Mccarthy doesn't use quotations around his dialogue. It's beautiful in its simplicity and doesn't bother the reader. It reinforces the author's artistic strength, seeing as his characters are easily recognizable and the flow of conversation is smooth.
when you've got a pulitzer and an oscar on your mantel, then you can be eccentric and get away with it, too... while it's true that even his earlier works were written in this style, he was already an award-winning journalist by the time william faulkner's editor came across his ms for 'the orchard keeper' and decided this was an exceptional talent that could be allowed an eccentricity or two...
Author Steven Brust uses psionic communication, especially in his Vlad Taltos series, when the main character communicates with his Jhereg familiar. The author uses italics and quotation marks, but structures the psionic dialogue in such a manner that he does not need to use tags. The reader knows by the context who is speaking, or he includes the name of the individual speaking. The Example below from his most recent novel, Jhegaala, is where Vlad (his familiar refers to him as 'Boss') and the familiar (Loiosh) are walking through a town at night (okay the Jhereg is riding on Vlad's shoulder), pondering a bit of a puzzle: "Well, Loiosh?" "Well, what, Boss? If you want to summon a demon, I'm afraid you're on your own." "Yeah, I don't think I'm up for that. That was a lot of infromation. I have to thik about it, about what it means. If anything, Loiosh, Didn't Sethra once say something abotu a lie being temnporary? How died she put it?" "I don't remember. But, Boss, I don't think the lie is your problem." "No, I guess not. It;s just another thing to add to thie slist. It;s going to be a pretty long List, Loiosh. And I am going to find out the name that needs to go at the top of it." "Left here. There, that light on your right is the inn." Hope that helps. R-Tech
If a writer wants to use italics or quotations, whatever floats their boat. As long as the storie's engaging and readable, they can use as many italics or quotations as their heart desires as far as I'm concerned.
ive always found that "" denote something that has been said (you quote something that is said) and is also used for specific ideas ( he "claimed" to have not stolen it) bold is for volume ("He did what!") underline is specifically for titles (Moby Dick and italics emphasize ("he was very very sneaky") or denote a different kind of speech ("Please fasten your seat belts" blared through the planes intercom) and things like ~Hello~ -Hello- <Hello> [hello] {hello} have no honesty reason for being like that. other than the author picked that key to do the job even though it wasnt meant to. (- means subtract; not telepathic conversation.) the best thing to do is use skillful writing to make it seems obvious. but if you cant id go with italics. italics also seem easier to me. for instance i once read ellen foster. ellen foster uses a flow of conscious pattern (that means what the girl would be thinking is whats written. and "" are rarely used) i could never figure out when she was thinking to herself cause it would just be something like "they closed her coffin. dont make me look Mr. Magician they walked me over to the coffin" i hadnt a clue if she was thinking it or saying. so you need to be very clear as to how you denote the two.
Most writers I know who use italics often don't do so from "lack of skillful writing". They do it because they just like it that way. It's that simple. My favorite book, "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden" use italics for thoughts among other things. To say an author uses italics because their writing isn't skillful enough is to say Francis Ford Coppola and Mario Puzzo are not skillful because they used flashback to give us Vito Corleone's backstory in "The Godfather Part II" instead of using more subtle methods.
I hate when I'm reading and have to pause and literally go back to re read something because I cant tell if its supposed to be thought or not. It irritates my when there is no change from what is thought and what is action. I use italics for thought. sometimes, I use ' ' for thought. I would use the fourth option. Its like normal conversations, but its italicized. As long as you point out that its telepathic as opposed to verbal. It should be fine.
Maybe write the telepathic dialogue in a different colour, kind of like The Neverending Story. What Bastian was doing, and what Bastian was reading, were written in different colours.
I can imagine at one time in history fisherman only used real worms to fish with and the first ones to use rubber bait were ridiculed, "that just isn't done." For many years after we stopped plowing fields by dragging a plow behind a horse the planted rows remained 30 inches apart. One day someone came along and went against the way it had always been done and found a better way. Now the rows are only apart enough to fit a tractor tire between the rows increasing the yeald of each field. It seems that now that computers are what we write on with fonts and colored print available to the writer it has become just another tool that GOOD writers use to tell a story.
Is that a tool, or is it a crutch? A better writer lets the words do the telling. Also note that there's a difference between saying a book uses italics to denote literal thoughts, and saying the writer uses them for that purpose. Publishers can and do make such decisions. A good writer will not depend on the publisher's choices; he or she will make the writing clear enough without typesetting stunts. Currently, in the Lounge, there is a link to a recently published short story by our own Terry Erwin. Guess what? the entire story is set in italics! If he were counting on italics to convey that certain passages were thought dialogue, he'd be up a certain dark brown creek, would he not? There will always be some members shouting, "The rules be damned! We don't need your grandfather's rules." Well the rules exist, and sometimes they even make sense. Besides, publishers will set rules too. You'll be a better writer if you can make your stories dance without crutches.
Alan Moore's "Watchmen" made it on top a Top 100 books list stemming back since 1923, the only graphic novel ever to do so, and he uses italics to convey thoughts and narrative. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" "Clockwork Orange" and "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden" also made use of italics quit a bit, and all three are considered classics. Just putting that out there.
...said aloud... not inner dialog or thoughts... ...not really 'ideas'... but, as here, for emphasis on a word that is being questioned... or is used out of context, for effect... ...bold should never be used in a ms and is not used in print by most publishers... in the example used here, italics is what would be used to show emphasis on that word in speech... ...in non-fiction, but not in fiction, where they're mostly enclosed in " "... and many writers still underline words they want to have put in italics when going to print, as that was s.o.p. for ms format until fairly recently... ...yes, but same is usually done for what you refer to as 'volume' [shouting] ...not generally, imo, though some publishers may do it... ...for the generally accepted standards, most of which are still followed today, you should refer to strunk & white [4th ed.]...
