AwkwardMD and Omenainen Review Thread

[ElectricBlue]

However, nobody uses proper nouns like this. Not ever. I would encourage anyone reading this to have this in the back of their mind the next time they are at home talking with a significant other. You will *never* use their first name in the middle of a conversation when they’re in the same room as you, and especially not when they’re making eye contact with you.

Funny, I've just finished a phone call with a work colleague where both of us addressed each other, during the course of the conversation, with our names, many times. So yes, people DO address people as Yukon writes, using their names directly, in the middle of conversations.

In my family and in my work places, I/we do it constantly - using pet names (family), real names (family and work). Even in the same room, looking at each other eye to eye, and very often in casual circumstances, those without drama.

You might not communicate with people in that way, but don't assume others don't.

 

[KeithD]

Funny, I've just finished a phone call with a work colleague where both of us addressed each other, during the course of the conversation, with our names, many times. So yes, people DO address people as Yukon writes, using their names directly, in the middle of conversations.

In my family and in my work places, I/we do it constantly - using pet names (family), real names (family and work). Even in the same room, looking at each other eye to eye, and very often in casual circumstances, those without drama.

You might not communicate with people in that way, but don't assume others don't.

Written dialogue isn't fully the same as spoken dialogue. If it were, you couldn't follow it and you'd give up trying to follow all of the repetition and sentence fragments. It's stylized and is similar to the staging of a play. What you see from the audience side of the footlights in a well-produced play in terms of set and props and costumes, isn't what you'd see if you came up on stage and looked at everything there closely. You will, in fact, throw in names more in written dialogue to keep the reader informed than you would in natural speech. The trick is to find places to drop the names in that help reader understanding but aren't intrusive enough to be jarring to the reader. In turn, normal readers won't squeeze every possible critical point they can out of a story presentation to make it seem like they are experts in helping someone make the most of their voice and storytelling abilities.

The point isn't that written dialogue does or does not faithfully mimic the way people actually speak, but rather whether it keeps the reader comfortable with the context without jarring them. Writing/reading for comprehension and speaking are not the same thing.

 

[yukonnights]

AMD, Thanks for the honest truth. Your first point about how most folks don't use proper names this frequently is something I too realized when I was writing it — I just thought I might be able to get away with it. I have one person who think it's my best story and several comments about how much of a page-turner it was they couldn't put it down. EB thinks the use of proper names frequently is normal — Ruben thinks I'm mad at him. What's a guy to do? That's why I asked for your two pence.

In general, I agree with what you've said. I'm familiar with the two character back and forth method...and used it to some degree on this one where it was easy to make clear. I just feel there must be a way to do this — just haven't figured it out

I'll have to read it over again with the head-hopping in mind. I thought I was pretty careful to keep each character in their own paragraphs...even if they were short or just one line of dialogue.

When I started writing here, it was pretty much all third person omniscient. Perhaps I'm getting bored and that's making me try for something different?

I'm not surprised by your critique, but I am thankful for the time you spent trying to help me. ~

 

[yukonnights]

Written dialogue isn't fully the same as spoken dialogue. If it were, you couldn't follow it and you'd give up trying to follow all of the repetition and sentence fragments. It's stylized and is similar to the staging of a play. What you see from the audience side of the footlights in a well-produced play in terms of set and props and costumes, isn't what you'd see if you came up on stage and looked at everything there closely. You will, in fact, throw in names more in written dialogue to keep the reader informed than you would in natural speech. The trick is to find places to drop the names in that help reader understanding but aren't intrusive enough to be jarring to the reader. In turn, normal readers won't squeeze every possible critical point they can out of a story presentation to make it seem like they are experts in helping someone make the most of their voice and storytelling abilities.

The point isn't that written dialogue does or does not faithfully mimic the way people actually speak, but rather whether it keeps the reader comfortable with the context without jarring them. Writing/reading for comprehension and speaking are not the same thing.

This is a very thoughtful comment KeithD. I appreciate your thoughts on this too.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The point isn't that written dialogue does or does not faithfully mimic the way people actually speak, but rather whether it keeps the reader comfortable with the context without jarring them. Writing/reading for comprehension and speaking are not the same thing.

MD claimed, as an absolute, that in real life people don't address each other that way, using direct names in conversation. My counterpoint was, in my family sample and a forty year work life, they do. I directly address people in conversation with their names, often, face to face, eye to eye. It's how I talk to people, and thus, is a characteristic of much of my dialogue.

I agree with you that writing dialogue often requires a different, non-real use of names to provide clarity and ease of comprehension. How a writer mixes the different conventions comes down to their individual style - I'm inclined to no single approach, but to mix it up.

Using "all tags" or "no tags", to polarize to extremes, always seems forced to me. Trying hard not to make it obvious, as Yukon has in this story, makes it obvious to me. It doesn't get in the way, necessarily, but it does make it more... contrived.

But then, I largely get by with, "he said, she replied," and keep it simple.

 

[Polyacrylate]

I'm also not used to this kind of conversation, and I find it very intense, and often intimidating. To me, it feels like it puts a very strong emphasis on whom you are addressing; to get the message clear. It can also be intense in an affectionate way, but to me, it would be nerve-wracking.

I notice that salespersons I work with repeat my name regularly during conversations and bid meetings and the like. I suspect that when they do it, the intent is to send a subtle or subliminal message that they remember/value/need me as more than just a sale... that they are a salesman I can trust, because the "know" me. It feels very disingenuous to me, but then I'm something of a cynic

I've only read the first page of Yukonnights' story (I do plan to finish it later), but my initial impression is that, were I Anna, I would be wondering what Sandi was trying to sell me. Of course, that's me. My own personal experiences, let alone preferences, are hardly universal. YMMV.

It could be worth considering why you chose this or that sentence or line of dialogue when one character says another's name mid-conversation. As Keith says, dialogue isn't necessarily supposed to be real, but maybe think about where you place names, or maybe speak the exchange out loud to see if it feels cumbersome or not.

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

MD claimed, as an absolute, that in real life people don't address each other that way, using direct names in conversation. My counterpoint was, in my family sample and a forty year work life, they do. I directly address people in conversation with their names, often, face to face, eye to eye. It's how I talk to people, and thus, is a characteristic of much of my dialogue.

I agree with you that writing dialogue often requires a different, non-real use of names to provide clarity and ease of comprehension. How a writer mixes the different conventions comes down to their individual style - I'm inclined to no single approach, but to mix it up.

Using "all tags" or "no tags", to polarize to extremes, always seems forced to me. Trying hard not to make it obvious, as Yukon has in this story, makes it obvious to me. It doesn't get in the way, necessarily, but it does make it more... contrived.

But then, I largely get by with, "he said, she replied," and keep it simple.

Anecdotally, similar to EB’s point, some people do use proper names casually; for example, my SO and I call each other proper names as pet names all the time.

Same sex scenes can make dialogue more difficult. I’d imagine we’ve all run into this problem and I’m likewise impressed overall at how yukon handled it.

I think AMD’s points are applicable here. I’ve only read the first two pages of yukon’s story and will finish the rest later. IMHO, some uses of proper names worked, such as Anna telling Sandi she needed to get out of the cold shower spray. But I agree that many uses were jarring.

To me, it had to do with the set-up and the overall tone: in such intimate settings as one’s own home, shower and bed with one’s own girlfriend, it seemed incongruous that they needed to keep referring to each other by name. Likewise, it seemed blunt edged against the flowery lyricism of the rest of yukon’s descriptive writing. It seemed stilted to read descriptions of how intimately and admiringly Anna knows Sandi’s body paralleled with dialogue in which they address each other formally.

 

[yukonnights]

I really do appreciate you guys/gals for digging into my experiment. I was discussing this thread and responses/comments with the person who really likes it earlier. When I mentioned that the repetitive use of proper names was 'jarring' to most who gave feedback, she said the use of the names bugged her for the first few pages but after that she didn't notice it.

I guess that's both good and bad; On the one hand, it's nice to think a reader gets used to it. On the other hand, and probably more importantly, if most readers are like me they'll back out of a story they don't like in the first page or two.

It's kinda hard to know why people like it or dislike it too; could be she likes the idea of two pretty women in bed together, or maybe it's the pretty women dominating the guy later on???

I'm not abandoning the style. But I do think it isn't ready for prime time yet. (is there an easier hobby anyone can suggest maybe I should start collecting buttons or something?)

 

[Bramblethorn]

Funny, I've just finished a phone call with a work colleague where both of us addressed each other, during the course of the conversation, with our names, many times. So yes, people DO address people as Yukon writes, using their names directly, in the middle of conversations.

In my family and in my work places, I/we do it constantly - using pet names (family), real names (family and work). Even in the same room, looking at each other eye to eye, and very often in casual circumstances, those without drama.

If it's not too much trouble, I'd be interested in a transcript of this kind of conversation (fictionalised as necessary). It's not something I can recall encountering in a one-to-one discussion so I'm curious to get a better idea of how it works.

In multi-party conversations, proper nouns are useful for clarifying who's being talked to, but it sounds as if you're talking one-on-one.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I notice that salespersons I work with repeat my name regularly during conversations and bid meetings and the like. I suspect that when they do it, the intent is to send a subtle or subliminal message that they remember/value/need me as more than just a sale... that they are a salesman I can trust, because the "know" me. It feels very disingenuous to me, but then I'm something of a cynic

Oh yes. It feels like a technique, and kind of slimy.

 

[ElectricBlue]

If it's not too much trouble, I'd be interested in a transcript of this kind of conversation (fictionalised as necessary). It's not something I can recall encountering in a one-to-one discussion so I'm curious to get a better idea of how it works.

In multi-party conversations, proper nouns are useful for clarifying who's being talked to, but it sounds as if you're talking one-on-one.

Yes, one on one, on the phone - but the same thing works face to face. We're in the middle of a contractual brawl where I'm on the ground, solo, skirmishing with the key parties, and he's in head office interstate. So his first interest is how I'm holding up - so it's a personalised approach, using my name to show his concern. It's what a good manager does. I've also managed teams, so it's natural to me to address subordinates and colleagues as people, not ciphers. It's not an overdone thing, but in the course of a half hour strategy conversation, we'd each have used the other's name maybe half a dozen times, each way - to stress a point, to cover the, "Are you okay?" stuff, to sign-post a shift in topic.

I must say, reading this thread, I'm surprised at the number of people who seem to be struggling with the notion of directly addressing somebody using their name. I'm guessing (pulling a short bow because I have prior knowledge of one or two of the players), that some of those folk might also have problems holding direct eye contact when they're talking to people. And if there's one thing you know about me, if you've read anything of mine, it's always about the gaze.

Sure, over-use of name using can be snake-oil salesmanship and a deliberate thing to do, but I get the sense that quite a few folk here seem to be very uncomfortable with it.

It's a perfectly normal, day-to-day form of human interaction, in my world, at least. I don't think I'm that unusual.

 

[KeithD]

This discussion seems to be just a circle jerk around a false equivalency being posted. Face-to-face spoken dialogue, either in person or on the phone, isn't the same thing as solving the dilemma of identifying who is involved in written dialogue in a story. Just recognizing it's a false equivalency lets you concentrate on solving your character identity issues on the written page for a reading audience. Direct address is one way to solve it, as convenient--and can be used more frequently in writing, where there's no direct eyeballing and body language, than in direct spoken dialogue. Throwing it in a dialogue slug or the narrative are other ways.

But comparing it to direct spoken dialogue and whether people do/would is just a false equivalency to writing a story.

 

[Polyacrylate]

Yes, one on one, on the phone - but the same thing works face to face. We're in the middle of a contractual brawl where I'm on the ground, solo, skirmishing with the key parties, and he's in head office interstate. So his first interest is how I'm holding up - so it's a personalised approach, using my name to show his concern. It's what a good manager does. I've also managed teams, so it's natural to me to address subordinates and colleagues as people, not ciphers. It's not an overdone thing, but in the course of a half hour strategy conversation, we'd each have used the other's name maybe half a dozen times, each way - to stress a point, to cover the, "Are you okay?" stuff, to sign-post a shift in topic.

I must say, reading this thread, I'm surprised at the number of people who seem to be struggling with the notion of directly addressing somebody using their name. I'm guessing (pulling a short bow because I have prior knowledge of one or two of the players), that some of those folk might also have problems holding direct eye contact when they're talking to people. And if there's one thing you know about me, if you've read anything of mine, it's always about the gaze.

Sure, over-use of name using can be snake-oil salesmanship and a deliberate thing to do, but I get the sense that quite a few folk here seem to be very uncomfortable with it.

It's a perfectly normal, day-to-day form of human interaction, in my world, at least. I don't think I'm that unusual.

There's a big, big difference between doing what you describe - covering the how are you's, emphasizing a point, giving a directive, etc, and saying the name every third sentence when it doesn't serve another purpose. Half a dozen times in a half hour conversation that includes those points doesn't seem particularly unreasonable.

I have spent my career in a world where most of us wear fire-retardent gear with our names printed on it. The fastest way a manager, especially a new one, can get on his/her employees bad sides is to clearly let the eyes wander to a name tag while saying "How are you... Bob?" As far as salesmen, I don't necessarily mean snake-oil types. I've worked with good salespeople repping quality products and services who do this. I would guess there was (or still is) an era where salespersons were trained to do this. What I am deacribing isn't six times in a half an hour conversation; it's six times in a five minute conversation, which feels creepily intrusive to me, if not exactly snake-oily.

 

[yukonnights]

This discussion seems to be just a circle jerk around a false equivalency being posted. Face-to-face spoken dialogue, either in person or on the phone, isn't the same thing as solving the dilemma of identifying who is involved in written dialogue in a story. Just recognizing it's a false equivalency lets you concentrate on solving your character identity issues on the written page for a reading audience. Direct address is one way to solve it, as convenient--and can be used more frequently in writing, where there's no direct eyeballing and body language, than in direct spoken dialogue. Throwing it in a dialogue slug or the narrative are other ways.

But comparing it to direct spoken dialogue and whether people do/would is just a false equivalency to writing a story.

In other words both, dialogue slugs and direct speech in dialogue, are devices — tools to use. Real life conversation is not as relevant as one might think.

I'll add and say again; I think it's something a person has to get used to as they read. I'm not convinced that's a good thing. I find it difficult to rely too much on the individual unique "voices" of the characters. This is another device (tool), and worthy of more effort on my part.

I suppose it's like any tools; it helps to know which one to grab and how to use it. Despite any differing opinions, I do believe this has been a learning experience — I know it has been for me.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yes, one on one, on the phone - but the same thing works face to face. We're in the middle of a contractual brawl where I'm on the ground, solo, skirmishing with the key parties, and he's in head office interstate. So his first interest is how I'm holding up - so it's a personalised approach, using my name to show his concern. It's what a good manager does. I've also managed teams, so it's natural to me to address subordinates and colleagues as people, not ciphers. It's not an overdone thing, but in the course of a half hour strategy conversation, we'd each have used the other's name maybe half a dozen times, each way - to stress a point, to cover the, "Are you okay?" stuff, to sign-post a shift in topic.

I think I might see the issue there.

At normal talking speeds, half an hour of conversation is very roughly 4500 words, more than a Literotica page just in dialogue. If you're doing it half a dozen times each, that works out at one name-check per 375 words. I can believe that, and it probably wouldn't feel particularly weird for me.

Looking at the story AMD was commenting on, I count roughly one name-check per 30 words. At typical conversation speeds, about five times a minute. This, to me, seems very unrealistic and jarring.

I agree that AMD's "never" is overstating things, but it was in response to a story that's using name-checks more than 10x as often as the kind of conversation you're talking about.

I must say, reading this thread, I'm surprised at the number of people who seem to be struggling with the notion of directly addressing somebody using their name. I'm guessing (pulling a short bow because I have prior knowledge of one or two of the players), that some of those folk might also have problems holding direct eye contact when they're talking to people.

Speaking only for myself, and oversimplifying everything because the nuance takes too much work to articulate:

Eye contact is a distraction thing. Trying to listen to somebody while also watching their face (in a neurotypical-friendly way that's not going to be misinterpreted as glaring/leering/whatever) is like trying to listen to the radio while doing a crossword puzzle. The shallower and less important the conversation, the easier it is for me to perform eye contact - you can have my eyes or my attention, not both.

Outside certain specific contexts, using somebody's name in one-to-one conversation is an intensifier. (Using the full name even more so - if a parent addresses their kid as "Jonathan James Smith", it usually means big trouble.) It's a bit like saying "fuck" or using exclamation marks, albeit with some differences in nuance. I don't use intensifiers very often in conversation, because I focus heavily on the semantic content of speech (both mine and the other person's). If I want to convey that I'm very angry, my default is not to yell but to say "I'm very angry" without much change in tone.

So using a person's name just isn't part of my standard playbook. I'm not allergic to it, it just doesn't serve a useful purpose for me, except perhaps if I'm trying to perform emotion to somebody who's incapable of listening to my words.

Oh, I meant to add - I noticed one spot in YN's story where the name-check may have been intended as an intensifier:

"You like?" I ask.

"I love," she whispers in a rush of breath.

"I love too Sandi...I love all of you."

But because it's been used so heavily as an ersatz dialogue tag, it loses its impact as an intensifier, and its use here doesn't strengthen the line in the way that it otherwise would.

 

[ElectricBlue]

ILooking at the story AMD was commenting on, I count roughly one name-check per 30 words. At typical conversation speeds, about five times a minute. This, to me, seems very unrealistic and jarring.

I agree that AMD's "never" is overstating things, but it was in response to a story that's using name-checks more than 10x as often as the kind of conversation you're talking about.

Fair comment. I didn't do the maths on the frequency, I reacted to the authoritative absolute, which I'm happy to put down to hyperbole - and earlier, in fairness to MD, she did say it was a personal preference. But as we all know, personal preference doesn't equate to a world view . But Yukon's story? Yes, too much, and it became too contrived for me.

Speaking only for myself, and oversimplifying everything because the nuance takes too much work to articulate:

Eye contact is a distraction thing. Trying to listen to somebody while also watching their face (in a neurotypical-friendly way that's not going to be misinterpreted as glaring/leering/whatever) is like trying to listen to the radio while doing a crossword puzzle. The shallower and less important the conversation, the easier it is for me to perform eye contact - you can have my eyes or my attention, not both.

You and I are constructed, neurologically, quite differently then - but we know that already, I reckon. I'm an intensely visual person, and eye contact is the opposite of distraction for me, it's fundamental and central to how I perceive people - which is why my stories are full of gaze. And again, we're opposite - the more intense and intimate a conversation, the more likely I am to give it "my undivided attention," including gaze - which is an attribute, incidentally, that several women have remarked about me, that I give "undivided attention", and how unusual that is in a man.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Speaking only for myself, and oversimplifying everything because the nuance takes too much work to articulate:

Eye contact is a distraction thing. Trying to listen to somebody while also watching their face (in a neurotypical-friendly way that's not going to be misinterpreted as glaring/leering/whatever) is like trying to listen to the radio while doing a crossword puzzle. The shallower and less important the conversation, the easier it is for me to perform eye contact - you can have my eyes or my attention, not both.

I think that is gendered behavior. Men tend not to make eye contacts when speaking to others. Women generally do.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think that is gendered behavior. Men tend not to make eye contacts when speaking to others. Women generally do.

Maybe there's a tendency in that direction, but I think the male/female differences are less than the autistic/allistic differences. Certainly I've met men who were very uncomfortable with my lack of eye contact, considering it a sign of insincerity, and expected me to change it for their sake.

 

[Polyacrylate]

Maybe there's a tendency in that direction, but I think the male/female differences are less than the autistic/allistic differences. Certainly I've met men who were very uncomfortable with my lack of eye contact, considering it a sign of insincerity, and expected me to change it for their sake.

There's plenty of men who insist that a lack of eye contact is a sign of disinterest at best, or even intentional disrespect. I think it has a lot to do with upbringing, neurological wiring, and so on.

When trying to break me of the habit of not looking people in the eye, my father would tell stories about how when he was a schoolboy, students would get a paddling for speaking to a teacher without eye contact.

 

[KeithD]

personal preference doesn't equate to a world view

Personal preference is also what an experienced and constructive critiquer avoids at all costs in doing a critique.

 

[AwkwardMD]

RubenR - Ethiopian Dreams Ch 4 (and more)

Link

I read Chapter 4 of Ethiopian Dreams, and then I read a few pages of Dancing in Ethiopia. And then I read a bit of A Halloween Carol. And then I read about half of One Night in Bilbala.

It’s all very well written. You have your own narrative voice. You have some very beautiful descriptiveness, and some exotic locations. Your characters are very nice (and varied!), and it is patently clear that you are using your stories to show a lot of love for Ethiopia. You have a lot of great pieces here, and yet something was missing. I had to go to the bench and call in a second pair of eyes because I couldn’t figure out why I felt like that.

The word that I kept coming up was that it wasn’t “immediate”, or that it felt “distant”. I thought that maybe it was the dialog, but no. The dialog is fine. I thought that maybe it was the characters, but I can’t find anything wrong with them. They’re all very nice. All of them, in every story I picked up. Lovely.

After about a day of poking around, and re-reading, I think I homed in on it. There’s a kind of passiveness that permeates your writing, a zoomed-out take on everything, with only flashes here and there where the story zooms in to focus on the moment and what’s happening to your characters. You use this to your advantage, and add a lot of pretty, flowering descriptions to things, but it’s kind of like watching a cloud roll by. In our heads, sure, there’s a kind of pristine mental image to a cloud blowing across the sky, but the reality is much less interesting. Go outside and watch a cloud. It takes a long time to get anywhere, and it’s only interesting to retell if you fast forward through it.

In Dancing in Ethiopia, the beginning of the story sort of meanders through an indeterminate period of time. His girl leaves him, but we aren’t really present for that. It’s just something we’re told about. Having “I’m leaving you” dropped on you can make you feel like your stomach is in freefall, but the scope of that section of narrative just sort of breezes past it. We have to infer Chris’ emotional pain. Later, the narrative only drops into the moment twice when a coworker invites him out for drinks and one day when he arrives at home with his groceries and he's lonely. The decision to do something (go to Ethiopia) and the doing of that going all happen in backed-out narration.

It’s not gripping. It’s not immediate.

Gripping is a proxy emotion for “Do I care?” Am I sucked into the events? Are there consequences coming that I want to see through? I’m not suggesting that every story needs to be a rollercoaster ride of emotions, but there is room for a hook. Give us a reason to follow Alice down the rabbit hole that’s more compelling than “Oh look, a rabbit hole.”

Immediacy is a proxy for “Do I feel like I’m there?”, and this works two ways. On the one hand, you paint an extremely detailed and interesting picture of Ethiopia, so I do feel like I can visualize the location, but I’m not there with Chris in the moment, or Aster when she gets off the plane. I want to be watching over their shoulder, experiencing things as they do, and that isn’t happening.

The story that was the most complete, and the most ‘immediate’ was One Night in Bilbala, and the difference is that the “One Night In” contest forced you to narrow the scope of your story. There wasn’t as much of a wind-up to get your characters in place and interacting with each other, so you simply started there and that’s fantastic!. Then you did a fine job of introducing their backstory through dialog. You were able to do more showing and less telling. This was the stand-out piece in the stories I picked and read at random.

On the whole, though, I didn’t feel a lot of tension. I didn’t feel like there was a driving force that was actively moving the plot. Instead, we were an island in a plot river; it flowed around us, and we were witness to it. You even said yourself that chapters 1 and 3 of Ethiopian Dreams were boring, and that you only did them because you felt like you had to to set up other things. We don’t need to see those details. If it’s not interesting, don’t show it. Narrow your scope.

George Lucas famously said that he originally wrote Star Wars as three movies. The scope of them was enormous, way too big, so he took the middle movie (which was the most interesting) and he expanded that part of the story into three movies (episodes IV, V, and VI). Find the interesting part and bring us into that moment.

You’ve been writing for a while. Given the numbers I can see of yours, it seems like there’s something going on: fewer followers, lower view count, and fewer comments than I would have expected given the quality of your work (which is high). While I think it’s dangerous to put too much stock in those numbers, you can also perhaps extrapolate that there is a lower level of reader engagement going on here. I would hazard a guess that most of your non-chaptered stories (solo works) have vote counts between 20 and 50.

Chasing readers and higher scores is not a worthy goal, but I think there’s indirect evidence here that backs up the feeling I got reading these. Use what you did in One Night in Bilbala, and I think you’ll see a big difference.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Maybe there's a tendency in that direction, but I think the male/female differences are less than the autistic/allistic differences. Certainly I've met men who were very uncomfortable with my lack of eye contact, considering it a sign of insincerity, and expected me to change it for their sake.

I couldn't speak to that, it's far outside my area of knowledge. I can only comment from personal experience. When I talk to other women, we almost always make eye contact, and it tends to increase with the importance or emotional significance of the conversation. With men, I find the opposite to most often be true. The more intense the conversation the more likely they are to look off into space or down at their shoes.

I'm not making any sort of value judgement, to be clear, just observing the difference in behavior.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I couldn't speak to that, it's far outside my area of knowledge. I can only comment from personal experience. When I talk to other women, we almost always make eye contact, and it tends to increase with the importance or emotional significance of the conversation. With men, I find the opposite to most often be true. The more intense the conversation the more likely they are to look off into space or down at their shoes.

Agree - most men do that, finding distraction. Watching two women talking together is amazing, it's all hands and touch, leaning in closely, excluding the world. It's very intimate. Most men don't do that - and when women respond to me and I to them that way, it's special. I get quite envious. It's remarkable enough that I have several stories with such a scene - "undivided attention."

 

[MelissaBaby]

Agree - most men do that, finding distraction. Watching two women talking together is amazing, it's all hands and touch, leaning in closely, excluding the world. It's very intimate. Most men don't do that - and when women respond to me and I to them that way, it's special. I get quite envious. It's remarkable enough that I have several stories with such a scene - "undivided attention."

When a man looks elsewhere while conversing with a woman, is he “finding distraction” or is he avoiding distraction by not looking at her?

 

[ElectricBlue]

When a man looks elsewhere while conversing with a woman, is he “finding distraction” or is he avoiding distraction by not looking at her?

I think, generally speaking, he's finding distraction because intimacy is a little bit scary for many men, and they're not quite sure what to do with it, even when it's looking them in the eye. If they actually catch the look .

But we mustn't hijack MD's thread - which I find fascinating and insightful, always interesting. MD is very much a "constructivist" in her approach to writing, which is the complete opposite of my own approach, so these critiques are illuminating. Cudos, MD .