Forum: Author Hangout

"OK, Boss, I'll do as you say," while thinking that it was a bloody idiotic way to do this and waste my time!

Without the comma after "thinking," you wouldn't put his thoughts in italics. Without the comma, it's not internal dialogue. Without the comma, the narrator is simply telling the reader what he was thinking while speaking the dialogue.

EDIT: btw, you can't see it in the quoted text because it italicized all of it.

and that makes it a part of the narrative as against a specific thought by the person. However, such a conversion to narrative wouldn't work in every case and I was asking about the process not the specific example which I made up on the spot.

That's fine if you're using an omniscient narrator in 3rd person

When writing in omniscient, you cannot hear any character's thoughts. So you would never put them in italics or single quotes. Only the omniscient narrator can tell you what they're thinking. Anything else is head-hopping.

Btw, you can have a 1st-person omniscient narrator. That was new to me, but "The Book Thief" has a 1st-person omniscient narrator -- Death.

But if the omniscient narrator is passing on their thoughts exactly, would it not qualify a a quotation, requiring quotes? For that matter, the omniscient narrator is telling you what the character's said in the same way he would be telling you what they thought.

When dialogue is in quotes, the narrator isn't telling you what the character said. The character is saying it. It's okay to do that because it's spoken out loud and the reader doesn't have to get into the character's head.

But since the reader can't get into a character's head in omniscient (if he does it's head-hopping), the narrator has to tell the reader what the character is thinking.

Here's a good article that explains it using Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea."

http://thewritepractice.com/head-hopping-and-hemingway/

But since the reader can't get into a character's head in omniscient (if he does it's head-hopping), the narrator has to tell the reader what the character is thinking.

I find this comment strange. Omniscient is one of the POV's where (if done properly) you CAN get away delving into a character's thought and even get away with delving into multiple character's thoughts at the same time. In fact, the article you've linked to expressly states this, and yet, your comment refutes it.

Very strange.

Omniscient is one of the POV's where (if done properly) you CAN get away delving into a character's thought and even get away with delving into multiple character's thoughts at the same time. In fact, the article you've linked to expressly states this, and yet, your comment refutes it.

Read the article again. I don't think you understood it.

In omniscient, you only have one POV -- the omniscient narrator's.

The omniscient narrator tells the reader what each character is thinking. But it's the narrator passing those thoughts along. You don't have direct internal dialogue (thoughts) from any character.

COPIED FROM THE ARTICLE:

Do you see how the narrator hops from the thoughts of one character or even groups of characters to another? Some might mistakenly call this head hopping. However, this is actually an example third-person omniscient point of view. Hemingway's omniscient narrator can peer into anyone's mind at will, as opposed to a third-person limited narrator, who would be confined to the thoughts of one character per scene.

This is why Hemingway technically isn't breaking the rules in The Old Man and the Sea. More importantly, though, it doesn't break the spirit of the rule because this narration doesn't seem awkward or jarring. The narrator is firmly in control of the scene. We aren't actually in any of these character's heads. We're in the narrator's, and he is taking us on a tour through the thoughts and feelings of the characters.

ADDED THIS PART WITH EDIT AFTERWARDS:

I thought I could underline within the quote. The forum software didn't allow it. I was trying to underline:

We aren't actually in any of these character's heads. We're in the narrator's, and he is taking us on a tour through the thoughts and feelings of the characters.

I understand it perfectly. By very definition: Knowing everything, omniscient POV does permit narrating a character's inner thoughts. If it didn't the definition wouldn't be omniscient, it would be less than 'knowing everything'.

In omniscient, you only have one POV -- the omniscient narrator's.

Incorrect again. By definition omniscient is all encompassing and can come from any perspective, because that is what omniscient means. Omniscient knows everything.

Hemingway's omniscient narrator can peer into anyone's mind at will, as opposed to a third-person limited narrator, who would be confined to the thoughts of one character per scene.

This quote does correctly define omniscient. It specifically says that omniscient can peer into anyone's mind at will as OPPOSED to a third person narration which cannot.

You are not limited from character's thoughts in omniscient POV

I'm not going to argue with you. Believe what you want, but don't say I'm wrong. I'm right!

Knowing everything, omniscient POV does permit narrating a character's inner thoughts

What I said was you can't have internal dialogue in omniscient. That's the stuff you put in italics. So don't say you can.

You are not limited from character's thoughts in omniscient POV

Again, don't misquote me. You ARE limited. To cannot get into any character's head. ONLY the narrator can tell you what they're thinking or feeling.

I suggest you study up on omniscient before telling others they're wrong.

Also study up on POV, as in the point of view character for the scene. In 1st or 3rd-limited a scene is told from the POV character's perspective. That's what POV means in fiction. Not an omniscient narrator telling you how a character perceives something.

What I said was you can't have internal dialogue in omniscient. That's the stuff you put in italics. So don't say you can.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by this. To clarify your meaning, how could the phrase, 'he thought' or 'she thought' ever be used in fiction if not through omniscience?

If the characters themselves were telling their thoughts wouldn't they state it as 'I' thought?

I ask because the word 'limited' in 3rd limited refers to the degree that omniscience is expressed.

To clarify your meaning, how could the phrase, 'he thought' or 'she thought' ever be used in fiction if not through omniscience?

"I thought" and "he thought" are used in 1st- and 3rd-person limited, respectively. It has nothing to do with omniscient. In fact, it's not allowed in omniscient.

I hate him, she thought.
I hate him, I thought.

Those are examples of internal dialogue (thoughts), 3rd- and 1st-person, respectively. That's what you can't have in omniscient because you can't get into any character's head (directly).

In omniscient, the omniscient narrator would tell the reader: She hated him.

I ask because the word 'limited' in 3rd limited refers to the degree that omniscience is expressed.

"Limited" means it's not omniscient. In limited, each scene is from a single character's point of view (the POV character for that scene). Just like in 1st, you can only tell the reader what that character sees, hears, smells, etc. And you can get into only that character's thoughts, either through internal dialogue (using italics) or through narrative. It's usually done through narrative.

Omniscient is a different beast. People think it's easy to write in omniscient because the godlike narrator knows all. But the mistake they make is they think of the author as the know-it-all and can do whatever he wants.

There are rules for omniscient, and one is you can't have internal dialogue. True, the narrator can tell the reader what any character is thinking (or feeling), but you can't get into the character's head directly. Doing that, as shown in the article, is head-hopping.

"Limited" means it's not omniscient. In limited, each scene is from a single character's point of view (the POV character for that scene). Just like in 1st, you can only tell the reader what that character sees, hears, smells, etc. And you can get into only that character's thoughts, either through internal dialogue (using italics) or through narrative. It's usually done through narrative.

Unfortunately, I don't think we're ever going to come to a consensus on this. Your interpretation of omniscient and third person are completely different than mine. (Third person limited is still omniscient, it is just limited to one character's perspective). It is impossible for any third person to describe the inner thoughts of another person unless they are omniscient. I could not tell a story about you, fictional or non fictional, and describe your inner thoughts to readers without being omniscient and therefor privy to your thoughts.

You say I should study up on POV before offering my opinions. I have studied them and even went back to make sure I wasn't being a retard here today. Yet, I still see nothing to support the claims you are making. No matter where I look, I cannot substantiate your claims.

I could not tell a story about you, fictional or non fictional, and describe your inner thoughts to readers without being omniscient and therefor privy to your thoughts.

That's the confusion. You're thinking of the author as being the godlike omniscient narrator. It's not the author. The author is simply writing the words.

In 1st-person, when the author writes:

I knew he would cheat on me.

the author is writing the words of the 1st-person narrating character. The same would be if the author wrote:

"John cheated on me," I said.
or
John cheated on me, I thought.

Replace the "I" with "she" and it's 3rd-person limited.

So that's how the reader hears the words of the character and is privy to their internal thoughts.

Now what other characters say can only be written if the POV character can hear it. Since a person can't read someone's mind, the other character's thoughts cannot be shown to the reader.

So you can write (Sue is the POV character in 3rd-person limited):

"John, where are you going?" Sue said.

"Just out."

Sue narrowed her eyes. What the hell does that mean? she thought.

In omniscient, it would be written something like:

"John, where are you going?" Sue said.

"Just out."

Sue narrowed her eyes and wondered what the hell that meant.

And in omniscient, you could even add John's thoughts, as in:

"John, where are you going?" Sue said.

"Just out."

When Sue narrowed her eyes and wondered what the hell that meant, John was praying she wouldn't ask any more questions.

I definitely feel like I understand what you are saying now. Thanks for taking the time to clarify. It no longer sounds 'strange' to me. lol

My pleasure.

For me, POV is the most difficult aspect of writing fiction.

Yeah, well, you've definitely given me a few things to ponder and I will have to do even more research. Thanks ... lol (As if I didn't have enough on my plate, ha ha).

I definitely agree with your breakdown of how to write inner thought and also how it should be narrated. No more than one perspective at a time should be given etc.

The things I need to delve deeper into are the definitions and things like that. The way you were stating it in the beginning threw me for a loop.

Now what other characters say can only be written if the POV character can hear it. Since a person can't read someone's mind, the other character's thoughts cannot be shown to the reader.

I beg to differ on this point, but only in limited circumstances. I often write 3rd Omni from the POV of a character in the future. In that case, they know what the characters thought, only because they were told by the characters themselves.

However, I'd also like to state that 'showing thoughts', while effective, is a short cut. It's more efficient to show what authors think by how they respond. You can get away with head-hopping, even though it's not proper, but you can only get away with it a limited number of times. So if you chose to head-hop, limit to only the most essential instances, rather than as a short-cut.

I beg to differ on this point, but only in limited circumstances. I often write 3rd Omni from the POV of a character in the future. In that case, they know what the characters thought, only because they were told by the characters themselves.

First of all, if it's omni the omni narrator knows all so there's nothing to beg to differ.

If it's not omni, as long as the character knows something, it doesn't break the rule. So in your case if they know the future, it's legit to tell the reader. In Stephen King's "The Green Mile," the narrator is relaying a story that happened in the past so he would say something like, "I found out later after reading the report..." I thought that was poor writing on King's part, btw.

And of course in the erotica mind control world, the character with mind control powers can read other people's minds.

This is not strictly true. While a telepathic mind controller would know what other people are thinking, there are a number of other ways to do mind control that don't make the controller a mind reader.

True. I was just showing an example of when the non-omni POV character would know another character's thoughts.

I once wrote a mind control story where the only way the reader knew the character was making someone do something was to show that character doing it and maybe show confusion on their part.

Btw, you can have a 1st-person omniscient narrator. That was new to me, but "The Book Thief" has a 1st-person omniscient narrator -- Death.

Hey, in writing, you can do anything you want--as long as you can get away with it! For most of us, we follow rules so we don't stumble over things.

When writing in omniscient, you cannot hear any character's thoughts. So you would never put them in italics or single quotes. Only the omniscient narrator can tell you what they're thinking. Anything else is head-hopping.

Actually, as another alternative, I've written a story in omniscient narrator who was actually one of the characters recounting what happened. (The unspoken assumption being that she was told what everyone thought at the time.) There are as many variation on any rule as there are authors.

Take practically any equation from thermodynamics.

-- aubie56

Does incest sound any better in French? Do Do-Overs read any better in Danish?

Do Do-Overs read any better in Danish?

Only if it's an Apple Danish.

3) You can't get out of the game.

Sure you can. Sooner or later, we all get out of the game, though we fight it to the bitter end.

Sure you can. Sooner or later, we all get out of the game, though we fight it to the bitter end.
-------
But how do you know the game ends there?

If the game board changes, it's officially a new game! After all, you can't play "Shoots & Ladders" without the Shoots and associated Ladders.

In omniscient, you never put the character's thoughts in italics (that's head-hopping). When they're in italics, you're inside the character's head (what he's thinking). The omniscient narrator can tell you what the character is thinking, but you don't hear the character's thoughts directly. When the narrator tells you the character's thoughts, it's the narrator speaking (through narrative), not the character thinking.

In first-person, most of the 1st-person narrator's thoughts are in narrative and therefore not in italics. You only italicize his thoughts when you want to emphasize them. For example (using present tense since that's what you write in):

I walk into the dark room and stop to listen. Where is everyone? When I turn on the light, everyone yells, "Surprise."

I think it's clearer when writing in past tense, as in:

I walked into the dark room and stopped to listen. Where was everyone? When I turned on the light, everyone yelled, "Surprise."

If the question was an internal thought in italics, it would be in present tense. But as the same thought in the narrative, it's in past tense.

Switch,

I'll disagree with you about how I can present the thoughts. Since I write in present tense, be the thought his thought or a disinterested narrative account of the thought, it won't change how it's worded because both are present tense. The advantage of using the italics is it shows it to be a thought. And since the thought is shown as being done by the same person whose actions I'm describing in that paragraph it's not head hopping. I could have the person constantly talking to themselves and show it as normal dialogue, but that's not how most people behave, and using the italics lets me show it isn't normal dialogue or normal narrative.

Ernest, my goal is not to convince you one way or the other. I've passed along this article in the past on omniscient and head-hopping.

http://thewritepractice.com/head-hopping-and-hemingway/

Parthenogenesis, your example would be for omniscient. If it was written like that in 3rd-person limited, the thought would be in italics.

Switch,

I read that article earlier, the same day you posted it up near the start of the thread. I see that as being the opinion of the article writer. I've looked for a good definition of head hopping and the best I've found is this:

"Head-hopping" is the practice of switching point-of-view characters within a single scene.

and another is:

To be head hopping, a passage needs to meet two criteria:

(1) The viewpoint shifts between characters without a proper transition (e.g. a scene break).
(2) The thoughts/feelings of the characters are given in their voices rather than in the author's voice.

while a third is:

Head-hopping is what happens to the reader when a writer suddenly changes viewpoint character or POV.

I like this article:

https://authorshelpingauthors.wordpress.com/writing-2/point-of-view-and-head-hopping/

All the above quotes etc are by different professional editors.

The one common theme is: there are issues if you have things about or by two different characters in the same paragraph. If it's all the one character, then it isn't head hopping. And the narrator isn't a character. Another point many make is about the problems raised with using third person limited making many aspects of narrative work not possible, and I think (i.e. personal opinion) the majority of cases of narrative head hopping occur in stories using 3rd limited.

To me, the key points are to have the story easy flowing, make sense, and easy for the reader to tell the different parts of the story - dialogue, narrative, quote, notes, thoughts - and the best way to do that is with formating that makes it through the various presentation formats.

"Head-hopping" is the practice of switching point-of-view characters within a single scene.

Exactly.

To be head hopping, a passage needs to meet two criteria:

(1) The viewpoint shifts between characters without a proper transition (e.g. a scene break).

(2) The thoughts/feelings of the characters are given in their voices rather than in the author's voice.

(1) is saying the same thing as the previous one.

(2) don't know what they mean by this.

while a third is:

Head-hopping is what happens to the reader when a writer suddenly changes viewpoint character or POV.

Again, this is saying the same thing in a different way. All it means is, within a scene, you can only be in one character's head. In 1st-person, it's the 1st-person narrator. In omniscient, it's the omniscient narrator. In 3rd-person limited, it's the POV character for the scene.

The one common theme is: there are issues if you have things about or by two different characters in the same paragraph.

Scene, not paragraph.

If it's all the one character, then it isn't head hopping. And the narrator isn't a character.

That's the point. The omniscient narrator is a character. Not a character in the story, but a godlike character that's telling the story. It's the narrator's voice you hear.

Switch,

I'm not sure what some of them were trying to say, either. What it did point out was even the professional editors could really agree on what the definition of head hopping was or how it worked.

A scene has man paragraphs and it can switch back and forth between the characters. A typical scene will have a number of people doing actions and / or talking, and most of the time you have separate paragraphs for each person as it switches between them.

The narrator is not a character but the person recounting the story.

The one universal thing they do seem to agree on is: head hopping when using a 3rd person limited or first person narrator is a big no-no. A few think you can get away with it when you have a 3rd person omni. However, in my opinion, if you're using 3rd person omni and have the thoughts, actions, and dialogue of a paragraph all being done by the same story character it isn't head hopping because you're staying in the one head for it all.

A scene has man[y] paragraphs and it can switch back and forth between the characters. A typical scene will have a number of people doing actions and / or talking, and most of the time you have separate paragraphs for each person as it switches between them.

The POV cannot switch back and forth between characters within a scene. A scene is told from a single POV.

That means you can only get into the thoughts of the POV character.

The narrator is not a character but the person recounting the story.

Granted, the omniscient narrator is not generally a character in the story.

It's not whether the omniscient narrator is a character in the story. The point is, it's the POV "character." And head-hopping is all about POV. When you jump from one POV to another within a scene, that's head-hopping.

head-hopping is all about POV. When you jump from one POV to another within a scene, that's head-hopping.

You can quote whatever rules you want, as long as you're telling a story, and the story needs to reflect the main character's thoughts (ex. they're sneaking up on the bad guys and realizes he's outgunned), then you've got to show the thoughts taking process. If it's an easy situation (like the one I just listed) then you can avoid it by showing it, but if a character's thoughts are more complex, you'll get some head-hopping. However, that won't kill a story. They key is to limit it, keep it reasonable, and make it easy to follow.

I generally use 'head-hopping' about one to three times per book (I average 20 chapters per book). I don't think that will get many tossing the book in disgust. The problem is when you confuse the readers.

You can quote whatever rules you want, as long as you're telling a story, and the story needs to reflect the main character's thoughts (ex. they're sneaking up on the bad guys and realizes he's outgunned), then you've got to show the thoughts taking process.

Actually, that's not true. But that's not the point. I was defining what head-hopping is, not that an author must avoid it. My most popular story is filled with head-hopping.

My example is for third person, whether limited or omniscient.

There are no rules for how you indicate thought. All you have to do is be consistent with whatever your stylistic choice is.

All I'm saying is that you don't need to do anything special with a narrator's thoughts, first person or third.

Again, I urge you to read the works of some established authors to see how they handled a narrator's thoughts. You're not going to find a lot of italics or brackets.

My example is for third person, whether limited or omniscient.

There is a difference between omniscient and third limited. When talking about head-hopping, the distinction is important.

In third limited, the rules are the same as with 1st-person. You can only tell the reader what the POV character knows (and he can't know the thoughts of another character in that scene). So you can only show the POV character's thoughts, either as part of the narrative (no italics) or as internal dialogue (italics).

But in omniscient, the godlike narrator knows all and can tell what's going on in everyone's mind. But it's the job of the omniscient narrator to provide that information. You can't have internal dialogue at all -- you can't hear what any character is thinking. The omniscient narrator has to tell you what they're thinking.

It's easy to get right in omniscient. Simply tell the reader the character's thoughts rather than show them as internal dialogue.

So you could write:

John looked at Sue and wondered if she liked him. He didn't know it, but Sue was hoping he would kiss her.

It would be head-hopping in omniscient if you wrote:

Does she like me? John thought. He didn't know it, but Sue was hoping he would kiss her.

The reason the second one is considered head-hopping is because you're hopping between two POVs, John and the omniscient narrator.

Switch,

In 3rd omni it's possible for the narrator to relate the thoughts of a character so there's no reason why they can't do so. Thus it makes sense to show the actual thought in a different way to normal narrative. We disagree on this point due to having a different definition of what constitutes head hopping, so I guess we'll agree to disagree and each go his own way on it.

I started this thread to find out how others do it because the print authors use multiple methods. Due to the comments made I've decide how I'll handle it now.

I walked into the dark room and stopped to listen. Where was everyone? When I turned on the light, everyone yelled, "Surprise."

I do much the same thing, even in third person.
"He walked into the dark room and stopped to listen. Where was everyone? When he turned on the light, everyone yelled, "Surprise."
When I started writing I did things this way without even stopping to think about it. It seems rather cleaner than having to append "he thought" to things.

As an experiment, I wrote a fanfic (that I will be publishing here in the near future) of some popular comic book characters as if it were a comic book script. No introspection, a lot of action visuals, and internal monologues in quotes and with "she thought" all over the place. It's effective but rather weird to write and read that way, so I'm glad it was a rather short story.

When I started writing I did things this way without even stopping to think about it. It seems rather cleaner than having to append "he thought" to things.

It's the easiest technique, but as you gain experience in writing, learning different techniques, you discover better ways of expressing the same concepts. This method (writing what characters are thinking) isn't 'wrong', it's just that there are more consistent technique so you maintain the established perspective.

I've done that, and there are many ways print authors do it; from using angle brackets < > through italics, single quotes, curly brackets { }, nothing, to mixtures of all of the above.

The main aim is to use something that makes it easier for the reader to be aware of what's happening, which is why dialogue is differentiated from narrative etc.

And that actually makes it difficult to follow what is thought.

Technically, it doesn't make it difficult to follow, however, it's redundant, and it makes it awkward, which is a different issue. Essentially, if the italics tells the readers it's a thought, then why repeat it with an unnecessary dialogue tag?

Parthenogenesis, I agree with Ernest (?) when he says that many times, the 'narrator' is not a recognized character and that a character's thoughts are simply his thoughts.

I've written stories was the narrator was a specific character, and others where he was simply an 'unknown, authoritative voice'. There's a big difference between the two. If your narrator has a specific voice/opinion about the story, then he becomes another character. However, if he simply observes what happens/happened-in-the-past, then he's not (or he's snot!).

CW,

I don't think the tags are any more redundant than dialogue tags as they do the exact same job. Also, italics is used for a few other things as well (like quotations and names of books etc.), so it helps to clarify the current usage.

Ernest

I don't think the tags are any more redundant than dialogue tags as they do the exact same job. Also, italics is used for a few other things as well (like quotations and names of books etc.), so it helps to clarify the current usage.

There's another reason for having the "he thought," at least once. It's to notify the reader of the convention you follow. So from that point on he knows the italics are internal dialogue (or whatever convention you use).

And sometimes it just emphasizes the thought by saying "he thought."

And, finally, sometimes you add action to it, as in: I hate that bastard! he thought while slamming his hand on the table.

And, finally, sometimes you add action to it, as in: I hate that bastard! he thought while slamming his hand on the table.

Or:

He slammed his hand on the table, scowling at the image of his nemesis, his lip curling."

Most of the time, you don't need explicit thoughts (of your characters) expressed on paper.

Most of the time, you don't need explicit thoughts (of your characters) expressed on paper.

True, but sometimes it makes it easier to get a point or two across. It's not something I've done a lot of in the past, but a current work in progress does have more direct thoughts in it than all my previous stories together. I find, for this story, it helps with the flow of the story.

Most of the time, you don't need explicit thoughts (of your characters) expressed on paper.

I rarely use internal dialogue now that I understand POV.

When I used to head-hop by showing multiple characters' thoughts, I had to use internal dialogue. But now that I know that the only thoughts can be the POV character's (not omniscient) I rarely italicize them. I sometimes do it for emphasis. And since I write in past tense, the thoughts are written in past tense like an earlier example.

I agree, most writers shouldn't have extensive internal dialogues, but as you say, adding an occasional thought can help drive a point home. The key is, you get the maximum benefit from a minimal effort. Use the technique only when it has the maximum effect.

G'day Aubie,

One of the problems with head hopping is the fact there seems to be no universal definition of it or how it works, so I can understand why people get confused. It's also why I don't think showing thoughts in a 3rd person omni POV to be head hopping.

There are a few stories on SOL where classic head hopping is obvious - in the ones I'm thinking of the story is told in the 1st person and the characters thoughts are shown, then the author switches to another character while still using the 1st person and shows their thoughts. In the better versions they have clear breaks and stay with the one character for a fair period. I use that option in Rough Diamond to show some action away from the main character and have the changes as different chapters in the book (NB: my book chapters aren't the same as the SOL chapters which often have several book chapters in a single post).

With the 3rd person omni narrator they know everything so it's valid to have them show a character's thoughts in a paragraph or section focused on that character. Since the narrator's point of view doesn't change when showing the thoughts of another character in a different paragraph, I don't see this as head hopping. Which is why I'm now tending to regard the definition by one professional editor as the best, which is:

Head-hopping is what happens to the reader when a writer suddenly changes viewpoint character or POV.

This shows changing POV between characters in a 1st person is clearly head hopping because the POV changes, while staying with a 3rd person omni can't be head hopping because the POV doesn't change.

Switch and I disagree on this because he sees the narrator as another character, while I see the narrator as simply the voice relating the story. Two different perspective on the situation.

Hope that helps clear up a little of the confusion.

Switch and I disagree on this because he sees the narrator as another character, while I see the narrator as simply the voice relating the story. Two different perspective on the situation.

I think your disagreement is due to the 3rd person omni stories you write. Some people write it in the manner of an old school fireside chat, while others write it as a character writing about their own experiences. Each tends to project that mindset onto other authors' approaches.

But I agree, a nice compromise is: head-hopping won't kill a story, but you need to minimize it because it can cause problems.

But the tyrants don't share their great plans with anyone, so the only way for the reader to know what is going on is to be privy to the minds and thoughts of each tyrant. Now, wouldn't that be accomplished only by head-hopping? How else could that be done, considering that the tyrants do not trust ANYONE?

Two ways. One is to have an omniscient narrator tell the reader. The other is to have multiple scenes in 3rd-person limited, one from one of the character's POV and the other from the other one's.

Without the expectation of some of it being thoughts (in this case given by your comment before it) I'd find it a bit confusing if it was all the same as the narrative. Without some way to show the thought different to the narrative it's hard to tell which is which - and that leads to reader confusion. I do like the position he's in, it has so much potential.

It's an interesting scene, one man, alone in an empty house, trying to figure out what's going on. He can only talk out loud to himself for so long.

The scene laid out comes after he's established his position, so when he begins lamenting the implications, it's clear what he's wrestling with. In this case, it's not a 'he thought this' moment with actual thoughts, word-for-word in quotes. Instead it's what he'd figured out, expressed in narrative form (i.e. the narrator didn't know what he was thinking, so is formulating it after the fact (3rd person omni). They aren't thoughts, instead they're a description of the situation he's considering.

I'll have to consider whether it's too much or not. As I said, if I were writing it now, I'd probably do it differently.

I'm not even sure it has to be consistent.

Absolutely NOT!

There's a certain social contract between author and reader, and it's based upon trust. Whenever you start a new book, the first several chapters (unless poorly written) are given a certain clearance for the author to build their world. You can claim all kinds of weird science, or weird social constructs, or even the end of the known world, but after that period, you'd better stick to the rules you've defined for that universe, or else the reader will feel betrayed.

It's also in this 'get to know you' phase, that you define yourself as an author. You can pick whatever style you want (since few readers know the difference anyway). You can write it in British or American English, and most readers will accept it as the way you write. But, if you break the pact with your readers, and switch from American to British English mid-way through the story, they'll throw the book away and consider you an idiot.

Consistency is essential for this pact of trust between author and reader. Assuming you've got a decent story, readers will accept the American serial comma, but they'll reject if you alternately switch between the American and the Oxford commas.

Richard, as far as 'reads well' and 'clear meaning', those are essentially the same thing. A badly phrased or written book won't read well. I suspect you meant, a great story. And yes, a great story, or a lot of action will buy you a lot of leniency. However, an impenetrable sentence will rip a reader out of a story, and it'll take a while to get back into it. If you pull that trick four or five times, the reader will give up on you.

as far as 'reads well' and 'clear meaning', those are essentially the same thing.

CW, usually this statement is correct, however, I've seen many cases where the meaning is clear but it doesn't read well. Often because the author used language in a way to show off how smart they are or takes 1,000 words to describe something that could've been done in 50 words. In both cases the meaning was clear but they didn't read well.

I thought I was talking about how to show thoughts. If you use italics somewhere and quotes somewhere else, and say he thought somewhere else without either italics or quotes readers will probably understand its not spoken dialog, and even if they think the character is speaking his thoughts, no great harm done, as long as the story moves along, is understandable to the reader, and either the action, sex or violence grips the reader and motivates him to keep reading to the end.

Again, I think this goes back to the relationship between author and reader, and the trust you develop in the first few chapters of a story, where you set up what the reader can expect for the rest of the story. If you start off using one technique to show thoughts (like using italics), then they'll recognize it the next time they see it, and recognize it as one of your signature techniques. If you then switch to another technique (say single quotes), then they have to stop and figure out what the single quotes mean. Inconsistency strikes at the trust that readers feel in how authors tell a story.

I've flaunted a lot of rules in my time, but I try to be consistent. Sometimes you can't (like I've never been a big fan of the Oxford serial comma, but I'll have to use it any time the meaning might be in doubt).

To all, yes, yes. I concede I was wrong. While 'clear meaning' is essential for 'reads well', you can have a clearly written boring story.