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).]
posted
I could be wrong, but if you are in deep penetration POV, you don't need to italicize thoughts. If you're more distant or using omniscient, italics for thoughts could work. But even then, some will say 'why bother?'
Posts: 1520 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted
It is nothing but a technical choice, decided upon by listening closely to the words, and by asking friends for their thoughts. It is an application of 3rd person PoV deep limited; whether or not you need italics or not is defined by the form of your writing.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Mar 2003
|
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.
posted
I think it depends on what kind of penetration you use. If you are deep enough in the character's mind, people won't mind. Otherwise, if you are a third-person-from-far-away, or an omniscient, yes, it does matter very much if you use italics and tags to signal that we have changed focus, and are inside the character's thoughts.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Sep 2004
|
posted
I sometimes drop directly into the protaganist's thoughts, where I think the emphasis helps as "show don't tell". For example:
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).
posted
This time around, I noticed OSC doing that in the latest Shadow book. The woman (I forgot her name) who has one of Bean and Petra's children in her womb, who she believes to be one of Achille's. But often her POV drops from third person, and slips into first person thoughts. The book in many ways was a let down, but I did learn from it.
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited June 22, 2005).]
posted
I've never heard of 3rd person deep or whatever. It makes me wonder if I should give up on the idea of rewriting my book in 3rd.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted
Why give up on it? Find out what deep penetration is -- you might like it. I sure do!
"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).]
posted
I do the same thing OSC does, and that tchernabyelo used in the above example. That is, I write in third person, past tense, but the POV is pretty deep. Then I make it even deeper by sliding into first person present tense to present specific thoughts. I usually do that at the end of a paragraph, then go back into third person past tense in the next paragraph. An example from a story of mine:
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.
posted
Italics - like salt or cayenne pepper, should be used judiciously and sparingly. I read a book years ago by Rosemary Rogers (yeah, I was into that stupid romance stuff at the time), and it was obvious her editor was on vacation because she emphasized everything with italics! And her character came across as stupid!!! And vain! But maybe that wasn't the fault of the character! Italics can get tiresome if you use them too much, and it tends to annoy the reader rather then help them out and it bogs down the action tremendously, if you know what I mean.
[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).]
posted
Well, in that sense, yes, Elan. I quite agree. However, as a few others have mentioned, I think it's the author's choice on whether or not to italicize thoughts. I've seen it done both ways. Personally, I like to italicize thoughts, just to seperate them from the dialogue and rest of the monologue.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted
We discussed this in boot camp. OSC says do not italicize thoughts. Good enough fo rme, I'll listen to the professional.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted
But I've seen it done both ways. I think that's just one of OSC's preferences. Does he give a specific reason why not to italicize thoughts?
Posts: 202 | Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted
I believe his reason for not doing it is: it isn't necessary. Just as you want to cut out words, sentences, and paragraphs that don't contribute to the effect of your story, so you want to cut out formatting that doesn't contribute. His take is that, if you do it right, what you're doing will be obvious without the italics. If it's NOT obvious, then you're not doing it right. And certainly his method works for him.
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.
posted
If I recall, in part because it isn't necessary, and also because it's becomming passe. It may well be removed by the copy editor.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted
I think it depends somewhat one the POV. If it's third person omniscient, it seems better to italicize thoughts. For instance, I was just reading a book written in that POV, and everytime I come across monologue that says something along the lines of, "I wished greatly that he'd go away and leave me alone with my thoughts," all the sudden it looks as if the author has switched into first person. This is confusing sometimes. So I think for clarity, italics should be used in those cases.
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).]
posted
Not to throw a wrench in here, but I am re-reading Maps in a Mirror and have discovered an interesting fact: in the early part of his career, OSC used italics to distinguish direct thoughts. He dropped the practice in his more recent stuff, though.
Posts: 818 | Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted
Autumn, that's funny. Maybe that's why he said it hasn't been necessary for thirty years, because he gave it up himself almost that long ago.
Shendülféa: the line you quoted:
quote:I wished greatly that he'd go away and leave me alone with my thoughts
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.
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).]
posted
I was rereading Dune (for the 20th time) and I noticed an interesting use of italics.
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.
posted
dpatridge: The book was originally published in 1995, I believe. It's of the fantasy genre. To be honest, the author switches POV throughout the whole book so often it made my head spin. It also made it hard to determine whether it was third omniscient or third limited. I finally determined that it was third omniscient (or was at least supposed to be).
Posts: 202 | Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted
It really makes me wonder why some things get caught by the editors and some things do not, this case of bad POV in that book Shen is talking about...
Posts: 477 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
Since I am half blind, I generally don't read what is printed in italics. If you look at it closley, you realize the lines are much smaller, and run together. I don't know if I should use it or not, but I don't use it much. If I do use italics, I also bold the words.
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.
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!
posted
I have noticed that italics are harder to read, and that goes into my planning on where and how to use them. I would never use italics for thoughts as this thread suggests, but rather for emphasis, in which case the idea IS to make it harder to read in order to slow the reader down so that hopefully they will think about it a little more.
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...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
