I voted that I prefer introspection as part of the narrative (as a opposed to when the charatcter "thinks") but I find I appreciate a balance between the two.
And as for the second question, I chose that it depends on the author. Some authors do an excellent job with introspection - telling me enough to help the story without being endlessly repetitive or going on about minutea. However, this was a mixed vote - I find it essential to the story for me to enjoy it. And of course, the story itself lends to whether or not high levels of introspection are needed. In an action-packed adventure, I don't need to know how Lois is feeling when the bad guy whips out a gun and sticks it in her face. But upon the morning of her wedding to Clark, some good old musings are great.
I think it is actually quite a challenge for a writer to be effective at writing a story without too much introspection, using the description of action and dialogue to tell the reader what the characters are feeling. For example, if I read:
"Lois screamed, a high pitched wail. "Stop!!""I pretty much know what she's feeling (and this is a really easy example.) I myself am trying to work on converting introspection to action and/or dialogue so that I don't end up with ten pages of nothing going on.
But that being said, I also find as a writer that it's what I imagine a certain character might be feeling at a particular point in time or after a certain event that actually inspires the story. I write a story so that I can be
introspective. I love to see the action on TV, but I really want to know what the character was feeling at the time. I haven't yet had an idea that was solely action driven - such as, I really want to show Lois and Clark going waterskiing.
I think Roger summed it up best for me:
While television has visual advantages, the written author's prime advantages are description and introspection, which allow understanding of a story and its characters you sometimes cannot even come close to in other media
Very interesting topic
Lynn
