Let's face it...
In fiction, faces have a habit of moving around on their own
The Snarky Editor has a thing about wandering body parts. She admits it. In fact, she finds it hilariously painful to contemplate when faces, and feet, and fingers, and eyes, go walkabout. It happens so often that frankly each separate body part could fill a column…
I looked over and saw a familiar face walking toward the counter.
The Snarky Editor respectfully points out that faces can’t walk, because they don’t have legs. This author would have been better off to stop with I looked over and saw a familiar face.
Norbert’s phone rang, and looking at it, his face scowled.
Well, the expression on his face was a scowl, yes. But in this construction, the face seems to have a mind of its own. Better to say, Norbert’s phone rang. He looked at it and scowled.
I noticed a familiar face walking towards me.
Repeat after The Snarky Editor: Faces can’t walk, because they don’t have legs. It could be a familiar person, a familiar figure, a familiar man… There are so many choices that DO have legs.
The identical faces of Tilly and Gunny came through the door first.
Leaving their bodies behind, the Snarky Editor suspects. Because while a couple of faces would likely fit through a door at the same moment, if they’re still attached to bodies, Tilly and Gunny probably took turns passing through the narrow opening.
I turned to see several familiar faces running towards us…
Aaaand, just as faces can’t walk, they also can’t run.
After that, The Snarky Editor needs a break from faces, so let’s move on to wandering mouths:
… until the table was filled with eating mouths and casual conversation…
Oh. My. Goodness. The Snarky Editor can hardly bring herself to go there. But of course, being the professional she is, she will throw herself into the breach for the sake of her loyal readers…
The mouths could certainly eat and talk (hopefully not at the exact same time), but what happens to the food if only the mouths are at the table? Did the stomachs go out for lunch somewhere else?
The Snarky Editor comes out of hiding occasionally to comment on the awkward, silly, and sometimes hilarious editing errors found in published books.
#snarkyeditor #everybodyneedsaneditor
Leigh Michaels is the award-winning author of more than 100 books, including historical and contemporary romance, non-fiction books about writing, and local history. More than 35 million copies of her books are in print in 27 languages and more than 120 countries. She is also a writing coach and book editor, though she promises to be snarky only in regard to published books.
To find out more, check out https://leighmichaels.com
Oh, interesting question -- the difference between "toward" and "towards." They're both correct, and the major difference in usage is American English (toward) and British English (towards). No idea why, any more than I understand "theater" vs "theatre" or "color" vs "colour" or "got" vs "gotten", but that's a subject for an entire post sometime.
Usually "toward" is used in more formal situations while "towards" sounds and feels a little more casual. There's also a very subtle distinction between direction and emotional response -- He moved toward the street vs. Her feelings towards him had developed over time. But technically either usage is correct, in either of those sentences.
You sent the Snarky Editor down a very interesting rabbit hole this morning, and I learned something. My first instinct was to say that "toward" is standard English and "towards" is a regional, non-standard usage, and I was wrong. The horror! :-)
That was a lot of fun! One of your examples also showed something like "the familiar faces walked towards us." I've often wondered why they use towards in Britain, but never in North America. Do you know the reason?