Using Italics for Thought

[BWFoster78]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.