“Gawking” is phrasing which puts an unnecessary layer between the reader and the action. If a character sees, watches, or hears another character or an event in the story, then that character is screening the reader’s view of what’s happening.
The scene starts with:
Out for an early morning stroll, Sean was the first to notice the fire in the old barn.
For the second sentence, we have two choices:
- He saw the leaping flames and smelled the acrid smoke.
- Leaping flames sought to devour the building. The air was harsh with acrid smoke.
In the first option, the reader is seeing Sean see the flames and smell the smoke. In the second version, the reader directly sees the flames and chokes on the smoke, instead of experiencing it second hand through Sean.
The first example is not incorrect. Many popular writers would express it that way. If you want to engage the reader deeply, the second example will be more effective. This is especially important when you are writing in an intimate point of view, in which we know the character’s every emotion and sensation.
Gawking words like heard, saw, smelled, realized, knew, understood, watched, looked are sometimes called filter words or distancing point of view words. Gawking wording filters the experience through a character instead of letting the reader have the experience directly. They distance the reader from the action in the story.
This is not about the sense words heard, saw, smelled, realized, knew, understood, watched, looked, etc., as such. These words may occur as part of direct action, in which case they are not gawking.
Gawking is when a character gets between the reader and the action.
Compare:
- Ben saw the men fighting.
- “I was there. I saw those men fighting,” Ben said to the police officer.
Both examples use saw, sometimes a gawking word, but only the first is gawking. The second is direct action with no character between the reader and the action. In the first example, the action is the men fighting and Ben gets between the reader and the action. In the second, the action is Ben’s action in reporting the crime he saw.
Another way of distancing the reader from the action is the use of the word could.
Lucy saw the speeding car is more direct and compelling than Lucy could see the speeding car. The could is unnecessary. Again, using could is not “wrong.” Omitting it makes tighter writing and a more immediate experience for the reader.
It’s important not to blindly make a “rule” against the words themselves. They are valid and useful words, as such. When aiming for tight writing and an intimate point of view what’s important is creating a sense of immediacy, not mechanically avoiding certain words regardless of context.
Rosie Russell
Thank you for this great article.
I use a program called “Pro Writing Aid.” It does a wonderful job kicking out words not needed. It tells you when vague words are used, when to show, not tell, etc.
Any suggestions on programs you have used?
Thanks again,
Rosie
Marie Brack
Thank you. I have used Grammarly and Autocrit. They both have significant advantages, but also weak points. The writer’s good sense always has to have the final say. I’ve benefited from Natural Reader. It reads my document out loud, allowing me to hear when I’ve typed if but I meant to type it or is. The little things that my eye skips over unless it’s read aloud.
Claire Matturro
Yes, an excellent piece, direct and on point, and helpful. Thank you. I’ve also heard the phrase “deep point of view” to refer to the non-gawking way of writing, which puts the reader right in the scene directly.
Marie Brack
Deep point of view makes a story emotionally engaging, and gawking will interfere with that. Something I try to remember is that not all stories are intended to be deep, intimate, or emotional. Sometimes gawking is the way to go. It depends on what the author is trying to do.
Niki Kantzios
I like your flexibility. It’s a good idea to be aware of when one gawks… but never say never! Sometimes the perceiving is what you want to stress.
Marie Brack
Yes! Sometimes we want to see by way of a character. “Never” and “always” are too strong for any creative endeavor. “Limit” instead of “avoid.” “Rarely” instead of “never.”
Ken Pelham
I knew the principles but had never heard the term “gawking” to describe it. Thanks for a well-done piece!
Warren
Thanks for the tip. You point out an easy trap all can fall into.