I accept, irrispective of what style bibles say, that italics are used more often today in internal thoughts, but I prefer not to use them myself. As for flashbacks, I think it's better to remain consistant with normal font and allow the text to show what's going on. Everyone to their own, but it's down to the publisher in the end of the day.
If your writing in 3rd person, you don't have to use italics. Often, the simple change from 3rd to first has the reader assume that the main character is thinking. Quotations often confuse between actual speech, especially when the thought is during a conversation. etc. etc. -nick
I was driving along today, thinking about the discussion, and it hit me like lightening. I went, "D'oh," and hit myself on the head. The problem with not using italics (or quotes, or some other indicator) for thoughts as described, is the same problem I described when I said, he slips from third-person limited to third-person omniscient... except in this case, it's slipping into first person. 1. Bob woke up. Where the hell am I? He didn't know. 2. Bob woke up. Where the hell am I? He didn't know. 3. Bob woke up. Where the hell was he? He didn't know. If you're doing third-person limited, stick with third-person limited. If you're going to slip into first person to reveal thought, use italics. #2 or #3, not #1 due to POV inconsistency. Example #1 is in third person, first person, third person... which is a no-no. (I also think you need the line break with #1.) Bob woke up. Where the hell am I? He didn't know. (But not with #3) Bob woke up. Where the hell was he? He didn't know. Charlie
I disagree altogether. There's absolutely no way to state my argument in any way that would appeal to you, but it's certainly not a 'no-no'. No style, form, or idea should be off limits in writing. When you do that, you limit your thought process, and often some really good ideas. So no, that's not true. As a note, I made a thread in "grammar, punctuation etc." in order to avoid hijacking this thread. peace, -nick
The main reason I don't like #1 is because it's ambiguous. It's not clear whether the thought is coming from the character or from the narrator. Therefore, I prefer using italics or adding a tag like "he thought," etc. Anyways, I think I should somehow tie this in with Dan Brown. For me, what Brown does with italics is fine. I'm not sure why some people are so against it.
There's no proof that Illuminati ever existed at all. They're on the same shelf as the Rosswell aliens and Men in Black.
I wasn't actually writing in response to you, it came to me, as I said, as I was driving along--thinking of earlier postings and the discussion in general. I was under the impression that one should stay consistent in terms of POV. That first-person narrative should not slip into third person, third person should not slip into first person, third person limited should not slip into third person omniscient, etc. Am I wrong in that impression? I seem to recall having read it in POV discussions, including in writing books I have read, though my recollection, I admit, is vague. (And, despite what I'm assuming might have been an unintentionally authoritative tone, it's entirely possible that your argument might appeal to me. I've been wrong before, and I sometimes freely admit it. I try to make it a practice to admit being wrong at least once every blue moon, even when I'm right. J/K ) It's even possible that this could resolve the initial problem I had with the limited third-person slipping into omniscient third-person, if I'm wrong about this. Several groups called "Illuminati" actually existed, the best known being the Bavarian Illuminati formed by Adam Weishaupt. That is historical fact. I've actually read the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in praise of Weishaupt's Illuminati, leading to rumors that he was a member and behind a "new world order" scheme of global domination, which were utterly false. It's also false that he was a freemason. The letter is real, however, and can be found through google, not only the text but photographs of the handwritten document, so if no group called Illuminati ever existed, then at least, Jefferson believed it existed, believed that Weishaupt was its founder, and wrote about it. Regardless, to the best of my knowledge, Dan Brown never made any definitive claims about Galileo being a member or founder of any Illuminati group in any interviews--and its being part of Angels and Demons no more means that he claims it's true than the antimatter particle being there means he claims that's real. If anyone would care to share an interview where Dan Brown says, "Yes, Galileo was actually the founder of a group called the Illuminati, that part is historical fact," I'll consider the claim. Even if, in an interview, he hypothetically said, "All the historical people in Angels and Demons are real, all the organizations are real," the fact that Galileo was a real person and a real organization called "Illuminati" existed would be enough to make his interview statement accurate, even if there was no real connection between the man and the organization, even if the organization was founded much latter and the early date of the organization and the connection to the man was part of his fiction. Charlie
Here is my argument: Writing is an art. Because it is an art, people make rules of what good art is. Eventually, rules get obscure enough to choke the writer's style. I personally believe that art is a train that no one can control. It's an impulse that drives the worst of us to make masterpieces. When you make stylistic rules for the train to follow, it will stop. No questions asked. It's good to know and follow rules, but it's also important to learn how to ignore ones of your choice when writing. You write to your own standard, not to anyone else's. Because these rules can quickly become a fetter to society's prefered style, you need to break them. POV is an obscure rule--especially considering the fact that it doesn't really improve your writing in the least. The idea is to keep your reader from sentence to sentence, not to keep the POV consistant. If the reader can draw the connection between thought, speech, and narration, then there is no need to make a correction--there is nothing wrong with the writing itself. This does not relate to certain more technical concepts like spelling or standard grammar as those are the basis of the language in which we are communicating. Those standards that define 'how' we tell a story; however, are unnecessary at a certain point in creative development. sigh, I don't know if any of that's clear. I steal allot of it from Pirsig. It's not that your wrong, it's just that rule-less writing is more right. Creative License ya know? peace, -nick
Rule-less writing is fine if you're writing for your own enjoyment or therapy, or entertaining friends and family, but if you're serious about being a published writer, it might be worth reconsidering.
Though this is of course O.T., I'm going to take a middle road by saying that the spirit of what Yournamehere said is correct, that creativity must not be restrained by unnecessary rules, the letter of it is incorrect, for the reason Cheeno point out, and possibly a few others, such as the possibility of confusing readers. That said, I do not know if a rule, standard, or generally accepted practice exists on this, but I think one does. What I said came from my logical consideration of the issue that day while I was driving along thinking about it, and vague recollections of writing books I've read. I'm fairly certain that switching POV without a chapter change or even so much as a line break or switch to italics, will seem muddled and confusing and make one's writing poorer, and has been advised against. I'm all for creativity, but it does not follow that one should switch POV frequently without warning, use lots of run-on sentences, use lots of adverbs, do not be concise and in fact, avoid the point with an abundance of words, pepper your works with cliches, do lots of telling without showing, and never use "said" in dialogue. There are reasons certain things are recommended and are seen as "rules," thinks like 'be concise,' and 'use said' and 'use adverbs sparingly' and, I'm fairly certain, 'pick a POV and stick with it,' and following certain guidelines does improve the readibility of one's writing, even if some may see them as crushing creativity. Charlie PS. Back on topic: I'm almost done reading 'The Lost Symbol,' and it's really good! I'm not going to post any spoilers, though, and if I do, I'll warn loudly.
I don't think many people understand what ruleless writing is. It's not necessarily breaking all the rules for the sake of breaking them. It's breaking them because you feel the alternative communicates the point clearer in that situation. It's about dropping the rules in order to correctly communicate the emotion and feeling of the moment more directly. Toni Morrison used to break certain rules of writing in order to convey the story better, or to make a specific point. If she wrote with the rules entirely in mind, her story, "The Bluest Eye" would've lost it's effectiveness. peace, -nick
Okay, Nick. I'll buy. Good answer. The caveat I'll add though is, that what we think of our writing isn't always how others read it. If you know the rules well enough to be able to break them, and if you let someone else give your writing a cold and critical reading, and they agree, and you convince your agents, editors and publisher, you may have yourself a winner. Charlie PS. I expect to finish the Lost Symbol by tomorrow. I wonder if there are others here who read it... enough to discuss it?
I won't reveal anything without screaming "Spoilers! Spoilers!" in an unmissable way--and I'm even thinking about a new thread with "Spoiler Warning" right in the thread title... I almost finished this morning but had to stop, I literally have fewer than 10 pages left, I'll take a few minutes tonight to finish... Charlie PS. If you shop around, some stores still have it as much as 40% off. I saw it at 40% off in Wegman's supermarket but I know that chain isn't everywhere. I think B&N has it at 30% off right now, it was 40% off when it was released.
i say break the rules. you'll either end up with something fresh or something that doesn't work. if it doesn't work, big deal. if it turns out to be fresh - jackpot!!!
I'm not mocking you, I don't do that unless there is a good reason for it. I'll keep the reason why I wrote that to myself. It's really not worth going into.
I actually enjoyed The Lost Symbol. Despite some literary problems, etc., I've enjoyed Dan Brown's books. But I have always found them a little too formulaic; far too many elements of the plot and characters end up being the same, as if following a pre-made template. The Lost Symbol, I think, is more varied and original in structure, even if some common elements remain.
SPOILER WARNINGS Don't read this if you don't want spoilers! Two major spoilers in the following!!! Don't say I didn't warn you! Spoiler I enjoyed it. My biggest problem with it was that the villain's identity was too obvious. I knew very quickly that Peter Solomon's son wasn't really dead, but rather, was the man who "killed him." The other problem I had was that I got confused at one point... I suppose I wasn't alert when I read a page, I blinked, and suddenly... prior to this point, the e-mail upload of the Freemason's secrets was going on for several pages... 24% complete... 72% complete... 99% complete... complete! Then, a little while later, suddenly, they were saying the e-mail was blocked and everything's okay, the secrets are safe, and I'm like... "How did they stop the e-mail upload? I missed it!" and I actually had to go back many pages and figure out how that happened. It was a very small section and Dan Brown breezed over it a little too quickly for the suspense previously built. Overall, though, I liked the book. Charlie
Okay, so I'm not the only one who's finished. Good Just to warn you this will be my first time to use that spoilers tags. Big possibility of not getting it right. Just in case. Spoilers! Spoiler As Charlie said I had big issues with the identity of villain, it was really obvious. I guess it the first time we had his point of view, only to have little doubts later, but I was still on the right track. The next problem I have with the book is all the tension around that Mason thing and in the end it just wasn't really what I expected. I mean, the idea that we're the gods is really intriguing however it felt like letdown. All that build up, national security and everything, and in the end we have potential to be gods. I guess it'd prefer if they discovered some big treasure. Generally, I didn't have much problem with prose, though sometimes short chapters were kinda irritating and all that jumping from one point of view to another. And the part where Robert suddenly is alive. I was really cheering for him to end up dead. It was just more fun, than pulling off that he was live due to some fluid with oxygen in it, or whatever the explanation was. In the end, it was fun read and I stayed awake till 2 am to finish it, which ought to count for something. And Charlie, strangely I didn't miss that part. As a matter of fact I think I read it twice, because I was putting down book for several times. Apologize if it was long read Didn't really think it'd turn out to be that long. And hopefully it won't be too confusing. Edit: Thought it was longer.
I agree that some elements of the story were rather predictable. Of all Dan Brown's books, I'd say that Digital Fortress has the most interesting and unpredictable twist.
I also enjoyed it. It was a nice treat, reading it for a while in bed every night, the electric blanket toasting my toes. Okay, it's not literary gold, but it sure as hell rocks on at a constant pace, and though some of the plot-lines need pumping up at times, it kept me connected and 'wanting to know' right to the end. I also like the way he informs us, going into detail about organisations, societies, rituals, and everything else we need (or maybe not?) to know to feel involved, and even if some of it is 'pie in the sky', it's gripping and 'entertaining', which is exactly what it says on the package. Can't wait for his next one.
