What is the difference between the character’s inner thoughts and the narrator’s way of describing the character’s thoughts?

Question

I found this explanation about “subjective omniscient PoV”:

“A subjective omniscient PoV is one where there’s a narrator with a strong voice who can show the internal thoughts of the characters within the scene.

When the subjective omniscient narrator is telling the story of a particular character, the narrator can still get the insights and internalizations of characters other than the main character. Whether or not the omniscient narrator follows a single character makes no difference; it’ll work more or less the same.

The most important thing when it comes to subjective omniscient PoV is that the narrator has a strong “voice” and that all emotions in the story are filtered through the narrator’s words, not the characters’. Otherwise, you’ll find yourself head-hopping.”

I understand there is a fine line between character’s inner thoughts (italics) and the narrator’s way of describing the character’s thoughts. So, how can I make sure not to cross that line? not to be “head-hopping “?

Answer 1

Traditionally, every section of a story is narrated from the same viewpoint. For example, one chapter in a love story is told from the perspective of the boy, the next chapter is told from the perspective of the girl. Within each chapter, everything is told from the perspective of the same character, even if both characters appear in the same scene.

For example:

     I went over to Peter and asked him, if he would come to my party. I felt very nervous. ← What Rose does is told from her perspective.
     He replied that he would. He seemed happy about my invitation. ← What Peter does is told from Rose's perspective as well. His feelings are only told insofar as Rose can guess them from his facial expression and tone of voice. She cannot see inside his head.

Traditional narration does not switch to the perspective of another character within the same scene.

For example, this is traditionally not done:

     I went over to Peter and asked him, if he would come to my party. I felt very nervous. ← What Rose does is told from her perspective.
     I replied that I would. I was happy about Rose's invitation. ← What Peter does is told from his perspective.

The last example is of course a very clumsy one, intended to illustrate why switching viewpoints within one scene can be problematic. In the example, the reader will be confused about who is "I" in the second paragraph.

In a third person perspective, an omniscient narrator can look into everyone's head without that feeling clumsy or becoming confusing.

For example:

     Rose went over to Peter and asked him, if he would come to her party. She felt very nervous. ← What Rose does is told from the perspective of the omnisicent narrator.
     Peter replied that he would love to. He felt happy about Rose's invitation but already began to worry about what he would wear. ← What Peter does is told from the perspective of the omnisicent narrator. The omniscient narrator can see in the heads of both Rose and Peter and tell the reader what they think without this appearing confusing.

As both what Rose does and thinks and what Peter does and thinks is told from the viewpoint of the omniscient narrator, the narrative feels clear and unified. Everything that is told is told from the perspective and with the voice of the omniscient narrator. In this case the tone is neutral and objective.

Headhopping is when the inner voices of the different characters become apparent within the omniscient narrative viewpoint.

For example:

     Rose went over to Peter and asked him, if he would come to her party. Oh god, she thought, what if he says no? ← We "hear" Rose's thoughts in her own words, not in the words of the narrator. That is, we are inside her head.
     Peter replied that he would love to. He looked happy to Rose, but inwardly he already began to worry. What will I wear? I hope Rose won't be disappointed that I can't dance! ← The narration "hops" from Rose's mind into Peter's head.

You can avoid head-hopping by narrating everything, including the charaters' thoughts, from the perspective of only one narrator and in that narrator's voice.

---

In older, traditional works of fiction, there is (almost) no head-hopping. It was long considered bad style.

But in contemporary fiction, head-hopping, if well done, is perfectly fine. Many famous authors do head-hopping. The most popular example is probably Stephen King.

Still, you shouldn't just accidentally head-hop without being aware of what you do. Like all literary devices, head-hopping is best used intentionally, if at all.

Answer 2

What you are describing is Indirect Thought. Its just like Indirect Speech, where the narrator is summarizing a character's thoughts rather than relating them exactly as the had them ordered in their mind.

Since the information is being summarized by the narrator, the thoughts naturally are related in the narrator's voice. If the narrator is snarky and judgmental, then the indirect thought -- as would all narrative details (indirect speech, setting, description and so on) -- would reflect that snarky and judgmental quality. Even if the character isn't snarky or judgmental. The narrator's voice taints -- or colors -- the entire piece.

Its why choosing your narrator's voice is important for a piece. This is especially true for omniscient narration. I think a good example of this is Terry Pratchett's novels. He often uses omniscient narration; and its tinged with a surreal kind of oddball perspective. His narrations often seem to tell stories from a mindset that turns the world on its edge.