# Using Italics for Thought



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

Where do you guys stand on the subject? The Chicago Manual of Style says not to do it, and a number of writers and editors are adamantly against it (I'm not quite clear on why it inspires so much passion with them). I don't use this approach very often, personally, but a lot of writers I like do so and I don't have a problem with it.

It always pays, however, to know what editors and markets want and don't want. Knowing that there is a not-uncommon bias against this technique from some editors and publishers gives you something to look for when researching a market, after which you can adjust or simply avoid the market. 

Mary W. Walters, an award-winning Canadian writer and editor (though not someone I knew before searching this topic, says the following:



> ON USING ITALICS FOR THOUGHTS
> 
> December 28, 2011
> 
> ...



On the pro-side, you can find published authors who do it, and it seems to me to be more common in Fantasy than other writing, though I see it in genre writing of all types. I also wonder if it is becoming more acceptable, or whether I am just noticing it more. From my experience, I'd say it is still a minority approach, but I seem to see it now more than in the past.

I'm going to post the question to an accomplished science fiction writer who was editor for some time of what was probably the top-paying fantasy and science fiction market. I'll let you know what answer I get, just for the sake of information.

I suppose the take-away point from this is that this is an issue that really strikes impacts some editors (I had one person who made a full-time career out of fiction writing and editing tell me it was the immediate hallmark of an amateur. I disagree). Knowing that some people perceive it this way, whether we do or not, is useful if you are doing anything other than self-publishing. If you have a target market in mind, you can do a bit of research and see how the editor in question feels. I have no doubt there are some editors out there who will immediately discard a manuscript upon seeing it, and if you can get at least some idea of this you can avoid the market or adjust your submission accordingly.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2012)

I like it and use it.

My reasoning is as follows:

I think it's important to denote to the reader what is internal dialogue.  
A method other than the one used for quotes is needed to denote this.
The only common method that I have seen is italics.
Thus, I use italics.

The argument against seems to be that it's not necessary to inform the reader that the text is internal dialogue.  

For clarity, I always think it's better to clearly indicate your intentions to the reader.  If I want the reader to interpret the text as being actually inside the POV character's head, the best way to avoid confusion is to clearly indicate it.  

The counter to my point seems to be that italics are too distracting and you shouldn't use them.  I do agree that overuse of italics is bad.  However, I happen to think that the clarity gained outweighs the distraction.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

I like it just fine as well. I don't know that it is the most common method I see. One counter-argument I hear is that if the writing itself is good, clear, and so on, then italics aren't necessary because it will be clear to the reader without them. Most books I read don't use the italics approach, but I think the approach works just fine and I don't have a problem with it. I suppose if I were using it in a work I was shopping around to various markets, I'd try to find out whether those particular editors had a problem with it, and if so I'd make my adjustment or look elsewhere.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 30, 2012)

> Where do you guys stand on the subject?



I'm a bit perplexed by this.  My favorite authors tend to use italics for thoughts.  I remember reading a book by Steven Erikson that had a page of italics (the MC had a long thought).  

Robert Jordan did it throughout his WoT books.

Based on these fine authors, I thought it was acceptable.  Then I set out to write my own story and found out that editors *hate* italics.  I wanted to use it, but didn't.

On the other hand, while writing my story, I've discovered that it's possible to convey the character's thought without having him _speak it._  I think the use of italics have become the standard tool of great modern authors because:


Modern readers are not as smart as their predecessors.*
Using italics is internal dialogue, this allows the author to cheat by using dialogue to disguise info dumping.
It is easier to use internal dialogue to show the reader where the narration ends and the MC thoughts begins.

I'm going to try and avoid internal dialogue only to see if it's possible to write the novel without detracting from the quality of the story.  If I find that I can't, I'll consider using internal dialogue.

*Don't get angry.  You can't convince me otherwise.  I've read older books.  They used what is now called "purple prose" extensively.  Sometimes a whole scene can be written in metaphor and the reader understood (based on the successes of these books).  Consider the complex words that authors used.  Back then, no one told the author "That word is too difficult, it makes your writing stand out.  Change it."


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

So I posted this question to a list full of editors and authors. Responses so far:

1. The respondent actually likes using italics for quotes, but noted that in submissions you usually indicate them with some other formatting than actually using italics. I think most of us know that, and I also think that may be changing.

2. The second respondent said he has limited vision and hates the use of italics because he can't read them well.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Then I set out to write my own story and found out that editors *hate* italics.



Ankari:

I'm kind of in the same boat. I didn't realize it was an issue until multiple editors said to me "whoa...don't do that." I now don't do it simply because, like you, I've found other ways of doing it and I think as a rule my writing is better for it.


----------



## ArelEndan (Aug 30, 2012)

I didn't know editors hated italics so much. In the creative writing class I took earlier this year, our professor (who has published and spent class-time talking about publishing) told us to use italics for thoughts. In my writing, I don't use it very often, partly because I usually write in first-person or close third and I don't really need italics for thoughts. I will use it for a specific reason, though; in one story my MC is a telepath and I needed something to distinguish what's taking place in her head from spoken dialog.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

Makes sense, ArelEndan. I've seen it used for things like telepathy before, where you really do need a convenient mechanism for setting apart that style of communication. 

I had a creative writing class a number of years ago, and we were told not to use them for thoughts. But I think this conflicting information just goes to show that viewpoint on this is highly variable. The real take-home point is to simply know your target market.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2012)

> I've discovered that it's possible to convey the character's thought without having him speak it.



This approach necessitates a certain closeness of your narrative, though.  (Not that there's anything wrong with this.)

The style I've used for my novel tries to use more distance with the narration.  To get close to the character, I then have to literally get inside his head.



> Using italics is internal dialogue, this allows the author to cheat by using dialogue to disguise info dumping.



That, in my opinion, is not the reason at all.  It's about how close you are to the character.  Putting the reader inside the character's head brings them as close as possible to the character.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 30, 2012)

Just a preface: I *WANT* to use italics for internal dialogue.

That being said, internal dialogue _is_ the ultimate example of *telling* not *showing.*  You can show how your MC hates someone, or you can simply use internal dialogue to tell the reader how much he hates that person.


----------



## Jabrosky (Aug 30, 2012)

In all honesty I didn't even know anyone thought you _weren't_ supposed to use italics for thoughts. In fact how else would you distinguish thoughts from dialogue or from the rest of the prose if not with italics?



Ankari said:


> Don't get angry.  You can't convince me otherwise.  I've read older books.  They used what is now called "purple prose" extensively.  Sometimes a whole scene can be written in metaphor and the reader understood (based on the successes of these books).  Consider the complex words that authors used.  Back then, no one told the author "That word is too difficult, it makes your writing stand out.  Change it."



I wouldn't go so far as to say that modern readers are _dumber _than earlier generations, but they do seem more impatient and lazy when it comes to prose. I was reading some of Robert E. Howard's stories a while ago, and while he enjoyed a lot of success as one of _the _pioneers in the fantasy genre, I for one could not get away with writing prose like his without reviewers complaining about excessive floridness. Don't get me wrong, I_ like _his prose most of the time and would love to write like him, but it has fallen definitely out of fashion in the last fifty years.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> In all honesty I didn't even know anyone thought you _weren't_ supposed to use italics for thoughts. In fact how else would you distinguish thoughts from dialogue or from the rest of the prose if not with italics?



It is pretty easy to do. In fact, most books I read use the non-italics approach (though I don't mind the italics). One method to convey thoughts, without direct monologue, for example:


> When Bob walked into the office, his boss was standing by coffee machine. The guy was such a jerk. Always finding fault with minor things. Why was he just standing there? Had something gone wrong with a customer account?



In that example, everything after the first sentence reflects Bob's thoughts. I think that's the usual approach in fiction.  You could also use a tag:



> When Bob walked into the office, his boss was standing by coffee machine. The guy is such a jerk, Bob thought. Always finding fault with minor things. Why was he just standing there? Had something gone wrong with a customer account?




*NOTE: Using the 'quote' tag automatically adds italics, which I hate. But in the examples above, nothing is italicized.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2012)

Ankari said:


> That being said, internal dialogue _is_ the ultimate example of *telling* not *showing.*  You can show how your MC hates someone, or you can simply use internal dialogue to tell the reader how much he hates that person.



I think I disagree with you on this one.

Internal dialogue SHOWS you what the POV character is actually thinking.  Just as dialogue is an unbiased account of what the characters say uninfluenced by the narration, internal dialogue gives an unfiltered view inside the character's head.  Though I can certainly understand why you're saying what you are, I think one can consider this a form of showing since it relates specifically what is happening.

Telling: The river is long.
Showing: The river stretched as far as POV's eye could see.
Showing or Telling?: _Man, that river is long._  We're telling that the river is long, but we're showing the reader the character's actual thoughts on the subject. 

I don't think your viewpoint, as expressed thus far, takes narrative closeness into account.  In third person, you can't get any closer to the character than to use internal dialogue.  

I'm not saying that it's wrong (or against the rules) to use a narration that brings you close to the character without using internal dialogue.  I am saying that it's short sighted to dismiss the technique if you wish to keep more distance with your narration.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 30, 2012)

This is one of those _things._

So the first point is that you have Big Name Authors using italics for thoughts. "Look!" says the newbie author. "[Big Name Author] does it! Why can't I?"

Then the Cranky Editors respond: "Because you're not a Big Name Author. You can't get away with doing that."

*This response makes no goddamn sense.* It presumes that there exists some objective, universal rule about whether or not you're allowed to use italics for thoughts (which I will henceforth abbreviate *IFT*), and if you're famous enough, you can get away with it, because who's going to tell Big Name Author what he can and can't do? What they _really_ mean is "We don't like it, so we're going to tell you that you can't do it, because you don't have enough clout to override us."

_There are no objective, universal rules about writing_. There are only guidelines, each of which is more or less compatible with various goals. (Some guidelines correlate so strongly with so many goals that you may as well refer to them as "rules"–much in the same way that thorough, rigorous, time-tested scientific theories eventually become "laws"–but in writing, you can always find a corner case where the guideline doesn't apply.)

Is the guideline "don't use IFT" necessary for achieving your goals? Well, it depends on your goals. If your goal is for non-editors to enjoy your book and tell their friends to buy it, the guideline is irrelevant, because _most readers don't mind IFT_. Yes, there are some who do, but I'd wager they're a tiny fraction of the population. (Some might argue that IFT are one of those things that people react instinctively negatively to without being able to verbalize, to which I would respond: how exactly could you ever determine that?)

If your goal is to impress editors, then you might want to follow the guideline so that you don't get rejected by those editors.

From the original quoted post:



> Otherwise they are just distracting (they are harder to read than plain text)



This statement is ludicrous on its face, because it presumes that italics are harder to read _for all people at all times_. I can permanently disprove that statement right now: *I don't find italics harder to read than plain text.*

Okay, so maybe what she means is "Most people, most of the time, find italics harder to read" or "Italics are generally not as easy to read as plain text." Possibly. Is there data to support this claim? Because in my general experience, the only people I ever hear say this are editors and writers. I have never once encountered a reader who said "I liked the book, but the italics were hard to read." This doesn't mean such people don't exist; but I have trouble believing it's anything like a universal or even majority opinion. (Of course, evidence could be presented to counter this.)



> and unnecessary



This one's even worse. Technically, nothing you write is _necessary_; they're tools that you use to accomplish various things. Technically, chapter numbers and titles aren't _necessary_. Technically, capitalization isn't _necessary_; just ask e. e. cummings. Technically, correct spelling isn't _necessary_ because I can still figure out what word you mean when you write "tomorow".

Does "unnecessary" mean "the same information, emotion, and tone can be conveyed by not using IFT"? Because I don't agree. To me, there's a very distinct difference between the general thoughts a character is having, and the specific words they're thinking. Not everyone thinks in words; and to presume that because you don't therefore _no one does_ is absurd.

*John looked out the window. Why was Alice doing this to him? She knew damn well how he felt about cheese.*

versus

*John looked out the window. Why is she doing this to me? She knows damn well how I feel about cheese!*

These give me a very different feel, because the second one actually takes me inside the character's head, and I enjoy reading it a lot more. The first one doesn't feel as involving to me.

</rant>


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

Third example:

*John looked out the window. Why is Alice doing this to me, he thought? She knows damn well how I feel about cheese!"*


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Aug 30, 2012)

...I prefer to use italics to indicate thoughts. But if an editor insist I don't use italic for thoughts, by all means, I can take the italics out if that's what it takes.

I don't see why this is a big deal. It's just a formatting issue.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 30, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> ...I prefer to use italics to indicate thoughts. But if an editor insist I don't use italic for thoughts, by all means, I can take the italics out if that's what it takes.
> 
> I don't see why this is a big deal. It's just a formatting issue.



Because authors who use it do so extensively.  It makes sense to format away the italics in the example Benjamin gave us, because it's one sentence (or 3 or 5).  But when you get to 10% of your book as internal dialogue (Steven Erikson comes to mind) then formatting it out won't work.  You'd have to keep referring to the internal dialogue as "he thought" or "she thought."


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2012)

Just to be clear:

When Bob walked into the office, his boss was standing by coffee machine. The guy was such a jerk. Always finding fault with minor things. Why was he just standing there? Had something gone wrong with a customer account? 

In this example, the narrative takes you inside the POV character's head.  This works, but you either have to a) modulate the distance of your narrative or b) stay very close to the character, almost like writing first person.

When Bob walked into the office, his boss was standing by coffee machine. The guy is such a jerk, Bob thought. Always finding fault with minor things. Why was he just standing there? Had something gone wrong with a customer account?

In this example, you're doing the same thing as using italics.  The advantage is that you don't have the "distraction" of the italics.  The disadvantage is that it's not nearly as clear where the thoughts begin and end and you have to add in the "thought" tags.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

Yeah, I think Ankari is right. In the way in which many authors use italics to signify internal dialogue, it wouldn't read right by simply removing the italics. You'd have to do a little rewriting as well, in many cases.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Just to be clear:
> 
> When Bob walked into the office, his boss was standing by coffee machine. The guy was such a jerk. Always finding fault with minor things. Why was he just standing there? Had something gone wrong with a customer account?
> 
> ...



Yes. I think you are right with respect to both examples. I've seen people suggest the second one without tags or italics, namely:

*When Bob walked into the office, his boss was standing by coffee machine. This guy is such a jerk. Always finding fault with minor things. Why is he just standing there? Has something gone wrong with a customer account?*

To me, that reads strangely.


----------



## Telcontar (Aug 30, 2012)

I like and use italics as internal dialogue, and have never encountered a good reason why it is supposedly frowned upon.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 30, 2012)

Again, I want to preface this with "I really like the practice of using internal dialogue!"

But going by your example, 



> Telling: The river is long.
> Showing: The river stretched as far as POV's eye could see.
> Showing or Telling?: Man, that river is long. We're telling that the river is long, but we're showing the reader the character's actual thoughts on the subject.



*The river drained into the blue of the horizon.  Brian set his jaw as he plunged the paddle into the calm water.  The burning in his shoulders protested each push but he had not choice; the mercenaries wanted him dead.
*

That is showing (as pertaining to the river).  Having the MC state the river is long, whether through internal dialogue or actual dialogue is telling.  It has been commented before that using dialogue is a trick for _telling_ information to the reader without giving the reader the impression of info dumping.  Why would internal dialogue be different?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Aug 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Third example:
> 
> *John looked out the window. Why is Alice doing this to me, he thought? She knows damn well how I feel about cheese!"*



That's two extra words, though. Might not seem like much, but it adds up if you have a lot of internal monologues.



Ankari said:


> Because authors who use it do so extensively.  It makes sense to format away the italics in the example Benjamin gave us, because it's one sentence (or 3 or 5).  But when you get to 10% of your book as internal dialogue (Steven Erikson comes to mind) then formatting it out won't work.  You'd have to keep referring to the internal dialogue as "he thought" or "she thought."



My point is, I'm not so attached to italics that I'll argue with and editor about it. It's kind of whatever for me.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> My point is, I'm not so attached to italics that I'll argue with and editor about it. It's kind of whatever for me.



I agree with this.


----------



## yachtcaptcolby (Aug 30, 2012)

I've always preferred italics for thoughts, but I'm careful not to overuse it. As others have stated, there are a lot of ways to show what a character's thinking without explicitly saying it. However, there are some situations where that's more difficult than its worth. Take sarcasm, for instance; a character may not give away that he's thinking a wise-ass response to something someone else said so as not to hurt that other person's feelings, but you have to get that sarcasm across to the reader somehow. Some characters also have extensive, constantly running internal monologues which really have to be written out in order to give the reader the full effect.

When I read thoughts that aren't italicized, it just seems weird and throws me off.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Again, I want to preface this with "I really like the practice of using internal dialogue!"
> 
> But going by your example,
> 
> ...



I think you are having a fundamental misunderstanding of my point.

First of all: Dialogue can be used for exposition.  Your statement implies that all use of dialogue is telling.

Yes, you can use dialogue as a means of exposition.  Yes, sometimes that is poorly done.

All dialogue is not telling.

Dialogue can be used, in my opinion, to show all manner of things.  However, this has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

If you are maintaining a narrative distance, you have very few recourses for getting inside your character's head.  A closer narration, which seems to be what you are using, allows you to flit inside and out of your character anytime you want.  If you're not doing that, you can show your characters thoughts solely by offering an unfiltered description of his actions.  This leaves a lot to the interpretation of the readers.

Often, you want to get your reader closer to the character.  Another tool to use that doesn't require so much interpretation is for you to actually SHOW your reader what your character is thinking.  

Like with dialogue, this showing can be used poorly to tell plot points or it can be used to show the reader plot points.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 30, 2012)

This is an interesting topic. I've rarely stumbled upon people that believe using italics for internal thought is a no-no. 

I use italics for internal thoughts as long as they are short sentences & I give them their own small paragraph. I separate them from the other text & italicize them because I WANT to draw attention to those words. I WANT the reader to notice a difference. I don't want those words to disappear. Normally, I'd agree that writing should be invisible. Like all guidelines though (my new word for rules) they can be tossed away if the writer is making a conscious choice for a good reason.

It would be very easy to change the writing to include it in regular font within a paragraph but I'm not certain I'd be willing. The choice to write that way was an intentional choice for effect.


----------



## squishybug87 (Aug 30, 2012)

I like using italics for thought. I think showing what the character is thinking bring the reader closer to character. And I disagree that it is always a case of telling rather than showing. You can use the character's internal dialogue to reveal something about their personality. 

Rough example:

Jane looked at the painting and smiled. She liked the use of red and blue to complement the green of the landscape. Gary walked past and glanced at it.

'Ugh, that's so ugly! Only a fool would use colors in that way,' he huffed. Jane frowned.

_Well, he is an artist himself, so he's probably right. Now come to think of it, the red does clash with the green._

Though I'm telling what she is thinking, I'm showing that she has no faith in her opinion in this topic; on a wider scope, her self esteem is shaky. I could have worked that into the prose, but there is no difference between the two to me. I usually write with the intention of bringing my reader into the character's head, so it is important to me to show their thoughts. If I just relied on her body language, I would run the risk of confusing the reader. 

Example:

Jane looked at the painting and smiled. She liked the use of red and blue to complement the green of the landscape. Gary walked past and glanced at it.

'Ugh, that's so ugly! Only a fool would use colors in that way,' he huffed. Jane frowned. She looked at the painting again, touching it gently, before sighing. 

To me, I would have to use too many words to convey what I just did by getting into her head. However, I do think that the less it is used the better. I wouldn't make an entire paragraph of just italicised thoughts.


----------



## Jabrosky (Aug 30, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> This is one of those _things._
> 
> So the first point is that you have Big Name Authors using italics for thoughts. "Look!" says the newbie author. "[Big Name Author] does it! Why can't I?"
> 
> ...


You have stated my most recent thoughts perfectly with this.



> _There are no objective, universal rules about writing_. There are only guidelines, each of which is more or less compatible with various goals. (Some guidelines correlate so strongly with so many goals that you may as well refer to them as "rules"–much in the same way that thorough, rigorous, time-tested scientific theories eventually become "laws"–but in writing, you can always find a corner case where the guideline doesn't apply.)
> 
> Is the guideline "don't use IFT" necessary for achieving your goals? Well, it depends on your goals. If your goal is for non-editors to enjoy your book and tell their friends to buy it, the guideline is irrelevant, because _most readers don't mind IFT_. Yes, there are some who do, but I'd wager they're a tiny fraction of the population. (Some might argue that IFT are one of those things that people react instinctively negatively to without being able to verbalize, to which I would respond: how exactly could you ever determine that?)


Even if a certain fraction of readers _did _have problems with IFT, we must ask whether they really object to it on a visceral level or only because certain writing "authorities" told them not to use IFT. A lot of our ideas of what counts as bad writing have less to do with whether we genuinely dislike the prose and more to do with what these "authorities" say we should consider bad writing. As another example, reading varied dialogue tags (e.g. "muttered", "shouted", etc.) in books never bothered me at all until I read "advice" on the Internet saying never to use any word other than "said".

Frankly, I think my increased sensitivity to the so-called commandments of good writing have ruined my love for reading. Nowadays I can hardly read fiction without wondering how the author got away with breaking this and that commandment.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

This:

*Jane looked at the painting and smiled. She liked the use of red and blue to complement the green of the landscape. Gary walked past and glanced at it.

'Ugh, that's so ugly! Only a fool would use colors in that way,' he huffed. Jane frowned.

Well, he is an artist himself, so he's probably right. Now come to think of it, the red does clash with the green.
*

Could also be:

*
Jane looked at the painting and smiled. She liked the use of red and blue to complement the green of the landscape. Gary walked past and glanced at it.

'Ugh, that's so ugly! Only a fool would use colors in that way,' he huffed. Jane frowned.

The guy was an artist himself, and was probably right. Come to think of it, the red did clash with the green.*

I know we're repeating ourselves with alternatives, but I think this example works just as well as the other and is probably more generally accepted. But it does have a different feel, and if that's important to you then you stick to your guns, imo.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

Jabrosky said:


> Even if a certain fraction of readers _did _have problems with IFT, we must ask whether they really object to it on a visceral level or only because certain writing "authorities" told them not to use IFT.



I don't think readers are the ones you have to worry about. Frankly, I doubt most of them care one way or another. If you are going the traditional publishing route, you do have to worry about what editors care about, however. If and editor at a given market is likely to stop reading your manuscript because they think IFT signifies an amateur, it is useful to know that information before submitting.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 30, 2012)

Let's think of this in the reverse.

*Alfred paused before the path leading up the mountain.  The ascension was steep*.  The last sentence is a tell, right?  We would all agree upon that and criticize the writer's (mine) use of telling rather than showing.  Especially since it's easy to show this information.

*Alfred paused before the path leading up the mountain.  The ascension is steep*.  All I did is change the formatting and the tense of the sentence and it became internal dialogue.  Everyone wants to tell me that this is not telling?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think readers are the ones you have to worry about. Frankly, I doubt most of them care one way or another. If you are going the traditional publishing route, you do have to worry about what editors care about, however. If and editor at a given market is likely to stop reading your manuscript because they think IFT signifies an amateur, it is useful to know that information before submitting.



To a limited extent, you also, though, need to be concerned about professional reviewers.  They can turn a lot of readers on to your work, and they most certainly do care about all the little rules of writing that the vast majority of readers probably don't.

Also, I still contend that, while the average reader may not know specifically what to look for, they will notice if you screw up the "rules" too much because the "rules" are there to help you present your story well.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Let's think of this in the reverse.
> 
> *Alfred paused before the path leading up the mountain.  The ascension was steep*.  The last sentence is a tell, right?  We would all agree upon that and criticize the writer's (mine) use of telling rather than showing.  Especially since it's easy to show this information.
> 
> *Alfred paused before the path leading up the mountain.  The ascension is steep*.  All I did is change the formatting and the tense of the sentence and it became internal dialogue.  Everyone wants to tell me that this is not telling?



Yes.  That is telling.  

As I wrote, you can use internal dialogue to poorly present exposition.  However, you imply that all internal dialogue is poorly done exposition.  This is not the case.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 30, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Yes.  That is telling.
> 
> As I wrote, you can use internal dialogue to poorly present exposition.  However, you imply that all internal dialogue is poorly done exposition.  This is not the case.



That isn't what I'm implying.  But it is what I've seen most of the time in books.  Even the great authors do it.  I think that *internal dialogue shouldn't be used for outside observations, it should be only for internal....dialogue.* 

For a character to comment on anything external through internal thought is telling.  A character who reflects on the decision he made and how he can reconcile it with his internal moral compass is a rightful use of internal, and thus italic, dialogue.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 30, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Let's think of this in the reverse.
> 
> Alfred paused before the path leading up the mountain.  The ascension was steep.  The last sentence is a tell, right?  We would all agree upon that and criticize the writer's (mine) use of telling rather than showing.  Especially since it's easy to show this information.
> 
> Alfred paused before the path leading up the mountain.  The ascension is steep.  All I did is change the formatting and the tense of the sentence and it became internal dialogue.  Everyone wants to tell me that this is not telling?



In this example I'd agree that this is telling. But using IFT doesn't have to be telling.

Walking down the stairs, he saw his breath. The damp of the walls crystallized into frost, freezing over into a thin sheet of ice by the time he reached the bottom.

*It shouldn't be this cold.*

I don't have italics on the iPad so it's between asterisks. I don't think the above is a tell at all... It's a contemplation of the surroundings and changes that were written as a show.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2012)

Ankari said:


> That isn't what I'm implying.  But it is what I've seen most of the time in books.  Even the great authors do it.  I think that *internal dialogue shouldn't be used for outside observations, it should be only for internal....dialogue.*
> 
> For a character to comment on anything external through internal thought is telling.  A character who reflects on the decision he made and how he can reconcile it with his internal moral compass is a rightful use of internal, and thus italic, dialogue.



Point.

That's not the impression I got from your initial statement, however.  Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Penpilot (Aug 30, 2012)

I really didn't know italicised thoughts were such a big deal. 

Personally, I use them sparingly like adverbs and adjectives. I put thought into whether something should be italicised or not. Generally speaking, I find that I don't need them. In third person narrative, it's natural that the prose zoom in and out in terms of closeness, and as long as you word things right for flow and clarity, I don't think italics are necessary, and you won't need the 'he/she though' tags either. It should be clear from the context.

Another point I'd like to make is, generally,  I don't think readers consciously pay attention to these things. Italicised or not the communication of the idea will be clear for instances like this. 

Mike ground his teeth when he saw Rick kissing Ashly across the street. That Bastard. He wanted to rush over and kick his ass but held back.

Should 'That Bastard' be italicised? I think what's going on is clear. 'That Bastard' could be italicised or, IMHO, not. To me it depends on if you want to emphasise it or not, and I don't think a though tag is necessary.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2012)

> Should 'That Bastard' be italicised? I think what's going on is clear. 'That Bastard' could be italicised IMHO or not. To me it depends on if you want to emphasise it or not, and I don't think a though tag is necessary.



I prefer the italics to remove the possibility of misunderstanding.  The thought in italics is definitely a thought.  

On the other hand, I will agree that overuse of italics is bad.  It can be distracting, and long stretches of it are undeniably horrible.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

But in the example by Penpilot, is there really a reasonable possibility of misunderstanding? I don't think there is.


----------



## Lorna (Aug 30, 2012)

I've noticed that books written in the first person and third person omniscient don't use internal monologue. It only seems to be used in third person limited where the narrator shifts briefly from third to first person. I haven't noticed it used in anything I have read recently. Perhaps this is a signal it's bad practice / inconsistent to hop in and out of character's heads. I know that mixing internal monologue into my text has made it messy. 

@ Benjamin
I noticed your comment about breaking the rules. 
The last book I read, _The Apple and the Thorn_ by Emma Restall-Orr and Walter William Menyck used italics for thoughts directed at other people for example 'I hear him whisper in my mind, _Why do you let me hold you, Vivi?_ 

Ultimately I think it depends on whether it works.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> But in the example by Penpilot, is there really a reasonable possibility of misunderstanding? I don't think there is.



No.  Just the jarring of switching tenses without any warning.

Personally, if you're not going to use italics, I prefer that you keep the thoughts in the same tense as the narrative.  In Penpilot's example, he's trying for the best of both worlds - portraying thought outside the narration without using any punctuation to indicate it.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Personally, if you're not going to use italics, I prefer that you keep the thoughts in the same tense as the narrative.  In Penpilot's example, he's trying for the best of both worlds - portraying thought outside the narration without using any punctuation to indicate it.



That's interesting. Generally, when I see italicized thoughts in a third-person narrative, the thoughts are in first-person. If the subject of the thoughts are also presented in third person, I think you're better off without the italics.

Going back to my Bob example, I'd use:

*When Bob walked into the office, his boss was standing by coffee machine. The guy was such a jerk. Always finding fault with minor things. Why was he just standing there? Had something gone wrong with a customer account? *

Or:

*When Bob walked into the office, his boss was standing by coffee machine. This guy is such a jerk. Always finding fault with minor things. Why is he just standing there? Has something gone wrong with a customer account? *

But not:

*When Bob walked into the office, his boss was standing by coffee machine. The guy was such a jerk. Always finding fault with minor things. Why was he just standing there? Had something gone wrong with a customer account? *


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 30, 2012)

> Generally, when I see italicized thoughts in a third-person narrative, the thoughts are in first-person. If the subject of the thoughts are also presented in third person, I think you're better off without the italics.



Yes.  I agree.

I took Penpilot's example to be the same as using present tense because it was so jarringly different from the rest of the narrative.  I didn't do a good job of explaining that.


----------



## FatCat (Aug 30, 2012)

This is craziness!! So many rules, who came up with them all? I've always imagined writing as something that isn't bound completely by a set of do's and don'ts. This thread scares me.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 30, 2012)

FatCat:

Your view is the correct one. The so-called 'rules' are there to call attention to things that beginning writers often do poorly. They should be completely subservient to your vision of the story. You write it the way that speaks to you, and rules be damned. If a reviewer comes at you with a rule but with no analysis as to why what you've done doesn't work or should be changed, ignore them.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Aug 30, 2012)

I write in a very detached, distant style, so the sudden intrusion of a thought into what was previously disembodied narration can be very jarring, and I think italics ease the transition. I'd imagine it's different when the story's closely bound to someone's perspective, though.

Edit: To clarify, I write somewhere between third-person limited and third-person omniscient, hanging out over a character's shoulder, but often commenting on things they don't see or can't realize.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 30, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Modern readers are not as smart as their predecessors.
> Don't get angry.  You can't convince me otherwise.  I've read older books.  They used what is now called "purple prose" extensively.  Sometimes a whole scene can be written in metaphor and the reader understood (based on the successes of these books).  Consider the complex words that authors used.  Back then, no one told the author "That word is too difficult, it makes your writing stand out.  Change it."



I don't think the change in style is necessarily due to modern readers being idiots. You're a modern reader aren't you? Rather, I think what's happened is that the standard for books and what readers want has changed. "Classical" authors were expected to be masterful and descriptive because that's what was wanted at the time. Readers wanted those extra details to aid immersion. Modern readers don't need or want that so much. We want the author to get out of the way so we can get to the story. The bare bones of it and nothing else in many cases. Also, what with the rapid advancement of visual media, lifelike images are so common to us that we can summon them into our own minds without difficult. Readers in the olden days had never seen movies, and would never have thought of stories as such. They probably went about the process of imagining a little differently than we do now, thus the need for more details.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 30, 2012)

Mindfire, 

I can't believe that.  In reference to the digital media providing imagery for readers, thus removing the need to describe elements of a fantasy world, I once read an article where authors didn't want their characters displayed in any format that may be considered official.  Think of Game of Thrones.  Everyone know pictures Jon Snow as Kit Harington.  They picture Ed Start as Sean Bean.  The problem is, I didn't picture those characters precisely as such in my mind.  Now, if book 6 ever comes out, I'll find a clash between what I'm reading and the image gathered from the TV show.

Also, after a quick search, I found this article which talks about our attention span dropping from 12 minutes to 5 minutes.  I'm sure if I wanted to, I could easily find more articles about this subject.  The modern reader IS unable to focus on what was once purple prose.

Honestly, from how I imagine the degeneration of our potential audience, I can see books going the route of Apps.  Someone created a thread about HTML 5 to be the main language of new ebooks.  The article linked talked about the power of HTML 5.  Among them is: having music for each scene, clickable links that give *Character Portraits*, *Creature Portraits*, *Weapon Concepts* and *Fantasy Landscapes*, videos, commentaries, and any digital media you want.  Basically, its a hybrid animation/book.  I'm afraid what I see written on the wall.  

Our modern reader pales in comparison to the predecessors.  In my opinion, there isn't anything that can convince me otherwise.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 31, 2012)

> If a reviewer comes at you with a rule but with no analysis as to why what you've done doesn't work or should be changed, ignore them.



I completely disagree with this.

This seems to put the onus on the reviewer to explain why something should or should not be changed in a piece.  As someone who does a lot of critiques, I feel it is perfectly valid for me, for example, to put RUE (resist the urge to explain).  Quite frankly, I'm giving you my time and expertise for free.  If I tell you something, you probably should at least make the effort to say to yourself: "someone experienced looked at this piece and had a problem with this portion.  Maybe I need to gain a better understanding of the rule that he says I'm violating and make the determination of whether or not I agree."  

It is the writer's responsibility to make their story the best that it can be, not the reviewer's.  Be thankful that someone took the time to share their experience with you.  

Again, it certainly seems, from this comment, that there is an expectation that the reviewer spend even more time explaining why you should use a given rule.  My theory is that the writer has a responsibility to do some of the work for themself.  Certainly, it's always appropriate to ask a question about the comment, but that doesn't relieve the writer of his responsibililty.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2012)

As an FYI, I ran this question by a guy who was published tons of novels, won multiple Hugo awards, and leads the list of all-time short fiction awards winners compiled at Locus. He was also an editor of Baen's Universe, when that was still going. In other words, he has good credentials as a writer and editor. His response was that he has no problem with using italics for thoughts. 

Maybe there is a distinction to be drawn between science fiction/fantasy editors and publishers and others. It may also be that viewpoints are changing. As I said above, I see IFT more now than I used to.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 31, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Mindfire,
> 
> I can't believe that.  In reference to the digital media providing imagery for readers, thus removing the need to describe elements of a fantasy world, I once read an article where authors didn't want their characters displayed in any format that may be considered official.  Think of Game of Thrones.  Everyone know pictures Jon Snow as Kit Harington.  They picture Ed Start as Sean Bean.  The problem is, I didn't picture those characters precisely as such in my mind.  Now, if book 6 ever comes out, I'll find a clash between what I'm reading and the image gathered from the TV show.
> 
> ...



Lower attention span does not = stupid. Many highly intelligent people have lower attention spans. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the current disdain towards purple prose is bad or stupid, just different. Just because "that's how it used to be" doesn't make it automatically superior. In my opinion, that's a very rigid and untenable way of thinking. Also you're ignoring the evolution of the novel itself. Books like Moby Dick (which I hate) aren't just hard to read because they were written for people with longer attention spans. They're harder to read because the novel as we know it was still largely unrefined. People hadn't gotten the formula down yet. Purple prose came from, I think, the transition from writing epics, plays, and poetry into writing what we now think of as books. The floridness was an artifact from an earlier style of writing that eventually got dropped because it was plain unnecessary.

What's more, I don't see how e-books with music, portraits, concepts, etc. are somehow a bad thing. Audio books have had music for forever. And books have had illustrations since the dawn of time. But now that those illustrations are clickable instead of in an appendix at the back or folded into the pages it's somehow the Doom of Civilization? I mean no offense, but your arguments are all starting to sound like "You kids nowadays! Back in my time..." and "Get off my lawn, you rascals!"

EDIT: 
Re: Attention spans, in the modern world, shorter attention spans can be an asset because of the way we're constantly bombarded with information in the modern age. If someone from your "golden age" of novels were alive today, they'd probably have a huge sensory overload to go along with their culture shock.

Re: Actors, what's wrong with picturing characters as actors? I sometimes do it for my work to get a feel for how the character looks. People are free to imagine as they choose. If they want to use a real person as a template, that's fine.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2012)

I disagree, Mindfire. Moby Dick is a nice example of the novel, and hardly an instance of an author not having the form down. The same is true of many classic novels. They are hardly unrefined works.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 31, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I disagree, Mindfire. Moby Dick is a nice example of the novel, and hardly an instance of an author not having the form down. The same is true of many classic novels. They are hardly unrefined works.



If Moby Dick is such a great novel, why does the author constantly interrupt to give lectures on whaling that are completely unnecessary and add nothing to the plot? In fact, a lot of things in that book are unnecessary to the plot. Like when Ishmael visits that church. He just kinda goes there, and then its never mentioned again. By "unrefined" I don't mean "unskilled". I only mean that they didn't really have the "formula" yet. Perhaps "undefined" would have been a better choice of words. This observation isn't completely mine. It was pointed out to me by my literature professor. Who taught Moby Dick.

Older novels also tend to seem dry to modern readers because we expect more action. That doesn't mean we're stupid, only that we have different tastes. Also, I don't hate the classics. Count of Monte Cristo is one of my all time favorites. But some "classics" have not aged as well as others.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2012)

Maybe you're making Ankari's point for him, and are too hindered by the generic modern novel. Melville put the whaling chapters in on purpose, of course, to educate the reader a bit about whaling. It's not like it was some oversight where he didn't realize they didn't relate to the story at large. They weren't meant to relate to it. That should be apparent enough to even the casual reader. It's a stylistic choice and not evidence of a lack of refinement or understanding of the form.

Also, Ishmael goes into two churches, and the contrast between the sermons in them relates to competing views of the world contemplated by Ishmael as the story progresses. The black church is also seen to set up racial stereotypes that Melville attacks later. The fact that the churches themselves are not mentioned again is irrelevant, as the reader is supposed to have the intelligence to draw meaning from them even as singular events. Perhaps you would have been better served by another professor, because this isn't difficult stuff to see if you think about what Melville is doing in the novel.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 31, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I completely disagree with this.
> 
> This seems to put the onus on the reviewer to explain why something should or should not be changed in a piece.  As someone who does a lot of critiques, I feel it is perfectly valid for me, for example, to put RUE (resist the urge to explain).  Quite frankly, I'm giving you my time and expertise for free.  If I tell you something, you probably should at least make the effort to say to yourself: "someone experienced looked at this piece and had a problem with this portion.  Maybe I need to gain a better understanding of the rule that he says I'm violating and make the determination of whether or not I agree."
> 
> ...



This got hidden at the end of a page, and I think it got missed.  I'm bumping it since I feel strongly about it.


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 31, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Maybe you're making Ankari's point for him, and are too hindered by the generic modern novel. Melville put the whaling chapters in on purpose, of course, to educate the reader a bit about whaling. It's not like it was some oversight where he didn't realize they didn't relate to the story at large. They weren't meant to relate to it. That should be apparent enough to even the casual reader. It's a stylistic choice and not evidence of a lack of refinement or understanding of the form.
> 
> Also, Ishmael goes into two churches, and the contrast between the sermons in them relates to competing views of the world contemplated by Ishmael as the story progresses. The black church is also seen to set up racial stereotypes that Melville attacks later. The fact that the churches themselves are not mentioned again is irrelevant, as the reader is supposed to have the intelligence to draw meaning from them even as singular events. Perhaps you would have been better served by another professor, because this isn't difficult stuff to see if you think about what Melville is doing in the novel.



I disagree with your point on a visceral level and am having difficulty articulating why. But I'll try anyway. 

Over time, as humans practice things, we have a way of stripping away things that don't work and getting to the purer form underneath. Computers were once the realm of hobbyists and experts, but now I'm holding one in my hand. Everything becomes more user friendly with time. The novel is no exception. Some art is always lost when we forsake the old in favor of the new, which is unfortunate. Craftsmanship has largely been abandoned in favor of mass production for instance. But this is not the bane of civilization.

Novels now are more straightfoward and the plot now takes precedence. When I read the Codex Alera, I don't do it to get a message about the triumph of human ingenuity, egalitarianism, learning to understand other cultures, or the power of diplomacy. I read it because the plot is interesting and I like the characters. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Those bits of Moby Dick feel unnecessary because they're largely extraneous to what we now look for most in books: the plot.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2012)

I disagree. I've already thought about my piece and why I am writing it a certain way. I'm well aware of the "rules," and if I decide not to follow any of them, it is because I've thought about it. If the reviewer can't give me at least a basic reason for why they think something should be changed, apart from "it's a rule," then I disregard it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 31, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I disagree. I've already thought about my piece and why I am writing it a certain way. I'm well aware of the "rules," and if I decide not to follow any of them, it is because I've thought about it. If the reviewer can't give me at least a basic reason for why they think something should be changed, apart from "it's a rule," then I disregard it.



To me, this shows a complete lack of regard/faith in your reviewer.  I routinely disregard advice, but I always give it due consideration.  I also do not expect my reviewer to take time to spell every little thing out for me.  As an author, I should be able to recognize most problems when people point it out to me.  If I don't understand, I send them a message asking for clarification instead of "disregarding" it out of hand.

Again, that reviewer gave of their limited time to try to help me.  The least I can do in return is give their suggestions due consideration even if I may disagree with the format.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2012)

If I know the reviewer, it may be different. Many simply parrot rules like show don't tell without thinking about the work. If they don't provide reasons I feel safe assuming I have already put more thought into it than them.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 31, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> If I know the reviewer, it may be different. Many simply parrot rules like show don't tell without thinking about the work. If they don't provide reasons I feel safe assuming I have already put more thought into it than them.



Again, it sounds kind of rude to me not to give the comments due consideration.  I'm assuming that, if you received comments, you actively requested them.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2012)

You are certainly entitled to your view. If someone just parrots rules at me, with no analysis, I have no qualms about disregarding it, whether I solicited opinions or not. They haven't provided anything of value. I still thank them for the time, but my own time is better spent on more substantive commentary.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 31, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> You are certainly entitled to your view. If someone just parrots rules at me, with no analysis, I have no qualms about disregarding it, whether I solicited opinions or not. They haven't provided anything of value. I still thank them for the time, but my own time is better spent on more substantive commentary.



So, just to be clear...

I'm reading through your piece to offer you comments.  I come to a section where I think you overexplained.  I comment: RUE and move on.

You would disregard it because I didn't say:

Hey, Steerpike, you already said this up above.  By restating it here, I think you're displaying too little trust in the reader to remember it.

Note that this is not an actual example.  I can't remember off the top of my head reading any of your work.  I'm thinking of doing a review for your story, but, since it's a children's book, I'm not sure I would be able to adequately assess it.


----------



## JadedSidhe (Aug 31, 2012)

Can I get a clarification on the questions of italics showing thought? 

When you say editors don't like them, do you mean in the printed book or in the manuscript? The reason I ask is that its my understanding that italics are fine for the book itself, but in a manuscript, the section that is supposed to be italicized should be underlined.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 31, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> So, just to be clear...
> 
> I'm reading through your piece to offer you comments.  I come to a section where I think you overexplained.  I comment: RUE and move on.
> 
> ...



I don't even see the point of giving a review where you don't explain your reasonings in the critique. If I'm the writer, I need to understand why the reader feels a certain way about a piece of writing. If that isn't explained to me then it has little value other than pointing out a problem exist. 

If you're going to take the time to critique someone's work, wouldn't you put in the effort to make sure the writer knows why you made your comments? If your goal is to really help the writer improve the piece, it just doesn't make much sense to do it in any other way. Furthermore, if the writer truly understands the basis of a critique, it can help them decide whether or not to disregard a piece of advice. For example, maybe you the reader/reviewer, point out that you don't understand something about the plot. Well, maybe you're not supposed to. Maybe I, as the writer, intentionally misled or misdirected the reader for an effect. In cases like these it's vitally important that communication between reviewer & writer is clear and fully understood/explained. Otherwise, you're wasting everyone's time.


----------



## Penpilot (Aug 31, 2012)

I'd also like to add, that explaining your reasoning in a critique no only helps the writer it helps the you as the critquer. Sometimes for me, reasoning out why something doesn't work and articulating it into words for the writer helps me refine the critique. Sometimes after thinking it out, what I though was wrong wasn't wrong at all. It was just a symptom of something else. Explaining yourself clarifies where you're coming from and creates understanding. It gives the writer more information to work from and enables them to make a sounder judgement on if a piece of advice is worth taking.

In my writing group, ever so often, someone will say X doesn't make sense because Y isn't explained only to realize after everyone else points out that Y was explained and they just missed it in their reading. Without explaining Y was the cause, this could have made the writer change something they didn't have to. Why leave the writer hanging and wondering when we don't have to? 

Without the reasoning behind an opinion, it becomes akin to a critique that only says either 'It was good' or 'I didn't like it'.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2012)

JadedSidhe said:


> Can I get a clarification on the questions of italics showing thought?
> 
> When you say editors don't like them, do you mean in the printed book or in the manuscript? The reason I ask is that its my understanding that italics are fine for the book itself, but in a manuscript, the section that is supposed to be italicized should be underlined.



The editors I am talking about do not want it in either place and they feel it is an inappropriate use of italics.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 31, 2012)

> I don't even see the point of giving a review where you don't explain your reasonings in the critique. If I'm the writer, I need to understand why the reader feels a certain way about a piece of writing. If that isn't explained to me then it has little value other than pointing out a problem exist.
> 
> If you're going to take the time to critique someone's work, wouldn't you put in the effort to make sure the writer knows why you made your comments?



Two thoughts on this:

1. When I comment on someone's work, I generally have thoughts on every single line.  It can take me an hour to go through a 1000 word piece if I'm doing it in detail.  You're saying it's not okay to take use shortcuts?  

2. I want to help my fellow writers, but it's not my job to lead them to the water and make them drink.  At some point, a writer has to take some responsibility for learning.  If I say: resist the urge to explain, a quick search on Google gives a lot of information explaining the concept.  You're saying that it's my responsibility to do that work for him?  What then, exactly, is his responsibility?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 31, 2012)

Penpilot,

You said:



> Without the reasoning behind an opinion, it becomes akin to a critique that only says either 'It was good' or 'I didn't like it'.



I can buy that for a writer who's at a midpoint on the learning curve.

For the beginner, if I say, resist the urge to explain, I think he needs to research the concept and come to an understanding of what that means.

An expert should understand exactly what I'm saying.  Most of the time, I don't need for a critiquer to try to figure out how to fix a problem; I just need someone who isn't as close to the issue as I am to point out where they see problems.  Once it's pointed out, I usually see it and know how to fix it.

And, really, if you don't understand what a reviewer is saying, you simply ask the question.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 31, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> 1. When I comment on someone's work, I generally have thoughts on every single line.  It can take me an hour to go through a 1000 word piece if I'm doing it in detail.  You're saying it's not okay to take use shortcuts?



You can do whatever you like. I just don't see the point in taking shortcuts if you're putting that much effort forth in the first place. I think this is especially true if you have to then answer further questions from the writer. Why not just be clear in the beginning?



BWFoster78 said:


> 2. I want to help my fellow writers, but it's not my job to lead them to the water and make them drink.  At some point, a writer has to take some responsibility for learning.  If I say: resist the urge to explain, a quick search on Google gives a lot of information explaining the concept.  You're saying that it's my responsibility to do that work for him?  What then, exactly, is his responsibility?



You're assuming that we're discussing reviewing the work of a beginner. Just because you're reviewing doesn't mean you're in a position to teach anything at all. I review pieces for writers who have much more experience than I do. I'm pointing out inconsistencies that they may not see because they're too close to the work. So if I just say "that's inconsistent" and move on, they're surely going to ask me what is inconsistent. 

Even if I review a beginner's work, if I take that much time to critique 1000 words then surely I can provide some clarity & guidance. Of course I'm not saying do the work for them... That's just silly. Explaining why using too many adverbs, or why something they wrote is telling...that's guidance. That writer is still going to have to do some research & learn about that concept. You're not going to write it for them & thats where they'll learn. You're doing nothing more than pointing them in the right direction based off of something in their own work.

In your own work that MS members have critiqued you've asked about how characters interact with each other. If those critiques just said things like "Look into archetypes" what does that do for you? It makes you ask a question which I then have to answer if I care enough. It's an extra step, it's a delay in the process, & it winds up being more work often enough. If instead I said than I don't understand how Dylan relates to Xan because Dylan seems like he should be more sympathetic to Xan's feelings or at least try to understand what he's going through because they're supposed to be friends.... Well, that offers much more clarity. It has nothing to do with me teaching you anything. It has nothing to do with you taking the responsibility to learn. You're going to learn by writing it either way. I'm just giving you perspective. (That example is meant as an example only & may not highlight the relationship properly).

Whenever I ask someone to critique a piece of my writing I tell them specifically what I'm looking for (usually this is 3-4 questions I'm asking them to answer). As the writer asking for a critique, I feel its very important to guide the reviewer on the key points you want them to concentrate on. If the reviewer can't (or won't) go into any detail then they are wasting everyone's time.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 31, 2012)

> You can do whatever you like. I just don't see the point in taking shortcuts if you're putting that much effort forth in the first place. I think this is especially true if you have to then answer further questions from the writer. Why not just be clear in the beginning?



One of two reasons:

1. I feel that pointing out the problem is clear.  "Too many adverbs," to me, is perfectly acceptable advice.  I don't need to go into why they shouldn't use adverbs or why specific usages are bad.  If someone points out to you that you're using too many adverbs, as a writer, you need to figure out if you're using too many adverbs.

2. To gauge response.  There are a lot of people who get defensive and don't take advice.  It's not worth me writing a ton of advice if they're not going to pay any attention to it.  If they respond with questions or acknowledgement of their errors, I know it's worth taking my time.



> You're assuming that we're discussing reviewing the work of a beginner. Just because you're reviewing doesn't mean you're in a position to teach anything at all.



In my experience thus far, I haven't seen many who couldn't learn something from me.  And, in turn, I haven't seen many except pure beginners who I couldn't learn something from.  Writing is an incredibly deep craft.  Even those who are masters are still learning.



> So if I just say "that's inconsistent" and move on, they're surely going to ask me what is inconsistent.



Are you positive this isn't RUE as a reviewer?  Seems to me that, if you point out an obvious inconsistency, most experienced writers are going to slap their head and say "Oh crap, how did I miss that?"

Regarding your comments about relationships between characters, you're going off in a completely different direction than the conversation.  If you look back, the point of all this originated by someone saying that it's not useful to point out "rule" violation without further explanation.  The "rules" we discuss on this site tend to revolve around writing technique, not character development or relationships.  If there's something highly specific to a story, of course the reviewer has to explain it.  That is not the same thing as pointing out: hey dude, you need to study your punctuation rules.



> Whenever I ask someone to critique a piece of my writing I tell them specifically what I'm looking for (usually this is 3-4 questions I'm asking them to answer). As the writer asking for a critique, I feel its very important to guide the reviewer on the key points you want them to concentrate on. If the reviewer can't (or won't) go into any detail then they are wasting everyone's time.



Answering specific questions about specific stories doesn't seem to have anything to do with the discussion.  Again, this was a conversation about addressing "rules" in critiques.  When I wrote my posts above, it was with that context in mind.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 31, 2012)

Some comments are self explanatory. Things that tend not to me helpful without explanation include show don't tell (which is overused advice to begin with), POV, tense issues, dialog comments, tags and so on. If I post something, I've already thought about those issues. A comment that didn't specify why something along those lines doesn't work isn't helpful because my choices were already purposeful. I'm not acting unaware.


----------



## Penpilot (Aug 31, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> For the beginner, if I say, resist the urge to explain, I think he needs to research the concept and come to an understanding of what that means.



Well this is a difference in critique styles. Generally, if I don't know the person I'm critiquing,  I try to avoid quoting 'rules'. I point out what's working and why I don't think it works. That's all. IMHO, quoting 'rules' without explanation can be a dangerous thing to beginning writers. It's like handing someone with only a learners permit the keys to a Ferrari and letting them go off on their own and expecting them not to crash. Some will take the 'rule' to the extreme and mess themselves up. So in some ways they may be better off with out the advice.



BWFoster78 said:


> An expert should understand exactly what I'm saying.  Most of the time, I don't need for a critiquer to try to figure out how to fix a problem; I just need someone who isn't as close to the issue as I am to point out where they see problems.  Once it's pointed out, I usually see it and know how to fix it.



Well, how many writers can really claim to be experts, even those who are published? You may be use to working with experts, but I would say for most people around here, myself included, we're not experts, so given this, why not elaborate just a little when critiquing here? Like I said before, it's to your own benefit too in terms of refining your own critiques.




BWFoster78 said:


> And, really, if you don't understand what a reviewer is saying, you simply ask the question.



As T.A.S. mentioned, why create that added complexity when it isn't necessary?


----------



## Zero Angel (Aug 31, 2012)

Wow. So this is the hot topic now. Let me throw my two cents in.

I definitely agree about following your own style even if it disagrees with established rules. It may be that by sticking to your style, your book never gets published or gets thrown out, but I guess I'm just too arrogant not to put style over rules.

Especially when, as has been mentioned, the rules are more like "guidelines". 

A few pages back I have a few cents to throw at Moby Dick as well. I think it's a good novel, but I think one thing to remember is that most people reading it would know CRAP about whaling. We do live in the information age after all, just skip that stuff when you read it. It was necessary back then unless you were an academic or a whaler. Not sure if that point had been made because by that point in the discussion I was skimming. Apologies if so!

As far as italics, I think this is the absolute best way to convey internal thoughts. I agree with the posters that mentioned that reading unitalicized internal monologue was jarring. Also, Robert Jordan's italics WERE hard to read (because Garamond = sucky for italics), but I still thought they were appropriate. Especially nowadays with the rise of e-readers though, if it's hard to read, increase the size. 

The only other internal dialogue method I've seen was using asterisks to set off the dialogue, and that was in Sailor Moon fanfiction. 

Also, to the people that think that you should use tags or it should just be natural. Why not start doing that with spoken dialogue then? I'll co-opt your quotation marks for thoughts, and you can just go on being "good" writers by avoiding a useful tool.

Which in the end, is what it is.

On a personal note, in my last couple drafts of my novel, I went back and added a LOT more italics. I was describing thoughts instead of just showing the thoughts and it inserted an artificial barrier (that admittedly wasn't that big of a deal, but a lot of editing is fine-tuning in my opinion), but I felt by going and actually putting you inside the characters head (with this nice useful tool called italics) that it made the characters feel closer and more tangible. Ultimately, italics made my novel better.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 31, 2012)

Somehow it turned into a "how to critique" conversation. Thanks for bringing it back to the OP Zero. There doesn't seem to be much point on debating critiquing any  further.


----------

