I think you're nitpicking here. In a dream sequence, you indicate it was a dream. I've actually seen people who put an entire dream in italics. I personally wouldn't because it's what the MC is experiencing -- whether it's real or not. If someone opens their mouth in their dream, even though it's all in her head, they are still saying words. If their mouth is closed and the telepathically communicate, then I would put it in italics. "Reports speech or thought in it's original form phrased by the original speaker." You're misinterpreting the statement. It reports speech. Or a thought phrased by the original speaker. Meaning, it's being requoted. Quotes are used for speech or to quote someone's thoughts on a specific subject. Because when I do a little research, I find this from Wikipedia: Direct speech, quotation, or a phrase. Not thought.
Why are we even still discussing it then? You've clearly made up your mind. Case closed. Good luck on your book.
Yeah, I'm not the most avid readers, but if I read dialog inside quotations I take it as it's spoken out loud. And even if they're talking over the phone, anyone in the same room will hear at least one of the people talking. Italics just comes naturally to me, that this is something going on inside someone's head. When tagging quoted dialog with 'a voice said', then all the way through I would believe anyone could hear that voice, so you would also have to add 'a voice inside my head said', and even then I feel be a bit confused, because there's two instances where I though the voice said it out loud, first upon seeing the quotations, second by seeing the 'a voice said', and not until I get to the 'in my mind' part would I understand, but still, at this point there's 2 vs 1 instances where I thought what was said was out loud. Example: "It's raining," a voice said in my mind. Both while reading the blue and purple text I would think anyone could hear this and these are words spoken out loud. And by the red text, I'm feeling confused. Just my simple opinion though
Having a separate character that communicates silently is going to be a delicate balancing act anyway. If quotes are used, there's the distinction between audible and silent communication. If italics are used, there's the distinction between silent communication and internal character thought. There is no choice that eliminates the need to clarify what's going on. If this were my book, I'd use quotes, but that would be a decision based on my personal taste, rather than on which one is easier, because they're both hard.
Yes that was a nit pick. But your nit picking too. Its not referring to "sound" when it says direct speech. When you click into direct speech it says what I quoted. Saying it can refer to thought. Which makes sense. I don't think I have misinterpreted that. "In its original form" Example "Wow its really coming down out there," Valorie thought as she looked at the storm outside. This is her exact thought in it's original form. Non direct speech would be more like; Valorie was amazed at the sight of the storm, it was hard to believe how hard it was coming down. This sentence does not use her direct speech. Its implying how she is thinking and not saying it. Hey, no words in my mouth. Granted quotes seem like they make more sense. But I am still here. My loyalty is to logic and as such I reserve the right to change my opinion as the fact give me cause to do such. I listen and read your argument. I just haven't seen due cause to change my opinion.
I told you twice, this will be the third time: I was only referring to your single example. Why you insist on reading that as "never" is beyond me.
Oh, I thought you said italics were a legitimate tool. My apologies. So we are back to you dismissing a writer's tool as not legitimate but used by respected writers.
Sure, sounds great! I was just trying to help by ending the conversation. Because people are over here, doing extensive research for you, taking time out of their day to post suggestions and examples, trying to help you, and it seems that no matter what is said, you're stuck on quotations. So I was just trying to prevent people from further wasting their time. I think quotes are the most ridiculous way to go, but hey! Whatever works for you, right? I mean, the point of you asking was to figure out which would be the less confusing way to write it. And the general consensus (minus a select few) seems to be that italics are a better idea than quotes. But sure! Go with the quotes. After all, it's what the author wants that matters, right?
Which is fair. I opened this because I had no idea. After 5 pages I have gained an idea. Though for saying this is ridiculous you seem to be going against something simple. Which is not quoting "direct speech" because it isn't spoken aloud.
First your evil. Second "Direct Speech" is not holding the same definition as "Speech". I also did define it in a post you quoted. Though you didn't quote that part. Do you want me to write another example?
I'm not evil because you're wrong. lol (Also, it's you're* evil, not your.) Let me help you out. Googling "define direct speech" brings up this: Since you seem to think this includes thought, let me show you a website that defines direct speech more... directly. So basically, as I stated before, direct speech is requoting what someone else said. But since you're so gun-ho on it being direct speech, let me define speech for you. When you google "define speech," it brings up this: Now, I don't think I really need to define "sounds" for you... But just in case. When Googline "define sounds," it brings up this: So! Direct speech is (technically) requoted speech. But since you won't accept that, let's go with the root word of "speech." "Speech" means to make sounds. "Sounds" means to receive vibrations through the ear. Thoughts, or even telepathic voices, or demons stuck inside someone's head, do not go through the ear. Thus, they are not considered sounds, nor speech, nor direct speech. Thank you. Come again.
Nit picky. lol The point here is about direct and indirect. Quotation marks are used to refer to exact words or direct. Your using italics as quotation marks for thought. My challenge is why? It isn't a rule. That is like writing dreams in purple text. http://pointsonstyle.blogspot.com/2009/06/indirect-vs-direct-speech-and-thoughts.html Like I found. Had the quote of "Italics are being used like quotation marks to thought"
lol I'm not "nitpicking." I'm defining. It's what writer's do. Use words based on their proper definitions, not just make up their own ideas of what the word might actually mean. And yes -- your point is about direct and indirect. Direct and indirect speech! Speech is spoken! (Again, you're* not your.) And yes, I am using italics. Because it takes place in the same place thought does -- the brain. And you're right! It's not a rule (though I don't really understand how using italics for thought is like using purple text for dreams..... ). It's common usage. And it's common, because it just makes more sense. It's easier to read and to understand. Because quotations are used for dialogue and speech, whether direct or indirect. Italics are used for thoughts, or something that takes place in the brain. But sure! You're right. It makes way more sense to have internal dialogue written like they're spoken out loud. Genius. I say you go with it. Make it a trend. Maybe while we're at it, I'll start putting spoken dialogue into italics, without tags or quotes! Let's just flip the whole traditional thing on it's head! Mix it up a bit! Tradition is boring, am I right? Fun Fact of the Day: If you type speech enough, it starts to look misspelled.
You don't quote indirect speech. lol Let me give an example (Valorie called her friends to come eat.) She is speaking here. lol Not using quotes because it is not direct. ("Annie, Mathew! Come on food is ready," Valorie shouted to her friends.) Direct or exact. Works with thoughts too. (Valorie was thinking it was about time to call her friends) No quotes. Also guessing you wouldn't put this in italics right? Because it isn't direct. ("The food is nearly ready. Maybe I should call Annie and Mathew," Valorie thought.) This is quoted because is exact or direct. You would likely put this in italics without quotation marks right? So, you're using italics as quotation marks for direct thought. Right? It seems to me the proper way is to use quotation marks but at some point(long time ago or recent) people used italics as their own code for italics for direct thought. Which is improper but just caught on. No different than if everyone started writing dreams in a different color. Doesn't make it proper. Even if it goes on for years and gets published that way. Right?
And I'm spent. I tried. But it's hopeless. But good luck, yo. And I hope you don't start another thread asking this same question when your beta readers complain about how confusing using quotes for thoughts is.
Hahaha. Nah. Now I know. I will be the one that comments on the next noob who asks this question and when you see it we can argue all over again
Didn't you know? @ChickenFreak is the knower of all that is good and beautiful. Many times this chicken hath ruled and her tastes are reflected over the entire industry. Don't notice the fact that the entire industry is against the chicken. That wouldn't look good.
While we clearly have tension and disagreements between us, I still respect most of @ChickenFreak's advice as a writer, just as I respect your opinions as a writer. You and I see eye to eye on more things than not, and I'm grateful to call you a friend. And I don't think @ChickenFreak feels very warmly toward me. But I don't dismiss all her writing talents because I disagree with her on some, be they be important, things.
On that point, in this case, I have to agree. I've been especially discouraged by the posts (not just @ChickenFreak's) that continue to assert italicized thoughts are less skilled than other methods of portraying internal monologue or dialogue. There's no reason I can see for insulting a legitimate and widely used convention.
