Russ
Istar
I found an interesting comment on both these topics in a piece on using modern word processors by Robert J. Sawyer:
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
"He said" ..."She said" over and over
- Thread starter Miskatonic
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #82
Miskatonic
Auror
I just wrote a couple chapters with a boatload of dialog so I had plenty of time to analyze and adjust. 
I look at exclamation points in a similar manner to italics use.
First, let me say that I will use an occasional exclamation point IF it fits the dialogue in a way where not using it makes the phrase read differently.
I think both the examples, previously cited work well in this regard:
The barbarian screamed. "Die!" and "Halt!" yelled the guard.
Most of the time though, I should be able to show heightened emotion in the context surrounding dialogue or in the words of the dialogue itself. That comes down to how a writer chooses to portray an event & word selection.
Lastly (and this is where my thinking falls in line with the use of italics), if I use exclamation points even a moderate amount, the power of that punctuation is lessened overall. Limiting their use makes the usage more urgent. It stands out.
Likewise, with italics, I don't use them for thought. I prefer to provide internal thought as part of the general narrative, not set apart with italics. This techniques allows me to reserve italics use for another craft element that's more important to my writing...word emphasis.
In a piece of dialogue, where I might wish to show an inflection in voice, I may write something like:
"No, silly. You can't take that one."
However, if I write internal thought and other elements with italics, it may lessen the impact of the few italics I do use, or possibly even confuse the reader (consistency is key here).
I know I can write internal thought in other ways besides using italics. I don't know of a simpler way to show enunciation or voice inflection in dialogue.
First, let me say that I will use an occasional exclamation point IF it fits the dialogue in a way where not using it makes the phrase read differently.
I think both the examples, previously cited work well in this regard:
The barbarian screamed. "Die!" and "Halt!" yelled the guard.
Most of the time though, I should be able to show heightened emotion in the context surrounding dialogue or in the words of the dialogue itself. That comes down to how a writer chooses to portray an event & word selection.
Lastly (and this is where my thinking falls in line with the use of italics), if I use exclamation points even a moderate amount, the power of that punctuation is lessened overall. Limiting their use makes the usage more urgent. It stands out.
Likewise, with italics, I don't use them for thought. I prefer to provide internal thought as part of the general narrative, not set apart with italics. This techniques allows me to reserve italics use for another craft element that's more important to my writing...word emphasis.
In a piece of dialogue, where I might wish to show an inflection in voice, I may write something like:
"No, silly. You can't take that one."
However, if I write internal thought and other elements with italics, it may lessen the impact of the few italics I do use, or possibly even confuse the reader (consistency is key here).
I know I can write internal thought in other ways besides using italics. I don't know of a simpler way to show enunciation or voice inflection in dialogue.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
I guess that I don't really understand the need/desire to show enunciation or voice inflection.
I cannot think of an example (and can't remember an example, including the one you gave) where I thought the word needed to be italicized.
The advantage you're gaining is that the reader is reading it, presumably, exactly the way you're hearing it in your head - with the inflection on that particular word. The disadvantage is that you're pulling the reader outside of the story to do it.
I wouldn't assume that. It certainly doesn't pull me out a story, and I can't think of a reason to assume it would pull most readers out of the story, absent some evidence that it does. A single word, or even a handful of them, in italics aren't even going to slow the average reader down, in my view. They'll hear those words as inflected in their heads and keep going.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
It pulls me out of the story.
Truthfully, I was really surprised that T.Allen took that position. He and I are usually on the same page on these kinds of issues.
You and I ... not so much
Truthfully, I was really surprised that T.Allen took that position. He and I are usually on the same page on these kinds of issues.
You and I ... not so much
Last edited:
FifthView
Vala
I definitely don't think there would be confusion for a reader. A single italicized word within quotation marks is rather distinct from whole lines of italicized thought not using quotation marks. I think the distinction would be obvious, and I doubt anyone would trip over it.
As for impact...there might be a lessening of impact, simply because italics for stress in a piece of dialogue naturally distinguishes it from the vast majority of the dialogue you would be using. But then again, are those cases of inflection particularly impactful items, charged items or ideas, in the first place? Or is the inflection merely a convenience to clear up ambiguity or vagueness in the speech, or for showing a character placing particular emphasis on some thing or idea, a quirk?
As for using italics for internal thoughts, I think there are two separate cases. One would be choosing to show a character's internal thinking (i.e., monologue), and another would be for examples of telepathic communication between individuals (like Fitz and his wolf in the Farseer books.)
Obviously, the latter would be a special use. How many books deal with some form of telepathy?
The former, the internal monologue, is something that would not be appropriate for every book. I also think that it shapes the tone of a book–and should only be used when used frequently within a book, for a specific purpose, rather than haphazardly. I think Frank Herbert made great use of it for Dune, and I wonder if his use of the method is what inspired so many others to do it.
@FifthView
Which cases do you think italics for internal monologue would not be appropriate? I am curious about how people feel about it, because it has, over the years, probably been the single most issue I've argued over with people who have professional credentials, most of whom say never use italics for thoughts. To me, it seems more stylistic. I'm not sure why it might work in one case and not work in another.
Which cases do you think italics for internal monologue would not be appropriate? I am curious about how people feel about it, because it has, over the years, probably been the single most issue I've argued over with people who have professional credentials, most of whom say never use italics for thoughts. To me, it seems more stylistic. I'm not sure why it might work in one case and not work in another.
As for reader confusion generally, I think writers forget how to read like readers. A reader is smart, and by sitting down with your book has already agreed to go along with the suspension of disbelief, immersion, &c you want with your story. They're looking for it.
Readers aren't as easily tripped up or pulled from a story as writers like to believe, in my view. The brain will interpret data, including variances in things like font (i.e. italics) without even missing a beat. Sure, if you're really clumsy you're going trip the reader up, but if you can't remember how to read like reader instead of a writer you're going to have a harder time figuring out what trips up a reader and want doesn't, and probably end up underestimating your readers.
Readers aren't as easily tripped up or pulled from a story as writers like to believe, in my view. The brain will interpret data, including variances in things like font (i.e. italics) without even missing a beat. Sure, if you're really clumsy you're going trip the reader up, but if you can't remember how to read like reader instead of a writer you're going to have a harder time figuring out what trips up a reader and want doesn't, and probably end up underestimating your readers.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
This happened to me as a reader not that long ago:
I was reading a book where the author used italics for internal thought. I got to a paragraph where there was an italicized word. It caused me to do a full stop and wonder why the crap the character's thought had occurred there. Then I realized that the word was italicized to add emphasis.
This occurred while I was immersed in the story, and it pulled me out of the story.
I didn't throw the book away or stop reading or anything, but I don't think it's ever desirable to pull a reader out of the story.
Hmmm. Well, I've read books like that as well and wasn't pulled out of the story or even tripped up by it. I don't think most readers would be, either. Almost anything could pull a given reader out of a story - things like a character with the same name as one of their children, or a pet in the story being the same pet the reader has; basically anything that is a referent to the real world for that reader - but I think you've got to look at it in more broad terms and decide whether, on par, something is likely to pull a reader out of a story.
FifthView
Vala
Steerpike, I am exceedingly uncomfortable setting inviolate, universal rules for anything. But I think that, as with exclamation points and colorful speech tags, using italics for internal thoughts in a slapdash manner, as a mere convenience, is probably not putting the method to its best use. I like looking at Dune as an example. Among other things, the book is about intrigue—in which case, characters having a vivid hidden inner life vs outward expression plays a role—and about distinct internal mental powers, precognition, latent madness, etc.
That said, I'm not opposed to using italics for all thought within a novel if someone chooses to go that route stylistically. I.e., a more stylistic than strategic utilization. But I think I would still demand a vibrant, interesting internal thinking process for characters, i.e. internal thoughts which add richness to the novel rather than serve as a mere convenience for revealing aspects of the character.*
*Editing here to say I'm not sure that last bit is written clearly. I'm only aiming at facile use of direct thoughts, in italics.
Last edited:
Thanks. This makes sense to me. I tend not to use italics for internal monologue, though I'm not opposed to it. One author who does it a lot is Steven Erikson, but he meets your criterion of having some vibrant, interesting, internal thought processes.
FifthView
Vala
Well I have a hard time explaining the negative uses, because I've not actually given the subject much thought. The more strategic uses are the kind I remember most from my reading, and I'm not sure I've encountered any books in which bad use of italics for internal thought irritated me. I'm guessing that italics, as italics, somewhat signals importance—that's our natural reaction to italicized print—and so if I encountered inane, babbling, or simply mediocre thoughts in italics throughout a book, I'd be irritated. That's like a promise of significance that doesn't pan out.
There is no need to show an enunciation or inflection. It can, however, add an extra layer of texture to dialogue.
Even then, my usage of italics in this manner is a rarity. Sometimes though, it feels and sounds right. That's enough for me.
I've never had a reader question me or stumble on a use of italics for this reason.
For the most part, I agree with you. My comment applies mainly to submissions I've read in critique groups, not professional quality writing.
In those cases, I've seen a lot of internal thought italicized and used for a thought/action tag surrounding dialogue with an intended inflection. The close proximity of two differing uses of italics felt strange and tripped me up for a moment. As such, I thought it worth mentioning.
Overall though, I think it's a much lesser issue than my choice to reserve italics for enunciation/inflection so the impact is more apparent. In this case, making the change noticeable can certainly be managed without jarring the reader.
I want my dialogue to read like real, natural conversation. Real conversation includes inflection and enunciation for effect. If I speak my dialogue aloud and my natural inclination is to inflect or enunciate, I may add italics to portray this effect. It is rare, but it's a tool I'm comfortable using.
The propensity of authors to use italics like this in a myriad of well-received books, across all genres, speaks for itself.
glutton
Inkling
The main issue in the overarching debate here seems to be clarity vs removing as many potentially distracting elements in hopes of increasing immersion.
Even if you choose words or set up a scenario 'perfectly' to convey the tone/volume you want, things will be probably clearer for some readers if that perfectly written scene also used an exclamation point or italics for emphasis - particularly if a reader has skimmed or rushed through some of your context/setup ('that won't happen if your writing is good enough' is also not a realistic response to this).
Maximum clarity vs more refined prose - clarity is king IMO. I disagree strongly with the notion of 'harder=better' that some of these conventions seem to support, especially if you're trying to make your stories easy to 'get' for the widest audience possible.
Even if you choose words or set up a scenario 'perfectly' to convey the tone/volume you want, things will be probably clearer for some readers if that perfectly written scene also used an exclamation point or italics for emphasis - particularly if a reader has skimmed or rushed through some of your context/setup ('that won't happen if your writing is good enough' is also not a realistic response to this).
Maximum clarity vs more refined prose - clarity is king IMO. I disagree strongly with the notion of 'harder=better' that some of these conventions seem to support, especially if you're trying to make your stories easy to 'get' for the widest audience possible.
Last edited:
kennyc
Inkling
https://skysairyou.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/he-said-she-said-stephen-kings-advice-on-dialogue-tags/
"Stephen King, in his book On Writing, expresses his belief that said is the best identifier to use. King recommends reading a novel by Larry McMurtry, whom he claims has mastered the art of well-written dialogue.[2]
Substitutes are known as said-bookisms. For example, in the sentence "What do you mean?" he smiled., the word smiled is a said-bookism."
from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_in_writing
I agree that "Clarity is king." I repeat that phrase all the time.
Further, I think it foolish to discard any tool of language. Some of us will use a tool more than others. That's an element of style and part of voice.
I'd say the better advice is a cautioning toward judicious use of tools like exclamation points and italics. Not allowing them to become a crutch of weak writing seems a wise course of action. However, if they're indispensable to a phrase in the writer's mind, or if they add a certain something the writer deems appropriate, or fitting, so be it.
Further, I think it foolish to discard any tool of language. Some of us will use a tool more than others. That's an element of style and part of voice.
I'd say the better advice is a cautioning toward judicious use of tools like exclamation points and italics. Not allowing them to become a crutch of weak writing seems a wise course of action. However, if they're indispensable to a phrase in the writer's mind, or if they add a certain something the writer deems appropriate, or fitting, so be it.
C
Chessie
Guest
I totes agree. It's not like someone will throw your book across the room because you placed thoughts in italics or used too many exclamation marks. These are just guidelines to help strengthen our writing. Whether or not we apply it to our craft doesn't make much of a difference to anyone else. However, I like to err on the side of caution simply because I've seen evidence of my writing improving from listening to this type of advice.
