Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

50%
+0 −0
Q&A Writing a full conversation in free indirect speech

The third person narrator can describe the thoughts and feelings of the characters, both of them, without restriction. Instead of the dialogue of a conversation between Bill and Chuck, I would des...

posted 6y ago by Amadeus‭  ·  last activity 4y ago by System‭

Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed by user avatar System‭ · 2019-12-19T22:13:12Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/31407
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added by user avatar System‭ · 2019-12-08T07:19:56Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/31407
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision by (deleted user) · 2019-12-08T07:19:56Z (over 4 years ago)
The third person narrator can describe the thoughts and feelings of the characters, both of them, without restriction.

Instead of the dialogue of a conversation between Bill and Chuck, I would describe the **effect** of each line on the participants, with paragraph breaks (and the use of names) to indicate which mind the narrator is reading.

> -\>Bill, always the more fearless of the two, saw the Id as an opportunity for great mischief. He was irritated that Chuck did not agree, the chicken heart.
> 
> -\>Chuck was angry at that, anytime he argued against one of Bill's truly stupid ideas, he gets accused of cowardice. It was just common sense! How long before the FBI agent reported his Id lost? Approximately zero, that's how long. The damn thing was toxic, wipe your prints off it then burn it and bury the ashes, that was the thing to do.
> 
> -\>Bill wasn't having any of it. They could at least rob some rich houses, flash the Id and demand entry. Or a convenience store or something, the Id would at least prevent anyone from pulling a gun or shooting.
> 
> -\>Right, thought Chuck. Then we are wanted by the FBI, because whoever we rob is going to call them the second we leave. Should we kill them? Maybe we'll do that on video, if there are security cameras we didn't see. Burn it!

And so on.

#1: Imported from external source by user avatar System‭ · 2017-11-11T13:20:51Z (over 6 years ago)
Original score: 3