In thought
- Thread starter Ugawa
- Start date
- Status
Hi Ugawa
Thanks for asking this question. The T should not be capitalized (capitalised in British English).
Your mixing tenses with thought (past) and is (present). Consider one of the following:
The comma after thought is not strictly incorrect (in my understanding) but is unnecessary and, as such, should be removed. If you want to achieve separation between the two parts you might consider a structure like this:
This also allows you to mix tenses in the way that you did originally although I'm not sure why it suddenly makes it acceptable. Could anyone explain that to me?
Thanks for asking this question. The T should not be capitalized (capitalised in British English).
Your mixing tenses with thought (past) and is (present). Consider one of the following:
Jeff thought this was going to be a bad day.
Jeff thinks this is going to be a bad day.
Jeff thinks this is going to be a bad day.
The comma after thought is not strictly incorrect (in my understanding) but is unnecessary and, as such, should be removed. If you want to achieve separation between the two parts you might consider a structure like this:
Jeff thought to himself "this is going to be a bad day."
This also allows you to mix tenses in the way that you did originally although I'm not sure why it suddenly makes it acceptable. Could anyone explain that to me?
How to punctuate thoughts is a perennial debate around here. The short answer is that there isn't a universally accepted standard format. There are, however, several commonly used variations.
It's important to start by making a distinction between direct quotation of thoughts and indirect paraphrase. We do exactly the same thing with speech, and since that's a more familiar format, it makes it easier to examine the differences.
Direct quotation: Jeff said, "This is going to be a bad day."
Indirect paraphrase: Jeff said this was going to be a bad day.
In the direct quotation, Jeff is speaking in the present tense, so we report his words exactly as he said them, in the present tense. In the indirect paraphrase, we use past tense because our narrative--as shown by "said"--is told in past tense.
In the direct quotation, we capitalize the "t" in "this" because it is the first word of what Jeff actually said. In the indirect paraphrase, we don't, because it is in the middle of a narrative sentence.
Ugawa's example appears to be intended as a direct quotation of the exact words the character was thinking. (Ollie's correction changed it to an indirect paraphrase.)
Now we get to the debatable part. What follows is one of the generally acceptable options for direct quotation of thoughts. I happen to think it's the best choice, but that's just one opinion. Others will disagree.
I'm opposed to the use of thought tags ("Jeff thought,") for directly quoted thought. A thought tag serves two functions. One is to tell the reader which character is doing the thinking. However, unlike spoken dialog, there should never be more than one character in any given scene whose thoughts we could be privy to, so that isn't necessary (with the possible exception of a certain style of omniscient POV).
The second function of the thought tag is to signal that this is a directly quoted thought. I prefer to use italicization. Granted, that's a double-edged sword; italics are uncomfortable to read for more than a few words at a time. If the POV char thinks in long paragraphs, it's wise to consider one of the alternative formats. But in typical use, occasional brief italicized thoughts aren't a problem.
I'm also wary of beginning with "Jeff thought" in indirect paraphrase of thoughts. That's getting dangerously close to filtering. For this particular example, however, I can't think of any good alternatives. I'd go with a stronger verb, but "Jeff knew" or "Jeff feared" aren't significantly different from "Jeff thought" from a filtering aspect.
So my preference would be
Direct quotation: This is going to be a bad day.
Indirect paraphrase: Jeff feared this day was going to be bad.
It's important to start by making a distinction between direct quotation of thoughts and indirect paraphrase. We do exactly the same thing with speech, and since that's a more familiar format, it makes it easier to examine the differences.
Direct quotation: Jeff said, "This is going to be a bad day."
Indirect paraphrase: Jeff said this was going to be a bad day.
In the direct quotation, Jeff is speaking in the present tense, so we report his words exactly as he said them, in the present tense. In the indirect paraphrase, we use past tense because our narrative--as shown by "said"--is told in past tense.
In the direct quotation, we capitalize the "t" in "this" because it is the first word of what Jeff actually said. In the indirect paraphrase, we don't, because it is in the middle of a narrative sentence.
Ugawa's example appears to be intended as a direct quotation of the exact words the character was thinking. (Ollie's correction changed it to an indirect paraphrase.)
Now we get to the debatable part. What follows is one of the generally acceptable options for direct quotation of thoughts. I happen to think it's the best choice, but that's just one opinion. Others will disagree.
I'm opposed to the use of thought tags ("Jeff thought,") for directly quoted thought. A thought tag serves two functions. One is to tell the reader which character is doing the thinking. However, unlike spoken dialog, there should never be more than one character in any given scene whose thoughts we could be privy to, so that isn't necessary (with the possible exception of a certain style of omniscient POV).
The second function of the thought tag is to signal that this is a directly quoted thought. I prefer to use italicization. Granted, that's a double-edged sword; italics are uncomfortable to read for more than a few words at a time. If the POV char thinks in long paragraphs, it's wise to consider one of the alternative formats. But in typical use, occasional brief italicized thoughts aren't a problem.
I'm also wary of beginning with "Jeff thought" in indirect paraphrase of thoughts. That's getting dangerously close to filtering. For this particular example, however, I can't think of any good alternatives. I'd go with a stronger verb, but "Jeff knew" or "Jeff feared" aren't significantly different from "Jeff thought" from a filtering aspect.
So my preference would be
Direct quotation: This is going to be a bad day.
Indirect paraphrase: Jeff feared this day was going to be bad.
Explanations
I likes them.
I didn't know that either :-s, which is evident from my previous assertion.
How about this example:
Francis proceeded to vomit all over the counter-top. Barry thought this was unacceptable. Lelia just hoped she wasn't going to have to clean it up.
What is filtering?
Filtering is sentences like
George saw three books on the table.
George felt cold.
George smelled fresh bread.
It's almost always better to writeGeorge felt cold.
George smelled fresh bread.
Three books lay on the table.
The cold wind raised goosebumps on George's arms.
The aroma of fresh bread filled the air.
Assuming George is the POV char*--otherwise we couldn't have written the first versions anyway--we already know we're in his head and any impressions we get are his. Saying he saw something or felt something or smelled something just adds unnecessary words. The cold wind raised goosebumps on George's arms.
The aroma of fresh bread filled the air.
Filtering is also at risk for telling, rather than showing. Of my examples above, that doesn't apply to the books so much, but it definitely does to the cold.
I won't say never filter. Sometimes avoiding it can lead to awkward and convoluted phrasing. Sometimes the circumstances of the scene require emphasis on how the character perceived a particular detail. But those are both fairly rare situations. Filtering is in the category of things to be cautious with; don't use it unnecessarily and don't overuse it.
*Again, the kind of omniscient where you're in everyone's head at the same time is probably an exception. Honestly, I dislike that so much, I'd like to say just don't. But people I respect see some value in it, so I'll merely note it as an area I'm not prepared to discuss.
Tell me if I am summing this up correctly: Filtering is describing things from the perspective of a character (the filter?) that draws unnecessary attention to the way that character perceives when in fact the content of the perception is the primary concern?
I can see how it is undesirable. The second set of examples (without filtering) that you provide allows me to visualize the imagery much more vividly. There isn't the disconnect that is presence with the first set of filtered examples.
I can see how it is undesirable. The second set of examples (without filtering) that you provide allows me to visualize the imagery much more vividly. There isn't the disconnect that is presence with the first set of filtered examples.
filtering - fave pet peeve:
What a publisher has to say ( not me ) With grateful thanks to my editor:
Filter words are words such as:
felt, thought, decided, wondered, remembered, knew, realized, figured, assumed, worked out, saw, looked, and heard.
These are all words which 'tell' the reader information rather than 'showing' it (ie. giving them the impression that they're discovering it for themselves). Of course, all writing is actually telling, but these words make the process a little more obvious.
It is often fine to use filter words—they can be an effective and economical way of conveying information to the reader. However, if they're used too much, and particularly if they're used in action scenes, they can distance the reader and slow the pace. This is because the reader gets the information through the 'filter' of the character's experience, thus reminding them that they're being told about the scene.
For instance, these are two passages that convey the same information (filter words in bold):
I walked down the hill through the long damp grass. I decided to climb the fence. I felt nervous, wondering if the guards were nearby.
The grass brushed dew against my legs as I walked down the hill. Above me, the fence glinted silver in the moonlight. Keeping alert for the sound of the guards, I sought out handholds to climb it.
Of course, there is no need to get rid of all filter words. But do you see how the reader still experiences what the character is experiencing, without needing to be told what the character is wondering/thinking/seeing?
Generally, this technique is preferred to using a lot of filter words, because it gives an impression of being more deeply in the character's point of view, and because it can have a more colorful and immediate effect, thus bringing the reader into the story better.
What a publisher has to say ( not me ) With grateful thanks to my editor:
Filter words are words such as:
felt, thought, decided, wondered, remembered, knew, realized, figured, assumed, worked out, saw, looked, and heard.
These are all words which 'tell' the reader information rather than 'showing' it (ie. giving them the impression that they're discovering it for themselves). Of course, all writing is actually telling, but these words make the process a little more obvious.
It is often fine to use filter words—they can be an effective and economical way of conveying information to the reader. However, if they're used too much, and particularly if they're used in action scenes, they can distance the reader and slow the pace. This is because the reader gets the information through the 'filter' of the character's experience, thus reminding them that they're being told about the scene.
For instance, these are two passages that convey the same information (filter words in bold):
I walked down the hill through the long damp grass. I decided to climb the fence. I felt nervous, wondering if the guards were nearby.
The grass brushed dew against my legs as I walked down the hill. Above me, the fence glinted silver in the moonlight. Keeping alert for the sound of the guards, I sought out handholds to climb it.
Of course, there is no need to get rid of all filter words. But do you see how the reader still experiences what the character is experiencing, without needing to be told what the character is wondering/thinking/seeing?
Generally, this technique is preferred to using a lot of filter words, because it gives an impression of being more deeply in the character's point of view, and because it can have a more colorful and immediate effect, thus bringing the reader into the story better.
Last edited:
- Status