Competent mental health works by leading the patient to a self-revelation/realization, not by giving the answers to them. If one is lead to their issue, by tough love or soft love, they have options about how to handle the issue(s). If one is told they have issue(s), and they don't see it as an issue, forward progress is rarely achieved.
Does it make sense to say: Sam mumbled something under her breath and stormed off into the house. In close third, where Sam is the POV character? I ask because this would never be used in a first-person voice.
Well this is just another area where the third-person voice confuses me. If 'Sam' were 'I' then there'd be no question. But if you're saying the same applies then that's good enough. Thank you.
For me, the main difference between first person and close third is the pronouns. All the other "rules" apply. Except that some authors are able to really smoothly zoom in and out of close third - I remember first noticing this in Harry Potter, but possibly that's just the first book I read that used the technique after I started writing seriously enough to pay attention to things like that. Anyway, Rowling will sometimes start a chapter in more distant third to give a bit of background and setting, then zoom in and do close third for the rest of the scene/chapter/section. I've never tried it, but I think it could be a really useful tool. So those are the only differences I see between first and close third. Pronouns, plus a bonus ability to zoom in close third.
I have a sentence of which I'm unsure where to use name and where to use a simple pronoun. Maybe both are fine, maybe both are wrong, but I suspect there's a subtle difference which means one sounds better than the other. The two versions are (Miller is the MC): On top of all this, the fact that Kellerman had chosen not to off him back at Jacobs' nagged at Miller, although he wasn't sure why. On top of all this, the fact that Kellerman had chosen not to off Miller back at Jacobs' nagged at him, although he wasn't sure why. But I chop and change between the two of them every time I re-read it.
Version 2/ has three potential candidates for "him" - Kellerman, Miller and Jacobs - so is less clear who is being nagged at; there's probably a grammatical reason why "him" must be Miller - but why give your reader the need to dig deep into Grammar 101 to work out what you mean?
Version 1/ is clearer - to me. It's also possible that context would make version 2/ work OK; but, without that???
For me: None of them. Both marked dependent structures are quite long and refer to different two things (that Kellerman hadn't killed Miller, and that this facts annoys Miller). If it would be me, I'd rephrase. And another thought, just supposing you want to keep the structure [disclaimer: just my gut feeling]: I've found that using the name of the protag in a close POV narrative works well only when it involves physical actions. As soon as internal thoughts are involved, telling the name of the MC places a wedge between reader and MC. I think this is because usually people don't refer to themselves with their name in internal thought. Sure, you might swear at yourself 'Claus, you sure messed this up!' but you wouldn't use your own name during mundane thoughts. In close POV, the reader should be sharing the MCs thoughts. There shouldn't be much distance, and what distance there is, should be placed consciously for effect by the author.
Thank you, all. A rephrasing is in order then. And thanks for the pointer re. not using names for internal thoughts. I think I instinctively do this anyway, but I got myself a little jumbled up here. Classic case of over-thinking ... again!
