I just did. Read above. Oh, and I am definitely not in error, here. I work with several major writers in my groups, and have for decades. This is not controversial. It's really very simple. The writer either intrudes to tell us who is thinking (indirect) or the writer does not (direct). This does matter, however, because if you get it you can close down your limited 3rd writing and make it so tight that the external 3rd person writer disappears.
Quotes from people who are not you. It is indeed simple, but you have it wrong. Your focus on credit/tagging is what’s misleading you.
Oh, really? Well, if my examples are wrong, and the ones you agree with are right, let's put them side by side: My examples, next to the ones you side are working: Indirect thought: Nina turned at the bottom and looked through the steps to the far wall. ***** She studied the dark corners for a sign of him while her hand reached into the corner nearest the bottom of the steps for the one broom she’d not yet stolen the stick off of.. Indirect thought you found acceptable: (He) asked himself if Shelley was out to kill him with putting it there. Direct thought: *****Mother of Mary, the wolf had gotten in. But where was Walker? ***** Direct thought found acceptable: Shit, Shelly was going to kill somebody with her clutter, someday. The specific form of direct thought known as Internal monologue: (requiring present tense, 1st person, because it is internal speech): *****Where are you, stupid boy? ***** Direct thought (internal monologue) you found acceptable: Shit, Shelly. Why put it there? You out to kill me? Clearly I am not the one confused. Each of those pairs of forms are identical.
Apparently I can’t resist temptation. I quote from one of the sites that you insist agree with you. It directly addresses the tagging/attribution issue: Direct thoughts become indirect thoughts when you do two things: change from present to past tense, and change from 1st person to 3rd person. “She liked the blue dress best, she thought.” The “she thought” part is still correct, even though it’s an indirect thought. And the language is still in the character’s voice https://www.darcypattison.com/writing/characters/character-thoughts/ She also addresses indirect thought, but I want to limit the amount that I quote from someone else’s copyrighted material.
Wasn't this thread about first person or third? I guess if you're losing one argument, it's best to move onto another.
“Asked himself” is a thought. “Studied” is an action. Not the same. No. Read my post again. This was the direct thought: Shit, Shelly. Why put it there? You out to kill me? “Shelly was...” is indirect. “Where are you, you stupid boy?” Is both direct thought and internal monologue. You’re wrong. Again, try quoting someone who is not you.
Direct thought USUALLY does not include a shift of tense. Only internal monologue requires a shift to present tense. I'll give you a source, if you like. In this source they go so far as to suggest that there are 4 forms: Indirect thought. Indirect thought that is also internal monologue Direct thought. Direct thought that is also internal monologue. Now, personally I agree with that, but I also would contend that it's a little absurd to credit internal monologue. It's like this: Shit, Shelly. Why put it there? You out to kill me? Joe thought. Given you've gone to the lengths of establishing view and going to clearly internal monologue form (italics, present tense, 1st person), it's a little nuts to have the writer tell us what just happened. But, technically yeah, you can have Indirect thought internal monologue, too. I omitted it on purpose. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-an-interior-monologue-1691073
Yeah, ok, I’ll try to stop responding. I am curious about the difference that you experience between first and third, because, among other things, I’m confident that your terminology will be right.
If your source disagrees with me, I’m not seeing it. You’re going to need to provide direct quotes if you want to demonstrate that it somehow supports your position. (Look at me, breaking my resolve to stop responding,)
One thinks as one studies. As well, information only privy to the view is contained within the sentence (about the mops having been robbed of the sticks). I we assume a thought IT IS A THOUGHT. Otherwise it'd not be in view.
Okay: An interior monologue may be either direct or indirect: direct, in which the author seems not to exist and the interior self of the character is given directly, as though the reader were overhearing an articulation of the stream of thought and feeling flowing through the character's mind; indirect, in which the author serves as selector, presenter, guide, and commentator. (W. Harmon and H. Holman, A Handbook to Literature, 2006) Now, think about it. If internal monologue can be either direct thought or indirect thought, it clearly isn't JUST direct thought. Otherwise those cases of it being Indirect thought would make no sense. It is a level of direct thought. And, for those of us who use it all the time, it's glaringly obvious. Tagging, as you call it, is everything, relative to this issue. If the author raises his head to say HE, or JOE, or any means of saying the writer exists to tell us who is thinking, it is indirect. If it falls to a level of consciousness wherein it appears as if one side of the mind is speaking to the other, it's internal monologue. Read back to every one of my posts, and I've said the exact same thing, over and over again.
Personally, I find anyone so pedantic as to make a fuss about exact definitions of writing terminology probably has difficulty in using them effectively. But that's just me. I don't know much. I just get on with it and write in 'first person whatever works'.
I'm not saying it makes it harder. I'm saying those who fuss too much about defining the technicalities tend not to be very good writers. Call it an observation / opinion.
Didn't you just say you studied writing? I would think things things would be clear and easy to both define and understand. I guess those so-called technicalities weren't covered.
This is a writing forum. If communicating about writing strikes you as being bad for a writer, why participate?
You missed the point entirely, but I'm sharing a general observation to the wider community, so that's ok. Can't get 'em all.
I never studied writing. I studied English for a year, but dropped out. I did win the annual university writing comp though.
I do tend to agree, though that might just be a coincidence, whenever I'm making that observation. This is particularly true when the focus of the technicalities tends to not relate much to what writers actually do, on a day to day. For example, that bit about internal monologue also being possible in indirect thought. Who would do that? Then I thought about it a while, and realized that if you are in a deeply committed omniscient view, with a godlike actor informing us of someone's internal narrative, it might actually have practical application. Since I don't ever write like that, it seemed really out there, but hey, someone genius is going to use it as a plus instead of my instinct that it'd always be a minus. And that's the thing about all the technicality that seems to not have much application layer. Once in a while.... Back to why it might matter that you technically know when you are in direct thought and when in indirect thought. Indirect thought puts the reader in touch with the writer (not necessarily a good thing if you mean to stay close to character). Now, if the question why 1st versus why 3rd, that matters. Suppose, for example, that I hope to write very close limited 3rd, one viewpoint actor for the entire book (do that a lot, personally). Since the viewpoint is introduced (likely in paragraph one), and since we never allow anyone else to think, see, taste, feel, hear or smell, it's going to be bone simple to get to know this dude. If a thought appears on the page, it is his. We assume that because the writer has been faithful to the limited 3rd manner of writing. Thus, I ask. What is the difference between these two things: Joe couldn't believe that the clowns were still sleeping in their car. As hard as it was to believe, those clowns were still sleeping in their cars. Well, one backs the camera up to allow the author to credit the view. We, ever so briefly, touch the author because the author takes the time to say Joe. If we assume Joe, then we do sentence two. The goal of limited close third, is, after all, to get closer to the view. And, if we are indirect, we are just a tad less close. Now, while technical, the idea of making small things count toward closing the distance, is one of many ways to make limited 3rd as close as 1st person. After all, I do not walk into a parking lot and say, "Gary couldn't believe…." That would just be weird. That said, we had an original question, and many said that they liked 1st person because it is closer than 3rd person. That is both true and false, depending entirely upon TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
I'd find it hard to follow if first person jumps between character perspectives, but third person feels too distant for me, like reading a police report.
Well, there are a lot of different third person styles and voices. For example, do Harry Potter and Hitchhiker's Guide and American Gods all feel like a police report to you?
