Employing "he felt" tells and distances the reader.
On the surface, that would seem like a contradiction. Surely, employing "felt" indicates the POV as being firmly in the consciousness of the character "feeling" or experiencing.
True enough, but it does so by telling or summing up what the POV character is experiencing rather than dramatizing it. To show is to dramatize as if the events are happening as we read them. POV is indicated by the details and sensory data included in the dramatic retelling of the events. As has already been suggested, adding sensory details, such as "warm" or "sticky" more clearly indicates that we are in the character's POV dramatically sharing his experiences as he senses/feels them than telling us what he felt.
Maybe it will help if I offer a different example:
"He tasted blood and knew he had bitten his lip."
This sums up or tells the reader. As pointed out, employing terms such as "felt" or "watched" or "tasted", etc. may appear to fix the POV firmly but in fact, they filter the drama out of the situation by summing up. Consider this version:
"He resisted the urge to spit, swallowed and tried to ignore the salty, coppery tang of blood. Stupid to bite one's own lip, but he would not cry out, would not so much as groan."
The sensory details, "salty, coppery" and the act of swallowing rather than spitting firmly fix the reader in the character's POV. Even if I had not added a bit of conflict with the additional refusal to cry out or groan, the first sentence dramatizes/shows rather than the summing-up/telling of my original example.
Whenever possible, employ active verbs and sensory details to dramatize and in so doing, you can firmly indicate POV as well.
© 2000 Dave Swinford.
