Del (Colonist) and I have reviewed each other's children's writing recently and something that struck me was that there are broadly two ways of showing the reader what is going on in a character's mind. One way is through action - where the reader infers the character's state of mind from what they do, how they do it, what they say, how they say it, etc. The other is through the writer showing what is actually going on in the character's mind, giving us their internal thoughts. I realised that my own writing tends to be allergic to internalising. I very much like to find ways of getting across the internal state through action. One result of this, for better or worse, is that my books tend to be quite short! One of Del's reflections was that he wanted to know more about what my main character was thinking, so that's really got me thinking about whether or not I've gone too far with show-through-action.

I read a couple of children's books recently that are very well written, by an excellent writer, but I found them hard to finish because for me there was too much of what was going on inside the characters' heads. But of course this is probably just my personal preference - I'd be interested to hear WW writers' views on this.

Terry

Terry --

This is interesting for me, and it is something I have thought about previously. Like you, I tend not to go into my character's thoughts. I would like to KNOW HOW to do this, which, I guess, means that I need to give it a try, but it is alien to me. I feel this is a skill that I don't have ... yet!

Ani

Hi Terry - interesting topic!

You have taught me a hell of a lot about SNT through your critiquing (is that a word?) and the work you put up on this site, and I tend to agree with you now. As you know, I love your pacey style, and I think it benefits the story. I recently read "The Da Vinci Code" and it really jars me when a writer puts in character thoughts in italics. That happens so much it becomes quite comical, but you just aren't convinced by these flimsy characters at all. My work suffered from it terribly until you pointed it out, but that was to be expected from a learner. I've started writing stuff now deliberately trying to show characters through action. I dunno if I'm anywhere near acheiving it well enough, but I'm amazed at how quickly I improved (well I think so anyway!) after confronting the SNT problem. I still put thoughts in, but not half as much as before. Anyway, when a published author does it, I find it very hard to get into. Even if the story is a commercial thriller, you still need to believe and know the characters, and not see some kind of skewered vision of a Hollywood movie in your head!

Anyway, that's my ha'penny's worth...

Regards



Dav

Terry, I like to see both. I need evidence that the character has some kind of interior life for them to be interesting to me. Clearly though, the more action there is, the easier it is to turn it into a Hollywood movie.

Adele.

<Added>

I'll qualify that to apply to the protagonist, or ther character whose POV is used.

<Added>

Dav, well I guess I'd better delete some of my italics then - not sure where I got that idea from, I haven't read the Da Vinci Code yet.

C'mon Adele you know me, I'm no italics facist. Looking at my stuff I put loads of thoughts in it, and i'm not saying there's something generally wrong with italics. Every case is individual. You'd have to read the book and see what I mean, coz there is so much action the characters are like strangers even halfway through it, and the POV changes so frequently, everybody starts thinking aloud. Whenever he needs some characterizing, he slips in a thought that you, as a reader, worked out about two pages ago and it just annoys you. The characters are in danger of sounding like utter halfwits.

I dunno, I'm not saying it's wrong or right, coz clearly loads of published authors use that trick and, to be honest, I hardly ever notice. Of course, I will from now on, but that's my problem!

I've just come to the conclusion that moving on the story is paramount to maintain interest, especially to myself.

Anyway, you know me, I talk bunkem most of the time!

My but this is an interesting thread, Terry.

I’m firmly on the fence with Adele. I like to read – and write – both. There are moments when, for instance, you could write that your character paced up and down, wringing her hands together. This would show that she is agitated. But why is she? Is she faced with a difficult decision? How would you show, by actions, her emotional dilemma, the internal dialogue running through her mind as she considers her options?

Mind you, I know nothing about children’s fiction. Maybe children don’t accept internalisation in the same way adults do.

On the subject of thoughts in italics – I use them sometimes but only to emphasise what I think of as ‘silent speech’. It’s like a half-way stage between a thought and something spoken aloud. Does that make sense?

Dee.

Hi Dee, I've used italics for exactly the same thing, silent direct speech. I think I'll leave them in now, particularly as I now know that Dav won't mind!

Adele.

Thanks to everyone for replying, and to Dav for the kind words. Dav raises the issue of SNT (Show Not Tell), which I tend to agree with. When a character’s every inner thought is given to the reader it means there’s no magic of discovery. You just get every shade and nuance spoon-fed to you. And maybe that’s a clue: that some readers like to have all the work done for them by the writer, while others prefer to use their own imagination across a less detailed framework.

Ani says she’d like to know how to portray a character’s inner thoughts (at least, I think that’s what she’s saying). My own view is that this should be done in a Show rather than Tell way. In other words, even inner thoughts should be universally interesting, or exciting, or significant, or funny. Actual thoughts, like actual dialogue, are rambling and incoherent most of the time. In the same way, a diary form narrative should be full of fascinating thoughts, not realistic ones. Then again, what do I know? There are actual diaries on the market that sell well, by politicians usually, and are packed with fascinating stuff about what they had for breakfast, how many times their bowels moved today, who they hate and who they like, how much they tipped the waiter, etc.

This may be stretching this topic too far, but I’m inclined to think this isn’t just a matter of writing style. For instance, I can’t stand gossip, idle chat, rambling conversations, flat ‘stories’ about what someone did on their holidays. I like to look at the at the nuts and bolts of things, footy excepted of course.

Terry, I think we must agree to differ on several points. On the question of whether real dialogue is rambling and incoherent, if you find that it is, then perhaps you should get some new, more articulate friends.

Lots of wham, bam action may be necessary to keep the interest of those with very limited attention spans, but not everyone has ADD. In my vew, providing a window into a character's mind creates more subtlety, not less. Proust was extremely subtle.

As for gossip, I find that very entertaining, except, of course, when it's about me. The City is a hot bed of such speculation; it's how some of the brightest and the best keep entertained and stimulated during the lulls in their working day. And, contrary to popular belief, men are by far the worst gossips!

Adele.

Adele,

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that I don't find much real dialogue very interesting, whether it's put articulately or not. Or at least for me it rarely goes into the reasons behind anything, just stays with surface description. I fully accept that asking for people's reasons is generally seen as intrusive (although I personally don't have a problem discussing why I do what I do) in every day life. But for me, a novel is not every day life - it's a place where reasons/motives/purposes can be wonderfully highlighted. Which I guess is why I tend to prefer children's fiction to, say, so-called literary fiction. I have never been able to get on with writers like Virginia Woolf who go on endlessly about the thoughts and feeling of repressed toffs ... I better stop here, before I start singing the praises of Arnie films.

I take your point about gossip, even if I don't like it myself. What I get fed up with is that in most social situations nothing gets discussed except gossip.

Terry

Terry, since I chose my friends for their capacity for intelligent conversation, they tend not to bore me. However, just listening to people on the bus can be fascinating. And my Grandma (who is the least intellectual person you could ever meet) is always coming out with gems that could be straight from an Alan Bennett play.

I suspect this may be a question of expectation: if you expect people to be boring, then you will find that they are; but if you're always panning for nuggets, then you're likely to spot them.

Btw, one of my favourite writers in my twenties was Truman Capote (must reread him), much of whose work is gossip spun into literary cloth. I haven't read any Virginia Woolf apart from the essay A Room of One's Own which is brilliant. And I'm very fond of Arnie

Adele.

Terry,

I have to admit that my writing tends to be visualised. I see it. I try to convey what is going on inside my characters by showing, but I really have not come to grips with relating thoughts as internalised speech. This is something that I am intent on developing, but I seem to hedge around it thus far.

I agree that thought processes depicted in writing would not resemble thought processes in reality insofar as the latter are rather messy! I would want this to be just as crafted as the rest of a piece of writing.

I would not say that I prefer one type of writing over the other. Writing that is strictly 'show' certainly does not lack depth; rather it requires the participation of the reader, interpreting the streams below the surface. I like this. But I also like being guided through a character's mind. And this last bit requires a skill which I, as a writer, do not yet have.

Ani

Terry, before I head out to catch up on the gossip, I'll leave you with a short quotation from one of my all time favourite novels, The Great Gatsby:

"We all turned around and looked for Gatsby. It was testimony to the romantic speculation he inspired that there were whispers about him from those who had found little that it was necessary to whisper about in this world."

Gossip is a major theme in this wonderful novel.

Ani, if you want to look at an extreme form of the interior monologue, then Proust is the man.

Au revoir,

Adele.

Ani,

Yes, I suspect this thread is beginning to polarise, which is probably unwise, even if it can be useful for a time, to help us focus on specific ways of writing. I think what you're talking about is simply how to be a better story-teller, whether it means using tools that show or tools that tell. And, if it helps, the way I look at story-telling is that the writer has to have the ability to display his characters - whatever their role, function or motive - in ways that are wholly expressive of their psychological and emtional make-up, i.e. not the writer's. Shakespeare, of course, was a master at this: it's very difficult, if not impossible, to detect Shakespeare's personal feelings about his characters' behaviour. We see them (the main ones at least - his secondary characters are sometimes pretty utilitarian) as they are.

To take this a little deeper, I believe that any writer has to understand his or her own biases, otherwise they will weaken some if not all of his or her characters. For instance, it's been my experience that in this country at least, there is a tendency for well-educated middle-class people (who, let's face it, make up the majority of writers here) to believe that their friends, their conversations, their beliefs are that much more meaningful than those not of the same background. And of course they're perfectly entitled to believe this, even if most don't like to think they actually do. However, my point is that such an attitude inevitably affects one's writing.

To nail myself to the mast about this: firstly, I go along with Theodore Sturgeon's dictum, that 99% of everything is crap. And that means everything - whether one is an intellectual or not. In other words, 99% of what I, you or anyone else does is crap. Which means, in writing terms again, we have to come off our high horses if we want to write anything real. Secondly, I believe that the experiences of pain, love, grief, humour, compassion, awareness are fundamentally the same in whatever kind of human they turn up in: black, white, well-educated, uneducated, etc.

Personally, I think some of the best writing today is found in US TV dramas - Aaron Sorkin, Joss Whedon, Stephen Bochco (before he went into decline). These are writers who believe in the importance of universal feelings in all their characters, whatever their background (Hill Street Blues was a wonderful example of this).

Terry,

there is a tendency for well-educated middle-class people (who, let's face it, make up the majority of writers here) to believe that their friends, their conversations, their beliefs are that much more meaningful than those not of the same background.

At best this looks like a generalisation, at worst like chippy, inverted snobbery. It may make your life easier to but everyone in boxes, but you will miss so much with that approach.

Back now to writing about my character who has moved from a Yorkshire council estated through her own efforts to Oxford University and the City. What kind of box would you put her in?

Adele.

<Added>

excuse the typos, I meant 'to put'