Support for Indie Authors discussion

Here's a question for the group. When writing internal dialogue, do you begin on a new line always, or not?

Hi Eldon. I often precede it with action or gesture, just like normal dialogue.

E.g.

He thumped the boardroom table and snapped, "That plan will never work."

She squeezed her fists, her fingernails cutting into the palms of her hands. Would he never listen to her?

Or as a variance I would add 'she thought, [adjective]' to get ...

She squeezed her fists, her fingernails cutting into the palms of her hands. She thought desperately, Would he never listen to her?

Graeme wrote: "Hi Eldon. I often precede it with action or gesture, just like normal dialogue.

E.g.

He thumped the boardroom table and snapped, "That plan will never work."

She squeezed her fists, her fingerna..."

Thanks Graeme! I've heard different things on the proper treatment. Separate line or together.

You could also start a scene with a thought such as.

His plan will fail and victory will be mine.

She stood beside her king and surveyed the forces arrayed on the plain. The final battle was imminent. Before the next dawn all these men would be dead and her king with them.

So, given the above examples, I would say there is no firm rule. You can start on a new line or not.

However, if shifting from one character to the next, just as in a dialogue, yes - new line every time to make sure it's clear who's thinking/speaking.

E.g.


"We're being outflanked!" roared the king.
Victory! "Sir, we are cut off."

I'll mix thoughts with spoken word for the same character.

"I can't wait for dinner with my parents. My mom's making lasagna," she said.
Mike's shoulders slumped. Gross! I hate cheese! "Great. I can't wait."

Phillip wrote: "I'll mix thoughts with spoken word for the same character.

"I can't wait for dinner with my parents. My mom's making lasagna."
Gross! I hate cheese! "Great. I can't wait.""

Contrast matters. I find internal monologues useful for those times the character needs to hide their thoughts.

If I've made it clear who the speakers are, I will start a new line for each speaker as the dialog switches back and forth, and for pacing, I also leave out the dialog markers (i.e. Said, exclaimed, asked). If I have doubts about the clarity, I get someone neutral to read the scene aloud (or use text reading software), so that I can hear it more objectively.

I was curious what I usually do, and it seems I add it in in various different ways. I sometimes have it on the same line, e.g.

She stared at him. ‘No,’ she said, ‘I mean, it doesn’t matter. There’s another further along…’ She trailed off, looking as though she was about to cry. Well, this was curious.

And sometimes on a new line, e.g.

‘I told him about you,’ she said. ‘My granddad, I mean.’
Jay paused. She’d done what?

I don't think there is any rule really as long as the reader can tell what's going on!

I treat it as it was normal dialogue - it can be a part of a paragraph when short but alone when longer. Of course, internal monologue is italicized, instead of in "".

As a reader, I like when the internal thoughts are kept on the same line and italicized. Things like:
"What do you mean?" (in italics) I love watching the snake squirm. Wonder what lie he's going to tell me now.

As other have said, you may start off with an action. If you can, Avoid the "she thought" tag.

Okay, now I have a question:) When the point of view for an entire chapter or section is made clear...does his/her every internal thought need to italicized? I haven't done that and worry it should be...although his/her internal thoughts can be mixed with live action too within a sentence, paragraph, etc...hmmmm. I do avoid the "she thought" and many dialogue markers.

Gail wrote: "When the point of view for an entire chapter or section is made clear...does his/her every internal thought need to italicized?"

There are four ways to show internal thought that are considered correct.
1. Italicized thought, with tag.
2. Italicized thought, no tag.
3. Thought not italicized, with tag.
4. Thought not italicized, no tag.

So, yeah, as long as its clear to the reader that your character is having a thought, you don't need to italicize if you don't want.

Thanks, Dwayne. I wonder, though, if the italicized thought is preferred as B.A. stated? I'm just curious as, like I said, I have never done that but I'm open to change!!!

I prefer italicized thoughts.

The italicized thoughts is the standard at this point in time. It sets off that she is thinking and not saying it making it so you don't need that she thought type of tag. In fact, that is frowned upon by editors and traditional publishers (unless you are famous and can do what you want and get away with it more or less). As a reader, I like the italics. It makes it very clear that those are the character's thoughts.

Italicized thoughts are preferred because it's clear. There were cases in books where I wondered if it was meant to be an internal thought or said aloud due to the lack of both "" and italicizing.

Thank you for your thoughts! May I take it a bit further for clarification? (sorry). In the following paragraph of one of my books, I suppose 'He would be devoured first.' should be italicized...unclear about the rest? Perhaps all the way to ...discovered her, too.???

She eyed the dead horse. He would be devoured first. The scent of blood was undoubtedly attracting the varmints and it would only be a matter of minutes before they discovered her, too. She wondered which would be worse: a slow and torturous death by white men or a quick yet horrifying end by a pack of hungry wolves.

I don't think it's necessary in the paragraph you quoted, but it wouldn't hurt, either. To me, it's clear that "He would be devoured first" is her thought. Still, italics do make it clearer and some readers prefer it (I actually do, though as a writer, I don't always italicize).

Okay, thanks all. Sorry to have gotten off-topic, Eldon!

Gail, I think that paragraph is fine as shown. It doesn't require anything to clarify it. The only thing I'm unsure about is the colon. I'm not a punctuation expert.-)

Hi Jim, I didn't initially have the colon there...an editor suggested it, so I kept it (and wondered if it was needed, too!) And thanks for the italics thought...a lot of my writing is strictly one person's POV during a chapter/section, so I hate to italicize so many of their internal thoughts.

Gail wrote: "Thank you for your thoughts! May I take it a bit further for clarification? (sorry). In the following paragraph of one of my books, I suppose 'He would be devoured first.' should be italicized...un..."

I don't think you need the italics. It's clear without it. The only thing I would add is that if this is the first time you've mentioned the horse as a 'he,' it could cause a very brief moment of hesitation. So you could say, 'It would be devoured first.' It also depends on the reader and if they are used to distinguishing mare, stallion, destrier. So I'm getting a bit picky. (Of course if it were a stallion, I would think, no, I don't think so :))

Thanks, M.L., it's clear in the story who 'he' is, appreciate your help tho!

Gail wrote: "Thank you for your thoughts! May I take it a bit further for clarification? (sorry). In the following paragraph of one of my books, I suppose 'He would be devoured first.' should be italicized...un..."

This is how I'd write the para... (1) Note: scent of blood is the motivation & devoured first is the reaction (2) Don't the adverb (3) IMO the internal monologue is clear - you can lose "she wondered" - you can Italicise it - I don't (4) And if you have an "a" before "slow," insert another one before torturous or leave them out.


She eyed the dead horse. The scent of its blood was attracting the varmints. He would be devoured first, and it would only be a matter of minutes before they discovered her, too. Which would be worse: slow and torturous death by white men or a quick yet horrifying end by a pack of hungry wolves.

Character thoughts? I always italicize. If the thoughts are spoken by a spiritual being I use both italics and quotes....or if the spirit being and the character are "mind-conversing"...

"Are you sure? You sort of act like one [a cop]."

Who asks questions like that, Trevor thought. Do cops wake up in the morning and forget they're cops?

----

I don't italicize thoughts, but I do tag them accordingly. One such example above.

:)

Christopher,

When you put in Trevor thought, it is jarring which is the reason that the current trend is to italicize the internal thoughts so it flows smoother. Try reading it aloud and feel the difference. It's the same with speech tags. You don't want it to stand out, so if it doesn't flow with the sentence change it. He/she said, asked, etc are over looked but if you decide to use a different tag make sure it is one that blends in with the speech. I'm still working on getting my words to show how the lines would be said instead of using things like yelled, whispered, etc.

With what you have above, if you take out the 'Trevor thought' it makes his voice more noticeable and is much smoother. You can give an action tag like Trevor frowned in order to ground the reader as to whose thoughts they are.

Most editors today will tell you to do the action tag and get rid of the thought and said tags and use the italics to show thought. That doesn't mean you are wrong in using thought, but it will stand out in most cases and that you don't need or want.

I've gone into pains to teach myself how to write internal monologue without having to italicize. After all, italics are to show the reader it's an internal monologue.

True,. the italics show the reader that it's an internal monologue which helps to make it seamless from the external speech. As a reader, I find the he thought jarring, and always have, when having internal monologue. The italics set it off and is less jarring, you know what it is and it makes it so you go from speech to thoughts without the 'thought' tags.

Eldon wrote: "Here's a question for the group. When writing internal dialogue, do you begin on a new line always, or not?"

I read a book recently in which all the MCs internal thoughts were on a separate line, in italics I found it unusual at first but it certainly didn't stop me from enjoying the book. I actually thought it was a great way to showcase to the reader the difference between her internal thoughts and her spoken words.

That is a style choice for the author. For me, it doesn't matter as the italics lets me know it's internal.

Italics can cause confusion too. If I'm the one squeezing my hand shut, my nails digging into my palms, would I think desperately Would he never listen to her? or Will he never listen to me?
With itals in the first example it looks more like author intrusion (or maybe an out of body experience) versus the person's direct thought, unless the thought pertained to yet another person. IMO.

Italics are a good choice for thoughts and anything else needing special treatment, partly because they are so strong typographically.

I leave all internal dialogue out of the question by writing my novels in first person-present point of view :)

As for my short stories, I write them in third person-past, yet leave all internal dialogue aside. I checked one since I was curious and found this:

A black clad figure made its way into the room. Mia stared as Yu turned and locked the door behind him, his pale lips curved up. He was wearing his black school uniform—wait, did college students need to wear the stereotypical black male suit? Maybe it was some irony on his part because they would be doing grade school activities… He was not unknown to perform a few sarcastic, mordant jokes.

A hint of soap scent permeated the air. Looking carefully, Mia noticed his slightly moist hair tips. Hmmm… it smelled nice. Yu was always so clean and presentable…

Another:

Mia did her best to not frown. There was definitely no book in there, as Haruhiko had predicted. And food? What kind of food it was?

None of these are italicized. You can tell this is a lot of internal dialogue but not written as internal dialogue.

In my (six) books, I use internal monologue a lot. The only rule is that every scene has a single identifiable point-of-view character. The only method identifying internal monologue is the switch to first person and the disappearance of third person. So no italics, and little use of "he thought".
Sometimes I worry that it can confuse, but so far no complaints from readers.
The advantage is that, with no narrator, the character can make mistakes or otherwise mislead the reader. So the writer can play games with the reader. Moreover, it is a very efficient device for describing or deepening each character. So good guys are uplifting because they sound uplifting; bad guys sound like bad guys; idiots are idiots because they sound stupid, etc.

One convention is the use of italics. I have used that with no complaints of readers, editors or reviewers.
An unreliable narrator is a great technique for many narrations, I agree.

One of the things often warned about is having only one person on stage, because the things that make a scene feel real and immediate, like the interaction between characters, and between them and the world is missing.

We're warned to keep dialog short enough to avoid the feel of a soliloquy because people will begin to skim, looking for something to happen.

Your long sections of introspection would seem to have that risk. So I'd ask, why focus on internal argument that could be expressed as, "After a session of introspective thought, he decided to..."? Or, have someone ask why he did such and such, and he sums it up in a line or two. Or better yet, arrange the action so the reader has that mental conversation and reaches the same decision. That's where the joy of reading lies.

Thanks, Jay,
I agree with what you wrote. But there is nothing about internal monologue that says the stage must have only a single person (it's fun to work it into a conversation among several people).

And int. mon. shares with narrative that it should not run on and on.

It is just a device substituting for narrative in a way that sheds light on a character. In my writing, that doesn't always work. Sometimes, I just to want to give the reader information. Then I use a bit of narrative, though probably less than other writers.

Consider: "The volcano burned under a pillar of smoke." Or...

"Sarah looked up and giggled at the volcano burning under a pillar of smoke."

Whoa. What's with her?

Too much internal dialog is intrusive and boring. And, when it constantly pops in and out of the scene, it almost becomes an aside like Snidley Whiplash off to the side visibly plotting dastardly deeds.

Maybe too much internal monologue/dialog is a problem, but I feel it should be respected as it can help portray a character as an introspective individual giving room for contemplation rather than just always acting. I give room for introspective monolog.

• It is just a device substituting for narrative in a way that sheds light on a character.

That’s your intent. But which is more active character development, in a reader's viewpoint, a man thinking dastardly thoughts or him snatching a toy from a child as he passes? Remember, our intent for a given line doesn’t make it to the page. And talking-heads are a good way to lose a reader. How much more likely to lose that reader is a talking head, singular? Why it’s a problem was outlined by David Mamet in a letter to the staff of his program The Unit. It’s worth reading. Do a search for: A Letter from David Mamet to the Writers of The Unit.

Jay,
I think both thoughts and actions define a character, since thoughts often precede actions. You can overdo either. Get too comfy in a character's head, and you bore many readers. But turn the plot into a fistfight with lots of "action," and you bore other readers.
I think this argument misses something - the fact is, none of us will please all readers. So a writer has to make a choice. I would imagine, with some regret, that more readers prefer lots of action to lots of thought. e.g. the later Star Wars. And I must admit, Star Wars outsells me by a billion to one. Curses!

I don't prefer tons of action. In fact, sometimes it's like OK quit slugging each other. Basically I want a story to get immersed in. I'm currently reading one now. It's around 900 pages and at over 600 pages in, I'm enjoying it. There are occasional internal--more like statements and sometimes in the form of expletives--and they enhance the story. No long dissertations, just a few words now and then. They are woven in and in no way something to focus specifically on. Good book. I think I'll be sorry to see it end. Maybe I'll re-read it. :-)

My view is internal monologue has its place, but like anything else, it is how well it is done that counts. And that is a matter of opinion, and as others have hinted, don't expect to please everyone. In the words of the liberal advice-giver Polonious, to thine own self be true.

Ian wrote: "My view is internal monologue has its place, but like anything else, it is how well it is done that counts. And that is a matter of opinion, and as others have hinted, don't expect to please everyo..."

Agreed upon every word here, Ian. It's not how much or how little we do internal monologues, or anything really, it's the quality of it that counts. Like anything, if the internal monologue is serving a real purpose to the story, good. If it's fluff and filler, bad.

Dwayne wrote: "Ian wrote: "My view is internal monologue has its place, but like anything else, it is how well it is done that counts. And that is a matter of opinion, and as others have hinted, don't expect to p..."

Ian, I agree as well. Too much of a good or bad thing is off-putting or distracting. Use al the weapons in your arsenal but use them wisely.

Ian wrote: "My view is internal monologue has its place, but like anything else, it is how well it is done that counts..."

Amen. Keep preaching the gospel, brother.

I prefer to use italics for internal monologue. You can use it with no tag and be pretty clear that it's the character's thoughts. Without the italics, you definitely need to tag it or it suddenly sounds like the narrator's words.

Take for example a book written in the first person past tense. The narrator is a character and they're telling you about stuff in their past. So they're always doing a monologue. But if they then give you an internal monologue from the past, and italics are not used, well, there you are, scratching your head. Unless, of course, they write "I thought to myself" in a tag.