Have you ever read a story with no internal-monologue?

[TotallyHuman]

I can literally not remember a book from the school program that had internal monologue in it.

 

[BlackKnightX]

As I see it, movies have a ton of subtle visual cues and techniques they can make use of rather than internal monologue, so they tend not to go with it sometimes.

Monologues are a limitation of our medium, but they can be really fun to read and write, and isn't that the point in the end?

Yep, they’re pretty fun. But sometime, if you wanna write a badass character, not knowing his thought will be much better. It makes him look mysterious and prompts the reader to wanna know him more.

 

[greyblob]

Yep, they’re pretty fun. But sometime, if you wanna write a badass character, not knowing his thought will be much better. It makes him look mysterious and prompts the reader to wanna know him more.

That only works on third person tho.

 

[_oinkchan]

As we all know, internal-monologue can help bring characters to life. It makes readers understand why some characters do what they do, what their motivations are, and empathize with them.

But, when we watch a movie, we don’t get to know the character’s thoughts. We can only guess their thoughts and their motivations from the actions they take and the conversations they have.

So dialogue and action are very important in this case.

But, what if you wanna try to imitate that movie experience in your story? What if you exclude one of the most advantageous elements in writing, internal-monologue, from your story?

What if you can only show the character’s thoughts through action and dialogue?

Would it make the story movie-like? Maybe, the story will be richer with lots of contexts?

Now, I know that movie and book are different. In movie, you can see character’s expression and their tone of voice, and there’re also the soundtracks to spike the mood up.

In book, you don’t have any of those. You only have your words to create magic.

But, what if you still wanna try to write a movie-like story despite knowing all that? Would your story become too dry and boring? Too cold? Too confusing?

Would excluding internal-monologue from from your story resulting in bad story? What do you think?

The blank faced female interests usually don't speak.

As we all know, internal-monologue can help bring characters to life. It makes readers understand why some characters do what they do, what their motivations are, and empathize with them.

But, when we watch a movie, we don’t get to know the character’s thoughts. We can only guess their thoughts and their motivations from the actions they take and the conversations they have.

So dialogue and action are very important in this case.

But, what if you wanna try to imitate that movie experience in your story? What if you exclude one of the most advantageous elements in writing, internal-monologue, from your story?

What if you can only show the character’s thoughts through action and dialogue?

Would it make the story movie-like? Maybe, the story will be richer with lots of contexts?

Now, I know that movie and book are different. In movie, you can see character’s expression and their tone of voice, and there’re also the soundtracks to spike the mood up.

In book, you don’t have any of those. You only have your words to create magic.

But, what if you still wanna try to write a movie-like story despite knowing all that? Would your story become too dry and boring? Too cold? Too confusing?

Would excluding internal-monologue from from your story resulting in bad story? What do you think?

Yes I have read and I recommend this story to everyone. It will make you laugh and is extremely interesting.
'How to raise your regressor."

 

[Biggest-Kusa-Out-There]

I mean ‘narration’.

Then what you mean is not internal monologue... like, at all, even by definition.

 

[BlackKnightX]

Then what you mean is not internal monologue... like, at all, even by definition.

Like, when a narrator tell you the character’s thought. That’s not internal-monologue?

For example;
Monologue: I wanna eat an ice cream, Andy thought, Alright, let’s go to XXXX.
Narration: Andy suddenly felt the urge to go out and buy some ice cream. He’d been craving it for a whole week now. His mouth got watery just by thinking about the delicious smell and the rich flavor of the ice cream from his favorite shop. He decided to go out and buy it right away.

See what I mean? What do you call this, then? I’ve read it from somewhere before, that inner-monologue can be done in a lot of way. Like, let the narrator telling it, or show the character’s thought directly through the thought-bubble.

In the movie, there might be a voice-over saying the line in the first example. But for the second example? Nah, there‘s nothing like that in a movie. Aside from some kid’s shows that have a narrator in the background.

 

[Biggest-Kusa-Out-There]

Like, when a narrator tell you the character’s thought. That’s not internal-monologue?

For example;
Monologue: I wanna eat an ice cream, Andy thought, Alright, let’s go to XXXX.
Narration: Andy suddenly felt the urge to go out and buy some ice cream. He’d been craving it for a whole week now. His mouth got watery just by thinking about the delicious smell and the rich flavor of the ice cream from his favorite shop. He decided to go out and buy it right away.

See what I mean? What do you call this, then? I’ve read it from somewhere before, that inner-monologue can be done in a lot of way. Like, let the narrator telling it, or show the character’s thought directly through the thought-bubble.

In the movie, there might be a voice-over saying the line in the first example. But for the second example? Nah, there‘s nothing like that in a movie. Aside from some kid’s shows that have a narrator in the background.

Yeah, not internal monologue. A mono-logue is a person either talking to themselves in their mind or out loud using their own voices. The character should be doing it, hence it it a kind of "-logue", instead of narration.

If a third party is talking about someone and their thoughts then it's narration no matter the lens.
Ideally you use both:

Damn, I want ice cream, Johnny thought, feeling a quiet rumble in his stomach. The summer heat blasting his room forced his thoughts into those of the creamy pineapple-pizza flavor of his favorite water-based ice cream at the vegan store and made his mouth water. Yeah, let's go to XXXX.

Thoughts can't be properly conveyed through action because body language is not an absolute form of communication. Besides, people can fake reactions and stuff.
It's not absolutely necessary to do it like that, naturally. If the story is more about the plot and world rather than the characters, then those are not strictly needed. It's a way to peek at the characters thoughts, especially those related to the circumstances.
If, for example, I were to write about a psychopath without ever showing their thoughts, the audience would think they are the most empathetic person ever with the constant persona they project. If the audience can glance absolutely anything about the psycho based on actions alone, the author failed the portrayal.
Now, if you narrate only actions and leave anything related to thoughts or feelings, your audience will find themselves confused... just like with real people. If you learn more about characters only at the precise moment of their actions and reactions, it'd be pretty lengthy and take time to find anything of interest in them. So most fiction that don't do that are heavily plot driven.

 

[BlackKnightX]

Yeah, not internal monologue. A mono-logue is a person either talking to themselves in their mind or out loud using their own voices. The character should be doing it, hence it it a kind of "-logue", instead of narration.

If a third party is talking about someone and their thoughts then it's narration no matter the lens.
Ideally you use both:

Damn, I want ice cream, Johnny thought, feeling a quiet rumble in his stomach. The summer heat blasting his room forced his thoughts into those of the creamy pineapple-pizza flavor of his favorite water-based ice cream at the vegan store and made his mouth water. Yeah, let's go to XXXX.

Thoughts can't be properly conveyed through action because body language is not an absolute form of communication. Besides, people can fake reactions and stuff.
It's not absolutely necessary to do it like that, naturally. If the story is more about the plot and world rather than the characters, then those are not strictly needed. It's a way to peek at the characters thoughts, especially those related to the circumstances.
If, for example, I were to write about a psychopath without ever showing their thoughts, the audience would think they are the most empathetic person ever with the constant persona they project. If the audience can glance absolutely anything about the psycho based on actions alone, the author failed the portrayal.
Now, if you narrate only actions and leave anything related to thoughts or feelings, your audience will find themselves confused... just like with real people. If you learn more about characters only at the precise moment of their actions and reactions, it'd be pretty lengthy and take time to find anything of interest in them. So most fiction that don't do that are heavily plot driven.

That makes sense. Such amazing insight! Thanks!

The part about holding the reader‘s interest is so true. You want the reader to get to know something is off about the character first, then keep them in suspense until something does happen.