What is free indirect discourse? And how can it improve your writing?

Free indirect discourse (FID) is one of the most subtle but powerful storytelling techniques available to writers. Used well, it can transform your fiction writing, helping you to create compelling characters that really draw readers in.

Here, I’m going to define free indirect discourse and explore its benefits for writers. I’ll also share a few free indirect discourse examples from published authors.

What is free indirect discourse?

Free indirect discourse, also known as free indirect speech, is what happens when a third person narrator speaks with the voice of a point of view (POV) character.

We move away from the narrator’s detached and objective voice and shift to the subjective perspective of the character in question.

Description of setting, events and other characters is then imbued with our POV character’s thoughts, emotions and world view.

How to identify free indirect discourse

The shift into free indirect discourse can sometimes be very subtle so it’s not always easy to spot. But there are a couple of tell-tale signs to look out for.

Firstly, narration that includes question marks or exclamation marks usually indicates the thought process or emotional state of a character. An objective, dispassionate narrator is unlikely to ruminate or speak emphatically.

Emotive or judgemental descriptions are also a useful indication of free indirect discourse. For example, an objective narrator may describe a scene as follows:

The sun shone overhead and Luke could feel the hot pavement through his thin-soled shoes.

But if we slip into free indirect discourse, we get a better sense of what Luke is thinking and feeling:

The sun burned oppressively overhead and Luke could feel the hot pavement through his stupid, thin-soled shoes.

Another key characteristic of FID? There are no narrative markers to indicate a switch. A character’s voice becomes embedded in the narration without clear delineation.

In Joe Abercrombie’s Half a King, for example, we have the following example of free indirect discourse:

Yarvi reached out and gently touched his father’s shoulder. So cold. He wondered when he last touched his father. Had he ever? He remembered well enough the last time they had spoken any words that mattered. Months before.

The phrase, “Had he ever?” indicates that this section of the narrative is infused with Yarvi’s subjective point of view. However, this phrase wouldn’t be classed as free indirect discourse if it was written as follows:

He wondered when he last touched his father. Have I ever? he thought…

When thoughts are italicised or when we have an attribution tag like, “he thought”, there’s a clear distinction between character thought and narrator description. We don’t get the blurring of boundaries that is central to the FID technique.

Benefits of using free indirect discourse

Now we know how to define free indirect discourse, let’s explore why you would choose to use this technique in your writing.

It reduces narrative distance

Narrative distance is how close a reader feels to your characters and your story. Free indirect discourse is a great way to reduce narrative distance and help readers experience a deeper connection with your characters.

Readers get to dig down into the personality, perspective, opinions and thoughts of a character. And when readers know a character well, they’re much more likely to care about what happens to them.

Let’s take a look at an example from A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce. Here, our protagonist, Stephen Dedalus, is waiting to confess his sins in church.

A woman entered quietly and deftly where the first penitent had knelt. The faint murmur began again.

He could still leave the chapel. He could stand up, put one foot before the other and walk out softly and then run, run, run swiftly through the dark streets. He could still escape from the shame. Had it been any terrible crime but that one sin! Had it been murder! Little fiery flakes fell and touched him at all points, shameful thoughts, shameful words, shameful acts. Shame covered him wholly like fine glowing ashes falling continually. To say it in words! His soul, stifling and helpless, would cease to be.

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, James Joyce

We move from the narrator’s sober relation of church activity straight into Stephen’s tormented thought process.

We get a clear sense of his shame. In fact, it almost feels like we experience it alongside him. We also gain the insight that, in Stephen’s disturbed state of mind, his sin (sleeping with a woman) is even more egregious than murder.

By using free indirect discourse at this point in the narrative, Joyce takes us inside Stephen’s thought process and brings us much closer to Stephen as a character.

It helps you to sustain narrative pace

When you use free indirect discourse, you remove unnecessary, clunky words from your sentences. You can skip attribution tags like “she/he thought”. And you avoid repetition of pronouns and character names.

You also avoid heavy punctuation and formatting which sometimes distracts a reader. When you present character thoughts, you don’t need to use speech marks or italics.

Instead, you get to focus on the flow of your narration. You create a leaner, pacier text in which readers can immerse themselves.

This benefits any narrative. But it comes in particularly useful when you’re writing tense or very emotional scenes.

Let’s take a look at how Stephen King uses free indirect discourse to dial up the horror in It.

In this part of the book, six-year-old George is heading down to the cellar to get a box of paraffin. He’s wrestling with his fear of the monsters that may be lurking. But he’s also worried about being ridiculed by his older brother if he comes back empty-handed.

He stepped back from the open cellar door, his heart hurrying in his chest. The power was out, of course – he had forgotten the power was out. Jeezly-crow! What now? Go back and tell Bill he couldn’t get the box of paraffin because the power was out and he was afraid that something might get him as he stood on the cellar stairs, something that wasn’t a Commie or a mass murderer but a creature much worse than either? That it would simply slither part of its rotted self up between the stair risers and grab his ankle? That would go over big, wouldn’t it?

It, Stephen King

The rhetorical questions. The back-and-forth thought process. The insight into what George finds scary. The sweet, six-year-old attempt at cursing. 

Free indirect discourse gives readers a deep understanding of who George is and how he’s feeling without introducing interruptions that would hinder the ramping tension.  

In terms of POV, you get the best of both worlds

First person point of view narration gets a reader up close and personal with your POV character. But it can be pretty limiting because you can only reveal the world as your protagonist sees and experiences it.

Third person limited narration gives you much greater flexibility. But it sometimes lacks the sense of intimacy you get with the first person.

Free indirect speech is a way to have your cake and eat it. You get the storytelling flexibility afforded to you by a third person limited POV. But you also get to create a really close connection between a POV character and readers.

You can switch from your objective narrator into free indirect discourse at any given moment. And you don’t have to sustain FID throughout the whole of a story. You can use it to create moments of depth and intimacy, adding light and shade to your storytelling.  

Let’s revisit Half a King to see how Joe Abercrombie exploits the flexibility and intimacy that free indirect speech offers.

But now the tide was out across flats streaked with mirror-puddles, and the only dampness came from the hard spray on the salt wind, and the sweat leaking from Yarvi at the unfamiliar weight of his mail.

Gods, how he hated his mail. How he hated Hunnan, the master-at-arms who had been for so many years his chief tormentor. How he loathed swords and shields, and detested the training square, and despised the warriors who made it their home. And most of all how he hated his own bad joke of a hand, which meant he could never be one of them.

Half a King, Joe Abercrombie

The first paragraph gives us a sweeping view of the scene in the voice of our third person narrator. But in the second paragraph, we’re in Yarvi’s mind, getting to know how he’s feeling.

The phrase “his own bad joke of a hand” is particularly evocative. If we’d stayed with the objective narrator, we’d probably have been given a more moderate description of Yarvi’s bad hand. But because we shifted to Yarvi’s voice, we get to know how bitterly frustrated he feels by his disability.

It helps you to create ambiguity

An objective narrator doesn’t usually judge. But with the help of free indirect discourse, you can introduce character judgements and opinions into your story in a way that leaves a reader guessing.

Are we being given a fair account of a character, event or location? Or do we have to read between the lines, deciding to what extent an account is influenced by a POV character’s beliefs and current state of mind?

Here’s an example from Nineteen Eighty-Four:

Parsons was Winston’s fellow-employee at the Ministry of Truth. He was a fattish but active man of paralysing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms – one of those completely unquestioning, devoted drudges on whom, more even than on the Thought Police, the stability of the Party depended.

Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell

This doesn’t feel like an impartial narrator description. Instead, Winston’s own scathing opinion of Parsons has crept into this section of narration.

It’s an interesting way to play around with FID. Like Orwell does here, you can introduce the opinions of a POV character to create rapport with readers.

But you can also use this technique in a way that leads a reader to question the reliability of your POV character. By allowing them to voice dubious opinions, you can throw doubt on the morality, good-naturedness or intelligence of your POV character, giving them flaws that make them more compelling.

When free indirect discourse might not be suitable for your writing style

Free indirect discourse is an excellent technique for your writerly toolkit. But you can’t use it in every type of story.

When you’re writing a third person omniscient narrative, the narrator is often a character in their own right. They have a distinctive voice and may even be prone to subjective opinions.

If you blur an omniscient narrator’s voice with that of a POV character, things get very confusing. You end up with a narrative that feels clumsy and jarring. And readers will struggle to understand which voice is speaking at any given moment.

In third person limited narratives, you have free rein with FID. But in third person omniscient stories, the technique is best avoided.   

Want to improve your use of free indirect discourse – and any other writing techniques? Then take a look at my editorial services. I’ll help you hone your manuscript ready for submission or publication.