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

Writing a full conversation in free indirect speech

+0
−0

I'm writing a conversation between some no-good thievin' teens, and one of them has stolen a wallet, which has turned out to be that of an FBI member.

They converse, written in indirect speech, where there's a back-and-forth argument.

How do I do this effectively using free indirect?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/31404. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

2 answers

+1
−0

Since free indirect speech relies on the narrator picking up the dialogue instead of relying on a lot of "John said that he thought that..." or similar, it's going to make it difficult (but not impossible) to hold an argument with the narrator apparently putting forward opposing views.

Free indirect speech makes one question more important [my opinion] than any other : Who is the narrator?

If the narrator has a strong persona and a significant influence in the way the story is told, there might be cases where free indirect speech could confuse the reader and falling back to indirect / reported speech (or even direct quotation) would be best for the flow of the writing.

Good luck with this one. If it works it's a nice idea, but I'm not sure I could pull it off.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/31406. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

+0
−0

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.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »