Forum: Author Hangout

Ross's summation is excellent. Internal thoughts, when used, can be marked either with single quotes (ex: 'I can do this,' he thought) or with italics (ex: This is the perfect opportunity for me to impress her, he reflected.) But as Ross noted, they key is being consistent, not just throughout your story, but also across any further stories you write. If you decide you made a mistake you can change it, but it's best if you go back and correct the alternate uses in your already posted stories, just so your regular readers know what to expect when reading your stories.

@oldegrump

Perhaps is you are using mind reading, you would use another voice, but to me if you show distinct separation it is not needed.

What oldegrump is referring to, is a convention that many authors have chosen when invoking telepathy (the ability to communicate mind-to-mind with others) so their dialogue is conveyed as the other characters 'thoughts', but which is distinguished so readers know it's not their own internal thoughts. This convention is to combine to two alternative formatting techniques (ex: 'You are now my slave!' Tom projected into Betty's mind. 'The hell I am, motherfucker, she responded, telekinetically kicking him in his nuts.)

But, you'd only need such formatting in science-fiction, mind-control or superhero stories. Otherwise, I'd avoid it altogether.

Expansion on the ideas:
The reason why you don't use internal thoughts in 3rd person stories (a story from someone else's perspective), or for anyone other than the main character in 1st person stories, is because there is no way for the characters (which includes the narrator) to know the internal thoughts of other people.

This practice is known as "head hopping", where an author projects their own thoughts (the author's thoughts) into the mind of other characters. It's frowned upon because it typically takes the reader out of the story and into the author's thoughts about the character's motivations. Instead, it's best to show how a character is thinking by how they respond to events (i.e. revealing their motivations by their physical action, rather than TELLING the readers what he internal thoughts are).

If you Google "head hopping", it'll give me more details on why you don't want to venture into this territory, although many, many authors do it anyway.

Omniscient, the reader learns the thoughts of ANYBODY.

Through the omni narrator

Omniscient, the reader learns the thoughts of ANYBODY. in limited, the reader learns the thoughts of ONLY ONE person.

That approach is a virtual minefield, and it's a trap for inexperienced writers, who find it easier to say—using Switch's example—what's motivating Joe, rather than revealing it by how Joe responds to situations. In short, it's a shortcut rife with the potential for abuse by the inexperienced. I'm not saying the narrator in 3rd person story can't relate the mindset of a particular character, but it's best if you always treat the omniscient narrator as a character in your story. Even if you never reveal the information, it's best to identify who's telling the story, and how they know so many details. Is it simply someone who's been told the story repeatedly (so they're likely to repeat the details they were told, whether they're accurate or not), is it someone who lived through the experience, who was likely told what the protagonist was thinking long after the events in the story, or by someone who'd have no clue what the participant's were thinking. Just because omniscient means "all-knowing" doesn't mean you should treat the narrator as God relating the story from on-high during church. But having some clue of their background allows you to take their knowledge of events into account.

If the narrator would personally know what each character was thinking, then it's OK to include it in the story. If not, I'd personally leave it out. And if you're not sure, that's a sign that you're treading on thin ice, simply because you haven't laid enough groundwork for the story yet. :(

What POV are you writing it in? It makes a difference.

I do not know about anyone else, but I have complete conversations with myself. Been that way forever. So that's what the character does, have a long and involved conversation with himself. Taking the pro side and the con side, trying to decide on [whatever]. Essentially an extended conversation with oneself.

That's fine, and I've used that technique in several (two) of my books. However, before you yank that trick out of your magical hat, you need to lay the proper groundwork.

In short, you first need to establish that the character has a long family history of speaking to himself in the 3rd person, it also helps if you provide some evidence that he's not simply bat-crap crazy, and you should show how those around him respond to that practice.

Those details allow the reader to process how they respond to the character. If this is something the character is embarrassed by, they they won't do it around others. If they did it because they grew up without friends, then they'll be shy around other people, often saying little when meeting new people beyond the necessities. Or, if they learned the habit from a trusted family member, you'll want to relate how the rest of the family thought of him (i.e. was it an undiagnosed symptom of schizophrenia).

Even with all of that preparation, one of those two stories was widely panned by readers who though the main-character was a "Schizo" for constantly talking to himself like he had multiple personalities at war with one another!

Like this?

Yeah, just like that. That establishes that it's an individual quirk, that's it based on the character's family history, and that he's NOT completely bonkers! Best of all, it allows you to avoid multiple sentences tagged ", he thought to himself."

As an aside, you know you're in 'Hicksville' when the best grocery store within 30 miles is in the Super WalMart.

The last I heard was that Walmart was closing most, if not all, of their Hicksville stores and only operating in Central Hicksville and bigger due to increased operating costs.

Is that the Hicksville in New York?

No, it's the one in the middle of the Appalachian mountains.

I'm sure you get that right, but if I recall correctly, you get hate mail from a few readers every time you write in the present tense.

Would you agree that using the past tense is the safe option for someone writing their first lengthy story?

I do get hate mail from a few readers who think past tense is the only tense to use in story writing. Oddly enough it's mostly the same small group who also hate first person stories as well. To them third person past tense is the only way to write a story.

One of the things I like about using present tense is the tense you use in writing the story is the same for the dialogue and the narrative, while past tense stories are supposed to use past tense for the narrative and present tense in the dialogue. In both you write about events in the story's past in the same way, so it shouldn't make a difference there.

The biggest problem for new authors when writing present tense is much of what was written in the 20th century were past tense, and thus that is what they're used to reading.

While I prefer to use the present tense because I find it easier to write that way and I think it gives the story a higher sense of immediacy of happening now, I always advise people to write in the way they feel most comfortable using.

BTW I've written stories as past tense first person, past tense third person, present tense first person, and present tense third person and I find present tense third person to give me the most freedom as an author. In both I tend to use omni third person, but don't always tell all as the narrator.

Actually, the best thing about present tense is the flashbacks are in simple past tense, not past perfect tense.

* Is it true 3POV omni is always a safe choice to make?

Absolutely not. From what I've read, omni is the hardest one to write well. The narrator has the tendency to tell too much (that is, give out too much info). The reader wants to be intimate with the characters. That's also hard to do in omni. And it's harder to have an unreliable narrator.

* Are there any things that 3POV close will allow that cannot be done in 1POV?

Changing POV characters. Some authors are able to have multiple 1st-person POV characters. That's very hard. Each must have their own voice. In fact, you should be able to know whose POV the scene is in simply by reading the narrative voice. I also believe you can show more in 3rd-limited than in 1st-person.

* What any the different requirements of 1POV and 3POV close?

1st-person POV has more intimacy between the reader and character. In 1st, the narrator's voice is more important. Think of Huck Finn's voice. Or Scout's in "To Kill a Mockingbird."

And it's harder to have an unreliable narrator.

That's true if they approach the narrator in a 3rd Omni story to be God lecturing atop Mt. Olympus (mixing my metaphors), but if they learn to treat their narrator as another character, rather than an all-knowing deity, it's not as difficult.

* Are there any things that 3POV close will allow that cannot be done in 1POV?

Changing POV characters. Some authors are able to have multiple 1st-person POV characters. That's very hard. Each must have their own voice. In fact, you should be able to know whose POV the scene is in simply by reading the narrative voice. I also believe you can show more in 3rd-limited than in 1st-person.

Of course, the biggest difference is that normally 3rd Limited allows you to write a first-person POV story in the past tense, which is what Ross was suggesting new authors stick with.

But then technically, wouldn't it be 3rd limited rather than 3rd omni?

Yes. The omni narrator is not a character in a 3rd-person omni story.

When you talk about distance from the reader, omni is the most distant. 1st-person is the closest. 3rd-limited is in between. The reason omni is the farthest is because the narrator is not part of the story — none of the characters.

Yes. The omni narrator is not a character in a 3rd-person omni story.

I suspect that D.S. was confusing the example (the Steven Kind novel written in 3rd limited) with my comment (about identifying who the narrator is ahead of time).

The major difference between 3rd limited and 3rd Omni is you're limiting yourself to a past-tense single POV story.

The major difference between 3rd limited and 3rd Omni is you're limiting yourself to a past-tense single POV story.

Just checked. "The Green Mile" is 1st-person.

Both limited and omni can be past tense or present tense.

The major difference is the POV (a character in the story or an omniscient narrator not in the story).

But then technically, wouldn't it be 3rd limited rather than 3rd omni?

Not at all, as it's still 3rd Omni, but now you, the author, have a better conception of what the 3rd Omni narrator would say. However, that doesn't change the Omni narrator into the main character (although in the Steven King novel raised, it was a 3rd Limited story, as best I can recall the actual book).

I suggest that as a step authors take before writing, so they know how to approach the narration, but the adage 'treat your narrator as another character' has nothing to do with making the main character the narrator.

but the adage 'treat your narrator as another character' has nothing to do with making the main character the narrator.

That's why I specifically referenced Ismael in "Moby Dick" because he was not the MC. Same for "The Great Gatsby" and I believe Watson was the narrator in "Sherlock Holmes."

But an omni narrator is not a character in the story. I don't know why you keep saying that.

But an omni narrator is not a character in the story. I don't know why you keep saying that.

Sigh! No, the narrator is not a character in the story, but it's beneficial to authors for them to consider the narrator as a character, so they have a better feel for what the narrator would or wouldn't know.

It's the same with doing basic research on your characters. You wouldn't write a story about a Vietnam bomber pilot without doing some basic research on what their job entailed, so why wouldn't you put the same kind of information into figuring out whether your narrator has a clue about what they're spouting?

so why wouldn't you put the same kind of information into figuring out whether your narrator has a clue about what they're spouting?

Because, as DS said, omniscient means all-knowing. The narrator knows everything.

Whether the narrator is a defined character or not, if the narrator is not "all knowing" it can't be third person omniscient.

I give up, and I can explain how I choose to write my own story, but if your merely going to quote 3rd grade dictionary definitions back at me, I give up.

Do whatever the FUCK you want with your narrator, but for ME, I prefer understanding WHO my narrator is, so I can refine him as a character in my stories.

I didn't say that there is anything wrong with doing that. But why pretend you are writing in third person omniscient rather than third person limited if your "refined" narrator isn't omniscient?

There's a hell of a lot MORE to 3rd Person Omni than simply having God sitting by your shoulder and whispering in your ear.

True, by the 'classical' definition of "Omnicient", that's the literal meaning, but the term is a metaphorical term, rather than a precise clinical definition.

3rd limited, on the other hand, is clearly not what I'm writing.

I'm not changing my writing styles, I'm simply getting a better feel for a narrator character, just as I would if I treated the weather in my story as a character. That doesn't mean that they have spoken dialogue, all it means is that I factor in their wants, desires, background and actions when I write the story!

I prefer understanding WHO my narrator is, so I can refine him as a character in my stories.

Then write it in 1st-person omniscient like "The Book Thief." Death (the narrator) is a character in the story. He meets the girl on the train because her brother is dying. Then he tells her story and the story around her (because he's all-knowing). It's rather clever.

Then write it in 1st-person omniscient like "The Book Thief." Death (the narrator) is a character in the story. He meets the girl on the train because her brother is dying. Then he tells her story and the story around her (because he's all-knowing). It's rather clever.

However 'clever' the one book is, I'm NOT writing a fuckin' 1st-person or 3rd-limited story, as I reflect the perspectives of multiple people. The story IS 'Omniscient' because the narrator, whoever the hell they are, knows everything that happens. That doesn't mean they're literally God, after all, God doesn't write many stories, last I checked at my local bookstore. It simply means that, having lived though the story, they know what happened, and what everyone's perspective were based on subsequent conversations.

Geez! What's this with the sudden word Gestapo? It's no longer enough that I use the proper word, but I'm now ONLY allowed to use it if I remain true to the literal 1st definition listed in the friggin' dictionary!

I'm SORRY I ever broached an opinion! Rather than offering an alternate technique, I get raked over the coals for a figurative term, which is about an imprecise as you can get!

This is like discussing writing techniques with a 3 year old, except the 3 year old is more forgiving!

Personally, I'm not fond of stories with omniscient God-like narrators. I get a bit irritated by all of the begats, thines, and thou shalts. :-)

and the swag of the senators who think they're gods and issue dozens of thou shalt nots each month are much worse.

Here's an interesting article on POV. https://thewritepractice.com/point-of-view-guide/

I actually don't agree with everything he says, but there's good information in it for thought.

For example, his Harry Potter example of 3rd-limited is, to me, omniscient. Whose POV is that written in? Surely not Harry's. He doesn't know that people are meeting in secret all over the country. He's sleeping.

example of 3rd-limited is, to me, omniscient.

That's an area where a lot of people get confused in that they think because the narrator his omniscient they think he has to tell you everything right away, but the narrator has no requirement to do so. Thus an omniescent narrator has the opportunity to give you the most flexibility, but that doesn't mean the narrator has to be babbling everything out right away.

For example, his Harry Potter example of 3rd-limited is, to me, omniscient. Whose POV is that written in? Surely not Harry's. He doesn't know that people are meeting in secret all over the country. He's sleeping.

There's 3rd-limited, and then there's ineptly executed 3rd-limited. For as phenomenal as the Harry Potter series was, nearly everyone contents that she really mungled many of her techniques, and wasn't particularly good at character development (i.e. they develop, but not often within scenes through self-awareness, but instead she has the plot drive those changes so they're forced to become more complex characters).

Frankly, that's the reason why her stories were rejected by so many publishers, because she didn't know the basics about writing, though her story more than made up for her many technical faults!

that's the reason why her stories were rejected by so many publishers, because she didn't know the basics about writing,

But this editor, who is writing about POV, shouldn't have used that example as 3rd-limited.

that's the reason why her stories were rejected by so many publishers, because she didn't know the basics about writing,

But this editor, who is writing about POV, shouldn't have used that example as 3rd-limited.

That just shows that the editor in question is as ignorant as basic writing techniques as the author he's quoting. 'D It's akin the 'the blind leading the blind, using someone else who's blind as their tour guide'.

Good point. I've read about techniques for flashbacks when writing in the past tense. They don't sound elementary. I can see how present tense may be simpler.

The current trend among established authors (when writing in past-tense 3rd Omni stories) is to minimize the use of past perfect tenses and to instead either use normal past tense, or if necessary, use past-perfect to set that the details are in the distant past before switching to normal past tense, so readers at least have the proper context.

Once again, the feeling in the industry is that the use of past perfect tense takes the reader out of the story, informing them that 'these are details which really aren't vital to the story, so feel free to skip over them'.

It's not a HUGE trend at the moment, but more established best-sellers are adopting the practice.

But, to your point (about newbie authors getting into trouble to imitating the more experienced SOL authors), you have a point. I'd suggest that new authors start out with a limited (limited set of chapters with a 'starter' story, rather than trying to write their Magnum Opus on their first attempt at writing), written in 1st person present tense. Even though it's more limiting, they'll at least quickly learn why it's so limiting so they'll be advised as to which they before when they attempt their next book.

Note: I did that with my first book, and after writing two complete books (writing one, which I later split in two because it worked better as two books), and I've always regretted it! I tend to have so many characters acting at cross purposes, that it's foolish for me to even attempt writing in either 1st or 3rd Limited POV. Been there, did that, threw the box away!

However, until an author runs headlong into the problems a 1st person story entails, they'll never appreciate its limitations, OR learn how to avoid them!

I'd suggest that new authors start out with a limited (limited set of chapters) ... written in 1st person present tense ... until an author runs headlong into the problems a 1st person story entails, they'll never appreciate its limitations, OR learn how to avoid them!

Good point! Test the water first is a better suggestion than my "Don't get wet when you start learning how to swim". :-)

Case in point: I've already restricted that first 6-book series on SOL and I'm getting ready to 'unpublish' the books because I've never been satisfied with how I handled those first two books in the series (despite revising them twice already).

If I'd only followed my own advice, I'd be in much better shape now!

is to minimize the use of past perfect tenses and to instead either use normal past tense, or if necessary, use past-perfect to set that the details are in the distant past before switching to normal past tense, so readers at least have the proper context.

That's not just for omniscient. The purpose is simply because it's painful to read all those "had"s. You write the first part (how many paragraphs is variable) in past perfect to let the reader know it's happening prior to the current point in the story, switch to simple past, AND THEN switch back to past perfect towards the end of the flashback to let the reader know it's ending and they will be returning to the current time in the story. So you frame the flashback with past perfect.

But you don't have that problem if you write the story in present tense.

The last I heard was that Walmart was closing most, if not all, of their Hicksville stores and only operating in Central Hicksville and bigger due to increased operating costs.

Some of their really small stores - 35,000 square feet - have been closed this year. So far they're at a net plus 20 for store totals, though - closing 70 but opening 90.

The key word that was missed in the comment above is not best, but ONLY. If the ONLY grocery store within 30 miles is the Super WalMart ...

Of course, you can also get into really rural situations like we have out here, where the local gas station has a cooler for milk and beer, and the very basic things, but if you want to make a grocery run, you put the ice chest in the back of the pickup and drive almost two hours, because it's 100 miles to town.

I can remember at least one story where the main character talking to herself had multiple personalities and each one "spoke" to her in a different color type. Interesting, unless the reader is colorblind.

That response is similar to those who get embarrassed any time they accidentally mention the word "see" to a blind person. Trust me, most color-blind people know that they're color blind. Plus, having been English speakers, they're used to color terms, and have a decent understanding of them—even if it's only on an intellectual basis—so trying to dance around the truth is largely pointless and, frankly, annoying to the color-blind/blind person.

and not have anything in the narrative that isn't known to that person

Stephen King used a technique to do that in "The Green Mile." The 1st-person narrator is telling a story that happened in the past. He said something like, "Later, after reading the report, I learned that…"

So at the time in the story, he didn't know that it happened. But he's telling the story with much more information than he had at the time.

"Later, after reading the report, I learned that…"

That's OK in one or two places, but after that it becomes very old very quick. I try to leave that sort of thing to author's notes if the info needs to provided to close it out but doesn't affect the plot.

That's OK in one or two places, but after that it becomes very old very quick. I try to leave that sort of thing to author's notes if the info needs to provided to close it out but doesn't affect the plot.

The ONLY time I've ever used it is in a epilogue, which reflects details which aren't a part of the story (which is exactly how Steven King did it in his final chapter). It's a handy way of tying up loose ends in a story.

So at the time in the story, he didn't know that it happened. But he's telling the story with much more information than he had at the time.

Again, that' an example of treating your narrator as a character, rather than someone dictating the actual TRUTH in all matters. Instead, you need to identify the narrator (in King's book, it was the character set well into the future once he was released from prison) in order to do a decent job of understanding what they know!

Instead, you need to identify the narrator (in King's book, it was the character set well into the future once he was released from prison)

In 1st-person, the narrator is always a character in the story. In "The Green Mile," it was the supervisor of death row. In "Moby Dick," it was Ishmael.

You wouldn't have an all-knowing narrator in 1st-person, unless it's 1st-person omniscient. I only know of one of those — "The Book Thief" — where the omni narrator is all-knowing Death.

The biggest problem with first person point of view is you have to stay with the one character and not have anything in the narrative that isn't known to that person from what has already happened.

That applies to either 1st or 3rd omni, and it isn't that they can't use anything that's happens differently with another character, but that a 1st/3rd-Limited narrator can't know what ANYONE else is thinking, their motivations or their desires. That's all a dark wellstone, unless the other characters opens up and admits everything to the 1st person narrator.

I don't know if it will help, but I had a character have an argument with herself inside her head. So she wasn't talking out loud, but I don't see why it would be different (except it would be punctuated as dialogue rather than thoughts). This is it:

Elizabeth Hathaway's head shot up as the taxi came to a screeching halt. Her eyes bored into the back of the driver's head before she turned to gaze out the side window. The sudden jolt brought her out of her deep, disturbed thoughts about going to hell.

She stared out the car window at the all too familiar building and, with teeth clenched, once again tried to will herself to return home. A recurring argument ensued within her.

Why are you here?

You know why.

Go home. There's still time.

No way. I waited all week.

It's wrong. It's a sin.

Who says?

Elizabeth sensed she was being watched. …

I've seen that technique used many times. IMO it's easy to follow and effective.

AJ