"He said" ..."She said" over and over

[Russ]

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.

I agree with general readership for indy folks, but I do think editors frown on those sorts of things.

And I have read reviews that complain about those things on Amazon, if they create the risk that someone may bitch about them, why take the risk when there is probably no reward?

 

[glutton]

if they create the risk that someone may bitch about them, why take the risk when there is probably no reward?

The possible reward is more people getting into it since it was clearer for them/more engaging because the scenes were easier to imagine.

Also in the time some take to refine/'perfect' their prose for one book, you could write another book.

 

[Russ]

The possible reward is more people getting into it since it was clearer for them/more engaging because the scenes were easier to imagine.

Also in the time some take to refine/'perfect' their prose for one book, you could write another book.

To your first point, based on the fact that the convention strongly leans away from those practices (whether or not we personally like them) there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the use of creative dialogue tags, exclamation points or italics for inner thought enhances reader enjoyment. The general wisdom seems to run contrary to that.


The second point is more interesting. There is no doubt that there is a trade off between time and building skill and craft. Each person must make that choice on their own. But the authors I know, read and respect all seem to lean towards making their books better, and with modern tech (as RJS pointed out in his article) you can weed out that stuff pretty fast with search and replace functions. It really depends on your philosophy of writing and publishing. If a significant portion of your approach is "volume" then by all means neglect craft. Personally I want to be intensely proud of everything I publish. So far I am.

 

[glutton]

To your first point, based on the fact that the convention strongly leans away from those practices (whether or not we personally like them) there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the use of creative dialogue tags, exclamation points or italics for inner thought enhances reader enjoyment. The general wisdom seems to run contrary to that.


The second point is more interesting. There is no doubt that there is a trade off between time and building skill and craft. Each person must make that choice on their own. But the authors I know, read and respect all seem to lean towards making their books better, and with modern tech (as RJS pointed out in his article) you can weed out that stuff pretty fast with search and replace functions. It really depends on your philosophy of writing and publishing. If a significant portion of your approach is "volume" then by all means neglect craft. Personally I want to be intensely proud of everything I publish. So far I am.

For the first point - intended audience. Some of us are probably not writing for the same readers whose enjoyment may suffer from the presence of 'extra' stuff and instead for an audience from whom additional clarity might be helpful. Also, conventions are constantly changing and I'm sure the evidence for extras in moderation significantly hurting general reader enjoyment would also be scant at best.

Second point - you can't really just 'remove' all those things and leave the rest of the prose as is unless it's already set up to convey the tone/volume etc. adequately without them, which goes back to the is harder necessarily better argument.

 

[Chessie]

Russ, I'm with you on the not-taking-chances route. That's how I feel about it, too. It's also about challenging myself to become a better writer, like you mentioned above. If taking out an exclamation mark or not italicizing a word allows me to come up with a different (and likely harder) way of telling my story, then I've learned something valuable and improved my craft in the process.

 

[Steerpike]

If taking out an exclamation mark or not italicizing a word allows me to come up with a different (and likely harder) way of telling my story, then I've learned something valuable and improved my craft in the process.

Or else needlessly complicated it. All of this has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Russ]

For the first point - intended audience. Some of us are probably not writing for the same readers whose enjoyment may suffer from the presence of 'extra' stuff and instead for an audience from whom additional clarity might be helpful. Also, conventions are constantly changing and I'm sure the evidence for extras in moderation significantly hurting general reader enjoyment would also be scant at best.

The people in publishing who suggest eschewing exclamation points and creative dialogue tags are trying to sell (and have been selling successfully for years) to anyone who buys books. It must be a mighty unique audience you are writing for if normal publishers are not trying to get their money.

To me, since I don't have access to near complete data, it is a matter of who do I trust on such questions? Do I trust seasoned professionals who make such recommendations and give such advise without malice or hope of gain, or do I trust people who seem to have a chip on their shoulder about the issue, and as far as I can tell, have no real experience in the field? That seems an easy call.

 

[glutton]

The people in publishing who suggest eschewing exclamation points and creative dialogue tags are trying to sell (and have been selling successfully for years) to anyone who buys books. It must be a mighty unique audience you are writing for if normal publishers are not trying to get their money.

To me, since I don't have access to near complete data, it is a matter of who do I trust on such questions? Do I trust seasoned professionals who make such recommendations and give such advise without malice or hope of gain, or do I trust people who seem to have a chip on their shoulder about the issue, and as far as I can tell, have no real experience in the field? That seems an easy call.

Considering that there are many traditionally published books with exclamation marks and italics included in them, I would not particularly trust people who seem to biased in favor of certain writing styles...

Do you think that the average reader is particularly bothered by the occasional use of exclamation points or italics and furthermore, do you think a reader who is used to reading manga/comics/video game text/subtitled movies is likely to be bothered by them?

And I knew you would take the low road soon or later. I guess elitists can't debate anything without resorting to personal comments at the drop of a dime lol.

PS. I have a chip on my shoulder only because when I initially politely stated my disagreement with the favored convention, somebody responded to me with a lazy and condescending 'appeal to authority' post with no substantial argument against my position...

 

[FifthView]

I don't think I'm a fan of "less risky route = best route" truisms. It's a cost/benefit analysis, really. When I said earlier that not all books should utilize italics for inner dialogue, I also meant that not all books need it. I, like others, have read many good books that didn't utilize those things. If in doubt about whether some method–the way you the author would use it or are capable of using it–might distract more than help, maybe avoid it. Find what works.

It's interesting, doing a casual search of previews on Amazon, that Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets has, in its very first chapter:

• Liberal use of exclamation marks
• Italics for internal thoughts
• Italics for stressed words or inflection in normal dialogue
• FULL CAPITALIZATION FOR SOME SHOUTING

No wonder it didn't sell very well. That said, I've been wondering whether liberal use of exclamation marks might be fine for children's books or YA novels. I've been told that YA books in particular allow for, some would even say require, a more upfront telling (as opposed to only showing) of what's going on inside a character.

 

[glutton]

That said, I've been wondering whether liberal use of exclamation marks might be fine for children's books or YA novels. I've been told that YA books in particular allow for, some would even say require, a more upfront telling (as opposed to only showing) of what's going on inside a character.

Put more bluntly than I did. Some of us are trying to include a younger audience in our intended demographic...

 

[Heliotrope]

This is making me nervous.

GRRM uses italics and thought tags

The Sphinx looks slight, but there's strength in those slim arms, he reflected.

If I hit him in the mouth with my tankard, I could knock out half his teeth, Pate thought.

He has a mocking name for everyone, thought Pate.

On and on and on it goes, multiple times per page… I thought this was what we were supposed to do? I looked it up and I couldn't find anything suggesting otherwise? Could someone point me to a resource where it says not to do this?

 

[Nimue]

No wonder it didn't sell very well. That said, I've been wondering whether liberal use of exclamation marks might be fine for children's books or YA novels. I've been told that YA books in particular allow for, some would even say require, a more upfront telling (as opposed to only showing) of what's going on inside a character.

I think I agree with this--italicizations, font changes, capitalization, etc is more common for YA books or books with a casual/comedic tone. High fantasy and serious lit, not so much. This is based on what I've read. I haven't seen a lot of dialogue stressed with italics in the adult trad-published fantasy realm. However, I've seen a lot of thoughts in italics in fantasy, to the point where I thought that was the norm. It's not a style I use myself, and maybe the editorial trend is away from it, but it's being used.

And I knew you would take the low road soon or later. I guess elitists can't debate anything without resorting to personal comments at the drop of a dime lol.

Glutton, taking an attacking tone and then calling people "offended" when they match your tone is not only a poor debate tactic, but also pretty transparent. Maybe back off it.

 

[glutton]

This is making me nervous.

GRRM uses italics and thought tags

The Sphinx looks slight, but there's strength in those slim arms, he reflected.

If I hit him in the mouth with my tankard, I could knock out half his teeth, Pate thought.

He has a mocking name for everyone, thought Pate.

On and on and on it goes, multiple times per page… I thought this was what we were supposed to do? I looked it up and I couldn't find anything suggesting otherwise? Could someone point me to a resource where it says not to do this?

We're debating stylistic preferences not actual rules.

If you have a clear POV that doesn't change in the scene and have established that italics are used to indicate thought too, having a thought tag too seems redundant.

 

[Russ]

And I knew you would take the low road soon or later. I guess elitists can't debate anything without resorting to personal comments at the drop of a dime lol.

Ah so now I understand it. Someone seeks out the advice and guidance of the experienced professionals is an "elitist" and those who who without experience or information come to conclusions are of course well meaning victims of the machine. How could I have missed that?

It appears your ego knows few bounds.

 

[glutton]

Glutton, taking an attacking tone and then calling people "offended" when they match your tone is not only a poor debate tactic, but also pretty transparent. Maybe back off it.

Why are you calling me out when he clearly made a personal comment directed at me in the post I quoted? My previous post before that wasn't aggressive at all. Unless you're claiming this is aggressive -

'For the first point - intended audience. Some of us are probably not writing for the same readers whose enjoyment may suffer from the presence of 'extra' stuff and instead for an audience from whom additional clarity might be helpful. Also, conventions are constantly changing and I'm sure the evidence for extras in moderation significantly hurting general reader enjoyment would also be scant at best.

Second point - you can't really just 'remove' all those things and leave the rest of the prose as is unless it's already set up to convey the tone/volume etc. adequately without them, which goes back to the is harder necessarily better argument.'

 

[glutton]

Ah so now I understand it. Someone seeks out the advice and guidance of the experienced professionals is an "elitist" and those who who without experience or information come to conclusions are of course well meaning victims of the machine. How could I have missed that?

I call you an elitist because you're so quick to dismiss offhand and in rude tone those who disagree with you.

 

[Nimue]

Yes, I read Russ's comment. What you seem to be blind to is your own tone. He said you have a chip on your shoulder, you're calling people condescending elitists. I think the point of closing the thread was to put and end to the back-and-forth. Can we simply talk about the topic at hand?

 

[glutton]

Yes, I read Russ's comment. What you seem to be blind to is your own tone. He said you have a chip on your shoulder, you're calling people condescending elitists. I think the point of closing the thread was to put and end to the back-and-forth. Can we simply talk about the topic at hand?

No, I'm quite aware I changed my tone back to the aggressive one after he made a personal comment.

I'll back off it if he does.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Another warning- ALL personal attacks and snide remarks end now.

This is directed at all parties involved in this discussion. No exceptions.

 

[Heliotrope]

Also, A Feast For Crows pg 383

"The king is dead!" his drowned men shouted.

And on page 1-2

"Throw the apple," urged Allaras…

"You were born too late for dragons, lad," Armen the Acolyte told Roone.

"The last dragons in Westeros," insisted Mollander.

"are stories told by sailors," Armen interrupted.

So… I just sort of feel that maybe we should be focussing on just writing good stories, instead of bickering about whatever so-called rules we read in Whoever's writing book.

I'm reading a book called Writing Short Stories: A Routledge Writer's Guide by Ailsa Cox.

This is taken directly from the book. She is referring to a short story about a narrator who is showing us the harsh reality of living on welfare benefits.

"The irregular punctuation, removing the apostrophes from 'isn't' and 'doesn't', keep the flow of thought intact, while the repeated phrases suggest someone stuck in a rut. Yet, although the narrator seems rambling, the language is controlled and carefully pared down. Kelman writes in short, jagged sentences, interspersed with longer digressions like the final sentence in the paragraph above. Using natural speech patterns and selective repetition, he builds up poetic rhythm." Pg 47.

Another passage that stuck out to me:

" Most creative-writing handbooks insist that you should write every day. My concern here is that keeping the notebook may become a chore like brushing your teeth before you go to bed. If you can manage it, fine, but don't go through the motions. The idea is to liberate your creativity, not to restrict your own freedoms."

So, I sort of feel that shouldn't we, as a community of writers, be encouraging each other to be creative? To find our own voices? Obviously no body told GRRM that he wasn't supposed to use italics or thought tags or exclamation points.

He wrote a damn good story though, even with all those things.