Carrying on a dialogue with multiple parties is never easy, and doing so over multiple media complicates the problem. Doing so without confusing the reader as well is part of the writer's challenge. You won't solve it by dicking with the font. You resolve it through skillful writing, which can include simplifying or reorganizing the scene for clarity in the first place.
@ChickenFreak No sorry, that was for @Cogito . Your example just doesn't read very well for me. I would rather stick to italics.
That's fine, but there are many other options--it's not just between italics or "said telepathically".
All I can suggest is to closely read good writing that contains multi-character dialogue (polylogue?). If you want to explore the multi-channel aspect, such as telepathy mixed with spoken dialogue, consider scenes where conversation over a telephone or a radio communications channel takes place along with cnversation in the same room. It may stretch your skills to make it work, but isn't that half the fun? I know I had a lot of fun with a multi-person dialogue scene in Table Talk.
An excuse for what? We know you have an issue with italics for internal dialogue, but you would be more convincing if your debate points didn't all rely on putting people down that don't agree with you.
But that brings you back to the same problem. If the reader sees quotations the reader thinks the words are said aloud.
And here we go again. Using italics for internal dialogue does not indicate, as you claim, that the writer is lazy, unskilled, dicking with fonts, using an excuse for lack of skill, or any other number of insults you've posted throughout the thread. You don't personally like the style. That's fine, that's fair. You may believe wholeheartedly that one can write internal dialogue and be clear without italics. Clearly it can be done, lots of people do it. But we have already established in this thread that many renowned authors use italics for internal dialogue and the convention is found in published works. I also provided a link to a university professor and published author who suggested the convention in her acclaimed style guide. People who use italics for internal dialogue are no less skilled than people who don't and people who don't are no more skilled than people who do. And you need to stop making that argument unless you want to preface it every time with, in your opinion, because we've established the factual nature of your claim is false in this very thread.
I went to Wiki and looked up Fictional Telepaths. I picked the first one I recognized, The Beast Master Series and opened the Kindle book. The author uses italics for telepathic communication. So here's how you can research the problem, and I'd love it if you'd get back to the thread with your findings, @Jaro. Pick a few more fictional telepaths and look at the Kindle previews to see what you find.
Quotation marks don't always mean that the words inside quotes are spoken aloud. Consider the following example: I think you're just overthinking this.
In that instance, I would use single quotes. Jarod pointed at the sign showing the words, 'Beware of the dog'. "Yes," his mother said. "We shall have to find another way to go to the shop." Jarod nodded and tightened his grip on his mother's hand, thinking to himself, I'm so glad I put sneakers on today. I suppose the main thing is, whichever way you do it, be consistent throughout the book.
I don't think your example is relevant. One puts quotes around quotations and we know it isn't spoken dialogue. The issue is, the reader can't tell the telepathic dialogue isn't spoken aloud.
So do Terry Pratchett, David Eddings, and Jim Butcher. If someone can recommend a book that doesn't use italics I would think that's actually an exception. Edited to add: And Anne McCaffery, who has pages of telepathic dialogue.
All you have to do is use a "he said telepathically" tag somewhere in the passage. It's not as hard as you're making it out to be. Anyway, as long as people acknowledge that using italics isn't the only way to do something like this, we're good.
I mentioned this before somewhere in this thread: genre plays a big role. I can't remember the last time I saw italics used for thoughts in general/literary fiction, and I read a good amount of contemporary writers.
And are there lots of psychic conversations in general/literary fiction? If the answer is no, I suggest drawing from a genre in which such things are common.
Here you're communicating three (OK, maybe two-and-a-half) different ways that this is a thought: "Thinking", "to himself", and the italics. You not only don't need three, you don't need even one. If Jarod is a close third person POV character, we know that whatever is said is his thought. So you can eliminate all three in any number of ways: Jarod nodded and tightened his grip on his mother's hand. Good thing he put his sneakers on. Jarod nodded and tightened his grip on his mother's hand. Whew. Good thing he wore his sneakers. Jarod nodded and tightened his grip on his mother's hand. The sneakers were a good idea after all. Jarod nodded and tightened his grip on his mother's hand. And Joe had made fun of him for wearing sneakers. Ha. Jarod nodded and tightened his grip on his mother's hand, plotting his escape route and celebrating his own wisdom in wearing running shoes. But could Mom run in those silly high heeled things? He'd lure the dog away from her, that's it. He'd be the hero. Of course, if he got bit, Mom would insist on a rabies shot. But they say they're not so painful these days, right? Probably not. For me, this eliminates the feeling that you're standing outside the character while someone assures you, "He's thinking. You got that? He's having a thought. Thin. king." It lets me be inside the character, not just observing him.
I thought you meant, if anyone can recommend ANY contemporary book that doesn't use italics. You mean any book that depicts telepathy without italics?
I believe that would be the most pertinent to the question. Because the original question I'm answering is: And the answer is: Use italics, because that's the standard here.
Well seeing as you haven't found any examples to post I'm not sure that it matters much. But you can find an ESP conversation in any genre you like, if you want to use it.
Sorry, but that's an absurd argument. The reader doesn't automatically think telepathy no matter how you format it. Telepathy is outside normal experience. The reader doesn't automatically think sticky note, either, but quoted text is used for written communications too. The writer's job is to guide the reader to the correct interpretation of how the verbatim communication is transmitted. Cluttering the writing with non-standard typographical constructs is sloppy, visually distracting, and it whispers. "amateur." Yes, it's the same think I've said before. I'm not changing my tune just because I'm tired of endless arguing over it. In fact, my literal thought when I saw this undead thread stumbling about once more was, Oh no, not again.
Third person Omni I like all your sentences but for me, they all have one thing in common, the thoughts, are all that of the story teller, not the character himself As if I'm relating the story of Jarod to a friend over coffee and I'm then adding, in my voice, good thing he put his sneakers on, rather than knowing the thought in his head was that he was glad he'd put sneakers on. OK, I could add one word to the thought so it reads I'm so glad I put my sneakers on today.
