I know... here we go again.
I've had a person critique the first hundred plus pages of my WIP. One of the major things he pointed out was that I rarely if ever italicize thoughts. I tended to reserve those for "telepathic" communication or subconcious thinking.
I hope the person doesn't mind, I don't think they frequent this board, and I'll keep thier identity anonymous nontheless.
Here were thier thoughts about thoughts:
------------------------------------------
In regard to the iticizing of internal dialogue, the first comment is that you're
not Orson Scott Card <grin>. My _opinion_ is that most readers will be
expecting italics when you use a dialogue tag ("he thought," "he added
silently," etc.) When they encounter the dialogue tag without the italics
there'll be a "Aha; tag = internal dialogue, go back and re-parse" reaction.
Anything you do to make reading your work less flowing or intuitive, and
your target audience is the ones who read without conscious effort, will
detract from the "reading experience."
I'm not sure how to handle a quote within internal dialogue (Enough about me,
he'd say if he could, let these folks get on with their lives.). My first reaction
is to use quotes.
My reaction may be skewed by the fact that my writing isn't as intensely
focused on the internal thoughts of the characters.
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited June 22, 2005).]
Italicizing thoughts goes back to a time when people did not use deep penetration in their third person point of view. It goes along with a comment I got one time that my point of view was unclear because it seemed as deep as first but it was written in third.
When you are using first person point of view, do you italicize thoughts? Or do we assume that everything outside of quotes is essentially being noted or thought by the point of view character?
Now, because the holdover exists there will always be people who feel more comfortable seeing direct thoughts in italics...quoted thoughts. One trouble with this idea is that no thought is ever truly quoted. You don't think "Aha!" You get a sudden sense of realiziation. You may think, "That bitch!" but it's incomplete and inaccurate...failing to include all the emotions, side thoughts, and real activity that is going on in your mind. At all times thoughts are being edited for the purposes of story telling.
Moreover, even as your friend stumbled because the italics are not there, many others will stumble because they *are*. Especially if you use them all over the place. They get waring. They cause you to read that part slower, to pay more attention to it.
Let me put it this way: If you are writing a short story, say, and a couple of times you feel the need to directly quote a thought it will probably be best rea din italics. On the other hand, if you are writing that same short story deeply enough that there are dozens of direct thoughts then the reader will get used to the idea that all the narration is in that person's head and even if they stumble initially, it will work better not to use them than to have a great deal of italicizing.
Of course, if you write third person omniscient you have to italicize character thoughts, but then again in this particular point of view you shouldn't use direct thoughts very often.
No. I can't do this. I'm not strong enough.
Comes across as a bit more immediate and vivid than
She didn't think she could do it. She just didn't feel strong anough.
I don't use italics. I trust my readers to be able to realise that even in 3rd person POV, they can tell when the thoughts are actually those of the character, rather than part of the narration (the use of first person, for a start, should be a clue).
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited June 22, 2005).]
"Yes, Effie is always the first to come help when something goes wrong," Gladys said. And no wonder -- she was married to the preacher and he coudln't keep a secret to save his life. There was no way Gladys would tell Reverend Henpecked anything personal. You'd have to be crazy to do that.
This is deep penetration. It's all Gladys's perceptions. All these editorial comments are in her mind.
--
tchern, how about this:
No. She couldn't do this. She wasn't strong enough.
It's arguably less powerful than 1P, but it's more punchy than the same with "she thought" in it.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited June 22, 2005).]
"There's no way I'd tell Reverend Henpecked anything personal," Gladys thought.
It's a lot cleaner if you rephrase it in 3rd person, drop the quotes and/or italics, and drop the dialog attribution, as wbriggs did it:
There was no way Gladys would tell Reverend Henpecked anything personal.
quote:
Edward whipped the scaled backs of the placid undru pulling the wagon. Ann could have told him it would do no good; the beasts were doing the best they could already. He glared at Ann’s belly before quickly looking away. His look cut Ann to the core. He’s wishing I wasn’t here with him, slowing him down. He wishes we had never tried to have this child.“And if the babe comes early?” He was taking out his helplessness on her.
I personally find that to be an effective way to convey thought without any tags, and out of all the readers on the peice, I only got one person who said she didn't immediately understand what I was doing.
[This message has been edited by Elan because it's harder than it looks to keep those italics straight!(edited June 23, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited June 23, 2005).]
One problem I have with many (not all) authors who italicize thoughts is that they include too many thoughts this way. Their books are full of sentences such as: What in blazes is Conrad doing in the ladies room? The fact is that people just don't verbalize their thoughts this way very often. The alternative treatment--What in blazes was Conrad doing in the ladies room?--is more accurate as it tells us what the POV character is thinking without claiming that he formulated that thought into an actual sentence. And of course such thought "descriptions" should never be in italics. (I'll admit that, out of context, the second option sounds almost like a third-person question. However, if the story-teller pays any attention to POV at all, such a sentence will clearly be referring to a thought of the POV character, and in fact, even authors who regularly place thoughts in italics use this construction as well.)
If you limit verbalized thoughts to the times when they're really appropriate, and embed them within a sufficiently deep penetration POV for them to be appropriate, then the italics are superfluous.
Given all that, I'll agree with HSO's comment on the other thread discussing this--it doesn't really make a difference. What bothers me is not the use, or lack of use, of italics, but the overuse of direct thoughts. If the author limits himself to appropriate occurrences of this technique, then it doesn't really bother me whether he italicizes or not. But if you feel like you need the italics to show what you're doing, you might want to reconsider whether it's really the best occasion to be doing it in the first place.
In third person limited, however, italics should not be used. I think that's almost a given. Rarely do I see it used with that POV.
It's just the third person omniscient I'm wondering about.
The author didn't screw up by not italicizing, he screwed up by including a direct thought in the first place.
When you are using an omniscient POV, ALL thoughts of individual characters MUST be filtered through your narrator. There are no exceptions.
If you even once lift a private thought and do not filter it through your narrator you are in GROSS violation of POV. Anyone who does this should be shot. Well, not literally, but you should DEFINITELY not follow their bad example.
I'm surprised the editor's didn't catch that... When was this book published and in what genre?
EDIT:
Oh, and yes, I do write quite frequently in omniscient. In fact, I have at least two novels planned for using that POV.
[This message has been edited by dpatridge (edited June 27, 2005).]
Shendülféa: the line you quoted:
quote:clearly is in first person. How do I know? Because it's also in past tense. A person's "quoted thoughts" won't be in past tense any more than their quoted speech. Really, three things must happen to successfully include a "quoted thought", whether it's done with italics or not: 1) it's phrased in first person if it's about the POV character, 2nd if it's about the person the POV character is talking to (or has their concentration on), 3rd person if it's about somebody else, 2) it's in present tense (unless it's a realization about something that took place in the POV characters own past--doesn't sound like that's the case for your example), 3) it's in the voice of the character, not that of the narrator. These are identical to the things that must be done in quoted speech. Of course, the quoted thoughts must also arise from deep penetration of the character's thoughts, or a crutch like italics will be necessary to clarify what's happening.
I wished greatly that he'd go away and leave me alone with my thoughts
Your example would probably be better as something like: "Beat it, you turkey! Can't you see I'm trying to think?" Maybe followed by (new paragraph): "But all he said was, 'I'm rather busy right now. Could we talk about this tomorrow?' "
But it would be better still if it were not quoted thought, maybe instead something like: "It infuriated him the way Scarsdale incessantly interrupted him in his office. How in the name of the seven gods could he get any thinking done that way?"
[This message has been edited by rickfisher (edited June 27, 2005).]
This scene occurs after a failed attempt on Paul's life with a hunter-seeker. It's near the beginning of the book.
In the scene, Duke Leto is waiting for his men to arrive for a meeting. The Duke is trying to think about the challenges to the Atreides house's relocation and things that need to be done, etc. But during the course of his internal musings, a single phrase interrupts and repeats often, in italics.
They have tried to take the life of my son.
It is an interesting effect because it is as if the Duke's thoughts are being interrupted by this one intrusive thought.
He is trying hard to be practical and rational, and keep his mind on the important tasks he faces, but the thought keeps on intruding.
It might have been confusing if the phrase had been put in normal type, but by making it italics, it becomes a "visually" important and urgent phrase.
I enjoy comeing here, though I think I will also look for a good less-abled writer's site as well. Other than being half blind, I have other disabilites that can affect my writing, as well as my retention.
Thanks for being here.
You are more than welcome here, and we hope you will keep coming. Thank you for a fresh perspective on the use of italics, one that most of us had probably not considered.
We have a varied group here; You never know, there might be others here that share some of your disabilities. In any case,you will find most of the regulars here to be like family: quite supportive. Stick around, lurk and learn for a while. Remember, you have a home here if you wish!
Susan
It didn't, however, dawn on me that such a use would actually cause the opposite, and that some readers might skip over completely what I had intended as an attention-booster causing it to become an attention-deterrent...
I may just have to rethink using italics at all and think of another method other than bland repetition or italics to make things stand out...