I've found this reference in two sources: http://your-book-editor.com/q-a-page-9/4547968985 http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/quotation-marks/internal-dialogue-italics-or-quotes/ I'm going to have to check a copy directly to believe these guys have that right since I don't recall a single writing source saying it was OK to use quotes for thoughts. The first link above said this: I don't agree with the author's claim that one sees italics less and less. You'd have to be them most avid reader of multiple genres to be able to make that claim based on anecdotal evidence. Otherwise your sample is too small and not random and therefore cannot support such a broad claim. It does make sense that certain genres and maybe even certain geographic localities have their own convention trends. But back to the question, the claim is made here about italics being mentioned in an older edition of the CMoS. I shall have to go find a newer and an older edition and report back.
No bloody wonder people are self-publishing like mad! Whatever works, works. If publishing houses don't get their heads around this concept pretty quick, and stop setting 'rules' that they can't even agree on among themselves, they are going to be gone. Try telling Terry Pratchett that his golem can't speak or write in a very weird font, or Commander Vimes can't think in italics, or that Death can't speak in ALL CAPS ...oh, but Terry Pratchett is a PUBLISHED bestselling author so it's okay.... from Wikipedia: Anybody else but me think this retrospective reasoning is daft as a brush?
I realize this may have already been covered in this post, but hey, it's super long. What about when the main character is remembering the words spoken by someone else? They aren't being spoken, and they aren't really his thoughts.
If you write it as an event that occurs, they are his thoughts. Memories are thoughts even if they are thoughts of someone else's dialogue. But you can also handle that with narration. Then it isn't dialogue or monologue, it's the character narrating a memory. And you have the option of how you want to narrate it. I remembered what my mother said, "You can't hurry love." My mother told me many times, you can't hurry love. You can't hurry love, my mother's words swirled in my head.
Not to say that one way is wrong, but I've always seen it handled as dialogue. Again, I AM NOT saying that you can't use italics. Just stating the way I've seen it.
It's dialogue if one narrates it as dialogue. If the character thinks the words and tells the reader via their direct thoughts, then it's inner monologue. But very often it is going to be something the writer tells the reader via first person narrative. In that case it can be dialogue.
I would see remembered dialogue as dialogue. Even if I were to put inner thoughts in italics, I'd put remembered quotes in inner thoughts in quotes: I opened my mouth, then shut it again. Shush. Like Mom would say, "Least said, soonest mended."
Understand the rules, and then ignore them. The only reason you need to know the rules is to know why you're breaking them and why you're doing what you're doing.
"I only remember taking a quick shower and sitting beside you while you slept. Wait, I did speak with Salvia about you. I mentioned how strong I knew you to be and how I have never seen someone put themselves in a trance like you had done. But this house and everyone in it, seemed as if I had been here before. I can not tell you how I came here and where it is located. As to going outside, I could not bring myself to leave you here alone." I could clearly hear the frustration in his voice as he spoke. Leaning back I stared at him, and for some reason I instinctively spoke to him in his mind. "We need to get out of here, now. This is a trap, the design on the tiled wall that I was just staring at is the same one I had seen in one of my dreams, with my father in it. And as much as I want to take that bath right now, I don't want to be here any longer." Wagging a brow at me, he said "I do not mind helping you, if you truly wish to bathe." Rolling my eyes at him, I teased "I'm sure that would just make your day." This is just a small section of my novel. I used the italicized font after he started speaking to her telepathically along with quotation marks. I also use it as an indicator for the readers to know when she is having thoughts of her own and dreaming. I've read a lot of books, but after reading some of what was said in this topic, I'm confused. Is this not standard use of the italic font? Please excuse any grammar issues, I'll work on that later.
No, it is definitely standard to use quote-less italics for internal monologue, and quoted italics for psychic speech. Many, many examples have been cited, and while your personal preference should enter into it, the fact is that the reader will understand these ques.
While the "italics for thoughts" issue has been fully covered here and in other threads, I'd like to add one other observation. In creative writing, italics is a useful tool, because it separates a word or phrase or sentence from the rest of the text. If you want to emphasize something, or to separate it from its surroundings, you can present it in italics. No particular explanation necessary in creative writing. Obviously if you're writing a term paper or some formal piece you need to follow 'the rules.' But the most sensible rule in creative writing is to make everything work. If a word or phrase or sentence works best in italics, use italics. Caution: Keep in mind is that huge, unbroken blocks of italics can be difficult to read. The too-frequent use of italics, like emphasizing a word or two in every sentence, can also be irritating. Wouldn't it be handy if we had both 'speech quotes' and 'thought quotes?' It makes sense. We have quote marks to separate speech from narrative. It might be handy to separate thought from speech with a different set of punctuation marks. Oh wait, we already have that. It's called italics!
Michelle, I also use italics, and I separate it out from the rest of the text, but I don't put quotes around it. I can't say if it's correct or not, it's just what I do. Miguel
I agree with this. If a story line is good enough, I doubt a publisher is going to reject it based on such a minor issue in punctuation (unless, perhaps, your whole manuscript is written in italics or something to that effect). At worst, the story may be edited to fit the standard. I enjoy writing that plays with punctuation and bend the rules... but it has to be done well.
But "good enough" may need to be a little better, for the publisher to tolerate nonstandard writing and commit to the expense of editing it out. Why handicap yourself? If you're one of fifty darn good stories, and the publisher can only take on one of them, even minor issues may knock you out of the running.
Where's the evidence italicized thoughts are a handicap, @ChickenFreak? So far we have a few member's claims that is the case and no other evidence publishers give a rip. The more I see the less I'm convinced publishers reject italicized thoughts.
And we've seen plenty of examples (from you and I) of published novels that include italics (Dune, The Balgaraid, Pern, et al). So unless someone can produce an aspiring writer whose work was turned down for an overuse of italics I consider the matter settled.
You make a good point. I think there are publishers who will only accept standard writing, but there are others who are specifically interested in unique and experimental styles. The key is knowing what each particular publisher is looking for.
I'm seeing two issues here: - The often-stated "if it's a good enough story, a few flaws won't stop it from being published" argument. - The issue of whether italicized thoughts is a flaw. My post was mainly arguing against the first idea. Re the second, I do believe that they're a flaw, but I understand that you don't and that there's no value in us arguing that until the end of time.
