I think I have used every symbol on the keyboard, and every manner of displaying telepathic dialogue that I can think of and I am happy with none of them. Consider the following:


--I don’t want to go,-- said Mark.

<I don’t want to go,> said Mark.

I don’t want to go, said Mark.

“I don’t want to go,” said Mark.

There is a heavy amount of telepathic dialogue in my story. It will be all over the place, so I need a method that can be used along with regular, vocal dialogue in a way that won’t confuse.

Help? :redface:

I would probably go with alternative number four. It cleary shows that a conversation is held, and I think the italics indicate that it's not a regular conversation.

If I want to talk telepathically in my story, I do it like this, Jade said.

So option three ;)

I prefer to treat such dialogue exactly like spoken dialogue, and using context to distinguish them. Typesetting tricks look sloppy. Let the writing tell the story.

Itallics seems to be the best way. To me, at least.

I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about, since I did this way back in the dark ages of my writing life, but when I wrote about telepathic characters, I would mix up options three and four a bit. I would use just itallics for the point of view character, since I always use itallics for thoughts anyway. But when someone was talking telepathically to him/her, I would use quotes and itallics on what that character was saying. That way, it was clearer that this was another person actually talking to him and not like his own thoughts. Here's an example.

What the... The child froze, staring wide-eyed at what looked very much like a monster. What is this thing?

"That," said the voice in his head, "would be me."

Not the best example, but it works. I haven't had any telepathic characters in years, but if I ever do again, that's probably what I'll do. After using this method for so long, it just seems natural to me.

If I want to talk telepathically in my story, I do it like this, Jade said.
So option three ;)

This was my original way of representing the telepathic dialogue. What made me not happy with it is that I also tend to give the occasional inner thought from a character, represented in the same way. I thought it would be confusing.

I prefer to treat such dialogue exactly like spoken dialogue, and using context to distinguish them. Typesetting tricks look sloppy. Let the writing tell the story.

This also seems the most logical way to represent the dialogue without distracting the reader with something visually out of the norm. I was worried about too many dialogue tags to indicate telepathy. My personal style of writing tends to avoid he said, she said tags when at all possible. Not a fan of them. I like to go right into a show (not tell) sentence to indicate what the speaker was doing during the dialogue.

Italics for internal dialogue (literal thoughts) is not standard. The preferred way to write internal dialogue is with no punctuation or font decoration, just like spoken dialogue without the quote marks. The Chicago Manual of Style does mention punctuating identically to spoken dialogue at the writer's discretion.

Again. the textual context is what should indicate the manner of dialogue and the intended recipient.

I like using number 3 because I think quotes imply talking. Just me.

Wrey,

I wrestled with the same issue in a recent MS and I solved it using the method Cog suggested. It reads great that way. At the first introduction of telepathy, I set the tone and from that point forward it was clear. If you do this, and then take the conversation "verbal", you need to add clarification to show the change.

"I can't stay. What will happen to her if I leave?" Simon's thoughts formed deep inside Kelly's mind. They were as clear as if he spoke out loud. She responded, in kind.

"I'll be okay, Simon. The Taskers would never harm us, you know that."

(then, the telepathic dialog continues until you're ready to break out of it)

...Insulted by his accusation, Kelly yelled back, "I told you I would never break The Oath. How dare you question my integrity!"

(now their conversation is vocal, as illustrated by the dialog tag)

The tricky writing is when one person is using telepathy and the other is responding verbally...similar to multilingual people arguing in both languages, with one speaking Spanish and other responding in English.

In Redemption Ark, by Alistair Reynolds, he does this:

Skade's reply was terse.
[I]why?
[Because there are monkeys, or whatever this book is about again]

So, he places incoming thoughts in [] and outgoing thoughts by the MC in itallics.

listen to cog!... he's right, as usual... i'd put him on our short list for sainthood, if there was such a thing...

look I have read a lot and whenever any kind of internal is depicted it is always Italics. To me this works well enough. If a character is an established telepath then people will know that he is talking to someone if not the character is not a telepath he is speaking internaly. Most books I have read with telepaths also treat telepathic speech like regular speech. If four telepaths are in a room and two are talking all four hear part of the convo or not. basically like idle chatter

The general consensus seems to be to treat said telepathic dialogue as if it were regular dialogue and simply verbally mark it as such. There is a part of me that agrees with this, in that there should be nothing in the visual representation of the actual printed word which detracts the reader from the reading process.

There should be nothing that pulls the reader out of the world one has created.

For me, that is a rule.

It just goes a bit against my style of narrative. I guess I am going to have to modify my style a smidge in order to allow for this important plot device.

Italics don't detract me from the reading process. :/ In fact, when I read things that are supposed to be thoughts or internal dialogue and they AREN'T italicized, THAT detracts me from the reading process, because it jars me into thinking that the (uninvolved) narrator is suddenly butting into the story, and I have to stop reading to think, "No, he isn't, that's the character thinking."

Or should I say, No, he isn't?

I've seen published works that employ italics, and ones that don't, so apparently the "standard" isn't universally applied. (In fact I think I've seen more works that use italics, but I couldn't say, maybe that's just my bias speaking.) I can't say that I've seen published works that employ special characters like asterisks or brackets or anything. THOSE I would find distracting and odd.

I always use italics whether it's telepathy or just personal thoughts. The context of their usage, like with quoted/spoken dialogue, makes it clear which it is. Without italics or even quotes, the reader (myself, at least) has to stop and think over the context to figure out that this isn't simple narration. But maybe that's just me. *shrug*

ETA: I think I misunderstood the last post a bit, but I still stand by italics rather than quotes. Quotes smack of spoken dialogue to me. But at least they set off the dialogue from the narration in some way, which a lack of formatting wouldn't do.

The problem in that case is poor writing, not the lack of italics. The writing should not rely on typography for clarity.

Whether or not to italicize inner dialogue is a publication choice. One publisher may choose to use it, another may not. The writer should never depend on tricks of typography to communicate the meaning.

Just read Eldest (by Christopher Palini), and i'm pretty certain all the conversations spoker between the Eragon Saphia (boy and dragon) were all done in italic's without the "etc"s like normal talk. Though i dont know if this is the norm or not. (this is the only comparison that comes to mind right now).

One publisher may choose to use it, another may not. The writer should never depend on tricks of typography to communicate the meaning. Agreed.

I agree that type-set trickery is a bit sophomoric. Probably the reason I was unhappy with anything I came up with in that venue. It just looks hokey. So, let us assume that I am going to go with displaying the telepathic dialogue just like regular dialogue and mark it off within the context of the narrative.

There are two things I am trying to avoid with this method:

Repetition

In Wayne Barlowe’s Expedition, the author creates a richly illustrated safari on an alien planet. Speculative evolution abounds, but the author is a graphic artist, not a writer. Every single time he introduces a new life form he gives the name and then says, for so I named it. Every. Single. Time.

At first it was annoying. Really? I thought the Daggerwrist simply came up to you and said, “Hello, chap. I’m a Daggerwrist. Mind if I run you through with my oh-so-pointy front appendage?”

Then it was funny. Every time the phrase came by, I would belt it out in a burlesque, posh, Victorian accent. The phrasing of for so I named it is distinctly not American. The MC is on a solo safari in the book and I got the image of a posh Victorian, British gent in deepest, darkest Africa.

Then it was annoying again. Enough, already. We get it! You named every freagin’ creature. Duh!

A painful flaw in an otherwise awesome book. It pulled me out every time. I don't use dialogue tags very much and I am worried about being overly repetative in the marking off of telepathic dialogue vs vocal dialogue.


Corniness

I loved the old sci-fi show The Tomorrow People, but I always cringed when they used the word jaunt for teleportation. It was hokey, campy, corny. I want very much to avoid the creation of novel verbiage to be used by those who have psychic gifts.

Help?

look I have read a lot and whenever any kind of internal is depicted it is always Italics.

at 70, and a lifelong voracious/constant reader, i'm sure i've read much, much more than you have and i can therefore state with absolute certainty, that good writers do not 'always' ever] rely on italics for internal dialog!

cog puts an 'amen' on that with:

The problem in that case is poor writing, not the lack of italics. The writing should not rely on typography for clarity.

Whether or not to italicize inner dialogue is a publication choice. One publisher may choose to use it, another may not. The writer should never depend on tricks of typography to communicate the meaning.

Telepathy should be displayed with italics like this, said the mentor cheerfully.

Number 3 is where I stand.

I don't think anybody really relies on italics for thoughts and such. It's more like a technique to let readers know without a doubt, "Oh, he's thinking right now." I've seen books that would say something like...

It's the girl from before, Sam thought.

Obviously, Sam is thinking right there. But the way I've seen it many times, the author will simply give the general idea of what the character is thinking in plain type, but still resort to using italics when the time is right for verbatim internal dialogue. So the general idea could have been "It's the girl from before," but what Sam could actually be thinking is "It's her!"

I hope that makes sense. I'm not very good at explaining things like this. :confused:

The author is still using the italics as a crutch, in that case.

If the reader can't clearly distinguish the internal dialogue when the italics are removed, then the author has relied on the italics to expose the dialogue.

As a writer, typesetting is not your job, and in this case using a typographic convention as a writing aid can weaken your writing.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that you want to mark all the internal dialogue for easy conversion if the publisher wishes to italicize internal dialogue. I do, in fact, have a character format style in my Word template for manuscripts that is named Internal dialogue. I mark all internal dialogue with this style, which I normally leave identical to style Normal. In a few seconds, I can change it to display all Internal dialogue in italics, or in bold underlined red text if I wish. That makes it easy to proofread that I have marked all the internal dialogue with this style. But normally, I leave it as unadorned text, so I can be suer my writing is not leaning on the italics crutch.

That covers all my bases without allowing me to get lazy with my dialogue.

I suppose. But in all honesty, I don't see why it's such a bad thing. Isn't it pretty much the same as wrapping spoken words in quotes to clarify that someone is saying something? The only real difference I can see is that one way is spoken aloud by the characters while the other is not.

Then again, I suppose I'm getting more into the topic of private thoughts than telepathy. Didn't even realize it. :p My bad.

Wrapping spoken dialogue in quotes is punctuation. It's not fiddling with fonts and font characteristics.

Punctuation is the writer's responsibility, and for the most part, the rules are reasonably well-defined.

Whether it's telepathy, internal dialogue, spoken words, or a conversation carried out by wig-wagging semaphore flags, it's still dialogue. Quoting is always a permitted option. For internal dialogue, the second option is to punctuate it exactly like common external dialogue but without the quote marks.

It is the writer's responsibility to make clear both the content and the means oif transmission of all dialogue in the writing, not in the typesetting. Writing includes the wording and the punctuation.

Completely off-topic here, but books that don't use quotation marks around dialougue drive me bonkers!
I, too, shall put my vote with Cogito, although I would say if telepathic communication is the norm rather than speaking and used with lots and lots of characters, clarity would become a real issue.

Completely off-topic here, but books that don't use quotation marks around dialougue drive me bonkers!

what books would those be?

Mccarthy doesn't use quotations around his dialogue. It's beautiful in its simplicity and doesn't bother the reader. It reinforces the author's artistic strength, seeing as his characters are easily recognizable and the flow of conversation is smooth.

when you've got a pulitzer and an oscar on your mantel, then you can be eccentric and get away with it, too...

while it's true that even his earlier works were written in this style, he was already an award-winning journalist by the time william faulkner's editor came across his ms for 'the orchard keeper' and decided this was an exceptional talent that could be allowed an eccentricity or two...

Author Steven Brust uses psionic communication, especially in his Vlad Taltos series, when the main character communicates with his Jhereg familiar.

The author uses italics and quotation marks, but structures the psionic dialogue in such a manner that he does not need to use tags. The reader knows by the context who is speaking, or he includes the name of the individual speaking.

The Example below from his most recent novel, Jhegaala, is where Vlad (his familiar refers to him as 'Boss') and the familiar (Loiosh) are walking through a town at night (okay the Jhereg is riding on Vlad's shoulder), pondering a bit of a puzzle:

"Well, Loiosh?"

"Well, what, Boss? If you want to summon a demon, I'm afraid you're on your own."

"Yeah, I don't think I'm up for that. That was a lot of infromation. I have to thik about it, about what it means. If anything, Loiosh, Didn't Sethra once say something abotu a lie being temnporary? How died she put it?"

"I don't remember. But, Boss, I don't think the lie is your problem."

"No, I guess not. It;s just another thing to add to thie slist. It;s going to be a pretty long List, Loiosh. And I am going to find out the name that needs to go at the top of it."

"Left here. There, that light on your right is the inn."



Hope that helps.

R-Tech

If a writer wants to use italics or quotations, whatever floats their boat. As long as the storie's engaging and readable, they can use as many italics or quotations as their heart desires as far as I'm concerned.

cool and interesting thread. thanks wreybies, cogito et alia.

ive always found that "" denote something that has been said (you quote something that is said) and is also used for specific ideas ( he "claimed" to have not stolen it)

bold is for volume ("He did what!")

underline is specifically for titles (Moby Dick

and italics emphasize ("he was very very sneaky")
or denote a different kind of speech ("Please fasten your seat belts" blared through the planes intercom)

and things like ~Hello~ -Hello- <Hello> [hello] {hello} have no honesty reason for being like that. other than the author picked that key to do the job even though it wasnt meant to. (- means subtract; not telepathic conversation.)

the best thing to do is use skillful writing to make it seems obvious. but if you cant id go with italics.

italics also seem easier to me. for instance i once read ellen foster. ellen foster uses a flow of conscious pattern (that means what the girl would be thinking is whats written. and "" are rarely used) i could never figure out when she was thinking to herself cause it would just be something like "they closed her coffin.

dont make me look Mr. Magician

they walked me over to the coffin" i hadnt a clue if she was thinking it or saying. so you need to be very clear as to how you denote the two.

Most writers I know who use italics often don't do so from "lack of skillful writing". They do it because they just like it that way. It's that simple. My favorite book, "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden" use italics for thoughts among other things. To say an author uses italics because their writing isn't skillful enough is to say Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzzo are not skillful because they used flashback to give us Vito Corleone's backstory in "The Godfather Part II" instead of using more subtle methods.

I hate when I'm reading and have to pause and literally go back to re read something because I cant tell if its supposed to be thought or not. It irritates my when there is no change from what is thought and what is action. I use italics for thought. sometimes, I use ' ' for thought. I would use the fourth option. Its like normal conversations, but its italicized. As long as you point out that its telepathic as opposed to verbal. It should be fine.

Maybe write the telepathic dialogue in a different colour, kind of like The Neverending Story. What Bastian was doing, and what Bastian was reading, were written in different colours.

I can imagine at one time in history fisherman only used real worms to fish with and the first ones to use rubber bait were ridiculed, "that just isn't done."

For many years after we stopped plowing fields by dragging a plow behind a horse the planted rows remained 30 inches apart.
One day someone came along and went against the way it had always been done and found a better way. Now the rows are only apart enough to fit a tractor tire between the rows increasing the yeald of each field.

It seems that now that computers are what we write on with fonts and colored print available to the writer it has become just another tool that GOOD writers use to tell a story.

Is that a tool, or is it a crutch? A better writer lets the words do the telling.

Also note that there's a difference between saying a book uses italics to denote literal thoughts, and saying the writer uses them for that purpose. Publishers can and do make such decisions. A good writer will not depend on the publisher's choices; he or she will make the writing clear enough without typesetting stunts.

Currently, in the Lounge, there is a link to a recently published short story by our own Terry Erwin. Guess what? the entire story is set in italics! If he were counting on italics to convey that certain passages were thought dialogue, he'd be up a certain dark brown creek, would he not?

There will always be some members shouting, "The rules be damned! We don't need your grandfather's rules." Well the rules exist, and sometimes they even make sense. Besides, publishers will set rules too.

You'll be a better writer if you can make your stories dance without crutches.

Alan Moore's "Watchmen" made it on top a Top 100 books list stemming back since 1923, the only graphic novel ever to do so, and he uses italics to convey thoughts and narrative.

"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" "Clockwork Orange" and "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden" also made use of italics quit a bit, and all three are considered classics.

Just putting that out there.

(redundant post)

ive always found that "" denote something that has been said (you quote something that is said)

...said aloud... not inner dialog or thoughts...


and is also used for specific ideas ( he "claimed" to have not stolen it)

...not really 'ideas'... but, as here, for emphasis on a word that is being questioned... or is used out of context, for effect...

bold is for volume ("He did what!")

...bold should never be used in a ms and is not used in print by most publishers... in the example used here, italics is what would be used to show emphasis on that word in speech...

underline is specifically for titles (Moby Dick

...in non-fiction, but not in fiction, where they're mostly enclosed in " "... and many writers still underline words they want to have put in italics when going to print, as that was s.o.p. for ms format until fairly recently...

and italics emphasize ("he was very very sneaky")

...yes, but same is usually done for what you refer to as 'volume' [shouting]

or denote a different kind of speech ("Please fasten your seat belts" blared through the planes intercom)

...not generally, imo, though some publishers may do it...

...for the generally accepted standards, most of which are still followed today, you should refer to strunk & white [4th ed.]...