If she's saying it out loud, or in those exact words to herself ...yes. However, if it's you, the author, saying it in a bit of narrative ...no.
Well, I am afraid to generalize because I already got blasted for that, but I am in the camp that some readers (like me) would read this as an obvious grammatical error and be taken out of the story. I think that the OP may have already decided, however, that she likes the punctuated version offered earlier--so even though I agree with jannert here --this may already be a dead topic. To my original point, the issue was not punctuation, it was incorrect sentence structure.
This is my take on it, as well. In fact, I'd disagree strongly with any suggestion to remove the colloquialism as it also removes the character voice. And anyone who knows me knows my take on that! Soak the narrative in character voice. I don't want to read a dry academic explanation of what happens. I want to get pulled into the character's head and experience the scene as she does, including her speech patterns and everything.
As long as it's clearly colloquial I have no problem with that either. However, from the excerpt, I wasn't quite picking that up. The distraction of losing her link to Daniel couldn't have come at a worse time. Enemy soldiers were coming from the fourth path. They were too close to avoid a visual. The best option try and work with them. Annie after all was still in disguise. They slowed down when they saw her. I read that as author narrative. However, if this was in character 'voice,' and the character doing the thinking here is not named Annie (why would her 'voice' allow her to speak about herself in the third person?) and the character speaks similarly in other places, then fair enough.
Amazing how much energy a group of smart adults will put into a few words. (I know we all -- whoops many of us--love words) Of course it doesn't matter how GuardianWynn writes her story, how her characters speak in dialogue, in their heads, or her narrator speaks. It is up to her how she wants to do it, and her readers will ultimately decide if they like it. She asked for advice, and I would hope that she would graciously and gratefully accept all good-faith efforts to give her that requested advice. I just want to say that it is astonishing how a few seem to believe that a grammatically correct sentence in the contest of an entire scene would render the scene as "bland" or as "a dry academic explanation." Really? There is that much difference between "to try and" and "is to try to." Or is it possible that the thread has deteriorated into dismissing any other point of view as somehow inferior writing?
Honestly, @DueNorth, I think you're reading too much into it. Guardian asked for advice, considered the opinions he was given, and chose the one that fits the story as he wants to write it. Nobody has accused anybody of inferior writing as far as I can see and all exchanges, bar the little scuffle with you and Minstrel, have been polite and measured.
I'm not suggesting comments haven't been polite--other than the one dust-up that got fixed. Just an amazing amount of energy (mine too) over a few words--which I think highlights the point that many of us (or all on this thread) are reading too much into it. I'd just as soon be done as far as any further comment from me on this (round of applause) thread.
You're being petty and far from polite. If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, I suggest maybe you don't respond at all. This is how Wynn works. He (and yes, he's a he, not a she) is learning, just like all of us. While it may seem like a waste of energy to you, long conversations about the proper way to write really benefit Wynn. I've seen his stories evolve and his writing improve because of these types of conversations. And when he questions someone's input, it isn't to dismiss it as inferior. It's because he truly wants to understand the reasoning behind the opinion. You can't just say to him, "Because it's grammatically correct," and be done with it. He wants to know why you'd write that way--why you think it's better. Because sometimes, writing grammatically correct isn't the correct way to write. It depends on the story. If your MC is illiterate or uneducated, he won't think in a grammatically correct way. If your MC is a Valley Girl, who uses the word "like" in every sentence, there's a good chance she won't think in a grammatically correct way either. Wynn wants the narrator voice to be coming from his character. He doesn't mind that every sentence might not be grammatically correct because, let's face it, not everyone in the world knows that "try and work with them" isn't grammatically correct. It sounds to me like you believe those who don't write in a grammatically correct way to be inferior, not the other way around. But you can write your story the way you want to, and Wynn will write his the way he wants to. So let's just leave it at that and move on. Wynn, I like what you decided to go with. I agree changing the sentence takes the character out of it.
A notable point is that I wasn't actually asking if it was grammatically correct or if it should be fixed. I opened the thread because I sort of noticed all on my own that it wasn't correct and I was curious which tool(such as a colon, a tool I am not very familiar with) would fix it and make it correct without losing her voice. I wasn't saying that correct is always bland or should be avoided. I was saying that the fix required two points. - Being correct - Keeping her voice Your suggestion only seemed to have one of those. Which is why I wasn't latching onto it. Nothing against you or correct writing. HUGS!!!!! This is why I tagged you. Because your awesome. This scene was meant to be in Annie's head. But I was writing in closed third person. I mean if I suddenly wrote I wouldn't that be a POV break? Teach me! If more contest is useful. Annie is in an enemy stronghold. She is a psychic that was acting like a radio between all the members of her team. Losing a link to Daniel implied he lost consciousness which worried her. At the same time she psychically senses more soldiers heading her way. In the terms of fighting she isn't very good. So she did sort of mentally have to think about the decision. Trying to blend in was not just a given for her. In a sense I could see her quoted mental dialogue being like this. "Crap! What do I do? Fight? No way I wouldn't last ten seconds. Think, run? No, they might see that and if I run I can't plan my route. I could run into more guards. Oh wait! I am still in their uniform. I got it. The best option? Try and work with them! Good thinking!"
I think you're on the right track. If this bit is inside Annie's head (which might have been clear in your original, but because we only had the snippet to go on, I wasn't sure) you might want to make the personal angle even stronger, as you've just done in the example above. Or something like this: The distraction of losing her link to Daniel couldn't have come at a worse time. Enemy soldiers were coming from the fourth path. They were too close to avoid a visual. Should I just try and work with them? Annie after all was still in disguise, still wearing their uniform. Might be the best option. They slowed down when they saw her. That's where italics for thoughts can really help. But your way works, too.
See, that's why I use italics 'for thoughts.' It gives you the ability to say what a person is actually saying to him/herself (in first person) in the middle of a third person POV section. If you read through that bit, there is no confusion about who is thinking those thoughts, is there? It lets you know that Annie is thinking exactly that, in her own voice, without having to say : Should I just work with them, Annie thought. It may not be stellar prose, but it works. That's why I get so annoyed with people who refuse to acknowledge that italics for thoughts has a place in a writer's toolbox. It allows you to temporarily bypass a third-person POV without a lot of 'she thought' gymnastics. Such as: The distraction of losing her link to Daniel couldn't have come at a worse time. Enemy soldiers were coming from the fourth path. They were too close to avoid a visual. Should I just try and work with them, Annie wondered. Annie after all was still in disguise, still wearing their uniform. Might be the best option, she decided. They slowed down when they saw her.
I am sort of in the no italics for thoughts camp. lol. This is partially because most of the times I see it used seems to be a clunky way to avoid tagging quoted speech. Not that I am an expert of writing or writing well. lol I am probably more in the camp of tagging thoughts. I used to quote thoughts, but I adknowledge how readers tend to see quotes and think aloud speech. Which makes me sad. Quotes are not just a signal for something being spoken aloud! lol. Though on another note. Now that I look at it? Does the other aspects of the paragraph just suck? I mean. telling you she is distracted, telling you people were coming. I do suck at showing don't I? I suppose I kind of just suck in general. One of these days I will get the hang of it. lol
Actually, they are, or at least that's how readers will see them. However, you might try using just a 'single' quote mark to denote thoughts, and see if that works. It might, depending on how frequently you do this. Think about it. If you're in a passage where a person is having a conversation with somebody and also thinking private thoughts at the same time, how on earth would you portray that with quotes for both? Yikes. However, the italics for thoughts convention works really well. In all instances, actually. That's why I am a fan. Just a sample from my novel, to show you how I use italics for thoughts, in the middle of a two-way conversation. I think you'll see very quickly why quote marks would make this too confusing : "I'm sorry." “Don’t be," Jessie said. "I don’t remember him at all. I was only a baby myself when he died. But he would be exactly the same age as you are, if he’d lived.” She gave a little laugh, not because the situation was funny, but because it seemed so oddly significant. “It’s just—you feel so...familiar...to me, sometimes. You were born on the same day as James. Maybe that explains it....” Explains what? What am I saying? Jessie felt her face growing hot. Comparing Joe to her long-dead baby brother, because of a coincidence of birthdays? Maybe that explains it?—what a stupid thing to say. “Maybe it does.” He gave her a lopsided smile. “You feel familiar to me, too.”
Well, you are awesome and I will here no word from anyone who opposses. Which puts me in an awkward position to see you supporting something that I usually view as clunky. This is partially due to my bad reading roots. Thoughts for italics isn't given as a rule, and as such when I was exposed to it, I just found it confusing. It wasn't until I joined this forum that I even heard of the concept. So yeah, previous expierences with it were never understood until I came here. Now that I know, I can see why people use it. I much prefer @ChickenFreak style. Which if I recall correctly is blending it into the narration in a way to make it obvious without the need for any special indicator. It makes me sad too that a common reader will assume all quotes are spoken dialogue. I actually have moments were I use its other uses! :"(
It's got nothing to do with having bad reading roots. Everybody does this differently. I think the thing every writer should be aware of, however—whatever their preferences—is how the method they've chosen can go wrong. If you use italics too often, or in big wads, it will make your page look messy and can put the reader off. If you use quote marks for thoughts and for speech as well, how will your reader distinguish between the two? If you say 'he thought, she thought' all the time, how will you make THAT not appear clunky after a while. All the methods have a down side, and writers need to be aware of these downsides as they write. For me, the bottom line is always confusion. I will stand on my head to avoid confusing my reader. I never want a reader to go 'huh?' and have to page backwards to figure out what they've missed. I'll sacrifice just about anything for clarity. I'm extremely grateful to any beta reader who points out where I've gone off the track in this respect. A writer knows what they're trying to convey, but only a beta can tell them if they've succeeded. I can't begin to count the number of times I've changed the way I've written a scene because somebody got confused about what was going on. I don't mind if they don't know WHY something has happened ...sometimes that's part of the plot and will unfold with the story. But if they don't know what has just happened, or aren't aware that the location has changed, or who the speaker is? No. That bit has got to be worked on. No exceptions.
