A question of italics

[voluptuary_manque]

I'm finishing up the second draft of my first novel after editing. Most of what my editor said, I accept and agree with. However there is one issue where I am unsure and would like additional opinions. I have been advised that when a character is thinking in a manner that, if it were out loud, would be in quotation marks, those thoughts can best be portrayed in italics.

i.e. Should I invite him to stay for breakfast?

But if it was a description of thoughts, the italics are incorrect.

i.e. She wondered if she should invite him to stay for breakfast.


On the other hand, I have also been advised that when the introspection is italicized, the flow of the story is disrupted. Italics should, therefore, only be used sparingly, if at all. What is the general consensus?

 

[3113]

I have been advised that when a character is thinking in a manner that, if it were out loud, would be in quotation marks, those thoughts can best be portrayed in italics.

i.e. Should I invite him to stay for breakfast?

But if it was a description of thoughts, the italics are incorrect.

i.e. She wondered if she should invite him to stay for breakfast.

This is correct--at least it is the current practice in writing and publishing for now.

On the other hand, I have also been advised that when the introspection is italicized, the flow of the story is disrupted.

This is incorrect. Or at least I don't believe it. Remember that editors are more sensitive than most readers and more critical. That italics should be used "sparingly" is "correct" in that you probably don't want a whole page in italics or every other sentence to be italicized. But if you're not doing that, then I really don't think you need to over think (pun intended) the use of it here for when your characters "think." I don't think italics disrupt the flow for most readers. I think they simply cue the reader how to to read the passage.

 

[Katyusha]

On the other hand, I have also been advised that when the introspection is italicized, the flow of the story is disrupted. Italics should, therefore, only be used sparingly, if at all. What is the general consensus?

From my experience, this isn't true. I've been told this too, but I tend to think of it from the point of view of a reader, meaning that when a character is thinking (as though they were speaking), not using italics to highlight that makes it confusing:

"She watched as he ordered a drink from the bar with his friends, hoping he'd see her and hoping he wouldn't see her. I'm always so damned nervous, she thought as she twisted her napkin in her hands. If only I could think of something to say to him without sounding stupid. Finally, after what seemed like an eternity of indecision, she slowly stood up and headed toward him."

This as opposed to:

"She watched as he ordered a drink from the bar with his friends, hoping he'd see her and hoping he wouldn't see her. I'm always so damned nervous, she thought as she twisted her napkin in her hands. If only I could think of something to say to him without sounding stupid. Finally, after what seemed like an eternity of indecision, she slowly stood up and headed toward him."

I would imagine that different editors have different feelings on this, as they do regarding just about everything, but I honestly think putting thoughts in italics isn't any more disruptive to the flow of the story than separating dialogue with quotations marks and indents.

 

[mynameisben]

On the other hand, I have also been advised that when the introspection is italicized, the flow of the story is disrupted. Italics should, therefore, only be used sparingly, if at all. What is the general consensus?

I think your editor is very wise. You should use italicized thoughts as sparingly as possible. Whenever I read a novel where italics are used more than two or three times I am reminded of Web pages designed by 14 year-olds who just discovered fonts. Yes, italics may be used semantically correctly, but they glare. My two immediate thoughts whenever I see italicized thoughts are:

1. The author is annoying the crap out of me with an overzealous desire to demonstrate superior syntactic skills.

2. The author failed to convey the character's thoughts through a description of body language or by some other creative means.

The second point is telling. Using italicized thoughts is often a crutch that shortchanges an opportunity to be far more creative or to make the scene more erotic. When a character uses italics to confess her thoughts, I read it as the author's confession he or she could think of nothing else. I would much rather read, "Mathilda leaned in closer, gazing into his stormy blue eyes and smiled" than read the author's heroine confess, I want to hop on his man meat and do the hokey pokey. The body language approach is often better, because it conveys part of the thought, while leaving some of it to the reader's imagination. Not knowing exactly what is going on in the mind of your character adds mystique.

Granted, italicized confessions are usually more subtle than the example I gave. I don't mind encountering one or two well crafted examples in the course of reading an entire novel. But any more than that and I start thinking, What's wrong with this guy? Of course, I don't actually think the thought in italics. Rather, I wrinkle up my nose, shake my head, and then I get up and reach for another book.

 

[michchick98]

I'm finishing up the second draft of my first novel after editing. Most of what my editor said, I accept and agree with. However there is one issue where I am unsure and would like additional opinions. I have been advised that when a character is thinking in a manner that, if it were out loud, would be in quotation marks, those thoughts can best be portrayed in italics.

i.e. Should I invite him to stay for breakfast?

But if it was a description of thoughts, the italics are incorrect.

i.e. She wondered if she should invite him to stay for breakfast.


On the other hand, I have also been advised that when the introspection is italicized, the flow of the story is disrupted. Italics should, therefore, only be used sparingly, if at all. What is the general consensus?

I've heard the "use italics sparingly" comments, too, but then I've read professionally edited novels (by authors such as Nora Roberts, Lora Leigh and the like) where the author does use italics to convey thoughts of the charater(s).

I've also seen italics used for names of things (He named his boat Magdelena after his wife) or for when a character is reading/writing a letter, article or whatever.

===

Example:

He crumbled the letter after he'd read what she'd written.


Dear John -

I don't love you any more.

Love,

Marsha


Getting up to pace the room, he growled his discontent, found his keys and raced out the door to win her back.

===

I'm guilty of probably overusing italics in my writing. I try to limit it, but sometimes it's difficult, especially when there is a lot of dialogue and narration in the story.

 

[Darkniciad]

I'm guilty of probably overusing italics in my writing. I try to limit it, but sometimes it's difficult, especially when there is a lot of dialogue and narration in the story.

Try throwing telepaths into the mix if you want to have a real pain-in-the-ass time trying to keep it under control *laugh*

That's one of the reasons I (over)use the dash so much, and a lot of paragraphing tricks to convey emphasis that I might have otherwise just used italics for.

 

[sr71plt]

This is correct--at least it is the current practice in writing and publishing for now.

Ummm, no. The Chicago Manual of Style, which is the style bible for U.S. fiction publishing, dropped italics as a choice for this nearly a decade ago with the publishing of its 15th edition. Current practice is either within quotes as with dialogue or just straight roman font. (CMS 11.47) (I prefer the italics for thoughts, myself).

 

[jomar]

Book I'm reading right now (copyright 2009) uses italics for thoughts.

 

[sr71plt]

Book I'm reading right now (copyright 2009) uses italics for thoughts.

Probably self-published. But seriously, what are you questioning of what I posted? That A. the Chicago Manual of Style is the most-used authority for commerical fiction (and most nonfiction too) published in the United States, or B. that I didn't index the relevant CMS guidance on this?

There are, of course, publishers who go their own way on any general practice, but I'm always amused at the blinders-on responses when I actually take the time to cite the publishing industry guidance from the basic authorities.

Do what you want. (I already said I preferred the italics myself). But what I responded to wasn't personal preference; it was to what the current practice was in the publishing industry.

 

[Weird Harold]

What is the general consensus?

The general consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is your publisher's requirements.

As SR noted, the CMS has changed the "official" standard from what it was for most of my life, but many publishers are still adhering to the old standard or (apparently) letting it go to author preference. You need to find out what your publisher expects/allows.

Personally, I think the difference between literal transcription of thoughts and narrative reporting of thoughts is a distinction worthy of distinctive punctuation.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The general consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is your publisher's requirements.

As SR noted, the CMS has changed the "official" standard from what it was for most of my life, but many publishers are still adhering to the old standard or (apparently) letting it go to author preference. You need to find out what your publisher expects/allows.

Personally, I think the difference between literal transcription of thoughts and narrative reporting of thoughts is a distinction worthy of distinctive punctuation.

LOL

That presumes, of course, that some publisher would actually want to print my drivel. Still, one can always hope . . .

 

[Katyusha]

1. The author is annoying the crap out of me with an overzealous desire to demonstrate superior syntactic skills.

2. The author failed to convey the character's thoughts through a description of body language or by some other creative means.

The second point is telling. Using italicized thoughts is often a crutch that shortchanges an opportunity to be far more creative or to make the scene more erotic. When a character uses italics to confess her thoughts, I read it as the author's confession he or she could think of nothing else. I would much rather read, "Mathilda leaned in closer, gazing into his stormy blue eyes and smiled" than read the author's heroine confess, I want to hop on his man meat and do the hokey pokey. The body language approach is often better, because it conveys part of the thought, while leaving some of it to the reader's imagination. Not knowing exactly what is going on in the mind of your character adds mystique.

Granted, italicized confessions are usually more subtle than the example I gave. I don't mind encountering one or two well crafted examples in the course of reading an entire novel. But any more than that and I start thinking, What's wrong with this guy? Of course, I don't actually think the thought in italics. Rather, I wrinkle up my nose, shake my head, and then I get up and reach for another book.

How about point of view? I have a serious problem using italics for people's thoughts when I'm writing in third-person omniscient because having more than one or two characters whose thoughts are frequently revealed throughout the story makes it so half the story could wind up coming out in italics. This, of course, depends on how much you go into your characters' heads. However, when I'm writing in third person limited (which is what my novels are), I use italics to convey direct thoughts of the main character (see the examples I wrote in post #3).

 

[voluptuary_manque]

For the most part, my approach is to use italics only when the character is alone. If there is another person, the character should talk to them, not himself. Having said that, I need to go back and see if I actually did that the whole way through the tale.

 

[jomar]

Probably self-published. But seriously, what are you questioning of what I posted? That A. the Chicago Manual of Style is the most-used authority for commerical fiction (and most nonfiction too) published in the United States, or B. that I didn't index the relevant CMS guidance on this?

There are, of course, publishers who go their own way on any general practice, but I'm always amused at the blinders-on responses when I actually take the time to cite the publishing industry guidance from the basic authorities.

Do what you want. (I already said I preferred the italics myself). But what I responded to wasn't personal preference; it was to what the current practice was in the publishing industry.

What makes you think it was directed at you?

But since we're there - you made a pronouncement (which is fine for accuracy) that strongly implied italic thoughts were just not done in this day and age. My comment indicated that italics are used by this mainstream publisher despite what the official rule is.

In an especially prickly mood today? Lighten up, man, don't' take shit so personal.

 

[sr71plt]

What makes you think it was directed at you?

But since we're there - you made a pronouncement (which is fine for accuracy) that strongly implied italic thoughts were just not done in this day and age. My comment indicated that italics are used by this mainstream publisher despite what the official rule is.

In an especially prickly mood today? Lighten up, man, don't' take shit so personal.

No. I was responding to what I quoted--the assertion of current practice.

I admit to being prickly when the question of commerical publishing standards come up and I cite the authoritative sources directly and some Yahoo starts talkng about their personal preferences and what Aunt Hazel might have once said.

 

[jomar]

No. I was responding to what I quoted--the assertion of current practice.

I admit to being prickly when the question of commerical publishing standards come up and I cite the authoritative sources directly and some Yahoo starts talkng about their personal preferences and what Aunt Hazel might have once said.

Yahoo, huh. You need a nap.

But seriously, if you know you're right who cares what responses you get? You're on a porn board. Laugh it off and enjoy the show.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And now if we could return to the question at hand and take our disputes over to PM's?

 

[Darkniciad]

People generally accept that italics denote internal dialogue. It's in wide use throughout Lit, so if that's your venue, the readers will understand what you're trying to convey if you use italics for that purpose without missing a beat.

Personally, I feel as if using standard quotes for thoughts is exponentially more jarring than italics.

SR71 has already provided the publishing standard.

Just a matter of deciding where you're publishing the story.

 

[jomar]

And now if we could return to the question at hand and take our disputes over to PM's?

Nah, no worries.

I guess your answer is to do what you want and if it ever gets to a mainstream publisher change it if you have to.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Nah, no worries.

I guess your answer is to do what you want and if it ever gets to a mainstream publisher change it if you have to.

I get that feeling. My editor just wants me to be more consistent so I'll go back to the text and 'uniformize' it.

 

[Handley_Page]

"I have been advised that when a character is thinking in a manner that, if it were out loud, would be in quotation marks, those thoughts can best be portrayed in italics.

i.e. Should I invite him to stay for breakfast?

But if it was a description of thoughts, the italics are incorrect.

i.e. She wondered if she should invite him to stay for breakfast."


That's how I've understood it.

 

[sr71plt]

*sigh*

 

[Weird Harold]

*sigh*

One additional thought: it is far easier to strip Italics out of a document than it is to put Italics into a document.

I don't know the reason, but I've noticed that books that follow the CMS, no Italics, format for internal dialogue also have a noticeable lack of Italics, Bold, Underline, and other font changes -- much like an ASCII text file version of any document turns out.

 

[sr71plt]

One additional thought: it is far easier to strip Italics out of a document than it is to put Italics into a document.

I don't know the reason, but I've noticed that books that follow the CMS, no Italics, format for internal dialogue also have a noticeable lack of Italics, Bold, Underline, and other font changes -- much like an ASCII text file version of any document turns out.

Italic font is permitted--and used (and called for)--in publishing for several purposes (e.g., foreign words, several types of titles, limited examples of emphasis, genus and species, some forms of introductory material). Book designers don't like bold or underlining in the text at all, though--and will often flatly refuse to include them.

 

[jomar]

*sigh*

I will be more aware of this in the books I read. But I honestly can't think of one that had quotes for thoughts, though maybe I just wasn't paying attention - the ones I do recall have italics or were of the he thought/she thought style.

What is your experience? Do some, half, most publishers require adherence to CMS? The small ones don't care, the big houses do? The one I referenced was Minotaur Press.