Just a little Blog today but something that I was thinking about, as in ‘thinking.’ The thing, as they say that defines us,”I think, therefore I am” according to to Descartes. I even quoted that once when I was critically discussing my story I Am Wolf from the Gentle Footprints book. In that context the story deals with identity, a young girl allegedly raised by wolves who can only see herself as that and not the humans that abandoned her. I delved, for those that might have the slightest interest, into the psychology of self-actualisation; the realisation of potential. In fact in the story it’s the rather flawed and lost reporter, who makes a connection with Volchitsa the wolf girl (female wolf) relating to abandonment and in the end envying the connection the child at least has to something. Get to the point Debz, you say, but yes what is this thing we call thinking.
And thinking is really the essence of everything, including fiction. Right?
So what technique do you, as a writer, use to transfer thoughts into fictional narrative. How do you represent what your character thinks? I hope the answer is — the whole narrative.
While you will now bombard me with examples of texts that do what I am about to tell you not to, I have to say when I read things like: ‘Oh don’t do that Peter,’ she thought or She mustn’t do that again she thought. Or No wait don’t jump he thought, or whatever connotation you choose, the simple words ‘she thought’ or ‘ he thought’ jars. And I’ll tell you why.
It’s simple. If you’re writing in the most engaging way which for me, as I have said many times, steps away from the omniscient narrator and assumes the intimacy of the first person or the third person, especially the most subjective form, then you are narrating as that person. You are indeed privy to every little thought. You are seeing the world through their eyes and you are thinking their thoughts with their flaws and warps and biases. You know only what they know. And therefore, for me, if you say, even without the single apostrophe that I also think you never need, ‘it was cold he thought’ the ’he thought’ becomes redundant.
It’s superfluous. For me it’s a superfluous as seeing ‘with the eyes’ and nodding ‘in agreement’. It’s baggage. Lose it.
And the thing I find it does, is intrude. What you want is to really engage your reader by making them become that person and I have talked endlessly about how you can still achieve this with a third persons as much as a first person so you’re not just on their shoulder but really in their head. And therefore the reader will engage the most if they think they are seeing and feeling and knowing everything the same as the narrator and (and this is why I also hate information dumps as blocks of exposition ) we need to see things simply as they happen. Even memories, that need to intrude as flashback can be conveyed as simple memories seemingly in real time as the narrator thinks them, trigger, memory, trigger, back. Simple, short, functional, but by showing it you are very much still in the head of the narrator. And since part of the joy of reading is being someone else and seeing their world, then doesn’t saying ‘he thought’ just remind us we are not him? Isn’t all of the narrative him thinking? So why do you need the reminder?
Simple answer: you don’t!
Now there are devices that might fit your prose at particular points, like you might say. But all he could think about was his mother’s face, right there in front of him. His mother as she was the last time he saw her. His mother, so young, so beautiful. Here I also used the repetition of 3 for emphasis. But this feels very different from. ‘My mother was so beautiful,’ he thought.
You might take it a step further … ‘My mother looked so young,’ he thought. ‘My mother was my best friend,’ he thought.
Even using repetition here, while you can see how the device makes it stronger, still, I think, is not as strong as the first version.
I know you see it done both ways in texts, and like we all know, there’s always subjectivity and personal taste, expectations of genre, etc, but really I always say (and yes I’ll say it again) the question ‘THE ‘question, is ‘is this the best way to say this?’ and I think there lies your answer.
Just because it can be done one way, doesn’t always make it the best way.
I have also heard people say, well I was told to mix it up, so I used both and sometimes say ‘he thought.’ But for me, if you can learn to identify which form is the strongest, then ALWAYS use it. There are other ways to ‘mix it up.’ Yes you can’t keep using repetition for emphasis, or the same expressions, or end every scene with a question. Less is more. Like the use of similes and metaphors, one or two stand out and the reader, says WOW. Half a dozen on every page, just feels wrong and diminishes the power of that one that is used well. So always mix it up, so to speak.
For what it’s worth, I think the more you write, the more instinctive you become for deciding what works best and what feels right. And so often the first draft is okay but then editing will also hone this feeling of flow and what works.
I guess to coin the cliché, it’s about practice; plain and simple.
So next time someone says how do you represent inner thoughts in fiction, you can say… inner thoughts are fiction. It’s what happens between the dialogue, right? And therefore there is no need to italicise or use speech marks or the words he thought. I might use italics (and I have had to incorporate into my editing an ‘are these italics really necessary’ edit, because I do over use them) instead for additional emphasis.
He watched. He stood on the edge of the pavement with his hand pressed into his pockets and he watched as they brought the body out. It was her.
Dear God.
Now some might argue you don’t even need the italics here and the words speak for themselves and yes. True. But sometimes they give that little kick of emphasis. But again don’t over use it. Actually I think if, as is the case with one of the characters in my latest novel, he never swears then the italics might do more of a job. So we have the above:
He watched. He stood on the edge of the pavement with his hand pressed into his pockets and he watched as they brought the body out. It was her.
Shit.
It works here because it will mean it has to be bad because he cusses.
But again, the italics should not be used in place of speech marks. You don’t need these for thoughts. The whole thing is his thoughts. But they are used as a narrative device for emphasis. So it becomes part of technique.
So much for a short Blog … now I need to write.
Keep thinking. Without the baggage.
‘Can’t I have another pose?’ he thought NOOOOOO!
Actually it’s all perfectly normal as Jonathan Tropper proves. And when you employ someone to look at your work they are looking at it in a different way to you. I look at other peoples’ work differently to my own, and I’m being paid to spot this stuff too. But with my own, then I would pay someone else to spot what I didn’t and I have a great critique group for that as well!
