I do this to indicate interior monologue. An example: Oh great, it's happening again . . . You can get creative with them to express conflicting emotions and interruptions like: he walked across a desert, relaxed and (oh my god oh my god what have you done how could you have done that) utterly carefree. Or even to add doubt, like: He walked across the desert, a (?wizard?) (?demon?) (?angel?) (?none of the above?) You get the idea. They're not the best-written examples, but hopefully you got the gist.
I choose not to argue with people in this forum over a person they've never met. I'm not ignorant. I'm not young and naive. I've been working with 4 different writer's critique groups now for over a year. I know the difference between a useful, well done critique and one that isn't. I've also read most of "Dead Air". It's excellent. So published or not, I know a good piece from one that isn't. Add to that the fact that italics for inner thought is hardly a settled matter. To complain that, web site "for" vs web site "of", trumps more than a year of working with someone? It's a trivial reason to assert knowledge of another person's skills. I have seen plenty of evidence that leads me to respect the opinions of knowledgeable people on this forum. But I also know the logical fallacy of appeal to or argument from authority. I wouldn't accept either authority in this case. I've made an effort to look around. People are insisting on a truth but the evidence for that truth is mixed. It's the evidence, not opinions of authorities I'm looking at.
Shh, we've never met you, so go ahead and claim to be young! "I'm young, but not naive." Or better yet, "I may be twenty-two, but I'm not naive." Heck, I'm twenty-one, six foot five, and two-hundred and five pounds of all muscle, but I'm not naive! ___ On a more serious note, Golden Ghost nailed it. In the end, whatever a person is going to do, they're going to do. It's just that, as Cog said, why throw up an unnecessary roadblock? I doubt an editor will ever return your work and say, "I like it, but I'm not publishing it because there's no italics." On the other hand, I could very well see an editor saying, "Italics? I'm not even reading this until they learn not to rely on font to do the work that words should do."
I'm one who believes age carries status. I think given the emotional attachment some people in this thread have given to not using italics, I'll be sure to research any publisher I submit my novel to and go with their preference.
In the end, that's probably the best way to do it. Of course, I say that it's more work to write without italics than with them, so do it without first. But that's just me. Oh, and age may carry status, but for me it also carries about 60 extra pounds!
I also think it's a mark of the poor writing if you have no way other than italics to make it clear to the reader they are reading character's thoughts. I use italics only to stress certain words (which might happen a few times in the entire book, at most) but I am considering also using them for a couple of short chapters in the the killer's pov (1st person). I think italicizing those would give a nice 'kick' to the narrative and increase the creep factor.
So if you saw an excellently written piece that used italics for inner thoughts you'd say it was a crappy piece? I don't buy it. This is a false premise. Using italics for internal thought does not mean it's unclear to the reader those are internal thoughts without the italics. This makes no sense to me in light of what you said above.
That's not at all what's being said here. What she's saying is that it's a sign of crappy writing. Using italics for inner thoughts, in her opinion - and in the mind of many of those in this forum - often occurs along-side other poor writing choices. It is not made crappy solely by the use of italics for inner thoughts. But yes, I'm also confused as to what you mean by using them in shorter chapters? How are you intending to use them, as opposed to using them for emphasis? Because, if the argument is that using italics in bulk, and for the "incorrect" reasons leads to the proper uses holding less impact, or that large amounts of italics become hard to read, then I have to say that your intended use would break those same rules. Certainly, if they're incorrect for proper use, they're incorrect for flashbacks, dreams, or visions. So I'm curious as to how else you would be using them.
OK then, is there any evidence that a significant proportion of pieces with italics are crappy, compared to the proportion of pieces without italics? Because I don't buy it that the italics are a sign of poor writing. I think it is a neutral indicator of a writer's skill. There's no clear consensus, so how can someone claim it is a sign of a poor writer? There are people in this thread claiming it is a sign of a poor writer, but I see no evidence, just personal preference, personal opinion, and the fact it's not standard in the Chicago Manual of Style. I think you meant to direct this question to jazzabel.
I think you will find that, yes, people will argue that that's what they've found. It can't be argued that using another method - beyond the use of italics, that is - requires that the writer/author consider and come up with a more creative way of portraying their thoughts so that the readers don't become confused by them. From that, it can be argued that those who do manage this are more skilled, or become more skilled as a result of their efforts. These are people that give more thought to their style of writing, rather than simply doing what popular literature of the day seems to be doing. Personally, I'm not accusing anyone of being lazy for using italics. But it does take more effort and skill to go beyond that. That I did, yes. Sorry for the confusion.
I feel the real question has still yet to be answered: If you are to use italics frequently for thoughts, then what happens when you go to use italics properly--to add emphasis to a certain word or phrase? Won't the practice of using italics for thoughts, which will occur frequently, unless your character doesn't think, dilute the utility?
Italics are fine as long as you know how to use them correctly, and make sure they flow and do disrupt when reading.
If you want to see a host of bad writing because people depend on italics, go read fanfiction. I know, not the same, but there is a similarity in that it shows how the shortcuts are used in a very bad and blunt manner. Maybe those here aren't using italics as shortcuts, but the point is that it signifies that to many people.
For what it's worth and at the risk of sounding argumentative, this is my thought process on the matter: Who are 'they'? You are talking about selective attention and anecdotal evidence. That's not convincing evidence on its own merit. Writer reads a couple crappy pieces, notices they used the italics, writer hates italics for thoughts, the italics/bad piece experience is memorable (meaning it sticks). In the meantime writer reads a number of good pieces that used the italics for thoughts but it doesn't stand out so the italics/good pieces is not memorable. Months later writer only remembers the bad pieces with the italics. That is how people draw false conclusions and it is a well known flaw in critical thinking due to the way the human memory works. Now writer tells other people that italics are a sign of poor writing. Other people believe the conclusion and pass it on. A meme is born. When someone says to me, X is true, I ask, how do you know? If the answer is, "they say so", that's not evidence. Evidence would be something like, "because I made systematic observations", or, "I read three studies that looked at it", or, "I surveyed great writers randomly selected from a list and found only 10% of them used italics for internal dialogue", or, "someone surveyed the top 50 publishing houses". There are a number of things that would constitute evidence that italics for thoughts are a sign of poor writing. Can you point to any evidence? We have so far, the fact it is not noted in the Chicago Manual of Style. The rest of the evidence is equivocal, some do it, some don't, some think it's OK, some think it isn't. And people like me conclude there is no consensus. Did you mean it can be argued? I'll answer as if you did. This is another claim being repeated in this thread but I also see no evidence that using italics for thought "is lazy and/or less skilled". I never italicized my character's inner thought for clarity or because I needed to point it out to the reader. I italicized internal thought of my protag/narrator because it was the norm in the writer's group that was reading the chapters. I think it's clear with and without the italics because the narration is past tense and the internal thoughts are present tense. The italics make sense to me in my piece personally, for a couple reasons. First, I can use "I thought" or various versions of "went through my mind" much less often. That stuff can be tedious or monotonous reading. And second, first person dialogue between the other characters is offset by quotation marks so why not have an equivalent means of noting a present tense thought of the narrator? Sounds logical enough to me.
This is really my reasoning as well. It would be less clear if dialogue was shown like this: Crap is falling everywhere, said John. Nothing that guy says makes sense. Cathy snarled and said, You're an idiot! Technically, you could show all spoken words through tags and beats, but that doesn't mean you're lazy for using quotes.
The mousy little girl was beginning to fear she would drive people away with her constant lessons in critical thinking, but in the end she decided she should, she owed it to these people to share her knowledge since they were so generous and patient to share theirs with her. "It's worth it," she said, "I know it's worth it. They just need more exposure to the methods, they haven't had their eyes opened the way I have." And so she persevered. There is no doubt fanfic is full of examples of bad writing. That's called cherry picking or using a non-random sample as your denominator. Unless you also look at matched controls meaning a sample of excellent work equally randomly chosen, all you can conclude from your observation is fanfic is frequently bad AND fanfic frequently uses italicized internal dialogue. But you cannot say the two observations are any more related than that fanfic has both. You would need to look at a random sample that included equal samples of both good and poor writing. Only then could you say the italics were associated with bad writing if that's what you found and if your sampling was a valid random sample.
I'm answering this post in this thread to keep from using two threads for the same topic: I don't want a pissing contest with you. But I will defend myself when you attack me. I've explained my reasoning: #100 #143 #151 #166 #171 I don't care that you've come to a different conclusion. Huffing and puffing (aka argument from authority) is not what it takes to blow my house down, evidence is what it takes. In your mind to your satisfaction, I'm sure you have. I don't know what you mean by volume, as for doing the research, that's exactly what I did. What I found was the opinion is equivocal. Besides the Chicago Manual of Style, can you cite other manuals? Interesting, you're worried my arguments are persuasive. No one who knows me would ever accuse me of being dogmatic, I couldn't be further from one who sticks with dogma religiously. Show me the evidence and I'll be the first person to change my mind. If I were to be convinced based mostly on your authority, that would mean I had a key component of a religious follower. I have said several times I respect the need for standards. I wish I was convinced there was one here. I wouldn't be arguing with you. You keep repeating this. For the record, it's your weakest argument. I haven't seen any evidence that, "people use italics as a crutch". The strongest argument is a style consensus. Given how common it is to use the italics, I don't see evidence there is a consensus. You are annoyed that I'm not accepting your expertise at face value. I wish you weren't. It's healthy to be challenged. It's how we grow. For the record, I don't doubt your expertise. Ginger
Why don't you try to write a few short stories without italics, or better yet, pick ones you've already written, and then go back and take the italics out. Re-read the work and edit it so that the reader will know that it is a thought and nothing else. Then, put it back in italics and read both versions side by side, and see which one is better. I mean, all it can do is improve your writing, there's no downside to an exercise like that.
(Color addition mine.) I'm confused here, because these statements seem to contradict each other. You're saying that you don't need the italics, but then you're saying that the italics allow you to eliminate things that you would otherwise need. That suggests that when you eliminate those things, you then need the italics. Now, I tend to think that "I thought" or "went through my mind" are also less than optimum; I'd like to signal thoughts less directly. This does, I admit, mean that it's sometimes more difficult to put thoughts in present tense. I see that as an acceptable cost. I snatch up a book from my reading stack (_Death of a Mystery Writer_, Robert Barnard) and offer a sample paragraph that doesn't point out the fact that thoughts are thoughts in any explicit way: Lady Fairleigh-Stubbs knew the signs, and sighed. Oliver was intending to be difficult. Perhaps to make a scene. Against her better judgement (for she knew that nothing she said was likely to have any effect on his behavior, except to make it worse) she said: "Such a nice couple, the Woodstocks." The "thought" signal here is "knew the signs", but to me that's nicely subtle. I could put these thoughts into italics and present tense: Lady Fairleigh-Stubbs knew the signs, and sighed. Oliver's going to be difficult. Perhaps make a scene. Against her better judgement (for she knew that nothing she said was likely to have any effect on his behavior, except to make it worse) she said: "Such a nice couple, the Woodstocks." I don't see this as an improvement. The shift between past and present and to and from italics feel choppy to me. I can try putting even more of the thoughts into italics: Lady Fairleigh-Stubbs sighed. I know the signs. Oliver's going to be difficult. Perhaps make a scene. All right, this is against my better judgement--nothing I say is likely to have any effect on his behavior, except maybe make it worse. But I'll give it a try. She said: "Such a nice couple, the Woodstocks." I think that the paragraph is getting worse and worse. Of course it's just one paragraph, but it does provide an example of thoughts that aren't announced with "thought" or "went through her mind", and also compares present tense versus past tense thoughts. Actually, I think that the paragraph could support present tense thoughts; I just don't like them as well: Lady Fairleigh-Stubbs knew the signs, and sighed. Oliver's going to be difficult. Ten to one he's going to make a scene. Against her better judgement (for she knew that nothing she said was likely to have any effect on his behavior, except to make it worse) she said: "Such a nice couple, the Woodstocks." To do this, I changed "voice" for the thoughts, giving Lady Fairleigh-Stubbs' thoughts an unrealistically informal voice, given what I know of the character. Taking away the option of italics, _and_ demanding present tense thoughts, is extra work, and my extra work here isn't doing the job. But I'm sure that there's a way to do it, and in my own mind I'm sure that it will be better than a solution requiring italics. I realize that you probably don't agree with me one little bit on that point. But I did want to present an example, anyway.
What I'm writing is fine either way. That's why I don't see Cog's continual claims the italics are a crutch. My problem is the equivocal evidence continues: The OWL Help Nest - Each week we publish Purdue OWL News readers' requests for advice or information and the responses from other Purdue OWL News readers. (In other words this is more opinion, but it is opinion on a commonly cited site): I've ordered an MLA guide, the APA appears to be geared toward research papers.
The MLA format is for essays and papers as well, so it's not going to help when it comes to writing fiction.
First, thank you for the time you've taken to respond to my posts. The writers in my critique group prefer the italics. So I'm using them. I already mentioned that given the controversy, if/when I submit anything to a publisher, I'll definitely look at the publisher's convention. At this point you've simply not broken up the narrative by adding a present tense thought. Clearly, you can write it either way. I actually like the second one. I'm not making it up to prove my point. In the second one, I feel the character more. Her thoughts are more her than just narrating the feelings. How can you deny the latter is more showing and the former more telling? I think options #3 depends entirely on the rest of the narration. If it's mostly third person narration, #3 can be a bit out of place. If it's mostly first person with less third person narrative #3 would fit. Same thing with #4, consistency with the whole piece is the key. Beyond that, it appears to be a matter of individual preference. It's not that any of the four options is clearly better. But people individually prefer certain versions. In my work, at the moment, the majority of the narrator's view is past tense with the occasional first person thought breaking it up. One person's choppy is another person's break from the narrator's past tense story to an occasional present tense thought, matching the present tense dialogue being recalled.
Thanks, I'll cancel the order. So, besides the Chicago Manual of Style, and searching for opinons on this matter online, what other style references are there? GingerCoffee only seeks the truth here.
This thread has been an interesting read, I didn't know italics where ever used for inner dialogue I have read my share of books and don't think I have ever encountered it before. This may be a silly question but is this something that is only done when it's written in third person? If I'm understanding it correctly, which I may not be, then wouldn't a first person novel where there is increased internal thougt have a lot of italics throughout it? To be honest I don't think I like the idea of using italics for this purpose.
