I need the paragraph to either be consistent with its narrator, or to use a better transition for character thoughts. I would think I would always need it, though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that? As to whether or not the transition should be longer or more subtle - I don't know. What I do know is that if a paragraph uses language like: "Bob had never . . ." "those that knew Bob . . ." ". . . he always struggled to make friends", etc; I don't want something like "That's what dad always said," to end the paragraph. For me, that's a narrator jolt.
What if that last sentence were in italics? That’s not a suggestion—I’m on the “anti” side of italics for thought—but it would help clarify your position for me.
By “always need it” I guess I mean, do you need the whole novel to maintain a consistent narrative distance, or whole chapters, or blocks of paragraphs, or just the current paragraph? With this example, we’re changing narrative distance within a single paragraph.
I'm going to offer an example of something similar that did/does work for me, from a book I'm currently reading. Hopefully that will give you a better understanding of what I'm trying to communicate.
My brain is in meltdown, an example of a differing method is most welcome! (I saw no issue at all with the previous examples)
@ChickenFreak From Malice, by John Gwynne, page 197: Their task was to flush or beat the game into the path of those come to hunt. Drifting in the wind he heard the single blast of a horn, then a distant roar. His heart leaped — the hunt had begun. With a jerk he jumped forwards, seeing the beaters' line lurch towards the forest. They reached the first trees and started banging their wooden rods together. The noise was immense. Distantly Corban heard an answering echo, the beaters on the other side of the hunters, then he was amongst the trees, the boys on the other side of him flickering in and out of view. Walk slowly, keep beating. It was easier said than done, but nevertheless, slowly, step by step, he made his way deeper into the Baglun, . . . ~~~ In the first paragraph the narrator is similarly distant to the narrator in the beginning of the OP's paragraph. The second paragraph we zoom in for inner monologue, identified clearly with italics, and then get some closer/deeper narration with the second paragraph's second sentence. But it works for me because it's a new paragraph, and the author used italics to transition the zoom, so there's no jolt. At least not for me.
So I’m taking the “always” answer as being that you’re OK with a distance shift between paragraphs, with sufficient signaling/transition. One remaining issue for me is that second paragraph isn’t very close. It has thoughts, but not really emotion. So to me, it’s only a partial transition.
Correct. I'm even comfortable with a distance shift mid paragraph, so long as it's for inner monologue clearly marked with italics.
ChickenFreaks explanations make more sense. Jane Austen et al seemed to spearhead the "free indirect discourse" and it was the ability to go from narrator's head to character's head without any direct statement saying it had occurred - hence "indirect". I don't see how anyone can think indirect discourse is when the author...directly states the words "thought" "pondered" etc. I mean it's in the name - indirect and direct...
This is essentially what my beta readers have stated, and asked to add "he thought" etc into it, which I don't like. I have studied free indirect discourse a lot since this thread, and I don't see how I am doing it any differently to other authors. Not claiming I am doing it correctly - just that I am struggling. I don't see how else you can transition the psychic distances in a grey area. As you say - the narrator is always at a safe distance, and the character isn't, yet many authors do switch between the two through "indirect free discourse" and whenever I read novels I have no issue having it as the characters thoughts even when it is the narrator to many people. Dunno...Maybe I am just really easy and suggestable to suspense of disbelief and immerse quickly into novels...But I don't seem to understand the mechanics behind how the authors do it at all, as I am clearly copying the technique VERY wrong. How does one change the psychic distance between a clearly not invested narrator and a very invested character?
See I hate italics and inner monologues. It isn't always the case, but when an author does this - you know they will use it as a crutch for large sections, and you end up with this horrible mishmash of narrator pontification and character monologue playing off each other and feels like a co-authored essay, so I tend to avoid those novels. I much prefer free indirect discourse where the narrator and character blend together, Jane Austen and James Joyce seemed to be masters of this. Again, everyone is different, and having one or two beta readers get shifty is normal - can't please everyone, but this was universal criticism of my WIP when I sent it out.
