Uh? huh? I didn't say you were saying it was a must. If you saying both are an option. My argument is why are we defending a style that seems to relay on a on spoken code? As writers why not write what we mean? I was using myself as example because I can barely notice italics. Even if I could though before this I wouldn't have realized that what the artist meant. I would have literally sat there puzzled for a while maybe finally guessing that but still not being sure.
I already said they're not the same. Dialogue tags are often needed. Thought tags are rarely needed. I've used countless dialogue tags. I don't know if I've ever used a thought tag. I'm not inherently opposed to them, the way I'm opposed to italics for thoughts, but they have no place in my writing style.
I think I see the confusing. You are saying even those in this case it is thought. By writing concepts it is dialogue. Right? Meaning a speech tag to it is not weird to you? Right?
I'm not sure if we're communicating here or not, so I'll explain how I see them. Blue is how I'd phrase something. Red is here for demonstration, but it isn't how I'd phrase something. A dialogue tag goes with words that the character speaks, words in quotes: Joe said, "Where's the cat?" Even though your Voice doesn't make sound, it's communicating with another character, so I use the convention for speech. A thought tag, if I used one, would go with a character's literal, unspoken, thought: Joe looked around. He thought, where's the cat? But I see no need for the thought tag. The paragraph belongs to Joe. Our POV is Joe. So there's no need to tell us that a question comes from Joe. So we kill the thought tag: Joe looked around. Where was the cat? Now, you see a rephrasing there--"where's" versus "where was". It's no longer a literal, word for word thought. Sometimes literal thoughts work just fine. Sometimes they're iffy. They tend to be a little more work to get smooth, so I don't bother unless it feels important. But that doesn't mean that we need to lose Joe's turn of phrase. For example, I'd say: Joe looked around. Sheesh. What a mess. Just what you'd expect from Jane. Self-important bratty little...all right, all right, calm down. I wouldn't feel the need to take Joe's voice out of it and say: Joe looked around. He thought the place was a mess. It was just what he'd expect from Jane. He thought of what a self-important brat she was. Then he calmed himself. And, again, I wouldn't feel the need to add a thought tag: Joe looked around. He thought, sheesh. What a mess. Just what you'd expect from Jane. Self-important bratty little...all right, all right, calm down. So, I actively dislike italics for thoughts, and I don't see them as a tool that I myself would ever use under any circumstances. I also dislike thought tags, but I see them as a legitimate tool, one that I might, to my surprise, find that I want to use. I prefer to use neither.
We're not communicating because what I'm saying is yes, I see you verbalize this, but your posts suggest you don't completely believe this. I believe you are being honest, I'm not saying you aren't. It's just that your posts speak louder than your denials.
I keep asking you the same question. Did you miss it? Being that why use italics while some people would be confused by it? I being a case for that. If I read a book today using italics for thought I would be confused by it. For one I might not notice the italics. For two before this forum I wouldn't have had any idea that italics were for that. So why write in a way that may confuse people?
Heeeyyy, coming in late. lol First off, @GuardianWynn I think you're overthinking this. You're looking for the "right" way to do it, or the "least confusing" way, and you're not thinking about what works for you. For me, reading your sample conversation, "Or let me out," Valorie heard in her mind... THAT confuses ME. Because to me, quotations are used for words that are heard. If Valorie and Vivian are having an actual conversation, like in person or on the phone, it would make sense to put their conversations in quotes. But since Valorie is the only one who can hear Vivian, it's my opinion that her words should be in italics. It doesn't matter to me if she's a living being or not. No one can hear her but Valorie, and no tag (said, heard, whispered, disembodied voice) is going to convey that properly. I think using The Host as inspiration is a great idea. Because the situations are the same. The MC in the host is being controlled by an alien. The alien is the one that speaks through her mouth. So the MC can only be heard in her mind. She's a living being, yes, but no one can hear her except the alien. So it's put in italics to emphasize that the conversation is done internally and not externally. Again, to me, it doesn't matter how long the conversation is or how frequently it happens, it's still an internal conversation that other people can't hear. Plus, if you put it in italics, the reader will instantly know it's internal, because that's how it's commonly used. Here's a question: is this demon Vivian ever going to be a real entity or will it always be in her head? (I didn't read the last two pages of arguments so forgive me if I missed it.) I ask this because I think it could dramatically change the way you write Vivian's dialogue. If Vivian at some point becomes reals, you'll definitely want to make her internal conversations with Valorie in italics. That way it will set it apart later when Vivian actually speaks out loud. Make sense? Good luck. Edit: When I say use italics, I mean, use italics joined with a tag. So in your example, it would read, Or let me out, a voice said. That way, you are not only implying the conversation can't be heard by anyone other than Valorie, but also that the voice is NOT Valorie talking to herself.
I was briefly confused the first time I saw italics used for esp communication, but I eventually figured it out. That's not a legit argument in this case anymore than saying a person who never saw single quotes might be confused seeing them. The reason quotes for thoughts are confusing is because quotes are also used for spoken dialogue. Using the quotes equally for two different things leaves the reader unclear which is which, a thought not spoken aloud or a thought spoken out loud. It's not the quotes that are confusing, it's using the quotes for both internal and external dialogue that are confusing to the reader. It's like saying, "pick up the red one" when there are two red objects on the table. That's a different problem from seeing a red object and not knowing what it is.
Thanks for the feed back. Wait that confuses you? I mean I get you're used to a different style but how can speech tag confuse you? Also on a phone call, would only the person with the earpiece to their ear hear it? lol. Lastly a problem chicken brought up. If I do this in Italics without tag. How do I convey Valorie talking back? She doesn't need to speak aloud. The creature can hear her thoughts so a chat between them can happen internally. Vivian is real entity but no she will never be on her own. Vivian was born inside Valorie at Valorie's own birth. They can never be separated in life. In death they can be but unlikely that will happen. At this point Valorie hates and argues with it. What happens is the reverse of what you think. They blend. Once they accept each other the voice begins to disappear. Not that it is gone but that it became so ingrained to her that she can no longer recognize which thoughts are her own and which are Vivian's. And no this isn't like subtle mind control. The effect works both way. Vivian blends into Valorie too not knowing where she ends or begins. I know a fusion concept may seem odd to two mind in one body but I thought it was pretty cool.
It's an interesting problem, are paragraphs of italicized thoughts an issue because they are italicized (and therefore distracting) or because paragraphs-long dialogue, internal or not, is distracting and the italics highlight them? Probably both. I liked your comment on a demon that might leave one's head. That's something I hadn't thought of.
There has been a thread on this topic here, people discussed the use of italics. As for me, I also think there are circumstances in which it is perfectly ok to distinguish between different voices, registers. In a book Transformation by Carol Berg, whole pages are italicized to distinguish the first person narrative from prophesies and general knowledge. I'm inclined to use italics if I find it appropriate for the story.
There is a huge difference here though. Quotation marks are not a subjective thing are they? There isn't this debate on whether spoken dialogue needs quotation marks. That is like if someone never saw a question mark. The problem in that case isn't the writer but the reader. Because reader IS a code. Italics for that really seem to be a "one random person thought to do it and now everyone considers it a real thing" kind of thing. Maybe it has gained enough steam where people don't call on it but it still doesn't seem like a thing. I mean my highschool English class never mentioned that. Also as I think chicken mentioned. Dialogue is more between two characters. I mean think of a psychic chat. You did say speech tags and italics don't need to be in the same text. Right? So if two or three are psychically speaking. Wouldn't you need speech tags to make it clear who is speaking?
Yes, it would confuse me. Because what Vivian is saying isn't being spoken, by all definitions of the word. It's only in her head, which is different from a phone conversation. I could pick up another receiver and hear the conversation. I could lean close enough to a cell phone to hear the person on the other end. They are being spoken. But unless someone is psychic, they will never be able to hear what Vivian is saying. In my edit, which I added late so you may have missed it, I suggested always adding tags to the italics. Typically, thought tags aren't needed for internal dialogue. But yours is a special case. There are two people in her head, so they need to be separated. It's no more strange than adding tags to spoken dialogue between two people. Hopefully there will never be ANY huge paragraphs of dialogue. I find that distracting whether in quotes or italics. @GuardianWynn I think you're stuck on the idea that readers can't read. If you write- Or let me out, a voice said. No, Valorie thought. -you are assuming that the reader won't understand that. To me, it's very clear. Two people: one thinking, one speaking psychically.
Technically psychics do exist in my world. So yeah a person can eavesdrop. Ok before I continue must say. You seem to be the first person advising thought tags. Think of that scene without tags. Pretty confusing, right? Also it brings up another thought. Psychics do chat mentally with each other. You think such text should also be in italics? It seems like your saying that just because literal sound isn't being made quotes aren't allowed even though it is a dialogue between two characters?
Sure they are. Using quotes on thoughts is very controversial with many style guides coming down firmly on both sides. Nor is there a debate on whether spoken dialogue needs italics. You are seriously underestimating the use of italicized thought in fiction including how long it's been around. You lost me here. I'm not following your question. Yes, you need to keep the reader informed as to who is speaking. Just as you need to be clear what is spoken and unspoken dialogue. So what is your question?
That's exactly what I'm saying. All of it. lol Psychic conversation is a conversation, yes, but it's not vocal. It's with the mind. Not spoken outloud. Even if someone can eavesdrop into their mind-conversations, it's still not being spoken aloud. To me, spoken is spoken. If it's not spoken, it doesn't get quotes. Period.
Let me give an example here, see if this helps you realize how confusing it would be to use quotations instead of thought tags. (Forgive how very basic it is. I don't write well on the fly.) Jenna said, "Hey, girl! I was hoping to run into you here!" "Oh, great," Vivian said in her mind. "I was hoping to avoid her here." "Be nice!" Valorie said. Then to Jenna, "Hi Jenna! I was just leaving." Do you find that confusing? Because I certainly do. To me, the quote tags indicate it's being spoken. So I would, instinctively, read past the in her mind line. And I would be confused as to 1) how rude Vivian is for saying something so mean out loud and 2) why Jenna isn't responding to a blatant insult. Now consider the alternative: Jenna said, "Hey girl! I was hoping to run into you here!" Oh, great, Vivian said. I was hoping to avoid her here. Be nice! Valorie thought. "Hi Jenna! I was just leaving." To me, that reads much better. You don't need to specify that Vivian said anything in her mind, because it's implied. But with a name, even if it's just "the Voice" or "the demon" or "the woman," it separates it from Valorie. Make sense?
How about a dream then? It isn't making any sound? It is all in the mind? Though looked up a little. "Direct or quoted speech is a sentence (or several sentences) that reports speech or thought in its original form phrased by the original speaker" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_speech Quotes aren't about thought or sound but about the words being directly what being said and not implied meaning like indirect. Right?
...what? Believe what? I said that I see thought tags as a legitimate tool, but one that I do not choose to use. I don't see italics for thought as a legitimate tool. I agree that perfectly good writers use them. I think that those perfectly good writers are mistaken. No, I have no reason to put my judgement above those perfectly good writers. But I have no reason to put my judgement above others on many issues. When it comes to my practices and my taste, I do anyway. If you want your steak well done or your broccoli cooked for forty minutes , I will accept that you have every right to eat your steak or broccoli that way. If a restaurant refuses to cook your steak well done, I will be indignant for you. I still think you're wrong.
I find the second more confusing. I think I see the italics this time but I think it being said aloud. Or at least that what my first thought is looking at it. After it says "said" so I think it being spoken aloud. No cue for me personally to think overwise except that I know that it is your code. Also your first one third line might have wanted to say Valorie thought. My apologizes I thought you were saying that italics and tags never need to be used together. Looking up the quote differention seems to me to have settled it. Even if it is a thought if it is direct speech it needs a quote. So now it sounds to me like. Either quote with or without italics. Makes the italics seem worthless.
