But he is. I've been working with him for over a year, there's no question he knows his stuff. He has a couple finished novels and the one I've read most of is very well done. I also looked at the various opinions around the Net and there really is no clear consensus. I have no doubt you and Cogito know your stuff as well. I mean no disrespect. I haven't had a chance to ask my critiquer about this controversy and want to hear his response. I did get a copy of the Chicago Manual and plan to use it when I ask. Again, for what it's worth, it will be a minor change in my manuscript one way or the other. I will write as if the italics are not there, now that I know about the issue. I don't believe I was relying on the italics to indicate thought.
Sorry, but that does not convince me that he knows about this issue. Because of the controversy over this question, I spent considerable time investigating this specific issue. It's on the basis of that research that I have come to this position. But as I said before, if you choose to disregard it, that's your business. I've found it's a waste of my energy to argue the question beyond a certain point, and it's no skin off my nose if you don't believe it.
Which is why I've tried to word my posts carefully. I'm not arguing with you, I'm not the expert by any means. I'm just being honest. I'm merely saying two sources that I both trust give conflicting answers. What am I, a novice to do? I'll wait to see what the other source has to say and I'll keep an open mind. And, I'll write with no italics in mind while I leave them in. Here's the guy, he has a blog so I'm sure he won't mind my saying who he is: He runs our writer's critique group and I've been going every 2 weeks for a year. His blog is, The WriteRunner. Despite his lack of published credentials, he really is an excellent writer and his advice has been more insightful than other critiques I've gotten. "Dead Air" is the piece he's been bringing to the group for critiques which is how I've read most of it. The italics thing is really a minor issue for me at the moment. It you take a look at Andrew's advice on writing and especially critiquing , I think you'll see he does know what he's talking about when it comes to critiquing. He does not claim to be a grammar expert. I thought I'd look further and I found where he linked to a site, EditTorrent, that he used to edit a piece. Their entry on italics was interesting: In the 17 comments, it runs about even for and against italics. Like I said, what am I, a novice, to do? But please don't feel you are wasting your energy/time. I agree, at the point people are just repeating what they already said, there's no need to keep repeating it. But don't think I haven't appreciated your input, because I have.
the only time i use italics is for flashbacks, going back in time, thus stating its on a different timeline, the thoughts are on the same timeline, thus, use normal text
George R. R. Martin disagrees with Cogito and Maia... Dorcas put a silver looking glass into her hand. Very good, the queen thought, smiling at her reflection. It was pleasant to be out of mourning. Black made her look too pale. A pity I am not supping with Lady Merryweather, the queen reflected. It had been a long day, and Taena’s wit always cheered her. Cersei had not had a friend she so enjoyed since Melara Hetherspoon, and Melara had turned out to be a greedy little schemer with ideas above her station. I should not think ill of her. She’s dead and drowned, and she taught me never to trust anyone but Jaime. Martin, George R.R. (2005-11-08). A Feast for Crows: A Song of Ice and Fire: Book Four (Martin, George Rr) (p. 400). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition. And, “Severely, I hope.” The queen seated herself and indicated that her guests should sit as well. “Will you have another cup of hippocras, Falyse? You were always fond of it, I seem to recall.” “It is so good of you to remember, Your Grace.” How could I have forgotten? Cersei thought. Jaime said it was a wonder you did not piss the stuff. “How was your journey?” Martin, George R.R. (2005-11-08). A Feast for Crows: A Song of Ice and Fire: Book Four (Martin, George Rr) (p. 401). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition. Needless to say, I'm not convinced that Italics for thoughts is bad, improper, or would get you insta-rejected.
Again, don't mistake what appears in final print for anything that appears, or should appear, in the manuscript.
That's useful information. So the italics are choice by the publisher? Not the writer. So the quoted section would just have sentences with the wrong tense without much indication that they're thoughts. (Not being sarcastic, really don't know.)
Would it be inappropriate/incorrect to separate thoughts the way one would dialog? As in, beginning a new line/paragraph? Unatalicized, of course. It's just, to me, it doesn't seem right to have it placed in the middle of a paragraph, whether you're italicizing or not. To have a long paragraph where you're discussing the action or making a description of something and then you have a thought thrown in there. With or without a dialog tag, that doesn't seem quite right to me. But I wonder if, perhaps, that would seem too broken up?
All I know is that after reading a similar discussion here, I dropped italics from my writing and found that they had become a crutch - you can either use italics to signal, "hey, this is a thought!" to your readers, which is another way for the author to break into the story and talk specifically to the reader, or you can bring your reader along in the story itself and make it a seamless transition. I by no means make the claim that I can write seamless transitions, but it sure is helping to try.
I hate to stir this pot after I just got a slew of nice compliments for another thread, but I'm an evidence grounded gal. I still find the evidence mixed on this one. I think it would be easy enough to look at novels published by the publisher you are submitting to and take their cue. I wasn't relying on the italics to tell the reader something necessarily, any more than you need quotes or you would never recognize speech. I do wish there was a consensus. I just read a piece in our writer's group. It was an excellent piece, but she used both italics for internal thought and she underlined some phrases. I had no idea what the underlining meant. I can see how this pedantic issue drives some people crazy. Does that mean if you follow or precede a thought with, 'I thought', it's a crutch? I just don't buy it.
Nope, and I didn't say that. Tags are a part of the narrative itself. They are not big blinking neon signs that say, "Look at me, look at me."
Words are the tools of a writer, so using words is a very different thing from using something else, like typography.
My goal is to create a good story. I don't feel the need to abandon a useful tool that I see used in other good stories simply because it's not words.
I didn't realize grammar was such a heated debate....... here's my two cents worth.... as a reader I appreciate that thoughts are in italics because it makes it clearer for me, especially when there is a conflict between thought and speech, as in the George RR Martin examples above. It is way better then writing - she thought but said, or she kept that thought to herself. Grammar like math is an exact rule based thing whereas, stories are purely creative based. So I can understand why there are these grey areas and murky waters when it comes to whether or not to use italics or not. If you are writing an essay or an article then I would advise being very strict with the rules of grammar, however, with creative writing there is room to be a little creative with the rules. Then again grammar was never my strong suit.
seeing the goof in his introduction alone ['This is the home for author...' instead of 'home of'] would have kept me from going any further, or giving this guy's writing advice any credence... but to be fair, i checked out the pitch you alluded to [for 'dead air'] and it just displayed more goofs, so i would really have to take anything he says with a full box of morton's best...
I don't know... I'm not going to put a book down and stop reading it because they use italics to convey thoughts, nor do I think it's necessarily a "lazy" thing to do. Many people that use it in their writing do so because that's what they learned to do through published novels. It's not an attempt to avoid writing out thoughts differently; it's just a learned habit. But I can definitely say I can see more of a benefit to learned to do it in some other way. It teaches you to be more creative with the process and challenges you a little more.
I do apologize but, what's the difference? Why is one neon to you and one a tag as you label it? I understand my own problem when I didn't know the reason my fellow writer underlined a couple sentences. I also think there is great value in writing standards. But your irritation at the "neon sign" and other complaints in the thread that the italics are a crutch seem to me to be a contrived annoyance. From my point of view it seems to be more arbitrary than substantive. Again, from my perspective, (and I'm not faulting you guys yours), italics, bold, large or small fonts, different fonts, all of these are tools in a writer's tool box. Why limit yourself? It reminds me of classical painters complaining about impressionists. Again, there is great value in writing standards. But I've looked and looked and I just can't find a consensus on this one.
Nope, that's a very fair question. Let's look at it this way. If you were reading a book, and in say, three pages, you read: Really? he thought. How did that happen? he thought. What is she doing? he thought. There is no way I would do that, he thought. Thirteen? She' can't be thirteen. She was just born a year ago, wasn't she? he thought. Absolutely not! he thought. She's not going to agree to that, he thought. What would you think about the author's tagging? For me, I'd think that the author needed to find ways to include beats, a little narrative, etc., to stop the repetitive "he thought." Why? Because by doing that, the author removes the echoes that distract from the story. The tags then are part of the writing. With that said, italics, IMO, is a poor man's tag. Once you (general you) begin to use italics for thoughts, you must continue to use it throughout the story. It gets repetitive, but the problem is that since it isn't something that is actually read, there's no echo and therefore, nothing that catches your attention to go back and add one or two more details, or a beat, or a little narrative piece. It's all whitewashed with italics whereas, if the writing is done right, italics for thoughts are completely superfluous since every thought is introduced properly by context. If it isn't done right, than instead of covering it over with italics, it should be rewritten. Think of the painter and his tools. Sure, all painters have different tools, but when was the last time you saw a painting that was painted by an artist using a 12 inch paint rollerl? That tool is used for house painters that slap paint on large walls, not those who do it for the art. And when they get to trim work, they even put the rollers aside. Using italics, IMO, is the same thing. It's using a roller to repetitively slap on a massive pseudo-speech tag, instead of picking up another tool (verbal tags, beats, etc) and be more exacting. I think what Mamma and others may be hinting at (though I definitely don't want to speak for them or put words in their mouth, and please correct me if I'm wrong here), is that when you leave out the italics and focus on everything else discussed here, then the work that is submitted to a publisher is a much better quality. If the publisher then wants to add italics back in, so be it, but, it's being added in after everything else has been cleaned up and you have proven that every thought is well introduced, transitioned, etc. Italicizing in the writing process shortcuts the rest of that process. One last thought: italics are definitely tools, but a tool used too much in writing loses its effectiveness. If your character has a potty mouth and swears all the time, what expression is left when you really want him to express himself in a single word when he's angry? Whatever word it is, if it has been used a hundred times already, it is not going to have the impact on your reader that you want. In the same way, italics works to emphasize a single word that might shift the entire tone of the dialogue or change the feel of a relationship for an entire book. "Is that what you really want to do?" "Is that what you really want to do?" "Is that what you really want to do?" If your reader is used to seeing italics five, six times a chapter, the effect of the italics disappears, because an italicized word just doesn't jump off the page anymore. So I agree that it's a tool, but it's a tool to use for the right job, and thoughts are not the right job, IMO. (EDIT: again, I don't claim to do any of this well!)
I'd call that a false analogy, E C. You used an exaggerated bad example. Everyone is going to have their personal preferences, and obviously you aren't the only one in the thread that is especially bothered by the italics. But other people aren't bothered by them. Whereas I would think an awkward string of "S/He thoughts" would be consistently considered poorly written by most readers. I believe italics for emphasis is an accepted use and different from the thread topic.
Which is exactly why italicizing thoughts devalues that use, and it should be saved for emphasizing certain words or phrases, not 'thoughts.' As for the comment about 's/he thought' tags being poor writing, could you elaborate on this? are you implying the tags aren't needed? Also, 'most readers,' and I'm going out on a limb here, don't know the difference between good and bad writing, nor do they probably care enough to.. just look at the best-sellers list, and tell me how many poorly written stories have sold like grilled cheeses on Phish lot, fast and easy.
But he's not published, right? I'm not saying this to snipe, I'm really not. It's not as if I'm published, either, and he's ahead of me by having completed some novels. But I've been puzzled ever since you mentioned this guy, because for some reason I read "finished" as "published" and was surprised that a published author was telling you that you absolutely must use italics for thought. But now I've seen his his web page, and that page seems to make it quite clear that he's not published, and I went back to this post and realized that the misunderstanding was entirely mine--you never claimed that he was published. (Edited to add: And in fact, you specifically said, recently, that he isn't.) He's trying to get published, he's not there yet, and he has some modest errors in his writing. That all makes sense now. I'm not saying that he's a lousy writer, but having read his stuff I no longer feel any big surprise that he's giving a little bit of what I'd call bad advice.
I cannot understand why so many people cling so tenaciously to the idea of rendering thoughts in italics. Does anyone really believe that depending on italics will IMPROVE their chances of selling their manuscript? And yet they cling to it as if someone threatened to torture their favorite puppy. No one will ever reject your manuscript for NOT using italics fro thoughts, The converse is not true. So why do it? Again, it's your choice. As I see it, it's a no-brainer.
