Blah blah blah. Some people bicker and argue about how things should be done, while the others are off doing it...
I think it depends on which you think is better. some writers use italics only when narrating something that's happened in the past e.g a character's recollection of a childhood memory. others tend to use italics,like you, to depict a character's thoughts and yet others only add "he thought,or she thought"but the actual thoughts in normal text.so basically i think it just depends on how you want to use them.either way has generally been acceptable.
The conflict called for it. But for the record, I sought to resolve a dilemma. My local writer's critique group, in particular the leader of the group who I've been working with for a year now and highly respect, said to use the italics for internal dialogue. Then in this thread, a couple people asserted it was absolutely wrong and my critique group leader, who I know and they don't, was incompetent. Instead of accepting an argument from either authority, I did my own research. I found my answer. Now when I see those same wrong assertions of absolute correctness, (wrong based on the fact I found the convention is changing and italics for thoughts are widely accepted), I feel compelled to challenge the assertion which continues to be made sans the clarification it is an individual, not an absolute opinion. If you are going to state again and again that a writing convention is correct, and not everyone agrees, then it's going to be challenged again and again. I stand by the evidence I cited in this thread. Doing research and posting evidence shouldn't be seen as a pissing contest. We're here to learn, at least most of us are. If people are socially pressured, or worse, bullied, into not researching further or not posting evidence because the conflict irritates and annoys, learning is cut short.
Because, my friend, there wouldn't be a 288-post argument about it on this forum!!! [MENTION=11513]Gin[/MENTION]ger: good work with all the reference you've found. One might say you over-done it, but I say you were just a zealous advocate of italics' rights
Some direction this thread went! I have a question that I couldn't earlier in the thread. In my short story the main character's thoughts are italicized. If he asks himself a rhetorical question, is the word after the question mark still lowercase? For example: Might I ever be more than a museum guard? he wondered. Microsoft Word seems to think "he" should be capitalized but I disagree and I want to punch MS Word in the head sometimes but she knows karate I think.
I would say yes, it should be lower case because, no different than in spoken dialogue with quotation marks, the dialogue tag is still a dependent clause of the preceding text, not a separate sentence as it would be if one were using a beat instead of a tag. MS Word is not happy with what you are doing because it sees a punctuation mark signaling the end of a complete sentence that isn't being overridden by a closing quotation mark. It just sees a sentence that has come to a close and expects what comes next to be another new sentence.
I agree with Wreybies. I'd drop "he wondered," though. It is clear from the italicized thought that he is wondering, so having the tag in there is pointless.
I reciprocate Steerpikes agreement. In this particular instance, the wondering is already so clear in the thought itself that the tag points out the obvious. You could avoid the strangeness of the ? falling in the middle of the text by just removing that tag altogether.
Fair enough. Thank you both. Sometimes it makes sense to add a "he wondered" or the like for the sake of flow (that dreaded word). It might be redundant, but when taken with preceding and succeeding dialog/inner monolog it can help the work to read better. Still, I understand and agree with the point that my little example above is a bit redundant.
wasn't sure if I should open an entirely new thread on this, and I'm hesitant to open this can of worms, but I have a sentence that I'm currently using italics in as a place holder until I find the right way to format it. The girl looked over to Kemp with a look that said, get a load of this guy. How exactly do you format that, considering the get a load part is not actually being said, nor thought. the scene is being written from Kemp's perspective, so he can't know her thoughts. It's an example that seemed to fit in with this general discussion.
The sentence you've written is fine the way it is. It's a narrative, not internal dialogue. "Get a load of that guy" is an adjectival clause in that sentence and that differs from internal dialogue.
imo, with 'said' there, it's actually quoting something that would be said, so would go in " "... the adjective clause bit would work only if it was worded 'to get... '...
With that interpretation 'Look' is the speaker. It's not speech just because the word 'said' appears in a sentence. I'll see if I can find a more definitive answer. Now that I read the sentence again, I'd change either 'look' or 'looked' for better flow. ...glanced over with a look ... ...eyed him with a look ... And now I'm wondering if it's an adverbial clause describing the verb, "looked", or an adjectival clause describing the noun, "a look", not that it matters to the OP question. ... I need more coffee.
still rises from 'said'... so is not describing the look, only quoting what the look 'said'... to be modifying 'look' as an adjective would, the sentence has to be: and repeating 'look' in two forms doesn't read well... plus, 'to' should be 'at' to make good sense...
I found an example on this grammar reference site, no quotations. (The colon isn't needed because "that" replaces it.) I don't know if it's personal preference or a grammar rule, but I can't see a 'look' speaking. The person in the sentence isn't talking. Makes no sense to me to treat this description as dialogue.
Getting back to the italics topic, I think the only reasons the debate persists so long is that one view is flatly contradicted by the personal experience of readers. It's all well and good to talk about guidelines, or what one prefers personally, but any statements to the effect that italics can never be used for thoughts or that it simply isn't accepted are immediately exposed as falsehoods by simply going to the nearest Barnes & Noble and walking along the aisles, opening books at random (including first novels, no by authors who could just get away with anything because of their popularity).
There's also the psychological impediment to accepting evidence that contradicts something you feel certain is correct. Our brains naturally discount evidence that doesn't agree with existing beliefs. Confirmation bias and rationalizing beliefs aren't just individual quirks, they are the result of how our brains process information. One has to be on guard against the innate flaws in our brains, and a lot of people aren't. In the case of italics for internal dialogue, I'm not sure what the history is. Apparently it found it's way into popular use while not being officially recognized by one or more formal authorities. There's no logical reason for not using the convention, except for catering to individual publisher's conventions. Given how many recognized writers use it, the claims don't hold that it is somehow lazy or sloppy writing or shows a lack of skill in communicating clearly to the reader without it.
Yes. It is basically down to personal preference. If a substantial majority of editors and agents held that preference, it would be worth taking note of, even if you disagree with it, because of practical considerations. But given the prevalence of the usage in published books, I am skeptical of any claim that even a significant number of agents and editors hold this view anymore.
One of several fascinating topics taken up in David Eagleman's book Incognito. My own conclusion (and I can't believe this thread has gone on for 16 pages!) is that this is an area in which standards are emerging, probably due to the evolution of desktop publishing and advances in word processing programs. Now, we even have novel writing management programs (see the discussion nearby). I can remember when you worked with a manual typewriter and you couldn't even do italics. I know, ancient history; but publishing is an ancient profession. And it is not a monolithic one. So, little wonder there is disagreement on something like this. With my own project, I am showing thoughts (or internal dialogue, as some would call it) in the traditional manner. If I find an agent to represent the work, and if that agent finds a editor who likes it, and if that editor sells the idea to a senior editor, and if as a result I wind up with a book contract, and if at that point said editor calls me and says, "We like thoughts to be in italics", I will not try to talk her out of it. At the same time, I am fairly certain that neither the agent, nor the editor, nor the senior editor will look at my ms and say, "This would have been a super-terrific novel if the thoughts were in italics, but they're not so send off the rejection notice." That's just me. I will leave it to others to do as they will.
From this blog here: http://theeditorsblog.net/2011/01/05/format-your-novel-for-submission/ Obviously, this is only a guys blog. However, he was stating what the typical manuscript should look like if the publisher or agent hasn't got any specific guidelines. I was growing frustrated, looking for an answer on this when I came to various agency sites with no specific guidelines. Just: "Post the first five pages in the body of the email". Personally, when reading a book, I prefer the use of italics. It just makes it easier for me when reading a persons thought. I imagine it'd be easier for the author also, rather than adding "he thought" every sentence.
Yes, emerging standards seems to be the case. I think the reason the thread goes on is new people are asking the same question and reviving the thread. Some people have cited pre-computer era texts that also use italics for thoughts. There is a wide variety of conventions the further back one looks. There's nothing wrong with not using italics. I think we all agree on that. From what I found, both conventions are acceptable. I'm using italics because it avoids a lot of "she thought" tags.
That is apparently the typical convention of older standard manuscript requirements. There is a consensus on this thread that no matter what you use, find out a publisher's manuscript requirements and follow it before submitting yours. All publishers are not the same.
