Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47642
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47642
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

 **To the person experiencing anger, it won't appear irrational.** To them, there's a very good reason why they're angry, why they're infuriated. What you need is to **show the reason**.

Now, the reason might not be what's right in front of them right now, causing the anger to appear irrational to the outsider. It might be that this last event is just the last straw, it might be that for whatever reason your character sees an event as bigger than it really is, it might be that the reason resonates with some inner fear or insecurity the character carries. But whatever it is, the reason exists.

It might be that later the character might consent they've overreacted, or vented their anger at the messenger rather than the person they were truly angry with, or something similar. But they would never say there was no reason for them to get angry in the first place. (Unless it was all over a misunderstanding, in which case it's still not irrational.)

So, if you're portraying anger in first person, it's not irrational anymore.

As for internal monologue, once the anger is not irrational, but understandable, @Amadeus is right, anger is an emotion - not a thought. You don't need much by way of internal monologue. And you don't need to evoke the same anger in the reader. The reader needs to understand it, but not necessarily feel it.

Original score: 27