Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Just a really simple grammar question, really

This is topic Just a really simple grammar question, really in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004378

Posted by skadder (Member # 6757) on :

Hi,

I was looking at another post on short stories and came across a problem. When doing speech the following is permissible:

"Why did I do that?" he asked himself.

But if you turn that into thoughts you run into the problem of the question mark, don't you?

e.g.

Why did I do that?, he thought.

The above is wrong, so how do you do it? Do you have to seperate them? Can you drop the question mark? You don't if it's speech.

I am sure it's really simple, so if someone could tell me I would be grateful. There have been a few stories where I have wanted to tag a thought question, for pacing reasons etc. but didn't know how to do it. Consequently, I have had to work around it.

[This message has been edited by skadder (edited November 15, 2007).]

Posted by halogen (Member # 6494) on :

Thoughts don't really need the "he asked himself"

Since the person is thinking, it is implied they are thinking to themselves. Unless they are part of some hive collective.

I could be wrong about this.

Why did I do that? There is no definition of dumb that you fail to satisfy.*

*No Country for Old Men (not an exact quote... lazy... very lazy)

Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :

Well if your doing third limited Pov it's not necessary really to include the "he thought" or even italicize. Or the Italics usually say the "He thought" for you. Or "He thought." is a full sentence so just don't worry about it. Or invert them, which is probably your best option if you insist on the "he thought". Ex. "He thought why did I do that?"

Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :

They're right, lost the tag it's redundant.

In fact I learned this strategy from Card, though I rarely employ it:
[something like this]
Ender brushed the back of his neck, the monitor was gone. Now I'm just like everybody else, just like Peter. No, not like Peter...

The push into first person is sort of an internal monologue and it is perfectly clear who is giving the thoughts, and it isn't the narrator, so the glide from third to first and back is seamless and natural, when done properly.

Posted by skadder (Member # 6757) on :

Yeah, I like that version. Does he italicize the thoughts, though?

Posted by darklight (Member # 5213) on :

I used to put 'he thought' and I used to italicise thoughts, now, I put the thoughts in a seperate paragraph and carry on. It's easy to know what is thought and what isn't:

Johnny walked outside into the cold.

Should have put my coat on.

It was going to snow.

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

I do it a lot. I never bother with italics and have never had an editor complain. In limited 3rd, it seems natural to at times express your characters thoughts. I don't even bother with putting them in separate paragraphs.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 16, 2007).]

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Well, in a print manuscript, the traditional way to indicate italics is to underline, because it's hard to tell just from looking at italics and regular. A heavy amount of either means (or used to mean) a lot of work for the typesetters...

Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :

No he doesn't. He doesn't break for a new paragraph, he doesn't stuff in a tag, and he doesn't put it in quotes. He just says it, and it is simple and clear.

Alex walked down the road with his head down, kicking the soccerball ahead every few steps. I'll never be as good as Joe. And that's not fair, Joe's such a jerk. A passing car splashed water on him from the gutter. Alex shook himself off and punted the ball into the street.

Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :

Well you see in third limited the line between the narrator and the POV character is supposed to be fuzzy, so to tighten that line with italics defeats the purpose.

quote:
Well, in a print manuscript, the traditional way to indicate italics is to underline, because it's hard to tell just from looking at italics and regular. A heavy amount of either means (or used to mean) a lot of work for the typesetters...

I just want to add amen to that. (I've done some typesetting recently and the manuscripts had italics on them, and I'm quite sure that I missed some.)