As I see it, it's not about whether it's ever OK to use italics for thoughts. It's about which decision is more likely to hamper you in getting your work published. In theory, you could write a manuscript so that all thoughts are formatted in a named style. If you submit to a publisher or agent that requires that all thoughts be in italics, you change that style to use italics. If you submit to a publisher or agent that forbids putting thoughts in italics, you change that style to eliminate the italics. You have maximum flexibility. But getting that flexibility requires that you write so that you don't _need_ the italics in order to be understood. That's a skill, one that requires some work and practice. Publishers and agents aren't all that eager to become a writer's tutors. If a writer shows evidence of perhaps not having a particular writing skill, that reduces that writer's odds of success with those publishers and agents. Maybe that's not fair, but that's the way it is - you become a writer on your own time, and when you've done that to a sufficient level of accomplishment, that's when an agent will consider you. I have yet to hear that publishers or agents are saying, "We want your thoughts in italics. If we're not mystified when we read your manuscript without those italics, then we're gong to reject it!" Until I hear that, I'm going to write so that italics aren't needed for thoughts. And in fact, unless and until I hear that anyone is _requiring_ italics for thoughts, I'm not going to bother with that special formatting.
Funny thing. I read this, then pulled out Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition. 13.41 (Unspoken discourse). In short, quote marks are passable for unspoken dialogue, but not encouraged. There is nothing even hinted at italics. So, based on what Cogito said (and I believe he's right about who writes, or at least contributes to these style manuals), italics is not the proper way to go for internal thought. I stopped using it and found that italics had really become a crutch. I didn't have to worry about transition or flow of thought from one paragraph to another. Just italicize! Everyone knows that's a thought now, don't they? I also found it let me cheat. I'd write 3rd person, until I wanted to write 1st person. Then I just italicize a few things and get whatever I wanted from it, then jump back into third person. Really not a good way to write.
Exactly, on every point. In fact, I DO have a named style for unspoken dialogue in the manuscript template I created, for exactly this purpose. And I always write it for clarity in normal text. If it's less than clear, I change the writing, not decorate it.
I'm glad this thread was started as I've always wondered whether I'm using italics correctly. Like others on here, I've noticed that published authors get away with using italics for thoughts (Stephen King's The Shining springs to mind straight away). For now I'm using italics so that I know where the character's thoughts end, and if I'm honest up until I read this thread I thought it was a perfectly acceptable way to emphasize where thoughts start and finish. I've never had a problem with people who italicize sections of their writing or the character's thoughts, but if it's that much of a no-no in the publishing world I'll consider changing it.
as an unknown beginner, not stephen king, you'd be wise to find another way to let your readers know when a character is thinking...
If you don't mix thoughts into description and direct speech willy-nilly, you'll find that italics to signpost hey, this is what I'm thinking! are actually totally unnecessary.
Interesting 5 page debate over something that should be simple. My story is 1st person narrative past tense. But I have put the occasional narrator's thought into italics and it does differ from the narration. I see no reason to muddle the two or write, "I thought," (or some equivalence like "went through my head") as often as I already have to insert, "he/she said" (or some equivalent reference). And, the thoughts are in present tense, while the story is narrated in past tense, so they need to be distinguished. I'll leave it open for the moment. I'm not on the final re-write yet.
It's called "writing". This is one thing that can help the reader distinguish a literal thought from the narration. It's not a problem, it's part of the solution. Of course, it's not much help if your story is written in present tense.
it depends on your character's POV. for example: first person has no italics and is just normal text. third person POV however, does have italics for thought. this helps to further identify characters easilly should you switch POV in chapters.
So someone who has just joined the forum and never made a post before, goes to the effort of searching through old threads, finds one 3 years old and then tries to ridicule respected posters for stating their opinion on what the current conventions are regarding italics. Trolling if I have ever seen it. For what it's worth, just because all your friends down the street say, 'My friends and me went...' does not make it correct.
No, but if your character doesn't know proper English and thinks to himself a lot, then it just might be "my friends and me went..." Alright, I'll leave now...
Funny... I've read thousands of pages in the last few months, from Steve Almond, Vonnegut, Bradbury, to Douglas Adams, Hemingway, Chekhov, Tolstoy, Nobokov, Doyle, Maugham, Sanderson, Jordan, all the way to King. And I found no use of italics to indicate thought, except in books written by... ...can you guess which authors? You might be able to, if you can spot poor to mediocre writing. Those authors that do write extremely well, however, only used italics for two things and two things only: To add emphasis to a particular word, or phrase. Or to introduce the title of a piece of work... In Douglas' case, to quote extremely large blocks of text from within a certain piece of work essential to his story, which were written straight into the narrative, without quotation marks. Why did these great authors refuse to use italics? Hmmm... I don't know, I'm kind of going out on a limb here, but I'm going to take a stab at it... ...because they didn't need to! Their narratives were written with such clarity, the reader would have to be blind not to notice the lapse into internal dialogue. And this point leads me to offer a few questions: If others have been able to write with such clairty, they rarely, if at all, used italics to indicate internal dialogue, then why do people feel so compelled to do so? If there was something to it, don't you think the implied authors would have done so periodically, if not all the damn time?
I agree with both sides here. Honoring current conventions and standards is probably not a bad idea. On the other hand, I think writing would be a lot more boring if you had to follow a strict formula for everything. Writing is about communication, and words and grammar and style are the means to accomplish this. The goal with putting words down on paper (or on a circuit board) is to convey emotions and ideas to your reader, and it should be up to the writer to decide how best to do this, not some arbitrary standard. I use both italics and quotations for conveying the thought of my characters, depending on the setting. If the character is thinking something while on his own, I use quotations, example: If my character is engaged in a conversation however, I personally feel it works better to use italics. Example: I saw George R.R Martin had already been mentioned in this thread. He uses both styles too, and that seems to work very well for him. I feel like having the attitude of never using italics is limiting your own writing, regardless of what the current industry standard say. If you are a good writer, it shouldnt and wont matter if you use italics for thoughts, as long as you dont overuse it. And the reader certainly wont care if your story has a good flow to it.
bravo, gg!... ditto all of that [thanks for saving me so much typing!] what would you consider to be 'indirect thought'? if, by 'indirect' you mean something like... ...then there's no question of ever using italics for that, is there?... and if by 'direct' you mean... then there's still no need for italics, since 'he thought' makes it clear to the reader that he's thinking... and that's not the only way a good writer can get that across to the reader without resorting to fancy fontery, either...
I found the following useful, perhaps because my confirmation bias wants the way I'm already writing my piece to be correct. It's a concise discussion. The Controversial Topic of Italicized Text I thought that was interesting, because I can't think of a better way to show beings communicating psychically in first person. And I realize this is a blogger, not necessarily an expert. But using italics for the occasional present tense thoughts of my first person past tense narrative works in my story. Frankly the argument, it's a crutch of the unskilled, doesn't move me, (much as I respect the experienced people in this thread making the case for italicized thoughts not being necessary).
Here's an example from my book: Verita was back. Not a good omen. Apologies echoed round the table as Adama slid into another chair to make room for me next to her. Mayer completed the guard detail, pulling a loose chair to the table and sitting on my other side. Across from us, Verita continued the glare she started before Mayer and I went outside, only now she was less than a meter away. Now I could have done that a number of ways, including just narrating the thought. But I wanted to bring the reader into the scene. Showing the thought being thought rather than saying she thought the thought, to me breaks up the monotony of too much narrative. And if the people at the table are having a first person conversation, my protag is now in the present with them.
The problem, GingerCoffee - is that I didn't read that as internalized thought. I read that as you, the writer, emphasizing "not a good omen" because you wanted to make sure I caught the narrative wink and nod. In this case, your italics confused the issue instead of clarifying it. Verita is back. That can't be a good omen. I thought about the implications and ignored the the apologies that echoed around the table . . .
Sigh.... I'll think about it. OK, I thought about it. If it were merely for emphasis, I would expect something like, that can't be a good omen. Emphasizing a whole sentence doesn't fit in that example. And, the tense is first person, so it doesn't make sense as simply italicized for emphasis. I think your confirmation bias may be causing you to misread it.
(snip) But the wording already makes it clear that the thought is a thought. You don't need the italics, and you don't have to change even one word, to communicate that fact. The italics are unnecessary at best and confusing at worst. Without them, I flow nicely along with the character's observation (Verita was back.) to his thought (Not a good omen.) to his observations again (Apologies echoed...) I'm riding contentedly along in his head, immersed in the story. With the italics, the narrative grabs me by the collar and announces HE'S THINKING NOW and then it grabs me again and announces HE'S DONE THINKING AND NOW WE'RE TELLING YOU FACTS. But isn't he observing those facts? Aren't we still in his head? Haven't we been in his head all along? But if we've been in his head all along, why the italics? What's changed? With the italics, it's a tiny bit confusing, perhaps not an actual stumble, but rough spot on the floor. It pulls me out of the story to make me realize, oh, yeah, I'm _reading_ a story. Without them, it flows along with perfect smoothness and I'm not pulled out of the story. Your writing is perfectly fine; you don't need to mark it up with a typographical highlighter.
I'm interested in this idea. But does changing tense of the narrator without adding something like, "I thought", cause a problem? ...
As with Maia, I have no clue what you are asking here. Is there even such a distinction when it comes to internal dialogue? Are you distinguishing between internal dialogue standing on its own (direct, I'm assuming?) vs internal dilaogue with tags, like the ones maia's used (indirect?) Could you please specifiy? Sorry Ginger, I also misread it. I thought it was an authorial fragment based on the characters POV and internalization of the situation, not a thought. I'm still baffled by this whole debate. And people have yet to fully answer my question: If so many brilliant writers have done without the use of Italics, saving them for proper moments, like one should use adverbs, so the tool does its job and adds the necessary depth to whatever meaning you are trying to convey, then why even fu*k around with italics at all? Is this a matter of wanting to be like published authors? Is this a matter of trying to add aesthetics to a piece of writing for aesthetic's sake, so you can show you think you know what you're doing? In my opinion, let words do the job for you. There's more strength in that practice alone than anything italics could possibly offer, which is what maia and Cog both implied when writing shouldn't need typographical trickery or special fontery to convey something. This isn't about art, either, or adding style to a piece. That's nonsense. Your words are your style, your syntax, and the sound of your voice that resonates in the readers head as you order the words in the necessary way. Your style is your use of metaphor, of simile, how you make paragraphs, use fragments, or complex sentences, or neither, what aspects of behavior you show, how you set scenes, how you convey dialogue, action, how you speed up your narration, or slow it down, how you describe things and use imagery. All of these are done on their own, through your words. Nothing more, nothing less. Here's an idea, why not just type in Italics all the time? Or let's write chunks of narration in italics, or relegate italics to specific paragraphs of imagery? Let's overuse the shit out of it... ...and dilute the impact italics does carry, when used correctly, in doing so. Your writing should stand on it's freaking own, thus becoming art through creation, through the interaction between words and reader that is as unpredictable as Adams' Infinite Improbability Drive.
