@minstrel; Em. . . Sorry if you took it the wrong way man. It was supposed to highlight the myopic idiocy of those that get hung up on such issues. I thought you'd see where I was coming from.
Actually, you've completely derailed everything that I've said in an attempt to further your own argument. ^.^ Surprise, surprise. No, what I'm saying is - everyone is putting all the weight in the world on this singular topic within this singular thread, as though it's going to destroy the world if a singular aspiring author goes to get published and gets turned down because of italics, or gets picked up despite having italics. What everyone in here is posting is their opinion, based off their experience or someone else's. "Italics help to delineate narration from internal monologue." That's an opinion. "Italics are a crutch that prevents an author from finding a more effective means of portraying internal monologue." This is also an opinion. You can try to back it up with as much "evidence" as you want, but, frankly, the only thing I've learned from this thread is, no matter how much "evidence" anyone on ANY side of a discussion may present, you have no guarantee of swaying anyone's opinion in that direction. Writers are going to do what they will with their writing, depending on what they agree with more - which opinion they think is better. The continued discussion on this thread is nothing more than a repetition of previous opinions that have been stated in which a new member comes on and asks a question that a formerly new member asked some time ago. And rather than directing that new member to the previous question and the answers that were supplied, everyone feels a need to rehash their previous arguments, as though they haven't each said them a dozen times a piece. No one has anything new to add to it. It's just a couple of people that, for some reason, feel very, very passionately about italics. The points have been made and remade. And then they've been remade again, and again, and again. I wonder at the continued discussion. I wonder at the minds of the intellectuals (for, I assume all writers to believe themselves to be, at least marginally, intellectual) to sit and reiterate an entire conversation over and over again.
Just for fun, I've gone back and started re-reading this thread from the beginning (which was started in 2010.) So funny. I got to page 8 before I stopped. The main thrust of the anti-italics arguments seemed to be: a) italics for thoughts are bad; if you use them you won't get published. Then the pro-italics camp listed bestselling published authors who use italics for thoughts. The response from the 'anti' camp was: b) italics were probably added in by the publishers before they published the book.
I can't speak for the early posts, but we've been bringing examples of published books that actually do italics for thoughts. I'm not sure where the dissonance is here. Especially because no one can bring any proof that italics are actually a road block to publishing.
Can someone lock this thread and automatically ban any of the uninitiated that have the goddamn temerity to ask any question regarding italics and their use as a means of conveying inner thought and monologue? I now consider the matter closed. I'm right; you can. (Legal disclaimer: Other methods can and are used to the same end, please don't accept this as an absolute truth). Now, where's that bottle of whisky left over from yesterday?
Must be getting older. Was in bed for eleven. Seasons greetings to you anyway, @jannert . I've enjoyed our conversations over the last year or so.
I put off answering this post on Christmas and I'm trying to answer diplomatically. This was rude. I don't believe I was rude. And you couldn't be more wrong. I was accused of the same thing at the start of this thread. But my original goal was to seek out the correct answer, not to prove I was correct. I'm a very new writer, only started writing fiction ernest 3 years ago. And the person who has taught me the most about writing fiction said to put inner monologue in italics. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have adopted a different position (opinion) had the evidence been different. If anyone thinks I wouldn't challenge my writing critic, they haven't been paying attention to my nature. I've not only challenged things he's said, I've convinced him on more than one occasion he was wrong. Some people do try to follow the evidence against the current of confirmation bias. Challenging someone's unsupported assertions is not intended to be rude or piss anyone off. It is intended to point out the evidence presented does not support the assertion. Bolded (mine) hyperbole aside, there is a distinction between opinion and evidence. Should or shouldn't = opinion No citations supporting the claim, 'publishers care' = evidence Multiple citations of style guides that recommend or describe the option of using italics for inner monologue = evidence Reference to the CMoS noting inner monologue is not listed as an appropriate use of italics = evidence Multiple citations of books by well known authors that use italics for inner monologue published by large publishing houses = evidence Claiming publishers care and will reject a piece out of hand when they see italics for inner monologue = opinion (Without naming the publisher or some other specifics, this is an unsupported assertion and it amounts to opinion.) Claims of expertise can be evidence or opinion. One needs to look at such claims critically. Opinion does not automatically warrant doubt. There are people in the thread who have expert opinions I respect. But in this case, respect or not, the evidence leans very heavily against some respectable opinions. Whether one continues to hold a position despite evidence to the contrary is another subject. People tend to stay with an established conclusion, it's the nature of our brains to do so. They may also be aware of evidence that has not been presented in the thread. I addressed that issue here: I don't expect someone new to the thread to read through 29 pages. For that matter, if one wanted to, one could simply research the topic on their own, why have a discussion at all? Our arguments are not original, and they can be found in similar forum discussions and on blogs across the Web. Repeating or summarizing the thread can be useful to new people joining the discussion. I changed my opinion as the thread discussion continued. Initially I believed the claims that in the manuscript one submits to a publisher, italics for thoughts should be avoided. I no longer believe that advice. And I now refer to it as internal monologue rather than internal dialogue.
The standard for writing is quill and pen, not this typing garbage. Handwrite or expect not to get published. And if you do plan on typing, don't use italics to try and make your writing look handwritten or you will be imprisoned by the official writing consortium for ten cycles. The truth is the population that determines if something's readability is acceptable by and large doesn't write. The average reader couldn't give a hoot about italics unless its usage noticeably detracts from the story. This is not true for a lot of other grammatical constants. So anyone who is arguing against italics usage based on some standard might as well be arguing about the location of some silly invisible line. Not that arguing about silly invisible lines is a bad thing, there wouldn't be countries if those silly invisible lines didn't exist. The problem is the invisible lines only matter if everyone recognizes them, well unless- nevermind, not going to go there and there's a real wall there anyway. My point is rules need enforcement to be rules and this italics rule is not enforced. Therefore, it might as well not be a rule.
I'm guessing that agents and publishers do a little writing. (Edited to add: And before you tell me that agents and publishers don't object to italics: I'm sure that some of them don't. I think that it's fairly likely that some of them do--given that I have read hundreds of books and less than five of them used italics for thoughts. So it would be wise to be able to write without using italics for thoughts, unless using italics for thoughts is so important to your style that you'd rather go unpublished than eliminate it.)
Google question: "percentage of fiction books with italics for inner monologue" Answers on the links in the order they appear on Google: PenUltimate Editorial Services GrammarBook I've read this site before and find the claim one can use quotes for thoughts to be problematic. How does the reader know if the thought was spoken aloud? It's the only style guide and or grammar website I have found that suggests quotes are OK for thoughts. Nevertheless, note she says either italics or quotes. Rewrite, Reword, Rework The first comment the reader strenuously objects and in the author's reply to him we see her main rationale is the CMoS doesn't yet include italics for inner monologue. Not only does this blogger have a personal gripe with italics, she echoes the same thing that has been echoed in this thread, italics are somehow annoying and overused by new writers and the CMoS doesn't OK their use. The thing I found most interesting in the last link was it was written in 2011. But the comments objecting to her comments continued and in 2014 she answered the last one with: In other words, she is coming around. Makes me picture the editorial staff at the CMoS as a bunch of stuffy old shirts.
Quotes are definitely wrong for showing thoughts. They are reserved for something that's spoken aloud or something like telepathic dialogue.
Who's "we"? Do you really have trouble finding books that don't use italics for thoughts? Or do you mean the five-or-so that do use them? I do find those more difficult to find. OK, let's go through this exercise, if only for my own knowledge. First, the books that I've read, that I know from memory use italics for thoughts: 1) Trenton Lee Stewart: The Mysterious Benedict Society 2) Neil Gaiman: The Graveyard Book 3) Thomas Harris: Silence of The Lambs 4) Madeline l'Engle: A Wrinkle In Time. This doesn't use italics, but it does use dashes, which is still special typography for thoughts, so I consider that it's included. Next I went to a shelf, pulled down fiction books by the first several authors that I came to (so that I wouldn't present you with ten Josephine Teys and twenty Agatha Christies), and paged through a minimum of fifteen sequential pages in each one to confirm that my memory of lack-of-thought-italics is accurate. If anyone can find an italicized thought in any of the "No." books, please give me a chapter and approximate location in the chapter. (Since there's no assurance we'll have the same edition.) Author: Title: Does it use italics for thoughts? (uses tally/doesn't tally) 1) Nevada Barr: Endangered Species: No. (0/1) 2) Josephine Tey: The Man in the Queue: No. (0/2) 3) Catherine Coulter: Impulse: Yes. I never actually read this one, but it was on the shelf. (1/2) 4) Sarah Caudwell: Thus Was Adonis Murdered: No. (1/3) 5) Agatha Christie: At Bertram's Hotel: No. (1/4) 6) Trenton Lee Stewart: The Mysterious Benedict Society: Yes. (2/4) 7) Rumer Godden: The Battle of the Villa Fiorita: No. (2/5) 8) Barbara Cleverly: The Blood Royal: No. (2/6) 9) R.D. Wingfield: Hard Frost. No, but makes nonstandard use of italics. This uses italics-plus-quotes for quotes remembered, and for radio transmissions. (2/7) 10) Georgette Heyer: Detection Unlimited: No. (2/8) 11) Dorothy Sayers: Five Red Herrings: No. (2/9) 12) Antoine Laurain: The President's Hat. No, but makes nonstandard uses of italics. Similar to Hard Frost, this uses italics-plus-quotes for speculative quotes--that is, for things that the character thinks that others might say. (2/10) 13) Sue Grafton: F is for Fugitive: No. (2/11) 14) Charlotte MacLeod: The Bilbao Looking Glass: No. (2/12) 15) Ngaio Marsh: Final Curtain: No. (2/13) 16) Marian Babson: Murder at the Cat Show: No. (2/14) I'm tired of paging through paper, so I'm moving on to the Kindle, fifteen screens per book: 17) Alice Munro: Family Furnishings: No. (2/15) 18) Neil Gaiman: American Gods: Yes. (3/15) 19) Robert Barnard: A Charitable Body: No. (3/16) 20) Dana Stabenow: A Fatal Thaw: No. (3/17) 21) Francess Hodgson Burnett: A Little Princess: No. (3/18) 22) Margaret Maron: Death of a Butterfly: Yes. I don't think I finished it, but it was on the Kindle. (4/18) 23) Gillian Flynn: Gone Girl: Yes. I did finish this one. I didn't like it much either, but I liked two of Gillian Flynn's other books. I wish they were handy so that I could see if they use italics-for-thoughts, but odds are that they do. (5/18) 24) Martha Grimes: The Black Cat: I don't think so, though it's hard to be sure because it makes nonstandard uses of italics in a confusing and ambiguous way. Italics-without-quotes for what I think is speculative quotes, and also for nonverbal communication with animals. (5/19) 25) Alan Bradley: The Weed that Strings the Hangman's Bag: Yes. Did I finish this one? I can't remember, but I know I made a good start on it, and I know I liked the first book in the series. (6/19) Twenty-five seems like a good place to stop. I am surprised that I found so many books that use italics for thoughts. The proportion in terms of number of books, rather than number of authors, would be smaller (I went past several Rumer Godden, several Josephine Tey, etc.) but it's still surprising. Just to continue, the list of authors who use italics for thought, from whom I've read at least part of a book, is: Trenton Lee Stewart Neil Gaiman Thomas Harris Madeline l'Engle Trenton Lee Stewart (Missed the dupe.) Margaret Maron Gillian Flynn Alan Bradley Narrowing it to the ones from whom I liked at least one book: Neil Gaiman Madeline l'Engle Gillian Flynn (Assuming that the ones I liked, but can't find, used italics.) Alan Bradley (Same assumption.) It is a longer list than I expected. I know I'd like the Gaiman and l'Engle books better without the special formatting for italics. I suspect the same for the Flynn and Bradley books, but without being able to page through the actual ones I liked, I can't be sure.
I know, I don't even get it. I thought I had read over and over in the style guides, no quotes for unspoken thoughts. And now here are these blog entries, one even claiming the CMoS says one can use quotes for thoughts. I'm going to have to get the copy out of the library again to check. Just goes to show you how unimportant some of these grammar rules are (not all grammar rules mind you). I am reminded of the commercial from years ago: "Chicken with the fingers? Never!" (Or maybe it was, only at picnics, I can't remember ) Supposedly some Amy Vanderbilt thing (or maybe it was Emily Post, my aging memory consists of bits and pieces these days). Good grief, why aren't we using logic along with these 'rules'? It's logical italics work. It's logical quotes for thoughts are confusing. But what, some people are 'bothered' seeing italics? Pass the chicken, and no, no need to dirty a fork, I have to wash up after I eat anyway.
I could go through my books and list a bunch of examples as well, if people like. Like @ChickenFreak, I find it hard to believe that anyone even moderately well read hasn't seen this in published fiction.
Hasn't seen what? I'm getting lost in this battle. Many authors who use italics for inner monologue have been cited in the thread. @ChickenFreak said she's read hundreds of books and rarely sees italics used. Jack merely asked for examples. It would be nice to know what the actual proportions are but surely more than a 'handful' have been cited here. It's not like it's rare to see italics for inner monologue used.
Yes. Yes. I don't get it. I just went to look at The Guy's shelves, since he reads more modern fiction, speculative fiction, science fiction, so I thought the odds were higher. All I could find was Neil Gaiman. And I looked at Amazon's "Best Books of 2014" and downloaded six Kindle samples for novels published in 2014. I could only find italics-for-thoughts in one of the samples. I assume that there must be niches where italics for thought are almost universal. But aside from very recent YA, I don't know what they are.
For the record, 1 in 6 = 17%. That's a start for a proportion sample. Do we know how many of the samples had inner thoughts?
I don't know that they're universal in any genre, but they don't have to be universal to demonstrate that the idea you can't get a book published using italics for thoughts is a myth.
Yes, it looks like I misread some earlier posts. I don't think italics for thoughts are evident in the majority of books, but they're there in enough of them to demonstrate that you can certainly get a book published using them. There's no prohibition against them, either mystical or mundane, that renders an otherwise salable book unpublishable. It seems to me they are more common in some genres than others, so it pays to be familiar with the genre you are writing in.
