Sorry, but no. Quoting anothers work is either by enclosing in quotation marks, or by a block quote (an indented block of text without surrounding quote marks). Unless you can present an authoritative source that says otherwise. The most comprehensive source I can quote on the matter is the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition. Other references I have found either agree with CMS or don'/t address it at all. This argument is endless. But no one has ever offered any authoritative references that support the use of italics for any manner of quoting, whether it be unspoken dialogue, or material quoted from other sources. The titles of creative works are italicized, but not the content. The only counterargument that anyone ever comes up with is that they see it in other published works. That does not make it correct, especially for manuscript. As widely misused as italics are, it may well become standard usage someday. Currently, it is not. Don't succumb to ignorance simply because it is popular.
Professor's Michael Hicks, Anthony King and Roger E Richardson Michael Collie and Martin Carver didn't disagree with my boss. Professor Mick Aston, Bristol University All are part of the academic staff or working enviroments I have been involved with. Oh and all would expect you to quote them in italics if word processing or underline if handwriting
Show me a verifiable, authoritative source that endorses that use of italics, not just a list of names of people who "didn't object." Be the first to successfuly meet that challenge, and I will gladly concede the point. Until then, I will continue to speak out against the practice, based on actually having researched the topic extensively. Give me facts.
you don't have to concede anything, do it you way its not wrong. Fact is its done. The top three didn't passively object they actively taught me that was the way it was done. They were training me to be a published historian. As all three have published countless tomes in their field I will take their word for it. I threw out my university introduction pack years ago!!! Oh and Michael Collie wrote a book with my boss, so he also used the convention. Martin Carver wrote three leaflets with me advertising one of his talks and requested I put his work in Italics.
So in other words, you cannot back it up with facts. On the other hand, I have repeatedly provided on this site a fact-based, verifiable argument against the practice. Do as you will. I will continue to recommend that writers not use italics in that way. No one will go wrong by not using italics, and by using clear writing instead, to indicate unspoken dialogue. No one will go wrong by using block quotes or quotation marks to identify materials from other sources. These are well-documented good practices. But if you are going to advise other people to follow your lead, please be prepared to back it up with a verifiable authoritative reference. Don't just argue for the sake of arguing. That is just noise.
You have quoted sources yes. And again maybe your advice is US specific, but the board isn't. I cannot quote as I no longer have them available too me. I am not insisting anyone does anything, I always assume people are intelligent and can make their own mind up. If someone is concerned they can always phone up a publishers or literary agent they wish to canvas and ask. I have done both with mine. HOWEVER I studied history in a traditional setting, the whole purpose of an old fashioned history degree was to teach a person to write a historical tome. My sources of information all have multiple publications to their name. And at least two have had something on bestseller lists in both the US and the UK. One gets filthy fan mail from middle aged women lol which when he quotes them he does it in italics. The phrase one of them used was Quote your shorts, Italicise your longjohns. Within books they do italicise things that come from other sources, that started about 25 years ago in the UK. It maybe the publisher that is leading the trend but ultimately its them we need to convince.
Elgaisma, Cog's advice is not US specific. I am also a trained academic, and I now teach academic writing. I expect I make the odd mistake now and then, but I don't often feel the need to check up on rules. For UK use, I find it easiest to abide by those of The Economist, Oxford University--which has a clear and concise guide--or Fowler's English Usage. Can't get much more traditional than that. Personally, I have never found italics used for more than very, very short quotations and certainly never been advised by any professor to use italics, or come across this convention very much in texts or articles. Nor have I observed this to be a recent trend. I hate to say this, but I think you may be the victim of a few teachers who had a very idiosyncratic and atypical style. Actually, as we've observed on this forum before, in the UK people are not as hung up on rules as the US. All the same, it's better to start novices out along the conventional track--and you should always check the rules for punctuation on the submission guidelines for an academic journal before blithely expecting everyone to be familiar with this, to my mind, rather more informal and unusual way of using italics.
fair enough you knowledge is vastly superior to my own I entirely agree with the last paragraph. it always pays to check. I have taken to phoning and emailing places and asking for their conventions
When I read a novel, I prefer to read character thoughts in italics. I also write this way. I view creative writing as an art, and art cannot be bound by such silly rules. Now, if you are doing academic writing, then yeah I suppose you have to use the italics the way they were originally intended to be used.
Well, it doesn't need to be while it's only your creation, but if you want to be traditionally published, then I think that it's likely to be bound by the publisher's rules. ChickenFreak
italics for thoughts used in The Snow of Kilimanjaro In The Snow of Kilimanjaro, Ernest Hemingway used italics for Harry's thoughts. Actually he used alot italics in this famous short story. And I consider this is a very classical example about how to use italics for thoughs. Kevin
'papa' was not an 'authoritative source'... and unless you're reading his original ms, you can't be sure whether it was his choice, or his publisher's, can you?
It is dependent on the style of narration you are choosing. If you use 'the stream of consciousness', for example, then the whole book will represent the narrator's thoughts and hence no need for italics. Definitely using italics entails following certain rules or being restricted to special uses;however, a writer could exceed the rules if s\he feels it is necessary or serves his purpose--especially if consistency in usage taken into consideration .
I write dream sequences in italics in the novel I'm working on. The blank page is a writers canvas, and as long as your book is well written, such a minor decision like this won't put off a reputable agent or publisher off of an otherwise fantastic novel.
Every grammatical flaw, every misuse of punctuation, every mispelling, contributes to the picture the submissions editor forms of you and your writing. Italics are not duct tape to patch up your writing. Your writing should make your meaning clear. Using italics as a substitute for good writing is a lazy practice.
I'm sorry this is ridiculous. It isn't a grammatical flaw, or a lazy practice. Writer's from Hemmingway to Jonathan Safran Foer have done it, and to say there is only one way is just ignorance. I'm not saying it is the way it should be done as a rule, but if you can justify your use of italics to yourself and to the reader, then use them. They are a tool, just like anything else.
Do what you will, but if you know what is and is not correct use, you will be better prepared to write manuscripts that will be accepted. Like it or not, if you want to be published, you have to impress a submissions editor. You may think the little things don't matter, and to a point it is true. But the little things do add up.
I do agree that you need to learn the rules before you can break them. But if you feel confident in your own work to break them, and that you understand exactly why you are making this choice, then I see nothing at all wrong with it. For example I mentioned Jonathan Safran Foer, and some of his work really relies on a beautiful use of unusual punctuation, even in his debut novel. If your work is really good enough, then any agent or publisher (and I know a few) isn't going to throw away a moving/thrilling/thought provoking manuscript that they think they can sell just because of a small formatting choice (especially if other formatting considerations are impeccable).
I trust your research, and don't doubt that every little detail counts when trying to get published. I just find it odd that people so often talk about "correct" usage, as if it was unambiguously defined. What is considered correct is just what is in common use at a certain point in time. Or rather, what is considered correct by authoritative sources lags behind the natural evolution of language by a few decades.
Absolutely. Conventions change and evolve. What is considered best practice today may not have been considered proper a decade ago, or it may be obsolete a decade hence. What was fine in Papa Hemingway's time may be a fast route to the rejection bin today. In every profession, you need to be aware of the current standards and techniques. That includes the writing profession. Ignore at your own risk.
also keep in mind that agents and editors [and their lowly, low-paid 'readers'] are so overloaded with mss submitted by newbies that they'll welcome any reason to toss one, to go on to the next... and being annoyed by a lot of harder-to-read italics is as good a reason as any...
Reading this I realise I wrote a 76,000 word memoir without using italics once. I have to add them for a couple of things, thoughts will not be amongst them. http://www.ehow.com/how_5951_italics.html
Although not an authoritative source, the article above is a good summary of the correct uses of italics. Please note: Publishers are increasingly open to italics being inserted in manuscripts directly, but the standard is to identify italicized passages by underlining. The reasons are twofold. The practice dates back to the days of typewritten manuscripts, because standard typewriters are incapable of typing italicized passages. The other reason is that underlining is much easier to see in the manuscript.
Just to add my two cents: I recently purchased a book by Mercedes Lackey because it was on the LGBT spec-fic read list titled Magic's Pawn. I cannot even express what a painfully difficult read this book is. I just plain stopped reading it. I don't care that it is on the LGBT read list. This book uses italics for internal thought and then also italics for telepathic communication AND also surrounds these italicly represented telepathic communications with colons instead of quotation marks. And it is everywhere! The ratio is nearly 50/50. Italics vs non italics. No offense to anyone challenged by Tourette's Syndrome, but that is what the page looks like. It looks like a visual representation of an extreme bout of Tourette's ticking gone mad. It's awful. It's jarring. It's a mess. I have no idea whether the writing is even any good because I cannot see the writing for all the bloody crap happening on the page. If you want to have a look at why the use of italics should be sparring and only occasional, go to your local book seller and ask to be directed to the Science Fiction & Fantasy racks and look for this book.
