Indirect vs direct thought

Moderator note - this thread was split from the POV questions thread

Thank God - It isn't just me!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_indirect_speech

"Free indirect discourse can be described as a "technique of presenting a character's voice partly mediated by the voice of the author" (or, reversing the emphasis, "that the character speaks through the voice of the narrator") with the voices effectively merged.[1] This effect is partially accomplished by eliding direct speech attributions, such as "he said" or "she said"."

Yes! Even books not written this way entirely, my brain just purposefully ignores the narrator and translates it entirely into the character.

The issue is when I write in this format, without "he thought/wondered" etc my beta readers claim I am switching between character and narrator. I am not - or not wanting to. I am simply showing my characters inner thoughts indirectly, merged with the narrator and voice. I cannot believe I haven't found this until now!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_of_consciousness

"And for literature, "while an interior monologue always presents a character's thoughts 'directly', without the apparent intervention of a summarizing and selecting narrator, it does not necessarily mingle them with impressions and perceptions, nor does it necessarily violate the norms of grammar, or logic- but the stream‐of‐consciousness technique also does one or both of these things.""

No intervention of the narrator, but not necessarily mingling them either.

https://www.shmoop.com/literature-glossary/free-indirect-discourse.html

"
Definition:

Put on your fancy pants, Shmoopers. You might even want suspenders for this one.

Free indirect discourse is a big clunky phrase that describes a special type of third-person narration that slips in and out of characters' consciousness. In other words, characters' thoughts, feelings, and words are filtered through the third-person narrator in free indirect discourse.

Here's an example from our analysis of James Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And yes, we're trying to make your head spin.

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. (3.2.108)

See what he did there? The narrator is reporting to us the thoughts and dialogue of the character. It's almost as if he is the character, except he's still that third person. He just has a backstage pass to the character's soul. Bonus!

James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, and Jane Austen were all big fans of free indirect discourse—it was a modernist fav."

I am not going mad! It is a genuine literary style.

I seem to pick and filter novels through this style, either they are written that way or I filter it to read it that way.

I am VERY picky with novels, and after perusing my usual literature have realised I am reading authors who write with this particular approach - or touch on it enough for me to read in the same manner while "ignoring" the narrator.

 

Do you have an example of a piece that people have complained about? This is probably a question that needs to be answered by examples.

 

The issue is I never use "he thought" etc. I go from the narrator making a statement from the characters knowledge about the situation or the world, and then indirectly have the character stream their thought processes. The readers are telling me this is weird, as they are not sure why the narrator is thinking like the character, as without the "he thought" addition, it seems as if I am using both points of view/switching them indeterminately.

Actual example

There was no mercy in this part of the world. For years Rayne had lived and breathed nothing but cruelty and disdain from those who raised him. There would be no end, escaping was the only option. Easier said than done, but to hell with the consequences if the plan failed.

^^^ The characters thoughts are "There would be no end" onwards. To me it is obvious, others seem to stumble on these types of sentences...

That, in many novels, is written as

There was no mercy in this part of the world. For years Rayne had lived and breathed nothing but cruelty and disdain from those who raised him. There would be no end he thought; escaping was the only option. Easier said than done, but to hell with the consequences if the plan failed he decided

Or, as direct thought process italicised, and brought to present tense for immediacy and knowledge it is a thought process.

There was no mercy in this part of the world. For years Rayne had lived and breathed nothing but cruelty and disdain from those who raised him. There will be no end, escaping is the only option. To hell with the consequences if the plan fails.

I prefer the first one, the 2nd and 3rd I loathe. The 2nd is unnecessary - it is obvious the thoughts are from the character - who else?!
The 3rd is just amateur, italicised thought processes are probably why most manuscripts get slush piled.

The 1st one goes immediately from narrator stating knowledge through the characters experience of the world, and then goes indirectly to his thought processes. Yet this is apparently "jarring", and a few readers prefer the 2nd and 3rd options.

 

You don't need "he thought". Who are the readers? My suspicion is that they're confused, but that they're wrong about exactly what is confusing them. That there's some awkwardness that they incorrectly think should be fixed with a thought tag.

Hmm. Now, there are some grammar issues here. I'm going to fix those before I consider the issue actually under discussion, because they're distracting.

There was no mercy in this part of the world. For years, Rayne had lived and breathed nothing but cruelty and disdain from those who raised him. There would be no end; escaping was the only option. Easier said than done, but to hell with the consequences if the plan failed.

I think there is a bit of an issue of voice. In close third person, you're not always in the character's voice, and I realize that that "not always" is probably one of those things that's driving you crazy. But there it is. If you have a relatively formal narrative voice, and a relatively informal character voice, you do have to put some attention into transition.

Actually, I'm not sure if the issue is formality so much as distance. Lack of detail. Lack of emotion?

OK, I'm just going to write this in my voice, randomly adding facts:

Southwark was merciless, cruel, and ugly. It had always been that way. From babyhood, Rayne had never experienced an instant of kindness, a moment of warmth. He'd learned--learned so early that he couldn't remember the learning--not to hope for better. But this year something had changed. This year, as spring broke--and even Southwark couldn't block the warming breezes, couldn't keep the weedy lots from turning green--he'd formed a plan. He would escape. Easier said than done, and there would be consequences if the plan failed, but to hell with that.

Now what am I doing here? That's not to say that I'm doing it right, but clearly my brain thinks I'm doing it right. (Except for using that hyphenated aside twice. In the first edit, one of those would have to go.)

I start at a distance--Southwark. I'm standing back, looking at Southwark, criticizing it. I'm not using anything Rayne doesn't know, but I'm not deep in his head either.

Then I glue that criticism to Rayne's history, and I go for tearjerker words--babyhood, kindness, warmth. Things you want. Things Rayne can't have. We're that baby, reeeeeeeaching for those things that he'll never get. Does that get us closer to Ryane than telling us the cold things that Rayne did get? I think so. I might be wrong.

Now we're inside Rayne's history. And we shift that from his history from babyhood to more recent history--this spring. I throw kinda-pretty things at us again, things that hint at things to long for. Then, PLOP! I'm in his head with "he'd formed a plan". We're inside. We're having his thoughts. We've earned that place in his head, and now we can get away with using his voice.

Except there's only a touch of his voice. "there would be consequences" is still the narrative voice. Does that need fixing?

Easier said than done, and there would be hell to pay if the plan failed, but, well, to hell with that. Gonna do it anyway.

That "blah, well, blah" is part of my voice. I'm not sure if it's something I need to break myself of. And my "Gonna" gets me out of the pronoun conundrum, but is it too obvious?

Anyway, hmm. Does mine work any better? I don't know.

Nope. Those thought tags make it much more awkward.

Many people do this. I hate it with a fiery passion.

Nope.

I think the readers are misdiagnosing the problem. I think you need to walk the road into his head more carefully. I think you need more salt and sugar, fire and glitter.

 

Excellent questions and excellent response, as always, from Chicken.
I probably wouldn't have noticed any issues with the original example if you hadn't pointed them out, but the rewrite by CF definitely carries more emotion.

I use the italics/present tense format that many people seem to hate....oops.

NC

 

I'm going to do something I hate to see and comment directly to @ChickenFreak because I learned something and had a bit of epiphany.
CF's rewrite shows her experience at drawing a reader into the entire scene. There's more fruit-on-the-tree. We get a little taste of his experience and start thinking about what we would feel like in that circumstance. We are lead, a bit, to sympathize with the decision to escape and 'damn the torpedoes'.
It's the difference between feeling what the character is going to do and just what-and-why.
My only concern is now the whole story has to do that!

 

@Some Guy (just because you hate it) I hear you! With such a rewrite it often makes me feel that my own writing is 'lazy' as I haven't delved deep enough into the emotional side of the scene. No wonder writing is such hard work!

 

(Hopefully they are the right quote tags)

This example has helped a lot, but I still read it as the narrator as reading Rayne's mind. I read it as if Raynes opinion of Southwark was merciless - because for him it is. For others it isn't. It had always been that way to him. I get there is distance, but the narrator is either a single entity with its own memory and knowledge, or it is a latched on soul that only knows Rayne's views and history. In which case no matter the distance I read it all as Rayne...

The issue is I know a book isn't real, but I play the "suspense of disbelief" and whatever the narrator tells me - I instantly put this as them drawing from the characters thoughts and emotions, therefore by proxy - it is the character. Going back to the A>B>C thing. B is the narrator. I am aware it is there, but as I now know that B is just relaying C, I can simply skip B and go A-C and C-A in my mind.

It is definitely my problem - not others.

If I slow down, and deliberately look at the sentence structure - I can see what you have done, and I can identify where the narrator is and Rayne's thoughts are, but they mesh so easily as a reader, personally. When I am reading a page every minute or so, my brain seems to translate all narration as the experience of the character, not as its own entity relaying it's own voice and musings, unless the writer has made a clear distinction and the book is someone telling a story within the story. But I loathe those types of books and don't read them - probably for this exact issue I am having right now.

I am glad we agree italics and "he thought" are redundant though. I too, hate italics with a fiery passion lol. The only time I accept it, is if any usual fantasy shenanigans are going on and there's a vision, or mind reading, or something that requires some form of non verbal dialogue. But if it is just random inserts of thought processes in italics I get angry very quickly lol.

So, going back to your example, it seems there is some "work" towards going into the character, in that you have to gradually enter it than dive in- maybe my readers are getting whiplash where I am at distance of 10 say, on a scale of 1-10 as far as a narrator can go, then slamming into 1, then into 7, then 1 again, then plodding along a 5. I only gave one example and it wasn't the best - and it was gone midnight so I just found the closest thing with red commentary.

I shall re-read and try to write a more graduated 10-7-5-3-1 approach as it were. I just find it alien as no matter the distance I read everything as the character, the narrator is just a conduit, a proxy, and kind of only necessary due to pronouns. A story can easily be converted from 1st to 3rd, yet somehow this means the narrator is no longer the character when clearly - they were in 1st person. I just see the narrator and character as the same, but the narrator is a useful conduit that has to pop out every now and then to make the grammar function correctly, mostly with regards to pronouns he and she.

This is why I find the "one narrator for the book" rule weird, as with books where multiple characters come together, and different POV's are used, surely an amount of whiplash is going to occur? If you have a jovial optimistic narrator but a surly pessimistic character at some point, it is going to be really bloody jarring as the narrator relays "it'll probably all be fine" and surly dude says everything is crap in a few sentences time. I always assumed the narrator voices vicariously through the character's personality, which would make >1 narrators in novels with multiple characters. And because each narrator is just a conduit, voicing vicariously through the character, I kind of dispose with the idea of a narrator and immerse it as the character. The "he" and "she" doesn't distract me really. I still see it as the POV character relaying the info, even though that makes it seem like they are talking about themselves in 3rd person.

 

I like the point that the voice of narration would change when it becomes thought of the character. But without italics would the thought be in present tense?
I just changed all my italics to standard for my WIP.

 

And that’s good. This is close third person limited. The only part that isn’t Rayne is the voice, sometimes. What you seem to think is a problem with your perception is actually how you’re supposed to perceive it. Every opinion and emotion is his.

I was unclear when I said what you took as meaning that the narrator was not Rayne. The voice—the formality, the turn of phrase, and so on—is not Rayne’s voice. Edited to add: but everything else is Rayne. To move from the narrator’s voice—which we use for all the characters—to that brief moment of using Rayne’s actual turn of phrase, we (well, I do this) use some words to guide the reader to the fact that we’re now in his voice and his deeper thoughts.

This is hard to explain.

And that’s good, not bad. It’s how you’re supposed to read it.

Somewhere I have a sample bit that’s in the point of view of a child, but uses words not in a child’s vocabulary. But those words are absolutely his thoughts, from inside. I’ll try to find it and link it after I post this. (Now quoted below.)

I suspect that’s it, yes. On other passages, it may be something else. They are experiencing being with, then not with, then with your character. But they’re wrong about the solution.

And this is all right, not wrong.

Maybe think of the narrator as a translator, not an entity. Sometimes the translator is translating int the narrative voice. Sometimes it’s hardly translating at all—it’s handing you the character’s thoughts raw and untranslated. But the knowledge and emotion and attitudes are all still coming from the character.

Again, this is right, not wrong, except I’d say “the” narrator, not “each” narrator.

Imagine, if it helps, the narrator as a machine into which you throw the character’s experience, and it all comes out in sentences and paragraphs in a particular voice. But once in a while the charscter’s voice is so strong that it resists the translator and comes out un-translated.

Returning to add: here’s that quote from myself, from elsethread. (I can’t figure out how to get the link to the post on my phone.)

 

I really like this. It's an original way to look at the situation, but it makes the relationship between character and narrator a lot clearer, at least for me.

 

I usually use third person and past tense, though when the thought is extra literal, I’ll try to avoid pronouns and sometimes avoid tense. My “Gonna do it anyway” above, which avoids pronouns and snatches at future tense to avoid the decision of past or present, is an example. But it’s a poor one; I would search for a less awkward solution in a later draft.

 

This has helped me a lot. I won't lie and say I now understand. I have a mental block on this and will try to unweave it. I am an old dog trying to learn new tricks; writing well is really hard.

The translator analogy has certainly given me a new avenue with which to try and untangle this mental block. I think my issue is I have spent so much time reading the material, and being immersed in it, I have failed to see the inner workings. Kind of like being amazed by a magic trick and confused as to the technical know-how of the trick "behind the scenes" so when I try to do it, it goes horribly wrong lol.

Using translator and "distance" I am hoping I will be able to improve my ability to flow the writing in a more natural gradated manner. Though it will undoubtedly be clunky rather than free-flowing as I will be focusing on how to technically nail it than creatively nail it. You probably guessed from the picture and transitive inference analogies, but I am a lot more maths based than creative writing based.

I guess my hang up is in 1st person the character and narrator are the same. Changing it to 3rd person purely from a technical grammar perspective forces the narrator and character to be different, but good writers make it almost invisible, like a magic trick, and the two seem to mesh anyway...

I am going round in circles in my head - but this has at least interrupted that circle and given me a few paths to meander through and hopefully reach an epiphany on the matter.

Thank you to all who replied and took their time to guide me; very much appreciated.

 

Italics are only for internal monologue, which generally is only about 2-5% of the character's thoughts. They would be 1st person, present tense, as well, so below you are not in internal monologue. You are employing direct thought in both the 2nd and 3rd sentences.

If you'd used HE THOUGHT, you'd have been in indirect thought, but still not internal monologue, so no italics, as well. Let me point this out more clearly, via your example. But I'll hack off the first sentence, just to keep it simple, and I will get back to that first sentence later:

Louise was not here yet. Would she come? (Direct thought, not internal monologue)

Dave realized that Louise was not here yet. He wondered if she would come? (Indirect thought because we credit Dave and He, not internal monologue)

Louise is not here yet. Will she come? (Direct thought and internal monologue, calling for 1st person, present tense and italics)

He realized, Louise is not here yet. He wondered, will she come? (Indirect thought and internal monologue, calling for 1st person, present tense and italics)

Now, that first sentence is action, and since someone is saying DAVE, we are getting our look at the invisible external narrator who is necessarily present in anything 3rd person. In fact, any time you use indirect thought, you are exposing the external narrator, if for no other reason than to POINT TO WHO is in play. Dialogue tags, for example, show that someone outside of the story is doing maintenance, at least:

Dave arrived early at the train station. He realized that Louise was not here yet. He wondered if she would come?

In the above sentence we see the external narrator expose himself three times.

Here, in your original, we see the external narrator expose himself once (generally a better deal for readers):

Dave arrived early at the train station(external narrator). Louise was not here yet (POV narrator). Would she come? (POV narrator)

One quest for those engaging in close limited 3rd work (a solid form of viewpoint management that we find in most genre fiction), is to kill the external narrator. If we use that dog, we use him only for a bit of maintenance, such as the occasional dialogue tag or the occasional credit in something like that first sentence. Otherwise, we use every tool in the box to kill him off or make him do as little work as humanly possible. In fact, through the application of giving that narrator the voice of the viewpoint narrator, we can make it seem like the viewpoint is also the external.

THIS IS PURE TRICKERY. CONVINCING THE READER THAT THE EXTERNAL NARRATOR DOES NOT EXIST, IS JOB ONE, AND WHY MANY WHO WRITE LIMITED 3RD CLOSE ARE ADAMENT THAT THE EXTERNAL NARRATOR DOES NOT EXIST.

That said, let's take a look at how this might be done, via voice alone. Consider, for example, the opening to a novel I wrote last year, called The Philanderer's Baby:

To be sure, Patrik coveted no quarrel with Befrum. Bedding the man’s wife had been no more than an act of nature, requiring no further comment or encumbrance. He’d intended to not even speak of it, more or less within earshot of town.

Applying the definitions above, we have sentence one (indirect thought, external narrator present because it is indirect, mentioning Patrik). Sentence three is also indirect, and the external narrator says HE'D. Sentence two is pure direct thought, straight from Patrik. Now, know that this external narrator in the 1st and last sentences is only the dude applying nouns or pronouns to tell us who is in play. His contribution is not much, and in fact, HUGELY negated via voice.

Whose voice is that? Who speaks or thinks like that? Look at these phrases and words, seemingly yanked right out of the brain of Patrik:

coveted no quarrel
not even speak of it
more or less within earshot

It might be coincidence, but more than likely that voice is Patriks. Think not? Well, look at Patrik's direct thought:

Bedding the man’s wife had been no more than an act of nature, requiring no further comment or encumbrance.

If the voice of the indirect thoughts and credited actions matches the voice of the viewpoint actor, we are TRICKING the reader into believing that it is ONE VOICE, and thus ONE NARRATOR, the external and the viewpoint being one in the same. THIS IS THE GOAL OF LIMITED 3RD CLOSE. Of course this is impossible. Patrik can't describe himself doing anything, and yet here he is doing exactly that, via voice alone, adding in the concern that NOTHING HAPPENS OR IS OF CONCERN, IF NOT ALSO OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN TO PATRIK.

Going one step further, it is worth noting that most limited 3rd writers are clueless regarding voice, and never even imagine that this is what we are hoping to accomplish. If you also write multiple limited third (wherein the viewpoint might change to someone else at chapter breaks or some other point), the voice of the narrator matching the voice of the viewpoint is pretty hard to pull off because that would mean the entire voice of the work would need to change at every single shift in viewpoint. That is why singular limited 3rd close is nearly synonymous with 1st person and why good close 3rd writers will tell you that the viewpoint is the same as the narrator. When they say that, they are lying, but they are also dead on track with how they have to imagine it.

Incidentally, there is an academic name for this, Free Indirect Discourse, wherein the narrative freely flows between the consciousness of the narrator (external) and the view, as shown by my personal example above. I personally think of free indirect discourse as kind of an elementary school definition of it, but it is a way of thinking about it, insofar as we can have a narrator tell us that Patrik ran and jumped on his horse, and be in Patrik's head in the very next sentence.

What we can't do is have an external narrator doing our thinking, and then have the viewpoint thinking. That would be completely out of bounds for close limited third, and have folks asking, "Who is telling me this?"

 

The above is indirect thought.

The above is also indirect thought.

The above is direct thought.

 

That's incorrect, ChickenFreak. You have confused internal monologue with direct thought. Indirect thought is when the narrator tells us who is thinking, and thus it is Indirect. Italics means internal monologue, which can be either direct or indirect (solely depending upon whether the narrator tells us who is thinking. Thus:

Louise is not here yet. Will she come? is both direct thought and internal monologue.

Louise was not here yet. Would she come? is just direct thought.

You got this one right:

Dave realized that Louise was not here yet. He wondered if she would come?

That is indirect thought, made so by the words Dave realized and He wondered.

Italics, 1st person and present tense means INTERNAL MONOLOGUE, which can be either direct or indirect.
Direct thought simply means a thought that we get to assume the source.
Indirect thought simply means we are told the source indirectly (some narrator is telling us who is thinking it).

We don't have to make this complicated, because it isn't.

 

You are incorrect. You and I have had this discussion before. There's no value in us having it again.

You folks reading this, Googling "direct thought" and "indirect thought" will give a variety of sources that offer a more correct definition. I may return with some links.

http://pointsonstyle.blogspot.com/2009/06/indirect-vs-direct-speech-and-thoughts.html

https://languageinconflict.org/the-world-through-language/presenting-speech-and-thought.html

http://penultimateword.com/editing-blogs/dialogue-in-fiction-part-v-writing-your-characters-thoughts/

https://lynnefisher.wordpress.com/2017/03/04/tips-on-conveying-inner-thoughts-in-fiction-writing/

https://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/representation_of_speech_and_thought.htm

The summary is that direct thought is the character's literal thoughts. It doesn't matter if there's a thought tag or not. They're present tense and first person. (When there is a tense and a pronoun referring to the thinker.)

Direct thought examples:

Jane peered into the closet. I need that umbrella.

Jane peered into the closet. She thought, "I need that umbrella."

Indirect thought is not literal thought. When there's a tense and a pronoun referring to the speaker, it's the same as the narrative--for example, third person past tense.

Indirect thought examples:

Jane peered into the closet. She needed that umbrella.

Jane peered into the closet, thinking of how she needed that umbrella.

 

Here's the Wikipedia link to this issue (direct/indirect thought), if it's any help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_speech

"Direct or quoted speech is spoken or written text that reports speech or thought in its original form phrased by the original speaker..."

I've always understood that direct thought reproduces the exact phrase in the head of the thinker. Such as: Why me?

Indirect thought is when that thought is paraphrased or explained in some way: I was never sure. Why does this kind of thing always happen to me?

Who reports it isn't the issue, nor does it matter if the story is being told in first, second or third person. It's the form of the thought itself that determines if it's direct or indirect. Unless I'm missing something....

 

I agree. There is no value in having the discussion again.

I believe the bone of contention regards speech. Many sources talk about direct or indirect, in relation to speech. Then they extend that to speech as it relates to internal monologue, but don't bother to make further contention for other forms of thought. So, we see sources telling writers to always italicize direct thought, and for examples they ALWAYS are pointing to examples of internal monologue. Which is speech in the head and highly unusual. Then along come writers with very little experience, who jump into this junk about italicizing all thoughts that are direct, which is bloody insane. Doing that would make internal monologue moot and add whole layers of italics.

Take, for example, this line:

There was naught for it, other than to put Anne in the canvas saddle bag he’d made with two holes for her feet to dangle beside the horse’s rump. She liked the horse, but not sitting off to the side where she couldn’t drive. Well, dangling off the side of the horse would have to do on occasions such as this one. Where has that woman got off to, now?

the suggestion is that the first 80% of that is indirect thought, but it can't be because we have directly delivered it. So, that would mean it all has to be in italics. But, if we did that we'd not know when we were engaging in internal monologue, and the tense would seem confused. So, clearly I'm on the side of calling it what it is, and treating it the same way every major author on earth treats it. All of that above is obviously direct thought (not once did the external narrator tell us who was thinking any of it), and clearly the italics are correctly used to depict speech (in the head, so italics in place of quote marks). To do otherwise is idiotic. Consider this:

There was naught for it, other than to put Anne in the canvas saddle bag he’d made with two holes for her feet to dangle beside the horse’s rump. She liked the horse, but not sitting off to the side where she couldn’t drive. Well, dangling off the side of the horse would have to do on occasions such as this one. Where has that woman got off to, now?

That treatment would kill all use of internal monologue, promote tense confusion and riddle the work with mountains of italics, to no gain whatsoever. I do understand that the internet is full of bad advice on this, primarily because they imagine that all direct thought is internal speech, which is stupid, and likely spread due to a lack of experience with writing at any length. No serious writer believes this.

And I'm done. My suggestion is for everyone to do as you suggest because the slush pile is tall and the faster they get through it, the better the odds.

 

Okay. Thanks. Yes, look it up and find all the references to indirect and direct internal speech. I have. I suggest also that everyone italicize all thoughts that are direct, so my work contrasts better.

 

I mostly agree, though I feel the need to add more material to remove any ambiguity from the examples:

Third person direct: Jane stared at the ransacked apartment. Why me?
Third person direct: Jane stared at the ransacked apartment and thought, "Why me?"
Third person direct: Jane stared at the ransacked apartment. Why, she thought, did does this kind of thing always happen to me? I'm never sure. (Belatedly corrected tense.)
First person direct: I stared at the ransacked apartment. Why me? (This one has potential ambiguity between direct thought, indirect thought, and narration. If it had tense, that ambiguity could be removed.)
First person direct: I stared at the ransacked apartment and thought, "Why me?"
First person direct: I stared at the ransacked apartment. Why does this kind of thing always happen to me? I'm never sure.
First person direct: I stared at the ransacked apartment. Why does this kind of thing always happen to me? I'm never sure.

Third person indirect: Jane stared at the ransacked apartment. Why her?
Third person indirect: Jane stared at the ransacked apartment and wondered, why her?
Third person indirect: Jane stared at the ransacked apartment. Why, she thought, did this kind of thing always happen to her? She was never sure.
First person indirect: I stared at the ransacked apartment. Why me?
First person indirect: I stared at the ransacked apartment. Why did this kind of thing always happen to me? I was never sure.

 

The argument that all direct thought is italicized is bull bring perpetrated by several on the web, and it is not hard to find sites articulating direct thought as needing italics. Usually these sites get indirect thought correct, but when they go to unattributed direct thought they instantly dig clear to internal monologue and claim that as direct thought (it usually is), and thus needing italics. Well, yes, internal monologue, particularly in direct thought, does need italics, but MOST of the direct thought we write in our novels is simple direct thought and not one side of the brain arguing with the other.

So, the legitimate question ought to be how those prolific writers we all know to also teach genre literature, do it? I’ll dig into the work of a few that we all know to be both prolific novelists, contemporary and teachers of the craft in either schools or amongst their peers:

Brandon Sanderson:

1st case of direct thought in Brandon Sanderson’s book, The Darkest Revenge. Note the indirect thought in line one and the definitely direct thought in line two. Note NO ITALICS:

..but it wasn’t something Ryn would ever have imagined herself capable of performing. There were different kinds of power, but most were so mysterious as to be impossible to believe.

Later in the book, Sanderson gives us several lines of direct thought, again not internal monologue, and again no italics, as is proper:

If he wasn’t careful, his father would ensure that another would take his place. But perhaps that was why the other man had sided with his father. There was safety in that.

I read that one book to page 15, and still not one case wherein Brandon went to internal monologue and italics, though plenty of direct thoughts. The tool of internal monologue is not often used by most writers, and that would not be outside of the main. Suffice to say, in 15 pages, not one line of italics.

Steven King:

Dead End Girl: Very first occasion of direct thought. Note, line 2 is indirect thought. Note, not any of the direct thought lines is in italics because none of the direct thought lines are internal monologue. Steven got his first good job as an English teacher. He is respected as a fine teacher of literature, by his peers, whether you like his work or not. And certainly he is prolific:

Probably that Simmon kid. She knew he went out to his car on his breaks to smoke pot. Everyone knew. He always came back reeking of mouthwash and skunk weed. He even had a bumper sticker with those rainbow Grateful Dead bears. He wasn’t fooling anybody.

That is even in great voice, a leg up on Sanderson, clearly showing that it isn’t an external narrator, but the deep, uncreditied, direct thoughts of the viewpoint. Direct thoughts, NO ITALICs.

In that book, by page 15, King does go to internal monologue, unlike Sanderson, who uses it more sparingly. Ironically, King does this in INDIRECT thought in this first example in that particular book, which is very rare. Here is how it happens, and it shows why it is different:

Who hadn’t, was what she didn’t say.

In the viewpoint’s mind, words happened (internal monologue). Present tense, 1st person, clearly a thought, and because the narrator told us that SHE, indirect. Whether direct or not, this is when you use italics in thought, and it is rare. Certainly King uses it quite rarely and perfectly correctly.

Jacqueline Carey:

I picked her because her writing is the closest to technically perfect of any of the writers I have ever read. So, let’s go straight to her omniscient limited work, Santa Olivia. It is only at around page 15 that we see her first example of italics, and this is in internal monologue, direct thought. All other applications of direct thought are properly done (as would be the case in 99% of all accomplished writers) non-italics. Here we get a large dose of direct thought, but only in the end does she drop fully to direct thought, internal monologue (the very rare italics):

Who will protect us? Who will be strong enough to stand against the forces that have overturned our lives? Who can fight the killing sickness that comes in waves? Who can fight the menace to the south that slips through the wall and sets bombs and ambushes? Who can fight the government to the north that decided we were no longer its citizens? It was like the fights. The odds were insurmountable. (all direct thought, no italics) She thought about her lover the clever brown-haired boy from somewhere out East, with a pang of distant regret. (one sentence of indirect thought)

No one will ever win. (BINGO, the rare internal monologue, in this case in direct thought)

All of that from a true master of the craft, my favorite technical writer of all time.

I could go on and on with more random novels from the best and most prolific contemporary novelists, and never find them practicing the crazy notion that all direct thought needs italics. And yet if we Google it, we get one site after the other saying to do that we must either write indirect thoughts or italicize them. Why? Well, because it’s easy to pretend like you know what you’re doing. It’s clearly a lot easier than writing novels. If you do write novels for longer than the pastime, you will quickly find out that italicizing all direct thought is completely absurd. As well, if you seek to find close limited application (as did Steven King), you will write very little indirect thought, meaning most of the content in thought will be direct and not in italics.

In order of likelihood, for those writing close limited 3rd:

Direct thought. (no italics)
Indirect thought. (no italics)
Internal monologue in direct thought (italics)
Internal monologue in indirect thought.(italics or not, it hardly matters)



In order of likelihood, for those not writing limited 3rd:

Indirect thought.
Direct thought.
Internal monologue in direct thought
Internal monologue in indirect thought.

Don’t believe me. Believe every major writer currently working. Or, believe some sites on the internet. I know which one I’ve believed in over the past thirty nears of novel writing. Once you figure this out, you will never uneducated yourself. It’s just too important of a set of tools.

 

The last sentence doesn't work for me in either version. It feels like a narrator jolt. Both paragraphs begin with the narrator having a certain level of distance from the character, with phrases like:

Rayne had never experienced . . .

Rayne had lived and breathed . . .

. . . from those who raised him.

. . . he'd formed a plan.

Wording like the above reads as if it's coming from someone with distance from the story. Someone safe, and therefore largely untroubled by recounting the tale. But the last sentence doesn't read like that at all imo.

"But to hell with that/the consequences"

That reads emotionally invested. I believe the OP even stated it was the thoughts of the main character, and I don't like that transition. At this point I'm not sure if I'd have less of a problem with it if the execution was different. But as is, that's the type of writing that I don't want to write or read, for whatever that's worth.

 

I’m not entirely clear—you’re not saying that you dislike the emotional investment, but instead saying that you need it from the beginning?

Do you always need it, or do you just want the transition to be longer and thus more subtle?