A Thought Excercise

[slyc_willie]

Presumably "standing out" is a distraction from the flow of following the content--so, disadvantageous for reader and author alike.

See, this is where I have to call bullshit. Not to you, but to the supposed prevailing theory as to how writers should write. I can see where an excessive use of bold and italics could detract from a story, especially if that use wasn't consistent. Using italics to denote thought, but also to accentuate a certain word in narrative, then to color a passage of something that occurred in the past . . . I can see that as being distracting. And, personally, if I see a use of bold font in a story to accentuate a loud voice or something in the midst of otherwise traditional dialogue, I would probably think the writer is either an amateur or is being condescending.

At the same time, artful use of bold, italics, or different fonts can enhance a story. I think the key is consistency. If I write a story that includes a robot speaking in a mechanical voice, switching the font to, say, Impact, or bolding it in all caps, that would indicate to the reader a very different "voice." A written story is certainly subject to any individual reader's interpretation, but it's still a visual medium, and the use of italics, bold, and different fonts could enhance the reader's perception and understanding of what the writer is trying to get across.

 

[SecondCircle]

It would seem to me, with things like bold or italics and stuff, moderation and consistency is the key.

The idea of italics being a distraction kind of puzzles the shit out of me. Just because most times when I see them used it highlighted thought and was immediately evident that I had dipped directly into that characters mind. Not distracting at all. I know at a glance that line was a sort of internal dialogue. Sure it can be done without italics in several other ways, but I've never read it and just completely stumbled up in the story like, "Bwa? What is a goins on right dere?" It's quite the contrary.

But like anything, I guess people could misuse or overuse italics in a way that it would seem better without them. I could offer too that I don't really want to constantly see italic unless it served a specific purpose to have a lot.

I don't remember the book series, it was fantasy, but I know the bulk of what I read was told in 3rd person... omni I believe? But there were sections split like chapters where the main character had a little monologue, told in first person. Maybe a page or so. That monologue was in italics. Again I don't remember being confused or distracted in anyway. It sort of "felt" like it was coming straight out of his head. It felt like his thoughts, because it was so different from all the other text. Right when you turned the page and saw that monologue you knew what was happening. He was speaking directly to you in his own thoughts, almost like a diary type thing, and it was highlighted that way with italics.

So while I personally can write "around" italics, I recognize them when others use them, and they don't usually baffle me. They accentuate in a way that's pretty clear. At least, that's my take. The Chicago Manual will do as they see fit. But if anything, I think it's confusing to consider italics confusing.

 

[walkerlong]

I don't believe you need to use any such method to denote thoughts. If it's well written and you're consistent in the perspective, it's clear that any non-objective statement comes from your protagonist. Consider the following.

He looked at the woman. "She was going to be trouble," he thought.

He looked at the woman. She was going to be trouble.

He looked at the woman. She was going to be trouble.

To me, the italics don't add anything and are just going to get in the way. It's clear that the observation is his opinion, and not some narrator's opinion. This approach is best used as a 'limited, subjective third-person narrator', subjective (as opposed to objective) in that it goes into a character's thoughts and opinions, but limited (as opposed to omniscient) in that it's limited to what one character thinks and knows. If a detective story isn't first-person, then it's usually this style (although multiple-viewpoint is also used in some cases).

Try this link, and pay particular attention to what it says about viewpoint character:
http://www.novel-writing-help.com/third-person-narrative.html

I agree. If you have a consistent POV character, it's easy to recognize that character's thoughts without additional formatting, punctuation, or tag phrases.

 

[litmlove]

It would seem to me, with things like bold or italics and stuff, moderation and consistency is the key.

The idea of italics being a distraction kind of puzzles the shit out of me.

I suppose some people don't mind italics, but they can be confusing because:

- you might have more than 2 types of highlighting - different colour text, different size text, underline, bold, italics, etc. The reader gets confused about the significance of why section text of different to the normal text. Like all type of highlighting, italics should be kept to a bare minimum or it will distract from the normal flow of reading.

- Italics means different things to different people: it could be a thought, a whisper (and the other person can't hear it), talking by whisper, or something else. I know I don't think of italic text as being thoughts.

- Italics is basically an unconventional typeface with bad text clarity (smeared characters) It makes a normal reading flow difficult - Some people don't mind italics, so try reading a whole page of text in the Comic-Sans typeface and then compare reading with a no-nonsense typeface (Ariel or New Times Roman).

 

[SecondCircle]

I suppose some people don't mind italics, but they can be confusing because:

- you might have more than 2 types of highlighting - different colour text, different size text, underline, bold, italics, etc. The reader gets confused about the significance of why section text of different to the normal text. Like all type of highlighting, italics should be kept to a bare minimum or it will distract from the normal flow of reading.

- Italics means different things to different people: it could be a thought, a whisper (and the other person can't hear it), talking by whisper, or something else. I know I don't think of italic text as being thoughts.

- Italics is basically an unconventional typeface with bad text clarity (smeared characters) It makes a normal reading flow difficult - Some people don't mind italics, so try reading a whole page of text in the Comic-Sans typeface and then compare reading with a no-nonsense typeface (Ariel or New Times Roman).

Aye, but that's where moderation and consistency come into play. Bold, italics, underline, colored text etc, all mashed into the same work would of course look pretty scatter brained. And multiple uses of italics (whispers, thoughts, telepathy speech) say, all used in the same chapter overlapping one another could get confusing.

Moderate. Use these tools sparingly and only where it could help or give clarity. Be consistent in how you use them. As in, avoid giving the reader italic thought a lot, then giving them italic whispers, italic word emphasis, and so on. If you use it the same or similar way most times it's pretty clear.

Not saying it can't be confusing, I just haven't read a lot of stuff where it was overdone and inconsistent. It certainly can. As far as making reading flow difficult, as I said I personally have never experienced that, but I can see where some don't like it.

Italics can be avoided altogether which is usually what I do here at lit, just because when I copy and paste I always miss something in the final edit, and italicizing a line is one thing I usually miss. So, as I'm writing something for lit, I'll hit one of those places where I say, "I could put this line in italics to convey this or that." Then I stop and think, "Well, you could just write it this way and convey the same thing and skip italics". That's usually what happens with me. So I "write around" italics here. So it certainly can be done without, but it's just that when I'm reading them, it's not jarring to me (quite the opposite).

When used tastefully, anything can work.

 

[Hypoxia]

- Italics is basically an unconventional typeface with bad text clarity (smeared characters) It makes a normal reading flow difficult - Some people don't mind italics, so try reading a whole page of text in the Comic-Sans typeface and then compare reading with a no-nonsense typeface (Ariel or New Times Roman).

Ironic, then, that italics began as a CLEAR font, much easier to read than previous character sets. The history of lettering and typography is fascinating.

Another issue: the much-derided Comic Sans is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for dyslexics, because the characters are almost impossible to be mentally flipped or reversed.

(I have read that dylsexia is rare in China, Korea and Japan because ideograms are also not susceptible to mental reorientation. I don't know if Arabic script has issues.)

My point being that a "no-nonsense typeface (Ariel or New Times Roman)" is not right for everyone. I use Verdana and Console more than those.

 

[Weird Harold]

My point being that a "no-nonsense typeface (Ariel or New Times Roman)" is not right for everyone. I use Verdana and Console more than those.

More to the point of this thread, Lit gives you a choice of Verdana or Verdana. You can use Italic Verdana, Bold Verdana, or underline Verdana, but unless you can convince Laurel to let you use small sections of some other font, your story will get posted in 12pt Verdana.

 

[FantasyXY]

A pet peeve: Unless your character is is a projective telepath, "thinks to himself" is redundant; he can't possibly think to anyone but himself.

Harold,

I used to have that same odd thought about the term "thinks to himself". As you pointed out, how could you think to someone else?

Then I was discussing a similar topic with a friend that has a Psych degree and I realized that one doesn't "think" to himself, but rather speaks to himself with actually speaking.

A human can perceive things in several ways, but the brain isn't necessarily "thinking" when this happens. When you "think" of something your brain always verbalizes it, even if you don't actually speak. Try it. Try thinking about something without running it through the verbalization center in your brain. It just doesn't work. So "thinks to himself" really means "verbalizes to himself", but that just sounds really weird.

Only after many repetitions does the thought become a perception and skip vocalization; like when a baseball player finally starts to recognize different pitches and just reacts to them without having to identify them in his speech center first.
---

So in my story the main character does a lot of "verbalizing to himself" and that verbalization is influenced by an outside force. To follow your example it might look more like this simple text.

***
Archie was at the swimming hole just like Veronica had told him to be. Assuming they would be going for a naked dip, Archie was already naked and ready. He was especially excited about seeing Veronica naked for the first time. Through the trees he saw Veronica approaching, but she wasn't alone.

Holy fuck, she has Reggie with her. She never intended to let me see her naked. Damn, I can't get to my clothes without them seeing me. Shit, I better hide. But where? In the lake. Yeah, in the lake. She'll think I decided to go for a swim and I can pretend I have a swimsuit on.

Archie dives in and can't believe how cold the water is. But why wouldn't it be? It's only March. Winter is barely over. bla bla bla...
***

My guess is these three or four line thought processes would be as big as they get in my story. Not sure if these are long enough to be considered long, but they are longer than any of the examples I've seen. Of course in a comic book it's easy. All thought just goes into a thought bubble.

Anyone think three or four lines of italicized thought text are too many?

 

[sr71plt]

At the same time, artful use of bold, italics, or different fonts can enhance a story.

To fuel your fire, creative writing instructors and publishers also want to outlaw the exclamation point and give the argument that a good writer will be able to show that in the writing. I think sometimes they have to stand on their head to try to show it when a exclamation point every thousand words or so may be the clearest, most succinct way to convey the intent.

And then there are adverbs . . .

 

[slyc_willie]

To fuel your fire, creative writing instructors and publishers also want to outlaw the exclamation point and give the argument that a good writer will be able to show that in the writing. I think sometimes they have to stand on their head to try to show it when a exclamation point every thousand words or so may be the clearest, most succinct way to convey the intent.

And then there are adverbs . . .

How ironic. Don't get creative with your creative writing. Makes sense to me.

 

[sr71plt]

How ironic. Don't get creative with your creative writing. Makes sense to me.

The problem with being creative with the formatting, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, is that you need to stay in synch with the readers (which is hard enough to do using all the conventions) or you might as well not have put it under the readers' noses to start with. On the whole, publishers do know the tolerance of their audiences. Audiences of publishers vote with their dollar bills.

 

[slyc_willie]

The problem with being creative with the formatting, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling, is that you need to stay in synch with the readers (which is hard enough to do using all the conventions) or you might as well not have put it under the readers' noses to start with. On the whole, publishers do know the tolerance of their audiences. Audiences of publishers vote with their dollar bills.

I'm not discounting that, but I hate when an already snobbish attitude towards writing becomes more so. Sure, if I want to load up my stories with an abundance of italics, bold, underlines and all sorts of crazy fonts, it's probably going to hurt my sales. But let me dig my own grave, damn it.

Of course, I'm not going to do that, because I wouldn't like the way it looks. But if I'm told that a publisher or distributor doesn't want to carry my work because I have a total of nine exclamation points in a 60,000-word short story . . . that wouldn't make a damn bit of sense to me.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not discounting that, but I hate when an already snobbish attitude towards writing becomes more so. Sure, if I want to load up my stories with an abundance of italics, bold, underlines and all sorts of crazy fonts, it's probably going to hurt my sales. But let me dig my own grave, damn it.

This is where there's a parting between what is truly "yours" and what isn't--and it's also where an author's misplaced "it's all about me" sometimes jumps in there (and eventually gets them spit out of the process unless they can steam through to the position of a Tom Clancy).

When a publisher is investing effort and resources in an author's work it's no longer just the author's work--the risks and rewards are taken by more than the author and expertise and packaging being added to what the author wrote rivals and sometimes exceeds the value of the author's work. There are a whole lot more authors with manuscripts to peddle then there are marketing slots for profitable publishing projects.

It's more about the author on a Web site like Literotica and when self-publishing through Amazon or Smashwords, but even here the work is not totally the author's. Even here it isn't "all about the author." Stories are Literotica's base product. They have to have and do have certain standards in order to have readers continue to come here and provide the user numbers to support the advertizers who keep the site in business. It's no different for Amazon or Smashwords.

So, I just shake my head at the it's "all about me" author attitude, which I see as naïve and self-defeating for anyone who wants to increase their reader audience and be attractive to those providing them with a venue in which to offer their work.

To any author who insists it's all about him/her, I'd suggest producing whatever they want--and then putting it in the middle drawer of her/his desk.

 

[callmeismael]

How ironic. Don't get creative with your creative writing. Makes sense to me.

My take is that the rules exist to be broken, but broken consciously. Experimenting with breaking rules is an important part of the writing process, and in learning to be a writer. But at the same time, it's important to understand what those rules are and why they exist. Breaking every rule at the same time just comes across as sloppy, but a well written piece with a few very well-thought out rule-breaks can be very effective. The passive voice has it's place. As do sentence fragments. Each broken rule is an opportunity to affect the reader in an unexpected way, but you need to let your reader trust you, and you can't make that connection with a constant barrage of broken rules.

 

[slyc_willie]

I understand their point of view, and I also understand when someone invests time and resources to help an author sell their work, it's not just about the author anymore. If I end up striking a deal with a major publisher at some point, I know I'll have to play by their rules. I'm cool with that. In the end, I'll still have my work published, even if it doesn't look exactly the way I originally envisioned.

But I shake my head at the claims of publishers that certain kinds of formatted styling supposedly "doesn't work." Makes me think it's the publishers trying to dictate what the people want, instead of the people themselves, for the sake of . . . what? Unity? Conformity? Some notion of literary superiority?

Wow, what a conversation this turned into . . .

 

[FantasyXY]

I understand their point of view, and I also understand when someone invests time and resources to help an author sell their work, it's not just about the author anymore. If I end up striking a deal with a major publisher at some point, I know I'll have to play by their rules. I'm cool with that. In the end, I'll still have my work published, even if it doesn't look exactly the way I originally envisioned.

But I shake my head at the claims of publishers that certain kinds of formatted styling supposedly "doesn't work." Makes me think it's the publishers trying to dictate what the people want, instead of the people themselves, for the sake of . . . what? Unity? Conformity? Some notion of literary superiority?

Wow, what a conversation this turned into . . .

Publishers that are dictating what they think people want should be very careful. The record industry did that for decades and look where they are now. Last time I took a tour in Nashville the tour guide spent the whole time telling us where this or that record company used to be. Now they are almost all gone.

 

[Goldenfire]

The classic narrative device is the stream of consciousness if you want to tell a story from within the mind of a protagonist. Use the first few sentences to establish that the story is mainly from the thoughts and mind of the character. i.e.

"I hate trains, I hate the people, the smell. Noisy, horrible"
Another stop, another transfer of strangers.

 

[sr71plt]

Publishers that are dictating what they think people want should be very careful. The record industry did that for decades and look where they are now. Last time I took a tour in Nashville the tour guide spent the whole time telling us where this or that record company used to be. Now they are almost all gone.

Publishers don't dictate what they think people want. If they stay in business, they have researched what niches they can sell to (ergo they find out what people want)--and how to sell to them (a lot better than an individual author can). They publish what they can sell and turn a profit to cover their costs plus some or they don't stay in business. And what they are "dictating" is based on what they can profitably market.

Incidentally, book publishers were around several centuries before there was a record industry.

Book publishers only didn't do much in the field of erotica because it was the Internet and the e-book revolution, making browsing and buying more comfortable for readers, that created that market in any profitable way. The same is true of probably hundreds of other specialty genres.