How to write characters thinking

[cocput]

I have a doubt while writing thoughts of characters.
I have seen punctuation for words spoken by characters. But I haven't yet seen any howto on how to write words thought by characters.

Examples on writing it in stories written from 3rd person perspective as well as first person perspective will be highly appreciated.

Currently, I am putting them within single quotes, while my spoken words are within double quotes.

 

[sr71plt]

I have a doubt while writing thoughts of characters.
I have seen punctuation for words spoken by characters. But I haven't yet seen any howto on how to write words thought by characters.

Examples on writing it in stories written from 3rd person perspective as well as first person perspective will be highly appreciated.

Currently, I am putting them within single quotes, while my spoken words are within double quotes.

If you want to follow American system conventions, you should use either straight roman font (no quotes or italics) or regular double quotes, as in dialogue--in both cases you'd need to make it clear it's thought rather than speech in the sentence. (Chicago Manual of Style 16, 13.41)

"I don't care if we have offended Morgenstern," thought Vera. "Besides," she told herself, "they're all fools."

Why, we wondered, did we choose this route.

(both examples from the CMS)

An older style--and one I prefer, but American authorities no longer sanction, is putting the thoughts in italics.

Whichever you use, you should use the style consistently across your work.

Single quotes might be an option for British style. American style only uses that at the second level, inside a passage already in double quotes.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I put the thoughts in italics, with no quotation marks. It may not be correct, but it is consistent with every novel I've read in the last 40 years.

 

[sr71plt]

I put the thoughts in italics, with no quotation marks. It may not be correct, but it is consistent with every novel I've read in the last 40 years.

Not every novel you've read since 1982, I'll bet. (I just checked in three 2011 novels sitting on my desk, and they all use straight roman font for thoughts.) That's when the Chicago Manual of Style changed its style away from italics. And although various publishers depart from the CMS style on certain aspects (this being one that a lot depart on), not all do.

I don't know why, when given the easy button on style by the existence of most commonly followed industry practice, authors just gotta go their own way.

That said, go ahead and use italics, if you want. I've posted the three options and identified which are American standard. I like italics for thoughts too. I don't use them, though, because it isn't "all about me."

There's actually a good argument for NOT using italics for thoughts in Literotica copy. Italics have to be coded, and it's very easy to screw up the code and wind up with your whole story in italics from the point of the thought passage to the end of the story.

 

[PennLady]

I don't know why, when given the easy button on style by the existence of most commonly followed industry practice, authors just gotta go their own way.

I guess for one thing, putting italics in just isn't that difficult (although yes, you do have to watch the coding on site like this). Personally I like the visual cue that what I'm reading is something different from the regular text of the story. But if the trend is not to use italics, then I guess I'll eventually roll with it.

 

[lovecraft68]

I guess for one thing, putting italics in just isn't that difficult (although yes, you do have to watch the coding on site like this). Personally I like the visual cue that what I'm reading is something different from the regular text of the story. But if the trend is not to use italics, then I guess I'll eventually roll with it.

I agree I like the italics (yes they are a pain here as I realized when I used italics for the "voice" in my characters head, but elsewhere they're no work)

I think the visual helps the reader know that these are thoughts in case they are not paying close attention.

In a similar vein I get stuck on stating the character is thinking. For example.

"That skirt looks good on you." But it would look even better on the floor Allison thought

should I be saying "thought" or is that redundant in some way?

 

[HeyAll]

If it's a third person story, and the character is thinking, I also use both single quotations and italics. For instance:

<i>'Bitch,'</i> she muttered to herself, looking at the picture

Even if it was first person, I'd do the same, italics with single quotations.

But of course, that's just for added value. If you want to get across what the character is thinking, just write what the character is thinking.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I agree I like the italics (yes they are a pain here as I realized when I used italics for the "voice" in my characters head, but elsewhere they're no work)

I think the visual helps the reader know that these are thoughts in case they are not paying close attention.

In a similar vein I get stuck on stating the character is thinking. For example.

"That skirt looks good on you." But it would look even better on the floor Allison thought

should I be saying "thought" or is that redundant in some way?

If you are denoting the thought another way, then adding "thought" as a tag is redundant. I have to fight this tendency, myself.

Not every novel you've read since 1982, I'll bet. (I just checked in three 2011 novels sitting on my desk, and they all use straight roman font for thoughts.) That's when the Chicago Manual of Style changed its style away from italics. And although various publishers depart from the CMS style on certain aspects (this being one that a lot depart on), not all do.

I don't know why, when given the easy button on style by the existence of most commonly followed industry practice, authors just gotta go their own way.

That said, go ahead and use italics, if you want. I've posted the three options and identified which are American standard. I like italics for thoughts too. I don't use them, though, because it isn't "all about me."

There's actually a good argument for NOT using italics for thoughts in Literotica copy. Italics have to be coded, and it's very easy to screw up the code and wind up with your whole story in italics from the point of the thought passage to the end of the story.

I'll take your word for what the manual says, but I don't think it is being universally followed. The only 2011 publication I can put my hands on immediately is "A Dance With Dragons", by George R. R. Martin, published July, 2011, Bantam Books, NY. It uses italics to denote thoughts throughout the text. Until I start seeing it done another way in the books I read, I'm going to continue to do what I have always observed.

 

[lovecraft68]

If you are denoting the thought another way, then adding "thought" as a tag is redundant. I have to fight this tendency, myself.

Right. I do it a lot then when I am editing change it to something like "she added to herself" But for whatever reason when I'm writing "hot" and its flowing I do she thought all the time.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll take your word for what the manual says, but I don't think it is being universally followed. The only 2011 publication I can put my hands on immediately is "A Dance With Dragons", by George R. R. Martin, published July, 2011, Bantam Books, NY. It uses italics to denote thoughts throughout the text. Until I start seeing it done another way in the books I read, I'm going to continue to do what I have always observed.

Hmm. That's a bit short of "every novel" you've read in 40 years, isn't it?

I see no reason to fight over this. I said I liked italics in my post as well. I also said there were publishers opting out of CMS on that ruling. And I didn't hide either of those in responding to the OP. But when someone asks what the best practice is, why shouldn't they be given what the publishing authorities advise?

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Hmm. That's a bit short of "every novel" you've read in 40 years, isn't it?

I see no reason to fight over this. I said I liked italics in my post as well. I also said there were publishers opting out of CMS on that ruling. And I didn't hide either of those in responding to the OP. But when someone asks what the best practice is, why shouldn't they be given what the publishing authorities advise?

I'm not arguing the point, merely documenting my statement with the only evidence I have readily available. Looking at earlier books would be pointless, since they predated the change in policy.

 

[PennLady]

I put the thoughts in italics, with no quotation marks. It may not be correct, but it is consistent with every novel I've read in the last 40 years.

This is generally why I wrote things that way. I was thinking of all the books I've ever read, and that was what I always saw. Maybe I projected it after that change, because of course when I went back to look, everything was in the new style.

I know it's not a big deal but it just bugs me.

 

[Innuendos]

The rule I generally follow is: standard quotation marks for speech, no quotations for speech-based thought, and italics or some sort of special notation like (//) for image-based thoughts.

That's not a hard and fast rule on anything except the first, however, and I think that as long as you maintain a consistent voice and make it clear what you are doing, it's not generally a problem.

 

[sr71plt]

This is generally why I wrote things that way. I was thinking of all the books I've ever read, and that was what I always saw. Maybe I projected it after that change, because of course when I went back to look, everything was in the new style.

I know it's not a big deal but it just bugs me.

That's a problem with authors. They assume they know how they've read something, when that's not really so. Such things are set up not to be intrusive enough to remember on purpose. And then when they get their false assumptions set in concrete they move up to the league where they are actually getting published--and publishers start not wanting to work with them because they have such an "it's all about me" chip on their shoulder.

What set me off here was the knee-jerk statement of "every novel I've read for the past 40 years." That's a bunch of barf.

For years and years and years the publishing industry has been moving toward getting rid of anything but roman font. Bold was banned decades ago for anything but tech manuals, italics are discouraged--and resisted for large chunks of type--and the new CMS even got rid of small caps for time (a.m./p.m.). Readers think this is all static somewhere back to their early reading years, but it's not.

 

[sr71plt]

and italics or some sort of special notation like (//) for image-based thoughts.

That's not a hard and fast rule on anything except the first, however, and I think that as long as you maintain a consistent voice and make it clear what you are doing, it's not generally a problem.

That's not a rule (if you think it is, cite the authority). That's a personal quirk.

(What's an "image-based thought"?)

 

[Innuendos]

That's not a rule (if you think it is, cite the authority). That's a personal quirk.

(What's an "image-based thought"?)

??? Quotation marks and proper punctuation, standard rules of grammar, the kind of stuff you learn in English classes in general education. That's what -I'm- referring to anyway...?

Speech-based thoughst, those reflecting unspoken words:
Gosh, Frost reckoned, this road certainly does look a lot easier to travel than the other.

Image-based thoughts, those reflecting imagery:
Frost reflected upon the roads before him. A cobbled lane winds to the east, beyond the yellowed wood, its surface well-worn by the hooves and wheels. Like a bastard cousin, hidden to the side is a smaller road, twisted and turning, nearly covered in briar and thorn due to neglect.

What are the words.... composition versus visualization, I think.

 

[sr71plt]

Sorry, then. There are no separate "rules" I know of for rendering of spoken thoughts and image thoughts (not that I understand what you wrote as definitions). The Chicago Manual Style lumps these both together as "interior discourse." Again, what is your specific authority for such a "rule"? "What I think I learned in school at some level" isn't a citable authority for a "rule" of writing.

This is the basic problem here. Writers think there are rules they (and everyone else) have to follow because they sorta remember something about this sometime somewhere in some high school class--or maybe from Aunt Gerta who won a newspaper essay in 1932.

If you want to tell someone else what they should do when they ask about best practice, you really should cite some authority on what that best practice is. You can certainly have--and steam along on--a personal quirk in your own writing (until you run head on to someone in control who isn't going to publish on the basis of your personal quirks). But if someone asks what a best practice is and you answer, you really need something other than haze to back up your answer to be fair with them.

 

[Innuendos]

Sorry, then. There are no separate "rules" I know of for rendering of spoken thoughts and image thoughts (not that I understand what you wrote as definitions). Again, what is your specific authority for such a "rule"? "What I think I learned in school at some level" isn't a citable authority for a "rule" of writing.

This is the basic problem here. Writers think there are rules they (and everyone else) have to follow because they sorta remember something about this sometime somewhere in some high school class--or maybe from Aunt Gerta who won a newspaper essay in 1932.

If you want to tell someone else what they should do when they ask about best practice, you really should cite some authority on what that best practice is. You can certainly have--and steam along on--a personal quirk in your own writing (until you run head on to someone in control who isn't going to publish on the basis of your personal quirks). But if someone asks what a best practice is and you answer, you really need something other than haze to back up your answer to be fair with them.

Ahhh, you misunderstand me. I'm not citing my "rules" as any kind of authority, just a set of three unofficial rules I've set for myself, for the purpose I advised: to maintain a consistent voice and make it clear what I am trying to convey in my writing.

That's all I'm advising - set some standards for oneself, and follow them in a consistent and concise fashion.

AFAIK. There are no official, or as I put it - hard and fast - rules for portraying image-based or word-based thoughts. The rest (rendering speech) is a matter of proper grammar and punctuation, that can be referenced in a Writer's Handbook, APA guide, or other fine resources rather than "hazy memory" or Aunt Gerta.

I will note that even that is subject to change, and one could come up with their own conventions. That has its own special set of problems.

I don't claim my advice to be the "best" practice and wouldn't have tried had that been what the OP asked for. There are writers who do an exponentially superior job of writing that use nothing like what I've offered, and I am only contributing advice based on my own experience.

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, a misuse of the world "rule" then, I think. OK.

 

[Innuendos]

Ah, a misuse of the world "rule" then, I think. OK.

Nah, I'm just flexible with the use of the English language and don't feel the need to restrict myself by looking for the "perfect" word to describe an idea. The word rule can be used a great number of contexts.

To clarify, going by the MW definition of rule, that being: a generally prevailing mode (of my writing).

If I ever decide to refine my writing skills, I'll probably need to resharpen my vocabulary, but given that this is a forum rather than a place to display my work, I'm operating on a lower set of expectations for myself.

 

[sr71plt]

Nah, I'm just flexible with the use of the English language and don't feel the need to restrict myself by looking for the "perfect" word to describe an idea. The word rule can be used a great number of contexts.

To clarify, going by the MW definition of rule, that being: a generally prevailing mode (of my writing).

If I ever decide to refine my writing skills, I'll probably need to resharpen my vocabulary, but given that this is a forum rather than a place to display my work, I'm operating on a lower set of expectations for myself.

The problem with writing is that the words you use need to be understood by the reader in a way they'll understand. A "rule" is pretty much something that has more authority behind it than something Aunt Gerta might once have said.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

That's a problem with authors. They assume they know how they've read something, when that's not really so. Such things are set up not to be intrusive enough to remember on purpose. And then when they get their false assumptions set in concrete they move up to the league where they are actually getting published--and publishers start not wanting to work with them because they have such an "it's all about me" chip on their shoulder.

What set me off here was the knee-jerk statement of "every novel I've read for the past 40 years." That's a bunch of barf.

For years and years and years the publishing industry has been moving toward getting rid of anything but roman font. Bold was banned decades ago for anything but tech manuals, italics are discouraged--and resisted for large chunks of type--and the new CMS even got rid of small caps for time (a.m./p.m.). Readers think this is all static somewhere back to their early reading years, but it's not.

The funny thing about that is, I just pulled ten random novels off my shelf, all written by best-selling authors, and all published between 1987 and 2009. Nine used italics for internal discourse; only one did not. But please don't let evidence get in the way of your rant.

Additionally, I was surprised to find that four of the ten used tags in addition to italics, e.g., I'm probably the only editor in the country who still works with hard copy, she thought to herself. "Dance of Death", Douglas Preston and Lincoln Childs, Warner Books, New York, 2005.

 

[Innuendos]

The problem with writing is that the words you use need to be understood by the reader in a way they'll understand. A "rule" is pretty much something that has more authority behind it than something Aunt Gerta might once have said.

My rule, for my writing. Not given to me by Aunt Gerta or any other fictional human being, but established by me, for myself. Not for the OP, nor intended to be. Since it's for ME, I am the only one with the authority to set any rules for my own writing style.

Moreover, that "rule" wasn't the point of the advice I gave, but an example of my own style.

 

[sr71plt]

The funny thing about that is, I just pulled ten random novels off my shelf, all written by best-selling authors, and all published between 1987 and 2009. Nine used italics for internal discourse; only one did not. But please don't let evidence get in the way of your rant.

Additionally, I was surprised to find that four of the ten used tags in addition to italics, e.g., I'm probably the only editor in the country who still works with hard copy, she thought to herself. "Dance of Death", Douglas Preston and Lincoln Childs, Warner Books, New York, 2005.

Yep, some publishers are still using the italics. (I said that in my original posting). I believe (stating it for the third time) that in my original posting I covered all of the bases on what the authority says, that not all follow the authority, and that I liked italics myself (but don't use them anymore because I try to follow the authorities). And then you zipped in and tried to tear all of that groundwork down with a false knee-jerk statement.

So, what you proved was that your statement that no novel you read in the past 40 years used anything but italics was a false knee-jerk statement?

Keep looking.

 

[cocput]

Clarification

I think I better clarify the part of my question:
a) Is there a convention at all?
And I got 4 options. One of them (using italics) is not readily possible in the site.
b) How do authors/editors prefer looking at this in literotica?

Just to clarify:
I wont use italics, even if it turns out to the first commandment, as long as I cannot do it myself. I, as an author, would like to be in charge of all the formatting. AFAIK, the site doesn't allow authors to upload with italics tags in text, and I am not uploading anything in doc or rtf. (Let's just say I had some very bad formatting experience.)

I have also read many books in which they use italics.

I will take a specific example to demonstrate my problem.

Consider a scene that involves Bob having a chat with Alice. Bob finds Alice attractive and is juggling between spoken words and thoughts(whether visual or imagery, its just thought).

The actual spoken conversation is:
Alice: "Bob, do you want me to make some cookies for you?"
Bob: "No, Ms Alice. I just had food in my home."
And Bob's thought : Oh God! She has such nice jugs.
Bob is thinking and speaking at the same time.

I used tags and single quote:
Alice turned towards Bob and asked, "Bob, do you want me to make some cookies for you?"
"No, Ms. Alice," he tried to say while he was thinking, 'Oh God! She has such nice jugs.' "I just had food in my home."

I used tags and double quote:
Alice turned towards Bob and asked, "Bob, do you want me to make some cookies for you?"
"No, Ms. Alice," he tried to say while he was thinking, "Oh God! She has such nice jugs." "I just had food in my home."

I used tags and without quotes:
Alice turned towards Bob and asked, "Bob, do you want me to make some cookies for you?"
"No, Ms. Alice," he tried to say while he was thinking, Oh God! She has such nice jugs. "I just had food in my home."

If I do not use tag, then the differentiation between thought and spoken word is virtually impossible.

All three look equally pathetic to me, because if I do fast-read, I am not able to demarcate thoughts and spoken words. I cannot obviously split this into paragraphs, obviously because the theme expressed is not complete.

Thank god, I used "I just had food in my home" as the second part of conversation. If the question was about a drink, and Bob tried to say "Yes, can you give me some?" it will give readers the wrong idea.

When written in first person perspective:
FP: I used without tags and without quotes:
Alice turned towards me and asked, "Bob, do you want me to make some cookies for you?"
"No, Ms. Alice." Oh God! She has such nice jugs. "I just had food in my home."

FP: I used tags and without quotes:
Alice turned towards me and asked, "Bob, do you want me to make some cookies for you?"
"No, Ms. Alice," I tried to say while I was thinking, Oh God! She has such nice jugs. "I just had food in my home."

If I use quotes it gets more confusing to me.

The example is typical of the type of conversations hitting my head when I trying to write something.

The specific type of conversation in my current story, I wrote as an afterthought. I am not happy with the result, because it is not how I visualized it.