What is this called?

[Serena Casey]

Okay, all you experts out there—what do you call it when the narration includes the thought process of the character but it's not written as a thought because it's not really the way they would have thought it? You're confused already, I can tell. :) You might call it bad writing, I don't know, but I have seen this technique in books I've read.

I don't really know how to explain what I'm asking, but there's an example below. The italics are his actual thoughts, obviously, but is it considered acceptable for the narrator to ask the other questions, but not really as the narrator?

For the next week and a half, he wrestled with the terrifying, invigorating idea. Am I nuts? She’s married, probably has several kids, and most likely wouldn’t be overjoyed to see me, considering how I left things. Maybe she would even decline to see him. He didn’t think he could take that. But if he did see her, what on earth would he say? ‘Hi, my girlfriend says I need closure. Reject me again so I know it's really over’? Or should he just go with the innocuous ‘Happened to be in the area, just wanted to say hi’?

The reason I don't want to change those questions and comments into his actual thoughts is that I don't think it's realistic for him to think the whole paragraph consecutively or in those exact words, know what I mean? I'd appreciate your comments, if you understand my convoluted question.

[maestrowork]

That sounds like author's intrusion to me. I have seen them done before, and I always find them annoying. Not my cup of tea.

[Tish Davidson]

I find the changes between thoughts and narration here awkward. But you could try something like this

For the next week and a half, he wrestled with the terrifying, invigorating idea. Am I nuts? She’s married, probably has kids, and would be appalled if I showed up, considering how I left things.

He took the pot of overcooked spaghetti off the stove, drained it, and added some sauce straight from the jar. (or some action to show he is distracted) Even though he was normally a picky eater, he barely notice the cold sauce, as his thought kept returning to the woman. Maybe she'd refuse to see him. That would hurt. But what would he say if he saw her again? ‘Hi, my girlfriend says I need closure. Reject me again so I know it's really over’?
The point I'm trying to make is to break up his thoughts with action that show that he keeps worrying the thought, keeps coming back to it, letting it distract him, instead of interrupting his thoughts with narration about his thoughts.

[PeeDee]

You know, generally when my characters think something, it's just worked into the text. I don't italicize and do it as actual internal dialogue.

Example:

"John entered the bedroom and stretched out full-length across the bed. He barely remembered to take off his jacket, and it was only the threat of his wife yelling at him for messing it up which motivated him. Certainly, he was too tired to take off his shoes. He wondered if she would yell at him for that too, and then decided that it wouldn't matter if she did, it would just blend in with the general yelling that seemed to emenate out of her these days."

---

See what I mean? I just work it into the text. That's my preference.

(I almost want to take that just-made-up-paragraph and go write a story based on it....)

[Serena Casey]

Thanks, all. Tish, your idea seems like a good way to break it up to solve the "consecutive" issue, although I still need to figure out how to put things in words that the characters would actually use in their heads. Thanks for the suggestion.

The only problem with working it into the text as you do, PeeDee, is that I would be saying "He wondered" or "She wondered" way too often. I know there are other words I could use instead of wondered, but I still think it would be distracting.

The problem is this book is more of a character study, if I'm using that term correctly, than it is plot-driven. The MCs' thoughts and worries and fears are what it's all about, really, so I feel like I need to write their thoughts as such.

Thanks, maestrowork, for your two cents as well. Good to know. :)

[PeeDee]

The only problem with working it into the text as you do, PeeDee, is that I would be saying "He wondered" or "She wondered" way too often. I know there are other words I could use instead of wondered, but I still think it would be distracting.

Well, yes, if you did that every paragraph, it would get pretty exhausting. :)

[RG570]

I think it's just personal preference. I don't think it's going to ruin a book if it's not overused, just like any one device.

My current book is full of them. I personally like them. Italicized thoughts draw my attention too much and I find it easier just for the narrator to pose these questions. I've read quite a few good books where the author has used this device quite liberally.

[zornhau]

Well, for what it's worth, Dwight Swain calls it a Sequel- a non-scenic passage in which the character makes a decision, with the odd detail thrown in, but no sustained action.

Robin Hobb uses this to bring her castle to life: Fitz wanders all over the complex it while pondering his next move etc.

For what it's worth, IMvHO, you still have to tell it as a story, rather than a short essay. The example you give would make a great flashback as he stands at her door plucking up courage. However, if you want to show him making the decision, you need to be more linear that - have him too wired to stay still, so start rebuilding his old car... ring his mum... agonise... get drunk... and suddenly 2.5 weeks have passed.

[Inkdaub]

You know, generally when my characters think something, it's just worked into the text. I don't italicize and do it as actual internal dialogue.

Example:

"John entered the bedroom and stretched out full-length across the bed. He barely remembered to take off his jacket, and it was only the threat of his wife yelling at him for messing it up which motivated him. Certainly, he was too tired to take off his shoes. He wondered if she would yell at him for that too, and then decided that it wouldn't matter if she did, it would just blend in with the general yelling that seemed to emenate out of her these days."

---

See what I mean? I just work it into the text. That's my preference.

(I almost want to take that just-made-up-paragraph and go write a story based on it....)

This is my preference as well.

[zornhau]

This is my preference as well.

Why bother with the "He wondered..."? How about just....
Would she shout at him? Would the aliens come? Heck! He reached under his bed. The Dessert Eagle was where he'd left it, nestling next to his combat knife. But, would it be enough?

[jules]

I agree with zornhau. As long is it's obvious that what you're doing is reporting the POV characters thoughts, and as long as it's obvious which character has POV, then tags like 'he wondered' etc are really unnecessary. Think of it like dialogue; they're only necessary to avoid ambiguity. Most of the time, it's clear what's going on, so you don't need them. My suggestion is this: Use them the first few times to let the reader get used to reading the character's thoughts, but then slowly drop them out. It'll be much smoother that way.

[maestrowork]

If I understand the original post correctly, Serena was not talking about the characters' actual thoughts.

For the next week and a half, he wrestled with the terrifying, invigorating idea. Am I nuts? She’s married, probably has several kids, and most likely wouldn’t be overjoyed to see me, considering how I left things.

-- this is the character's thought in italics

Maybe she would even decline to see him. He didn’t think he could take that. But if he did see her, what on earth would he say? ‘Hi, my girlfriend says I need closure. Reject me again so I know it's really over’? Or should he just go with the innocuous ‘Happened to be in the area, just wanted to say hi’?

-- in this case, it's not really the character's thought, but the narrator's hypothetical question, describing the character's thought process but in the narrator's voice, but not the character's actual thought.

The author is walking a fine line between POVs -- it's really the narrator's POV (asking a question: What would Jesus do?) disguised as the character. To me, that's author intrusion, as in:

He waited for her. But would she wait for him? She probably would, but he might ask, "What would I do if he was twenty minutes late without a phone call?" He would probably flip.

[Susan Gable]

The author is walking a fine line between POVs -- it's really the narrator's POV (asking a question: What would Jesus do?) disguised as the character. To me, that's author intrusion, as in:

He waited for her. But would she wait for him? She probably would, but he might ask, "What would I do if he was twenty minutes late without a phone call?" He would probably flip.

No, it's not author intrusion. Author intrusion is when something pops up that the POV character couldn't know. (Behind the bushes, two men lurked, but she didn't see them. -- Well, if she didn't see them, then we can't know about it.)

The POV character can ask questions in her head. I ask questions in my head all the time. Did the boys actually clean up the kitchen, or when I go downstairs am I still going to find a mess? Will my friend call me, or leave me hanging on Friday night, as usual?

This is just internal dialog done a different way (the italics method) and used a lot. Some books call for more internal dialog than others. (Chick lit comes to mind for being heavy on internal dialog.) The thing about internal dialog is that you don't want to overdo it. It slows things down and can interfere with moving the story forward. You need it. But like anything else, it should be applied in small doses at a time.

Susan G.

[James D. Macdonald]

I think it's called "indirect discourse." That it's internal rather than external ... well, makes not much difference.

[AnnMB]

For the next week and a half, he wrestled with the terrifying, invigorating idea. Am I nuts? She’s married, probably has several kids, and most likely wouldn’t be overjoyed to see me, considering how I left things. Maybe she would even decline to see him. He didn’t think he could take that. But if he did see her, what on earth would he say? ‘Hi, my girlfriend says I need closure. Reject me again so I know it's really over’? Or should he just go with the innocuous ‘Happened to be in the area, just wanted to say hi’?



IMHO, with regard to the first italicize sentence (and I believe you have italicized for our benefit?), you shouldn't switch from third person to first person (i.e. For the next week and a half, he wrestled with the terrifying, invigorating idea. Was he nuts? She married . . . and most likely won't be overjoyed to see him, considering how he left things.") With regard to the second italicized sentence, I don't see a problem--he is quoting his own internalized self-conversations, something we do inside our own heads every day, i.e. he is rehearsing inside his head the words he will say, so the switch to first person is appropriate.

Truthfully, I like the effect; it kind of personalizes the character, makes him more real.

[Serena Casey]

This is a very interesting discussion. Thanks for your responses.

If I understand the original post correctly, Serena was not talking about the characters' actual thoughts.

For the next week and a half, he wrestled with the terrifying, invigorating idea. Am I nuts? She’s married, probably has several kids, and most likely wouldn’t be overjoyed to see me, considering how I left things.

-- this is the character's thought in italics

Maybe she would even decline to see him. He didn’t think he could take that. But if he did see her, what on earth would he say? ‘Hi, my girlfriend says I need closure. Reject me again so I know it's really over’? Or should he just go with the innocuous ‘Happened to be in the area, just wanted to say hi’?

-- in this case, it's not really the character's thought, but the narrator's hypothetical question, describing the character's thought process but in the narrator's voice, but not the character's actual thought.
Exactly the question, maestro; thanks for describing it better than I could! :)

I don't always want to report the character's verbatim thoughts because I've sometimes used words or sentence structure that they wouldn't use. So I do it in the author's "voice," also in part because I was trying to break up too many of their verbatim thoughts chained together.

Anyway, for the actual thoughts, I have done what jules suggests early in the book: Tagged the first few and then slowly stopped.

IMHO, with regard to the first italicize sentence (and I believe you have italicized for our benefit?), you shouldn't switch from third person to first person
Actually, it wasn't for your benefit, but the sample I used was exactly as it is in my book: italics are actual thoughts, nonitalicized questions and statements are not.

It does sound like this is sort of a personal preference thing...? I guess I need to weigh the possibility of alienating some readers against the fact that it seems to come naturally this way and make the narration a little more casual and real, at least to me.

Thanks for all your ideas.

[maestrowork]

No, it's not author intrusion. Author intrusion is when something pops up that the POV character couldn't know. (Behind the bushes, two men lurked, but she didn't see them. -- Well, if she didn't see them, then we can't know about it.)

I am not sure that's it, unless we have different terminologies. What you described is a POV violation -- or omniscient. When a narrator describes something that the POV character can't observe or know, it's just a POV switch.

What I consider "author intrusion" is when the author inserts himself or herself into the narrative. The narrative voice is clearly that of the author, and not of the character (or even the "invisible" narrator).

In Serena's case, it's hard to determine whether it was the character's thought, or whether the author/narrator is commentating. This could be a problem in 3rd limited, and the effect is subtle but present.

For example, considering the following is in Sam's POV:

Sam waited for Linda. He glanced at his watch again and sighed. He'd been waiting for an hour already. He considered himself a patient man. But what is wrong with women anyway? They're always late. Sam was an idiot to wait. He must really love Linda. He kept waiting and was relieved when Linda finally showed up.


From "But what is wrong with women.... Sam was an idiot..." to "... He must really love Linda" is author intrusion. It's not the character's POV. It's not narrative. It's a commentary by the author. Yes, author intrusion involves POV violation, but it's not the same thing, IMHO.

[scarletpeaches]

Internal monologue. As long as it's not, as maestrowork touches on in the post above, the dreaded 'telling' rather than 'showing'. "Sam was an idiot," and the like - He was, she is, he felt, she knew...

[pdr]

Stream of Conscious writing? As done by Virginia Wolfe?

[Inkdaub]

Why bother with the "He wondered..."? How about just....Would she shout at him? Would the aliens come? Heck! He reached under his bed. The Dessert Eagle was where he'd left it, nestling next to his combat knife. But, would it be enough?


Oh yeah, I like this as well. I think it's about establishing perspective.

[Flapdoodle]

Why bother with the "He wondered..."? How about just....Would she shout at him? Would the aliens come? Heck! He reached under his bed. The Dessert Eagle was where he'd left it, nestling next to his combat knife. But, would it be enough?


Yeah, this is what I do...