I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying if a person is actually reading aloud, albeit sotto voce, they will use their mouths? Or do you mean that if a person is looking at a page, reading the words to one's self, they will use their mouth? If you mean the former, then, yes, of course you will be using your mouth. If, on the other hand, you mean the latter, then, no. Not everyone uses their mouth to read, silently, to themselves.
BlackBird said "Repeated - pointers - of the same stuff over and over again become boring and cliche" Even in normal dialogue, we have what you might consider, boring and cliche in the form of dialogue tags. Dialogue tags can seem monotonous and get annoying at times but we use them regardless. Maybe you could find some 'telepathy' tags. I understand the favorability factor in wanting to use the italics for telepathy but that just isn't what they are used for. And, yes, many here are pointing out the authors who have used italics for telepathy in their work but that still does not make it right. Honestly, I think if you give it some thought you could come up with well worded tags to establish telepathy. Just as we have the he said/she said tags why not something simple along the lines of "You're a real piece of work," he sent. This ofcourse would be used after making clear to the reader in the beginning of the story when telepathy is being used as the method of communication. Please understand I do not write anything using telepathy so I am in no way suggesting you use my example. I am just throwing something out there to show the simplicity I am talking about. Good luck figuring this one out.
That's gibberish. I can say words in my head without moving a muscle in my mouth (without slowing down). I can think of a word in my head without seeing it written down (vocally). I have an internal dialogue that is formed of words, like a conversation. Telepathy is the transmission of information without any physical means or sensory channels. A shared, internal dialogue fits that definition.
I'm not here for heated arguments but I just cannot not say anything about something like this - talking as if you know everything, or enough, about the subject, while in reality rather ignorant (no offense intended). You do not know what you are talking about. I always and constantly look at myself, and else, and correct and improve myself if I find undesirable aspects. Isn't the point of all this to learn and improve oneself? The road is filled with deep holes nearly impossible to come out of, and large stones almost adamantly in place and just as breakable, but well worth the effort. I too can create dialogues in my head. It involves using more than just my brain, it cannot be done otherwise. But if you want to use only your mind then it is impossible to form words. Perhaps could be done by specifically training it, or maybe not, don't know, yet. One is certain, the words you make up "in your mind" are not actually made up only by your mind, other parts of your body are involved, if it weren't so you wouldn't as if hear them. If you think what I said is gibberish then go ahead and make an experiment, on yourself. Make up a dialogue and concentrate on yourself, look at what parts of you are working. Do the same while reading something silently, without vocalizing anything. If you can look at yourself, internally, while at it you will notice certain mouth-parts have some tension in them every time you "form" a word. Then remove the tension - control yourself - and try to the same again, you'll notice you cannot.
I think I understand what you're trying to say, Allan Paas, but your explanation is nonsensical. 'By verbalizing the words you make more believable dialogue' is what I'm getting.
Let me preface this by saying that I don't know all the Commandments of Writing. For all I know, there is a stone tablet somewhere, whereupon it is writ: "THOU SHALT ONLY USE ITALICS IN THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS..." I don't know. As someone who doesn't crap money (and believe me, I check) I've never enrolled in some MFA English program. There's a lot I'm learning as I go along. That being said, I really don't see any problem with using italics to indicate telepathic speech. I read constantly, and in those books where telepathy is used, such conversations are almost always in italics. Thoughts are typically presented in italics, and telepathy is communication via thought. Of course, they are usually framed in some kind of punctuation. . *I've seen people use asterisks, though those aren't very common,* he projected, the words coming straight to my brain and bypassing my ears entirely. <Comparison symbols like these are pretty effective in conveying telepathy.> ::I've even seen quite a few authors opt for double colons as telepathic quotes.:: He's right, I thought. Clearly telepathy requires some kind of punctuation. But why not quotes? "Because if you're italicizing something in quotation marks it just looks like yelling!" he shouted. "Fair point," I said simply. "But aren't italics meant for things like emphasis?" "They still can be used for emphasis in speech," he said, then his expression shifted to the one he wore when using his psychic powers. ~Italics can still be be used for emphasis when italicizing telepathy, but negatively~ he projected. =By notitalicizing certain words, those words stand out, and emphasis becomes quite clear.= And BTW, Cog, writing is a huge (see what I did there?) part of comics.
Again, this wouldn't be gibberish if I didn't just do what you say I couldn't. I feel no tensions in my mouth; I can imagine an entire scene taking place without moving a muscle, or even opening my eyes. Perhaps you're a very physical person, but I don't need any body part other than my brain. One may aid the imagination with gestures, talking, walking, acting, but that doesn't make any muscle needed for thought. Read Grey's Anatomy, or wikiapedia. I have tried your experiment and found exactly the opposite of your claim. I'm not interested in heated arguement either, but I call gibberish when I see it. It seems you have a specific type of telepathic communication in mind here.
I wasn't talking about imagining scenes. I was talking about actual words, as if spoken to another person, created in your mind with the same clarity. The first step, if the telepathy you all seem to be talking about were possible, would be just that - forming actual words, as if spoken, in your mind, with only the help of your mind. This step cannot be done. I sense myself easily, all aspects, and I understand it all with ease also. I wasn't talking about gestures, talking, walking, acting or anything like that. It is, to me, rather obvious this is not a subject you have put much thought into, you seem to just take it as you see it depicted. What I see depicted is not right and as such the reason I oppose it. What I am saying is that one cannot create words, as if spoken, by using only the mind. Imagining scenes, yes, and scenes are not what I'm talking about. If telepathy were possible it wouldn't be words one would be "hearing", it would be sensing those scenes with accuracy. I read wikipedia... And it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. To put it all short, what I am saying, is that telepathy would involve the use of no words. Unless it's via some technology that translates what's on the mind. But why translate anything if it goes from one brain to a piece of metal and plastic, from there to another chunk of metal and plastic and from there to the receiving brain. Why not instead keep it simple and just convey the emotions and scenes, why translate it all into words? Translation into words would only be necessary if you'd be hearing them, with the ears, yet it is supposed to be telepathy, not simple and common conversation. Every person has emotions, has feelings, people, usually, know what they mean, they might differ slightly but everyone's are essentially the same. If one mind could sense someone else's there would be no need for actual words to understand what they mean. My point is that telepathy would involve using no words. It would only be practical. As to technology translating them... it would be pointless. We translate emotions and "scenes" into words each day. Whether to someone else or subvocally. The subvocalization... is not only mental, there's slight use of muscles if you can detect it, muscles used when reading silently and creating dialogues "in your mind". Control those muscles, keep them from acting, and you cannot read silently and you cannot make up dialogues "in your head". All you can do is look at the words, sure, you'll recognize them, you'll know what they mean, but it would be like staring at a blank wall. As to dialogues "in your mind", all you can do is imagine scenes without words, you can imagine what people mean, but you cannot make them say a single word.
Its speech at the end of the day, whether its from the mouth, brain or butt. Once the character is shown to be telepathic its not so big a deal. The reader should be able to guess. "I can read your thoughts," she said. He had heard the words but something was wrong. Her mouth never moved. The words had formed within his own head. The uneasy feeling that she had simply reached in and pulled them forward ran a chill down his back. So this is telepathy, he thought. "Yes," she answered I don't know if that was any good but was fun for five minutes to break the boredom of work lol.
Excellent point. I am in the midst of deciding how to present the telepathy in the current project, and, as I have seen in quite a few novels, have been using italics. However, I have been looking around for advice on this matter because, as novels are a new direction (rescued from the depths of childhood dreams), I wanted to find out the viewpoints of not only readers but other writers. Got that here. lol Just to throw my own two cents in, a traditional tag wouldn't be something I'd feel gets across the distinction of telepathy" "Don't look, but behind you is a critic!" the voice sent. I agree this form of communication needs to stand apart clearly, and the only objection I've raised in my own mind is confusion in regard to someone thinking something (which can be handled by making sure I leave enough space between the "dialogue." I knew he was there already, but thanks for the warning. One of the methods I appreciated as a kid was the asterisk. I thought this had a visual impact that accompanied the desired result. * Right. Sure you did. My guess is you thought it was a literary agent * * Is there a difference? * One other thing this discussion brought up was differing communications. Man to man (or woman, lol), and man to animal. This isn't something I had given consideration to, so thanks to that member for bringing it up! —Not really, they both taste the same— I looked down at my trusty steed, shifted my hold on his mane uncomfortably, and thought, I don't think he's kidding! Thanks for the insights, all!
I'm an avowed Anne McCaffrey fan. In her hugely popular Dragonriders of Pern series, the dragons communicate with their riders telepathically. She shows this by using italics. In her The Tower and the Hive series, the human "talents" are able to both communicate telepathically and also to teleport objects. Again, telepathic communication is shown by the use of italics. I'm sure I have also encountered it in other writers' works, but I can't think of any off-hand. In any event, I think the use of italics to indicate telepathic communication has become enough of a standard that IMHO it would be a mistake to use any other system or device.
Maybe that's why I started out with that in the new project: I used to love the Pern novels. It's been so long since I read one that I'll have to go back and take a look. What was the drink? Klah? It's funny that I'd be reminded of thread in a thread, lol.
I think that's the way Andre Norton did it too in her stories with telepathic animals and aliens who can communicate with people. Pretty sure, but I'd need to check to be sure.
The Tower and the Hive series has plenty of telepathic communication between people. Here's a link to Book 2, Damia. You can get enough of a feel for the way Anne handles it just by using the "See Inside" preview: https://www.amazon.com/Damia-Tower-Hive-Novel-Book-ebook/dp/B00CHQOSVW/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2QUI5PA22UECA&keywords=Damia&qid=1659144656&s=books&sprefix=damia%2Cstripbooks%2C186&sr=1-1
And that looks good to me. The cover, on the other hand, leaves a bit to be desired. Had a cousin of mine, who is an amazing artist, do the cover for my new project. It was digital. I miss the old artwork of sci-fi and fantasy. The gentle stroke of the paintbrush versus the rigid and sharp glare of the keystroke and mouse, lol. I am sold, though, going to use italics. The example of distinction using the plus/minus symbols came across as a little abrasive to me. A few well-inserted traditional tags, as well as avoiding a cramped dialogue should do the trick nicely. Thanks for the link!
Wait—what?! I didn't know he was a she! lol I can't remember if I read anything she did, but I do remember her name. I was a particularly particular kid, lol. Everything had to meet the Tolkien standard or no dice. I say that after reading many Piers Anthony novels, lol. Totally different. Man, haven't been to Xanth in a long time either. Those were happy days, though. Nothing like escaping into a good sci-fi or fantasy.
Yes, that cover leaves a LOT to be desired. Mercifully, I have the original paperback edition, the cover of which is far superior.
