So I want one pirmary character (male) and a number of secondary characters (female). I'm not sure exactly how I want to do this but I want to have both spoken and internal dialogue going on in each characters 'voice'.
It's only a very rough Idea right now and likely won't go past outline for a while. Just thought I'd ask ahead of time so I get the idea 'right' in my head before I go past that outline...
TIA, F.
I use italics for mental communication. That is one option.
Alternatively, you could use something like brackets to mark the text (e.g., {I wonder if she would go out with me.]
Define your method at the start of Chapter 1.
I kind of like the itallics option as most of the time the monologue with coincide with the dialogue of that character.
I just checked some dead tree authors and they do the same thing. Sounds like a good convention to adopt. I've also seen single quotes used to differentiate.
I recently read a story and the author used an asterisk to introduce and end mental dialogue.
one pirmary character (male) and a number of secondary characters (female)
All of the characters in the same scene? The reason I ask is because of head-hopping.
If each scene is from a single character's POV, then the internal dialogue for the POV character would be in italics (per Chicago Manual of Style).
Now if you want to get into more than one character's head within a scene, you have to write it in omniscient or else it will be head-hopping. And in omniscient, the POV character is the omni narrator, not any character, so you can't have internal dialogue. The narrator tells the reader what each character is thinking.
originally I had intended to have the primary character present in all scenes but realised that there needs to be stuff when they're not present too.
It will get very 'head hoppy' something I wanted to avoid but at the moment don't have a way around. It, as the scenes are assembling in my head work to tell from each character, the pieces are far too short for that right now
very 'head hoppy' something I wanted to avoid but at the moment don't have a way around.
The way around it is to write it in omniscient where the omni narrator tells each character's thoughts but not as internal dialogue. Ernest Hemingway did it in "The Old Man and the Sea." This article explains how:
https://thewritepractice.com/head-hopping-and-hemingway/
It will get very 'head hoppy'
Personally, I do not see a problem with head hopping as long as the author clearly defines:
1 - Who is providing the narrative.
2 - Who is providing the dialogue.
3 - A change in speakers.
Of course, I believe the above is true in all stories.
Personally, I do not see a problem with head hopping
I believe most SOL readers feel that way.
I always struggle with: Do I write for the SOL audience or do I write as if I intend to send my story to a literary agent/publisher? The writing is different.
The writing is different.
And your readers are similar in both groups. But the story has to get through the gate first, unless you self publish.
I don't think so. That was my point.
Yes, your literary agent/publisher would have a very different take on what you send them.
I was referring to the people who would buy the story to read it, not your literary agent/publisher.
I was referring to the people who would buy the story to read it, not your literary agent/publisher.
One and the same.
People seem to think the literary agents and publishers have their own agenda who want everyone to write the way they like.
The literary agents want to sell books to publishers. The publishers want to sell books to the buying readers. That's how they make money. If they thought the buying reader was dying for head-hopping, they'd be looking for manuscripts with head-hopping. They are looking for what sells. They're not gatekeepers. They are business people.
Every once in a while something sells that the publishers didn't think would. Like "Harry Potter." So what do they do? They look for books like "Harry Potter."
Yes, they are business people. But they are also necessarily gate keepers. Their knowledge of what readers want is not perfect.
Do I write for the SOL audience or do I write as if I intend to send my story to a literary agent/publisher? The writing is different.
There are 3 groups in this discussion: SOL readers, literary agents/publishers, and the people who buy and read the stories that the literary agent/publisher approves for publishing.
SOL readers and the people who buy and read the stories are looking for the same basic thing - a story that appeals to them. The literary agents/publishers don't care if the writing appeals to them; all they want is writing that will appeal to the people who will buy the books.
All you can do is write what you think will appeal to your two groups of readers, your target audience, and hope it satisfies the literary agents'/publishers' flavor of the day.
The literary agents/publishers don't care if the writing appeals to them; all they want is writing that will appeal to the people who will buy the books.
I think that's an incomplete picture. Literary agents want stories that will appeal to publishers. There might be a significant number of readers who want to read a story in genre X, and literary agents might be in receipt of fantastic stories in genre X, but if no publishers are currently focussed on genre X, the literary agents won't push it.
AJ
I believe most SOL readers feel that way.
I would replace 'feel' with 'think'. What they actually feel is likely to be different.
The most successful stories tend to be those with a clear main character with whom the reader can empathise. In a story with multiple main characters, the reader's relationship with any of them must naturally be more distant than with a single main character, and that affects the appeal of the story.
AJ
to tell from each character, the pieces are far too short for that
I just started a story that has a unique way of jumping from one character to another within a scene. When he jumps to a new character, the paragraph begins with a few words of all capitals. That tells the reader of the "hop."
When it's in the main character's POV, it's in 1st-person. When in the other character's POV, it's in 3rd-person.
I'm not sure I'm liking it. I like to be immersed in a character which I'm not because he keeps jumping (his version of head-hopping). The author keeps jumping from character to character every few paragraphs. I don't think his technique would work with more than 2 characters.
The story is "Stormy Weather" by Renpet if you want to see what he's doing. I'm not recommending the technique (or even the story), but it's an example of one author's way of doing head-hopping.
Based on a review of a few sources on the internet, there is no one right way, like so much else in writing. One way is using quotation marks, but some note that this can be confusing since that is also the signal for spoken words.
Italics is another option, but, that can be confusing if you also use it for some other type of communication, such as telepathy. Also, it can become difficult to read if there is a lot of it.
You can also just write the thoughts with the same typeface and no punctuation, either with or without dialogue tags:
Joe stalked toward the table where his boss sat. Bastard, he thought. He's not going to get away with it this time.
or
Joe stalked toward the table where his boss sat. Bastard. He's not going to get away with it this time.
To some extent, it depends on what you're writing. For example, if your story has a lot of stream-of-consciousness in it, then the suggestion seems to be no tags, no quotes, and no italics. Otherwise, the preponderance seems to be toward italics, either with or without tags. But, I did find at least one editor who suggested that the modern trend is toward no tags, quotes, or italics for most stories as it "creates less distance."
From personal experience, I would note that if your readers (as I do) tends to use text-to-speech software to listen to stories, then neither italics nor quotation marks to distinguish internal untagged normal conversation. It's therefore important to try to make clear via context when something is an internal thought. To me, that would be clear in the examples I gave above because it is tied to the character's action: "stalked."
I didn't find any sources recommending single-quotes vs. double quotes. I'd simply note that if that is the only distinguishing signal, then it's one that is pretty easy for a reader to miss, especially since it doesn't seem to have wide-spread endorsement.
For example, if your story has a lot of stream-of-consciousness in it, then the suggestion seems to be no tags, no quotes, and no italics.
I'm not sure that could work with a multiple viewpoint story.
AJ
Is stream-of-consciousness done much with multiple POV? I just don't know enough about that type of story-telling to really know. But I can see why the least intrusive approach to interior thoughts might work best for that kind of story.
Is stream-of-consciousness done much with multiple POV?
The OP wants each of the two main characters to have inner monologues. I thought stream-of-consciousness implied a single POV.
AJ
the least intrusive approach to interior thoughts
Another is writing in close third-person which moves the point of view from outside the characters to inside one character's head.
So you can have internal dialogue, such as:
He opened the door to the dark room. Where the hell is everyone?
But in close 3rd, those thoughts could be written as narrative, such as:
He opened the door to the dark room. Where the hell was everyone?
Because it's "close," you know he's thinking that even though it's not written as internal dialogue. Also note the tense. When it's internal dialogue, it's present tense because that's what he's thinking (like dialogue is because that's how he's saying it). When it's part of the narrative, it's past tense to be consistent with the rest of the narrative.
But in close 3rd-limited, you must have a single POV for the scene. That goes back to my head-hopping point earlier.
Based on a review of a few sources on the internet, there is no one right way, like so much else in writing.
Agree, however what is done should be consistant!