The Proper Way to Write Character Thoughts?

If it's that much internal, you may want to consider changing the point of view.

What I usually do is something like this:

What I don't understand, she thought, is why he's so lazy.

or I'll do

She didn't understand why he was so lazy.

Though personally I think it's often better drama if she can say her thoughts to someone, thereby eliciting a reaction and revealing more about the relationship.

So there's my 2 cents.

How close is the third? I'm not a fan of setting aside thoughts like that, so depending on the way the narration is done I like to just throw them in. If they flow well enough, it tends to be obvious (to me anyway) when something is a direct thought. Third makes it a little more difficult than first, but I've done it there, too.

If I have to do it and set it aside, I do it with italics only.

I try to avoid "she thought"s, too. Just for flow or distance reasons. I try to phrase it so you don't need it: "She wondered if..." or I italicize a very direct thought: "My God, he's an idiot."

There is nothing wrong with adding the "she thought," btw. It's probably just a style choice.

Using italics and the tag he/she thought is rather redundant IMHO. I mean, the italics show it's an internal thought and then the tag just makes it overkill.

Why is the story is 3rd person instead of first if the entire story is based on the experiences of a single character. 1st person would draw the reader even closer to the character than 3rd and there would be little confusion on who is thinking what...

Just my 2 c.

ETA: crosspost.

^^^ Agreed! Italics or tags. My example only has the quotes for the grammar of my sentence, btw. No quotes when you italize thoughts, either.

ETA: First is certainly interesting, but 3rd is cool, too! You can follow one character in 3rd.

Mine's omni, btw. A whole 'nother can o' worms

Proper way? There is no proper way.

The two guidelines are:

1) You should not confuse the reader.
2) You should be consistent.

Personally, I am not a huge fan of tags or italics. I like it when thoughts are interwoven into the rest of the narrative. So that you can get into the character's head while also seeing the world.

For third person, I like italics.

"What I don't understand," she thought "Is why he's so lazy."

Click to expand...

This is a matter of personal preference, but I think "What I don't understand" is an odd way of thinking. I can see it being used if the character is telling us the story, but if it's just the thought of one of the characters being revealed to us, it should be presented in a way that reflects how that character thinks. I'd shorten the whole thing to Why is he/are you so lazy?

geekyMary said:

If it's that much internal, you may want to consider changing the point of view.

What I usually do is something like this:

What I don't understand, she thought, is why he's so lazy.

or I'll do

She didn't understand why he was so lazy.

Though personally I think it's often better drama if she can say her thoughts to someone, thereby eliciting a reaction and revealing more about the relationship.

So there's my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

I agree - narratives written about one focal character in my experience require a lot of secondary relationships to fully develop their personalities without coming off as overly fake.

-- If you are asking, 'How do I show the character's thoughts in the manuscript?'

Narrative that talks about the character's thought is treated as any other narrative:

Susan was afraid of rats, having met many of the four legged variety in her rich and interesting travels.

Meredith pulled the hem of her dress from the widening pool of blood, thinking about forensic evidence.

If you wish to give us the exact words the character is thinking, you do this in Internal Monologue. This is represented in the book as Italics. It is cast in First Person, Present Tense. Thus:

I hate rats. I'm scared of them, too. Susan had met many of the four legged variety in her rich and interesting travels.

Meredith pulled the hem of her dress from the widening pool of blood. Let's not leave any forensic evidence.


Internal Monologue is represented in the manuscript in either Italics or with underlines.
No one who assesses the publication possibilities of your submitted manuscript will care which you choose.
I prefer underlines. They are easier to see. When the manuscript goes to publication, this pleases the copyeditor and the proofreader and everybody else involved.


-- If you are asking how much Internal Monologue you should add to the story and whether you should be dwelling upon thoughts rather than, say, action or dialog . . .

Write out the entire first draft. Think about the emotional impact you're getting with what you're doing. Look at the pacing. Find some good betas. Get opinions.
There is no general formula for how 'internal' a book should be.
There is only what works.

If you use, 'he thought', the first time you insert Internal Monologue, you will tell the reader that Italics=Internal Monolgue. After that, the reader will know and you do not need to say, 'he thought', again for Internal Monologue.

When you are dealing with narrative of the character's thinking process, you do not need to intervene with phrases like 'she thought'. 'she believed', 'she knew', 'it was obvious to her', 'she held the opinion that', 'it occurred to her'. You can just put in the thought. I mean -- it's obvious who is having the thought. It's obvious that it is a thought.

In the same way you don't have to say, 'she saw', 'she looked at', 'she noticed', 'she smelled', 'she felt'. Because you are in POV. it is crystal clear who is hearing or smelling or feeling.

She heard a bird begin to sing on the bush outside. Looking to the right, she saw Rory's eyelids twitch. She thought he'd be awakening soon. She knew she'd have to explain how they ended up in bed together. But in her heart of hearts she was aware there were no good explanations.

versus

[A bird began to sing on the bush outside. Rory's eyelids twitched. He'd be awakening soon. She'd have to explain how they ended up in bed together, wouldn't she? There were no good explanations.

Removing all that unnecessary direction to the reader puts us more deeply in the POV character's head.

job said:

Internal Monologue is represented in the manuscript in either Italics or with underlines.
No one who assesses the publication possibilities of your submitted manuscript will care which you choose.
I prefer underlines. They are easier to see. When the manuscript goes to publication, this pleases the copyeditor and the proofreader and everybody else involved.


-- If you are asking how much Internal Monologue you should add to the story and whether you should be dwelling upon thoughts rather than, say, action or dialog . . .

Write out the entire first draft. Think about the emotional impact you're getting with what you're doing. Look at the pacing. Find some good betas. Get opinions.
There is no general formula for how 'internal' a book should be.
There is only what works.

If you use, 'he thought', the first time you insert Internal Monologue, you will tell the reader that Italics=Internal Monolgue. After that, the reader will know and you do not need to say, 'he thought', again for Internal Monologue.

When you are dealing with narrative of the character's thinking process, you do not need to intervene with phrases like 'she thought'. 'she believed', 'she knew', 'it was obvious to her', 'she held the opinion that', 'it occurred to her'. You can just put in the thought. I mean -- it's obvious who is having the thought. It's obvious that it is a thought.

In the same way you don't have to say, 'she saw', 'she looked at', 'she noticed', 'she smelled', 'she felt'. Because you are in POV. it is crystal clear who is hearing or smelling or feeling.

She heard a bird begin to sing on the bush outside. Looking to the right, she saw Rory's eyelids twitch. She thought he'd be awakening soon. She knew she'd have to explain how they ended up in bed together. But in her heart of hearts she was aware there were no good explanations.

versus

[A bird began to sing on the bush outside. Rory's eyelids twitched. He'd be awakening soon. She'd have to explain how they ended up in bed together, wouldn't she? There were no good explanations.

Removing all that unnecessary direction to the reader puts us more deeply in the POV character's head.

Click to expand...

Some EXCELLENT advice. The only thing I might disagree with is the necessity for italics for internal monologue. Many editors feel it is redundant for the same reason that "she thought" is redundant. Who else could be thinking it. But italics won't hurt either if the writer is more comfortable using it, in my opinion.

It's something that will be worked out in respect to the house style once it is sold anyway.

Pretty much anything works. Quotations can confuse, even when tagged with a "she thought", because you sort of start to read it as speech and then get that taken away.

I personally enjoyed the method used in Ender's Game -- it's close third, and every once in a while a thought will break into the narrative; you know who it is. Example:

The boy was feeling exactly the pain Ender had meant him to feel. Null gravity had betrayed him, that was all. I am Peter. I'm just like him. And Ender hated himself.

I guess that can be easy to screw up, because if it goes on too long it's just a jarring shift in point of view, but otherwise it's the same to me as writing dialogue without constant tags. The reader knows who's speaking, so why waste words?