I propose that we stop writing books about things that think. Let's start a brave new world of root-vegetable literature!
This has had me in stitches! Seriously though, as I keep saying, "know the rules and then break every damn one of them!"
Going to add my 2 cents to this. In my story, there are more than six different languages in active use. The characters use language as a means to restrict the flow of ideas and information, but they also switch between them with gusto and move in an out within a single conversation. Direct non-speech communication between two characters as thought-to-thought telepathy will take italics. This follows standard dialogue functions, but will run interspersed between other communications which occur. Instead of writing a sentence to explain the switch which happens every other line, I use italics to specifically refer to this type of communication. Regular (independent) thoughts are not italicized. I find this to be a reasonable exception to the general italics prohibition because it is an efficient and understandable method for sorting out the complexities of a group scene. Even used sparingly, two very different conversations can take place at the same time without breaking the flow.
"the general italics prohibition" There is no general italics prohibition. There are people who think there should be, people who think the convention is changing or has changed, and people who don't care one way or the other. Your dialogue sounds extremely complex. It'll be an interesting story element if you can pull it off without constantly pulling the reader out of the story. As for, "telepathy will take italics", that's been one technique used and proposed for telepathy. It also risks much greater reader animosity if the silent dialogue creates long blocks of italics.
I feel that writing is artistic and thoughts are beyond that even. My thoughts on the subject are, "Do what you want and there shouldn't be a guess on the method unless the writing to back it doesn't work".
I'm not a fan of italics for thoughts. I used to see it in a lot of YA, and feel physically queasy. Take a look at some Sarah Kane ("4:48 Psychosis" especially) or J.G. Ballard's "The Atrocity Exhibition" for effective, powerful, and graceful ways to communicate characters' thoughts, your main character's or others'.
My word this debate has been going for five years... I think by this point it's subjective to the writer. Hmmm, I wonder if this has been addressed in any major publications In any case, I'm going to choose not to use Italics for thought for now.
Actually, I was just informed by my mother (an English teacher) that Italics are to be used for character thought. Seems I've been overruled. I'll be honest, I wouldn't dig through the 38 pages of this thread to find them.
There is far, far from universal agreement about this. Does she quote a source? A specific style guide that she chooses to follow? I'm afraid that "English teacher" does not make her an indisputable authority.
Come on @ChickenFreak, I cited respected style guides. No, there is not universal agreement, but yes, there are many respected experts who accept the convention. @Mr. Galaxy, you don't need to search the thread. You are welcome to take my word at face value.
@ChickenFreak Indeed, but I'll take her word for it because she has a degree in it, and Ginger coffee said so. Also, wrath of Mom. Also apparently letters the characters read are also in Italics because they are read from the POV of that character's mind, thus a thought. That and I know a few sources as well. Tom Clancy, Terry Pratchett etc. the list can go on.
There is nothing magic (or dark magic) about italics. They are just another look you can give nearly any font. As you can do with bolding a word or passage, CAPPING it up, or underlining a passage. You can use these effects or not use them, as you wish, in any piece of creative writing. Terry Pratchett certainly did, and nobody is arguing with his recent successes. Just keep in mind that any deviation from a straight font will call attention to itself. Use these deviations too often for no discernable purpose and they lose their effect and become irritating. What they do is give a writer the ability to set a word, phrase or sentence apart from the rest of a paragraph or page, without having to resort to fancy footwork with wording. Not that there is anything wrong with fancy footwork with wording, but sometimes a simple font change does the trick more smoothly. Think how Terry Pratchett used capped letters for every speech his character Death made. Take that away, and he'd have needed to think up some other way to convey the same effect. I think the capped letters were fantastic. Not only did it make Death's speeches distinguishable from everyone else's, but they also conveyed formality and weight, which suited the character. Of course italics, bolding and underlining have a more formal role to play in formal writing, so you do need to stick to the 'rules' if you're writing that sort of piece.
She has a degree in modern manuscript standards, specifically for the publishing industry? Or she has a degree in English? They're not the same thing. Edited to add: Which is not to say that it's wrong to go by her advice right now, while you're developing your skills. But someday you will probably want to be published, and you may well be willing to be published even by someone who does not follow the Stylebook of Mom. At that point, it may be wise to consider just how much experience your mother has in the modern publishing industry (Has she ever worked in it? Been an agent, an editor, a published fiction author?), and perhaps seek other guidance in formatting your manuscript. Remember, too, that manuscripts are not formatted just like the books that they will eventually become.
Last I looked, the newer edition of one of the major style guides (I'm too lazy to dig through the thread to find my own post and find out which one) was less accepting of italics for thoughts than the previous edition, and no one prescribed them. Do you have a style guide that actually prescribes them, in its latest edition?
Sigh. As far as we can see the latest edition of CMoS does not address italics for inner monologue except to not include it in the uses for italics. But the CMoS is not the only fiction style guide, and the fact many major publishing houses put out books with italicized thoughts is evidence there is no formal publishing standard against the convention. Despite the fact @Cogito tried to dismiss my source because he personally had not heard of her, Janet Burroway has respected published style guide that recommends the option of italicizing inner monologue. Writing Fiction: A Guide to Narrative Craft (9th Edition) I quoted from her book up-thread. Why do you keep insisting no valid sources recommend italics for thoughts? I understand your preference against the convention and that's fine. But I don't understand the insistence using them is improper or inferior when they are so commonly encountered in published fiction.
Hello Cogito, I am surprised to read this. I have been using italics for internal dialogue because I have seen it done in a couple of books by a popular author. I assumed this was correct. what is the correct way to show internal dialogue?
OK, thanks Jack, i am glad to hear it as it is easier to read and write. However, perhaps it would be better if we acknowledge the fact that Cogito, being a bit of a stickler for detail, is correctly quoting rules and that they are currently ignored due to the evolution of the dynamic nature of language/writing. Therefore, 'right' and 'wrong' become irrelevant.
It's more like there is a shifting convention and some people are slower to accept the new convention than others. Yes, that includes one of the more formal style guides, the CMoS (Chicago Manual of Style). But it's worthwhile noting that the digital universe has caused a marked change in publishing and the CMoS has yet to fully adapt, IMO. Not that the italics for inner monologue is specific to pre-digital publishing, but the entire publishing world is changing and it's only natural that conventions might also change more rapidly.
I thought this comment replying to a blog entry was relevant and cute (and perhaps better stated than what I said): The reference is to the grammar 'rule' of not ending a sentence with a preposition. The blog and replies are an interesting read on this topic.
