Do you think a novel can be good without an insight into the characters' minds?

Kindness · Jan 27, 2010

I was toying with the idea of writing a story without actually displaying the characters' thoughts. I want to go for the whole cool-guy image, and I realized that this tends to work when you don't know that much about a character.

Two examples -- Philip Marlowe from Raymond Chandler's books or Kakashi (for those of you who read manga).

Do you think this could work, or do you think the readers would be too distanced from the characters? My reasoning is that in real life, and in movies -- for example -- you tend to not be inside the characters' heads, and when we read books we view the scenes in our minds.

Lady Ice · Jan 27, 2010

It's easier to not display the character's thoughts in crime and manga, as they are particularly stylised and in crime novels, the detective is more of an observer, rather than having much of a part in the action.

I think the key here is subtext. Say, we're watching a movie, and we see a man staring into the mirror and smashing his fist against it. We haven't been told anything but we can infer that he is frustrated, maybe loathes himself; this is the subtext. The truth, if you like. So we can have hints as to his character but not so much that it destroys his mystique.

Jamesaritchie · Jan 27, 2010

This pretty much describes dramatic POV.

A character is what he is through his actions, as much as through his thoughts. Probably more so.

veinglory · Jan 27, 2010

IMHO it not only works, it is fairly commonplace, especially in older novels.

year90ninezero · Jan 27, 2010

If you can do it well, and it works for the novel, then do it. I love reading that stuff.

One of my main interests is to try and write a completely "non-psychological" novel, i.e. there is no extrapolations of thought, judgments, or attempts at identification with the characters. However, none of my books so far have benefited from a strict adherence to that rule, so I'm still searching for the appropriate narrative or concept to experiment with that kind of writing.

I did try it with the first thing I ever wrote, but I wasn't a good enough writer to pull it off.

Kindness · Jan 27, 2010

That's good to hear, I was worried that someone would whip up some information and my planned story would crumble to ashes ><

All I have to do now is portray the characters without making them too 'mysterious', I dont want toannoy my readers by not telling them enough. =_=' haha

Kindness · Jan 27, 2010

year90ninezero said:
One of my main interests is to try and write a completely "non-psychological" novel, i.e. there is no extrapolations of thought, judgments, or attempts at identification with the characters. However, none of my books so far have benefited from a strict adherence to that rule, so I'm still searching for the appropriate narrative or concept to experiment with that kind of writing.

That sounds pretty good

If you did that you might have to sacrifice the idea of your characters being liked, though, in some cases. For example a man wants money -- if he has no morals, you know what he's going to do.

A good way to redeem those kinds of characters would be to set things up so that the readers are glad about their actions. Like a madman is going to kill a kind-hearted child in a tense moment, and the main character kills that madman just in time (not to save the child, but for revenge or to steal something menial. At the same time the 'rescue' is still appreciated).

Ah, I'm not so good with examples, but hopefully I made it clear what I'm getting at :S

Izz · Jan 27, 2010

What JAR and veinglory said.

Dramatic POV can be real fun to write.

veinglory · Jan 27, 2010

If yopu story is about what people do, they should not seem mysterious when described via action. But you might want to avoid having a story that is actual about what people want/thing/feel but all you describe it what they do....

Michael_T · Jan 27, 2010

I always write in that style with no internal dialogue and it just flows for me. But here is an idea for you if you are having trouble writing that way. In your first draft put in their thoughts. Perhaps highlight them so you know where they are. Then once you reach the end replace all the thoughts with actions and see what you get.

I try to do the same thing with info dumps. I'll put everything I can think of in and then remove it later. That way I have a concrete reason for why things happen, but I can't see any reason that you can't do the same thing with thoughts.

kuwisdelu · Jan 27, 2010

My favorite is doing that in first person

Kindness · Jan 27, 2010

First person with no internal dialogue? That has to be hard to write

Michael_T said:
I always write in that style with no internal dialogue and it just flows for me. But here is an idea for you if you are having trouble writing that way. In your first draft put in their thoughts. Perhaps highlight them so you know where they are. Then once you reach the end replace all the thoughts with actions and see what you get.

That sounds like a good way to do it, I know myself though -- I get attached to everything I write, and I know that as soon as I did it I'd want to keep it

HConn · Jan 27, 2010

Do it. We need more books like that.

Ardent Kat · Jan 27, 2010

Tangentially: It's sticky to compare manga to novels. Comics are a visual medium like movies, so the method of storytelling is quite different. By nature, these media will rely on visual cues and action more than internal thoughts. In the case of some comics and movies, the use of a voice-over narrator is used as a crutch for weak storytelling. The movie makers aren't sure they made the point with the visuals alone, so they reiterate with the voice over (or in comics, narration boxes). I find this to be especially true of old B movies. (Obviously I'm not saying all movies with a voiceover suffer from weak writing; some use it to great effect)

This is purely a personal taste thing, but part of the reason I like novels more than movies/manga/comics is because it includes an insight into human thoughts that we can't get from any other fictional media. Reading the truths about the human condition as filtered through a character's perception is the closest we can come to telepathy or knowing what it's like to walk in another person's shoes.

This is purely a matter of personal taste, but a book without insight into the character's thoughts would bore me quickly.

It's possible to write a mysterious tough guy character and include his thoughts without making him all touchy-feely or giving away too much of his back story. Just an alternate opinion.

Miguelito · Jan 27, 2010

Cormac McCarthy offers very little of his characters' perspectives and his novels are fantastic.

gothicangel · Jan 27, 2010

Ardent Kat said:
This is purely a personal taste thing, but part of the reason I like novels more than movies/manga/comics is because it includes an insight into human thoughts that we can't get from any other fictional media. Reading the truths about the human condition as filtered through a character's perception is the closest we can come to telepathy or knowing what it's like to walk in another person's shoes.

This is purely a matter of personal taste, but a book without insight into the character's thoughts would bore me quickly.

Me too.

I love psychological thrillers, and psychological conflict in general. If I couldn't get a 'latch' on to character it would bore me.

I also love stream of consciousness. You can't beat a great psychological novel

Albannach · Jan 27, 2010

Kindness said:
I was toying with the idea of writing a story without actually displaying the characters' thoughts. I want to go for the whole cool-guy image, and I realized that this tends to work when you don't know that much about a character.

Two examples -- Philip Marlowe from Raymond Chandler's books or Kakashi (for those of you who read manga).

Do you think this could work, or do you think the readers would be too distanced from the characters? My reasoning is that in real life, and in movies -- for example -- you tend to not be inside the characters' heads, and when we read books we view the scenes in our minds.

I am completely baffled by your comment that you don't have insight into Philip Marlowe's thoughts (or that seems to be what you are saying). The Marlow novels are written first person and you always have insight into his thoughts.

I know this is sometimes done. It's not a technique that appeals to me, since it is the opposite of what I find compelling about fiction which IS the ability to see into a character's mind. But it has been done and no doubt will be done again.

It just wasn't in Chandler novels such as The Big Sleep.

LuckyH · Jan 28, 2010

I believe that writers are philosophers, whether they like it or not, and get into a character’s inner thoughts, whether they like it or not.

Even when describing a hedgerow the philosophising doesn’t end.

lucidzfl · Jan 28, 2010

Miguelito said:
Cormac McCarthy offers very little of his characters' perspectives and his novels are fantastic.

Are all of his books written like the road? If so, I disagree VEHEMENTLY with your assessment that his books are good.

(Understand its an opinion)

Sai · Jan 28, 2010

Kindness said:
Two examples -- Philip Marlowe from Raymond Chandler's books or Kakashi (for those of you who read manga).

I'm also a little baffled by your example of Philip Marlowe. Like a previous poster said, not only are the novels in first-person but we also get his assessments of the other character's and their situations from his POV. 'The Maltese Falcon' might be a better example. It's in third person and the only time we ever really get to see what makes Sam Spade tick is when he gives his speech to Brigid at the end (which makes for a great pay-off).

Kindness · Jan 28, 2010

Albannach said:
I am completely baffled by your comment that you don't have insight into Philip Marlowe's thoughts (or that seems to be what you are saying). The Marlow novels are written first person and you always have insight into his thoughts.

I'm sorry, The Big Sleep was what I meant. Much of his past and character is left unexplored, aside from what we see from the actions he takes. I thought that made him quite an impressive character

I'll try and check out the Maltese Falcon to get a grasp of how another author does it ^^

Lady Ice · Jan 28, 2010

Hemingway might be quite good for non-psychological.

Maxinquaye · Jan 28, 2010

Kindness said:
I was toying with the idea of writing a story without actually displaying the characters' thoughts. I want to go for the whole cool-guy image, and I realized that this tends to work when you don't know that much about a character.

Two examples -- Philip Marlowe from Raymond Chandler's books or Kakashi (for those of you who read manga).

Do you think this could work, or do you think the readers would be too distanced from the characters? My reasoning is that in real life, and in movies -- for example -- you tend to not be inside the characters' heads, and when we read books we view the scenes in our minds.

Novels (and fiction in general) are depictions of character motivations, thoughts and actions so I don't really know why you would want to do that. I assume here that you're asking if you should write omniscient POV without ever dipping into the characters?

I may of course be totally misunderstanding you, but if my assumption is correct then it would mostly be a book I wouldn't like to read. It would be more a screenplay, in my opinon, than a novel.

maestrowork · Jan 28, 2010

It's called the camera POV.

It works very well for screenplays, so I suspect it could work for novels.

maestrowork · Jan 28, 2010

Maxinquaye said:
Novels (and fiction in general) are depictions of character motivations, thoughts and actions so I don't really know why you would want to do that. I assume here that you're asking if you should write omniscient POV without ever dipping into the characters?

It's camera/objective POV, a totally legit way of doing fiction -- as many visual media such as TV and movies already do. However, that's the key -- those are visual media and thus offers more cues to the audiences by ways of actors (body language, facial expressions, etc. which are very difficult to do in written media).

So, while objective POV could work, it is difficult to do it well. You will have to somehow leave clues for the readers to understand the characters without ever dipping into their minds. Without the understanding, it would just be "he did this, and then he did that" -- I think that's a boring story.

I've yet to read a novel writing in objective POV. However, I've read and enjoyed many screenplays and plays so that's definitely a legit way of telling stories.

Do you think a novel can be good without an insight into the characters' minds?

Back From My Self-Imposed Exile

Makes useful distinctions

volitare nequeo

following a secret path

Back From My Self-Imposed Exile

Back From My Self-Imposed Exile

Doing the Space Operatic

volitare nequeo

Physicist posing as a novelist

Revolutionize the World

Back From My Self-Imposed Exile

Whore for genre

Kill your television

Filled with optimism. And scotch.

Toughen up.

AW Addict

Oh, really?

Back from the dead

Book lover/Spy

Back From My Self-Imposed Exile

Makes useful distinctions

That cheeky buggerer

Fear the Death Ray

Fear the Death Ray