Do you mean tense, or point of view? The tense isn't an issue in this case. "Not a good omen." could mean "This was not a good omen." or "This is not a good omen." And I also don't see a POV issue. Again, "Not a good omen." doesn't commit itself to first or third person. Of course there could be times when tense and/or POV are issues, and I'd argue that the phrasing can be changed, and you might argue that that would be bad, but we'd need an example first.
I mean tense. The narration is past tense. But the dialogue including the italicized thoughts are in present tense. (The POV is the protag's for most of the first book, switches to the transitional character and then to the protag (a different girl) in the second book.) A writer I very much respect said the italics were convention, there is clearly a mix of opinions when one looks at published writers and the Net discussions. The trouble I'm having is with people saying X is definitely correct, when it seems pretty clear there is no absolute basis for taking one side or the other. I shall continue to think about it.
Do want you want. It's your submissions you are putting at risk of tipping the scales toward rejection. You'll never get rejected for not using italics, and you'll develop better habits by making your writing clear without the crutch.
In the short time I've been on the forum, I've found both of you to be members whose comments and advice I admire. And this does not change that. But I also look up to the author friend of mine who critiques my work, and who told me to italicize thoughts in the first place. So I'll be on the fence for a while more. I had no idea there was a controversy and want to ask my friend more about it. If my work is so iffy or poor that the few italicized first person thoughts of my protag are the criteria for rejection, then I didn't write a good enough story (or inquiry) in the first place. I realize when publishers are reviewing submissions, they get so many, often some arbitrary or minor nit-pik allows them to throw out a selection, thinning their reading list before they begin to review them. With all the stories I've already heard about dozens of rejections of good books before the authors found a publisher (like the Potter series), and some of my friends' experiences with publishers sitting on manuscripts for up to a year, I fully expect that today's self published e-books will be the route I end up taking with this, my first novel. In the meantime, the main person critiquing my work expects the italics so that limits removing them from my current draft. I will write with your comments in mind, trying to make sure the internal thoughts of my protag are clear whether italicized or not.
Well...no. And you essentially explain why it's "no", after you make this statement. If your book is quite good and quite publishable, and has italics, and there are a dozen other candidates that are quite good and quite publishable and don't have italics, and the agent can only represent one book, and the agent dislikes italics, that one book isn't going to be yours. Wouldn't you rather maximize the odds that it will be yours? Sure, it would be much more satisfying if the agent recognized your book as such a work of genius that they'd take it even if it were written in crayon on construction paper, but... surely it would be nice to be published even if that's not true? There are many things that increase or decrease the odds of being published, without reducing the quality of the work, and I can't see why people don't want to go with "increase". Now, your debate may be on "without reducing the quality of the work". I think that italicized thoughts almost invariably do reduce the quality of the work. Addressing your friend that demands them, one compromise could be to write so that the italics aren't _needed_, and, as previously discussed, define a style for thoughts that allow you to turn on the italics for your friend, and turn them off otherwise. The italics in your example are absolutely not needed, so that strategy would work just fine for that example.
This definitely does not "bring me into the scene", or closer to the characters. It's like an ironic aside by the narrator, as people have mentioned. IMO thought should be treated like dialogue, at least, if you are a not very experienced as a writer. This means that thoughts need to be on a fresh line, e.g. Verita was back. Oh, no. This was not a good omen. (new line for thought) "Hello, everyone," she said. (new line for dialogue) Adama slid into another chair to make room for me next to her. I would be inclined to have the person thinking referred to just before the thought to make it clearer that they are the one having the thought, e.g. Verita was back. I avoided Adama's eyes. Oh, no. This was not a good omen. ...although if you are sticking to one POV throughout the scene or in first person (which I never use) it is more obvious. The direct/indirect thought observation: I think you mean: She looked in the mirror. I really need to go to the dentist. (direct thought) OR She really needed to go to the dentist. ("indirect" thought) Personally, I never go into first person like that.
The best way to portray thoughts is either say: he/she thought or to have the thoughts in their own paragraph. Lot of writers have whole paragraphs full of inner dialogue if its phrased right it shouldn't cause any confusion. Italics are used for quotations mostly, names, books etc., They are also used to emphasize a single word in speech. I have seen it used for speeches too, showing that only one person is speaking but I've never seen it used for thoughts, in any printed books I've read.
This brings up a separate question. I always put a new character's dialogue on a new line. But I haven't been putting dialogue on a new line from narrative as long as the narrative is related to the person speaking. I've been using that technique as a way to identify who is speaking without using, he/she said. Perhaps I should look that grammar rule up. I have a copy of Chicago Style waiting for me at the library.
I think whatever works, works. I am unhappy with the idea that current publisher's 'rules' say you shouldn't use italics and that a publisher will reject a manuscript containing them, just as a matter of course. Just as I reject the idea that 'short is good, long is bad,' when it comes to a piece of fiction. I've read some pretty awful short fiction recently - fiction which doesn't contain a single instance of italics - as well as some incredibly good long stuff that does. I think it's time that publishers start to focus on quality, rather than these artificial strictures. Frustrated authors just may take the self-publishing route in large numbers, and publishers may the ones out of a job, in the near future! I keep thinking back to the - what - thirteen rejections that JK Rowling got before somebody would publish Harry Potter. How those thirteen must be kicking themselves in the backside just now! And don't forget the recording company that rejected the Beatles. Publishers don't always get it right. In fact, sometimes they get it spectacularly wrong. I know that too many italics can be distracting, and certainly large wads of them can be difficult to read. They can certainly be used as a crutch. However, they do have their legitimate uses. Ironically enough, they also help create brevity as well as clarity. Not a good omen uses fewer words than: That was not a good omen. I've got no problem with italics, when used with flair and originality.
Why would you not use the first person direct thought in your example? Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. She looked in the mirror. "I really need to go to the dentist", she thought. (Tell me if the "" belong around a thought because I didn't look that rule up.) In my story the pov is the protag's, so it would be something like this. I looked in the mirror. I really need to go to the dentist. (direct thought) I really needed to go to the dentist. ("indirect" thought) It's not the best example because the places I use a direct thought in my story are purposeful. There would need to be a reason the direct thought belonged in the narration. Purposeful in your example would be more like: I looked in the mirror. OMG, I really need to go to the dentist! It was a painful revelation. There was no time before the interview for a dental appointment. Well, that doesn't work exactly, but hopefully the point is demonstrated.
The Chicago Manual of Style does allow (notice that the comma goes INSIDE the quotes), but it is an uncommon usage at best. The preferred form for unspoken dialogue is:
So the question is between: Paul watched the squirrel scurry up the tree, deftly weaving amongst the branches. The animal ran out onto a long branch and leapt into the air toward a nearby oak tree. He's not going to make it, he thought. Missing an upper branch, the squirrel managed to land on a lower branch and continue on its way. or Paul watched the squirrel scurry up the tree, deftly weaving amongst the branches. The animal ran out onto a long branch and leapt into the air toward a nearby oak tree. He's not going to make it. Missing an upper branch, the squirrel managed to land on a lower branch and continue on its way. or Paul watched the squirrel scurry up the tree, deftly weaving amongst the branches. The animal ran out onto a long branch and leapt into the air toward a nearby oak tree. Paul wasn't sure it would make it. Missing an upper branch, the squirrel managed to land on a lower branch and continue on its way. Hmmmm... I dunno. ~ J. J.
The first and third are correct, but the second is not. If you removed the italics, it would be correct, but unclear in this specific instance. With different literal thoughts, it can be clear even without the tag. Unrelated point: Squirrel has two R's and one L.
Darn, the comma placement was a typo. There are other times I struggle with punctuation around a ", but dialogue isn't one of them. Thanks for your help.
An example if direct inner dialogue in third person narrative with no dialogue tags, quote marks or italics. It would be even clearer with a tag, but there really isn't much doubt about which part is his literal thoughts.
OK, let me try it with the narrator's own thoughts. I nearly fainted when I laid eyes on the stern-faced license examiner. Cripes, did she just lick a styptic pencil? I guess I'm not getting my license today. It works I guess. I'll have to take a closer look at my piece.
I am a huge fan of Orson Scott Card, and grabbed my copy of Ender's Game, because I remembered it had so much inner dialogue. He didn't use italics or quotes. Some examples: I just thought some real-world examples would help. ~ J. J.
Putting "s/he thought" is very slightly outdated now, although done sparingly it clarifies and is okay. Using inverted commas as if the thoughts are speech is VERY old-fashioned. Take some time to look at contemporary fiction and research a bit into how thoughts are shown in good writing. The first example jj maxx gives is a good one: no tag, and the thought is on a new line. In the second example, the identity of the "thinker" is made clear by the sentence directly before it. No need at all for italics in those extracts. Genre and register also affect the method a writer uses. However, as a general "rule", mixing in random thoughts which need italics to point them out is a shoddy way of writing, and it makes for a bumpy read.
Yes, there is a distinction, and JJ Max gave some excellent examples by Orson Scott Card of just that: That's direct thought. It has nothing to do with tags, which are pointless in most cases. I've no doubt it has various names, but you'll have to Google for that. I can't comment on Mammamaia as I have no idea what she used. You see, I am neither for nor against the use of italics for thought. I don't have a problem using them (or not) or reading them (or not). That's why I haven't participated in this thread. Your post caught my eye and I asked my question for me, because you referenced several authors and I was interested in seeing examples. Toler and moder...
I third that. It's readily apparent that 'Not a good omen' was a thought. The need for italics is kind of silly. Italics is something the typesetter handles when you're book is published. Agents don't care to read through a lot of it because it's harder to read. If you don't believe me, or Maia either, then do a little research on the agent's blogs. They'll tell you themselves what they want and don't want done. It doesn't matter what an 'author friend' says do if it doesn't match what the agents want. In the realm of Mass Communications, the media calls themselves 'gatekeepers.' What they mean by that is they decide what enters and what doesn't. Agents are the same. If trying to look aesthetically pleasing is a goal, then by all means go for it, but for a serious consideration from an agent (which you need to get published by a major publishing house) you're hurting yourself before you start. Here's an aside as to why a writer needs to pay attention to, and follow, the guidelines. One agent spent a day on Twitter, posting in real time, as she worked through her slush pile. 70% YES 70% of the manuscripts were rejected without being read. Why? They didn't follow guidelines. She wanted the first five chapters copy/pasted into an email and not attached. Well, they attached. Others hit the trash because of funny fonts, italics, etc etc that weren't needed. Another bunch were tossed because they didn't include a query letter with the email. So, to make a long story short, she cut it down to 3 out of 10 right off the bat before she even started to read. If you wish to be in the 70%, then do what you feel is the 'right thing to do' and be damned with what people think. However, be prepared to see a lot of rejection letters.
I'm aware of this. I just don't believe that publishers have the monopoly gatekeeper's job they once had. I fully intend my book to be properly edited, mind you. I'm not dismissing the benefit a publisher can give one regarding marketing and distribution. It's just that I am still hearing a non-consensus view. That's all. Not a crisis. I should add, I don't have a personal investment in the outcome. I really am neutral about the italics thing. The writer helping me with my work (and who has given me great advice so far) told me to do it. I didn't know anything about the convention before that.
just being 'a writer' doesn't make him a good editor, or an authority on what is most likely to impress agents...
