Using Italics for Thought

[Lorna]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.