Friday After Hours Forum

Internal Narrative

July 24, 2009

 

Mary Rosenblum: Welcome to our Friday Forum on internal narrative.  I wanted to talk about internal narrative tonight because it's a tool that a lot of novice writers neglect. The tendency is to have characters think in dialogue. It sounds very phony to the readers. Very stilted.    We really don't think in dialogue. Most of the time our thoughts are more fragmentary, full of images and non-verbal emotions or awareness.  That doesn't translate well to the page! But turning into dialogue doesn't work either.  If you want to think of it this way, internal narrative is the one time you want to 'tell' rather than 'show'.
Kind of a reverse there, eh?
But essentially, instead of revealing a character's actual, probably rather hard to follow, thoughts, you simply tell us what that person's thoughts amounted to. You translate.  BUT....by using the character's own voice and idioms, you make it feel as if we are overhearing his/her thoughts after all. And since it doesn't sound like dialogue, it doesn't evoke that 'phony' response by readers.
Here's an example:
Jerry stared at Catherine. I really don't like her, he thought. She is manipulative and only after Aaron's money. I should never have invited her to the house party. "You're free to stay behind." He shrugged. "I hope you won't be bored here all by yourself."
So here we have what I like to call 'quoted thought'. It reads like dialogue. We use 'he thought' the same way we'd use 'he said.'
Here's the internal narrative version.
Jerry stared at Catherine. He didn’t like her.  She was manipulative, after Aaron's money. His lips tightened. Stupid to have invited her to the house party. "You're free to stay behind." He shrugged. "I hope you won't be bored here all by yourself." We get the same information and because I tried to make it sound conversational, tried to use Jerry's voice, readers will read it as Jerry's thought.
If this entire paragraph is only thought and not dialog, why is part of it in quotes?
Mary Rosenblum: Part of it is dialogue, Lady.  Jerry says out loud, "You're free to stay behind." Then he shrugs and says, "I hope you won't  be bored here all by yourself." This is a mix of dialogue and internal narrative.
It's where internal narrative shines -- as a way to add information to the readers in a dialogue conversation.
Whenever I read internal dialogue like this, it feels like it should be first person all the way. No "he didn't like her", more "I really don't like her. Why'd I invite her?"
Mary Rosenblum: Well, you're emulating first person, Charie.  Really well done limited third person POV almost reads like first person, especially if it includes a fair amount of internal narrative. And if the story includes a LOT of internal narrative, you're probably better off using first person in the first place. Normally, you want to use internal narrative VERY sparingly.  It does slow down a scene, and it can be just as bad as the author intruding if your character stops the story to muse at length over backstory!  It can be used quite badly.
You want to let body language indicate as much as you can. That way, the readers get to figure it out for themselves. But the internal narrative can add more when there's no other way to do it. Let's look at our Jerry example again.  I can do something of the same thing without using any internal narrative.
Jerry stared at Catherine . "You're welcome to stay behind." His lips tightened. "I hope you're not bored, here all by yourself."
It's pretty clear that Jerry isn't real thrilled with Catherine right now. His stare and tight lips suggest that he's at least somewhat annoyed.
Seems a bit bland compared to the other.
Mary Rosenblum: Yeah, Illinois. It conveys a lot less doesn't it? And that might be enough for the scene. But say that it's important in this story to let the readers know what Jerry thinks about Catherine. His belief that she's after Aaron's money is going to motivate a major plot point. Then you'll want that internal narrative to reveal it.
The  internal narrative kicks it up a notch.
Mary Rosenblum: It does.  And, like anything, it can be overdone. If your action drowns in lots of internal narrative, the story bogs down.  The key point is to try and capture the voice of your POV.  As Charie said, it will sound almost like first person, as if the character is talking to himself in his head.
Like using yourself as a sounding board for your thoughts instead of talking to a "sidekick"?
Mary Rosenblum: Exactly, Charie. Internal narrative fills in if you don't have someone who can make the same information emerge through dialogue.  Dialogue is actually preferable. You have more visual action and energy when two characters are talking to each other.  When one person is musing, the scene's energy is lower and it can get very internal if you don't add quite a bit of visual action.
Have your character do something as he/she muses, even if it's just scratching her head or dusting the bookshelves. All by itself it gets boring VERY quickly.
Think of it as salt.  Salt adds a lot to food. Too much salt makes it inedible.  And avoid she thought/he thought.  Nearly always, you can use a bit of body language or action to remind us who is doing the thinking. It also keeps the physical scene alive for us. If you don't add those visual beats, the scene becomes a talking head scene and we forget where we are. I see a very familiar type of novice story.  It starts with a nice, strong visual hook. Something happens, the POV character does something, it's dramatic, we're hooked into the story! Then our protagonist pauses to catch her breath and for the next three pages, muses about her entire life history, the central conflict, and what have you.  We don't see a thing.
Snore fest.
Mary Rosenblum: You got it, Illinois! A much better way to start that story is to start off with action that's going to reveal the central conflict, but allows the character a bit of energy to think.  Don't try to cram ALL the backstory down the readers' throats.  Just give them enough so that the scene makes sense, keep the tension and pacing strong, and fill in more details as you go. Readers do much better with hints and clues than paragraphs of detailed backstory. The action is the key element that is often missing, both from dialogue and internal narrative. You really must include it so that the scene is realistic in the readers' mind's eye. We see and hear simultaneously. You need to make that happen on the page, too.
It's even more critical with internal narrative (or first person for that matter). The temptation is to just let the character remember everything the reader is going to need in the entire story.  Alas, you will see that 'quoted dialogue' in published fiction. But not every book on the shelf is a good example of how to write well. That's for sure.

In romances, where misunderstandings between characters ratchet the emotional tension, misinterpreting body language and actions is often revealed through internal narrative.

Mary Rosenblum: It is, Charie, and often it gets overdone, so that all suspense is flattened. There's a tempation to overuse it in romance. If you know exactly what he's thinking, where's the suspense?

Mary , should we only use internal narrative for our POV character? or is it possible to switch (with proper tagging) like we do with dialogue?
That  would be head hopping
Mary Rosenblum: Illinois is right, moosie. You want to reserve internal narrative for your POV character only. While you can SEE the speakers in dialogue, you cannot see the speaker when someone is thinking. The suspense comes from the reader knowing that the characters are thinking at cross purposes.  You see it used in literary form where the author narrates the story and uses omniscient POV.  But that only works where we aren't meant to engage with the characters but simply to enjoy their interactions from a distance. A plot driven story, in other words.
Mary, how do you use internal narrative correctly when doing a flashback scene? Is it basically the same as the present?
Mary Rosenblum: Jane that's really a tricky transition.  You can certainly use internal narrative in a solid flashback, where you take the readers from the story's 'here and now' to a time in the past and then sink us into the story so that it seems to be happening as we watch.  Then you write that scene the same way you'd write the here and now scene. And you make a very clear transition back to the story's here and now at the end. only want to use that depth of flashback in a long scene, so that readers can make the transition into the new scene and then back to the here and now of the story.  It usually fails to work well if you want to use a very short flashback scene. Mostly it works well in very long scenes, or flashbacks that take up most of a chapter.  Or all of a chapter.
The reason I ask is that flashbacks feel omniscient, as if the camera is just panning the scene and no one is doing the thinking.
Mary Rosenblum: That's one way to handle them, Jane. And it's easier to do than to immerse the readers in the flashback scene. Your readers are aware that they are not 'there'. They're just looking back at the past.  It’s much more difficult to do a flashback where you're using limited third, and putting the readers into that past scene as deeply as you put them into the 'here and now' scenes of the novel.  Or short story. The most difficult flashback to do is one that totally immerses the readers in that past scene, including using internal narrative. That can suck the readers totally into that past so that you have to make a VERY strong transition to yank them back into your here and now.
And it is easy to confuse readers, too.
Many people are fast, careless readers and they can read right through your transition, no matter how strong it is, so that they don't realize they're in a different time period. Boy does that mess things up!  Most of the time, if you can use a cinematic treatment for your flashback, you're better off. Any last questions before we run out of our hour?
I have trouble deciding how much introspection a character does.
Mary Rosenblum: It's a balancing act, Charie. I use less now than I did in my early published work. I found, by trial and reader feedback, that they got what I wanted 'em to get with less internal narrative and more body language. Readers are mostly sharp about reading people.  You have to try things and ask for reader feedback. The more you allow your readers to figure it out for themselves, the stronger the story.
If you are dropping clues that the MC might have noticed to solve the mystery, but don't yet realize that they know who did the deed, how much thought camouflage is too much?
Mary Rosenblum: You need a lot of camouflage if you're writing mystery, Charie. Mystery readers know what clues look like and they watch for 'em.  I like to toss out a red herring in a scene where I'm planting a major clue.  Readers think 'aha a clue!' and stop looking for awhile.
Evil!
Mary Rosenblum: You betcha.  Just drop the red herring before you plant the clue.
LOL nothing like a good Gothic mystery!
Mary Rosenblum: In summary, translate the character's thoughts, don't turn 'em into dialogue. Less is more. Like salt, a little adds a lot, too much internal narrative ruins the dish. And mix action with your internal narrative so we have something to look at!