Hi

I had this critiqued in WriteWords a while back and no one made a comment on the fact that I used 'I' for thought when writing in third person.

Emma's hands tightened on the steering wheel. Pressing her lips together, she swallowed the word she wanted to say - the one that came so easily. Turning away she feigned interest in her blind spot, her teeth cutting into her lower lip as she mouthed a silent 'eff'. Don't start that one now. That's all I bloody need.

However, at a critique group I attend, someone made the comment that she wouldn't put an 'I' in thought when writing in third person, even if in 'deep-third POV', etc.

I feel comfortable with moving to I in thought in third person, especially as I stay with the MC throughout the story - however, it may not be technically correct. What are your feelings on this?

Thanks

Sharley

I often see those first person thoughts in italics in novels. However, if oyur mc is going to do it often, maybe consider rewriting it in the 3rd person. Since she is the pov character, the reader is going to accept it's her thoughts so it's not necessary to have it in 1st person.

So you'd say: 'That's all she bloody needed'?

Possibly. There's a lot going on with her body in the clip, so I'd be tempted to cut it down a bit.

Emma's hands tightened on the steering wheel as she swallowed the word she wanted to say - the one that came so easily. Instead she feigned interest in her blind spot, her teeth cutting into her lower lip as she mouthed a silent 'eff'. Don't start that one now, she thought. That's all I bloody need.

<Added>

or,

Emma's hands tightened on the steering wheel as she swallowed the word she wanted to say - the one that came so easily. That's all she bloody needed.
Instead she feigned interest in her blind spot, her teeth cutting into her lower lip as she mouthed a silent 'eff'.

<Added>

tbh, I don't think you need the 'that's all she bloody needed.'

<Added>

...but, yes, that's how you'd word it.

Thanks Naomi

The problem is that 'That's all she bloody needed' (or something similar) sounds awkward. Why not have all of her silent words in first person direct, and make it clear by enclosing all of them in quotes.

...as she mouthed a silent 'Eff! Don't start that one now. That's all I bloody need.'

I must say, though, that, given the closeness of this third person scene, the use of first person without quotes would have worked fine for me, except possibly that the 'eff' in quotes (which is definitely her speaking) might just cast doubt on the following sentences without quotes. You could drop all the quotes and have eff in italics perhaps.

Chris

I think italics would introduce the author's voice here, in the form of a clear controlling hand. Which you don't want, since the paragraph gradually takes us deeper into Emma's POV. "Silent 'eff'" is clever, since it is in effect a colon: indicating that what comes before is a narrative slide into her mind; and what comes after is actually in her mind. Therefore, there's no interruption, no snag, to the reader's attention.

In other words, there aren't really any rules here, other than the one which says the reader shouldn't notice the joins.

I mean, you could put the last two paras in italics and a separate sentence, but that would only work if they were crucial statements in themselves. Thriller writers do this quite a lot, to emphasise that the 3rd person limited POV has resulted in a startling conclusion which is best expressed directly from the character's mind. Here, however, they're more a personalised extension of the main body of the paragraph, which is about her anger towards him.

Terry

Thanks Terry and Chris

So in this context you are saying I can use 'I', as I am portraying her thoughts, as she is thinking them? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Or, maybe, I should simply cut the 'That's all I bloody need' - as this is the only sentence causing me confusion. It's at the very start of the book, which may cause unease if there are rules a beginner (as opposed to someone who is intentionally breaking them because they know what they are doing) should be sticking to.

I prefer not to italicise, if I can help it. This is simply a personal preference.

I do appreciate your thoughts on this.

Sharley

There's no simple answer here, I fear.

My personal feeling is that the use of 'I' within this third-person context and without quotes is fine so long as it 'works' and is unambiguous.

Chris

I was amazed to see this question when I popped into this forum today. I was about to post a very similar question about using first person thoughts in a third person pov novel or short story.

I know it's hard to define the rules sometimes. But can anyone tell me whether it's ok to use first person thoughts in a work (possibly to emphasise a point)occasionally and also use third person thoughts in other places in the same work?

I prefer to write in third person and I sometimes find there's one or two comments I want to make in first person and then later revert to third person again. I've been told in critique groups that this is incorrect and I've also been told by a couple writers that the rules are much more fluid than they used to be.

What do others think?

I think the 'rules' debate tends to get polarised too easily: that they must be obeyed; that they don't count any longer. Ultimately, for me, the only rule is that the writing works; that the reader gets what the author wants to put across without ambiguity and confusion. Usually, this means the author has to be consistent, whatever styles and forms he takes. As for the rules being 'fluid' - well, maybe for someone who knows them inside out. For anyone new, however, being too fluid is likely to result in an incoherent mess.

As long as you've led the reader smoothly and naturally to your character's thoughts, you should be able to express them anyway you want. I know that doesn't sound like a proper answer. But, going back to Sharley's example: if she believes she's led the reader to expect direct thoughts at this point - a) with the way this particular paragraph is structured, and b) because it's consistent with the writing style so far - it might be enough to leave it as it is. Alternatives would be to italicise within the paragraph, or italicise in a new paragraph (I'm not sure non-italics in a new paragraph will work, because starting a new one will tip the reader's expectations towards another narrative sentence, especially since the first one doesn't contain 'I'.

It's all about flow and logistics that click, that zoom the reader on, rather than make him trip and curse and scratch his head.

Terry

Only skimmed this, so apologies if I'm repeating anything anyone's said already.

I find it helps to think of directly-quoted thought as "silent speech". Not so long ago they were given ""s, though these days those are restricted to things said aloud.

I think it's fine as you've got it, because as Terry says, you're deep in Emma's PoV - the psychic distance is very close - and then we're even taken to the point of her (silently) speaking. Yes, it's almost as if "she mouthed" is acting as a speech tag for what follows as well, and so it's a natural move into quoting the thought directly.

You could make it more explicit:

... Turning away she feigned interest in her blind spot, her teeth cutting into her lower lip as she mouthed a silent 'eff'. Don't start that one now, she thought. That's all I bloody need. She turned the radio up and...

or you could use 'she said to herself' or some such...

I don't personally like thoughts being put in italics, though I know it's a perfectly respectable option, because italics are used for so many other things in fiction, and I need them for those. (quotations, memories, letters...)

And of course there's the full-on free indirect style option, which incorporates the thought, in Emma's voice but third person. Works fine for "That was all she bloody needed" but is a bit more problematic for "don't start that one now"... "As long as he didn't start that one now" or "Just let him try starting that one now" or some such...

Emma

Interesting, Emma - thanks.

I still don't like it, though. I'm too anal about consistency.

psychic distance

Great description!

Terry