The Toolbox -- Free For All

[Granfalloon]

Just a quick question, can anyone point me to a discussion on formatting writing when a character is thinking? I'm sure it will already have been discussed here somewhere but I couldn't find it using the Advanced Search (more my fault than the search tool, I should think).

By the way, Matty - I think the Major bear inadvertently (I don't know, maybe it was on purpose) answered this question when he quoted Chrispy:

Originally Posted by chrispenycate
I swear that I had not seen Ursa's post when I started mine, or in any way modified mine afterward except to add this postscript.

Typically what I have seen is that the character's thoughts are italicized.
Although remember to keep the character's thoughts in the same paragraph that is already in that character's point of view (POV). I suppose it is possible to have a stand alone paragraph that is devoted to the character's thoughts, but I haven't seen that too often. What follows are some examples of what I beleive is correct. (Anyone, please feel free to correct me.)

Luke Skygazer stared for an almost interminable length of time at the pinprick of light in the night sky. Is it moving? In other words, is it a star, a satellite, or some other man-made object?
Luke turned to the woman standing next to him. "Do you see that light that looks like a star?" he said, extending his arm, and pointing a finger toward the sky.

-or-

Is that light in the sky moving? Luke wondered; is it a star, a satellite, or some other man-made object? If I ask this woman standing next to me, will she misinterpret my intentions?

The difference here is that both of these paragraphs are written from Luke's point of view, but one is composed of third person omnicient action and first person thought, whereas the other is pure first person thought. Typically thoughts are in italics, and they are almost always in the first person voice. The narrator could say:

Luke thought, Is that light in the sky moving?

But that would be using the omnicient (sees all from above) voice, and my impression is that the omnicient voice is less favored these days, and also dangerous, as it leads to "head-hopping" (see earlier discussions in this thread.)

Would anyone like to expound on the difference between "third person omnicient" and pure "omnicient"?

 

[Ursa major]

Disclaimer: etc.

Sorry, Granfalloon.

I wasn't criticising you or anyone else about the use of any particular name (whether of someone in politics or not). My mention of fantasy in the note was a joking excuse for my suggestion that dogs (in this case Corgis) might be sending out invitations to another dog who happens to live in the US, something that doesn't occur in the real world, but might in a fanatsy realm.


But I require profuse apologies from you for something else: I am a he, not a she.

 

[Granfalloon]

My profuse apologies to you Mr. Bear. I suppose it's quite possible to be warm, fuzzy, and cuddly, and still be male. Whereas it might be very fantastical for a dog to invite another dog for tea, whether they are royal dogs or not.

P.S. - It turned out I was within the edit window, so I changed the original reference.

 

[Ursa major]

Typically what I have seen is that the character's thoughts are italicized.

So have I, although I don't think that they have to be.

So in a close 3rd person POV:

Luke Skygazer stared for an almost interminable length of time at the pinprick of light in the night sky. Was it moving? Was it a star, a satellite, or some other man-made object?

(I've dropped the "in other words", by the way.)

Or, in your other example:

Was that light in the sky moving? Was it a star, a satellite, or some other man-made object? If he were to ask this woman standing next to him, would she misinterpret his intentions?

(I've dropped the "wondered" bit.)

Note that the tense changes (must change) to that of the rest of the narrative.


EDIT: And the pronouns (and possessive determiners) change from I, me, my and mine to he, him, his and his (for a man, that is).

 

[Granfalloon]

I have long made it my policy to have no contact with anyone whose surname is Dumas, precisely because this kind of difficulty might arise.

If the name were Simmons, then you would invite the Simmonses. But Dumas being French, you perhaps should invite les Dumas?

In any case I really think the apostrophe - the Dumas' - is incorrect, and if you have seen it done, then you have seen it done wrongly.

So, it would actually be "Yes, we should definitely invite the Dumases over for din-dins."

Is that right?

 

[Granfalloon]

So have I, although I don't think that they have to be.

So in a close 3rd person POV:

Luke Skygazer stared for an almost interminable length of time at the pinprick of light in the night sky. Was it moving? Was it a star, a satellite, or some other man-made object?

(I've dropped the "in other words", by the way.)

Or, in your other example:

Was that light in the sky moving? Was it a star, a satellite, or some other man-made object? If he were to ask this woman standing next to him, would she misinterpret his intentions?

(I've dropped the "wondered" bit.)

Note that the tense changes (must change) to that of the rest of the narrative.


EDIT: And the pronouns (and possessive determiners) change from I, me, my and mine to he, him, his and his (for a man, that is).

I do like it better with those things dropped,and I follow the reasoning for mentioning tense changes (Is it moving vs. Was it moving), but the pronoun changes keep it in 3rd person POV? I thought it was okay to change to 1st person during a thought sequence.

 

[The Judge]

So, it would actually be "Yes, we should definitely invite the Dumases over for din-dins."

Is that right?

Don't think so. As HareBrain noted, this is a French name, and I'd leave it as 'Dumas pere et fils' personally (with accent if I could find one) since one would pronounce it as Dumas ie Doo-mar or perhaps Doo-marz in the plural* certainly not Doo-masses. But one would invite the Smiths, the Browns or the Davises if one really wanted to.

J

*French 'A'-Level a very long time ago - Chrispy where are you??

 

[Granfalloon]

Hmm... No wonder the French dislike the Americans. I distinctly heard it pronounced Doo-Maas when I was there (America), and in fact the gentleman who's name it was did not complain.

 

[Ursa major]

I thought it was okay to change to 1st person during a thought sequence.

It is, because it is a thought sequence, an internal dialogue, not a part of the narrative. (And in this case, you might use italics, though not all do, apparently.)

Hmm... No wonder the French dislike the Americans. I distinctly heard it pronounced Doo-Maas when I was there (America), and in fact the gentleman who's name it was did not complain.

Would he have been as sanguine, though, if the name had been pronounced "Dumb-Ass"?

 

[chrispenycate]

Mon experte en grammaire française est en vacances, mais pour moi, se sera "les Dumas, père et fils. (I've got the accents).

Pronounced doo-ma, whether singular or plural.
Monsieur et madame Dumas et toutes les petits Dumas, even.

Although I've never actually met plural Dumases (Dumae?)

 

[thatollie]

Interesting. That would make it:

Peter's coat -- Peter, his coat
Jane'r coat -- Jane, her coat

Wouldn't it?

Nope,

The early English possessive was es, Peteres Coat.

 

[thatollie]

Nope,

The early English possessive was es, Peteres Coat.

Dang, too late to edit. I read this somewhere but I can remember exactly.

 

[Peter Graham]

Would anyone like to expound on the difference between "third person omnicient" and pure "omnicient"?

My pleasure...

Third Person Omniscient

As the name suggests, you are talking in the third person - so it's he/she/it rather than I/we.

The omniscient bit comes from the fact that the narrator is the one reporting the third person action to the reader.

"Peter accidentally sneezed and tried to pretend that he wasn't wiping the horrible results on the underside of the kitchen table. He looked up in shock as Mrs Graham marched over purposefully and whacked him over the head with a roasting tray. The dog looked at Peter as though to say 'So it's not just us that can't learn new tricks.'"

This passge is told from Peter's point of view (which is expressed in the third person), but it is not actually told directly by Peter - it is told instead by the narrator (omniscient). Imagine the narrator as an invisible imp sitting on Peter's shoulder and doing a commentary.


Omniscient

The narrator is still relating the action, but is not doing so through the point of view of one nominated third person character. The narrator is therefore able to head hop furiously.

"Peter accidentally sneezed and tried to pretend that he wasn't wiping the horrible results on the underside of the kitchen table. Mrs Graham saw him do it. For the third time this week! She marched over purposefully and whacked Peter over the head with a roasting tray. The dog looked up and sighed. 'And they say we never learn new tricks?' it though to itself."


See how the action here is reported from three different points of view? Imagine the narrator as a god of Mount Olympus, looking down on the Grahams' domestic arrangements and reporting what he or she sees to Hephaestus, who is within earshot but who is looking the other way as he tries to spy on his lovely paramour, Aphrodite, in the shower.

Incidentally, I'd avoid straight omniscient unless you really are a truly excellent writer. Head-hopping can be done well, but it is usually done badly, which is why most of us should avoid it like a dose of the pox.

Regards,

Peter

 

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Peter,

I've heard what you described in your first example called "Third Person Limited." It's in third person, but the narrator is limiting herself to Peter's experiences.

I think any sort of omniscient narrator would be free to jump around from head to head.

 

[ctg]

TPA, it's about the perspective. In Peter's excellent example, we still get know what the dog is doing, while in the Limited perspective, we would read what Peter is thinking.

Third Person Limited

"Peter accidentally sneezed and tried to pretend that he wasn't wiping the horrible results on the underside of the kitchen table. He looked up in shock as Mrs Graham marched over purposefully and whacked him over the head with a roasting tray.

As his head cleared, he saw the dog looking him sadly as if to say, 'you should learn from the master!'"

Now notice that we stick closely to Peters perspective and at the end, we still stick to his imagination to hear what he's thinking.

 

[Ursa major]

In transcribing Peter's sentence, ctg, you've added a little extra bit of separation, by adding the words "he saw" (as well as the bit about his head clearing).

To make the point, I'll simplify:

He saw the dog looking at him sadly as if to say, 'you should learn from the master!'

The dog looked at him sadly as if to say, 'you should learn from the master!'

This is something into which I fall all too easily myself: "he heard", "she saw", etc. (It's something I found I added when trying to remove implied head hopping, as if by adding the "he saw", etc. I was making it clearer; whereas if I'd written it properly in the first place, it wouldn't needed to be pointed out. And pointing it out changes the relationship between the reader and the POV, if only for a phrase or sentence.)

 

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Ursa has pointed out an interesting thing about third person. There's a sliding scale between "limited" and "omniscient."

"Peter accidentally sneezed and tried to pretend that he wasn't wiping the horrible results on the underside of the kitchen table. He looked up in shock as Mrs Graham marched over purposefully and whacked him over the head with a roasting tray. The dog looked at Peter as though to say 'So it's not just us that can't learn new tricks.'"

Whose opinion is it that the results are "horrible"? Or that Mrs. Graham's stride is "purposeful"? Who has decided what the dog's look implied? Are these Peter's opinions? Or is it the opinion of the imp sitting on his shoulder? It's possible that the imp is finding humor in this situation that is entirely lost on Peter himself.

If you choose to be very cold and reportorial about it: "Mrs. Graham beat her husband on the head with a roasting tray after he sneezed, while their dog looked on. The cut on his head required three stitches."

See, that's not funny at all. Or maybe my imp's sense of humor is drier.

 

[ctg]

I'm sorry, it's still not as close as it could be. Although a perfectly wonderful description, some of this bits are still told from the Omniscient POV. Thank you anyway for a correction Ursa. Let's see if I get a bit closer perspective with this rewrite.

Limited Third Person POV - Version 2.

Peter felt tickling in his nose, but just as he was clamping it, he sneezed. He caught most of the phlegm and straight away without thinking; he wiped it at the bottom of the kitchen table. It was a mistake, a bad one. Mrs Graham marched over and whacked him with a roasting tray.

Oh bollocks, that hurts.

When his head cleared, the dog looked at him sadly as if to say, ‘you should learn from the master!’

 

[Ursa major]

Now the questions that I, as an inexperienced fiction writer, want to ask include:

• Can the shifting of the depth of the relationship between the POV character and the reader ever be more than an error?
• Can it be used for some purpose within the narration associated with the a POV character?
• Can different POVs have deliberately different depths of relationship, allowing the writer to subtly (or not so subtly) play on the allegiances of the reader?
• Would that simply be naff? Even if done well?
• Are other effects possible?

(As you can see, I'm not asking for much....)

 

[Interference]

.... and is it ok now to deliberately split an infinitive?