He thought, she thought, they thought- argh!

[Mike Martyn]

It's too bad that writers can't use the "thought" balloon that cartoonists use. "thought" is as bad as "was". I have charcters "wondering", "musing", "pondering"(usually "darky!") etc. but there is only so much in my Thesaurus!

Recently, I read a novel by Steven King in which all the characters' thoughts were in italics. Is this acceptable useage for the rest of us? Steven King can get away with anything including books the size of cinderblocks!

[maestrowork]

Italicizing thoughts is a common thing. Many writers use that (you should read more books :tongue) You don't have to use "he thought" or "she thought." Just italicize it. Make sure your readers know who the POV character is, however:


She walked down the street, ready to cross. The light changed. Hurry up, I can't be late for work. Suddenly a car pulled over next to her...

[AnneMarble]

Italicizing thoughts is a common thing. Many writers use that (you should read more books :tongue) You don't have to use "he thought" or "she thought." Just italicize it. Make sure your readers know who the POV character is, however...

In some places, I've read that editors are trying to get away with thoughts in italics. They actually prefer "He wondered..." Or even better, they prefer it when authors blend the thought in with the narrative. For example, if the POV character is clear, instead of "He wondered if the roses were red," you can just say "Were the roses red?"

In other places, I've read that editors don't mind thoughts in italics as long as they're not overdone.

So... halp! :flag: I don't know anymore. Are thoughts in italics still OK?

[Jamesaritchie]

Italicizing thoughts is a common thing. Many writers use that (you should read more books :tongue) You don't have to use "he thought" or "she thought." Just italicize it. Make sure your readers know who the POV character is, however:


She walked down the street, ready to cross. The light changed. Hurry up, I can't be late for work. Suddenly a car pulled over next to her...

I've always used italics for thoughts. I think it works well, and tends to solve the problem of "thought," "mused," "wondered," etc.

[Zane Curtis]

Or even better, they prefer it when authors blend the thought in with the narrative.

That's what I prefer to do. It's mostly because I think large slabs of italicised text look ugly, and because I use italics to indicate emphasis; e.g. "He said what!"

Mind you, this sometimes gets mistaken for an authorial intrusion -- especially near the beginning of the story, when you're still trying to establish the point of view. So in that situation I'd probably use the thought tags.

[SRHowen]

I much prefer a tight POV where you don't need "thought" tags, or he/she "saw" tags. If the POPV is clear and there are no quote marks, then the POV character saw it, heard it, felt it, or saw it.

Shawn

[triceretops]

I use the old fashion underline feature to flag a word that I want in italics. I do use inner thought sentences in italics but sprinkle them liberally and don't over-do it.

My worst problem has been using my main character's name (and "he") at the beginning of just about every dang sentence. This is spookin' me out! Can someone direct me to the thread that covers that boo-boo? Gak! Oh, I'm in third person, single view point.

Triceratops

[mdin]

My worst problem has been using my main character's name (and "he") at the beginning of just about every dang sentence. This is spookin' me out! Can someone direct me to the thread that covers that boo-boo? Gak! Oh, I'm in third person, single view point.

Triceratops

I hate that, and I do that all the friggin' time. After my first draft, I spend the most amount of man-hours going through and fixing this. The before and afters usually look something like this:

Before:

Triceratops jumped from the palm tree and landed hard on the the head of the mighty T-rex. He held his spear high in the air and cried his battle cry. He hoped some nearby women heard him. He gripped the spear tightly, and he prepared to plunge it into the skull of the raging beast. He stuck it in deep. He pitched off the dinosaur's head as it collapsed to the ground. He bruised his pinky toe when he hit the ground.

After:

Triceratops jumped from the palm tree and landed hard on the the head of the snarling T-rex. A mighty cry welled up in the warrior's throat, and it burst forth as the creature bucked and snapped. Women lurked nearby, he knew, and he prayed his cry would envigor them to lust after his manliness. Gripping the sweat-drenched spear tightly, he prepared to thrust it deep into the skull of the beast. With all his remaining strength, he plunged it in. The dinosaur collapsed, and he went flying, flipping in the air and landing with a loud crunch on his pinky toe.

I don't know if the second paragraph is *good* but to my ear it's certainly better than the first. I just moved the sentences around so 'He' stops being the first word even though it's often still the subject.

[triceretops]

Thanks much Nav. What a pain it is, wot? I'm going to practice that style you showed me and try to avoid using so many darn personal pronouns.

"Something came plainly into view overhead." (better)
vs
"he looked up and could plainly see something overhead." (bad)

"there came a knock at the door." (better)

"He heard a knock at the door." (bad)

Man, I'm getting so sick of he did, he was, he began, he, he, he, he---!

This usually happens when I'm physically moving the character and I do that a lot. I can avoid it in dialog, info dump, inner thoughts, and scene description, so it MUST mean I'm spending waaaaaaay too much time taking my characters from one place to another, giving them way too much expression or physical quirks. I do exactly opposite of what Bob Heinlein does. He can take somebody across a city in one sentence--crap I have to lolligag, limp, smell the roses, show the buildings, watch the birds, describe the clouds, and that's even AFTER I've described that dang place! Too much detail is slowin' it down.

Tri

[maestrowork]

Thanks much Nav. What a pain it is, wot? I'm going to practice that style you showed me and try to avoid using so many darn personal pronouns.

"Something came plainly into view overhead." (better)
vs
"he looked up and could plainly see something overhead." (bad)

"there came a knock at the door." (better)

"He heard a knock at the door." (bad)

Man, I'm getting so sick of he did, he was, he began, he, he, he, he---!

This usually happens when I'm physically moving the character and I do that a lot. I can avoid it in dialog, info dump, inner thoughts, and scene description, so it MUST mean I'm spending waaaaaaay too much time taking my characters from one place to another, giving them way too much expression or physical quirks. I do exactly opposite of what Bob Heinlein does. He can take somebody across a city in one sentence--crap I have to lolligag, limp, smell the roses, show the buildings, watch the birds, describe the clouds, and that's even AFTER I've described that dang place! Too much detail is slowin' it down.

Tri

Tri, the trick is to stop filtering through the character's sense. You have a lot of he sees, he hears, and he feels. If you're following the protagonist, you don't need to do all that. Simply observe the events as the POV characters would. That way, you won't end up with a lot of "he."


He came to the door. He heard a knock and opened the door. He saw an old man carrying a torch. He felt a chill.

vs.

He came to the door. A knock, and he opened the door. An old man stood still with a torch. A chill swept through him.

(This is a bad example, but hopefully you get the gist)

[Jamesaritchie]

I use the old fashion underline feature to flag a word that I want in italics. I do use inner thought sentences in italics but sprinkle them liberally and don't over-do it.

My worst problem has been using my main character's name (and "he") at the beginning of just about every dang sentence. This is spookin' me out! Can someone direct me to the thread that covers that boo-boo? Gak! Oh, I'm in third person, single view point.

Triceratops

Once you've established who the POV character is, sentences don't have to begin with "he" or with the character's name very often at all. The reader knows who is seeing or hearing, so you can just describe the sights and sounds.

And even when you do need to use "he" for clarity, there's no reason to begin a sentence this way. Just change up on the clauses. Instead of writing "He knocked on the door, wondering who would answer this time," you would write "Knocking on the door, he wondered who would answer this time."

[preyer]

when you put the character's thought into the narrative, like, 'did she know who the roses were even from?', i think you're going down a stylistic path that, while it's not a bad thing, per se, it's certainly something i wouldn't want every writer to do all the time. if that's a trend editors are going for, i'm not liking it, heh heh. i used to do that a lot, but right now it just seems to through the POV out of kilter just a little bit. it's a device i wouldn't use overmuch, that's for sure. it's very loose writing, if you ask me.

[reph]

He knocked on the door. Who would answer this time? Sweet Gloria, always ready to greet him with a wink and a hug, or her surly big brother Ferdinand, the statewide wrestling champ, to whom he owed three hundred dollars? Payday was tomorrow. Maybe he could...

[triceretops]

Ah, thanks much for the help. I've been underestimating the reader, a bit. This calls for a little stylistic change. I don't have to flag the ident of my protag--once I set him up, just go ahead a show.

Tri

[zornhau]

My worst problem has been using my main character's name (and "he") at the beginning of just about every dang sentence.
Triceratops

Dwight Swain approaches this, and the OP's problem, formally in "Techniques..."

He breaks scene narrative into Motivation-Reaction pairs:

Motivation: A stimulus for your character, described as they see it, but without reference to the character.
Reaction: How the character responds, usually in the order of Feeling (optional, where possible implied rather than stated), Action, then Speech (writers sometimes substitute character internal comment- see below).


So, for example:[Motivation] The massive ironclad war machine tore around the corner, dislodging bricks from the desecrated temple.


[Reaction: Feeling] Sweat broke out on Gilgamesh's brow. [Reaction: Action] He clutched his sacred spear and plunged it through the breast of the beast. [Reaction: Speech]"So die all enemies of Uruk!"

[Motivation] Like a nightmare beast, the war machine kept coming.

[Reaction: Action (since feeling is obvious)] Gilgamesh rolled clear...


I like this approach because it has a ding-dong feel. It's great for fights, but also works for slower more lyrical scenes.


Uncle Jim prompted me to investigate whether modern writers actually do this. Mostly, they do.





However, sometimes people substitute a character internal comment for speech, e.g. when the character reacts instinctively to something, then interperets his or her own actions.The temple soared up from the valley floor, as if caught in the act of shaking free the green tendrils of the choking jungle.


Smith stopped in his tracks and stared. He should be taking photographs while the light held, but could his camera really capture this?

Caveat: Of course I'm unpublished, so I may be talking rubbish.

[azbikergirl]

I'm reading Swain's book now and finding it helpful. I've read a lot of How-To books and I've never seen the motivation-response thing broken down that way. I like it. The question that remains for me pertains to:
[Reaction: Feeling] Sweat broke out on Gilgamesh's brow.
I don't see how sweat breaking out is an expression of emotion. It's a physiological response to the emotion, and we don't know which emotion it is (fear? nervousness?). This is the main issue I'm struggling with now: how to communicate my MC's feelings, esp when there's no one around to express them to verbally. I've read the chapter Plain Facts about Feelings twice, and I still don't get it.

[azbikergirl]

He knocked on the door. Who would answer this time? Sweet Gloria, always ready to greet him with a wink and a hug, or her surly big brother Ferdinand, the statewide wrestling champ, to whom he owed three hundred dollars? Payday was tomorrow. Maybe he could...
If you want to avoid the questions in narrative, maybe something like

He knocked on the door. Maybe sweet Gloria would answer this time, always ready to greet him with a wink and a hug. Or it might be her surly big brother Ferdinand, the statewide wrestling champ, to whom he owed three hundred dollars. Payday was tomorrow. Maybe he could...

[maestrowork]

I'm reading Swain's book now and finding it helpful. I've read a lot of How-To books and I've never seen the motivation-response thing broken down that way. I like it. The question that remains for me pertains to:

I don't see how sweat breaking out is an expression of emotion. It's a physiological response to the emotion, and we don't know which emotion it is (fear? nervousness?). This is the main issue I'm struggling with now: how to communicate my MC's feelings, esp when there's no one around to express them to verbally. I've read the chapter Plain Facts about Feelings twice, and I still don't get it.

Sometimes you don't have to "tell" the readers. The showing is adequate if your describe it well enough. Trust to readers. Showing is very powerful. Put them in the scene, and they will feel for the character. If you write it well, they will know it's fear, nervousness, etc. based on the events, and based on what they know about the character. You don't have to go into their heads everytime they show an emotion.

Imagine watching a movie. All you see is how the actor react, the sweat on her face, how she trembles, etc. But because of the context, the events, we deduce what emotions she's feeling. There's no voice over saying, "and she's very fearful now." You just know.

The dog inched toward her, snarling, drool streaming from its jaw. She backed up slowly, sweat beating on her forehead. Her hands trembled as she felt around for the door knob.

[zornhau]

I don't see how sweat breaking out is an expression of emotion. It's a physiological response to the emotion, and we don't know which emotion it is (fear? nervousness?).

(Echoing Maestrowork)

A tank is about to crush Gilgamesh. His emotions should be blindingly obvious without articulatation beyond showing their intensity through physiological response.



Part of the trick is slipping the emotions into the stimulus. Had Gilgamesh had god-like powers, the stimulus might have read:The contraption lumbered towards Gilgamesh as if the puny humans within really did not realise the extent of the Sacred king's powers. Laughing, Gilgamesh extended his pinky...
The stimulus bit looks objective, so it sneaks the emotions past the reader's mental filters.
(The usual caveats apply)

[azbikergirl]

A tank is about to crush Gilgamesh. His emotions should be blindingly obvious without articulatation beyond showing their intensity through physiological response. I disagree that this simple physiological response would make his emotions 'blindingly obvious.' In the snippet posted, there's no indication that Gilgamesh isn't an adrenaline junky who's excited about the thrill of the fight, and the sweat could be from the workout such a fight is giving him. When a character then follows up with "So die all enemies of Uruk!" not every reader is going to see that as a fear-driven response, but one of confidence, as from a thrill-seeker.

[zornhau]

I disagree that this simple physiological response would make his emotions 'blindingly obvious.' In the snippet posted, there's no indication that Gilgamesh isn't an adrenaline junky who's excited about the thrill of the fight, and the sweat could be from the workout such a fight is giving him. When a character then follows up with "So die all enemies of Uruk!" not every reader is going to see that as a fear-driven response, but one of confidence, as from a thrill-seeker.

I agree - it was just something I knocked off to illustrate the idea. Obviously it failed the "is it blindingly obvious?" test:gone: .

Would this be better?
[M] The massive ironclad war machine tore around the corner, dislodging bricks from the desecrated temple.

[R]Sweat broke out on Gilgamesh's brow. His hands shook, making the [M] point of the sacred spear wobble wildly. [R] He took a deep breath, exhaled and, in the perfect moment of stillness, thrust the weapon at the breast of the beast.

[M] The tip parted the iron plates. A muffled scream came from within.

[R] Suddenly the world was a better place. "So die all enemies of Uruk!" Gilgamesh would dine with his children tonight.
Now it's a bit more complex with him reacting to the reaction to his own emotions.

I still prefer the characters not to be too self-aware in the middle of a fight -hence the fear as a physical reaction.

However, I'm really only reworking other people's theories here. What do the pros say?

[maestrowork]

I disagree that this simple physiological response would make his emotions 'blindingly obvious.' In the snippet posted, there's no indication that Gilgamesh isn't an adrenaline junky who's excited about the thrill of the fight, and the sweat could be from the workout such a fight is giving him. When a character then follows up with "So die all enemies of Uruk!" not every reader is going to see that as a fear-driven response, but one of confidence, as from a thrill-seeker.

If you write your character the way he/she is, the readers will get it. By then the readers should know if Gilgamesh is an adrenaline junky or not. A person who is in fear and a person who's pumped/psyched act differently.

You can of course, always say "Gilgamesh is afraid." But why? Let his action show. That's the whole point of "show vs. tell."



I still prefer the characters not to be too self-aware in the middle of a fight -hence the fear as a physical reaction.

Absolutely. In a middle of a fight, the character is not going to stop and be introspective: "Oh, I am afraid."

[azbikergirl]

I still prefer the characters not to be too self-aware in the middle of a fight -hence the fear as a physical reaction.
I agree (but I might forego the physical reaction, too). You know, I'm starting to wonder whether the 'feeling' Swain refers to is the physical sensation rather than the expression of emotion. Every example I can find in the book where there's a 'feeling' reaction is a physical one, not emotional. Was that your take on it?

[zornhau]

You know, I'm starting to wonder whether the 'feeling' Swain refers to is the physical sensation rather than the expression of emotion. Every example I can find in the book where there's a 'feeling' reaction is a physical one, not emotional. Was that your take on it?

My take? The emotions you're looking for are in the Motivation part of the M-R. We see the stimulus through the filter of the POV character's world view.

Strong feelings evidence themselves as physical reactions, or aborted physical reactions: You insult my paternal uncle, and my fingers tighten on the haft of my flint axe.

Suppose it's less visceral:
The ice sculpure was perfect in every detail, down to the bristles on the creature's neck, picked out using delicate spikes of frost.

Akasha reached out to touch it, then stopped herself.
It doesn't have to be a physical reaction:
The ice sculpure was perfect in every detail, down to the bristles on the creature's neck, picked out using delicate spikes of frost.

The world seemed to shrink, until it contained only Akasha and the the wonderous frozen troll.
Even if there's nothing evaluative in the M-, it can still convey emotions through selectivity, e.g. jazz musician sees the speakeasy differently from the temperance campaigner or the hitman.

It's hard to explain without concrete examples. Why don't you post a paragraph containing an M-R and we can all play with it?

[triceretops]

You mean trying to convey an emotional reponse without telling it? I'll try.

When Olivia stepped into the casino she gazed at all the flashing lights. When she heard a siren and a bell go off she turned to her husband and said, "You, see, somebody just hit the jackpot! And just look at the beautiful carpet."

Her husband snickered, "Yeah sure." He dropped his half-smoked cigar on the floor and smashed it out with his boot heel.

Olivia is new to gambling and she feels excited via her first exposure (we believe) through her reaction to something and her dialogue. (her emotion is shown)

We don't have to be told her husband has no repect for the place. (his emotion is shown)

Is this close?

Tri

[Denis Castellan]

For those who haven't read Swain, R.Ingermanson explains the structure of a scene here : http://www.rsingermanson.com/html/perfect_scene.html

If you want to comment on this link, I'd like to hear it http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

[zornhau]

For anybody that's just tuned in: we're discussing Emotion ins Swain's Motivation-Reaction units from his Techniques of the Selling Writer (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0806111917/qid=1110450931/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_26_1/202-5074527-0787020)and Creating Characters: How to Build Story People (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898796628/qid=1110450931/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_26_3/202-5074527-0787020)

When Olivia stepped into the casino she gazed at all the flashing lights. When she heard a siren and a bell go off she turned to her husband and said, "You, see, somebody just hit the jackpot! And just look at the beautiful carpet."

Her husband snickered, "Yeah sure." He dropped his half-smoked cigar on the floor and smashed it out with his boot heel.
<snip>
Is this close?Tri
Almost! Swain says the trick is to write a sentence without your character, then one with. I'd extend this by saying that your POV character can be a passive presence in the M, e.g. if somebody hugs them, or sticks them with a meat skewer.

Your first para confuses the motivation - the overwhelming casino environment - with her reaction. It also uses a needless "saw".



I would perhaps have written:The casino engulfed her; a sparkling sea of lights, beautiful hostesses, and smiling faces.
Olvia just stood and gazed. Heaven must be like this.

A siren and bell cut through the hubbub and somebody whooped.

Grinning, Olivia turned to her husband. "You, see, somebody just hit the jackpot! And just look at the beautiful carpet."
This isn't perfect yet, e.g. I tried to find a verb to describe how the casino acted on Olvia. Engulfed isn't right. It depends where she's coming from.



I think of it as a dialogue between the world, and the POV character. If reduced to a forumula, it would go like this (with each element being optional):M:[event seen through eyes of character] + [significance to character conveyed through character-driven metaphor or direct statement]R: [raw emotional response][unconscious physical response][mental or physical action][internal comment][speech]
I remember being blown away when I read Swain on this because it's so easy:
Bullets punched through the wall, sending chips of brickwork rattling to the floor. It was just a matter of time before the automatic weapons found their target, and ripped through Jakes flesh like a hole-punches stamping through modelling clay.

Praying silently, Jake hunched low and fumbled with the box. He pictured the schematics, metally replayed the long hours lashing up the elctronics and testing the uplink. It had to work.

Something hit the roof and exploded. Plaster and tiles crashed to the floor.

With shaking hands, Jake unlocked the safeties and thumbed the red button.
And so on.


The hard part is pacing the M-Rs to nicely fill a scene, but without padding.

Anyway, I've got a 2nd draft to work on. I'll drop in later to see if anybody has knocked holes in any of this.

[Anatole Ghio]

He knocked on the door. Who would answer this time? Sweet Gloria, always ready to greet him with a wink and a hug, or her surly big brother Ferdinand, the statewide wrestling champ, to whom he owed three hundred dollars? Payday was tomorrow. Maybe he could...

I like this one the most, out of all the examples. I've always felt the strongest sentences put the subject at the begining, and passive or weak writing will bury it. This one does a good job of varying the subject while leaving the POV the same -- which was really the heart of the question before, how to have a consistent point of view without repeating it in the descriptions.

- Anatole

[Anatole Ghio]

I agree (but I might forego the physical reaction, too). You know, I'm starting to wonder whether the 'feeling' Swain refers to is the physical sensation rather than the expression of emotion. Every example I can find in the book where there's a 'feeling' reaction is a physical one, not emotional. Was that your take on it?

I have not read the book in question. I wonder about your distinction between a physiological response and the communication of that response. You say above there is a difference between a physical feeling and an emotional one... I would say every emotional feeling gets manifested as a physical feeling, in an unconscious way. Where you make the distinction earlier in the thread about communicating an emotion being different from the feeling of it, I would say this isn't always the case, since our body will react to an emotion in ways that communicate it without our awareness. I can list scientific sources if pressed.

In the case of sweat breaking out on a characters brow, I second the notion that in the context of a work where many details about a character have already been supplied by the writer, the reader will fill in the meaning of this unconscious reaction. There are only so many things a sudden sweat can mean, and given the detail of a character given by an author within a work, such ambiguity gets resolved in the readers mind almost instantaneously.

- Anatole

[azbikergirl]

There are only so many things a sudden sweat can mean, and given the detail of a character given by an author within a work, such ambiguity gets resolved in the readers mind almost instantaneously. I want to believe this, but when I post the beginning of my story for critique, invariably I get readers who have NO CLUE what his emotions are. Let me show you what I have.

Tucked in the back of the Vigilant Forest, a hole, black and yawning, reached into the mountain.

Gavin Kinshield stopped at its edge and peered into the blackness. The fluttery feeling in his gut warned him to turn back. The involuntary jerk of his muscles tempted him to go in. To enter or not? If he entered, his life would change forever; if he didn't, he would never know whether destiny or choice had brought him. Gavin took a deep breath and stepped into the darkness.


Is it me not portraying what he's feeling well enough, or is it that the physiological responses + inner dialog aren't enough?

[maestrowork]

Azbikergirl, to me I think it boils down to 1) word choices and 2) your "motive" is not clear enough to let us know exactly how he feels. The internal dialogue only "tells" us certain things, like he's ambivalent. I think you're almost there, though, since I can guess what the character is feeling.

1) word choices. Fluttering, involuntary jerk of muscle? Take a deep breath? What do they really mean? Try some specific, stronger word to convey the emotions. Knots in stomach (I know it's cliche)? Pounding heart, sweaty palms? Think about what you would do if YOU feel that way at the edge of "no return"? Do you just jump? Or do you step forward, then step back again, hesitate, bite his lips? Detail is the key.

2) motivation. Right now it's very on the nose, but not sharp enough. "Life change forever" or "would never know his destiny" -- as a reader, I don't feel it. Unless I know what is really at stake here -- whyh is never knowing his destiny a problem? (I bet if I read the earlier parts of your book I will know, but here, I'm clueless). And that's the problem -- you only present us with an ambivalent choice, so the readers feel ambivalent, instead of "nervous, anxious, not sure what to do" feeling.

What if:


Gavin Kinshield stopped at the edge and peered into the blackness. His stomach churned. He took a step forward, but before he put his foot down, he retreated. Taking a few steps back, he closed his eyes, his palms wet. This is it, he told himself, there's no turning back. He took two steps forward, a tightness in his chest. He opened his eyes again and the blackness beckoned him. Destiny. Gavin took a deep breath and took another step, crossing into the darkness.

[azbikergirl]

Thanks for your thoughts Maestrowork. These are the opening words of the story, so no reader would know why he's there. My hope is that they read on to find out ;) Once he goes in and sees what he sees, his reasons for being there will become clear (that's the plan, anyway). What I wanted to do was show Gavin as a decisive man who's both nervous and excited about what will happen when he goes into this cave. I don't want to show him as fearful.

How did this topic go so off-subject?!

[maestrowork]

See, I took it that he's at least a bit fearful. But if you say he's not, then your original passage is not clear. And it's a tough thing since it's the beginning of the book -- we DON'T KNOW the character yet. I would have no idea how he should feel or act.

In that case, you might want to just say fluttering in his stomach, the quickening of breath, the dry mouth, but he steps in anyway. And just comes out and say "he's excited." The reason is 1) your deliberately do not want to give us the context; 2) we don't know the character yet. So it's too much to ask the readers to understand his emotions by just a few obscure gestures. In this case, a "tell" is just fine. Tell us he's both nervous and excited. And he steps into the darkness without hesitation.

[zornhau]

Tucked in the back of the Vigilant Forest, a hole, black and yawning, reached into the mountain.

Gavin Kinshield stopped at its edge and peered into the blackness. The fluttery feeling in his gut warned him to turn back. The involuntary jerk of his muscles tempted him to go in. To enter or not? If he entered, his life would change forever; if he didn't, he would never know whether destiny or choice had brought him. Gavin took a deep breath and stepped into the darkness.

I think that's enough as it is. Reading on would answer any questions raised by the opening. Sometimes critiquers can be too clever.

That said - since we're playing tweak-the-text- I might have used less physical reaction and put some concrete threat and analysis into the m:
[m]Tucked in the back of the Vigilant Forest, a hole beckoned.

[r]Stomach fluttering, Gavin Kinshield peered into the gloom. [m] The hole reached deep into the mountain. A man could lose himself in there, wandering endlessly in the deep until he starved or fell into some dank crevice.

[r] Gavin hestiated. [m]There was still time to walk away. But then he'd never know whether he was in the grip of a fantasy, or whether his destiny awaited him somewhere in that void. [r] He took a deep breath and stepped into the darkness.
The threat in blue is information leaking from the inside of the character's head. For instance, when I see a sword, I would know it was a Type XV blade to the late 14th and early 15th without consciously thinking that.

The analysis in green is really reported thought. However, the facts are still external to the character, so its motivation rather than action.

However, now we're into personal style.
Must get back to editing now
Z

[James D. Macdonald]

Try:


A cave, black and yawning, reached into the mountain in the back of the Vigilant Forest. Gavin Kinshield stopped at its mouth and peered into the dark. The fluttery feeling in his gut warned him to turn back.

He took a deep breath and stepped into the darkness.

[ChunkyC]

This is a good thread. I like what you did above, Uncle Jim. Great example.
I would perhaps have written:The casino engulfed her; a sparkling sea of lights, beautiful hostesses, and smiling faces.
Olvia just stood and gazed. Heaven must be like this.

A siren and bell cut through the hubbub and somebody whooped.

Grinning, Olivia turned to her husband. "You, see, somebody just hit the jackpot! And just look at the beautiful carpet."
This isn't perfect yet, e.g. I tried to find a verb to describe how the casino acted on Olvia. Engulfed isn't right. It depends where she's coming from.
Hi zorn. This is pretty good. Personally, I would tweak the first two sentences and leave the rest as is:

The casino called to her; a sparkling sea of lights, beautiful hostesses, and smiling faces.
Olvia stood and gazed. Heaven must be like this.

When I start revising, I always do a global search on the word JUST (among many others, including the dreaded 'LY' appendage) and kill 'em unless they can prove to me why they deserve to live.

[azbikergirl]

That's very succinct, Jim, thanks. I have a tendency to go into too much detail, I think. Need to develop the skill of cutting right to the meat of it.

The worrying about whether it's destiny vs. free choice should be handled later during the "sequel" portion, when he's mulling over his predicament.

[James D. Macdonald]

That's very succinct, Jim, thanks. I have a tendency to go into too much detail, I think. Need to develop the skill of cutting right to the meat of it.


My thought was, until the readers gets to know the person, they won't care about his destiny. So let's get the story moving

Re-reading, I might change "peered into the darkness" to "peered inside." We already know it's dark -- caves generally are, and the previous sentence said so explicitly.

We'll learn about why he's there as we go, and as we go we'll discover his history. His initial butterflies are the first bits of characterization in what will become a full portrait of the man.

[brinkett]

My thought was, until the readers gets to know the person, they won't care about his destiny. So let's get the story moving


As a humble reader, I prefer the version where this is included (though agree that other words could be cut):

If he entered, his life would change forever

This would hook me. The edited version might make me read on, but I wouldn't be as excited about it. It's comes down to personal preference, I guess.

[James D. Macdonald]

If he entered, his life would change forever



Why does the reader care whether this guy's life changes or not?

[maestrowork]

I guess what Brinkett meant was that the cut lost that hook, that "this is the point of no return." In the cut version, we see the guy come to the edge of the cave, then he goes in. Yes, it's interesting enough to hook us, but you lose that "this is it, we're going in and there's no return" feeling. The door to the theater has shut.

[James D. Macdonald]

I think the warning to turn back that he ignores is as strong a hook as we need or are going to get right here. We're only two paragraphs in, and they're short paragraphs.

In this particular case: If he goes forward, his life changes forever. If he goes back, his life changes forever. I don't see how adding the sentence adds to the story-in-progress. Of course his life will change. If it doesn't this is going to be a very unsatisfying book.

[azbikergirl]

Heh. If he doesn't go in, I have no story to tell!

[reph]

But how do we usually become aware of our emotions and thoughts, and, by implication, how do our characters become aware of theirs? What comes first, a physiological reaction or a cognitive appraisal of one's situation? Speaking for myself, only in extreme situations have I had a fluttering stomach before I knew I was afraid. Normally, I realize that my situation is scary just before my stomach flutters or my heart rate increases, or maybe at the same time. I don't infer fear from my visceral sensations.

I don't want to read "Her heart pounded" unless the preceding text has made clear why her heart should pound: fear, anger, physical exertion, sexual excitement? At worst, the explanation should come (or start) in the next sentence. "Footsteps sounded faintly from the outer hall, and a door closed somewhere. Ellie's heart pounded. She still had three months' worth of contracts and invoices to shred before morning, and the shredder made too damn much noise. Maybe the janitors were working late. They wouldn't care, probably couldn't read English anyway. But what if one of the auditors walked in?"

William James reversed the common understanding of how one reacts to a situation. When we introspect, we say "I see a bear. I feel afraid. I run." He said that, in reality, it goes like this: "I see a bear. I run. I feel afraid." James's proposal was thought radical and wrong at the time, but some research (maybe not all research) has confirmed it. The advice earlier in this thread about putting a character's bodily reaction first conforms to James's idea, but does it conform to the way we experience ourselves?

azbikergirl, these parts of your opening paragraph tripped me up: "Hole" is a vague word; is it a cave, a tunnel, or something else? And between destiny and choice as a force to move somebody to act, which is better? The concept of destiny gives me trouble in general. "Destiny" sounds dramatic and heroic – it cues a full orchestra – but setting choice as its alternative makes Gavin passive if he follows destiny.

[azbikergirl]

between destiny and choice as a force to move somebody to act, which is better? The concept of destiny gives me trouble in general. "Destiny" sounds dramatic and heroic – it cues a full orchestra – but setting choice as its alternative makes Gavin passive if he follows destiny. Do we really know whether we're following destiny or making our choices? This is the issue he struggles with. He thinks he's choosing, but he doesn't really know for sure. The idea of following destiny bothers him too.

[zornhau]

As a humble reader, I prefer the version where this is included (though agree that other words could be cut):

If he entered, his life would change forever

This would hook me. The edited version might make me read on, but I wouldn't be as excited about it. It's comes down to personal preference, I guess.

Isn't curiosity one of the reasons to read on? You'd never see just these two paras on their own. Normally, you zip through them without noticing.
As long as the writer doesn't play games with imediate questions and motivations (e.g. "Have I got the guts to do this?"), as a reader, I'm content to let the broader context unfold.

[brinkett]

Isn't curiosity one of the reasons to read on? You'd never see just these two paras on their own. Normally, you zip through them without noticing.


Not if they're the first two paragraphs in the book. I don't usually start skimming until later. ;)

My curiosity was piqued by the original version because it contained the statement I referred to in my post. It wasn't as piqued by the second version.

maestrowork guessed correctly where I'm coming from--there was a "sense of no return" in the first version that the second version lacked.

As far as it being a given that his life will change or it wouldn't be an interesting book, perhaps, but in the first version, I know the action of entering the cave is going to change his life. I didn't get that from the second version. For all I know, his stomach is fluttering and warning him to turn back because he's claustrophobic or afraid of the dark or scared of bats, and it's nothing beyond that. Because it's so early and I know zippo about the character, I need to be told. That's why the first version was a stronger hook for me. Having someone feeling apprehensive or fearful about entering a dark cave isn't enough of a hook. Having someone feeling the same because his life might be turned upside down if he enters--okay, now I'm interested.

Anyway, we all have our preferences as readers. As a reader, I would be more likely to read on with the first version than the second. Another reader may differ.

[Jamesaritchie]

when you put the character's thought into the narrative, like, 'did she know who the roses were even from?', i think you're going down a stylistic path that, while it's not a bad thing, per se, it's certainly something i wouldn't want every writer to do all the time. if that's a trend editors are going for, i'm not liking it, heh heh. i used to do that a lot, but right now it just seems to through the POV out of kilter just a little bit. it's a device i wouldn't use overmuch, that's for sure. it's very loose writing, if you ask me.

I don't really belive in editorial trends, for or against. I don't believe many editors analyze stories or writing this closely. A good editor is first and foremost a good reader, and he's looking for a story that grabs him and won't let go. He isn't looking for a story with a certain scene structure, or certain ways of showing thoughts.

I don't think many editors really care a whit whether you put thoughts into italics, or mix them with the narrative, or type them in red. I've never heard a real editor even mention such a thing. I don't think editors get away from this and go to that. All editors care about is whether or not the story and the characters grab them, and won't let go until the end.

His judgement on this is based not on sentence or scene structure, but on his own reading taste, and on the feedback he gets from his readers.

When an editor finds a good story, odds are he won't even know what techniques are used until long after he's bought it. If he sees the writing instead of the story on that first reading, it probably means rejection. The only things editors ever get away from are stories that readers won't buy. Whether or not to put thoughts into italics is usually the writer's choice, not the editor's. Good editors don't micromanage in this area.

I feel the same way about motivation and response in scene. It's nice theory, it's fun to talk about, but at best it's something to be saved for the final rewrite, and even then I really wouldn't want to read an entire novel put together like this. It is, I think, more the territory of the critic than of the writer, and scene after scene with the same structure gets old terribly fast, whatever that structure might be. There are many ways to write scenes, dozens and dozens of ways, and the best way is always the one you make work by having the reader not notice how the scene was written because he's caught up in the story.

It's all far too left-brained for me. The wirters I most enjoy are the ones who just sit down and tell a story, and who have enough insight into the human condition to fill that story with characters who step off the page. Like good editors, they simply don't worry, or even consider, whether or not editors might be getting away from thoughts in italics (They aren't.), or whether each scene has motivation and then response. The last thing I want in my mind during any stage of writing is whether or not editors might be getting away from this, or whether or not my scenes follow some motivation/response structure.

I don't think good writing happens through analysis, through scene breakdown, through worrying about what editors are or aren't getting away from. If you could really break writing down into such components, anyone and everyone would be writing Fiction That Sells.

Good storytelling comes from art, good characterization comes from living and instincts, and when you over-apply the science of analysis, I think both tend to run away and hide. Writers write, readers read, critics analyze.

[Mistook]

UJ, I can see why you start with "A cave..." because that is the most critical peice of scenery, but I think all versions of this initial paragraph are playing down the forest awkwardly.

I would start with the forest, just to get the picture of trees and the sounds of wilderness into the readers head, then get to the cave.

"After three days tracking alone through the Vigilant Forest, Gavin Kinshield stood at the foothills of Mount Evil, peering into the mouth of Devil's Cave. A sound came from behind and he turned with a start, reaching for his pistol.

Just a racoon. With a deep breath he steadied himself and turned back to face the blackness of the cave. Clearing his throat he heard the sound dissolve into reverb, "Ahem... em... em... em..." The tunnels must go on for miles. He looked back one last time at the forest. As rough as the passage had been, it was nothing compared to the journey ahead."

something like that thar. :)

[maestrowork]

Actually, I would start with the cave too. Who cares about the forest? It's cave we care about. If you're gonna start right when Gavin goes past the "point of no return," then get us to the cave. We can then pull back and show the forest, just a bit... or maybe not. Who cares about the forest? We care about what's in the cave... or maybe on the other side.

If you're gonna start with the forest, then something should happen there (a horse falls over, a bird ate Gavin's hat, something).. . but if you're gonna start there (entering a cave), then start with the cave.

That's my opinion, of course.

[azbikergirl]

That was my thought, too, Maestrowork. The forest is incidental. The cave is the reason he's there (what's inside, really), and stepping into the darkness therein is metaphoric for the journey he's about to undertake. I already have a problem with wordiness. Adding unnecessary scenery would just add to an already over-burdened manuscript.
:Smack:

[Mistook]

Actually, I would start with the cave too. Who cares about the forest? It's cave we care about. If you're gonna start right when Gavin goes past the "point of no return," then get us to the cave. We can then pull back and show the forest, just a bit... or maybe not. Who cares about the forest? We care about what's in the cave... or maybe on the other side.

If you're gonna start with the forest, then something should happen there (a horse falls over, a bird ate Gavin's hat, something).. . but if you're gonna start there (entering a cave), then start with the cave.

That's my opinion, of course.



The forest may very well be incidental, but it's part of the setting, and to me as a reader, it's distracting to see a huge cave, which may be anywhere on earth, at any time of day or night, and then have the forest thrown in as an after thought.

Having a sweeping background thown in as an afterthought takes me out of the story as a reader. I'd rather have the backdrop laid down first so that I have some frame of reference before discovering this is about a cave.

If the forest is so inconsequential, why does it have a proper name? Why is it mentioned at all? Why don't we just start the story in the deep of the cave?

It's probably my biggest pet peeve as a reader, and I call it the "Oh, by the way..."

EX: "He drove three blocks and searched for a space. Finding one, he shut off the ignition, jumped out of the car, and ran. A woman screemed. Oh, by the way, he wasn't wearing pants. He ran up the ramp and into the stairwell. Oh, by the way, he was in a parking garage."

[James D. Macdonald]

Friggin' parking garages, Charlie thought as he shut off the ignition. Cost ya an arm and a leg, but a guy could spend all day looking for on-street parking.

He tucked the ticket into his wallet and locked the door.


Anyway:

A cave, black and yawning, reached into the mountain in the back of the Vigilant Forest.

A cave, black and yawning, opened in the side of an arroyo deep in the Mojave desert.

A cave, black and yawning, snaked into the earth between the boles of two huge trees far up the Amazon in the Brazilian rainforest.

A cave, black and yawning, contrasted with the gleaming ice sheets of the Antarctic plateau.

A cave, black and yawning, appeared beyond the windows of the mini-sub, two miles below the ocean's surface in the Marianas Trench.

What we're doing here is limiting possibilities. One of the things we do in any story is resolve ambiguity. We're guiding our readers to create thought-pictures. Give the reader something to work with or we may not like the picture they develop -- it may not mate with later pictures we want to show.

[maestrowork]

Absolutely, UJ. Limiting possibilities.

In my novel, it opens with the guy driving around the streets, looking for an apartment. I put him right in action. But I also have to limit possiblities -- make it specific for the readers to place it, and form a vivid picture. He could have been driving on the streets anywhere in the world. So I tell them he's been driving from LA to San Diego, the name of the town, and the palm trees in front of the old apartment complex, and what the guy is doing -- he's looking for a woman with urgency... all in one short paragraph.

But that frantic moment of driving around is the beginning of the story. I don't linger on the descriptions of the highway, or how tropical San Diego looks, or the beautiful ocean view he just passed, or the chirping of the birds, or how tall the palm trees are.

One advice I got from a novelist/mentor that I took to heart: don't do an establishing neighborhood shot as you would in a movie. No sweeping camera angles, green lawns and laughing children. That's the movies. In a book, start with a goal/conflict/person and just enough specifics of a setting. You can fill in the blank later. The mention of "palm trees in front of an apartment complex in San Diego" is your establishing shot.

I know, I know. It sounds contradictory to the concept of "show vs. tell." We say to ourselves, we need to show more, and we need to paint a vivid picture. Yes, but not to suffocate the story. At the beginning of the story, you need to get to the point much quicker than the rest of your book. You shouldn't linger on settings.

Just my opinion.

[azbikergirl]

We're guiding our readers to create thought-pictures. Yes, but without overkill. I appreciate authors who give me credit for having an imagination. When I'm given a few hints, I automatically fill in the rest. 'Forest' tells me to imagine trees and shrubs, mostly green, and birds and chipmunks... I don't need or want the author to describe all that unless it's pertinent to what's happening or about to happen.

[alanna]

If your story is in third person, but your character's thoughts are in first person, do they need to be italicized? Is the 3rd to 1st switch even okay?

[James D. Macdonald]

As long as a) the reader is not confused, and

b) you're consistent,

you can do anything at all in fiction.

[alanna]

yippee!!! ::Does happy dance::

[alanna]

yippee!!

::happy dance::

:)

(oops- double post! lol)

[Vipersniper]

:idea: If I am incorrect let me know the person that said it actually. "I try to learn something new everyday." George Washington Carver. So that is what the italics button is for. Aha and now I have wondered how to deal with this aspic of writing. Because in a style guide that was provided they said to not put a statement of thought into parenthesis. Unless the character was talking to himself. Do this is how you eliminate the he thought or she thought. Man you do learn something here.

[zornhau]

NB: In traditional manuscript submission format, underlining stands for italics!