Punctuation question.

[myrionomos]

Is the use of single quotation marks appropriate in the following sentence?

"I still can't believe it," Mary confided with a giggle, "when I looked at your photographs this morning, I thought, 'there's no way you'll catch me doing anything as daring as that,' but I did, and I didn't feel the slightest bit uncomfortable with it."

The main concern is whether single quotation marks for the thought are appropriate. CMS at 11-47 page 457 seems to give a degree of discretion, but what would you do?

Any additional comments are welcome

PS We bought a mint condition bright orange 15th edition CMS at a charity book sale last weekend. Price $1.50! But so far we are novices getting around its 956 pages.

 

[Katiesub]

Yes, a thought can be a direct quotation as well.

If you had said "... I thought that there's no way ... " you'd have had to leave out the internal quotes because it's an indirect quotation.

Thoughts are simply speech unspoken, but still quotable.

 

[FastFinger4Her]

I Don't Prefer It

The Chicago Manual of Style, which I consider one of the top style manuals, states that quotation marks with internal speech (thoughts) are a matter of preference. But reading between the liness, I can tell they don't prefer them.

Neither do I. They create clutter. Simply uss a capital letter and a comma when relevant thought, and that will suffice.

Example:

"Your cock makes me drool," she said. She was thinking, though, Why wouldn't it? It looks just like one of those little Vienna sausages that come in a tiny fucking can.

 

[FastFinger4Her]

Oh, well, it's early

I really fucked up one of my sentences when I posted. But I trust you understood what I meant anyway.

 

[Tim46]

Quotation rules

The answer is Yes.
when a quote is being attributed within an existing quote, the use of single quotation marks makes it easy to identify the one from the other. Otherwise, the writer would be faced with a confusing array of ", and sometimes it may be difficult for the reader and the writer to determine which speech or quotation was ending.

How about this: Michael said "Tom was telling me that his father told him 'don't go clubbing, especially to those clubs where they tell you " drink as much as you like for free!"'"

 

[JackandJilldo]

Single quotes are reserved for use inside an existing quote.

A thought is simply doubly quoted and italicized.

An example of multiple quotes would be as follows:
"So," John said to Mary, "she's all like, 'so what's your problem, Asshole?' and I was like, 'Get bent, Bitch!'"

 

[JackandJilldo]

Is the use of single quotation marks appropriate in the following sentence?

"I still can't believe it," Mary confided with a giggle, "when I looked at your photographs this morning, I thought, 'there's no way you'll catch me doing anything as daring as that,' but I did, and I didn't feel the slightest bit uncomfortable with it."

The main concern is whether single quotation marks for the thought are appropriate. CMS at 11-47 page 457 seems to give a degree of discretion, but what would you do?

Any additional comments are welcome

PS We bought a mint condition bright orange 15th edition CMS at a charity book sale last weekend. Price $1.50! But so far we are novices getting around its 956 pages.

Your use of the quotes is correct, just italicize the thought portion.

 

[sr71plt]

Your use of the quotes is correct, just italicize the thought portion.

If Myrionomos is following the Chicago Manual of Style, which he/she claims she/he is, then he/she will be thinking twice before italicizing the thought portion. That's not at all the preferred style according to that manual that you seem to think it is. CMS prefers straight roman or double quotes for thought--it dropped including italics as an option two editions back. (See 13.41 in the current, 16th CMS).

I've always preferred italics myself, but I don't advise it as either "the" or "a" choice in the U.S. Market authority, because it isn't a choice in CMS.

 

[PennLady]

Why did that change in the CSM? I'm curious.

Because I have to say, I hate it. I always italicized my characters' thoughts when expressed in the present tense and did that for my first four e-books, and then in the fifth my editor wanted to change. To me, the italics was an easy visual cue and I could then have the vision in my head of the character thinking. But I'm trying to adapt.

Before I would write: This is going nowhere, she thought.
Now I write: This was going nowhere, she thought.

 

[sr71plt]

Why did that change in the CSM? I'm curious.

I think they were being dopey. They even are dopey about how you track the guidance down on it. I always go to "thought" and then "internal discourse" or "dialogue" in the index and can't trace it to 13.41 (in the newest version). It's labled as "unspoken discourse" in the text, but nothing's indexed for either "unspoken" or "discourse" either. It's as if they are embarrassed about the guidance but yet can't just change it back. (Maybe the ruling editor is still there.)

I've had to pencil in the citation in the margin of the index in my manuals.

I think it best just to ignore it and go ahead and use italics if you want to--although I'm trying to wean myself away from it in my own writing--especially for Lit. But italics shouldn't really be cited as the rule for the U.S. market when it isn't even given as an option, much less the rule.

 

[JackandJilldo]

When I started writing about 40 years ago, all thoughts and non-English quotes were italicized. This was done to deliberatley separate out-of-the-ordinary speech.

Call me archaic, but this was done for a reason. I still write my books in this format, and no one has yet to complain. I even go one step further, and illustrate my novels.

We, as writers, hold formats in our hands; not some pencil-neck who happens to harbor personal tastes that would otherwise be out of the norm. If some editogeek decides that decades-old rules are to suddenly change, do we need to respect that? Hell no!

Let them know that we know what we are doing. It's our job. They need to understand that there is no such thing as a donut, or that we travel thru the nite.

Over the past 20 years or so, the few have been dictating the rules for the many, but at least in literature, we can still tell them to fuck off.

 

[sr71plt]

Yeah, but it's not the rule that you claim. You haven't kept up. My guess is that you aren't really an editor.

Editing is not a creative profession. It's not your baby you're working with.

 

[JackandJilldo]

Yeah, but it's not the rule that you claim. You haven't kept up. My guess is that you aren't really an editor.

Editing is not a creative profession. It's not your baby you're working with.

It's always my baby.

That's why I'm so goddamned stubborn. All you have to do is refuse to allow some snotnose to change your style. Yeah, in some non-fiction stuff, I had an editor question my style a time or two, and once I explained it, I always got my way.

Aside from that, I have also edited others' works. You don't have to change to remain successful. You don't have to be PC all the time. Believe it or not, there are still publications out there that don't completely revamp their style just to keep up with the Jones'. They rely on content; not context.

It's obvious that you are a professional in the day to day progressions of copywriting. To that note, I respect your qualifications 100%. By the same token, however, I ask that you not lessen my experience for refusing to accept "bling" and "s'up" as legitimate additions to the English language.

 

[sr71plt]

It's always my baby.

That's why I'm so goddamned stubborn. All you have to do is refuse to allow some snotnose to change your style. Yeah, in some non-fiction stuff, I had an editor question my style a time or two, and once I explained it, I always got my way.

Aside from that, I have also edited others' works. You don't have to change to remain successful. You don't have to be PC all the time. Believe it or not, there are still publications out there that don't completely revamp their style just to keep up with the Jones'. They rely on content; not context.

It's obvious that you are a professional in the day to day progressions of copywriting. To that note, I respect your qualifications 100%. By the same token, however, I ask that you not lessen my experience for refusing to accept "bling" and "s'up" as legitimate additions to the English language.

I didn't tell you to stop blinging yourself, of course. You're the one who told someone else to do something that is only your preference, not industry standard.

This was about you imposing your quirk on someone else.

 

[PennLady]

I think they were being dopey. They even are dopey about how you track the guidance down on it. I always go to "thought" and then "internal discourse" or "dialogue" in the index and can't trace it to 13.41 (in the newest version). It's labled as "unspoken discourse" in the text, but nothing's indexed for either "unspoken" or "discourse" either. It's as if they are embarrassed about the guidance but yet can't just change it back. (Maybe the ruling editor is still there.)

I've had to pencil in the citation in the margin of the index in my manuals.

I think it best just to ignore it and go ahead and use italics if you want to--although I'm trying to wean myself away from it in my own writing--especially for Lit. But italics shouldn't really be cited as the rule for the U.S. market when it isn't even given as an option, much less the rule.

Dopey? That's an explanation I like.

I've tried to compromise and use the italics only when I feel it's important that the thought be in present tense. I'm sure few if any on Lit really care.

 

[sr71plt]

Dopey? That's an explanation I like.

I've tried to compromise and use the italics only when I feel it's important that the thought be in present tense. I'm sure few if any on Lit really care.

The problem there, is that once you've signaled to the reader how you are using them, you should be consistent across the work.

I wouldn't suggest that anyone not use them for a Lit. submission as long as they were consistently used.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

if your reader gets it, and you're consistent ... who gives a rat's arse?

 

[PennLady]

It's always my baby.

That's why I'm so goddamned stubborn. All you have to do is refuse to allow some snotnose to change your style. Yeah, in some non-fiction stuff, I had an editor question my style a time or two, and once I explained it, I always got my way.

Aside from that, I have also edited others' works. You don't have to change to remain successful. You don't have to be PC all the time. Believe it or not, there are still publications out there that don't completely revamp their style just to keep up with the Jones'. They rely on content; not context.

It's obvious that you are a professional in the day to day progressions of copywriting. To that note, I respect your qualifications 100%. By the same token, however, I ask that you not lessen my experience for refusing to accept "bling" and "s'up" as legitimate additions to the English language.

It may be your baby, but you need to be open to the fact that you, well, may be wrong. I am not professional, but have edited and been edited. Sometimes, the editor's suggestion is better.

I've encountered this defensive attitude about editors before. If you think your stuff is so good as to not need editing, or if you're going to reject the suggestions, why send it to an editor?

 

[sr71plt]

if your reader gets it, and you're consistent ... who gives a rat's arse?

At Lit.? No one. In a publishing house, you have a style that represents your whole collection and becomes what the readers of your books expect to be there--so that they don't intrude in the read of the content.

Of course the short/reality answer is that the publishing houses do it because it's their risk and money backing up your book (and, frankly, they don't want to diddle with minutia. They want a ruling and then stick to it) and it's what they do and if you don't like it you can self-publishing--which essentially is what you are doing at Literotica.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

At Lit.? No one. In a publishing house, you have a style that represents your whole collection and becomes what the readers of your books expect to be there--so that they don't intrude in the read of the content.

Of course the short/reality answer is that the publishing houses do it because it's their risk and money backing up your book (and, frankly, they don't want to diddle with minutia. They want a ruling and then stick to it) and it's what they do and if you don't like it you can self-publishing--which essentially is what you are doing at Literotica.

so, like i said ...

 

[sr71plt]

I've encountered this defensive attitude about editors before. If you think your stuff is so good as to not need editing, or if you're going to reject the suggestions, why send it to an editor?

Beyond this, it's been my experience that folks who take this sort of attitude into editing someone else's work become pushy and intrusive about introducing their quirks and hard-edged, nonconventional opinions in work that isn't theirs and end up doing exactly what they claim they don't like an editor doing.

 

[sr71plt]

so, like i said ...

Ah, yes, but this part of the thread isn't about this. This part of the thread is about declaring a "rule" for someone else to implement in their own work that isn't a rule.

So, I don't see that you have a point in what was being discussed, especially as no one has disagreed with the point you introduced.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

Ah, yes, but this part of the thread isn't about this. This part of the thread is about declaring a "rule" for someone else to implement in their own work that isn't a rule.

So, I don't see that you have a point in what was being discussed, especially as no one has disagreed with the point you introduced.

hang on.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[sr71plt]

hang on.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Probably should have taken your nap rather than jumping in on this one to begin with. Or perhaps you already were dozing.

 

[PennLady]

Beyond this, it's been my experience that folks who take this sort of attitude into editing someone else's work become pushy and intrusive about introducing their quirks and hard-edged, nonconventional opinions in work that isn't theirs and end up doing exactly what they claim they don't like an editor doing.

I wouldn't be surprised. Thankfully, this has not been my experience, as my e-book editor is not also a writer, and the same for my beta reader.

I have encountered other writers who have told me (I haven't edited them) that they are so possessive of their words and works and so they fight tooth and nail and make a (self-admitted) nuisance of themselves about any suggested edits. I just see that as a waste of everyone's time.

As for the quotes and internal dialogue question that was raised -- I'll change if my editor wants it that way. If I want them to publish me, and that's the rule, well, that's the rule and although it grates on me, it's not that big a deal.