Internal voice mismatch

[Phyrebrat]

I'm having a problem with consistency between my character's dialogue and his thoughts.

He speaks in a rural way, based on what I grew up hearing in Dorset and Somerset, but I've kept it lite so as not to irritate or distract.

A few people have commented - and lately in crits - that he thinks with a clarity and lyrical-ness that is at odds with his speech. They're right, but I'm not sure how to bumpkin his thoughts. In fact, something Boneman said really surprised me on a rather existential level; that he thinks with the same voice he speaks.

I understand the consistency and logic of this, but I'd have to admit I don't think in words or accent, or voice. For me (my) thoughts are about impressions and a gestalt that would be impossible to convey in my speech. So, I'm not entirely sure how I go about giving Henry (one of my POV characters) thoughts that match his speech.

Do I, literally, write:

He be mad suggestin I gone drag my ar** to Cranbowen

If he would say in speech, ' 'ee be mad for thinking I would come to Cranbowen.' ??

I have so many POV thoughts in my WIP that I really need to get this sorted out or I'll end up making so much work for myself.

Any tips?

Thanks

pH

 

[EJDeBrun]

I don't have any tips persay, but I have a thought.

Accents are usually used in writing to showcase how someone is foreign to the POV character. Sorta like a weird spice in dialogue? So if you are writing from a main character's POV, their language would probably be normal to them. In other words, you shouldn't have to resort to an accent for them, which also means that character's throughts would also not use an accent. This makes it much easier for the reader to follow along, as most accents are very off putting for reading over an extended period of time. And I think an encounter with another character who either a) doesn't speak the same, or b) maybe expresses confusion over understanding the main POV character? might help establishing an accent without having to write it out.

I think it's fine to throw colloquialisms and idiomatic phrases that might showcase a certain level of "rural-ism". Also bad grammar or esoteric word choices will help with that (so your character doesn't sound like someone from Oxford or Cambridge) and I would keep sentence structures simple. Most people who live in the rural tend to think linearly. A + B = C kind of thing. Not A/B x C = D + (E x F) if that makes sense?

Yea, I would ditch the accent. Also can use a lot of unformed sounds and body language to convey things rather than coloring them with more words. This might help color your character the way you want.

Note: Maybe I should point out that I did read your excerpt and my comment about linear thoughts isn't a reflection on people who are rural NOW, but my impression of your charact from the bit in the passage.

 

[The Judge]

If you're writing actual direct thoughts in first person with italics eg "I do so hate Eoffric", then yes, he must think in the same voice as he speaks.

If you're writing indirect thoughts in close-ish third person, eg "He so hated Eoffric" it doesn't have to be exactly the same voice, but it also can't be so far different that it jars. So if, for instance, you were writing someone who can barely string two words together it would jar for me if the indirect thoughts were very smooth and polished.

It didn't occur to me when I was looking at your extract, but I can see what Boneman means. It doesn't worry me too much, and I'm willing to bet it wouldn't worry your average reader. But I think if you inhabited your characters such as Henry a bit more, so that you saw what he would see and describe things how he would, rather than doing it in your own voice, that might help things along.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I'
I understand the consistency and logic of this, but I'd have to admit I don't think in words or accent, or voice. For me (my) thoughts are about impressions and a gestalt that would be impossible to convey in my speech.

I'm exactly the same. My internal voice is accentless and refined. When I actually hear myself speaking in a recording it jars my mind remarkably.

As for your question wot TJ said.

 

[Overread]

I would say if the internal voice is the character then it should be accented the same as their spoken word; because to the reader the internal thoughts as thought by a character are often read much like one might read a diary. Even if you've multiple character points of view each one becomes a little diary of its own; which is oft why books with many point of view characters often dedicate a chapter to a specific character each time around.

When the internal voice is written in a disconnected format then the reader reads it as the narrator and thus it doesn't have to be accented and is better in plain normal English.


In short if the character is telling you then its in their voice ; if its the narrator telling you then its in the narrators voice (which is important to note because whilst I did say narrators are better in normal english; nothing stops a whole book being narrated by a narrator with accent)

 

[Ursa major]

He speaks in a rural way, based on what I grew up hearing in Dorset and Somerset, but I've kept it lite so as not to irritate or distract.

A few people have commented - and lately in crits - that he thinks with a clarity and lyrical-ness that is at odds with his speech.

I'm confused.

The first sentence of yours that I've quoted seems to be about word choice, i.e. that you lightly sprinkle the character's speech with dialect words. The second sentence seems to be about how direct his thoughts are (if that's what those people mean by "clarity"), and the lyrical way they see those thoughts expressed. (Lyrical can mean a number of things, so I won't say more on this.)

Now it seems to me, possibly mistakenly, that one can be clear and/or lyrical in speech sprinkled with dialect words just as easily as one can be unclear and wooden/leaden in Received Pronunciation. So while it might be an idea to use some dialect words when you're recording thoughts -- or using indirect free speech -- in your narrative, I'm not sure it actually addresses the problem you've encountered with your readers.


Note that in my experience, the easiest way to write thoughts (and indirect free speech) is to imagine the character speaking his/her/its thoughts out loud to himself/herself/itself. Indeed, one could easily imagine that this "dialogue", which is never spoken out loud, might be even more freely expressed than normal dialogue, even that with close friends, and certainly more freely than "straight" narration. After all, it's only intended to be "heard" by the character (even though it is included in the narration).

 

[zmunkz]

I would say italic thoughts should match the speech patterns / parlance / vocabulary of spoken words within any particular POV. It seems plain to me that people think the same way they speak... why wouldn't they? How wouldn't they?

The question of the surrounding exposition is a bit more subtle. Someone like Brandon Sanderson or Robert Jordan have their authorial "voice" and it doesn't change much from POV to POV. Here I literally mean the sentence structure/style and vocabulary. That works just fine. Joe Abercrombie, on the other hand, adjusts his entire narrative tone to sound like the thoughts of the POV character in question. Any line of exposition or action could be italicizes and would fit the voice of the POV. I don't think either of these methods will irritate or distract, it just creates a different experience.

 

[HareBrain]

It seems plain to me that people think the same way they speak... why wouldn't they? How wouldn't they?

I'm not convinced the kind of direct thought we see in fiction (usually in italics) exists in real life. I don't think in coherent sentences (not more than a very few words, at least) unless I'm imagining or remembering speech or writing. And even that isn't like my own speech because it's devoid of all the "uhms" and "yeahs" and so on. I'd be interested to know if other people, having observed their own mental workings, find different.

My belief is that direct thought isn't an accurate representation of what goes on in a person's mind; it's a fictional convention. I almost never use it, and much prefer reported thought.

But if you are going to use it, as a convention, you should probably use it in a way that fits people's expectations, which means using the same vocabulary and dialect.

 

[Ursa major]

I don't think in coherent sentences

Surely there must be a charity we can all donate to....


I think a lot, I think**, and have no other means of doing so than by arranging words into sentences in my head. (Their adherence to the rules of grammar can vary greatly, of course.) For instance, a verb without a subject doesn't naturally pop into my head, and though nouns may appear without a verb (in terms of seeing something and "naming" it), this isn't the norm (and in any case doesn't really warrant being called a thought, as thinking isn't really involved, just the emergence of the noun, or an adjective, from my subconscious).

It is true that my dreams would not bear much scrutiny in terms of their coherence, but they rarely have any words in them at all, only images.

Speaking of coherence... I can't guarantee that any of my sentences -- thought, spoken or (in first draft) written -- are always fully coherent, but I'm pretty sure that most of them are not incoherent (if you see what I mean). Are you perhaps setting the bar vey high for your own thoughts? Are they really incoherent (after those first few words), or do they simply fade away in the face of the numerous and varied possibilities that can present themselves when thinking about some topics.


** - Whether I do so more than is the norm, I can't in all honesty say. How would I know?

 

[Cat's Cradle]

Forgive me in advance if my ramblings are of no interest, but in response to HB's request for thoughts on our own mental workings... First, I totally agree, HB, that literature-thought doesn't seem representative of what goes on in my own head at all...it so often seems the exact opposite of the way we think, and comes over as a way of advancing the storyline (a fictional convention, as you name it).

It's really interesting to me to think that some folks don't think in full sentences, though - rather, in gestalts, as pH says. For me, it depends on the circumstances I find myself in. When alone, I tend to think things out, and think things through, so typically, long, complete sentences...often more as I would type them, than say them, but still reasonably close to how I would speak (except I swear a fair bit more when I'm having deep thoughts, because when I'm alone is the time for deep contemplation on troubling issues...thoughts on how to find the money to pay bills, trips to the dentist, people who've p*ssed me off, etc). Sometimes the thoughts are repeated, and refined, until I have the thought fully in line with how I feel it should be emotionally, or intellectually.

When I'm talking with another person, or a group of people, it's almost all spontaneous...my personal conversations - I believe - contain very little of pause-reflect-calculate-respond. I react - so, when I read a story, and a person in a group is having long, complex thoughts between utterances (unless it's a conversation, say, about scientific experimentation), it usually rings false to me. But I see this often in literature (I'm currently reading a howler of a time travel novel, and there might be a page or more of narrated thought between lines of dialogue...it's really terrible).

I do have the gestalt-type thoughts, but often when, say, I am walking in a forest, and let my mind travel unfocused. Sometimes troubling issues resolve themselves wholly in a flash; this is when I usually come up with my best challenge stories...I'll have thought of the genre/theme pairing for a little while, then gone walking...and a story - every line - will manifest in its entirety.

Well, there are other things to say, but perhaps this is long enough as it stands (typed spontaneously, btw - one word appearing in mind as the last is being typed.) CC

 

[mosaix]

Interesting thread. I hope this isn't OT but sometimes, in my head, things are clear and lucid but when I go to put them down on paper (or screen) it's all completely jumbled.

Like UM I think in words and sentences and often wonder how early man, before language developed, organised his thoughts. This is probably the subject of another thread in another forum.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

For me, it sounds like you are not close enough to your character to know his unconscious thoughts yet. When you sink into writing him do you think with his voice or your own? I think inhabiting him more might bring the voices close together.

Have you tried acting him out? Maybe wander around pretending to be him? Go to the shop as him, notice what he might as you walk. For me, unless I am at the point of slipping into being the character, the moving into their thoughts is very hard.

 

[Cat's Cradle]

(Interesting post, mosaix! Perhaps there's a thread in your future...?)

 

[mosaix]

Have you tried acting him out? Maybe wander around pretending to be him? Go to the shop as him, notice what he might as you walk.

Take care if your subject is a homicidal maniac.

 

[HareBrain]

Like UM I think in words and sentences and often wonder how early man, before language developed, organised his thoughts. This is probably the subject of another thread in another forum.

I think it's relevant to this subject, actually, because I think that some of our mental processes are still similar. Anyway, until such a thread arrives ...

A few summers ago, a fox regularly visited my garden, and I once watched him staring up at the top of a fence, clearly trying to work out if he could jump that high and scrabble over it. Until that point, I would have assumed that an animal would have calculated that in a moment's instinct, and either tried for the jump or not. But he stared up at it, occasionally shifting his muscles as if in preparation, for perhaps half a minute. And I wondered what was going through his mind, since he clearly didn't have language.

Then I wondered what would go through my mind in the same situation, and I realised it wouldn't be coherent language either. I wouldn't think the sentence "Can I make that jump?" though it's possible that related sentence fragments and words would crop up like sparks when embers are kicked.

Are you perhaps setting the bar vey high for your own thoughts? Are they really incoherent (after those first few words), or do they simply fade away in the face of the numerous and varied possibilities that can present themselves when thinking about some topics.

I can't answer this with any accuracy now, but I'm going to have a go at observing more attentively today (the trouble being that observation might affect the result) and report back. It could be, of course, that our minds work differently.

 

[HareBrain]

A few people have commented - and lately in crits - that he thinks with a clarity and lyrical-ness that is at odds with his speech.

(Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to keep this separate and not as an ETA.)

I've just re-checked your 3k post (on which I haven't yet commented, for which apologies) and there's only one direct thought there, that I can see. Are you asking mostly about indirect thoughts? In that case, there's no right answer, it depends on how "deep" into the POV you want to go. Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with how you handled the indirect thoughts in that piece.

I was all for using very-deep-third POV in TGP, until it was pointed out that I had the sentence "Night entombed the world" in Orc's POV, and that he probably wouldn't think in that style/vocabulary. I could see the point, but I chose to ditch the very-deep-third and keep the sentence, because I felt that keeping so rigorously to the characters' own likely words would cripple my writing style. (Also, though Orc might not come up with that sentence, he has a Romantic sensibility that would feel it.)

 

[Boneman]

And to clear up a possible misconception that it's thought made words, not regional accents.

I first met Chris in the Pub, when a like minded group of scifi/fantasy writers from the Chronicles got together to discuss anything and everything. I saw by the way he danced lightly down the stairs that he had must have have either dance or martial arts training.

"Yar, Chris. Does 'ee taken dancin' lessons?"

I first met Chris in the Pub, when a like minded group of scifi/fantasy writers from the Chronicles got together to discuss anything and everything. I saw by the way he danced lightly down the stairs that he had must have have either dance or martial arts training.

"Hi Chris. Have you trained as a dancer in the past?"

 

[Phyrebrat]

I wake up to such good food for thought! It's going take me a while to work through these replies and I just wanted to thank every for such considered replies.

pH

 

[zmunkz]

I'm not convinced the kind of direct thought we see in fiction (usually in italics) exists in real life. I don't think in coherent sentences (not more than a very few words, at least) unless I'm imagining or remembering speech or writing.

OK I think I see what you mean. I gave this a lot of attention today and I do actually agree somewhat. I do not have a continuous stream of consciousness translated it into words in my head. A lot of times I just know what I'm thinking without the need to verbalize it. I also don't have very much of an inner monologue while I'm talking with somebody. I just expressed thoughts directly in the spoken words. I certainly get feelings throughout the day that I could easily explain in words if prompted, but I don't actually say them in my head a lot of the time.

However, there are a lot of cases where I do have a verbalized inner monologue. If i'm daydreaming, working out something in particular, planning, arguing with myself, reflecting, or any other activity we might call "higher order consciousness"… That is all verbalized in my own voice in my head.

 

[The Big Peat]

See, I would think the sentence 'can I make that jump' in those circs. My internal monologue isn't always the same as my speaking voice either, but that's because I play with both.