Hee. The controversy over exactly what "showing versus telling" means seems to rival the controversy over italics for thoughts. By my definition of the terms, those two examples are roughly the same - there's not enough character voice in the second option to make it provide significantly more or different information. Now, in theory present tense italics offers more scope for character voice. In practice, I think that present tense alone, as in the fourth example, offers enough scope. Really, my gut objection to italics for thought is that I have a gut objection to italics for thought. I suspect that the source of that objection is that the books that I've encountered that use italics for thoughts tended to be books that I had less respect for, but I don't have the data for that. I also do believe that they're against the most commonly accepted convention, but I don't have any resistance to that fact, because I dislike them. I do, for example, feel a resistance to the fact that semicolons aren't accepted in American fiction. I love semicolons. But I'm weaning myself off of them.
There isn't, and that's the biggest issue. CMS is the go to guide for publishing. The only place to go after that, is the publishing house you're publishing from. I did the same search a bit earlier and found that out. There's a bazillion style guides, from Kate. L. Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, to APA and other that are specific for their academic area. And since CMS doesn't give italics as a method for quoting thoughts . . .
The Chicago Manual of Style is used by most publishers for both fiction and nonfiction. It's the best guide in my opinion. The Elements of Style by Strunk and White is another guide I used in college. It's very cheap and will come in handy for most of the issues you'll come across, though I remember it being a bit outdated.
Blimey, this issue's rattled some hormones, innit? There is no 'truth', Ginger, old sport - only opinion. My own is that italics grate if used for any other reason than quoting from another source or to emphasise words in the narrative. Consequently, when I read italicised thoughts I find that they are shouted, or stressed, in my head. Not quite what the author intended, I suspect. Thoughts should flow with the narrative, not be separated from it I've seen all sorts of styles used, and have my personal preferences. But that's all they are - preferences. Everyone has them, as evidenced by the widely varying use of italics in literature since their invention by Eusebio Ital in 1643*. I definitely don't see this as a definitive 'right or wrong' issue in general terms. Do whatever feels right, but be prepared for possible consequences in specific circumstances, such as an editor sharing Cog's views. *I made that up.
I own an excellent book entitled: The 28 Biggest Writing Blunders (And How To Avoid Them), written by William Noble and published by Writer's Digest Books. One chapter is of particular interest to this thread : "Don't Ignore Intriguing Italics ...when you can develop special emphasis..." He makes the point that italics are a tool which writers can use (sparingly) to supply emphasis to particular words within the text, to create a new voice within prose, intertwine symbol and action, to get inside the heads of characters and to expand the universe of characterization and story line. In other words, there are LOTS of legitimate uses of italics in fiction. Two bestselling authors who use italics for these varied purposes are Tom Wolfe and Joan Didion. Mr Noble quotes several passages from Wolfe's "The Right Stuff" and Didion's "Democracy" as examples. To imply that using italics means you can't get published is nonsense. You just have to use them well, like these authors do. William Noble's book is excellent, by the way. I refer to it frequently. It gives you the rules of writing, but then suggests that you should break them under certain circumstances, to give your writing more life and originality. If you go into any large bookstore today, you will be confronted with works of fiction written in many different styles, to many different lengths, and on many different subjects. You may not like them all. In fact, you may not like very many of them, and would only choose to buy and read a few of them. BUT THEY HAVE ALL BEEN PUBLISHED. They are all for sale RIGHT NOW, to people who buy them and read them. To imply that there is only one kind of story to write, and only one or two different acceptable styles to choose from is clearly nonsense. Just a quick shot through my own bookshelf at the moment : favourite modern authors of mine who employ italics for emphasis and differentiation are : Terry Pratchett (uses lots of them!), Joe Abercrombie (uses lots of them), Kage Baker (uses some), Margaret Elphinstone (uses some.) That's just the top shelf of my bookcase...
Thanks Thornesque, it is exactly what I thought The second example I was thinking about something Tess Gerritsen has done in her debut novel "The Surgeon". The killer in that book is presented as a point of view character. He has 2 or 3 very short chapters, about 1200 words or less. This is a stylised train-of-thought in which essentially the debate about nature vs nurture of violent psychopathy is presented through a very interesting 1st person pov. When you put all the chapters together, you'd get maybe 3000 words short story that got broken up and served as a subplot. The reason why it is different from annotating thoughts in italics throughout the entire text is that italics in this case do not signify the thought. It would be crystal clear without italics, what it is. Italics in this case serve to separate the killer as an entity, mentally and physically, from the rest of the book, from the rest of us. The symbolism of the gesture spoke to me, I thought it was cool. ps. It should be said that when I am submitting my manuscript to the publishers, there'll be no italics in it. This is only a suggestion of how I think it could be printed.
Ahh, but the question is when they were submitting their first manuscript to publishers, were they italicized. What you see on the book shelf now has no bearing on this discussion. It's the work and concepts that go into being able to write without italics, and then how those manuscripts are received that's at issue now. The final editor may say, "throw italics in on all thoughts," before a book goes to press. But he or she probably is not the one, if I've done my research enough, that reads the manuscript when it first comes in, and that is the person that you need to impress.
But still we face one of our fore-mentioned issues: a mass block of italics. I mean, yes, of course, 1,200 words doesn't seem like much to a writer. Most of us easily write more than that just commenting here on the forum. But we're still talking about a few paragraphs of italic font. And, you say yourself that the writing would be "crystal clear without italics." Would not a simple header at the beginning of the chapter accomplish that same means? The only reason I'm pointing this out is because this usage is, just like the use of italics for inner-thought throughout the story, an "incorrect" used that can be chalked up to one thing: style. If it's crystal clear without the italics, then the italics are actually unnecessary, and you're using them only because you appreciate the "symbolism of the gesture." Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to mock you. Nor would I try to convince you not to write the book the way that you feel best portrays the story. I'm simply trying to demonstrate to you how your use of italics is no less "incorrect" than another writer's use of them for inner dialogue.
"They" is referring to others in this thread. No, I thoroughly meant that it can't. You can't argue that being forced to come up with a different means of portraying thought (and of course, continual use of he/she thought doesn't count) makes you think about what you're writing, and develop further. This leads writers to develop their skill further, which is why many writers who don't use italics can be seen as better writers. What the people in this forum (as I don't want to use "they" anymore) are saying is that there are other ways beyond "I thought" and "went through my mind," that you could come up with if you took the time to develop those ways, rather than simply slap italics around them. And the answer to your second question is answered by none other than yourself: "I think it's clear with and without the italics because the narration is past tense and the internal thoughts are present tense." -You If it's clear without, then it's unnecessary. You're adjusting your writing style according to what your writing group wanted; because it was their norm. If you can portray character thought without italicizing them, as you say you can, then the use of italics is superfluous, and done only because someone told you to do it. Because you saw people that you wish to emulate doing it and figured "why not?" There's no actual purpose behind it if your writing is clear without, whatever you say about how it should have an "equivalent means" to first person dialogue (or outer dialogue). Because the only reason quotes are used is to distinguish. That's the only reason. If your writing is clear without those distingushments, then you don't need them.
@Thornesque: I never said that my way is better than anybody else's, I am not the one who took offence or wrote 10 comments arguing my opinion with everybody. When discussions deteriorate in this way, I try to avoid them because it's pointless explaining something that I never said, it gets old, fast. I only stated what I think, based on my personal preference and experience so far. I thought it was evident that everything any of us say expresses personal opinion. As for my novel, I guess we'll have to wait and see when it's finished, won't we I don't post much for review here due to first rights concerns, but if you'd like to see an example of how I think italics should be used, the prologue from my current wip is in the workshop and the (much better) re-write is available via pm, and yes, there're italics in it. As for the example I gave, perhaps you can read that book or at least those chapters, and see what I mean. It's an example how an accomplished writer uses italics to create a villain's voice. Don't knock it until you see for yourself whether it works. Not all writers are created equal, same goes for the italics.
I never knocked, nor did I imply that you thought your way was better. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in your argument. You said that, with this one instance being the exception, you only use italics to stress words, and that using them for inner thoughts is a sign of bad writing. I don't see how your use - which exceeds the pre-defined uses of italics - is any different, regardless of the end product. As I've said before, though: I won't put a book down because I see italicized thoughts. That's not an issue for me. And I'm sure your use, as well as the use by the author who inspired you, will be fine, and an enjoyable read. I never meant to make an implication otherwise, and I'm sorry if you took offense to my post.
I think this is the problem. You saying that you "don't see how" despite my exhaustive explanation doesn't mean that my explanation is flawed. It simply means that you don't understand it. The next logical step is for you to actually see the example (which I also suggested to you). Instead, you continue to repeat that you disagree, and you don't even understand what it is you disagree with. Sorry Thornesque, but I said everything already, can't really be bothered with going around in circles Look at the book, The Surgeon by Tess Gerritsen.
Alright, then rather than saying that I don't see how, I'll explain my point more definitively. If it's wrong for someone to write thoughts in italics because it de-emphasizes the value of the proper italic use, and because large chunks of italics can be tiresome to the eyes, then your use of them is no less wrong. Not opinion. Fact. One cannot be wrong and the other right. Whatever your use, yours, like the use of italics to portray inner thought, is a divergance from what has been argued to be the proper and pre-defined uses of italics.
Quote from The Right Stuff, by Tom Wolfe: (describing a flight through Mach 1 made by test pilot Chuck Yeager in the X-1 in the late 1940s) "Had a mild buffet there ...jes the usual instability..." Jes the usual instability? Then the X-1 reached the speed of .96 Mach, and that incredibly caint-hardlyin' aw-shuckin' drawl said: "Say, Ridley ...make a note here, will ya? (if you ain't got nothin' better to do) ...elevator effectiveness regained." This is a bestseller, which was eventually turned into a successful movie. I don't actually see how the same effect could have been created without those italics. I presume his publisher wasn't prejudiced against them?
I never said it was wrong because of that. However, if a writer feels that without italics, it is not clear that he is writing thoughts, then it's bad writing that is the problem. Good writing doesn't require italics to signify thoughts, but it can use them nonetheless. It is up to the reader to decide whether the author's font choices worked or not. This is exactly what I think, so I am not quite sure why you feel the need to repeat it This is where you misunderstand. I think that jerking my eyes by using italics for inner thoughts all over the book is tiring NOT the example I was talking about (that book you should check out to see what I mean). I found that specific example, an excellent writer, a page-turner and the killer's voice, 1st person pov, in italics, fantastic. But only the most skilled writers can pull it off which is why I would not advise a novice who doesn't know how to distinguish different voices, or write inner monologue tags or is still struggling with basic aspects of writing, to use italics in this way. Think of it this way, what Jimmy Hendrix did to his guitar resulted in some of the most progressive and amazing sounds in music industry. A novice or even a lesser guitarist would produce unbearable noise at best and break the guitar at worst. It's been many years, and only very few people managed to control the guitar like Jimmy, because it is not an easy thing to do properly. As for your bold statement that something is a fact and something else isn't, this is not a black or white issue and I will not get involved with that kind of debate. I don't know "what has been argued", it is not relevant at all to my opinion, which I have formed after I informed myself thoroughly and I am perfectly comfortable with it. I contributed my opinion like everyone else, it's up to you to respect it or not, but don't try to make it into something it isn't, just for the sake of argument. Ok, I hope that's clear now, if not, let's just agree to disagree because I am so bored of this conversation
I feel the need to clarify a few things for my intention here... Firstly, I would like to point out that I quite plainly told you that I did not intend offense to you (which you seem to have taken anyway, despite your repeated use of the "This is not an argument smiley face" - ever-so-often used on this forum). Nor did I say that your writing would be or is poor because of your intended use of italics. In fact, I quite plainly state: You seem to have grazed over that the first time you read it, and responded, instead, as though my aim was to put you down. Once again: I apologize for any offense that you have taken from my words. It was not my intention, which leads me to... Second, my intention was simply to demonstrate that the use of italics can be as much of a style choice as it can be a "rule." You feel that the use of italics in your chapters gives another dimension to the story. My point is simply that the use of italics for inner thoughts can add something to a story when done right. You said it yourself: "only the most skilled writers can pull it off which is why I would not advise a novice who doesn't know how to distinguish different voices, or write inner monologue tags or is still struggling with basic aspects of writing, to use italics in this way." I couldn't have said it better myself. Those that don't understand basic aspects of writing shouldn't go playing around with the rules. None of them. And finally, I'd like to clearly state my opinion on the issue, as I feel I've sort of dabbled into both sides of the argument and may have confused some as to what I'm even doing here. I use italics in a rough draft to distinguish for myself thought from narrative. This is only for the draft period. If I read through and I say "Why is this in italics? It doesn't seem like a thought..." I've done a poor job of the writing, and I need to edit that line. If I say "Why is this in italics? It's clearly a thought without," I've done a good job, and no editing of the words needs to be done, and I can remove the italics and carry on my way. However, I could just as easily use bold, underline, a different font...whatever it is, and the end would be the same - the lines will be edited, and the formatting will be removed. I do not think that the use of italics is necessary within a story. As has been said before - if you've done your job as a writer, thoughts should be clear without those italics. If they are, and you still use italics, the extra formatting is superfluous, and the only effect it will have is to safeguard that this is, in fact, an inner thought, which, again, shouldn't be necessary. And when I read, as I have in this very thread, lines like "It would be clear without the italics, I'd just rather leave them there," with no further explanation, I can't help but quirk a brow and wonder why that is. However. Where others writing is concerned, I try not to infringe too much on their means of distinguishing thought. Though I feel the way that I portray thought benefits my writing more than the use of italics, I do understand that a large portion of the population - whether it be the writer's or publisher's decision - recognize lines of italics as being either inner thoughts, dreams, or brief flashbacks.
Maybe not me specifically. Can you name even ONE respected style manual that supports the use of italics for unspoken dialogue? I couldn't, and I examined many such handbooks. Most say nothing at all. The Chicago Manual of Style is perhaps the most detailed style manual available. Not persuasive, Pervasive. I don't agree. Consensus is too sensitive to the method of sampling to determine the so-called consensus. To be valid, you would need to sample a truly random collection of accepted manuscripts. Not rejected ones, and not typeset, published material. No, I am annoyed by the zeal with which you are spreading misinformation that can lower a new writer's chances of getting accepted, whereas NOT using italics will NOT harm anyone's chances. I am annoyed because your "authority" is not an authority at all. Stephen King is undoubtedly a much more successful author than your "authority", and I would most assuredly not take anything he has to say on the matter as gospel either. I'm annoyed because you appear more interested in the argument and victory than in the truth. I have seen the various points on the topic over and over. I took no position myself until I researched it. And I offer the same challenge yet again that I have offered many times before: Name one respected style manual that supports the use of italics for unspoken dialogue, and I'll gladly concede that italics can be legitimately be considered for unspoken dialogue. And yet I'll still maintain that your writing will be better and your chances for acceptance higher if you train yourself to write clearly without them.
For example, in a third person past story, past tense thought will occur frequently, but that's not the argument. The debate is whether italics should be used for direct thought, because direct thought (in this context) involves a person/tense change, and some people believe the leap may jar or confuse readers. As direct thought does not and should not occur frequently, I can't see the fuss to be honest, particularly when some posts advocate great blocks of italics as acceptable emphasis. So long as Wingdings doesn't enter the equation, I personally couldn't care less either way
It more than likely comes down to positioning the work for a certain audience. Demographics can play a part. It is a rather broad stroke you paint there Cogito. In a world where texting and emails have replaced traditional communications it is no wonder new things are being tried in publishing. I don't use italic for such things and I don't promote it either. But from a marketing perspective it could make a lot of sense.
Not to mention an unsupported one given the equivocal situation on this subject. I get it some people insist the italics for thoughts are not standard. But ranting and raving, "Lack of education, a slipshod approach to quality, a don't-care attitude, unclear writing that needs a crutch - you name it", is simply not supported by the evidence.
As writers we want to use every trick we can think of ( or steal ) to avoid letting our readers be distracted--even for a moment. Italics are a sudden change which the eye and brain have to acknowledge, then get through before getting back into the flow that the story had before. Working internal dialogue into the main narration is seamless--if done half way correctly--and therefore not distracting to the reader.
