Italics

You never HAVE to use italics. In fact my copyeditor removed a bunch of mine- IMHO they are overused...

Hmmm. Did she use "thought" tags on every inner thought? Or did she employ another technique? Or did she just write it in such a way that it was obviously a thought, rather than a part of narration?
Just curious.

See... I don't like that. Too many tags.

Although I do agree that italics are overused.

Hmmm...
So, I know consistency is the key to everything in writing but would it ever be okay to italicize all thoughts not followed by a tag, and not italicize any thoughts that used a tag?
Just curious.

Try neither tags nor italics -- then if it appears confusing add one then the other and see which reads better -- Readers are amazingly astute when it comes to self talk.

I never use italics. I try to use as few thought tags as possible. I read it aloud, and that usually tells me if it is working.

WittyandorIronic said:

See... I don't like that. Too many tags.

Although I do agree that italics are overused.

Click to expand...

I agree. I don't like the fact that she's avoiding italics by using so many tags. She thought, she thought, she thought. That gets annoying really fast.

To me, there is a way to seamlessly transition from narration to thoughts by using just a handful of tags. Once you establish the "present tense" is her thought, you can then ease into that and your readers will be smart enough to figure it's her thoughts (by the language, the tense, etc.) The problem with that passage is that she's mixing internal thoughts with external action, and that muddles everything.

Personally, I dislike books (especially) in 3rd person POV that rely so much on internal thoughts -- it's as if the author doesn't trust the readers, or her character's actions to convey these thoughts. I think it's a cop out when the narrator dips into the character's mind so much, trying to explain everything. When the author does that, I get impatient, as if she didn't trust me (reader) enough that she has to feed me everything.

I would have written it this way, moving all the internal thoughts AFTER the external events:


"Ellen hit the replay button before he could finish. Listening to it again, she slammed her hand against the wall when he said "injuring." She hit replay again, thinking she must have misheard him. Surely he meant that charges would be filed. No, she thought, this is nuts. You stupid, stupid people, injuring isn't the right word. Try killed.

When she'd talked to the police, they had sounded so clear about it, the only question what the charge would be. Reckless homicide? Vehicular manslaughter? Her child was dead, some one's careless action had led to his death. No charges? Impossible. When the message played again, she wrote down the phone number, then punched in the buttons on the phone."

maestrowork said:

Personally, I dislike books (especially) in 3rd person POV that rely so much on internal thoughts -- it's as if the author doesn't trust the readers, or her character's actions to convey these thoughts. I think it's a cop out when the narrator dips into the character's mind so much, trying to explain everything. When the author does that, I get impatient, as if she didn't trust me (reader) enough that she has to feed me everything.

Click to expand...

I think this is a hugely important point. A lot of internal thoughts are just "telling" in the guise of monologue.

I never use italics. But I rarely if ever use direct thoughts, although I dip into my characters' minds all the time (after all, I'm writing from their POV, so everything filters through them).

I thought the standard italics rule for thoughts was to italicize if it's internal dialogue (tag or not) and not if it's indirect thought. I must have that sword, he thought. But until his friend claimed it, he had never thought it was really worth having.

ACEnders said:

I know that inner dialgue is supposed to be in italics. But I just finished a book, an excellent book, All the Numbers by Judy Larson. She had a lot of inner dialogue though the novel is written in third person. It was seamless...but she didn't include the mc's (also the pov) thoughts in italics.

Click to expand...

I actually find the practice of italicizing thoughts to be uncommon, and there is certainly no rule that internals are supposed to be in italics.

I'd like to respond to Maestrowork on whether internals are something to be avoided, however (though he is simply talking about a matter of his own taste, not a rule).

Certainly good stories can be told with nothing more than action and dialogue. It's done all the time--it's called screenwriting.

To me, one of the glories of the novel is that it can dip into the minds of the characters. That--and brilliant exposition--are two of the joys of reading that cinema can't provide me.

I've recently been reading Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkorsigan books and was impressed by how much internal monologue she uses for Miles. It's one of the ways she brings his voice out so strongly, I think.

The major problem with italics is that they're demonstrably harder to read. And if you're using a very tight third-person, the line between what's thought and what's not is very fine. Everything is filtered through the MC's mind.

First person POV pretty much eliminates teh necessity for any of thise since the entire story is through the eyes of the MC. They're narrating it so you're going to know what they're thinking without the awkward transition.

On any other instance, I've always been taught that thoughts are italicized, without tags (because that's just redundant) and without quotes. Like spice, if used sparingly, there really shouldn't be a problem.

I use italics, more often than not, for emphasis rather than internal monologues.

dawinsor said:

The major problem with italics is that they're demonstrably harder to read.

Click to expand...

Yeah--and the worst part is when you need italics for emphasis in a sea of what is already italic. Switching back to Roman (which is the default rule) just doesn't pop off the page.

For some reason, italic in the middle of Roman is visible; Roman in the middle of italic is hard to spot.

Sometimes there are simply formating problems.

One of my hardcovers had italics in place. When it went to paperback ALL the italics went missing!

The text is in place, but now nothing indicates the sudden shifts to first person internal thoughts were intended.

GRR!

I don't use italics and I don't always use tags. And it still makes sense. Sometimes it's just the way the words are written onto the page, somehow you get what's going on without visual cues. It's kinda like magic!

DonnaDuck said:

First person POV pretty much eliminates teh necessity for any of thise since the entire story is through the eyes of the MC.

Click to expand...

I think this is a great idea. If you're doing that much internal monologue in 3rd person, you're probably need to switch your person.

maestrowork said:

"Ellen hit the replay button before he could finish. Listening to it again, she slammed her hand against the wall when he said "injuring." She hit replay again, thinking she must have misheard him. Surely he meant that charges would be filed. No, she thought, this is nuts. You stupid, stupid people, injuring isn't the right word. Try killed.

When she'd talked to the police, they had sounded so clear about it, the only question what the charge would be. Reckless homicide? Vehicular manslaughter? Her child was dead, some one's careless action had led to his death. No charges? Impossible. When the message played again, she wrote down the phone number, then punched in the buttons on the phone."

Click to expand...

I love how this more clearly expresses the action. Craft in action... *sigh* I am such a nerd.

chroniclemaster1 said:

I think this is a great idea. If you're doing that much internal monologue in 3rd person, you're probably need to switch your person.

Click to expand...

Soo...I wrote this whole diatribe about my bias towards 1st person, and then realized the point was moot. lol.
You are right. If you are doing paragraph upon paragraph of internal monologue, you should probably consider 1st.
I write in 3rd (exclusively, though I am trying some 1st person shorts just to see if I even find it possible), but I don't use that much inner monologue. lol.

Interesting topic.

Personally I happen to be a fan of Italics due to the simplicity and ease of reading. I read a lot when I'm walking to work or some other long trip so I have to balance that delicate edge between walking at a decent pace and remaining slow but able to absorb more. . . If that's right. Regardless; Italics make reading slightly easier than reading six or seven 'he/she thought's in the same paragraph. *shurgs*

As for my personal writing: I use Italics without quotes to denote inner monologue but WITH quotes to denote another's voice. (one of my main characters has a second conciousness inside her mind which makes fairly regular appearances.) Seems easier than "She heard in her mind" >_>

ACEnders said:

...an excellent book, All the Numbers by Judy Larson...What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

If these excerpts are typical, it's a poorly written book.

David I said:

To me, one of the glories of the novel is that it can dip into the minds of the characters. That--and brilliant exposition--are two of the joys of reading that cinema can't provide me.

Click to expand...

True, but too much internal monologue -- to the point that it irritates me -- becomes the problem of too much "telling." Especially when the telling is not necessary:

"She slammed her hands on the wall and screamed. I'm so angry I can just kill someone, she thought."

The readers are smart enough to deduce a lot of this and a lot of times, it's a sign of lazy writing -- "I don't want to show, so I just let the character speak for itself."

It's not to say internal monologue is a no-no. There's no rule against it. But I really do think a story is more interesting when the external events and actions show the readers what's going on, without too much (redundant) explanation.

p.s. if you're writing the story in 1st person or close 3rd person, there's no need to indicate thoughts. You're practically with the POV character all the time, filtering everything through it including thoughts and feelings. The distinction between "narration" and thoughts should be rather transparent, as illustrated in the following (I've boldfaced the "thoughts" part of the narrative):

When she'd talked to the police, they had sounded so clear about it, the only question what the charge would be. Reckless homicide? Vehicular manslaughter? Her child was dead, some one's careless action had led to his death. No charges? Impossible. When the message played again, she wrote down the phone number, then punched in the buttons on the phone.

Click to expand...

In fact, that whole passage could have been written without the 1st person (present tense) internal monologue without losing anything, IMHO:

Ellen hit the replay button before he could finish. Listening to it again, she slammed her hand against the wall when he said "injuring." She hit replay again, thinking she must have misheard him. Surely he meant that charges would be filed. "Injuring" wasn't the right word. Try "killed."

When she'd talked to the police, they had sounded so clear about it, the only question [being] what the charge would be. Reckless homicide? Vehicular manslaughter? Her child was dead, [and] someone's careless action had led to his death. No charges? Impossible.

When the message played again, she wrote down the phone number, then punched in the buttons on the phone."

Click to expand...

p.s. Another mild nit: there is usually only "play" button on an answering machine. She could "replay" a message by pressing the "play" button, but I don't recall ever seeing any "replay" button. But maybe I'm wrong and am just splitting hair.