Interior Monologue

[Diviner]

A writer I know calls interior monologe an info dump. Yes, interior dialogue does give information about how a character thinks and feels, but "info dump" seems the wrong terminology. For close third POV, it seems imperative for a reader to share in at least some of a character's thinking, especially if that character is complex but not chatty.

My friend thinks interior dialogue is boring. I think it is essential. Am I missing something here?

[Elodie-Caroline]

I think it's essential too. You can't tell what a fictional person is like just by dialogue and actions alone. We all think and feel don't we, so do our fictitious characters, unless you are writing about zombies of course. Just imagine writing a love story with no internal dialogue! :)


Elodie

[Novelust]

I don't think it's so much the 'interior' you've got to worry about - it's the 'monologue' that messes things up. There are one or two authors who would benefit from someone tattooing 'YOUR MC IS NOT HAMLET' on their writing hand. I really hate it when I get monologuing at the expense of a plot altogether, or delaying a plot to wallow in the character. But if we're learning important things about the character and plot, if the story is moving forward, if a little interior monologue helps us connect with the MC and his/her thought processes - sure. It's like a dash of salt.

I think the 'no interior monologue whatsoever!' business is a little hard core, especially in fiction, where it's much easier to do effectively than say, in a screenplay (I want to say the no narration/no interior monologue folks mainly come from the screenwriting crowd, as that's where I've heard the commandment, but I'm not sure).

[Chumplet]

There's interior monologue in the form of little thought balloons - like what the MC is thinking at the moment. I'd keep it brief.

As to what they like to call 'navel gazing', I've learned to keep that brief, too, and try not to dump it all in one place. Break it up with a little action while the MC is doing his thinking.

[janetbellinger]

Frankly, I get tired of reading pages of dialogue and awkwardly worded actions that are supposed to "show" not "tell." The only thing it shows me is how convoluted the English language can be.

[DamaNegra]

Yeah, sometimes telling is better than showing, when the showing becomes long and awkward and eventually the reader loses track of what's happening. I've read some books that are that way. Sometimes, a simple "Ben sat down" is better than "Ben flexed his knees and the soft comfort of the velvet-lined cushion adorning the chair met his behind." Beh.

As for the internal monologue, that can be overdone too. As in, three pages later the character is still going on and on and on and on about something that has nothing to do with what's happening at the moment. If the monologue deals with something that directly affects the actions and is kept relatively short, then go for it. But yeah, we would all graffiti "my MC is not Hamlet" on the wall right in front of our working space. Along with a whole other bunch of mantras.

Or we could just graffiti our novels in flash fiction form into the streets :D That'd sure get a lot of readers. (okay, that was a tangent)

[alaskamatt17]

Telling definitely has a place in fiction. I know I've seen it in plenty of successful books. It has the distinct advantage of getting us past the less interesting bits to the parts that are really worth showing.

[Chasing the Horizon]

I'm naturally very light on internal dialogue/thoughts. I had actually wondered if this might be a problem, if readers might not get a feel for my characters. It's very rare I have more than a few sentences of thoughts at a time. I have written entire scenes without any internal dialogue to speak of. I've just always felt that unless the thoughts were adding to the story and not obvious from words and actions, there was no point in putting them in. Guess I probably shouldn't worry about that, though.

But NO internal thoughts? That's not a book, it's a movie script. Being able to tell what the character is thinking and feeling is the main advantage books have over movies, IMO.

Basically thoughts are like description. You need to have just the right amount. Too much and the reader gets bored, too little and they get confused and disconnected from the story. And, like description, some readers like lots of internal dialogue while others prefer only a line here and there. It sounds like perhaps you and your friend simply have different tastes.

[Cassidy]

i find i tend to write too much of this and have to edit out a fair bit. writing it seems to be part of my first draft process and then later on it's easier to see how much of it is really necessary. i write mostly YA so i try to keep it moving along pretty quickly, but for my own reading, i actually quite enjoy some rather slow and wordy philosophical meanderings.

[freethinker]

Internal dialogue is impossible to avoid if you write in first person subjective, like I prefer.

[NeuroFizz]

In my opinion, internal dialogue is one of many important tools of the writer, particularly if one want's to dial in for a close POV, to really get inside the character's head. The character's actions must have proper motivation, which can't always be portrayed without some of the character's thoughts. Helping supply motivation, developing characterization, supplying conjecture in confusing situations--things like these can be masterfully conveyed with internal dialogue, and would not fall under your friend's umbrella of "info dump." It sounds like your friend likes to write a story as a series of stage directions, moving the characters around like chess pieces without the underlying thought processes that produce the moves. That kind of sterility can be just as hard to read as info diarrhea.

[Stijn Hommes]

Just like anything else, internal monologue is a good thing if used in moderation (just like dialogue, description and action). None at all can be a very bad choice, just as too much would be a bad thing.

[glendalough]

A writer I know calls interior monologe an info dump. Yes, interior dialogue does give information about how a character thinks and feels, but "info dump" seems the wrong terminology. For close third POV, it seems imperative for a reader to share in at least some of a character's thinking, especially if that character is complex but not chatty.

My friend thinks interior dialogue is boring. I think it is essential. Am I missing something here?
I think it can go either way and a range in between. I have read novels that are so engaging, then there is a ton of blah blah blah to fill in gaps of thought or background. Sometimes it is done well where it doesn't detract from the whole; sometimes it is done where is stands out like a boring history class.

[Susan Gable]

Just like anything else, internal monologue is a good thing if used in moderation (just like dialogue, description and action). None at all can be a very bad choice, just as too much would be a bad thing.

Amen! That was so well said, it was well-worth quoting just to repeat it! Everyone go read that again! :)

I've had someone tell me that I should NEVER use internal dialog. (I've mentioned that I abhor the "always and never"-sayers, right?)

I mentioned this to two of my editors and they both looked at me like I was insane. Of COURSE there should be (moderate bits of) internal dialog in a book -- because otherwise, it IS a movie -- without the actors who are so skilled at bringing their internal life/thoughts out through a certain glance, expression, movement, etc.

But yes, all things in MODERATION. No one wants to read paragraph after paragraph of your character's thoughts, no matter how fascinating they might be. (Or at least, how fascinating they are to you and the character. <G>)

Susan G.

[JanDarby]

The difference between internal stuff done right and infodump is whether it's something the character would be thinking in the story now. Note, too, that infodump can be done in any aspect of the writing, including dialogue. It all depends on whether it's something that would be said or thought by the character in the now of the story.

For example, if the character is in the middle of a swordfight, she's not going to have long, rambling thoughts about the craftsmanship used on the swords or how lovely the weather is or a detailed flashback to her first fencing lesson. She might, however, think a brief, "thank god I had a brilliant fencing instructor" and then go on the attack.

JD

[Elodie-Caroline]

She might if she was blonde :D

T she's not going to have long, rambling thoughts about the craftsmanship used on the swords or how lovely the weather is or a detailed flashback to her first fencing lesson.

JD

[Diviner]

Everything you say makes sense to me. I need interior monologue for my characters who have secrets and for those who don't speak the language. It always seems such a cheat when a POV character is exposed with hidden motivations, ones the character is fully cognizant of, though he may never feel willing to share them with other characters.

I even felt cheated by the murky hints Chris Bohjalian makes in The Double Bind, which starts with the statement, "Laurel Estabrook was nearly raped the fall of her sophomore year of college." If you've read the book, you'll know why this seems like a cheat, when the reader discovers the third person omniscient narrator is unreliable. If a writer is playing games with me, I prefer to know it up front so I don't bother to read the book.

Maybe my distaste for games playing in general has to do with my taste for literary but not avant garde fiction. One of the delights of literary fiction is exploring the minefields of hidden aspects of characters' motivations.

It seems we must walk a fine line in using interior monologue. What else is new?

[Elodie-Caroline]

If I read a book, and found out at the end, that the writer was playing games with me, I would never read that writer again. I think it cheats the reader and it makes the writer think that they are superior to you for lying all the way through the book. I've always hated liars and sneaky people, but in a book, I would find it totally disgusting.