posted
Now I write in close third person and try to always stay inside my main character's head. (I don't always succeed but I try.) This is a very strong preference, but there is one thing that baffles me and it's such a nit picky thing. When I verbatim give my character's thoughts should I or should I not put it in italics? And at what point do I go over the line that it should be, if I use them? Anyone have thoughts on this?
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orson Scott Card teaches (at his boot camp) that italics are not necessary in those situations and if you read his books, he doesn't use italics for direct thoughts in third person limited.
However, I have found that most publishers and editors don't seem to agree. In several short stories that I had published, direct thoughts were turned to italics. Also, in my novel, the editors went through and turned all direct thoughts to italics. Technically, I could have vetoed that, but it just still seems to be a standard people can understand. If it's in italics, no one is wondering if you just suddenly switched to first person point of view for some strange reason. It's clearly a thought.
So, as much as it pains me to say it (I hate to read italics), I think direct thoughts should be used infrequently and put in italics when they are used.
posted
Just as an aside, I've noticed that often authors who do not italicize will introduce the thought with a tag, not only for a single sentence but for following sentences, too. For example:
"Why can't I do this, she thought. I should be done already. What kind of sorcerer am I, anyway?"
So the, "she thought" tag sets it up for the first sentence, as well as the next twp.
I don't like to read italics, and I don't think they're necessary. However, Christine is right that italic thinking is the lingering standard. I predict it will die sooner or later, though.
posted
I have often wondered the same thing. I use a little of each. Sometimes I will just write the thought, sometimes I will italicize it. There is no strong rhyme or reason to it. I just kind of go with my gut. I think putting it italics places a greater emphasis on that thought, because it is more visually noticable. I realize that this is probably not the best, or most concise way of doing things, but oh well.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I handle my POV character's thoughts in the same way lehollis does. However, I've run into a curious situation. When writing dialog for one of my YA novel characters, I like to italicize words he verbally puts emphasis on:
"Now, we're down to screwing up only three songs at a time," Billy said to his band mates.
As it just so happens, this character thinks essentially the same way he talks, so I've been using italics the same way:
Stay calm, Billy told himself. That wasn't the band's equipment van that just caught fire.
Because I don't normally italicize my character's thoughts, a lone word in italics looks perfectly fine. To me, anyway. But, how would that practice play with editors? And, if it got past the editor, would this practice annoy the readers?
posted
I like italics. I'm a very visual person--being an artist--and italicized thoughts allow me to immediately identify with them. I don't mind the occassional emphasized word, either. To me, italics are just a tool. If used well, they add texture to a story, break up monotony, direct emotional content.
That said, I don't like pages upon pages of italicized words. Not only do I feel it abusing the tool--so much so it no longer produces the desired effect--it also becomes annoying.
I feel the same on this as I do on epithets. They are an interesting tool. When used properly they can provoke thinking on multiple levels, take the reader deeper into a character, or present story elements that are unavailable through other means. Used improperly they become horrible info-dumps and chapter prologues. Robin Hobb shows us a fine example of using and abusing as the Farseer books progress. Frank Herbert used them almost poetically, in Dune.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited January 08, 2008).]
posted
I italicize anything where I would otherwise feel compelled to write "she thought". But I frequently don't feel compelled to write that, even when I'm giving direct thoughts. Changes in tense would certainly be a place where I would use italics.
quote:Barb stacked the rocks carefully, each edge matching its neighbor precisely. It should have been done already. What kind of sorcerer am I, anyway?
You need the italics to show that it's correct to have the present tense in what is otherwise a past-tense paragraph.
My two cents.
Regards, Oliver
[This message has been edited by oliverhouse (edited January 08, 2008).]
posted
So long as you don't put page after page after page in italics, it should be okay. I don't really know how it is in the modern computerized era, but it used to be the typesetters didn't like to go to the expense and trouble of doing it.
Of course, in typed or printed-up manuscripts, you're supposed to indicate italics by underlining...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
