes; a face that made women weep with frustration that he was gay. A heavy black moustache (perfectly trimmed) and eyes you could watch forever, and never see the same light in them twice. Why in God's name, thought Mick, does a man as fine as that have to be such an insensitive little shit?
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
... at least that's the point I've been ignoring all this time. In Barker's short story In The Hills, The Cities, we have a great example of this. Prior to this excerpt we've had no description of the characters bar their psyche, arguments, and pov: