I don't see the issue here. It's a character, speaking. Yes, it's an invisible character, speaking. But if I were writing a telephone conversation, or presenting words from a loudspeaker or a character in another room, I wouldn't need to use a special typographical convention that means, "You can't see who's speaking." I think that the isue with this specific example is that you're presenting something new and confusing in the middle of a scene where your character, your viewpoint, wouldn't be thinking of that new and confusing thing. If you use quotes and a speech tag, yes, the reader will think, "Hey. Who's that?" If you use italics, the reader will think, "Hey. Who or what is that?" Italics don't explain to the reader, by their very presence, "Oh, this is a separate entity that lives invisbly in the character's head." In fact, a reader accustomed to italics (edited to clarify: italics-for-thought, that is) will likely assume that they represent Valorie's thoughts--which isn't accurate. Maybe the solution is to present the voice when Valorie does have some spare attention to think about it. In the rambling version of my writing voice: Valorie tucked her knife in her sheath. "Take the sword, too." said the Voice. In her head. The Voice that was in her head. The one that wasn't her. That one. It was a problem, the Voice. Valorie took a breath. A deep breath. A deep and exasperated breath. "Shut up." Sometimes speaking aloud to the Voice made her feel better. When no one was in the room to declare her insane and have her locked up. That was one of the worries about the Voice, the whole insanity and being locked up thing. But just one of them. The other worry was the things that it seemed to know. Things that Valorie didn't know. Things that she really, really didn't want to know. "You'll be sorry," said the Voice. "Shut. Up." But she took the sword anyway. Damned Voice.
You claim that italics take the reader out of the story, and then have to use four jarring and unnecessary sentences describing, what a line of italics and one throwaway line would make clear? Meanwhile Rowling put one sentence in italics and it's immediately clear that it's a voice that no one but Harry Potter can hear.
There are a dozen other ways to handle it; this was just my choice. I'm not clear on how the character's thoughts and experiences in the story take one out of the story, but, sure. You can argue that my writing doesn't successfully convey her thoughts and experiences, but that's a different issue. Do the italics in Harry Potter explain, "This is a voice that only Harry Potter can hear, and he's been hearing it for a long time, and this is how he feels about it, and it resides inside his head rather than coming from outside, and these are his fears about it, and this is one of the ways that he copes with his fears." Really? All with a little change in typography? I think maybe not.
I don't even understand what you're arguing here. If you're trying to do all of that with dialogue tags you...can't...very bad...I don't have a way of putting that that wouldn't be very insulting. No, the italics convey a very simple meaning. The voice is one that only he can hear. And it does it with out any explanation. As opposed to your constant use of "the Voice" again and again and again.
As opposed to that annoying use of "Fred said," or "Joe said," again and again and again? How is that different from "The Voice said, "? You seem, here, to be objecting to dialogue tags.
Most writers would tell you to vary the descriptions of Joe and Fred so that you avoid that very problem. Are you saying that there a descriptor for "the voice in her head" other than "the voice in her head"? And no, synonyms for voice and head do not count. I'd like to just hammer home though, that what took you four sentences could have be done in one, without breaking the flow.
I didn't say "the voice in her head" more than once. (Edited to add: Ah, yes, I effectively said it twice, as part of the rambling-style thing. OK, not more than twice.) I said "The Voice." Like one might say "The Lieutenant." A character name. What do you mean, vary descriptions of Joe and Fred? Are you an advocate of that character-synonym thing? "I went to the store," said Joe. "Later, I got my car washed," said the green-eyed teen. "Then I stopped at a garage sale," said the dark-haired youth. "And later I went home," said the denim-garbed young man. You're not advocating that. Please say you're not?
Replying to myself: Whether you are or not, I reject it. He's Joe. When you need a dialogue tag, he's Joe. Now, you don't always need a dialogue tag. You can sprinkle them, sparsely: "You'll be sorry," said the Voice. "Shut. Up." But she took the sword anyway, and headed for the door. "There's no need to flounce around like that. It's not as if you can leave me behind." Valorie slammed the door behind her. "I can try." "Won't work. I'm always with you. Reassuring, isn't it?" "Having a disembodied stalker? Reassuring? No." "I suppose it does make it hard to serve the restraining order." "Remember when I said shut up?"
Which is cool, all the way up until there's three people. As we saw above, not everyone (by which I mean @ChickenFreak and @GingerCoffee) could figure out which line was the voice and which wasn't. Italics makes that all go away.
How so? Valorie has a voice in her head. Valorie will have her own internal thoughts. How do you distinguish between the two?
Sorry but I don't get it. If it is sally and kevin then it is easily to skip speech tags to but the moment frank comes in it becomes much harder. This has nothing to do with voice in head but three speakers. So why does speech tags in those events seem bad? We use speech tags anyone time three speakers are present.
Need I say it? Everyone should calm down. @ChickenFreak, we know your aversion to italics. That's fine. @GuardianWynn likes (prefers) your style. Go for it, Wynn. It's your piece. I am not invested in your choices. @Jack Asher and I are annoyed at the unsupportable claims of "better", "more skilled", whatever. It's a writer's personal choice. No more no less.
Everyone seemed calm to me. I am kind of new to writing so I admit no expert. I like seeing different opinions on the same issue. Maybe it goes the fact I read an italic line without even realizing it. So them being a indicator like a speech tag seems off to me. Because I would miss it probably every time which means I would be lost. So I am looking for what would make sense and not confuse a reader.
I never said that dialogue tags are not needed. I said that thought tags are usually not needed. They're not the same thing.
Thought tags are needed as often as dialogue tags are needed to indicate who is speaking/thinking. Italics eliminate the need for the tags. I'm really unclear as to why you choose the tags to be superior to the italics when you are clearly skilled as evidenced by your frequently excellent advice. Why do you want to throw a tool out of your toolbox? Is it possible it is time to recognize your aversion to italics is self-made pain that you have the power to change? You cling to the 'personal preference' argument while your real position is revealed in your posts, you believe italicized thoughts are wrong. You appear to resent the assertion the convention is optional despite the fact the evidence is very clear the convention is commonly accepted and therefore optional. Just my observation.
You seem guilty of the same thing though. I mean is my agument invalid to you? If I read a book using italics like this it would likely confuse me. Why not write what we mean? Even if this is a common code it still seems to be a unneeded code.
