I have no idea why I'm interrogating you, Deb, like you're Ruth, or share the POV

I'm good with it. Hell, I'd love to see you and Ruth talk about this stuff. She calls herself a completely rational pragmatist. It's amazing she likes my books, but she does.

Huh? Pupils generally dilate in response to loss of light, don't they? Or from some other physical stimulus?

Nope. They also dilate from arousal and interest in general. One of the ways they do behavioral experiments on babies is by measuring pupil dilation when showing them different pictures.

Eyes really do grow darker when you're looking at a sexy being; the pupil dilates.

Pupils dilate with interest and arousal, and constrict with the loss of same. Sclera reddens with exhaustion or drug abuse. Eye contact is also very communicative. I don't see the grounds for absolute resistance.

They also dilate from arousal and interest in general. One of the ways they do behavioral experiments on babies is by measuring pupil dilation when showing them different pictures.

Kewl! (memo to self, to tell Ruth if she objects to a "look in the eye" thing) But even there, how would you know what was causing it? I mean as a writer or a reader?

To clarify: Lola is staring at Larry. We, the reader, are told "Lola stared at Larry, love in her eye." How is that happening? How does the author know it's love, if all she has to go on is dilated pupils?

I think that's one of the basics Ruth objects to: assumptions, we're being told not shown.

Eyes really do grow darker when you're looking at a sexy being; the pupil dilates.

On me, the comment has always been that the iris grows lighter, not that the pupil expands. I may be a freak...

I don't see the grounds for absolute resistance.

Me neither. I can see how eye expressions could be a crutch, and lazy writing (I think they're one of my bad habits), but sometimes they're perfectly useful shorthand, and all you need.

Just because eyeballs do communicate, it doesn't mean all eye-related expressions are good ones. And it's already very common (see dictionary above and makeup example) to expand "eye" in common usage past the eyeball itself.

edited because it doesn't warrant a numbered list.

I don't see the grounds for absolute resistance.

Nope, me neither. And Ruth doesn't automatically redline those; she just grits her teeth, mostly, unless the writer overuses.

It does, however, make me more careful about how and when I use those instances. I'll generally synch them up to a secondary thing to reinforce it. There's a thing in Matty, where they're first exposed to the insane glory of Charlotte Leight-Arnold, a woman with no filters and no inhibitions. Jane's met her first, Penny and Ringan pull up, Charlotte comes out and announces that my goodness, you're RINGAN LAINE, I've wanted to shag you for years, truly. And Jane, being dragged along, says something like

"Ringan." Jane's voice held warning and urgency. There was a singular look in her eye. "This is Charlotte Leight-Arnold. She's...rather a fan of yours."

So, reinforcing with voice, Ruth never glanced at it twice.

Pupils dilate in response to adrenaline, too. And in response to that eyedrop they have at the optometrist's office, which leaves me looking like a wide-eyed freak for hours and hours afterwards.

It's already very common (see dictionary above and makeup example) to expand "eye" in common usage past the eyeball itself.

It's what, the opposite of synechdoche, where the word for the part describes the whole. I don't know if that formally has a name, but I recognize its being a tool one might want to use (if sparingly).

TEP! Can we have a weekly challenge for "really really really shitty fiction" please?

You mean as a drabble topic, or a whole new ongoing weekly challenge?

I think a drabble topic. It would be nuts-making after a few weeks, but as a one-time - or maybe annual - shot? MASSES of fun.