people who don't know how to use the italics well or at least halfway stylishly will tend to not use them. it's not a "trend" exactly
Doesn't answer the question, can you give an example of incorrectly using italics for dialogue and correctly using them?
AHA! No, it's a stupid smiley my friend got me into using. I don't even know what it means, to be honest. At first, I thought my bad habit of picking up on what other people say and adding it to me day-to-day vocab. only applied to SPOKEN words, but apparently, it applies to typed words, as well. I tag it in at the most inappropriate times, I'm sure. It's probably some kind of funky, "Let's frickle frack," sign and I don't even know it.
If you're writing in first person is there any reason you would use italics? You mentioned weak writing Cogito. Would it be considered weak writing to use italics in writing when you're describing past events? Like flash backs?
Not really, unless you're emphasizing a word or using a word from another language. I wouldn't necessarily call it weak writing, but most editors won't like this. So I wouldn't do it.
What would be a good way to make it known to the reader that they're looking at a situation separate from the initial then?
Good and clear writing. It's hard to describe it beyond that. There are several examples of novels that abruptly change tenses or POVs without using italics or any special formatting. Yet the authors still manage to make the books readable through their writing skills.
Do keep in mind, "weak writing" is an opinion. If that is important to you, fine, but it is still just some people's opinion. That differs from 'consensus'.
Well, unless you're planning on self-publishing, it's important to know what editors think. I don't think there's a consensus on italics for thoughts, but I'm willing to bet that there is a consensus on using italics for flashbacks.
I get that and I know we've been round and round in this thread. I've yet to see the evidence that all, most, some, or a few editors care. I did find evidence it is an older convention, so an older traditional publisher might have issues. But I also found evidence it was common in published books to see italics for internal dialogue. Let's see the evidence, what proportion of these publishers actually care?
Did you even read my post? I said that there might not be a consensus for thoughts but that there probably is for flashbacks (don't use italics for flashbacks). Besides, evidence works both ways. Provide evidence that editors don't have a preference when it comes to italics for thoughts (you most likely aren't going to find any unless you call each publisher and conduct a poll yourself). There's nothing to indicate that publishers no longer follow older conventions. That's why several of the members here recommend not using italics for thoughts; it's a safer option, and I totally understand where they're coming from.
The thread is about italics for thoughts, so I apologize for missing that you were talking about something else. As for the evidence, it's been posted, all the published books that use italics for thoughts are evidence many publishers accept the convention. The only thing I've seen that suggests some don't have been claims in this thread by a couple individuals who tell us publishers care. I've not seen anything in searching the Net that names publishers who don't accept the convention.
There's a difference between what's published and what you submit in manuscript form. It's the latter we should be concerned with. The last thing we want is to be rejected for a trivial reason like this. I was going to link to an article, but the woman who wrote it claims it's OK to use quotes for thoughts. That's not right, so what she says about italics can't be trusted IMO.
There's also the fact that many, many books don't use italics for thoughts--I've only read one or two that do. And a book that depends on italics for thoughts needs to be edited to eliminate that dependency, and publishers are not eager to take on extra editing. So an author should think carefully before depending on them, as opposed to adding them as optional formatting.
I've thought about it carefully. Yup. I'm gonna use 'em! Depend on it. By the way, the people who say fancy fontery doesn't work and isn't acceptable or indicative of good writing should take a look at Terry Pratchett. He's one of the most popular, best-loved, most respected and best-selling authors in the world today. Not only does he use italics for thoughts, but his character, Death, SPEAKS LIKE THIS, IN ALL CAPS. Other characters sometimes use special fonts as well. It's all part of the fun. Fonts exist. Why not use them? As long as they are used to effect, why not? Italics for thoughts means a less-cluttered manuscript (no he thought, she thoughts) and it's a visual shorthand modern readers recognise.
Well, I can't agree with you there--even without the italics, the "he thought, she thought" is rarely necessary. Very often, prose with italics-for-thoughts could just have the italics removed, have no other change, and be just fine. At other times, it might need some slight tweaking (for example, maybe changing present tense to past) but there's still no need for thought attributions.
Oh, I totally agree with you. All of what you say certainly does work. My only point is : italics also work. I prefer them, as long as the 'thought' doesn't go on too long. It's difficult to read more than a sentence—or maybe two—in italic font, so if that situation occurs in my story, I try to find another way to present the thought. But for short thoughts that are interjections or 'asides', especially in a dialogue exchange, I use italics. I also use them in a narrative passage, where the 'thought' appears in the POV character's special voice or dialect. Italics for 'thoughts' are simple, and they work. Like any other device, they should never be over-used, but they certainly have their place in modern writing, and lots of traditionally-published authors use them.
My novel involves one of my characters getting possessed. I use italics for the thoughts in his head that aren't his own. I gather this is used more often than not for handling this sort of story element. It does mean that italics for normal thoughts are totally off limits for me. It also means removing the italics would require me to rewrite a lot of those bits as it wouldn't always be clear who was thinking.
Cogito makes excellent points. Italics are not to be used for thoughts. It's pretty obvious that when the sentence is subjective it constitutes a thought.
