It's one of his more inspired works, I think. China's lavishness often makes him very present in his stories. In TCatC, he took a back seat and let the story do its thing.
Yes. Thus, the work is also shorter than most of his (though still not a short book). I have to read Embassytown still.
Well you say that but if I put my manuscript in Comic Sans I no longer have to be funny. It's saved me weeks of work.
I thought black lettering was for the boring parts you could skip and all the really important parts were in red, like when Jesus said, "Anything."
A thought has to earn its italics, some stupid failures that could never amount to anything don't make it that far.
Breach. God those people are annoying. There's a spot in Zulman Park where the dome of St. Dynyosos is framed perfectly by the minarets of Zaprmurat Mosque. There's no way Sinan wasn't breaching when he designed that thing. Anyway, couple of years ago, I was escorting Steve Wiltshire out there to get a look when those Breach idiots showed up and started trying their whole spooky hood thing on me. "Look, guys, just fuck off," I said, but they weren't having it until I showed them my Turizm Byüro ID, crest of the Duke of O on it, and off they fucked. Idiots.
Last thing I'll mention about TCatC in this thread. I was immediately intrigued when China used Fulana Detail as the term for the Jane Doe in the book (when she was still a Jane Doe). In Spanish, Fulana de Tal or Fulano de Tal are the terms used for Jane Doe and John Doe by cops. The terms are also used in common parlance to mean Joe Schmo or "some random chick", etc.
I am a Creative Writing major at my University, and as such taking several classes. This was on my syllabus for one such class: I thought of you lovelies.
Interesting, Nicoel. I dislike thought tags much more than italics. Why wouldn't you write "The house looked familiar, especially the shutters and porch." Or: "The house looked familiar to her." Or... a million other more elegant ways than 'she thought'.
Italics aren't an option that I'd ever use, but I strongly dislike thought tags, and that example doesn't need them. Rewrite one: She paused when the house came in sight. Huh. Familiar. Especially the shutters and the porch. Rewrite two: The house looked familiar. She recognized the shutters and the porch. Rewrite three: She paused when the house came in sight. Huh. Familiar. Really familiar. The porch, and those stupid fake shutters too narrow to cover the window. When did that happen, anyway? When was the last time that people saw shutters as anything but rectangular gingerbread, when any passer-by seeing this house would immediately insist, "That's just stupid! Those shutters wouldn't cover half the window!" She shook her head. Anyway. Lay off the house. Think about the zombies. Where the hell did they go? Come to think of it, working shutters would be great against zombies. If the vestigial shutter movement had never come along, could the zombie apocalypse have been nipped in the bud? She'd always wondered who to blame for the end of the world, and maybe... This time she Gibbs-slapped herself. Zombies, girl. Strategize.
As soon as someone starts using the words "correct" and "incorrect" in reference to creative writing I get itchy.
I'd be leery of a professor who makes such absolute pronouncements. All you have to do is walk into a bookstore to prove her wrong, so....
I do not agree with any absolutes in writing, but from the instructor's POV, s/he probably just does that for the sake of brevity. Her syllabus would be a dissertation if she even tried to go in depth regarding when to do and when not do certain things. That said, if there had to be a mandate for this subject (there doesn't), hers would not be the one I'd choose.
It is absolutely appropriate and I find myself annoyed when I see authors not doing it. For example, Eoin Colfer's Artemis Fowl series. But sometimes, it's not so much what the person is thinking as it is the narrator describing what he's thinking. For example: Herman was annoyed with the man. Doesn't he know how to read signs? vs: Herman was annoyed with the man. Didn't he know how to read signs? I use the second one when the character is not thinking those exact thoughts, or when they're thinking them so quickly it's not logical to translate them as literal thoughts (like when you put two and two and two together.) For example, in this Star Wars AU: "The Republic is under the control of a Sith Lord," said Dooku. Obi-Wan's mind raced. The Senate governed the Republic, and the Chancellor was at its head. "Palpatine!" Obi-Wan blurted. "Palpatine's the Sith Lord!" Whereas if I'd expressed Obi-Wan's literal thoughts: Obi-Wan's mind raced. Palpatine! "Palpatine is the Sith Lord!" you'd have to explain how he came to that conclusion, and it'd be better to use the first option. Of course, if you were to write it like that, you could skip his thoughts entirely, since he blurts them out loud as soon as he thinks them. You can also use italics for other things. I have a character who is a snake. As such, he speaks in hisses, not a recognizable language. Since he's the only animal character, I use italics for his dialogue instead of quotation marks. Also, when a ghost is speaking and is only present as a voice.
But you should know that plenty of readers have equal and opposite annoyance, and absolutely don't think it's appropriate. We're definitely not at a point where they're universally, or IMO even broadly, required.
Sometimes, though, it sounds like the narrator's thoughts when it's supposed to be the character's thoughts. So whatever you do, don't do standalone thoughts without italics or you'll probably confuse someone.
In close third person POV, everything is from the character's POV. So that's not really a problem. Sure, you need subtle indicators to keep that tie between character and narration fresh, but you don't need italics.
