What do people think about the use of bold, italic and underline in dialog? Does it aid in emphasizing characters' words/sentences, or does it distract the reader? As long as it's not overdone like an exclamation mark!!?
I've often seen italics used to emphasize words, though I would definitely use it only when necessary so it doesn't lose its effect. I believe the way to denote italics in MS format is to underline the passage/word that is meant to be italicized, though that comes from the time when you used a typewriter. I don't know if that's still the requirement. I'm not used to seeing underline or bold in an actual published page, and I don't see any real reason to use either. The publisher would likely determine stylistic font matters like these anyway, if they deem it necessary. I'd expect the use of such font settings to be a turnoff for most publishers, if coming from a new unknown writer. But then again, I haven't submitted anything yet, so this is speculation. Always check agents' and publishers' guidelines first and foremost.
If you are planning on seeking publication, use of bold, underlined or italicized text to add emphasis in dialogue will mark you as an amateur and your work will in all likelihood not receive serious consideration. If you feel the need to rely on font enhancements to communicate emphasis, then there is probably a weakness in the way you are writing the dialogue. You should be able to use words to communicate all the emphasis you need. Good luck.
I can always rely on this forum for quick and helpful replies. Thanks all I kept rereading my passage to see if it required a specific word bold or not but I also believe it's strong enough without it. I shall be removing it as to not feel like an amateur (so I can delude myself a little bit). Hopefully I can reach a point where I feel more comfortable in my writing to receive specific criticism, so that people can catch all the amateur mistakes I make.
ditto that!... good writers don't have to resort to fancy fontery to let readers know when a character is placing emphasis on a word, or is thinking something... that said, if it's absolutely necessary to emphasize a word, or if it's a foreign one that should be italicized, the standard is to underline the word, not actually type it in italics, in the ms... the reason being in some fonts it's hard to discern italics from standard font and regardless of font, the printer can see them more quickly/easily, if underlined...
Don't use bold or underlined. Use italics or an exclamation point for emphasis—but sparingly. (Underlining in typescript means italics in print.) When you're thinking of using either device for emphasis, I'd suggest a two-part screening test: 1. Do I really need to emphasize this word or phrase? Better judgment will often tell you no. 2. If I really do need emphasis here, can I create it structurally rather than by italics or an exclamation point? Better writing skills will often supply alternatives. One valuable tool (not rule) of thumb to keep in mind in all your writing is this: Readers of English generally expect to find the most important idea or information at the end of a sentence. So, if you want to emphasize a word or phrase, that's usually the best place to put it. In fact, for that very reason, it's called the "stress position." That's why I placed sparingly at the end of my second sentence above, and even set it off with a dash. Suppose I want to emphasize the word no in dialogue. Compare: A. I asked my professor if I could turn my paper in late. "No," she snapped, staring at me as if I had two heads. B. I asked my professor if I could turn my paper in late. She stared at me as if I had two heads and snapped out her answer: "No." For me, and I suspect for most readers, B lays greater stress on no. There are other ways, of course. One is to frame the word with scenic description or additional dialogue. I asked my professor if I could turn my paper in late. "No." She stared at me as if I had two heads, and I could see she wasn't finished. "No." She rose from her chair, walked to the window, then spun around and aimed her finger at me. "Heather, this is the third time you've asked for an extension on an assignment, and my answer is the same as before. No. The next time you feel inclined to ask that question, here's the answer. Take it with you and save yourself the trouble of another trip to my office: No." There are many ways to emphasize words and phrases, and it's time well spent to study how other, better authors have done it. Sometimes, though, even the best will use the simple device of italics or an exclamation point. Remember David Copperfield's Aunt Betsy when donkeys wandered into her front yard: "Janet! Donkeys!" Lots of great writers use italics for emphasis. Henry James in The Bostonians: The young lady thought it necessary to give her a very firm answer. "I always feel it—everywhere—night and day. I feel it here," and Olive laid her hand solemnly on her heart. Also notice how he gives everywhere emphasis by setting it off between dashes. George Eliot in Middlemarch: "You would like those, Dorothea," said Celia, rather falteringly ...." It isn't a question of whether to use such devices. It's only a question of when and how.
The convention began when the only writing tool other then the pen was the typewriter. It had no italic capability, but it could underline.
Absolutely correct, and anyone who wants to say otherwise is just leading someone down a rabbit hole that can potentially ruin their career before it even gets started.
Fact still remains, regardless of personal opinion, that what Maia has said is what's expected on MS' turned in.
I'm afraid the "fact" isn't one. Most submissions these days are done electronically, as a file. And there is no longer a universal requirement for Courior, underlining, and the other artifacts of the typewriter era. Editors are perfectly comfortable with TNR as a font, and italics are shown as italics. If the one reading the work wants double spacing they can have it at the push of a button, just as they can have any font and size.
It's funny this subject should come up. I was just re-reading Catcher in the Rye last week and noticed that there are a lot of Italicized words in there. I don't think they were excessive, but there were definitely more than I have seen in the average novel. I guess in this case it did not affect the outcome.
Jane Austen's novels are littered with words emphasized by italics. “Miss Bates, let Emma help you to a little bit of tart—a very little bit. Ours are all apple-tarts. You need not be afraid of unwholesome preserves here. I do not advise the custard. Mrs. Goddard, what say you to half a glass of wine? A small half-glass, put into a tumbler of water? I do not think it could disagree with you.” And as you know, it ruined her reputation as a writer. Let that be a lesson to you kiddies.
Yes, check the markets. There are some that want you to format the text as it should appear in the final version, which means italicizing words that are supposed to be italicized. Others hold to the traditional rule about underlining italicized words. Always read the submission guidelines and follow what they say there.
You are confusing what you see in the finished work with what is in the submitted manuscript. The two are not the same. As @JayG pointed out, the standards for ms submissions evolved when writers used typewriters and are still much the same. Don't worry about what the published work will look like. That's the editor's job.
If I'm publishing short-stories to the internet, or in book format with self-publishing, than I'll have to be my own editor. If I am forced to employ self-publishing, because editors and publishers don't like the way I want my text stylized, than that's a disappointment I'm willing to live with. I'm not looking to win any awards or make my fortune with a best seller. I just know that I have to get these stories out of my head in order to share them with people. I've always felt that the definition of bold and italics as implying mere emphasis becomes somewhat altered when applied to character dialogue. I feel accustomed to seeing it, and I'm very surprised to hear that it's considered amateurish. In narration or non-narrative writing, they would clearly be used as a visual aid to draw the readers attention, with little or no other implications. However, when placed in character dialogue, I believe they mean something more. Bold and italic text in dialogue has an almost subconscious way of communicating with the audience. A bold word suggests the character is speaking boldly, raising their voice or speaking more harshly. Italics suggest a tilt in their voice, such as an intentional affect or false-accent being used. By that same logic, I would never use underlines in dialogue, because I can't imagine how it would sound. I could break-up a character's dialogue to tell the reader that one particular word or phrase is being spoken differently from the rest of the sentence, but that feels like a jarring interruption to the flow of dialogue. If this use of bold and italics in character dialogue is truly seen as amateurish, I can only presume that the growing prevalence of them being used in this way stems from comic-books, where narration would never appear in a speech bubble, forcing the use of visual aids to denote the tone of the speaker. Despite the beloved gift my father gave me of a copy of Strunk & White's The Elements Of Style, I still find myself occasionally looking up the ~official~ rules of writing for specific situations, and what I have found is that there are books, from different sources, which lay out different rules, and each book insists that it be considered an authority. The commonalities I've found, which I've known since reading Strunk & White, are that punctuation and style are intended to aid in clarity without detracting from flow, and that internal consistency is paramount. If what you're doing is unclear, than it's bad writing. If it is clear, and it helps economize your words, than I believe some allowances should be made for bending or even breaking the rules. The goal is effective communication. I invite you to compare the following three versions of a hypothetical example, and think honestly about which one feels the most natural. My own opinions will follow. 1. Peter walked into Jason's office without knocking. Jason was about to complain, when he spied his child-hood friend, "Eh, what's up doc? Good to see you, Peter!" 2. Peter walked into Jason's office without knocking. Jason was about to complain, when he spied his child-hood friend. Speaking in his best Bugs Bunny accent, he said, "Eh, what's up doc?" Returning to his regular speaking voice, he added, "Good to see you, Peter!" 3. Peter walked into Jason's office without knocking. Jason was about to complain, when he spied his child-hood friend, "Eh, what's up doc? Good to see you, Peter!" This is a well known pop-culture reference. The audience doesn't need to be told that this is Bugs Bunny's catch-phrase, but, without any notation at all, one may wonder whether or not Jason is bothering to do the voice. The italics explain everything the audience needs to know, without being verbose or condescending, and without interruption. If version 3 would truly be seen as amateurish, I find that disappointing, to say the least. I might actually prefer to be seen as amateurish than to sacrifice my personal view of the best way to express myself in lieu of conforming to the rules. If I were writing for academic purposes, I might change my tune, but since I write mostly fantasy fiction, I prefer self-expression to conformity. By the way, "~" is the mathematical symbol for approximation. I've read that the use of quotation marks to imply sarcasm is inappropriate, and that's my solution. I do not feel smarter or superior when I defy the rules of writing. In fact it makes me nervous and frustrated. I have a great respect for language and those who are more well studied and experienced than myself, as my father was. I always like to be sure I know what the rules are before I decide whether or not to break them, or make up my own. However, if I find that the rules are too constricting, I will not hesitate to break them for the sake of effective communication and personal style.
I use italics for thoughts, bold for commands (or dragon shouts), and underline for chapter title, mission/quest name sometimes really weird combinations of the three, but it’s a weird way for me to OCD my writing
