Free Indirect Speech--is it for everyone?

[Josiah Jacobus-Parker]

Free indirect discourse (or free indirect speech) vs. solid third person narration (eg. He thought, 'how beautiful the sky is today').

Which do you think works best? And under what circumstances?

If you're usnure what I mean, here's a helpful link:

http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?re...ec=true&UID=444

[blue]

That's an interesting link, and an even more potentially interesting site.

I waded through the portion of the article available to non-members.

What do I think of it? I wish it was not weighted down with scholarly terms, but was instead stated in clear and simple English.

I can obfuscate and engage in scholarly perambulations too, but I'd prefer a less sesquipedalian circumlocution of the salient points of the pedagogical discourse. ;)

Then again, I've been accused of writing like that a time or two also. :laughs:

I'm still not sure how that author would contrast "free indirect discourse" with ordinary third person omniscient. If anything, it seems to me that she's simply using jargon to describe various features of 3rd Omniscient.

Tense and mood markers for the verbs and third person pronouns give a framework for the narrative to be objectively neutral, without drawing too much of the reader's attention away from the story being woven, and without "hitting" the reader too strongly with information.

English and other European languages (not just French) handle their tenses and moods about the same, although modern English is less delineated in how it indicates them. It uses auxiliary verbs, whereas most European languages have more specific tense/mood conjugations.

Ahem, yes, I think I've just proven my own point that I can write dense, specialized, scholarly text. My bad. ;)

[Paul]

Speaking purely as a reader, this kind of thing isn't unfamiliar at all, and if constructed properly, it never presents me with a problem in comprehension. Translation: if it's done right, I can understand it perfectly.

Which is more than I can say about that article! Man, I thought the terminology in academic film criticism was arcane!

[jack scribe]

I agree with Blue: rather than obfuscate and engage in scholarly perambulations as the literary reference did so handily, I'll just cut to the chase. :p

I've really become a believer writing in a third person style. And specifically limited third person style. I use both free indirect discourse to explore reactions/emotions of the lead third person and solid third person narration to explore the lead third person's thoughts (with punctuation).

A mentor who lives in London - Drew - helped me to be become disciplined in writing with only one character being the lead in a scene. It is really confusing when two more characters emote their thoughts and reactions at the same time. Adding to the distraction is the shifting of tense...in the same sentence.

Just some thoughts from a guy with a business school background who likes to write and share a story.

Jack

[The Pecman]

Free indirect discourse (or free indirect speech) vs. solid third person narration (eg. He thought, 'how beautiful the sky is today'). Which do you think works best? And under what circumstances?

Personally, I think it's clunky.

I'm bothered by narrative that begins "he thought" or "he said," and usually go with that at the end, as:

As he walked through the park he glanced up and smiled. 'How beautiful the sky is today,' he thought.

Something like that. Usually with thoughts expressed as dialog, like an internal monologue, I go with italics (vs. single quotes), but I think that's a stylistic decision rather than a rule. I also believe that prefacing a thought with an action (as I did above) works better, since it sets up what's about to happen.

The other way to go would be to not do it as dialog, but as something more indirect, as:

As he walked through the park, he glanced up and thought, 'how beautiful the sky is today.'

That sorta works, but my preference would be for the first one.

[The Pecman]

It is really confusing when two more characters emote their thoughts and reactions at the same time. Adding to the distraction is the shifting of tense...in the same sentence.

Yeah, both are major amateur mistakes that I see pop up all the time.

Jagged Angel was the first (and so far, the only) 3rd-person omniscient story I've written, and it took me awhile to discover that you couldn't have two different people in a scene thinking at the same time. It gets very messy, very fast, if you try it. My trick was to start with the thoughts of one person alone in a room, then move to the other person as they enter. That can work, to a point.

[Guest rusticmonk86]

I'm an idiot.

[DesDownunder]

I'm an idiot.

What brought that on rusticmonk?

You are far too cute to be an idiot.

Anyway I enjoy your dissent from the staus quo.

We need all the dissent we can get in today's world.

[Guest rusticmonk86]

i have a complete lack of knowledge in this field. i just make up stories.

[blue]

I saw your comment earlier, RM, and I didn't think it was idiotic, just a difference of opinion. Heh, you're certainly not an idiot.