I definitely wouldn't want to divorce the narrator from the character in that way. But, yes, I realize that that's irrelevant to the point of how it could define a different kind of POV for someone who wants that POV.
Well, looking through some examples online, maybe it can also be used to distinguish a shift between a narrator/character hybrid narration (3rd person limited in regular font) and 1st person narrative (3rd person limited in italics). If it's purely aesthetic, why use it at all? Or do you think that the need to temporally transition to a 1st person narrative (italic thoughts) suggests a weaker narrative?
I've seen italics for thought used as a tone-shift, and usually contrary to/addressing the narrator, almost like a 4th wall break. The peasants always marveled at the gold paved streets of (made up city). Maybe they wouldn't if they understood that gold was theirs. The sun was baking the townsfolk, and life was beating them, soon enough they'd be a cake. Please don't take my example as a proof of concept though, if you really want to see it done well, read the Glokta POV paragraphs in the First Law trilogy. Joe Abercrombie does a great job of writing multiple POV's in different styles. Some lean heavily on imagery, some italics for thoughts. I think it shows that writing one way or another isn't right or wrong, but it will effect (or is it affect? I can never tell) how the reader feels.
Well, the core reason why is that they annoy me intensely and distract me from the book. Why do they? I'm not sure. Random possible reasons: - They're not "normal" by my standards--very few of the hundreds of books that I've read used them. So they strike me as newfangled and weird. - I find the idea of all of those word-for-word, mostly grammatically correct, thoughts, implausible. I think that the "literal thoughts" will usually just be a rough translation of a multidimensional thought (multidimensional meaning emotion, memory, visualization, etc.--maybe I mean multimedia?) that didn't actually happen in those bare neat words. There are probably other reasons, but those are the only ones that I can easily put into words.
Glokta is a strong character. I think a well-developed character, and a strong authorial voice, can make a lot of things work well that would be bungled by amateurs. Steven Erikson is another who uses italics for thought, but with emphasis on the individual character's voice and style etc.
I didn't say "beta reader" did I? Nope. You just assumed. Thanks. Besides, I don't see why the prejudice against "beta readers." They can be as knowledgable as anyone. Peace, Tex
Although I should add that strong character voices like Erikson's could argue against italics. It's pretty clear when he shifts to internal monologue because it's in the voice of the character and is distinct from the narrative. He probably doesn't need the italics but they don't bother me either. I have a very high tolerance for varied stylistic approaches. Things like POV, tense, and the like don't trip me up. I'll go with anything if the author does a good job of it.
There's no prejudice against beta readers; the point is that ONE comment from ONE beta reader about their personal preference is not a reason to change the way you do things. It can be, but part of being an author is filtering feedback. If an acquiring editor wants something changed then that's a different matter. Take heed of your signature... peace.
You said "reader", right? So it seems reasonable to, yes, assume that he or she may not be your editor, accountant, or dentist. But being rude to people giving you helpful advice is always more fun, so you go right ahead.
That's why I posed it as a question, not as an assumption. My comment had nothing to do with knowledge. It had to do with the fact italics for internal monologue is a matter of opinion as opposed to an accepted convention.
Is there actually something different about the font or the lighting or something in this thread that makes it so prone to combative exchanges? Like, is it a "social experiment" with a subliminal message of aggression flashing at frequencies not visible to the conscious mind?
I neither hate nor love italics. It's not something that flips emotional switches for me, hence my jocularity earlier. Good thing I don't need to ask the permission of anyone to have a bit of fun with a topic. Fun. Heaven forfend we have fun as others sharpen pitchforks, dip torches into pitch, and paint their chests with their camp standard, nostrils flared, teeth glinting in the morning sun. Cry havoc! I do think, though, as writers, we should always look first to our words and syntax and structure before we repair to font tricks to convey our meaning. I am sure there are times when the well-considered answer will be yes, I need some italics action right here, but the consideration should come first before we jump to fancy fonts.
Nope. But I have read Perdido Street Station wherein there are two (maybe three) small chapters that are not only completely italicized, they also break with the 3rd person limited of the rest of the novel, these small interludes being written in 1st person, from the POV of a garuda who is come to the city of New Crobuzon in search of help to replace the wings that were torn from him in a shaming ritual. Much as I love Miéville, the italics of these chapters was more style than necessity. For a man as gifted as China with turn of phrase, I think it was a little OTT. Not needed.
I love Miéville as well. I agree that this is a stylistic choice for him, not a necessity. I think such choices are rarely necessary one. I think House of Leaves might appeal to you, though I could be wrong. I found it interesting. It is written at times like an academic work, and there are lengthy footnotes where a separate story is in fact taking place. There are times, where the labyrinth of the House is showcased, where the words twist around the page in labyrinthine manner, or appear backwards or in boxes (such as when invoking a mirror). The word House often appears in blue font. The narrative switches often between styles and points of view, and the whole thing is very meta. Not everyone's cup of tea, but I thought it was an interesting approach to what is possible with a novel. RE: Miéville, check out The City and the City.
This review doesn't give much away: http://therumpus.net/2013/03/the-last-book-i-loved-house-of-leaves/ Perhaps the most interesting thing about House of Leaves is that it is a debut novel, and also a bestseller. Counterpoint to all of the rules-based "you can't do that" discussions in writer's fora. Apparently, the author flew to the publisher before publication to oversee the typesetting personally
I was once arrested by Breach for sitting in a crosshatch park and pointing out the buildings and architecture of Ul Qoma and Beszel to young children of the wrong cities. When interrogated, I pretended lunacy. I was released. Yesterday I ordered food from both kinds of vendors and ate them together in the shade of a disputed tree.
