In first person, I don't think you need to express it directly, apart from the flow of the narrative itself. First person is more of a direct dialogue with the reader to being with. Maybe you can give an example of a passage you've done that way so we can see what you mean.
https://www.writingforums.org/threads/critique-request-warning-child-sexual-abuse.162514/ In this chapter, I use them rather a lot. (In most chapters actually)
I don't care for internal monologs. To me, that's just another distraction from the story. And I certainly wouldn't use italics for something so long let alone switch tense for something like that.
So you show a characters thoughts through their actions alone? Maybe that's where I'm struggling (or over explaining to the reader).
Instead of: The roof above me slid open with a pleasant hum, and I gazed at the glittering sky with a head full of wonder. I tugged my bed-sheets up to bury my nose and drew a sharp breath, bracing for take-off. Where will I go tonight? Perhaps I’ll visit my friend Nathan who lives across the street. He doesn’t realize I have a magic bed, that will be a great surprise. Or maybe I’ll fly across the world and explore the jungles, I can survive like Tarzan. Why Not: The roof above me slid open with a pleasant hum, and I gazed at the glittering sky with a head full of wonder. I tugged my bed-sheets up to bury my nose and drew a sharp breath, bracing for take-off. Where would I go tonight? Maybe I'd visit my friend Nathan across the street. He didn't realize I had a magical bed--that would be a great surprise. Or maybe I'd fly across the world and explore the jungles, survive like Tarzan. Clutching the controls in both fists, I lay as still and straight as I could in the launch position and powered up the ship. The second version is more like what you'd see in first person. I don't think I've ever seen first person with direct interior monologue like you're providing, because in first person the whole thing is the narrator talking to the reader to begin with. You see the kinds of itaicized interior monologue you're using in third person stories, though.
Over explaining is something I had to teach myself not to do, and, still, sometimes it happens. I work with good editors who catch and fix these thing before my stuff is published. And I'm lucky to have editors that can see a good story and buy my work, knowing things can be cut and altered. I used to think italics were needed for internal thoughts, but every place I've published has changed that. And I stopped writing internal monologs a long time ago. I think that they can be fun and easy to write but do little for the story. Anyway, this is just my experience. I do write for a living so I would like to think I know what I'm talking about, but, again, this is my experience. And I think I've learned a lot along the way.
This is where I come unstuck. I originally wrote the piece that way but changed the thoughts to italicised present tense in an attempt to bring the story 'closer' without writing everything in present. I fear I may have done the wrong thing whilst simultaneously still feeling that it works. "Know the rules before you break them" they say. I don't know the rules on this.
Make your own rules but be consistent. Readers are human beings and they are clever. They will work out your style.
I write the narrative in third person, because I have many characters who occasionally take center stage as POV. And, on occasion, I share their internal thoughts as internal monologue, always in italics. I try not to do this to excess, and limit it to highly emotional scenes where I can show, for example, their internal doubts which may contrast sharply with their external actions. If I were to write in first person, however, with just one POV character, then all narration would become a sort of internal monologue, and italics would be redundant and distracting, as in the example
The idea that you don't have moments of internal monologue in 1st person is absurd. There is zero difference between a 1st person narrator and a limited 3rd narrator. They both exhibit the exact same patterns of thought. To suggest that patterns of thought vary whether in 1st or limited 3rd makes zero sense. It's just not true. We have our three: 1) Indirect thought 2) Direct thought. 3) Internal monologue (usually direct, but can also be indirect). Those three exist in limited 3rd and 1st person. To say otherwise is to say that some magic denuded one of the viewpoint's mental capabilities, based simply upon the application of the word I instead of SHE. I had a scowl on inside, because of everything, and I wasn’t in the mood to encourage him. Why didn’t Mom want to tell me? I could have gone out on Halloween and not even had to pretend. Notice how she interrupts herself with a moment of speaking a question to herself in her mind, before dropping back to direct thought. Break it down: Indirect thought: I had a scowl on inside, because of everything, and I wasn’t in the mood to encourage him. Internal monologue in direct thought: Why didn’t Mom want to tell me? Direct thought: I could have gone out on Halloween and not even had to pretend. Now, look at this in limited 3rd: She had a scowl on inside, because of everything, and she wasn’t in the mood to encourage him. Why didn’t Mom want to tell me? She could have gone out on Halloween and not even had to pretend. Zero difference.
There is a difference between first and limited third, and I think it's just as absurd that you think there isn't. Also, I avoid and often suggest avoiding internal monologs. I primarily write in first and without internal monologs. To me, they can come off amateurish and I think there is usually a better way to say something or get a point across. I am a writer by profession and have studied writing. I'm not looking to get into an argument here or anything. I just think you should be careful about trying to come across as an authority on something you might not be right about.
I subscribe to this. The question to ask yourself (honestly) is: Does this work? If it works, go ahead with it. If it doesn't work—by either confusing people or making it difficult for them to read—then maybe reconsider your approach. Whatever that approach might be. Pay attention to beta reaction, zeroing in on 'why' something does or doesn't work for them. If you use enough betas, you should get the picture. There are always people who would have done it differently, or don't like your choices. But that's the case no matter what you do. So just make sure that your choices actually convey what you intended. There are no writers on the planet (dead or alive) whose style is universally loved. But are they published? Do they sell?
But that is a choice. You are saying that you prefer to not present internal monologue. Well, of course you can make that choice. That is different from saying that internal monologue does not exist in 1st person, but it does in limited 3rd. That makes no sense. Internal monologue, used or not, is completely independent from the fact that one is employing either form, 1sr or limited 3rd. The properness of the form is completely independent upon your choosing not to use the tool. You have every right to dislike them. But that says nothing about proper use. I will add that whenever I use internal monologue, that is the better way to say it. That would be why I chose to do it the way I did. Usually when you go to that, you are very deep, very direct, both features of writing that are often decidedly powerful. If you are seeing people use internal monologue amateurishly, that's likely because they are not making good choices, not because it can't be done well. And, once again, I defend those choices. Do what you will.
I think we need to get down on this a bit more. Part of the problem we face is that about half the population rarely or never engages in internal monologue. This likely explains why so many are baffled by it and can't imagine the difference between internal monologue and simple direct thought. It seems clear to me that this inability to comprehend the mental process leads to lots of these kinds of discussions. From wiki: people may think of inner speech as coming from an external source, as with schizophrenic auditory hallucinations. Additionally, not everyone has a verbal internal monologue. In other words, two people are in there, one speaking and the other burdened to listening to it. So there you start to see part of the problem. You're driving down the road, and you look over to see some lady in her car chatting away. "Oh my god, she's weird." But, to her, you're weird because you never hash things out. How could you possibly be smart if you never hash anything out or get down on yourself verbally. In such a case, that lady is verbalizing, but in polite company she's still doing it, with her mouth closed. People are talking inside. Lots of times, these discussions break out in rudely interrupting arguments. What the hell am I writing? Since it is dialogue in the head, it instantly breaks out like dialogue, which is always 1st person, present tense. This is clearly different from a direct thought that simply says something like: The moon was bright, rising slowly over the horizon, but with a mist already chilling to my bones. More than likely the day was setting up to be cold. Some see no difference at all between a simple thought and those moments when we are talking to each other in the head, and thus they find no use for the tool.
I believe it's a fine line, sometimes, between what is a direct and indirect thought. I do use italics for direct thoughts, because that's the way I write. But for me it has to be exactly what the person thought ...the words they actually used to themselves. Something like here we go again or why me? It doesn't actually matter if the narrator is first or third person. It's the exactitude of the words that might have been spoken under the breath that counts, for me, as direct thought. For example, a first person narrator might narrate like this: These bursts of direct thought can add personality to a particular character and immediacy to the situation. The thoughts should always be consistent with the character. Instead of shit, here we go AGAIN, another character might think okay, patience ...PATIENCE, in the same trying situation. It's not a description of the character's state of mind. It a direct transcription of what they could have muttered to themselves. I wouldn't use italics for some long, elaborate thought, though. I keep the internal thoughts brief and punchy. However, I've also used a short burst of italics for emphasis, on occasion—when it's clearly not internal dialogue. Again, I accept that everybody won't like it. But that's my take on the situation. I'm the writer, and these are my stylistic choices.
I think italics fail as - method to micro-manage the eye. Take the italics out... ...expecting your reader to peruse at half-speed, to consider, and continue in comprehension of your tedious device...is an arrogance, or simply adolescent... ...or effective for you
(third person, close, past) A good writer probably doesn’t need italics. The narration of actions and scene together with dialogue makes in clear what is narration and what are internal thoughts. For us that aren’t that good (and don’t like italics) the road is hard. Of course you can narrate it. What a lovely girl, thought John. John suddenly remembered the ... But if you don’t want to do that. I am at the moment writing yet another exercise where I am trying to write internal thoughts without italics and without pointing with narration. So far i have found some tricks that can be used. Tense As i am writing in past tense and we always write dialogue in present. Ben was interested in music. (Narration) Ben is interested in music. That is great! (Internal thoughts) As long as you establish that narration is in past anything in present is more likely be thought of as internal thoughts. Probably references to the future works as well. He should be here any minute. Questions Why was that window slightly open? The narrator does not pose questions to the reader. A question would look like internal thoughts. My two characters (seventeen, young man and woman) are extremely philosophical. Many of their thoughts are in question format. Doesn't he see my notice my new hairdo? Why doesn't he kiss me? Pronoun (and possessives) The narrator wouldn't use them in first person. I am so happy. My hand fits perfectly in his. Usually you only need a starting sentence. Then your reader is in the head of the character and stays there until you break out with a clear narrative sentence! Any good further consideration?
I actually don't think any of your ideas here really work all that well. Changing tense for thought without the tag of "he thought" will be quite jarring and confusing. Questions can work somewhat, but they can quickly become overused and tiring. You're really going to have to limit these and then go back and cut most of them. These are going to pull readers out of the story. Maybe you want that for a second, but it's important to keep in mind that this does derail from the present narrative. I also wouldn't switch pronouns without a he-thought tag at the end. It could become confusing and hard to follow. I'm not a big fan of italics for much of anything. And I do think internal thoughts and such should be limited. I would keep it simple with the good old "he thought" as needed. But, again, I suggest limiting your use of any/all of these.
For me, the issue of italics for thoughts boils down to one thing. Clarity. I am happy with a limited use of italics for thoughts. However, in the modern day, when so many books are being made into audio books, the italicised thoughts might NOT be so clear when read out loud. So it's something to think about. Try reading your passages out loud, or have somebody else (even a digital voice programme) read them to you. If the thoughts are unclear and seem to require some kind of attribution, then it's probably a good idea not to rely on italics.
I just cannot believe this thread is still getting new posts. Okay, here's the final, official word on the subject: A character's thoughts must be expressed in pig latin. Italics are okay as is normal text, so long as it's pig latin.
But what if my characters speak naturally in pig latin? Would pig-sanskrit of pig-farsi be okay for thoughts? I'm not really sure of the rules in this situation.
So I'm lost on whether to do internal dialog in first person or third! The story is in restricted thrid person, but I have seen forums say that first person flows nicely without the need for the "he thought" tag. Any recommendations? Anything helps!
