First Person Narrative - Narrator commentary within another character's speech

I typically write in the third person, but I've been having a go at first person, and so far, so good for the most part. There have been a couple of scenarios where I'm not sure what the proper process would be. I want the narrator to comment on what another character is saying while that character is in the middle of saying it. My first guess was to just use brackets:

He laughed and slapped me on the back. “Good work. Very good. I was aware that you were not always following the guidelines (I don’t think he was. He neither noticed nor cared what I was doing as long as there weren’t any complaints from corporate), but I thought, why not? Let’s see what comes of it."

 

Second guess is maybe have the dialogue split with the commentary in between:

He laughed and slapped me on the back. “Good work. Very good. I was aware that you were not always following the guidelines.." I don’t think he was. He neither noticed nor cared what I was doing as long as there weren’t any complaints from corporate. "..but I thought, why not? Let’s see what comes of it."

 

The parentheses seem a little odd in fiction. I definitely think the second option works better, but it feels like a little too much commentary in the middle of the split dialogue sentence. Maybe something ike this:

He laughed and slapped me on the back. “Good work. Very good. I was aware that you were not always following the guidelines."

I don’t think he was.

"But I thought, why not?" He continued. "Let’s see what comes of it."

He neither noticed nor cared what I was doing as long as there weren’t any complaints from corporate.

I would cut to a new paragraph each time you switch speakers.

 

I would point out that the parenthetical phrase could be italics for thought. With short phrases I use an em line.
I write in both first and third. My debut novel was in first because I didn't know any better. Fortunately, most of the story was in the MC's POV. I did add two chapters to give another POV, as it was critical to the story.
My life story—memoir—was in first and was an easy road to go down for me.
I wrote a novel which was like the tv show Scorpion, but for adults and it had to be written in third and even in third it couldn't be a close third as I was changing scenes and POV quiet often.
My latest work, of which I’m two chapters from finishing, is in a close third with multiple character, and I change POV only at a new chapter.

 

Ah, thank you for the suggestion. I figured I might end up having to split it up a bit as a workaround. I'm not sure about considering the narrator a speaker, though. I certainly have read far more third than first person works of fiction overall, so I could be wrong there. I've read 5 novels in the first person this year, but they're all by the same author, so his style could be idiosyncratic.

 

In 1st person the narrator is the POV character (often the MC). That makes it somewhjat different from nsarration in 3rd person, where the narrator is more like a disembodied voice floating around outside of the story. Since it's a character, it makes sense to treat his thoughts (inner monologue, which is what the narration is) as dialogue, especially if they're in response to what the other person is saying aloud.

 

Of course. He's narrating what's happened from his point of view, and should be free to offer thoughts without italics or new paragraphs. When he speaks in the story, I make a new paragraph, but not when he's just commenting on things that happened or were said to him.

I just skimmed through a couple pages of the current first person book that I'm reading, but new paragraphs with the narrator voice seems to always have a speaking part from him as well. I will have to pay more attention to this on my next reading session.

 

Many writers simply don't interrupt one character's speech with another character's thoughts and commentary, or do so rarely, which is why you may not have a lot of examples to draw from. For those that do, I personally also prefer the method that Xoic used, a new paragraph per character, even if the second character is just thinking instead of speaking. Treating thoughts like dialogue, basically. It makes it a bit easier to follow, creates the feel of a back and forth (even if only one of the characters is aware of that back and forth), and adds some aesthetically pleasing whitespace.

 

It also maintains clarity, because readers can follow the exchange of thoughts and speech in the familiar format—a new paragraph for each 'speaker' (whether that speaking is done externally or as internal monologue).

That said, it is intruiging to see the method you used—placing the narration directly into the same paragraph with the other person's dialogue. That's treating it as narration. So I suppose it comes down to how you want to handle it.

 

He laughed and slapped me on the back. “Good work. Very good. I was aware that you were not always following the guidelines.." I don’t think he was. He neither noticed nor cared what I was doing as long as there weren’t any complaints from corporate. "..but I thought, why not? Let’s see what comes of it."

As well as the points raised by others above, there's a need to keep the narrator's voice and the framed/embedded speaker's voice distinct.

So in this example I'd want to avoid jumping from

I don’t think he was. [...]

to

"..but I thought, why not? Let’s see what comes of it."

If the reader misses the speechmarks, they could get confused. The word order, dialogue tags, and division into paragraphs should all back up the speechmarks if possible.

I suppose anyone else speaking in the first person is always a slight risk. It's good if there can be a break in the rhythm and flow.

==========

“Good work. Very good. I was aware that you were not always following the guidelines..."

I don’t think he was. He neither noticed nor cared what I was doing as long as there weren’t any complaints from corporate.

"...but I thought, why not? Let’s see what comes of it."

I think works better as:-

“Good work. Very good. I was aware that you were not always following the guidelines... but I thought, why not? Let’s see what comes of it."

I don’t think he was aware. He neither noticed nor cared what I was doing as long as there weren’t any complaints from corporate.

I can't decide about the tenses - could "I don't" be followed by "He notices" or is the subtle shift in tense needed?

But if the narrator has to cut in, could differences in the speakers' voices be accentuated?

==========

“Eeh! Bah gum tha's good! I knew full well you wasn't allus following t' guidelines..."

I don’t think he did. He neither noticed nor cared what I was doing as long as there weren’t any complaints from corporate.

"...but I thought t' meself, why not? I've tak'n gorm off ye and seen what's come."

 

Isn't this a case for the classic approach with dashes?

(I corrected don't to didn't, because I don't see any cues you're using some 3-dimensional chess foo with tenses, and popping a present tense in there is both distracting, prompting a "huh? what just happened there?" reaction, and disruptive to the thing you're trying to do.)

This is a highly standard approach, though it won't work for longer interjections of narrator thought (or anything else). I double-checked: it's not merely an American practice, as it's found in the following quote from a work originally published in the UK. The dashes give a strong visual break and—being well established for the purpose—additionally cue an experienced reader to exactly what you're doing practically before you do it.

Somerset Maugham, Of Human Bondage (1915)(public domain)

It illustrates two methods in a single paragraph: dashes in one instance, and a standard narrative sentence in the other. As it happens, everything in this example between the dashes constitutes a single sentence fragment, but it's easy to find examples published in the 1900's where a period/full-stop occurs as well (besides which you could sidestep that issue with a semicolon or two).

And then the third method has already been suggested, that of putting a separate paragraph in the middle. Personally, I wouldn't use that in this instance, as it completely fractures the spoken sentence. I would especially not use it if you're picking up the spoken sentence exactly where you interrupted it, as in your example. However, there's an approach like this:

 

And while it's most common (and most commonly recommended on advisory web pages) to keep the dashes outside the quotation marks, you can also find professionally edited examples in 1900s-published fiction where they go inside the quotation marks to show that the interruption is intrinsic to the speech, as when putting a narrative comment into the middle of "But wait—what are we doing?"

 

Inner monologue is like dialogue, always in present tense unless it's referring to something that happened in the past (at the time the character is thinking it). It seems complicated because the other character (the one speaking out loud) is using past tense, but he's referring to the actual past. It makes sense for the narrator (POV Character) to think I don't think he was. On the next line however it does make sense to use past: 'He neither noticed nor cared what I was doing as long as there weren’t any complaints from corporate' because now the narrator is speaking in past tense about how the other person behaved in the past.

I think it's technically correct, but you're right to point out that it's confusing. I would try to find a way to simplify it. Here's one way to do that:

"Good work. Very good. I was aware that you were not always following the guidelines,"—Were you? You neither noticed nor cared what I was doing as long as there weren’t any complaints from corporate—"But I thought, why not? Let’s see what comes of it."

I wrote that without the italics, but it was confusing, I think they're necessary if you're going to combine inner monologue and someone else's dialogue in the same paragraph. But then I can't help but see it as a dialogue, so I want to give each its own paragraph. But at least there's no tense-foo going on.

 

I think there's a lot we agree on here. In your remedy, you went straight to direct second-person address and (nearly straight to) italics.

But inner monologue is trickier in first-person narration. By default, everything belongs to the narration except what cannot belong to the narration. IMO an author needs to remove everything that is narration-like and then additionally fulfill some other criterion or criteria that are vague to me. One of them clearly would be direct address—to another character or to self.

I don't think he is is still narration, i.e. the protagonist/narrator speaking to the reader as usual, because it refers to "he" and "is". Well, more than that, it starts with the classic narration-cue "I don't(didn't) think." That's describing (narrating) the thought, not directly thinking it. To step out of the narrator's role requires something like what you suggest, turning it into direct real-time address to a character or self: You are. You aren't. Are you?

Even putting "I don't think he is" into italics can't transform it into thought. The verb think makes it meta-thought, and meta is narrative. But he isn't could qualify as inner monologue outside the narration, but it's not nearly as clear or as good as your "—Were you? You neither noticed nor cared..."

One could also almost get away with I don't think you are, because "you" is clearly not the reader (unless the narrator has made a habit of addressing the reader), even though (as noted) "think" strongly casts toward narration. But adding up all the factors present, I simply find it impossible (intuitively) to hear "I don't think he is" as anything outside of narration-as-usual to the reader, with a tense mistake in it.

Of course that's only one reader's ear.

 

Wow, all of this thoughtful feedback is much appreciated. Thank you. I do like the — suggestion. That allows me to do what I was aiming for there.

The don't/didn't I hadn't thought of, but it's related to another struggle I am having. The narrator is writing down his story in his mid-forties, and that particular scene is from his early thirties. Since he is going to continue narrating events from his perspective up to the present time, I think "didn't" is indeed correct. I don't think (hehe) it will work if I try to make the thoughts come from his early thirties point of view character.

First person is much more tricksy than I had anticipated.

 

Part of it is because of the inner monologue, which is different than it would be in 3rd person.

This is difficult for me, I learned it not too long ago (but long enough that it's fading from the memory banks), and I'm not too sure of it.

I learned it in terms of direct and indirct thoughts (it also works with speech the same way). Here's a little trick—the way you tell the difference. Assuming the story is written in 3rd person past, then indirect thoughts (or speech) will be also done in 3rd person past. But direct thoughts (aka direct inner monologue) will be in 1st person present. Exactly the way the character is thinking them in his head.

It's a little different if the story is in 1st person (past). You wouldn't switch into 3rd person for inner monologue, that would feel really wrong in a 1st person story. So the only way to tell is by the use of present tense.

And I haven't thought this part through before, but it seems like narration equates with indirect thought (at least the way @Also is using the term). So if you keep it more direct (direct inner monologue), you simply do it in 1st person present tense.

To me it makes sense that if you use narration (indirect monologue) you'd treat it as narration, no need to separate paragraphs etc. But if you use direct monologue, then that's not really narration anymore, it's the character's actual thoughts the way he's experiencing them. So it seems it wants to be handled like dialogue.

Sorry, I know this is complicated and technical. I'm mostly just thinking my way through it (trying to). If I'm wrong on any of it, someone please let me know—I don't want to ingrain bad habits.

 

In case all of that was as clear as mud, I did a blog post about it in much more detail a while back (and hopefully explained it better). @Set2Stun —this is the stuff I sent last night in my final PM, in case you haven't seen that one yet.