posted
The first example is typically done these days with a deep-penetration third person POV. But you only need to include one or two "he thought" tags before you just start writing that character's thoughts untagged. Your readership won't skip a beat.
posted
Beware the phrase "thought to himself" - who else would he be thinking to? (Unless the story is about telepathy.)
Posts: 1750 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
Exactly what wbriggs said. See the other thread here on italics, but you generally should avoid them for narrated thought. I personally avoid "he thought" tags as well. Just let the thought/feeling flow into the narration. The reader will pass right over it uninterrupted, without conscously realizing it. You can even slip into first person at times without a tag, quotes, or italics (if you want to go for deep penetration). When it works, you know your reader is empathizing with the character.
Also, as a general rule, say what the character feels, not what he thinks. It's a subtle difference, but it makes an impact on the flow and impact of the writing.
I've reconsidered and I'm going to stick by my intial assessment. No one really uses italics anymore for internal thought.
If it's the term "no one" that you take issue with, then you're right. I'm generalizing. Perhaps I should say "the vast majority of publishing writers."
I also agree that tags should be omitted wherever possible. I see where I didn't specifically state that in my original post.
quote:You can even slip into first person at times without a tag, quotes, or italics (if you want to go for deep penetration).
I just finished the first draft of a work, and my first reader commented on just this issue, tagging it as a POV change. Is it acceptable to change from 3rd to 1st in deep penetration, and does it need quotes, etc?
posted
Personally, I'm opposed to it, but I recognize this as an issue that people disagree on. I think it was Autumn who mentioned using that technique (in the other topic), and she was pretty happy with the effect and how her readers interpreted it.
I suspect that if it's sort of like omniscient POV - it can work if it's done perfectly, but otherwise just looks like a POV lapse.
[This message has been edited by Beth (edited June 24, 2005).]
posted
Benskia looked at his wage slip. Above his head appeared a series of three small white bubbles, leading to a large one in which the words "That sucks" were printed.
quote:Is it acceptable to change from 3rd to 1st in deep penetration, and does it need quotes, etc?
I just want to add this to my previous thought: You have to build up to it. You can't just jump from shallow to deep penetration. The reader shouln't even notice the switch unless they are consciously looking for it. Thus, it needs to be brief (usually not more than a few sentences), and isolated in its own paragraph(s).
[This message has been edited by TheoPhileo (edited June 24, 2005).]
posted
I don't think it has to have a paragraph all to itself, but I do think that once you have made the switch within a paragraph you should end the para. soon and begin a new one in the main POV, and don't do sections in the middle of a para. that are different from the beginning and end of the same para.
At least, as Beth mentioned, that works for me. Others may choose different methods.
posted
I think that italics should be reserved for subvocalizations, thoughts that the character actually formed and nearly said out loud or muttered in those exact words. If there is no real story reason for the character not to say them out loud, then the character just says them.
Something like wbriggs' example would be my usual preference for "deep penetration", expressing the thought of the character as a statement rather than by any form of attribution. Attribution tags generally weaken the impact of a statement. Since the exception is in quoting authorities/celebrities on some subject, it doesn't have very much to do with wordcraft (unless the authority/whatever being quoted is your own creation, in which case you are still the one that must think up the actual words).
posted
No one really uses italics anymore for internal thought.
If it's the term "no one" that you take issue with, then you're right. I'm generalizing. Perhaps I should say "the vast majority of publishing writers."
I am still confused. Going through the bookshelves of myself and my boyfriend, and looking only at books published in the past five years, I see these people never using italics for thoughts:
Terry Pratchett Peter Hamilton Neal Stephenson Alastair Reynolds Orson Scott Card Susanna Clark
And these people using them:
Catherine Asaro David Brin Robin McKinley Julie Czernada Karl Schroeder Lois McMaster Bujold Tanya Huff Holly Lisle Charlie Stross Cory Doctorow Timothy Zahn
The italics appear to have a simple majority, which suggests you may be wrong about "the vast majority". And I am very skeptical of any definition of "no one" which includes several Hugo and Nebula nominees, last year's winner of the Hugo and the Nebula, and the current president of SFWA.
You can say that people shouldn't use italics for thoughts: it's a valid position, though not one I agree with. You can say that people should be careful how they use italicized thoughts, and I'll agree with you (I like Survivor's subvocalization rule, though I don't stick to it absolutely myself). You can say they shouldn't be used often. You can say that OSC says not to use italics, and that he is not only our sponsor for this forum but a published author with far more credibility than me, and I will agree with you.
But you cannot say that no one uses italicised thoughts, because it is not true.
I apologize for being so testy over such a minor point, but I despise absolutes. And I've learned through unpleasant experience that there are newbie writers on boards like this who take such pronouncements far more seriously than is intended or healthy.
As a writer, I do whatever I think is best for my story, and I really don't care.
99% of the time, I don't use italics for thoughts, I use plain narrative and reserve italics for emphasis. I've given up using the "he/she thought" tag, as I've discovered it is almost always superfluous. And I've nearly eradicated "he/she knew" in my narrative. Because, if I've set up my POV properly, then it should be obvious that my character is internalizing something.
But again, I don't care if an author uses italics for thoughts -- it makes ZERO difference, because I'm capable of adapting to an author's style and narrative (as is most everyone, I presume). The only time it becomes an issue is when it's 40 straight sentences of italicized text -- that's hard to read.
I guess I could be wrong. I was just trolling through memory and can't remember anyone that I've read recently using them. Whenever I see them (and I have, but not often) it's always in older books and strikes me as incredibly old-fashioned.
Maybe I was taking the pronouncement of OSC to not use italics ("because no one does") to core.
At any rate, I'll keep my eyes open (although, glancing through the five random books I've read over the past month reveals no italics anywhere....)
edited to add: P.s. that simple majority is really only of YOUR (not to slight your boyfriend's) bookshelf. I mean, I could make a similar list in which there were no italics-users represented. Let's be socially conscious of our use of statistics.
edited again to add: Hmmm, maybe that's where our disagreement comes from. You've generally read more authors that use italics, whereas I don't. I think this may be because I gravitate towards stories that are highly character-driven. In such a story, character thoughts account for a very large portion of the prose. In such a case, the prevalence of italics would be a distraction. Then again, I'm now reading some McKillip in which plot is clearly the focus and she doesn't use italics, either.... It's a puzzle.
[This message has been edited by Rahl22 (edited June 26, 2005).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
