Again, if you want to maximize your chances of being picked up by a publisher, you really should be following some of the traditional guidelines. Sure, a new writer can write a 250k-word novel, but what are the chances it's going to be picked up by a publisher? I think at some point all writers believe that they're something special and that a publisher is going to pick them up no matter what. That's not the case. Take a look some of the contemporary novels being published. Most of them don't use italics for thoughts. Most of them use quotation marks for dialogue. Most of them don't use chapter titles (excluding YA fiction). Most novels by new writers are 80k-120k words long. Sure, there will always be exceptions, but you have to realize that dealing with a publisher/editor is like doing business: you have to be willing to compromise even if you don't like it. Of course, if you're self-publishing, none of this applies (at least at the publication stage).
You do realize that there are, literally hundreds more books that use italics for thought then don't use dialogue tags so comparing them is like comparing apples to these one oranges that only grow in a tiny orchard in an obscure county in southern France. But I understand your point. Up until now I had a sign above my main monitor that said: Guy gets girl Guy looses girl Guy builds new girl No I'm convinced to put up a new sign: This is good advice, especially for new writers.
I assume that you also avoid other creativity-stifling conforming straitjackets like sentences, paragraphs, punctuation, spaces between words, and writing left to right.
That's a false analogy, @ChickenFreak. Can we at least stick to valid arguments? Perhaps I should elaborate. There is evidence italics for thoughts is a changing convention. There is no evidence ignoring basic grammar is an evolving convention.
Fred stared at the Aston Martin DB5. It was beautiful. He wanted it. Is the red text Fred's thoughts, or authorial intrusion? How would one guarantee differentiation to avoid confusing the reader?
http://punctuationmadesimple.com/PMSCharacterThoughts.html #5 favoured option. http://theeditorsblog.net/2012/02/28/inner-dialogue-writing-character-thoughts/ #3 - third person narration. Plenty more like these. Perhaps you'd review your scurrilous remarks.
I don't need to; if anywhere advocates highlighting the text in a different colour with absolutely no other way of differentiating it from the rest of the text, then further recommends that the writer depict a character's inner thoughts in the third person. . . Just because you pulled up an 'example' from somewhere on the web, doesn't make it any more legitimate. Don't take my word for it though. Knock yourself out mate.
You didn't read #3 in theeditorsblog. 3rd person past tense for narration and thoughts to avoid confusion. Text in the first example was only highlighted in red as it was the part under discussion, not to show that thoughts needed or ought to be highlighted in colour to differentiate them. Clearly you didn't read or begin to understand that. Such pleasant comments. Well done.
What you've done there is tell us what Fred is thinking. You, the narrator. It doesn't convey internal thought or monologue in the sense being discussed here.
Are you saying that internal monologue can't be rendered third person past tense? As it can, I refer you back to my original post. Yes, it's in the narration, but it's still the character's thoughts. It's how those thoughts are rendered. The problem lies in one individual reading it as the narrator's voice, and another reading it as the character's. I do it frequently. Some passages in books just aren't that clear. Hence my question in accordance with the thread title i.e. would this be a case suitable for italics? What sense? You're thinking direct thought? Nothing to do with my question. The thread title is simply italics for thoughts. Cheers
That's a common way of conveying the quality of a character's thoughts. It isn't direct internal monologue, nor authorial intrusion. It's the narrator providing that information just as the narrator provides other information over the course of the story. The narrator is telling us how Fred feels or what he thinks without providing direct internal monologue. Edit: as to the question, I don't think you need to differentiate it. It's fine as is.
Thank you, @Steerpike. Had it been, Fred stared at the Aston Martin DB5. It's beautiful. I want it, that wouldn't affect anything. Correct? It's still internal monologue, but the thought part rendered 1st person, present. Tense wouldn't affect it. My issue with the past couple of books has been paragraphs of (supposedly) internal monologue, but then difficulty deciding if it was really such, and not the narrator speaking for himself - if that makes sense. Last example just finished is John Grisham's Sycamore Row. Spent some time on the first two chapters trying to get the sense. If internal dialogue had been in italics (whatever the pov or tense) it may have helped me in that instance. Cheers
@SwampDog In books that do use italics for internal monologue, that example you gave with the direct internal monologue (first person, present; a direct presentation of thoughts) are what you'll find italicized. I like your initial example better, but neither one would bother me. In the second example, where you present direct thoughts, I think italics are an easy cue that you're transitioning to internal monologue, particularly if you're not going to use any tags. If you want to use tags, you could write: "Fred stared at the Aston Martin DB5. It's beautiful, he thought. I want it." I think it also helps if you adjust the flow of the sentence so the thoughts are a more organic part of the narrative, and it all kind of flows together. For example, you could say: "Fred stared at the Aston Martin DB5, eyes traveling across the wide grille and oval headlights, then sweeping along the polished silver curves of a body that spoke of both speed and elegance. A beautiful car. He wanted it." Just an example, but instead of going from saying that he stared at it, to wanting it, it provides a bit more description, showing the reader what he sees and making the desire a natural consequence of what he's seeing. Even a reader who has never seen a DB5 gets a sense of what he's looking at and why he wants it. I think direct internal monologue (first person, present) would interrupt the flow in such a case.
"Favored option" is your opinion? Just curious. I don't see that the narrator telling me the character's thoughts means they are direct thoughts. I don't think that was the intent of the example. This is interesting, however: Again an interesting link: The blogger goes on to say 'try it without italics' after suggesting it might confuse the reader to change tenses. But she goes on to say: Bold is mine. She notes, "never use quotation marks" for thoughts.
Yes, to avoid confusion but also it means you can't quote your character's direct thoughts. I have first person narration, past tense. When the narrator recalls dialogue, it is in present tense with past tense tags. "I'm going to do it," he said. To be consistent, and to add impact, the narrator also tells us some of her direct thoughts. I could use either: Why would he do that? I wondered why he would do that. I could also say: Why would he do that, I wondered. I prefer the first option. It has more impact. And contrary to @ChickenFreak being bothered that the italics mean I don't trust the reader to know that is a direct thought, I prefer the added clarity rather than relying on tense change alone to indicate a direct thought.
In past tense, it is not direct internal thought. It is narrated thoughts. Regardless of the thread title, no one is suggesting italics for indirect thoughts.
Thanks. That makes my posts moot - perhaps I should have started a new thread concerning difficulties with indirect thoughts (nothing to do with italics directly, but with gleaning that a certain piece of text is an indirect thought as opposed to a narrator's observation.) This seemed the best thread at the time... Cheers
I think it's fine to discuss anything related to the conventions for thoughts. Your two links were quite relevant and had thoughtful discussions of italics for thoughts, both pros and cons.
Jane stared at the car. The curves, the shine, the history. Beautiful. I want it. I want it. I... "Nice, isn't it?" Jane frowned at the dealer's silent appearance. They should make them wear bells. "It's nonsense. I could buy half a county in rural Tennessee for the price of that car."
Up to here, I like it and I see no need for italics in this passage. But the quote here confuse me. Is she saying this out loud? Perhaps it's just the word, 'nonsense', that throws me. If she said the price is nonsense, or something else it would make sense. "It's nonsense" seems like a non sequitur to me following, "Nice, isn't it." Could just be how I'm reading it. We're back to the problem though, that because italics aren't needed in one situation, or the thoughts are too long and make an italics passage distracting, that means italics are never a better choice. The conclusion is a common fallacy; the conclusion doesn't follow.
Hopefully it didn't fail like I did. .rorrim a si egap rehto yreve koob ym nI=In my dooʞ ɘvɘɿy oƚʜɘɿ qɒǫɘ iƨ ɒ miɿɿoɿ. Almost right, not quite. I wonder how the book made everything mirror image text short of copying everything to something like a .pdf and inverting it.
