I only use them if it's a direct thought quote that lapses into first or second person. Like this one:
Yep. I still disapprove of them, but that's the only occasion where I see them even being useful. And if the thought in my first example were italicized, I would consider that to be flat-out incorrect.
@ChickenFreak Seriously??? If your boss says, "In this accounting firm we always list profit/loss in the first column and the marginals before the averages because that's what our clients prefer," would you really argue that profit & loss must go in the last column and averages should come before marginals, then go on a campaign to get everyone in the office to agree with you? That's rediculous and will get you fired for insubordination. It's the same with italics and a whole host of other things. The only time it matters is when the person paying you states a preferance.
That's not what @ChickenFreak is saying. She's saying that your boss wouldn't say "in this accounting firm we always list the value of livestock at the top of the page, so even if your client doesn't have livestock you need to put the line there." I also think it's a mistake to equate writing with accounting, and a mistake to equate your publisher with your boss. I may disagree with other things, too, but... that's enough for now!
Did you perhaps not fully read my post? "X must be presented in italics" is not the same as "Your manuscript must contain X." Literal first person present tense thoughts aren't in all manuscripts.
Returning to reply to myself. I'd say that, oh, 49 out of 50 "literalish" thoughts can be dealt with by making them third person past, or not having any words signalling POV or tense. The fiftieth could be handled with a wrapping of context or, if I must, a thought tag. For that fiftieth, I would have a " literal thoughts" style so that I could change those thoughts between normal and italics at will, because I'm not quite vehement enough to say "If you demand italics for those bits, I just don't want you to publish my book." If someone demanded that I actually reword the other 98% so that they require the italics, thus making a large fundamental change to my writing style, I'd have to think about how badly I did want to be published.
You'd do it in a heartbeat and so would I Yes, ma'am, no, ma'am, more italics? coming right up, ma,am!!!
Eh, it would depend. Like I said, the two percent that are literal thoughts? Sure. A few more? Probably. A huge rewrite to change my entire style? Meh.
You wouldn't have to re-write anything. That's the beauty of it. They assign an editor and all you have to do is smile and nod when they send the pages back for approval.
We're diving deeper and deeper into a purely theoretical scenario, but rewriting an entire book to translate every character feeling and whim into a first person present literal thought JUST for the purpose of yay italics more italics MORE SLANTY WORDS NOW!!!! sounds like far more than editing.
...and it wouldn't happen. No publishing house demands that there are first person thoughts in italics. ...and editors don't usually rewrite anything. They may correct typos in the text, but for changes that require actually rewriting they usually add a comment asking the author to change it.
I thought I'd mention this -- and I'm in no way saying italics for thoughts are bad -- but I've observed over the years in my own writing that I use less and less italics. I write in close third most of the time, which allows me to express the characters' thoughts within the narration almost as if I was writing in first person. I don't know if it's more/less/as graceful as with italics; really depends on the execution, doesn't it? But bottom line is, I use italics significantly less nowadays, although I have not abandoned them completely. Maybe I should just choose a side? Example from my WIP: The thumbnail alone made her cringe. There were well over a thousand views. Should I tell Stan? If she didn't and he found out on his own, would it be any better? I could've written: Should she tell Stan? If she didn't and he found out... Or Should I tell Stan? If I don't, and he finds out... But somehow I felt like I wanted to employ both. I can't really explain it, but it has something to do with intimacy vs. distancing. Maybe. Maybe this is completely wrong. But it felt right when I was writing it.
Yeah, I've never had an editor make significant changes for me. Little corrections to typos, maybe (although I still have to approve them) but any change involving new words or phrasing would come in the form of a suggestion from the editor that I make the changes. Also, don't forget the magic of "stet". I think I've worked with two houses that pushed back on house style issues (one didn't allow any passive voice, even when it was the best stylistic choice, and one had a house spelling for an optional-spelling word). I never sent another book to either of those houses and one subsequently went out of business while the other is circling the drain. (Not suggesting a direct cause-and-effect there, but I would suggest that overly rigid publishing houses that don't respect author style are less likely to be successful). Again, though - why the hell would a publishing house want someone to rewrite their work to include more italicized quotation of direct thought? I just can't see it happening.
No passive voice at all? Good grief. Style is what gives writing 'style.' What will this rigidity of style get us? Just dull, samey writing, I reckon.
I usually write in the 3rd person, so once my character's thoughts enter first person, I use italics.
Thoughts in italics usually bother me. It feels like a choice to make something "easier" to read that need not be difficult in the first place. It has that clunky feel of spelling-it-out-for-you that makes a novel feel more like an airport novel than, say, literary fiction. But that's my own preference. It comes down to your intended reader. Plenty of people like italicised thoughts and expect them. If that's your preferred style and audience, go for it. There are also plenty of people who don't like first-person thoughts in general, and prefer that the ideas they convey are weaved more organically into the narration. Italicised thoughts just don't fit into a certain style and mode. In terms of this discussion about publisher preferences, neither's really "correct" or "incorrect". I think they're both more or less fitting for different styles and audiences, and any preferences of publishing houses probably reflect that (specifically in terms of demographics and markets). Which means that as long as you know your audience and style, and it's in line with your intended publisher, your preference is probably the right one for your book.
I like the use of italics for inner monologue and emphasis on certain words. I think it works well, and is grammatically acceptable. I think the only danger is once you start using them, suddenly you find yourself using them all the time. I notice this with colons and semicolons too. I never use them, then use one in a sentence, suddenly they're everywhere. So I would say use consistently, intelligently but also sparingly. Easier said than done, I know...
I also like the break from narration using italics to convey a characters personal thoughts verbatim. Its a good way to get to know a character, I think, by occasionally pushing what pops into their head out in front. Shows you how their inner monologue goes, or at least the loudest of it.
