PoV Familiarity

[Svrtnsse]

I'm finding that the further I get into my story, the less I explain the emotions and reactions of my main character. Personally, I feel like I know him well enough that his emotions come through well enough in what he says and does.
My concern is that I know the character too well, since I'm in his head all the time and that I'm leaving out information that would be essential to the reader's understanding of the situation. On the other hand, I worry that if I explain too much that the reader already understands they will feel like I'm overdoing it or spelling things out too much, or not leaving enough to imagination.

I guess the only way to really tell for sure is to consult with beta readers. I'm curious about how others are dealing with this issue though. Do you have any tricks for trying to determine when enough is enough?

 

[Steerpike]

Beta readers are good. A famous writer says "resist the urge to explain." I think that's a good guidelines. Err on the side of not explaining. Chances are the bulk of your readers are smart enough to follow things, and you can't dumb it down for the few who aren't without alienating those who will feel patronized by it.

 

[Terry Greer]

I find I don't do anywhere near enough of the internal dialogue in a character's head. I need to do more.

I've found it doesn't matter how well you (as the author) know your character - what really matters is how well the reader knows them. The only way the reader gets to know that is through their internal reasoning.

Does he save the boy in the tree because he wants the adoration of the boys mother or sister? because he might get some coin for it? Because he want's to rob the boy? Does he rescue the boy accidentally while doing something else? Does he think its something he should do, that the gods would want him to do, does he fear what the boy might say if he doesn't help and the boy escapes? The possibilities are endless and are only made clear in the reader's mind by reading about the character's thought processes.

I think this is still valid at any stage in a story - as it allows you to reinforce the reasons the character is doing something to to he reader, or to give him a different reason for acting as he does without it seeming strange.

I come from a game design background - there its NEVER a good idea to assume the player knows what they should do and a large amount of game design is taken up by finding subtle ways to tell the player what to do next.

Alfred Hitchcock once said that it was a bad idea to risk confusing the audience (that's not the same as creating a mystery - that's ok and intentional) because an audience that is confused isn't emoting - and that's what you need to do.
(I can't remember the exact quote I'm paraphrasing).

 

[Svrtnsse]

Alfred Hitchcock once said that it was a bad idea to risk confusing the audience (that's not the same as creating a mystery - that's ok and intentional) because an audience that is confused isn't emoting - and that's what you need to do.
(I can't remember the exact quote I'm paraphrasing).

I get the point and this is what I'm worrying about. What's obvious to me, may not be obvious to my reader. However, Steerpike's advice is sound too. I think it's easier for a beta reader to say "I'm not sure what's going on" than it is for them to say "you're probably explaining too much."
It's also easier to add a little bit of detail than to take a little bit of detail away. At least it ought to be - in theory - I haven't tried yet. If I need to add information I have something to build onto and I can adapt what I add to that. But... if I need to take away information I will have to consider the implications of what I'm removing on the larger context. So it seems it ought to be easier to add things on later.
Does that make sense?

 

[Penpilot]

Generally speaking, I find that cutting stuff is way more easier than adding things. When I add stuff, I think it disrupts the flow of the narrative more than cutting. And there's also the fact that I have to find that something to add. I can't edit what I don't have.

Cutting is like chop-chop, don't need it don't need it, unnecessary unnecessary, but adding stuff is like oh crap, what do I need to say here?

For myself, I like to overstate things then ruthlessly cut because if I really know the story, it only takes a moment of thought to realize the implications of removing something. I should know exactly how important an element is. If I don't then it's probably not that important at all.

And finally, the strategy I use when showing things to readers is if you're not sure if something is "broken" don't try to fix it. Let the readers see the "crappy" version and judge if it's "broken" or not and then do your edits based on their comments. So if you think it's too understated, leave it understated, or if you think it might be too overstated, leave it overstated.

That's the way I do things.

 

[Caged Maiden]

You have hit on the exact thing that separates good writers from great writers. Balance.

Let me give you a few examples to accompany my point here. Just for the sake of clarity, because I dislike talking solely about concepts which might be translated or understood differently by everyone.

Okay, so here's a section from my WIP, where I use all three of the things you're talking about. I'll pick it apart and justify how I make my own decisions.

The swordsman blew a cloud of smoke upwards, where it mixed with the haze. Rafe ground his teeth, fighting to keep his thoughts to himself. It didn’t work. “While you’re busy deep-frying your brain, I’m contemplating putting a knife to the throat of one of Kanassa’s most powerful nobles. I don’t reckon you’ll do me much good in there.”

Okay, I used grinding teeth to convey Rafe's frustration. He kept his thoughts to himself for a brief moment and then let them out in the form of dialogue. Whenever you can use dialogue to convey how someone's feeling, I think it's stronger than showing them "feeling" it. I try to avoid using the word in the dialogue, say, "I'm frustrated you're deep-frying your brain while I'm..."

Vincenzo sighed. “Why must you always be so difficult?”

Occasionally, I'll use a gesture. A sigh, a nod. Some little thing that conveys something though it isn't specific. I try to cut most of them in editing and only keep the ones that feel adequately paced. This was an example of one I liked.

“Me, the difficult one?” Rafe thrust his chin at the smoking pipe in his partner’s hand. “You’ll be useless in ten minutes, staring at the ceiling, like that fellow over there.”

I think selecting dialogue and pacing it is the best way to effectively convey how a character feels.

“Perhaps you’d be happier outside. Besides, you don’t have a knife, I do, remember?”

“I’d be happier if you put down the pipe and considered how we’re going to get in. We can’t cause a scene and get arrested.”

“I’ll get in, don’t worry about that–but you aren’t coming with me.”

“Why not?”

there is probably emotion conveyed in there, but really, I think the set-up has already established how these two guys are feeling and their positions. These in-between parts are just in support, rather than reiterating how people feel.

Vincenzo smirked. “You aren’t cut out for this kind of work. You’re a lawyer.” Proud words from a man who slept in a stable and wore patches in need of patching.

This section has a couple things. First of all, I try to replace "smiled" with better words. There are some very specific gestures or expressions that convey the same emotion no matter what language a person speaks or where they come from. Glare, mutter, chuckle, plea, leer, grimace, grinned, and yes, smirked. Loads of "better" words exist, it's just our job as writers to find them and replace our first draft, weaker words for those which more fully convey what we're trying to get across. Also, I used internal thoughts (by employing a tactic from deep third POV) to immediately give my POV character's reaction to the line of dialogue. I love deep third and the more I use it, the more fond I become. No "he thoughts" or "it seemed to hims" Just a statement of opinion coming straight from the POV character.

Rafe waved away the cloud Vincenzo blew at him and considered snatching the pipe, if for nothing else than to bean the lousy greybeard swordsman has-been with it. “I’ll wait for you to pass out before I allow you to foul this up.”

Again, entering internal thoughts without "telling" the reader through some narrated line. I think this is the most effective way to use internal thoughts that I've found. It's leaner than "he thought" and prevents the confusion of switching from internal thoughts in 1POV and narrative in 3POV.

Vincenzo laughed. “Relax. I’m just keeping up appearances–a few fake puffs so they don’t throw us out. But if you keep talking, I’ll reconsider wasting my money.”

I used dialogue again to show how he's feeling.

Rafe crossed his arms. “I should have come alone.” Except, he didn’t know if he had the guts to cut an unarmed man’s throat. Better to have Vincenzo there, just in case.

And then I used internal thoughts again. The first part of the internal thought is shallow, the last line is deep. I used that tactic because to me, it seemed to support the character's thinking. "Except he didn't know..." He is unsure about something, so I created distance by using a narrator voice a little. And "Better to have Vincenzo..." is a statement. I used deep tactics here because he KNOWS it's better to have a murderer there in case he can't do the job.

I think there are beginning and advanced techniques to applying POV. I hope my justifications for my own decisions helps you to select where to use which tactics.

 

[wordwalker]

Oh so right, Caged.

"Don't explain" really means don't take too long --but even that's a matter of style, some writers have a pattern of the events yielding more time for emotion-- and not to get obvious or repetitive in it. Just the fact that this advice is out there shows how tempting it is to dig into emotions, how many writers do that, and how much readers enjoy it when it works. When it's kept fresh.

If your sense of PoV means you say less and less about what he's feeling, that's absolutely a beta-reader question. I think you want to work out two things: how much your preferred style involves "settling in to business" with a character who actually does start saying less, and how much to use an arsenal of tricks like Caged Maiden is talking about to still keep his emotions clear. Two particulars you might use are situations that tempt, frustrate, or otherwise affect what he wants in a different way so he has to make a slightly new choice about the same main thing; and letting some distinct new character react to him.