Thoughts and quotations

AsheBurn

Virgin
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Posts
7
Do thoughts in stories require quotations? I have been writing without them. I am a new writer and not all that great on grammar and punctuation. Any where I can learn more?
 
Do thoughts in stories require quotations? I have been writing without them. I am a new writer and not all that great on grammar and punctuation. Any where I can learn more?

Most publishers in the U.S. market use the Chicago Manual of Style for guidance on questions like this for fiction (and most do for nonfiction too).

There's a new edition out that I don't have yet. But the previous edition (the 15th) specified either roman (regular) font and no quotes or roman font and double quotes (11.47). Its previous edition had also included italics and no quotes--and I always preferred that--but the 15th dropped the italics guidance.

I'm hoping the 16th has reinstated them.
 
You could try these sites which cover punctuation and grammar:
http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/?view=us
http://www.writing-world.com/fiction/dialogue.shtml

For UK English:
http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node00.html
http://www.correctpunctuation.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.grammaticallycorrect.co.uk/

Personally I put spoken words in double quotes and thoughts in single quotes, but many people don't like that.

The last version of CMS I saw seems to have set out deliberately to confuse readers by recommending no quotes!
 
The "Vic TG School of What Looks Best" has all monologue, dialogue, and multilogue in quotes whether spoken or internal contained in double-quotes such that italics can remain available for such things as whispering and stress.

For example, I came across a line in a story of mine that I always liked (doesn't happen terribly often) that would have been ruined if italics were monologue:
She had gotten wet watching her brother! which admittedly isn't the most original line nor the most interesting, but it was quite fascinating in context. Since the story is written in non-partial third-person, it's apparant that the author not the character is distributing this information. If the character, it would've red, "I had gotten wet...!" With the line in quotes, italics are still available to denote stress or whispering. If we're forced to use solely italics, then, I had gotten wet...! Which either has double-italics (stress used on italicized words that end up removing them altogether) or is still all italics which doesn't leave room for italic inflection.
 
If you are writing in the U.S. market, the only use for single quotes to quote material is for a quote within a quote that's already in double quote marks.

This contrasts with British style.
 
The "Vic TG School of What Looks Best" has all monologue, dialogue, and multilogue in quotes whether spoken or internal contained in double-quotes such that italics can remain available for such things as whispering and stress.

For example, I came across a line in a story of mine that I always liked (doesn't happen terribly often) that would have been ruined if italics were monologue:
She had gotten wet watching her brother! which admittedly isn't the most original line nor the most interesting, but it was quite fascinating in context. Since the story is written in non-partial third-person, it's apparant that the author not the character is distributing this information. If the character, it would've red, "I had gotten wet...!" With the line in quotes, italics are still available to denote stress or whispering. If we're forced to use solely italics, then, I had gotten wet...! Which either has double-italics (stress used on italicized words that end up removing them altogether) or is still all italics which doesn't leave room for italic inflection.

I'm parting ways with you on this, Copper. Your example's usage of italics and an exclamation point seems a bit heavy-handed to me.

I prefer using italics for both emphasis and internal monologue. I think it works because the two applications are distinguishable by context and because internal monologue comes in sentences or at least fragments. In contrast, italicized emphasis is applied to one word in a sentence, two at the most. That leaves only the problem of emphasizing some portion of internal monologue. And, really, why? It's emphatic enough already, you're jacking the reader directly into the character's head.
 
Transfering a quote over from a thread that was closed into this:

"I agree, in the states, publishers widely recognize the CMS, but it's hardly universal, even within that context.

P.S.
With Chicago in the title, I'm surprised anyone from New York uses it, lol."

The point is that there is an authority recognized and adhered to in the main for fiction style by nearly every U.S. publisher, and it is the Chicago Manual of Style. So, whether or not someone wants to follow that style in their writing for Literotica, standards do exist (the statement was that there probably are no standards on rendering thoughts in text) and they aren't based on what city someone is from (or inexperienced writers' personal quirks and failure to research standards) .
 
Last edited:
Transfering a quote over from a thread that was closed into this:

"I agree, in the states, publishers widely recognize the CMS, but it's hardly universal, even within that context.

P.S.
With Chicago in the title, I'm surprised anyone from New York uses it, lol."

The point is that there is an authority recognized and adhered to in the main for fiction style by nearly every U.S. publisher, and it is the Chicago Manual of Style. So, whether or not someone wants to follow that style in their writing for Literotica, standards do exist (the statement was that there probably are no standards on rendering thoughts in text) and they aren't based on what city someone is from (or amateur writers' personal quirks and failure to research standards) .

I don't see it. Why is it so difficult to understand the value of the CMS? If anyone wants to grow in their writing, then following publisher's guidelines would be a smart way to go.

But what do I know, eh?
 
I don't see it. Why is it so difficult to understand the value of the CMS? If anyone wants to grow in their writing, then following publisher's guidelines would be a smart way to go.

But what do I know, eh?

It's a blind leading the blind thing. And folks thinking they know when they don't and can't be bothered to learn--because it's so much easier to pretend.

It's one thing to choose not to learn and develop; it's quite another to set yourself up as some sort of guru in something you only know enough about to be dangerous to everyone around you.
 
It's a blind leading the blind thing. And folks thinking they know when they don't and can't be bothered to learn--because it's so much easier to pretend.

It's one thing to choose not to learn and develop; it's quite another to set yourself up as some sort of guru in something you only know enough about to be dangerous to everyone around you.

Yeah.

*sigh*
 
ML & SR -

CMS (or at least my edition - 13th I think) leaves room for either quotes or italics for internal dialogue. Which way do you two lean?

-PF
 
ML & SR -

CMS (or at least my edition - 13th I think) leaves room for either quotes or italics for internal dialogue. Which way do you two lean?

-PF

The 15th edition dropped the acceptance of the italics. The 16th edition came out in the last few weeks, but I won't get my copy until tomorrow (or later).

I still like the italics--and so do some of the publishers--and some of them are letting italics stand.

I think the most important thing to do is not to mix and match. To do whatever you do one way.
 
ML & SR -

CMS (or at least my edition - 13th I think) leaves room for either quotes or italics for internal dialogue. Which way do you two lean?

-PF

I guess you aren't asking about sexual orientation. :rolleyes:

Italics is my preference. But I don't have the new CMS.
 
Gotcha.

Embarrassingly enough, I checked my CMS and it turns out that it's a 15th edition. Guess it's been awhile since I've looked at 11.47! :eek:

I hope they bring italics back in the 16th. I can't bear to part with them. XD
 
Apropos of our topic, an excerpt from one of my current projects re: swingin' both ways. In this case, both girls 'cuz, you know, that's how I seem to roll these days.:rolleyes:

***

“All right I’ll bite, girlie. How exactly is someone a little bit gay?” I wait as she chugs her bottle until it’s empty and sets it down carefully on the porch.

“Okay this is going to sound weird, but I don’t think I see gender, not really, Hopper. I see people. If I like someone, I like them. When it comes right down to it, I guess I’m not really all that picky about the plumbing.” She shrugs and gives me a sidelong glance. “Well, okay, maybe I do have a mild preference for indoor.”

I stare at her, absorbing what she’s said as our porch swing continues to rock. In the odd silence the brass chains squeaks are deafening.

“What?” She says finally, picking up her pink-flowered throw pillow and blindly swinging it at my shoulder. “Screw you, the indoor thing was funny.”

“No. I mean, yeah. It’s just that, you kinda made a buttload of sense right there.”

She turns towards me finally, one of her slender eyebrows rising. “A… ‘buttload’?”

“Yep, a buttload. Look it up, city girl.” A nervous giggle slips out and I have to shake my head. This night, all of it, is just getting more absurd. Fuck it. “Okay, so am I your type?”

Chase turns to face me fully, looks, really looks, before her eyes slide down and away again. She tucks a wayward strand of her dark hair behind one ear. When she does speak, her voice is soft. “Hopper, I think the real question is whether or not I’m your type.”
 
The answer is that everyone is more than a bit bi. Some just catch on before others--and thus have the extra enjoyment of it.

Sort of like how I say every female has a slutty side, but don't let go of the "prim and proper" side to explore anything else.
 
Back
Top