# Free Indirect Style



## Patrick (Jun 13, 2016)

Ignore the fancy title; this is something some of you may already be using, either with knowledge of the technique or because you've picked it up by osmosis from other literature. Here's a nice overview of what it is exactly: http://www.shmoop.com/literature-glossary/free-indirect-discourse.html

This technique is probably the single most important one in my own writing. The potential of a combined voice between author and protagonist with none of the drawbacks of first-person is what makes third-person the best point of view, in my opinion.

Are you aware of this technique? Are you a fan? If you've never heard of it before, are you excited by the prospect of writing prose without all those pesky thought tags?


----------



## afk4life (Jun 13, 2016)

I tend to do this often whenever I go to third person, just wasn't aware there was a name for it. I'm not sure how third person is near as interesting if you don't use this style, and since I mostly am doing first person these days it comes pretty naturally to me. They really should pick someone other than James Joyce as an example, though, because it's very hard to focus on anything other than how good his writing is.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 13, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Ignore the fancy title; this is something some of you may already be using, either with knowledge of the technique or because you've picked it up by osmosis from other literature. Here's a nice overview of what it is exactly: http://www.shmoop.com/literature-glossary/free-indirect-discourse.html
> 
> This technique is probably the single most important one in my own writing. The potential of a combined voice between author and protagonist with none of the drawbacks of first-person is what makes third-person the best point of view, in my opinion.
> 
> Are you aware of this technique? Are you a fan? If you've never heard of it before, are you excited by the prospect of writing prose without all those pesky thought tags?



The link you supply doesn't work. Is this the same as third person subjective?

Is it a way of getting almost all the advantages of first person present by adhering to all of the disadvantages?


----------



## afk4life (Jun 13, 2016)

Odd, that link works for me. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_indirect_speech


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 13, 2016)

Got it. I wanted to ask about that style! Book start:



> Zosia said to Annie, "I'm glad you got home before I left."
> 
> Annie dumped a whole lot of Christmas shopping on the table and ran her fingers through her hair. Bad hair day. Very bad hair day. "So am I. Are you in a hurry? Would you like a glass of wine?"
> 
> There were just the two of them in the kitchen and the house was quiet and dark. Zosia always turned the lights off as she worked through the rooms. When Annie comments on this thrift, she say replied, "We must not waste, ....



The middle contains Annie' thoughts, unmarked in any way. (Bad hair day. Very bad hair day.) But quickly after that we have narration that does not refer to what Annie is thinking.

Is this free indirect style?


----------



## Patrick (Jun 13, 2016)

EmmaSohan said:


> Got it. I wanted to ask about that style! Book start:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From the article, an excerpt of James Joyce's _A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

__



			The muddy streets were gay. He strode homeward, conscious of an invisible grace pervading and making light his limbs. In spite of all he had done it. He had confessed and God had pardoned him. His soul was made fair and holy once more, holy and happy. It would be beautiful to die if God so willed. It was beautiful to live in grace a life of peace and virtue and forbearance with others.
		
Click to expand...

_
That's free indirect. I happen to think the example you provided is direct thought and should be italicised. Free indirect dips in and out of the character's consciousness, and that's why it has none of the drawbacks of first-person.

Here's an example of how I use it my Amarant Flowers, if you'll excuse the vanity. It demonstrates my understanding of it better than I can explain.



> Grim nodded, and taking their drinks and their share of the nuts with them, they left Coppinger alone. Memories of his family came one at a time to crowd the fire, telling him that there would never be enough tomorrows to bury the past. He would suffer in memoriam his mistakes. His epitaph would be an uncovered well and his brother plummeting to his death, his mother’s anguish turning the hair on her once sunny head grey, and his father creaking in the still air on a homemade gallows. They were _his dead. And overshadowing them, Elizabeth stood in the windows of his mind. _


----------



## afk4life (Jun 13, 2016)

Thanks for the cheery passage Patrick  I agree with what you said, now tell me if I've got it right  instead of




> Annie dumped a whole lot of Christmas shopping on the table and ran her fingers through her hair. Bad hair day. Very bad hair day. "So am I. Are you in a hurry? Would you like a glass of wine?"



More like



> Annie dumped a whole lot of Christmas shopping on the table and looked in the mirror. She wonders if her hair's ever going to look good again, like in the younger days where she spent an hour and actually got a good result.
> Zosia interrupts her train of thought and asks something and Annie didn't quite catch it because these days she looks in the mirror and doesn't recognize the person looking back, and she asks "Huh?" and Zosia replies "So am I. Are you in a hurry? Would you like a glass of wine?"


----------



## Patrick (Jun 13, 2016)

afk4life said:


> _Annie dumped a whole lot of Christmas shopping on the table and looked in the mirror. She wonders if her hair's ever going to look good again, like in the younger days where she spent an hour and actually got a good result. _
> _Zosia interrupts her train of thought and asks something and Annie didn't quite catch it because these days she looks in the mirror and doesn't recognize the person looking back, and she asks "Huh?" and Zosia replies "So am I. Are you in a hurry? Would you like a glass of wine?"_



Annie dumped a whole lot of Christmas shopping on the table and looked in the mirror. Her hair would never look good again, not the way it did when she was younger and could spend the meagre sum of an hour in the bathroom for a good result.

In free indirect, you don't want to explain everything away. In your alternate version, you're still writing as an outsider observing Annie. You have to get in. Can you see why that is when compared to the rewritten version I proffer? You say, _Annie didn't quite catch it because these days she looks in the mirror and doesn't recognise the person looking back_. That's all explanation by the narrator about Annie's frame of mind. It isn't Annie's frame of mind, and that's the difference.

As for my own reasons for rewriting it the way I did, I can't help but feel if we were actually in Annie's head here, she wouldn't be asking the question, she would be lamenting her hair and the youth that is no longer hers.

 It is totally dependent on the author's connection to his/her protagonist. If you don't have a wickedly-strong bond with your characters, you cannot write free indirect effectively.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 13, 2016)

When writing in third person it's not necessary to filter everything through a focus character. (He saw, he felt, he thought.) When more narrative distance is wanted; do it. When more immediacy; don't.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 13, 2016)

ppsage said:


> When writing in third person it's not necessary to filter everything through a focus character. (He saw, he felt, he thought.) When more narrative distance is wanted; do it. When more immediacy; don't.



Absolutely correct. The trouble with describing things through the senses of your character too often is that it can pull the reader out of your fiction because it places the character in the way. Too much filtering is a red flag for editors.


----------



## Aquilo (Jun 14, 2016)

Patrick said:


> That's free indirect. I happen to think the example you provided is direct thought and should be italicised. Free indirect dips in and out of the character's consciousness, and that's why it has none of the drawbacks of first-person.



Free indirect style is a mixture of direct thought and reported speech. E.g.,  telling him... there would never be enough tomorrows to bury the past. But it uses third person narration 'him' to do it, instead of 'I' in 1st person narration. It's why it echoes 1st narration.

 You can also have both *free indirect discourse *and *free indirect speech* in 3rd pov to give it that close feel of 1st pov:

Jack stood. *Sue said be here*, so here he was. *Idiot. Why fall for this shit again? 

*Italics wouldn't really be needed on the direct thought because it's clear from context that 'Idiot. Why fall for this shit again' comes from James.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 14, 2016)

It's clear you do a lot of editing, Aquilo.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 14, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Ignore the fancy title; this is something some of you may already be using, either with knowledge of the technique or because you've picked it up by osmosis from other literature. Here's a nice overview of what it is exactly: http://www.shmoop.com/literature-glossary/free-indirect-discourse.html
> 
> This technique is probably the single most important one in my own writing. The potential of a combined voice between author and protagonist with none of the drawbacks of first-person is what makes third-person the best point of view, in my opinion.
> 
> Are you aware of this technique? Are you a fan? If you've never heard of it before, are you excited by the prospect of writing prose without all those pesky thought tags?



I _think _I do this. It seems natural to me to write this way when being a character. Here's a sample:

[spoiler2="Sample"]



> A girl – that was it. Not an aunt or grandmother; someone at school had had it delivered to him, had to have done. Ixawod’s mind raced through a list of names of who it might be; and while he had to admit that no-one that had seen him rolling about drunk the day before would be inclined to give him anything other than a wide berth, he knew of a handful of girls at school who might wish to send him such a token. A secret admirer, perhaps. He considered. Maybe, just maybe, this would go very well after all. If he played it right, he could finally get one up on Pree-Man (who was every bit a virgin as Ixawod was himself) before the month was out. He threw the pigg into the air, catching it deftly, and started to place it back onto the table. It felt cool to the touch.


[/spoiler2]


----------



## Patrick (Jun 14, 2016)

Yes, you do use it. Ghost marks the sample with a paw-print approval.


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 14, 2016)

I'm more familiar with the term "deep POV"—pulling the narration as close as possible to the character's internal voice, with the goal of cutting away any narrative distance.

To me, it's great stuff! And it's not just a third-person technique; it can be applied to first person, too. 

For example:

First person, with narrative distance: Thinking about the convention's inevitable high-society crowd filled me with a growing sense of dread.

First person, with narrative distance removed: The convention would be _packed_, and not with just anyone. No, the damn place would be filled with big wigs and deep pockets—the very kinds of people I grew up despising. Now I'd be rubbing arms alongside them like . . . like I was _one_ of them! Hell, just the thought of it wrenched my gut into knots. Why on _earth_ had I volunteered?

Jill Nelson's *Rivet your Readers with Deep POV* introduced me to the technique, and my writing has never been the same since. (Hopefully in a good way!) I recommend the book to anyone interested. :encouragement:


----------



## JustRob (Jun 14, 2016)

Maybe this is just a subtle variation on third person subjective which goes a little further. Here's a short sample paragraph from my novel. In particular only the general style of the writing implies whose thought is being related in the last sentence, the character's or the narrator's. In a sense they are synonymous at that point though and the distinction is irrelevant. This is what I mean about a reader needing to suspend belief in the existence of the writer. There is no writer in the story to compliment himself on his writing, so no ambiguity. In fact the character is really commenting on a sentiment from his heart as though that heart itself had spoken as another character in the story. Complicated. I don't try to analyse my own writing much. 

The third person pronouns could be replaced with first person ones and the paragraph would still work exactly the same way without any change in the distance between character and narrator. I think that's what's being got at in the OP.



> Ah, the date, did it matter in all this? Maybe not, all hope was gone, but perhaps he could still earn just one embrace with a sentiment from the depth of his disappointed heart. ‘No, never mind,’ he said, ‘I’ll search through every date on every calendar to find you.’ Wow, that actually sounded good.



By the way, the girl didn't have a clue what he was talking about, so his words were wasted on her, but that's life.


----------



## Jeko (Jun 19, 2016)

There's an argument that the progress of prose narrative is tied to the progress of Free Indirect Style. I think James Wood made it in How Fiction Works.

The best FIS examples are the ones that surprise you. Too often he examples given on websites are a bit crudely wrought - they're FIS, sure, but they serve more to show what FIS than actually perform its capabilities. One of wood's examples, I think, was from a book where a character at a concert 'cried stupid tears'. We have this amazing implosion of the narrator calling them stupid and the character thinking them stupid and them just 'being stupid'. And we have the mind-bender of how tears can be stupid. And it expands into what really is stupid - him crying, him, what he's crying about. And the narrative surrounding that takes all those thoughts in different ways.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 21, 2016)

Cadence said:


> There's an argument that the progress of prose narrative is tied to the progress of Free Indirect Style. I think James Wood made it in How Fiction Works.
> 
> The best FIS examples are the ones that surprise you. Too often he examples given on websites are a bit crudely wrought - they're FIS, sure, but they serve more to show what FIS than actually perform its capabilities. One of wood's examples, I think, was from a book where a character at a concert 'cried stupid tears'. We have this amazing implosion of the narrator calling them stupid and the character thinking them stupid and them just 'being stupid'. And we have the mind-bender of how tears can be stupid. And it expands into what really is stupid - him crying, him, what he's crying about. And the narrative surrounding that takes all those thoughts in different ways.



If the character might think the tears are stupid, that would tell us interesting things about the character. But if the narrator thinks the tears are stupid, and the character doesn't have this awareness at all, that's different.

So, hopefully it's not important to the story that the reader understand the character?

Also, if the character thinks the tears are stupid, that's just the character's opinion and could be wrong. I (reader) might imagine someone crying who has a perfectly good reason to cry but is being self-deprecating. If the narrator is saying the tears are stupid, I think that means the tears are stupid.

So now I can't tell if the tears are really stupid or not. As you might have guessed, I am not a fan of ambiguity. Are you sure this is a good example of FIS?


----------



## Jeko (Jun 23, 2016)

> So now I can't tell if the tears are really stupid or not. As you might  have guessed, I am not a fan of ambiguity. Are you sure this is a good  example of FIS?



FIS is all about the collision of the narrator and the character as one. In the flow of the narrative we read these 'stupid tears' an 'inhabit omniscience and partiality at once'. It comes to seem even more 'objective' than just if it was omniscient; not only is the general perception that these tears are stupid, but it immediately feels like the character feels their tears are stupid too. This is the expansiveness of prose; away from a line of single thought, and outward into an explosion of feeling and understanding together. An intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 23, 2016)

Cadence said:


> FIS is all about the collision of the narrator and the character as one. In the flow of the narrative we read these 'stupid tears' an 'inhabit omniscience and partiality at once'. It comes to seem even more 'objective' than just if it was omniscient; not only is the general perception that these tears are stupid, but it immediately feels like the character feels their tears are stupid too. This is the expansiveness of prose; away from a line of single thought, and outward into an explosion of feeling and understanding together. An intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time.



I didn't understand this. Sorry. Can you dumb it down for me?

Is this the same thing? We read that the character pushes the elevator button much harder than needed. Because this occurs right in the middle of a change of POV (from third omniscient to third limited subjective), I can't tell if the character knows that he pushed the button too hard. Is that also good? To be honest, I wanted to know if the character knew that.


----------

