Following the thoughts of the post above, for example, my post here: https://www.writingforums.org/threads/italics-for-thoughts.32989/page-45#post-1526892 The character is thinking for two solid paragraphs, and I think that it's pretty clear that the thoughts are hers, not the narrator's. I tied the thoughts to her more firmly than they really need to be, because it was a tiny example; in a longer piece, it wouldn't be necessary for me to keep tying the thoughts back to her so frequently or so tightly.
I'm in good shape because neither one annoys me. Or even bothers me a little. I just prefer not to use italics myself. I do find being annoyed over the lack of them somewhat unusual.
Not sure how the community feels about this, but this is how I'm writing my book. The main character is written in first person, but the antagonists are in third. The antagonist in question here is Zandakar, who has just arrived for a back-room meeting with someone who has not one, but two (identical twin) bouncers of great size. Spoiler Leaning back in her chair as though being surrounded by Thorans who weighed three times as much as she did was an everyday occurrence (of course it was, he thought with an inner smirk), her expression remained perfectly neutral as he stood nervously inside the door. So quickly he thought he had imagined it, her head tilted the tiniest amount towards the chair across from her. Everything is written as though he's experiencing it, phrased as he would if he were telling this story. His actual thoughts are italicized, to separate them from the body of the narration.
I'm struggling with the structural complexity of the example. Inserting the thought in a long descriptive double sentence is likely to result in the reader having to go back to re-read, and that's never good. I would break the sentences: She leaned back in her chair, as though being surrounded by Thorans who weighed three times as much as she did was an everyday occurrence. (Of course it was, he thought with an inner smirk.) Her expression remained perfectly neutral as he moved to stand nervously inside the door. So quickly he thought he had imagined it, her head tilted the tiniest amount towards the chair across from her. Of course, I also wouldn't have the italicized thought or the thought tag, because I generally don't do either one. (Never the italics, rarely the thought tag.) But if your style includes them, I would treat them in a way that acknowledges the cognitive shift involved in going from description to a "quoted" thought. Edited to add: You also had at least two continuous actions in one sentence--the expression and his standing--and possibly three, if the leaning is a continuous action. IMO too much for one sentence, even without the added complexity of the thought. I changed the standing from a continuous action to a completed action, just because I liked it better.
I'm not going to pretend that example is the best I have to offer, it's just the first one I could find with an italicized thought surrounded by sort-of-thought narration. >_> maybe I should have looked harder. I will take that critique into consideration, though; some of my sentences tend to get a little jumbled. EDIT:: Upon scanning my document, it doesn't look like I have any other examples like that. Either it's a thought and then actions, or just narration and actions. Not sure what that says about the work as a whole, but still. Til I posted it, it seemed like a fair example of how I think I write.
To get more general, though, I do find that italicized thought always causes a speed bump for me. I find it inherently less graceful, most of the time.
Oh, so YOU can have names like mine, but mine are hard to pronounce for some reason? In what world is Zarakharn less pronounceable than Zandakar? (Which I can easily see is pronounced ZAN-da-kar, correct?)
Zandakar rolls off the tongue much easier than Zarakharn. I have to pause and spell out the latter, phonics-style, to get a grip on it.
This world. I really don't mean to keep harping on you @rktho, but you're going to have to accept that readers are having trouble with your names no matter how clear they are to you. Getting incredulous over it is a big writing no-no. We're only talking about names here, which are obvious and explicit. Wait until agents and editors start hammering you over the plot and characters, which are nebulous and hidden. It's going to get worse. Waaaaaay worse. I'm as guilty as anyone with this. I feel your frustration, I've done plenty of shit where I just couldn't see the light until twenty people beat me over the head with it. Even the forum members who have no problem pronouncing your names are having trouble telling them apart in places. There comes a point in every writer's career when they realize that they have to write for readers and not themselves. Assuming, of course, that you actually want people to read your stuff someday.
How does George R. R. Martin handle his names? I haven't read his work but it's extremely popular, so I assume people don't have too much trouble with his names. Right...?
His names are short (mostly one or two syllables, some three) and roll off the tongue easily. Arya Stark Tyrion Lannister Sansa Stark Jon Snow Khal Drogo Lord Varys Etc. They're easy to read and pronounce.
And there's nothing wrong with the name Zarakharn. It's a great name and not even that hard to pronounce. The trouble is when the rest of the names have the same jumble of z's, n's, and k's. Because the names are unfamiliar, the brain has a hard time "remembering" them.
Easy to read and pronounce. Rolls off the tongue. I can't think of any GoT names that were hard to read.
Maybe I should just Google some GoT names. I do have a lot of short names. Zash. Gazi. Dav. Zara (this is a female name, not short for Zarakharn.) Kharda. Narta. Digdit. Giddit. Rissa. Nat. Rass. Dav. Khriza. Tegar. Rika. Den. Zakar. Dana. Kharsh. Zahn. Vid. Sertia. Snadda. Snik. Zak. Khavas. Varken. Ezder. etc
Pronunciation of names seems to quite clearly be a topic worthy of its own thread, don't you think? @Homer Potvin @rktho @Tenderiser
Quite so. @Tenderiser, @Homer Potvin, would you like to take this to https://www.writingforums.org/threads/my-character-names.151652/page-2#post-1545682?
The only time I would shy away from using italics is if it's for more than a few words or a sentence or two. That's not an ideological reason, just a practical one. The eye struggles to engage with large blocs of italic text. But for brief thoughts? Or any other short task that makes sense to both the writer and the reader? If it jars the reader, that's probably the intent. So go for it. It's a tool in the tool box. Just make sure you use it with skill ...like any other tool. Do keep in mind, though, if your story is being read out loud, the italics won't automatically register on the ear. It'll take a skilled reader to make unattributed thoughts clear to the listener.
Meanwhile back in the world of Italics vs normal. Although I have never had any negative feedback about the use of them to denote inner monologue or thoughts, I have decided to not use them for this. I am swayed by the arguments against. Mainly that the writing should be clear enough that they are not needed. I am in the process of an edit and removing them as I go. I will be interested to hear if this causes readers any difficulty in the next round of reading.
There is only one absolute rule for using itallics for thoughts, and it's this: If the publisher you will be submitting to does not use them (for whatever reason, hard to read, amaturish, etc), neither should you. If the publisher you will be submitting to uses them (for whatever reason, ease of protraying inner monologue, more modern, etc), the so should you. Trying to argue your point one way or the other is irrelevant.
But most MSs are submitted to more than one publisher, and I don't think it's necessary to go through and change every little thing to fit every possible house style. As long as your MS is in some recognized style, I think publishers are able to read past little issues. The MS can be formatted into house style during editing.
I don't really agree. Even if a publisher demands that literal thoughts (first person, usually present tense) be presented in italics, I think that they're not likely to demand that you present those thoughts. That is, if you write Jane opened the door and stopped on the threshold in shock. What had that idiot done to her office? Are you arguing that the publisher is likely to demand that you write the following? Jane opened the door and stopped on the threshold in shock. What has that idiot done to my office?
I like these examples, but probably not for the reasons you created them. For me, they BOTH read just fine. Seriously. I don't see any reason why the first example is 'better' than the other. Or 'clearer' either. They both work. It all depends on the tone you're setting within your story. For me this is a non-issue, as long as there are no must/must nots. Whatever works. I'm happy.
Oh, I'm not saying--in this specific example--that the firstt one is better. I think it's better because I hate italics. But that's all. But my my main point here is that the first example doesn't phrase the thought in a way that would normally require italics, and given that, I wouldn't expect a publisher to command me to rephrase it so that it does require italics. That would feel a little like, "You don't have any semicolons! Combine some sentences so that you're using semicolons!"
