I agree that writing a character's thoughts and feelings from an outside perspective is some of the most fun writing - anything but an omniscient view point and you'll need to do it with most to all of your characters at one point or another. I'm just sayin' that I like to dig deep and as much as you can convey conflicted-ness from the outside - and I frequently do - showing what's happening on the inside is just as vital to the story... And that can't be done with showing unless you jump through extremely elaborate hoops and in the space of a novel there just isn't time to do that - never mind how annoying it'd probably get to the reader.
I agree with Islander it can work well. I think it is good to experiement with different styles of novels and ways to do things, otherwise we would end up with a lot of very formulaic novels, which is what we get. Everyone follows the next big thing instead of actually trying to set the trend and it can get very dull. My favourite novel breaks lots of the 'rules' for a well written novel. There is tons of description he describes how they speak etc it is still the most spellbinding story I have ever read. Worst that happens is you start again or delete parts if you don't like it. If we start saying you have to do such and such to get a good novel we would all be writing like Aphra Behn etc If language and its uses didn't evolve I'd be speaking Latin or Anglo Saxon, not modern English. I don't understand why it is so bad to try something new, and for people to say try it if it worst that happens it doesn't work but then it could be the next mould breaking piece that changes the face of literature and how it is written. Not as if many novellists in the UK and US die for their art these days. Because mine is first person in the present tense I have to show everyone else's viewpoint and surrounding through dialogue and observation.
But it isn't new. It's just a common mistake, and reveals a lack of understanding about the differences of the media. An experiment is not merely trying something different. An experiment is a controlled variation to test a hypothesis. And most experiments fail, at least on the initial attempts. A successful experiment usually requires multiple attempts to eliminate side effects or unplanned complications. Typical complications are other varied parameters that were not taken into account initially. Experimentation in a literary sense is not as rigorous as scientific experimentation, but it still requires a purposeful approach, and usually multiple attempts.
Mistakes have been known to bring about great things. An experiment can go wrong not because of a mistake but because it doesn't work. There are examples of where a mistake has turned what was a poor experiment into something truly amazing. It is merely the trying out of tentative ideas without being sure of the outcome (OED) which is why keyboards have delete keys etc We can always rewrite and try something else.
The excellence of an artisitc enterprise is almost wholly dependent on the conductor. The results of an experiment to determine the melting point of titanium will be the same, whether it is conducted by Newton or the local butcher. Try it and see, buddy.
Why would you want to deliberately impose on your work the limitations of another medium? That seems to me like a sculptor who is sculpting a bust of someone insisting "I'm going to do a two-dimensional bust, like a bas relief, because portrait painters can only work in two dimensions." As Cog and others have said, novels and movies are different art forms. It seems to me that you are crippling yourself by trying to write a novel with the restrictions of a movie. Why not let yourself exploit the advantages of the novel? I disagree with this. When I reread something, I like to reread all of it. If the writer is any good, the set up material and so on that lets the reader get to know the characters is just as good, if not better, than "the action".
Eventually, the monkeys will pound out Shakespeare "accidentally", but randomness is a poor approach to writing. And who gets to rummage through the megatons of random garbage to find "But soft. What light in yonder window breaks? 'Tis the east, and Juliet is the sun..." Purposeful experimentation is a far more promising strategy than counting on accidents to create beauty.
Most of Shakespeare's storylines are ridiculous. Implausible and childish. His excellence is made the clearer, is perhaps in part produced, by his wilful adoption of this handicap. Here, Stu has the opportunity to create something worthwhile, not by accident, but by purposeful, concentrated effort. To convey character, every word of dialogue must be chosen with great care. Adequate words must be tossed aside for better words. A struggle. Hard work. To convey mood, his descriptions of place and action must do two or three or four jobs at once. Difficult, but not impossible.
I try to do the exact opposite. I read right over stuff all of the time especially in dialogue. Usually, I'll realize it and then go back and reread a sentence, but sometimes I don't. I try to mention anything important to the story more than once. If anything is important, like an important trait of a character, I try to make sure that the reader is going to get it.
