i might use "she thought", though it is usulally not needed. the "to herself" is redundent unless this is a story where telepathy is common and you really need to specify whom thoughts are directed to.
Unless most communication is through telepathy, it’s still unnecessary.
My story has my main character and her sister able to communicate telepathically, but it’s when she does that I specify it, not when she isn’t; otherwise it’s just her thinking.
I think that the ya series Animorphs actually handled common telepathy really well. Whenever the characters were communicating telepathically, you always knew because the dialogue was enclosed by "< >"
This was my thoughts exactly. Normally I don’t use internal dialogue tags unless the internal dialogue is happening between characters. (One of my WIPs does contain a telepath.) In third person limited, I’ll just say “It’s a nice day” in the dialogue since the whole book is portraying that character’s perspective anyway. Even in third person omniscient, I would only say “Character thinks it’s a nice day” if it other relevant characters would not feel the same.
That sounds right. I'm really old school in my writing and still see most basic dialogue tags as invisible, and dislike the recent trend to play around with them and tag everything with actions, so I'm going to say the less they distract from the dialogue/thoughts the better.
But that's just me.
It could work. Is your POV limited? Because if so it may be implied already just through the conceit of the form. If it's not, I don't see why that would be any worse than "She said."
Honestly I wouldn’t use that either. In just about any POV except third person omniscient, the narration *is* what the POV character thinks. It could work if there’s a specific sentence you want her to think, maybe an inside joke she remembers but wouldn’t be appropriate to say out loud, but generally… nah.
Strikes me as amateurish. Instead of
>*What a nice day,* she thought to herself.
you could write
>It was a nice day.
If the story is from her perspective, all narration is potentially her observations and understanding. If it's chilly and rainy, but your character loves chill and rain, it's a nice day.
It’s not necessarily the same thing though. A character might be thinking it’s a nice day and the author might be telling us this to say something about the character or their condition, not to convey that the day is in fact nice.
If *she* is a witch, her nice day might include a November hail storm.
That's exactly my point-- good narration is dense enough in meaning to tell us both about the thought and the character. I'm reminded of the first line of Harry Potter: "Mr. and Mrs. Dursley of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much." We can infer that they are so serious about appearing normal that they're a bit stuck-up and offended that other possibilities might even be considered.
The first example takes half a line to say very little; the second has much more potential for conveying info about the subject and the one thinking it. If you need to deviate from the "normal" understanding of what a nice day is, you could go into detail a little.
I was thinking the exact same thing. It pulls you further into the story as well because you can tell that the narration is from their perspective, in the way *they* see everything.
I think it depends on the purpose. For one thing, if I use italics I pretty much only do it from one point of view and so I assume the reader can figure out that it's an internal monologue. But for the other thing, she is thinking about a nice day, there should be a reason she's thinking that, like to show a change of mood or something. Or more specifically a reason that I'm telling the reader she's thinking that
The only time it's worth doing is to point out the interiority and subjectivity of the thinker, or to clarify point of view.
Example:
John dabbed his finger in the brown powder, and sniffed it. *Fuck, how do cops tell anything from that?* he thought to himself, then said, "As I suspected..."
*Ugh, he better not lick that,* Lauren thought, then said, "I didn't know you were experienced with that kind of thing."
*Why is she looking at my mouth?* "There's a lot of things you don't know about me."
In third omniscient stories it is very possible to drift from one head to another even within paragraph or sentence. If the author writes well there's zero issue with that.
Using 'to herself' is optional and there's no problem with it if it works.
I tend to look at a sentence, passage or paragraph and would use something like that if it enhanced the rhythm of the piece. If I decide 'she thought' is too abrupt in that context, I might add 'to herself' to soften it and make it easier to read.
There are no one-size-fits-all solutions in writing, so I like to keep an open mind about everything as you never know what might be useful!
I’d use it in dialogue if that’s the kind of thing a character would say— these types of filler-word phrases are definitely in many people’s vocabulary and it helps us imagine them.
“So I says to Mabel, I says…”
Depends on style, mostly. Sometimes it's enough to put the thinking in Italic, sometimes you feel the need to specify further. It's up to you how you want to present the characters' thoughts
I would, sure. It is sort of redundant, but using conversational prose like this is fine most of the time, unless you're writing some epic fantasy piece or something. Those types of phrases aren't grammatically attractive but if it fits the voice you've established then go for it.
Absolutely. Writing is inherently loosie-goosie. The rules are guidelines, and sometimes the line "she thought to herself" could be used quite effectively to enhance the rhythm of the story, or the style. Even despite that, the phrase "she thought to herself" has a mechanical use, as sometimes it *isn't* clear who the POV is referring to. I could see it being used like this, for example
《*Ugh, why are you like this?* she thought to herself.》
In this example, the "you" alone would be ambiguous, so the additional information helps the reader understand. Furthermore, depending on the style I'm writing, it could very well enhance whatever I'm trying to get across.
i mean, i try not to use "she thought" or any variations at all in my prose. it kind of takes me out of my pov character's head. imo it flows much more nicely to just write the prose the way the character thinks it in their head and trust the reader to be smart enough to know that as long as it's not in quotes, it's not being said out loud. so instead of this:
>Lucy's day was already set out to be a terrible one. She'd slept through her alarm and ended up skipping breakfast just to get out the door in time – only to get her spike heel caught in a grate. *Thank god it's not raining out*, she thought.
i'd go for something like:
>Lucy's day was already set out to be a terrible one. She'd slept through her alarm and ended up skipping breakfast just to get out the door in time – only to get her spike heel caught in a grate.
>Thank god it wasn't raining out.
This is a really helpful example. When I'm writing in 3rd close PoV, I try to make *all* of the narration rendered through the viewpoint of the PoV character. My difficulty comes when the narration includes a statement of fact that might be interpreted as an intrusion by an omniscient narrator. Your example works so well, because it is not just a statement of fact (it wasn't raining), but expressed how the PoV character *felt* about that fact (thank god).
Last year, I performed a writing exercise where I was to describe the room where the character was. The instructor's question was, "but how does the character *feel* about the room." I now understand the importance of the question.
i'm glad it was helpful! this sort of deep pov is something i've been working on improving for a few years now and i feel like it's really made a big difference in my own writing and how i feel about it. highly recommend looking more into deep pov if that's something you're interested in working on as well!
It's redundant. Ignoring the placeholder dialogue, when a character is thinking something, it is *always* to themselves. The reader knows that, making it redundant. I would personally just leave it at the thought: First person: *What a nice day!* Or third person: It was a nice day. (But obviously, a topic that is more story or character-relevant/interesting.)
The redundancy is similar to "she sat down on her butt." How else would she sit? "She opened the door with her right hand." It doesn't matter which hand she used unless you're setting up a mystery in which the killer is right handed in a town of left-handed folks or something. But even then, I'd find a better way to reveal that.
Hope that makes sense. :)
Only time I can imagine it not being redundant is in free-indirect, where it's simulating character voice in third-person narration. So the kind of character who would say aloud, "and so I thought to myself" might have their POV framed the same way to flavour it with their style.
I think I’d still say: “So I thought, what if this is the last time we ever eat at Charlie’s? I wanted it to be special.” Or, “What if this is the last time we eat at Charlie’s? I want it to be special.”
But you’re not wrong. It would depend on the character speaking and his or her style of speech. Also, the effect you’re going for as a writer comes into play there.
(Can’t help thinking of Discord from My Little Ponies: Well, I was in my thinking tree—that's where I do most of my really deep thinking—I was there, and I said to myself, I said, "Discord, your friend, Twilight, says that she's your pal, but she never writes, and she never pops in for a visit.")
You’re right. One is objective, the other subjective. But that’s irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that you don’t need “to herself,” because it’s redundant and that I wouldn’t have included “she thought” either, I’d have italicized it.
I would not because I tend to write in a free indirect style which has little need for that kind of 'thought tag'. Very rarely I will use 'she thought', but the 'to herself' is implied by virtue of the fact that there's no telepathy in my world and I use a tight 3rd POV, so it's not possible to be in anyone else's head in any given scene.
In general I would find 'she thought to herself' to be redundant, and a bit amateurish due to the inherent redundancy, unless it's been established that there is indeed telepathy in the world, in which case specifying would be important. 'She thought' would be fine if not using a free indirect style, but I would also treat 'she thought' as the interior form of 'she said' and use it sparingly, and in combination with other ways of attributing speech (or, I guess, interior thought). I would think it would generally be less necessary if the scene has only one POV, because there would be no one else to attribute an interior thought to other than the POV character, but I can see it being sometimes necessary for clarity depending on sentence structure and general writing style.
It would be better to describe the day and let the reader come to the conclusion that she thought it was a nice day.
"The air was crisp, with just the right amount of chill. The sun poked through the canopy of trees, a pleasant rustle accompanied like a lazy jazz drummer. This was the first day of fall, and it felt like it too."
the only issue with the example you gave is that you gave nothing to imply that is what the character enjoys, since a nice day is subjective
some people enjoy a sunny summer afternoon, the rays soaking into their skin and the sky so blue you could wonder how it's ever any other shade, but just because that sounds nice to one person doesn't mean it's nice for the POV character
I mean, I’m obviously making the assumption that the prose is written “sympathetic to the protagonist”, in other words, the narration carries with it the implicit alignment with the protagonist’s feelings and thoughts. If it’s more dispassionate or it’s a different character you might need to be more explicit, but I think there are ways to hint that it’s a way that character would describe things without outright saying it. Another take on “show, not tell”, I suppose.
but again, you gave no indication whether showing or telling that they enjoy what's happening around them in your example. we know that it's a crisp autumn day, and there is someone drumming. but what you gave doesn't imply the POV character is enjoying this without more.
with your example, perhaps adding in something about the POV character taking in a deep breath, how the smell of dried leaves brings a smile to her face or how she finds herself tapping her foot along to the drum
you set the moment well with how you described the autumn day, but that really was just a scene setting.
You may be right, I had thought that the last phrase “it felt like it” betrayed the connection to the scene character. As soon as you say “felt” then the obvious question is felt like what to whom? But maybe one could make a case as you have, that it’s worth making additional connections to the character in order to cement the POV.
I see where your thoughts were. and it does establish that this is what the POV character thinks of when they think of autumn. we were able to make that connection. but we only know that that's what they think of autumn but not how they feel about the season itself
I would admit a bias towards my own writing, but my defense is that even as I didn’t put a terribly high amount of thought into the example passage I used suggestive language like “the right amount of chill” and “a pleasant rustle” to subjectify the description. Carry this idea on for a full paragraph and you probably don’t need to make things more explicit because at the end of it the reader will be imagining the character as enjoying the breeze and the chill. But we can also take a thunderstorm and convey some of the same ideas.
> Electric veins crackle across the heavens, illuminating the world below. Each lightning bolt is a fleeting stroke of celestial artistry, etching jagged patterns against the obsidian backdrop. The air smells of petrichor, that intoxicating blend of wet earth and anticipation.
The wind dances, twirling leaves and branches in a wild waltz.
In 3rd limited PoV, no. I would put it in italics as a thought, or outright have her think it as part of the narration.. Thinking to herself is implied.
Depends on the context, tone and narrative voice. Probably not something I would use often unless I really needed to emphasise that it’s a conversation she’s having with herself for some reason.
I think this is a trap that a lot of writers fall into. Maybe in certain situations, this would be okay, but in general, this is not a good way to write. Imagine reading a book full of statements like that, where instead of describing what's happening, the characters specifically read it out to you. "It's a nice day," "she's very pretty," "there's a lot of leaves on the ground," etc.
Instead, you should be describing the things, not telling the reader what they are. "The sun was high in the sky, without a cloud in sight, and flowers bloomed all along the edges of the paved road" is a far better sentence than '"what a nice day," she thought to herself,' but they both say the exact same thing.
The reader doesn't need to know what the character is thinking, *unless it's not obvious*. If it was a beautiful day, and the character, for whatever reason, thought it was a terrible day, then it is alright to state that the character thinks that way.
It’s all about the flavor of the description too, if you described a sunny fall day as
> The crisp air carries a biting edge—an unwelcome intrusion into the comfort of woolen scarves. The sun, a pale imitation of its summer self, casts long shadows that stretch like melancholic sighs across the pavement
it sets a different scene that makes the reader feel differently about it even as objectively it’s the same day
In my current book, I italicize her thoughts because it's written in 1st person. When using 3rd I would usually italicize using "She wonders/ thought/Tells herself/ponders." Just like "she said" for dialogue but instead of quotation marks I italicize.
I've seen changes in font, quotation marks but italicized, or () to indicate thoughts. To an extent it's personal choice as long as you are consistent and make sure the reader understands the change to inner dialogue.
When I wrote a dual perspective horror short story, whenever it was the beast it was 1st person bold, italics. The rest was 3rd person written regularly. It was probably over the top but I was a teen.
Thoughts are usually to yourself, so I'd definitely skip the to herself. I don't even think you need the thought, unless her thinking adds something to the scene. I would only specify the opposite, because it's much more rare: she thought out loud.
Every thought is to yourself unless you want to feel like you are personally thinking at someone else, as if in the hope that they would hear the words you think.
Slanted,italics words for thoughts. Parenthesis can be implemented as well if you want to go for thoughts that are more like things said by others through memories playing in the characters head.
It could be used with purpose. Like, it could be a hella stormy day and the wind was noisy and stuff and “it was a nice day” could tell you something about the character.
Or like starting a regular day with that as an actual observation, then having an absolute cluster duck of a day where people die or something and then saying at the end “it was still a beautiful day” or “this was supposed to be a nice day.” Could be good.
IMO, nobody comments about it being a nice day to oneself. Those kinds of observations are reserved for being shared.
Use it if it sounds good, don’t if it doesn’t. Plenty of authors/writers will add put in words or phrases because they like the way it flows, even if it’s redundant. Dickens never said in a word what he could say in a sentence
personally I would use: *What a nice day,* she thought
I've seen people argue about it being unnecessary to include the part pointing out that it was a thought, but I've seen it written out that way.
I've also seen people go about it with wording similar to: *What a nice day,* she commented to herself
or even: *What a nice day,* she made a mental note
I have seen 'she thought to herself' used before but I personally would exclude that bit.
I usually put thoughts in an italicized new paragraph, and speak directly to the reader.
For example:
She leaned back in her chair, and stared at the person sitting before her.
*italics* what are they thinking?
Make sense? It’s kinda a fanfictiony method, but I reads cleaner than “she thought to herself”
Personally, I put thoughts in italics. I would format it like:
>*What a nice day,* she thought.
But of course, I don’t think “what a nice day” is an interesting enough thought to set apart in that way. I would use thoughts to add character revealing commentary that’s a bit punchier than just having it in narration.
> It was a nice, sunny day, but she was squinting with her head down. She had forgotten her sunglasses at home.
> It was a nice, sunny day, but she was squinting with her head down. *I can’t believe I forgot my sunglasses at home.*
Some people would still prefer the first example, but using direct thoughts does help establish a mood.
As long as your style is consistent. I typically write internal thoughts in italics, and then yeah something like "She though to herself." Would be fine.
"she thought to herself" to me is a writer who's not experienced, I think a lot of readers don't realize how well written something is most of the time. I think a lot of casual readers are like most movie goers, they watch something and think, I liked that, or I didn't. But they don't necessarily think about the specific shots and framing and directing choices, they know it was good but they don't know exactly why. I think reading is the same, I didn't know why I liked the books I did until I started writing, now I notice when phrases like "she thought to herself" are used and it breaks my immersion because it feels amateurish or unedited.
**It depends on the voice of the prose POV.**
>'What a nice day,’ she thought to herself.
Requires you to dwell on the sentence more than,
>*What a nice day.*
You're getting more reflection on the vibe and the person in the longer sentence, without defining the whys and hows.
The shorter sentence hits the info points without the vibe and you can spend more time describing the day, niceness, and action.
Longer phrasing can fuck up your pacing, by getting you into reflection overload, run-ons, or inconsistent voice. But if your prose voice is intentionally stylistically reflective and you can build out action well, it can be really pleasing and define space.
Prob not a beginner move unless that's already how someone tells stories verbally (See also: "she says to me, she says,")
Depends on how it balances out the word length of the sentence, and impact the rhythm of the words. I love a good supportive redundancy. It's this modern fad to trim the fat and beat all redundant things from the page, which just makes for sterile writing. Trim the fat and the flavour goes with it. Modulate your redundancies as needed. You can break any rule if it's deliberate.
I would just use "she thought" if anything. She's not going to think to someone else. The "to herself" is redundant.
Even then, most of the time you're already in the character's perspective so you can just say the thought without having to point out that they're thinking that.
You can use it, but sparingly. It's all about the general flow of the sentence. To me, adding 'to herself' (thought to herself) invokes the kind of feeling that she would have wanted to tell someone else about the thought, but didn't for some reason. Like, 'She's such an idiot!' She thought to herself. She didn't just think it, she thought it to herself, almost at the edge to say it out loud/share it with someone else.
As others have stated, 'She's such an idiot!" (in italics) for direct thought, or (normal text) as part of the narrative also works. You don't even need 'she thought'. Adding She thought can still be good for emphasis, or for people listening to audiobooks to comprehend the narrative more smoothly.
So, there's different instances/layers and you're kinda free to use them as you like/think best in any given situation.
You are currently operating in the third layer (1: She's such an idiot!), (2: She's such an idiot! She thought), (3: She's such an idiot! She thought to herself). That's why some find it redundant. But in the end, it's your choice.
It's really going to depend on context, position in the story, impact, and many other things. It can be just fine. It can also be something more like, "She shielded her eyes from the bright sun as she looked up. The clouds were sparse, and the kind of fluffy white that always reminded her of cotton balls. The air was that perfect temperature, unseasonable for this time of year. Low humidity, a cooling breeze, but nice, warm sunlight. She sighed contentedly."
This is classic "show, don't tell." While it's not necessary everywhere, and in certain context "what a nice day" is a perfectly valid thought, it's nice to *show* your readers why the day is nice. What about it is so nice? But, let's imagine that you've done a bit of exposition on the day - temperature, wind, humidity, etc., and now your character begins interacting. You have to decide if she should remark on the day - internally or externally. If she's alone, she can speak the words aloud, to no one in particular, as a way of conveying her mood. She can have been depressed, and suddenly, she thinks to herself, "what a nice day." It's out of character, and may be the way that you introduce a small change in her.
There's no good and no bad in a single sentence. Even atrocious grammar can be okay within certain contexts.
There could be reams written about show don't tell because it's not always well understood. But this time it's just not really applicable. OP is asking about how to share character thoughts, not literally how to express a nice day.
I think it's valuable if your character is projecting their thought at a person, regardless of the recipients ability/capacity to receive it.
Thinking is abstract. Even without telepathy/powers we may intentionally think to ourselves or/and then project our thought out at someone else. Similar to how we may say something aloud to another person, even if we know wont hear the comment.
ie:
'What a waste,' Anne thought to herself. Her glance darted to the side. 'What a waste,' She thought once more, this time projecting it at the man crying in front of her. She knew it was his fault and she was seething at the sight of him.
vs...
"What a waste," Anne uttered to herself. Her glance darted to the side. "What a waste," She repeated; it's intended subject was too distraught to hear her whispered judgement. She knew it was his fault and she was seething.
Not claiming I used perfect grammar, but I believe the intended meaning of both paragraphs stand distinct and communicate differing actions with enough clarity.
i might use "she thought", though it is usulally not needed. the "to herself" is redundent unless this is a story where telepathy is common and you really need to specify whom thoughts are directed to.
Unless most communication is through telepathy, it’s still unnecessary. My story has my main character and her sister able to communicate telepathically, but it’s when she does that I specify it, not when she isn’t; otherwise it’s just her thinking.
I love that this is an example.
Thanks. It also allows the sister to be nosy and “listen in” on her when she, to quote the sister, “thinks too loud.”
I like the dialogue. It seems relatable to how siblings talk to each other
Yeah me too
I think that the ya series Animorphs actually handled common telepathy really well. Whenever the characters were communicating telepathically, you always knew because the dialogue was enclosed by "< >"
I wouldn't use it, because unless it's a story about telepaths, she wouldn't be thinking to anyone but herself.
This was my thoughts exactly. Normally I don’t use internal dialogue tags unless the internal dialogue is happening between characters. (One of my WIPs does contain a telepath.) In third person limited, I’ll just say “It’s a nice day” in the dialogue since the whole book is portraying that character’s perspective anyway. Even in third person omniscient, I would only say “Character thinks it’s a nice day” if it other relevant characters would not feel the same.
That sounds right. I'm really old school in my writing and still see most basic dialogue tags as invisible, and dislike the recent trend to play around with them and tag everything with actions, so I'm going to say the less they distract from the dialogue/thoughts the better. But that's just me.
Would you use “she thought” then? Or is that a no too?
It could work. Is your POV limited? Because if so it may be implied already just through the conceit of the form. If it's not, I don't see why that would be any worse than "She said."
Honestly I wouldn’t use that either. In just about any POV except third person omniscient, the narration *is* what the POV character thinks. It could work if there’s a specific sentence you want her to think, maybe an inside joke she remembers but wouldn’t be appropriate to say out loud, but generally… nah.
Strikes me as amateurish. Instead of >*What a nice day,* she thought to herself. you could write >It was a nice day. If the story is from her perspective, all narration is potentially her observations and understanding. If it's chilly and rainy, but your character loves chill and rain, it's a nice day.
It’s not necessarily the same thing though. A character might be thinking it’s a nice day and the author might be telling us this to say something about the character or their condition, not to convey that the day is in fact nice. If *she* is a witch, her nice day might include a November hail storm.
That's exactly my point-- good narration is dense enough in meaning to tell us both about the thought and the character. I'm reminded of the first line of Harry Potter: "Mr. and Mrs. Dursley of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much." We can infer that they are so serious about appearing normal that they're a bit stuck-up and offended that other possibilities might even be considered. The first example takes half a line to say very little; the second has much more potential for conveying info about the subject and the one thinking it. If you need to deviate from the "normal" understanding of what a nice day is, you could go into detail a little.
"Filter" words. Easy way to reduce wordiness and strengthen sentences. Incomplete List: Felt, saw, heard, thought, knew, realized, realized, decided.
That’s true!
I was thinking the exact same thing. It pulls you further into the story as well because you can tell that the narration is from their perspective, in the way *they* see everything.
I think it depends on the purpose. For one thing, if I use italics I pretty much only do it from one point of view and so I assume the reader can figure out that it's an internal monologue. But for the other thing, she is thinking about a nice day, there should be a reason she's thinking that, like to show a change of mood or something. Or more specifically a reason that I'm telling the reader she's thinking that
Who else could she think to?
Though my husband would tell you I think to him all the time.
After a while, married people can tell what each other is thinking.
The only time it's worth doing is to point out the interiority and subjectivity of the thinker, or to clarify point of view. Example: John dabbed his finger in the brown powder, and sniffed it. *Fuck, how do cops tell anything from that?* he thought to himself, then said, "As I suspected..." *Ugh, he better not lick that,* Lauren thought, then said, "I didn't know you were experienced with that kind of thing." *Why is she looking at my mouth?* "There's a lot of things you don't know about me."
But your example, if in a single story, is classic head hopping.
In third omniscient stories it is very possible to drift from one head to another even within paragraph or sentence. If the author writes well there's zero issue with that.
The italics would negate the need for "he thought to himself." You could also remove the "then."
Using 'to herself' is optional and there's no problem with it if it works. I tend to look at a sentence, passage or paragraph and would use something like that if it enhanced the rhythm of the piece. If I decide 'she thought' is too abrupt in that context, I might add 'to herself' to soften it and make it easier to read. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions in writing, so I like to keep an open mind about everything as you never know what might be useful!
I’d use it in dialogue if that’s the kind of thing a character would say— these types of filler-word phrases are definitely in many people’s vocabulary and it helps us imagine them. “So I says to Mabel, I says…”
Depends on style, mostly. Sometimes it's enough to put the thinking in Italic, sometimes you feel the need to specify further. It's up to you how you want to present the characters' thoughts
I would, sure. It is sort of redundant, but using conversational prose like this is fine most of the time, unless you're writing some epic fantasy piece or something. Those types of phrases aren't grammatically attractive but if it fits the voice you've established then go for it.
Absolutely. Writing is inherently loosie-goosie. The rules are guidelines, and sometimes the line "she thought to herself" could be used quite effectively to enhance the rhythm of the story, or the style. Even despite that, the phrase "she thought to herself" has a mechanical use, as sometimes it *isn't* clear who the POV is referring to. I could see it being used like this, for example 《*Ugh, why are you like this?* she thought to herself.》 In this example, the "you" alone would be ambiguous, so the additional information helps the reader understand. Furthermore, depending on the style I'm writing, it could very well enhance whatever I'm trying to get across.
i mean, i try not to use "she thought" or any variations at all in my prose. it kind of takes me out of my pov character's head. imo it flows much more nicely to just write the prose the way the character thinks it in their head and trust the reader to be smart enough to know that as long as it's not in quotes, it's not being said out loud. so instead of this: >Lucy's day was already set out to be a terrible one. She'd slept through her alarm and ended up skipping breakfast just to get out the door in time – only to get her spike heel caught in a grate. *Thank god it's not raining out*, she thought. i'd go for something like: >Lucy's day was already set out to be a terrible one. She'd slept through her alarm and ended up skipping breakfast just to get out the door in time – only to get her spike heel caught in a grate. >Thank god it wasn't raining out.
This is a really helpful example. When I'm writing in 3rd close PoV, I try to make *all* of the narration rendered through the viewpoint of the PoV character. My difficulty comes when the narration includes a statement of fact that might be interpreted as an intrusion by an omniscient narrator. Your example works so well, because it is not just a statement of fact (it wasn't raining), but expressed how the PoV character *felt* about that fact (thank god). Last year, I performed a writing exercise where I was to describe the room where the character was. The instructor's question was, "but how does the character *feel* about the room." I now understand the importance of the question.
i'm glad it was helpful! this sort of deep pov is something i've been working on improving for a few years now and i feel like it's really made a big difference in my own writing and how i feel about it. highly recommend looking more into deep pov if that's something you're interested in working on as well!
It's redundant. Ignoring the placeholder dialogue, when a character is thinking something, it is *always* to themselves. The reader knows that, making it redundant. I would personally just leave it at the thought: First person: *What a nice day!* Or third person: It was a nice day. (But obviously, a topic that is more story or character-relevant/interesting.) The redundancy is similar to "she sat down on her butt." How else would she sit? "She opened the door with her right hand." It doesn't matter which hand she used unless you're setting up a mystery in which the killer is right handed in a town of left-handed folks or something. But even then, I'd find a better way to reveal that. Hope that makes sense. :)
Only time I can imagine it not being redundant is in free-indirect, where it's simulating character voice in third-person narration. So the kind of character who would say aloud, "and so I thought to myself" might have their POV framed the same way to flavour it with their style.
I think I’d still say: “So I thought, what if this is the last time we ever eat at Charlie’s? I wanted it to be special.” Or, “What if this is the last time we eat at Charlie’s? I want it to be special.” But you’re not wrong. It would depend on the character speaking and his or her style of speech. Also, the effect you’re going for as a writer comes into play there. (Can’t help thinking of Discord from My Little Ponies: Well, I was in my thinking tree—that's where I do most of my really deep thinking—I was there, and I said to myself, I said, "Discord, your friend, Twilight, says that she's your pal, but she never writes, and she never pops in for a visit.")
Yeah, it definitely lends a certain run-on quality when used to that effect :)
That reminds me of the comic line, "So I said to myself, 'Self...' "
"And my self said to myself, 'yes, self?'"
It was a nice day vs it's a nice, she thought are totally different.
You’re right. One is objective, the other subjective. But that’s irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that you don’t need “to herself,” because it’s redundant and that I wouldn’t have included “she thought” either, I’d have italicized it.
Not every sentence needs to stand out. Painters have grey and brown paint for a reason. If nothing in your writing is pedestrian, everything is.
I would not because I tend to write in a free indirect style which has little need for that kind of 'thought tag'. Very rarely I will use 'she thought', but the 'to herself' is implied by virtue of the fact that there's no telepathy in my world and I use a tight 3rd POV, so it's not possible to be in anyone else's head in any given scene. In general I would find 'she thought to herself' to be redundant, and a bit amateurish due to the inherent redundancy, unless it's been established that there is indeed telepathy in the world, in which case specifying would be important. 'She thought' would be fine if not using a free indirect style, but I would also treat 'she thought' as the interior form of 'she said' and use it sparingly, and in combination with other ways of attributing speech (or, I guess, interior thought). I would think it would generally be less necessary if the scene has only one POV, because there would be no one else to attribute an interior thought to other than the POV character, but I can see it being sometimes necessary for clarity depending on sentence structure and general writing style.
It would be better to describe the day and let the reader come to the conclusion that she thought it was a nice day. "The air was crisp, with just the right amount of chill. The sun poked through the canopy of trees, a pleasant rustle accompanied like a lazy jazz drummer. This was the first day of fall, and it felt like it too."
Much better
the only issue with the example you gave is that you gave nothing to imply that is what the character enjoys, since a nice day is subjective some people enjoy a sunny summer afternoon, the rays soaking into their skin and the sky so blue you could wonder how it's ever any other shade, but just because that sounds nice to one person doesn't mean it's nice for the POV character
I mean, I’m obviously making the assumption that the prose is written “sympathetic to the protagonist”, in other words, the narration carries with it the implicit alignment with the protagonist’s feelings and thoughts. If it’s more dispassionate or it’s a different character you might need to be more explicit, but I think there are ways to hint that it’s a way that character would describe things without outright saying it. Another take on “show, not tell”, I suppose.
but again, you gave no indication whether showing or telling that they enjoy what's happening around them in your example. we know that it's a crisp autumn day, and there is someone drumming. but what you gave doesn't imply the POV character is enjoying this without more. with your example, perhaps adding in something about the POV character taking in a deep breath, how the smell of dried leaves brings a smile to her face or how she finds herself tapping her foot along to the drum you set the moment well with how you described the autumn day, but that really was just a scene setting.
You may be right, I had thought that the last phrase “it felt like it” betrayed the connection to the scene character. As soon as you say “felt” then the obvious question is felt like what to whom? But maybe one could make a case as you have, that it’s worth making additional connections to the character in order to cement the POV.
I see where your thoughts were. and it does establish that this is what the POV character thinks of when they think of autumn. we were able to make that connection. but we only know that that's what they think of autumn but not how they feel about the season itself
I would admit a bias towards my own writing, but my defense is that even as I didn’t put a terribly high amount of thought into the example passage I used suggestive language like “the right amount of chill” and “a pleasant rustle” to subjectify the description. Carry this idea on for a full paragraph and you probably don’t need to make things more explicit because at the end of it the reader will be imagining the character as enjoying the breeze and the chill. But we can also take a thunderstorm and convey some of the same ideas. > Electric veins crackle across the heavens, illuminating the world below. Each lightning bolt is a fleeting stroke of celestial artistry, etching jagged patterns against the obsidian backdrop. The air smells of petrichor, that intoxicating blend of wet earth and anticipation. The wind dances, twirling leaves and branches in a wild waltz.
In 3rd limited PoV, no. I would put it in italics as a thought, or outright have her think it as part of the narration.. Thinking to herself is implied.
Either "she thought" or "she said to herself" would work, although there are richer ways to say it. "She thought to herself" is a tautology.
Depends on the context, tone and narrative voice. Probably not something I would use often unless I really needed to emphasise that it’s a conversation she’s having with herself for some reason.
I think this is a trap that a lot of writers fall into. Maybe in certain situations, this would be okay, but in general, this is not a good way to write. Imagine reading a book full of statements like that, where instead of describing what's happening, the characters specifically read it out to you. "It's a nice day," "she's very pretty," "there's a lot of leaves on the ground," etc. Instead, you should be describing the things, not telling the reader what they are. "The sun was high in the sky, without a cloud in sight, and flowers bloomed all along the edges of the paved road" is a far better sentence than '"what a nice day," she thought to herself,' but they both say the exact same thing. The reader doesn't need to know what the character is thinking, *unless it's not obvious*. If it was a beautiful day, and the character, for whatever reason, thought it was a terrible day, then it is alright to state that the character thinks that way.
It’s all about the flavor of the description too, if you described a sunny fall day as > The crisp air carries a biting edge—an unwelcome intrusion into the comfort of woolen scarves. The sun, a pale imitation of its summer self, casts long shadows that stretch like melancholic sighs across the pavement it sets a different scene that makes the reader feel differently about it even as objectively it’s the same day
If she thought, it has to be to herself. Unless she has telepathic powers. Then it would make *some* sense.
It is a bit pedestrian, but if it gets the job done, I say go for it.
In my current book, I italicize her thoughts because it's written in 1st person. When using 3rd I would usually italicize using "She wonders/ thought/Tells herself/ponders." Just like "she said" for dialogue but instead of quotation marks I italicize. I've seen changes in font, quotation marks but italicized, or () to indicate thoughts. To an extent it's personal choice as long as you are consistent and make sure the reader understands the change to inner dialogue. When I wrote a dual perspective horror short story, whenever it was the beast it was 1st person bold, italics. The rest was 3rd person written regularly. It was probably over the top but I was a teen.
Thoughts are usually to yourself, so I'd definitely skip the to herself. I don't even think you need the thought, unless her thinking adds something to the scene. I would only specify the opposite, because it's much more rare: she thought out loud.
Every thought is to yourself unless you want to feel like you are personally thinking at someone else, as if in the hope that they would hear the words you think.
Slanted,italics words for thoughts. Parenthesis can be implemented as well if you want to go for thoughts that are more like things said by others through memories playing in the characters head.
"She spoke to herself" seems a better alternative imo
It could be used with purpose. Like, it could be a hella stormy day and the wind was noisy and stuff and “it was a nice day” could tell you something about the character. Or like starting a regular day with that as an actual observation, then having an absolute cluster duck of a day where people die or something and then saying at the end “it was still a beautiful day” or “this was supposed to be a nice day.” Could be good. IMO, nobody comments about it being a nice day to oneself. Those kinds of observations are reserved for being shared.
Use it if it sounds good, don’t if it doesn’t. Plenty of authors/writers will add put in words or phrases because they like the way it flows, even if it’s redundant. Dickens never said in a word what he could say in a sentence
personally I would use: *What a nice day,* she thought I've seen people argue about it being unnecessary to include the part pointing out that it was a thought, but I've seen it written out that way. I've also seen people go about it with wording similar to: *What a nice day,* she commented to herself or even: *What a nice day,* she made a mental note I have seen 'she thought to herself' used before but I personally would exclude that bit.
I usually put thoughts in an italicized new paragraph, and speak directly to the reader. For example: She leaned back in her chair, and stared at the person sitting before her. *italics* what are they thinking? Make sense? It’s kinda a fanfictiony method, but I reads cleaner than “she thought to herself”
I tend to use it for stylistic or emphasis reasons
Personally, I put thoughts in italics. I would format it like: >*What a nice day,* she thought. But of course, I don’t think “what a nice day” is an interesting enough thought to set apart in that way. I would use thoughts to add character revealing commentary that’s a bit punchier than just having it in narration. > It was a nice, sunny day, but she was squinting with her head down. She had forgotten her sunglasses at home. > It was a nice, sunny day, but she was squinting with her head down. *I can’t believe I forgot my sunglasses at home.* Some people would still prefer the first example, but using direct thoughts does help establish a mood.
As long as your style is consistent. I typically write internal thoughts in italics, and then yeah something like "She though to herself." Would be fine.
I didn't know that was a thing, but I use "she said to herself"
"she thought to herself" to me is a writer who's not experienced, I think a lot of readers don't realize how well written something is most of the time. I think a lot of casual readers are like most movie goers, they watch something and think, I liked that, or I didn't. But they don't necessarily think about the specific shots and framing and directing choices, they know it was good but they don't know exactly why. I think reading is the same, I didn't know why I liked the books I did until I started writing, now I notice when phrases like "she thought to herself" are used and it breaks my immersion because it feels amateurish or unedited.
**It depends on the voice of the prose POV.** >'What a nice day,’ she thought to herself. Requires you to dwell on the sentence more than, >*What a nice day.* You're getting more reflection on the vibe and the person in the longer sentence, without defining the whys and hows. The shorter sentence hits the info points without the vibe and you can spend more time describing the day, niceness, and action. Longer phrasing can fuck up your pacing, by getting you into reflection overload, run-ons, or inconsistent voice. But if your prose voice is intentionally stylistically reflective and you can build out action well, it can be really pleasing and define space. Prob not a beginner move unless that's already how someone tells stories verbally (See also: "she says to me, she says,")
not unless telepathy is involved 😂
no, it's redundant. i'd leave it at "she thought."
I prefer "She couldn't help but think" or something in that mold.
Depends on how it balances out the word length of the sentence, and impact the rhythm of the words. I love a good supportive redundancy. It's this modern fad to trim the fat and beat all redundant things from the page, which just makes for sterile writing. Trim the fat and the flavour goes with it. Modulate your redundancies as needed. You can break any rule if it's deliberate.
Never ever ever ever. It's like saying what I just said - after saying "Never," everthing else is unnecessary. It was a nice day.
"Mused" "Realised" (or "Realized") "Noted"
I would just use "she thought" if anything. She's not going to think to someone else. The "to herself" is redundant. Even then, most of the time you're already in the character's perspective so you can just say the thought without having to point out that they're thinking that.
You can use it, but sparingly. It's all about the general flow of the sentence. To me, adding 'to herself' (thought to herself) invokes the kind of feeling that she would have wanted to tell someone else about the thought, but didn't for some reason. Like, 'She's such an idiot!' She thought to herself. She didn't just think it, she thought it to herself, almost at the edge to say it out loud/share it with someone else. As others have stated, 'She's such an idiot!" (in italics) for direct thought, or (normal text) as part of the narrative also works. You don't even need 'she thought'. Adding She thought can still be good for emphasis, or for people listening to audiobooks to comprehend the narrative more smoothly. So, there's different instances/layers and you're kinda free to use them as you like/think best in any given situation. You are currently operating in the third layer (1: She's such an idiot!), (2: She's such an idiot! She thought), (3: She's such an idiot! She thought to herself). That's why some find it redundant. But in the end, it's your choice.
It's kind of redundant isn't it? I mean "she thought to herself" who else is she going to think to?
"it's a nice day" she thought, to everyone in the world at the same time.
The “to herself” is redundant—who else are you going to think to?
Seems a bit clunky, tbh. I'd skip "she thought to herself" in my writing.
Or She breathed in the verdant spring air and smiled. *What a nice day*,
It's really going to depend on context, position in the story, impact, and many other things. It can be just fine. It can also be something more like, "She shielded her eyes from the bright sun as she looked up. The clouds were sparse, and the kind of fluffy white that always reminded her of cotton balls. The air was that perfect temperature, unseasonable for this time of year. Low humidity, a cooling breeze, but nice, warm sunlight. She sighed contentedly." This is classic "show, don't tell." While it's not necessary everywhere, and in certain context "what a nice day" is a perfectly valid thought, it's nice to *show* your readers why the day is nice. What about it is so nice? But, let's imagine that you've done a bit of exposition on the day - temperature, wind, humidity, etc., and now your character begins interacting. You have to decide if she should remark on the day - internally or externally. If she's alone, she can speak the words aloud, to no one in particular, as a way of conveying her mood. She can have been depressed, and suddenly, she thinks to herself, "what a nice day." It's out of character, and may be the way that you introduce a small change in her. There's no good and no bad in a single sentence. Even atrocious grammar can be okay within certain contexts.
Hell no.
Show, don't tell "She went outside. Was welcomed by a bright day; a blue, spotlesss sky above, and warm breeze." For example
There could be reams written about show don't tell because it's not always well understood. But this time it's just not really applicable. OP is asking about how to share character thoughts, not literally how to express a nice day.
I think it's valuable if your character is projecting their thought at a person, regardless of the recipients ability/capacity to receive it. Thinking is abstract. Even without telepathy/powers we may intentionally think to ourselves or/and then project our thought out at someone else. Similar to how we may say something aloud to another person, even if we know wont hear the comment. ie: 'What a waste,' Anne thought to herself. Her glance darted to the side. 'What a waste,' She thought once more, this time projecting it at the man crying in front of her. She knew it was his fault and she was seething at the sight of him. vs... "What a waste," Anne uttered to herself. Her glance darted to the side. "What a waste," She repeated; it's intended subject was too distraught to hear her whispered judgement. She knew it was his fault and she was seething. Not claiming I used perfect grammar, but I believe the intended meaning of both paragraphs stand distinct and communicate differing actions with enough clarity.