On Writing: Making Characters Think Out Loud

[KillerMuffin]

This is one of those tough things that writers face every day. I've seen it crop up more than a time or two around the site. Since Literotica has no guidelines on how to format thought in the text, the author must figure it out for her or himself. Feel free to use examples!

How do you make use of a character's thoughts in a narrative? What purpose would it serve to use actual thought from the character instead of simply having him say it or having it in the narrative? How can you tell when it's appropriate to have a character think and when it's not?

Do you need to make it obvious that a character is thinking as opposed to whatever else is happening in the narrative? Does this depend on the POV you're using? If so, how?

If you do need to make it obvious that this particular set of text is thought as opposed to narrative or speech, how do you tag it? How do you format it? Does it make a difference if there's a lot of thought-text within the story?

Any other ideas on using character thought?

 

[Madame Manga]

Different ways of conveying thoughts:

Roosevelt and Hector had stayed in the bathroom together for an awfully long time. A weird smell wafted into the living room when the door opened; Annalisa wrinkled her nose.

I know what she's thinking, although I don't know the exact words and images in her head. This is what you might call standard third-person narrative, with a little seasoning from Annalisa's personal vocabulary: awfully, weird.

What had they been doing in there? Why was Roosevelt smiling like butter wouldn't melt in his mouth?

Here I come closer to her actual thoughts, though they have been cast into the past tense of the rest of the story. I don't know the technical term for this, if there is one, but it's a halfway point between indirect narrative and direct thought, IMO. If I gave her direct thoughts, they might be something like:

What were they doing in there? Why's he smiling like that? Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

and

What's that wet spot on Hector's trousers?

Direct thought. This is exactly what went through Annalisa's head.

I use direct thoughts sparingly--usually for an effect that I can't get otherwise. They have punch; they bring the reader right into the moment and right into the character's head. Strong stuff. They can get tiring if overused, IMO, though I've seen stories entirely in direct thoughts that worked very well.

Don't tag thoughts with "Sophonisba thought" or "said to herself" or "mused" or "chewed over" or anything of the kind. If we know whose perspective you are in (as we always should) we'll know who's thinking those thoughts. Keep it natural. If it's a statement, but it doesn't have quotes, it wasn't voiced, so that makes it a thought.

I used to tag thoughts almost obsessively, convinced that my readers would be lost if I didn't. I'd use italics, or "he thought", or "Before his mind's eye." Anything to make it screamingly obvious. Most of the time, they are unnecessary. I sounded like a hack, IMO.

Give the people some credit--don't metaphorically draw thought balloons on your page. Thoughts should dart in and out unburdened, the way they do in reality. If you can write a story without using "he said" (as is almost always possible and usually preferable) you can write one without using "he thought".

A few lightweight examples...

First person:

I elbowed my way past the bodyguards and almost gagged from the stench in the room. Clutching my throat, I peered through the clouds and made out a dim, bulky outline against the window. God, who could smoke that many bad cigars in a day?

Third person limited:

She lowered her gaze, trembling. Had Ulysses seen her glance his way? If her interest had escaped detection, perhaps he would ignore her presence and let her leave without speaking to her. Desiree nervously tapped her fan against her wrist and looked for a way through the crowd. But his glance fell on her again and froze her where she was.

Oh, no--now he is going to ask me in front of all these people. I can't bear that.

Third person omniscient:

If Simon had but known that Paul meant to betray him, he might not have given him such latitude with the family assets. As it was, Paul had gained everything for which he had worked for years, and he meant to make the most of it. He hefted the bank book in his hand and smiled. How satisfying it would be to see Simon's face when he realized all his money had gone to support his bastard daughter and her rival sheep-shearing enterprise. Simon with nothing left to say? Delightful.

Simon tucked his cane under his arm and entered his car as the chauffeur held the door for him. "Home, James." He relaxed into the seat with a sigh; he had left the management of his estates in the best of hands. No need for worries now--everything was taken care of. In satisfied ignorance, he fell asleep on the way.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think that it's okay to describe what a character's thinking, but when you get to big chunks of verbatim internal monologue, whether italisized or not, you've lost me. It just comes across as very hokey and amateurish to me.

I know a lot of authors like to use verbatim internal monologue as a way to hook a reader into a story. ("Where was I? How had I gotten here? If only I could remember!" Stuff like that) but I still think it's hokey, a gimmick.

You also see internal monologue in a lot of mysteries where it's used so you can follow the detective's thoughts as he/she unravels the case, but that's more a description of their thoughts than it is verbatim.

I may very well be wrong, but offhand I can't think of an example of a quality piece of fiction that relies on big chunks of italisized verbatim thinking.

---dr.M.

 

[Madame Manga]

Yeah, I think it's a given that the major mode of discourse in a story should *not* be in italics. Unless the author likes irritating readers, of course, or thinks that italics are easier to read. ;-)

MM

 

[Jenny _S]

Thoughts

I think that it's okay to describe what a character's thinking, but when you get to big chunks of verbatim internal monologue, whether italisized or not, you've lost me. It just comes across as very hokey and amateurish to me.

---dr.M.

I think dr. M is correct. Big chunks of internal monologue in any form simply loses the reader and detracts from the story.

At the same time I don't think there is any one right way to do this. I suggest that a balanced mix of quotations (as "Why?" she thought.) and description (as - Amy wondered where it all would lead.) would be a one solution. At least, that's what I try to do.

2 cents worth

 

[jfinn]

I think I've tried just about every way to get internal thoughts across, italics, attibutives, apostrophes, even just sticking it in and hoping the reader figures it out for themselves. I've finally decided there is no right way and now just decide on something for each individual story and try and stay consistent throughout.

One of my favorites though is to just break out the thought and let it stand alone as it's own paragraph. This works really well in a lot of my stuff, especially the humorous stories which usually have a certain rythym or beat that lends itself to punch lines.

"Oh yeah," I could do this, I thought, I've always been good at bullshit. It's the only subject I got straight A's in at college. "Well, I think you could get him if you maybe changed a few things."

We were walking, but Amy slowed down as she thought about what I was saying. God, she was such a trusting little thing. She seemed to honestly believe; I knew what the fuck I was talking about.

"Like what?" She finally asked.

Uh oh. Not, that I couldn't give her a list, a long one. I just didn't want to go for a world's record in making Amy cry.

"Oh, I don't know," I stalled, "maybe try a new look."

Get a look was more like it, but like I said, I was trying to be kind.

"It might make him take a step back and reevaluate his feelings for you."

Step aside Dr. Ruth.

"Could you be a little more specific?"

Yes, but not in this lifetime.

"Jesus Amy, I don't know. I'm no expert."

Okay, I guess Dr. Ruth can have her job back.

But then as with this story, Amy's Smile, I mainly write in first person so that also helps because for the most part, except in dialogue, you can eliminate the need for internal thoughts.

Jayne

 

[dirtyjoe69]

we agree to disagree

I am going to have to disagree with the good doctor. Not to enjoy a lot of "self talking" is a personal preference for sure, but to call it "hokey or gimmick" is a little too much. Many successful authors have loaded their novels with excessive self speaking. Even Shakespeare did this on many occasions. It is known as a "soliloquy", however it is up to anyone's guess on how it is supposed to be written. I've searched and "talking in one's head" doesn't seem to follow any set rules.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I am going to have to disagree with the good doctor. Not to enjoy a lot of "self talking" is a personal preference for sure, but to call it "hokey or gimmick" is a little too much. Many successful authors have loaded their novels with excessive self speaking. Even Shakespeare did this on many occasions. It is known as a "soliloquy", however it is up to anyone's guess on how it is supposed to be written. I've searched and "talking in one's head" doesn't seem to follow any set rules.

Well, maybe I was a little harsh back then, but still I avoid big blocks of internal thought in my own stuff, and if I had a story where I needed a lot of internal monologue, I'd seriously consider switching the whole thing over to first-person POV, which is what first-person's made for.

I'm a big believer in show, don't tell, and I believe one of the greatest gifts a writer can have is the ability to reveal a character's thoughts and feelings through actions. So I guess you could write something like:

I wonder if I should call her? Joe thought.

Or you could show Joe picking up the phone and looking up her number, then putting the phone back down and nervously biting his lip, picking it up again, etc.

I prefer the second method, because that pulls me into the story as I watch Joe and try to figure out what he's thinking. The first method just tells me what he's thinking flat out and doesn't require any effort on my part. It doesn't make me a participant in the story.

I also think that one of the pleasures we get from fiction is simple voyeurism--watching the characters and trying to figure out what they're doing and why they're doing it. Telling us too much of what they're thinking can destroy that sense of curiosity by dumping all their secrets in our laps.

You know, showing Joe leaning against a streetlight and rubbing his hand over his face and sighing can be a more powerful image than reading "I feel miserable now, Joe thought. She must really hate me. I wonder what I did to make her dislike me so much when I thought things were goiing so well? What should I do now? I'm so confused!"

And yes, Shakespeare certainly used soliloquys, but that was an accepted convention of the time. Having a character in a third-person POV story stop and talk directly to the reader would be kind of bizarre these days, and I suppose if you had to work in Hamlet's soliloquy into a story today, I think you'd have better luck doing it in indirect thought: "He wondered if it were all worth it, or whether perhaps suicide might not be the way to go, whether it was more important to fight against all these outrageous misfortunes or just say the hell with it and toss in the towel." [I'm sure Shakespeare would be proud of that paraphrase too. But you get the idea.]

But you know, it's all up to you, what you think works. These are just my own personal ideas on extended internal monologue.

 

[Guest]

Well, maybe I was a little harsh back then, but still I avoid big blocks of internal thought in my own stuff, and if I had a story where I needed a lot of internal monologue, I'd seriously consider switching the whole thing over to first-person POV, which is what first-person's made for.

I'm a big believer in show, don't tell, and I believe one of the greatest gifts a writer can have is the ability to reveal a character's thoughts and feelings through actions....

I'm going with the Doctor on this one. In a third person POV, even if limited, internal monologue isn't necessarily the best way to tell a story, especially with large blocks of it. If not handled skillfully, it can come across as simply poor writing -- the author is not sufficiently skilled to weave a story and must include lots of explanatory information, using the character as a puppet or mouthpiece. If you need it for exposition, such as recounting important information from the pre-story past or revealing a critical decision-making process, have the character talk to someone -- be it the cat, a neightbor, or a wall -- or create a complete flashback and use a scene. If it's a shorter bit, the doctor's suggestion of SHOWING instead of TELLING is always a safe bet.

Yes, it's a matter of taste, but it's also a matter of matching reader expectations. Writing styles and conventions change over time, and modern writing is highly influenced by other media -- movies and television in particular. A movie cannot easily let us hear a character's thoughts, but it can show us what the character does that reveal his thoughts -- just as we can watch a person in the room with us and guess what they are thinking by watching what they do. This is so common a part of our lives that it takes little effort and, in a story, fits well with the rest of the "show, don't tell" mantra.

The one exception that comes to my mind is that of a character quirk -- a character talks to himself, his magic toad, God, whatever. Then, you can reveal his inner thoughts via the internal monologue, as long as you are consistant. Depending on your story, you might even create a dialog and have the magic toad or God talk back, although this might create ramifications for your character.

If you absolutely cannot resist or cannot accompish your goal any other way, be aware that it CAN, if not done well, come across as weak writing, and it can put a reader off. It's not an absolute, but it's something you should do advisedly.

And in the end, if you really aren't sure, pull out books and stories by your favorite published authors or published authors who write in your genre, and see what they do. If you see a lot of internal monologue (or anything else) and you like and understand how it works, go for it. If you don't, then take it as advice. Look to see what they did and how they did it, and try those techniques on your own.

 

[Recidiva]

I use this very sparingly.

I try to have people represent themselves through their actions. This can get into infinite regression. You have the action, and the thought behind the action, and the unknown and known motivations behind the thought and the action...

I try to let the dialogue and action speak for themselves unless I know a character would pause on a new thought and perhaps choose to express it or not.

But I try to avoid monologuing. It really can drag a story down into some theoretical preachy place that doesn't move things forward.

And sometimes I can use that against a reader by building an impression in a certain direction on purpose, only to reveal a motivation after something is a done deal.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I admit to using it sometimes, without apology. A lot of my characters are very intellectual and profound, though flawed, people. I like to show that. However, I try to limit it within the story.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

And yes, Shakespeare certainly used soliloquys, but that was an accepted convention of the time. Having a character in a third-person POV story stop and talk directly to the reader would be kind of bizarre these days, and I suppose if you had to work in Hamlet's soliloquy into a story today, I think you'd have better luck doing it in indirect thought: "He wondered if it were all worth it, or whether perhaps suicide might not be the way to go, whether it was more important to fight against all these outrageous misfortunes or just say the hell with it and toss in the towel." [I'm sure Shakespeare would be proud of that paraphrase too. But you get the idea.]

I think it needs to be said... Shakespeare was writing PLAYS. Totally different genre. I could see still using this method in a play before a novel or a short story...

 

[M-Y-Erotica]

I guess this has been implicitly covered, but it depends enormously on the POV. I write everything, so far, in first person. In first person, I have a hard time seeing the difference between the story and what the person is thinking. It's all just what the first person narrator "sees" in their head. So

Julie leaned forward into me.

and

I watched Julie's hair cascade around her shoulders.

and

Julie is so beautiful

all get the same treatment. They are all the narrator's perception of Julie. It's only the narrator's perception that Julie is leaning forward and it is her perception that Julie is beautiful.

In 3rd person, I'd go with Dr. M. Minimize internal monologues. But I have no real experience here.

 

[rachaelross]

i must be a hack

cause I love expounding on thoughts in my stories. And I tag them a lot, well, I tag my thoughts when I talk to people too. I'm always always coming from the first person and the real dialogue is between the narrator and the reader. The character is telling a story, not writing one down, my narrator is speaking and usually the same way I talk to people, since my narator is almost always me in one way or another.

I don't write a lot of omni or even third limited stuff because it just bores me, really, but that's a personal thing, my preference for what I read and write. I do agree many thoughts can be expressed through physical descriptives, reactions, dialogue, etc. There isn't always a need, or even a desire to express thoughts directly. But the soliloquy isn't dead, and I don't think Shakespeare will ever go out of style. I like talking to the audience and it probably does bother some readers, I don't know. After a gazillion words no one has ever mentioned it to me negatively, but I have gotten a few points from readers who seemed to like the familiarity it lends to the story.

Anyway, I just wanted to drop some thoughts. I say go with what works for you and the story, what works for me isn't always good for someone else, and vice versa. If there was one perfect style we'd all be doing it that way. Wouldn't that suck?

 

[harry87]

This is one of those tough things that writers face every day. I've seen it crop up more than a time or two around the site. Since Literotica has no guidelines on how to format thought in the text, the author must figure it out for her or himself. Feel free to use examples!

How do you make use of a character's thoughts in a narrative? What purpose would it serve to use actual thought from the character instead of simply having him say it or having it in the narrative? How can you tell when it's appropriate to have a character think and when it's not?

Do you need to make it obvious that a character is thinking as opposed to whatever else is happening in the narrative? Does this depend on the POV you're using? If so, how?

If you do need to make it obvious that this particular set of text is thought as opposed to narrative or speech, how do you tag it? How do you format it? Does it make a difference if there's a lot of thought-text within the story?

Any other ideas on using character thought?

I think both approaches are equally effective, it's just a case of which one you prefer. It really boils down to third or first-person methods of showing character thinking.

Using third-person allows commentary: 'The fat bastard' She thought bitterly, 'I'd like to cut his fucking heart out.' This works better if you want to address the consequences of thinking. Does the character's face twitch when they think of something distressing. Does a thought make them sad, or happy? "He's a bastard," She thought, and a thousand painful memories flooding back. You'll need to go first person if you want to answer these things for your reader.

With direct first-person thought, the reader will be personally connected with the character; everything will be shown, rather than told. Imagine these words in italics: The bastard. I'd like to cut his fucking heart out. There's no room for the narrator to add anything here. But the character can probably say more things, and be more flexible. Italics again: The bastard. He hurt me so much. God, the years of pain. Even know I shake to remember the beatings he used to give me."

You can probably mix and match these two methods. It would be interesting to see how they balance out the characterisation.

I'm no authority, but that's what I've observed when reading. I think third-person works better for irony, whereas first-person is more visceral.

If you really want to see two fine examples of these different approaches, why not read Jame's Joyce's Ulysses and Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. They are both classic novels centering around characters who think a lot about things. The narrative methods are very different. Be aware of the effect they have on you when you read them.

 

[Weird Harold]

Any other ideas on using character thought?

The way I use internal dialogue is the same way as I use external dialogue, the only difference is that I use Italics instead of quote marks -- in a format where Italics isn't possible, I use single quotes for internal and double quotes for external. In the rare case where I'm writing something that includes telepathy" or more than one personality's thoughts in the sme head, I also use Asterisks for "External and Transmitted thoughts."

The most common problems I see other authors have with "thoughts" is the same problem other authors have with Dialogue in general. Once you solve the question of how to use "Dialogue" for a given story, you've solved it for both KINDS of Dialogue, Internal and External.

 

[Vielle]

I think that it's okay to describe what a character's thinking, but when you get to big chunks of verbatim internal monologue, whether italisized or not, you've lost me. It just comes across as very hokey and amateurish to me.

I know a lot of authors like to use verbatim internal monologue as a way to hook a reader into a story. ("Where was I? How had I gotten here? If only I could remember!" Stuff like that) but I still think it's hokey, a gimmick.

You also see internal monologue in a lot of mysteries where it's used so you can follow the detective's thoughts as he/she unravels the case, but that's more a description of their thoughts than it is verbatim.

That's probably a fair distinction. I don't remember seeing many novels or stories that use what you are referring to as verbatim internal dialog.

On the other hand I've read really good novels that describe quite a lot of the main character's thoughts. Thoughts and feelings can be very important to the story, I think. I mostly agree about the show-don't-tell concept, and I agree it is art form any good writer should master. But, I also think the amount of internal thoughts/feelings one chooses to describe is a matter of style and is totally legit.

Let's not forget about James Joyce's Ulysses. The entire novel was stream of consciousness. Somehow he pulled it off.

 

[EricCalder]

I don't mind reading about a character's thoughts, although I personally really do not like it when the thoughts are conveyed as mental dialog. It almost always ends up being too confusing. I much prefer any thoughts to be conveyed as descriptive text.

Also, frankly, I find the use of quotes around thoughts to be amateurish. Obviously people can do what they want, but, that is just the impression that comes through for me when I see that.


Related to this, I tend not to like stories where the characters are thinking all the time as opposed to actually talking to someone or doing things.

 

[AoNoDoY]

And in the end, if you really aren't sure, pull out books and stories by your favorite published authors or published authors who write in your genre, and see what they do. If you see a lot of internal monologue (or anything else) and you like and understand how it works, go for it. If you don't, then take it as advice. Look to see what they did and how they did it, and try those techniques on your own.

Alice Munro is quite brilliant when it comes to writing the thoughts of her characters. She does it very well in the third person.

I've been trying to copy her style. In the story Eskimo (from the collection The Progress of Love), she uses the thoughts of one character to talk about another character. It's basically a way of introducing the subjunctive mood into English, a language that doesn't much support the subjunctive. Here's the beginning of the story (italics are mine to set off the excerpt):

Mary Jo can hear what Dr. Streeter would have to say.

"Regular little United Nations back here."

Mary Jo, knowing how to handle him, would remark that there was always first class.

He would say that he didn't propose paying an arm and a leg for the privilege of swilling free champagne.

"Anyway, you know what's up in first class? Japs. Japanese businessmen on their way home from buying up some more of the country."

This passage goes on for a page and a half, it reminds me of day dreaming. The woman is sitting on a plane by herself, waiting to take off, thinking about her lover. The story goes on to switch back and forth between viewing the air plane from Mary Jo's point of view and her direct thoughts. Also, it seems like there's a way of writing thoughts as if they ARE actions, which, in a way, they are.


Now Mary Jo thinks she has an idea about where she might have seen the man across the aisle before. A few weeks ago, she watched a television program about a tribe that lived in one of the high valleys of Afghanistan, near the Tibetan border. The film had been shot a few years ago, before the Russians came in. The people of the tribe lived in skin houses, and their wealth was in herds of sheep and goats and in fine horses. One man seemed to have cornered most of this wealth, and had become the ruler of the tribe... He had beautiful rugs in his skin house, and a radio, and several wives or concubines.

That's who this man reminds her of--the Khan. And isn't it possible, isn't it really possible, that that's who he might be? He might have left his country, got out before the Russians came, with his rugs and women and perhaps a horde of gold, though not likely his goats and sheep and horses. If you travel the world in great airliners, aren't you bound to see, sooner or later, somebody you have seen on television? ...

The woman must be one of his wives. The youngest, maybe the favorite...

Mary Jo feels cheered up by her own invention, and perhaps also by the vodka. In her head, she starts to compose a letter describing these two and mentioning the television program. Of course the letter is to Dr. Streeter, who was sitting on the couch beside her while she watched it. She mentions the woman's teeth and the possibility that they might have been removed on purpose, to comply with some strange notion of improving a female's appearance.

"If he asked me to join his harem, I promise I won't agree to any such weird procedures!"

The movie screen is being lowered. Mary Jo obediently turns out her light.

Thoughts and daydreams are like dreams; I like to try to remember dreams and figure out where they came from. I think "thinking" characters can kind of be dreaming, when you think of your own thoughts in day to day life, they are usually very different than what you are actually expressing, it seems to me. So to show what one is thinking compared to what one is seeing (and doing and saying) can be a neat way to bring tension to the story but also a neat way to explore how the character's processing apparatus is working. Kind of a cool way to develop a character!

Her thinking about her lover and her thinking about these other people sitting by her on the plane get all wrapped up in each other. It seems pretty natural how Alice Munro does it.

In the example above, it's cool also how finished the thought with a quote in her own mind basically expressing a mild desire to join a harem (but she WON'T do body modification!)


The subjunctive is used a lot in real experience when you try to guess at what other people might be thinking or try to figure out why people do the things they do. A lot of shit that gets thought but never acted on. And if you're a very neurotic person who is always thinking, it is helpful to try to see that all those thoughts come from somewhere and there's reasons for all of them and it's kind of fun to catalog them and try to pair them up with day to day events, kind of like pairing up things that happen in dreams with things that happened during the day. Also when you try to think of what an event in the future will be like. I think it's worthwhile to try to communicate that whole process in writing.

Alice Munro also uses thoughts to introduce memories and back story.

From the story "Monsieur les Deux Chapeaux"

Colin was remembering the persecution of Wilma Barry--how Ross would go into empty classrooms and write her name on the blackboard, in little dots of colored chalk...>

And later,


"I don't know what to say to Ross," he said.

"What about?" said Glenna.

She was so tired, he thought, that she had forgotten what Nancy told her. He found himself thinking of the night before their wedding. Glenna had five bridesmaids, chosen for their size and coloring rather than particular friendship, and she had made all their dresses to a design of her own. She made her wedding dress as well, and all the gloves and headdresses. The gloves had sixteen little covered buttons each. She finished them at nine-thirty the night before the wedding. Then she went upstairs, looking very white. Colin, who was staying in the house, went up to see how she was and found her weeping, still holding some scraps of colored cloth. He couldn't get her to stop, and called her mother, who said, "That's just the way she is,
Colin. She overdoes things."


"He found himself thinking of..." isn't even a particularly artful way of introducing the memory but it works and Munro does it all the time to great effect, IMO. Most casual readers will never even notice the device. So if you're writing to entertain casual readers, no problem.

Ripping off Alice Munro's thinking style is like going from two-dimensional painting to perspective painting, IMO.

 

[York]

Interesting thread. When I'm struggling sometimes, I'll go get a book of an author I like and pick a few pages at random just to remind myself of how he or she would do it. Not to directly copy that style, but just to try and nudge myself back into at least attempting something professional.

So may stories here just are a stream of x did this and y did that; it's so important, in my humble opinion, to explain why x has done this and what prompted y to do that. This in itself gives you a way to build up a person's character. If that's done with what goes on in the character's head, that seems like a perfectly good way of doing it to me.

I actually think it's important to describe what's going on in people's heads and this is why I find first person stories very limiting. I almost never buy a book if it's written in first person. I'll even go to Waterstone's or Borders and have a quick read of an author's style these days; I find there are so many simply appalling writers in print whose style detracts so much from a story, I can't read it.

The thing is, it must appeal to a lot of people as there are a lot of books around in first person. All goes to show, so much is about personal taste.

 

[Kikori]

He looked around, curious what exactly he was looking at. 'It looks... as tall as me, a bit wider, but only the top is moving. Like a head...' "You're human, aren't you? I can't see you clearly, but I know you're there."

Italics vs no, parenthesis vs quotation marks. That's how I personally distinguish it, whether writing in third or first person.

As for WHEN to use it, or how. I personally enjoy character development, and rarely do I intentionally try to leave a reader wondering what a character is thinking when they do something. That makes my stories lack in mystery, but that's my choice; in listing what they're doing or thinking, as well as what they're rehearsing or debating within their own head, the characters (and thus, the story) gain more clarity.

 

[Vail_Indigo]

while I don't like having my characters think out loud, as in in exposition, I do like getting inside the internal dialog, and adore writing it literally stream of consciousness where language and punctuation become instruments rather than rules

 

[Guest]

Internal dialogue/thinking aloud can be used very effectively in fiction . . . but they are almost always used horribly by amateurs. Few things require more still to use in an organic fashion than internal dialogue or thinking aloud, and few things are more distracting when done badly.

Tread carefully.

 

[psiberzerker]

Thinking out loud is effective for radio, TV, and movies, but unneccisary for writing prose, because you can just write what they think. If you're tempted, ask yourself whether it's natural for someone to think out loud. Writing characters with such ticks, and affects can be fun, and be used for plot, but don't abuse it. That kind of thing goes from subtle, to noticable, to blatent with a quickness. Pretty much 3 stories in a row is about enough for the entire progression no matter how well you do it.

In short, it's a crutch, a cheat writers use like 3rd person omnicient PoV out of laziness. If that's the only way you can communicate what characters are thinking, you're probably better off learning other techniques. Use eye contact, expression description, and word choice well enough, and you shouldn't need either. If all else fails, bring another character in to brainstorm with them. Between them, they have to think out loud to be on the same page, so it's more natural.

For referrance, look at Ardelia Mapp's dialogue with Clarice Starling. (I'm assuming you've read TSotL, or at least seen the movie)

 

[onik0001]

I guess this has been implicitly covered, but it depends enormously on the POV. I write everything, so far, in first person. In first person, I have a hard time seeing the difference between the story and what the person is thinking. It's all just what the first person narrator "sees" in their head. So

Kathy forward into me.

and

I watched Kathy's hair cascade around her shoulders.

and

Kathy is so beautiful

all get the same treatment. They are all the narrator's perception of Kathy. It's only the narrator's perception that Kathy is leaning forward and it is her perception that Kathy is beautiful.

In 3rd person, I'd go with Dr. M. Dicson internal monologues. But I have no real experience here.

emergency dentist