Using Italics for Thought

[Steerpike]

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

Don’t.

Some of you will send me examples of good writers who use italics for thoughts. Good writers can do anything. It is true. But a good writer does not need to use italics for thoughts. A good editor should help him/her get rid of them. I do. A good writer doesn’t even need to use italics for emphasis very often – which makes them more effective when s/he does.

Even great writers use italics for thoughts. I’m saying they shouldn’t, unless there is some particularly significant reason to do so. Otherwise they are just distracting (they are harder to read than plain text) and unnecessary – especially for thoughts that are more than a few words long. Our goal as writers (and editors) is not to distract the reader from the story by the text, and not to confuse the reader. The writing itself should become invisible, so that the reader can feel s/he has been transported and is having a real experience on the page.

...

In a book I just edited, Billy the Kid’s Last Ride, we carefully put in italics with all passages that were in Spanish, followed by the English translation. The publisher stripped all the italics out during typesetting, for no reason I could understand, but it makes you think before you spend too much time using italics for any reason.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Ämting]

...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]

...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]

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]

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]

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. This guy is such a jerk, Bob thought. Always finding fault with minor things. Why is he just standing there? Has 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.

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.