I was going with tags like "I thought" but my semi-beta reader flagged all of them in red and said to delete them, so I did. I didn't like it as much without it but I agreed with him in that it wasn't necessary. My only problem is that I have all of my dialogue that comes from the TV (my characters watch the news frequently) and I have all of that in italics and I'm too lazy to fix all of the continuation errors. Which, there's errors anyway. But that's a terrible thing to be, if you want to be a writer. So. Pulling up my big girl pants now.
I'm very interested in what you have to say. Between you and @GingerCoffee , I feel as though I should have a notebook and a pencil out at all times, ready to take notes. The direct thought was meant to start with the blue sentence. That's how I think to myself on a normal basis. This is overall quite interesting.
And this is where I come to my thoughts about writers' thoughts about thoughts. I realize that I don't believe that people think in specific, coherent sentences very often. An example, as I force myself to use italics: Joe was just nodding off when something crashed down behind him. What the hell? He wheeled around while trying to move backward, and ended up falling flat on his back. I don't believe in that "What the hell?" I believe that his mental experience is more like (AWAKE! Heart pound alarm heart pound fear heart pound FIGHT!!!! FLIGHT!!!) Now, sometimes there are words, of course. But I think that people drift from wordless emotions and concepts, into words, and back again. I think that the boundary is very, very fuzzy. And so thoughts in italics don't just annoy me for various stylistic reasons, they annoy me because they don't match my mental model of how people think. Now, I realize that fiction is, well fiction. We're making models of all sorts of reality, so what's wrong with modelling our vague, incoherent, foggy thoughts as clean clear sentences? But my disbelief in those clean clear sentences means that I'm not only not bothered by the ambiguity about whether a thought is a specific word-for-word thought, I like that ambiguity. I find it more realistic.
Good point! I've never thought of it that way. Just to clarify, for my own purposes when writing [ before submitting and making corrections ] it's alright to differentiate ? I used to be a part of a lot of online RPGs where we would use italics for thought, so I'm used to it. Or, is it better to get out of that habit?
I try to show that in my own writing. The only time I used italics for thoughts (before this thread) was when my character was surprised and tripped over the cart.
@Nicoel your name really throws me off because I''m used to seeing it spelled Nichole or Nicole, or many other ways but not the way you do it.
Haha! I grew up spelling my name Nichole, until a few years ago when I found my birth certificate. On my birth certificate it was spelled Nicole. That's partly why I spelled it differently on here, just as a mini nod to that. That, and Nicole was taken. (honestly, this spelling has grown on me. I think it's the prettiest of all three. )
In that case, I think Moore pretty much had to use italics because the story is told in third-person omniscient. When you're skipping back and forth between two characters' thoughts, an extra layer of clarification is definitely needed. But if it's third-person limited, I think the writing can convey the difference without italics. Not that I'm saying it's right or wrong to use them, just that it can be done without.
No one is saying it can't be done. A few people in this discussion think one should never use italics for thoughts. A few of us (me included) think it's one more tool in the toolbox and you should use it when it makes sense. The bottom line, it's an accepted convention in fiction despite a subset of the population disliking it. Early on in this discussion it was claimed that you should not use italics because an editor you submitted to might be one of the subset that disliked them. However, no evidence that was the case was ever posted. It's clear there are people who don't like to see italicized thoughts and it makes sense at least some agents and editors would belong to the subset. But book after book was cited in the thread where the author used the italicized thought convention. And despite it not being listed as an accepted use for italics in the CMoS, italics were listed as an acceptable means of identifying inner monologue in several other style guides both published and online.
On the matter of using italics as a tool, I've come to think of something which italics can do that roman cannot. Italics allows the writer to change PoV. Quick example: As Harry lifted his collar against the wind, he stepped into a puddle. Harry smacked his hand against his forehead. I can't believe I did it again! However, if all italics are removed in the above sentence, the change in PoV is be jarring: As Harry lifted his collar against the wind, he stepped into a puddle. Harry smacked his hand against his forehead. I can't believe I did it again! Now if the sentence was: As Harry lifted his collar against the wind, he stepped into a puddle. Harry smacked his hand against his forehead. How the hell did this happen again? then roman in place of the italics would not be as odd. Of course, the use of italics, or roman in this case is the focus of this entire debate. I just wanted to add the fact that there are instances in which using italics allows for a style unique to italics. Of course, we should all remember that the manner in which a character thinks, whether in paragraphs, comments, italics or roman, shapes the character. The best place to notice differences in styles of thoughts is probably Joe Abercrombie's The Blade Itself. The book offers multiple protagonists who all have their own unique style of thought.
@Vofzolne I agree that's one way to do it, however I should point out that a lot of authors make that same kind of POV shift without switching to italics. Joyce is an example that comes to mind that I cited either in this thread or another one, where he does the exact kind of POV shift you're talking about without changing the text in any way (italics or other emphasis). I don't mind the use of italics. I'm reading Steven Erikson at the moment, and he uses them. But I don't agree that the POV shift is jarring without them. At least, it isn't for me.
As Harry lifted his collar against the wind, he stepped into a puddle. Harry smacked his hand against his forehead. I can't believe I did it again!, he thought. You can add a tag or use italics.
If one were going to do that it wouldn't it require a new line to make the POV work? As Harry lifted his collar against the wind, he stepped into a puddle. Harry smacked his hand against his forehead. I can't believe I did it again! Because in the first two sentences it is third person and you shift to first person in the third. When you add, 'he thought', the entire paragraph remains in third person.
No, I don't think so. In the example I posted from Joyce, he doesn't use a new line. I've read other authors who present dialogue internal monologue without italics or tags, and maybe some of them started new lines, but I don't think most did. There's nothing that says the entire paragraph has to remain in third person. If the first-person thought is strongly enough connected to what is in the preceding text, I think I'd rather not start a new paragraph for it. But it seems like it can work either way.
Yikes! I guess I have been doing it wrong. When my character has internal though, it's in italics. Blarg.
@mickeywrites4u81: That's one interpretation of the elusive, intangible 'rules'. If you've got a spare fortnight, read the thread through. You'll find there's more than one way to skin a cat, to coin a well worn and cliched metaphor. I'll get my coat.
Joyce is a fantastic writer, but lots of people find him borderline unreadable, and many people never finish his books. He tried lots of writing tricks/gimmicks with a great deal of success, including a single sentence that I seem to recall went on for pages. He was exceptional—but that's just it. It takes an exceptional writer to pull off these kinds of tricks, and even then, they won't be universally understood and appreciated. I keep returning to my core belief about writing. Do what works best. Every time. In creative writing that is really the only rule to follow. Carve your own path.
Italics for thoughts! Why not bold for thoughts? Why not comic sans for thoughts? Why not pink text for thoughts? Why won't this thread DIE?????? I'm a mod; I could kill it myself, but someone would just start another one about the same topic! This is page 38, people! Hasn't everything been said on italics for thoughts by now?
New people ask the same questions because it's a convention in evolution. It shouldn't bother anyone that new people cause a revisiting of the thread.