I've started to write novels where I rarely go "into" a character's thoughts (this is not to say it never happens though). Everything is either said, or done. I've found that it does not make your character seem flat unless the character was flat to begin with. I think what began this was when I looked back at journalism and non-fiction essays or biography where only actions are shown, and no attempt is made at re-creating someone's thought processes. A lot of the non-fiction books I have liked over the years have had this journalistic style, like 3 Month Fever by Gary Indiana and In Cold Blood, Truman Capote. I have also started to write without giving much "stage direction" to the readers. I don't want to tell them what to think, or how to react. I don't want to be the person with the "Applause" sign. I think I've found that if people talk then how much information really depends on who they are with. I end up learning a lot about the character from what they say to other characters, and even in what ways, more "slang" used with one person, more "deference" used with another.
Now, in a way, I have found places where I must give information, and often my main characters (being experts) will give little "classes" so to speak in order to tell both the other character and the reader what they should know. I've seen this before quite a lot. For instance one person tells another one about the local history of the place, rather than me as an omnipresent narrator doing the same thing. So, since they are now chatting and taking a tour, it is no longer "telling." It is much more "Cinematic" since the characters can't just go to sleep and "think about it."
It is somewhat important to not only get the information across but to also make the reader believe that the character is a genuine expert in the field. I often write about people who are involved in specialized "fields" though that is just the "universe" of the book, and has its effects on the plot, but is not necessarily "the plot" or anything.
I guess there should be a question here: So, how do all you writers work with inner thoughts? Do you do Shakespearian soliloquies? Asides? Narrator? Have one person first person and the rest third?
Now, in a way, I have found places where I must give information, and often my main characters (being experts) will give little "classes" so to speak in order to tell both the other character and the reader what they should know. I've seen this before quite a lot. For instance one person tells another one about the local history of the place, rather than me as an omnipresent narrator doing the same thing. So, since they are now chatting and taking a tour, it is no longer "telling." It is much more "Cinematic" since the characters can't just go to sleep and "think about it."
It is somewhat important to not only get the information across but to also make the reader believe that the character is a genuine expert in the field. I often write about people who are involved in specialized "fields" though that is just the "universe" of the book, and has its effects on the plot, but is not necessarily "the plot" or anything.
I guess there should be a question here: So, how do all you writers work with inner thoughts? Do you do Shakespearian soliloquies? Asides? Narrator? Have one person first person and the rest third?