Thinking

[snooper]

Am I alone in reacting to:

'That's interesting,' he thought to himself.

by asking to whom else he might think? (Except in telepathic Sci-Fi ,of course.)

Naturally:

'What's that?' he asked himself.

is reasonable, but not the first example.

 

[Weird Harold]

Am I alone in reacting to:

'That's interesting,' he thought to himself.

No, you're not alone. That's one of my pet peeves in the Redundancies class of pet peeeves.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't know. I might go devil's advocate on this one. To think and to think to oneself might denote the same thing, but the connotations are different.

"Shut up," I thought. and "Shut up," I thought to myself. don't have the same nuance, and least not to me (I think to myself).

---dr.M.

 

[HawaiiBill]

Yes and yes . . .

In that cosmos inside our brains, in my view, you can think to someone else. I do not mean there is necessarily any communication involved. In your musings, however, there can very well be another person in your skull. "I'd like to taste your navel," he thought to the woman behind the mountain in his daydream. Then, "I'm going nuts," he thought to himself.

That's so lame an example that Weird Harold is invited to have some fun improving it but it makes my point.

My point? Oh, there is very little in language that won't be useful at some point. Don't believe me? Consider a list of useless or utterly unredeemable phrases. words strung together so poorly they should never see the light of day. Except, of course, in the list.

http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=118919

Happy holidays . . .

 

[hiddenself]

Oh, come on guys...

Let's not make up grammar or language rules here.

You don't think to Bob and you don't think to Mary. The same way, you don't think to yourself. Think is simply think. I think, therefore I am.

Most meanings of the verb imply a state -- "to have" something (a view, an opinion, an intention, an expectation, a concern). Others (to meditate, to reflect) inherently refer to the actor himself/herself -- so, there is no way that thinking can refer to someone else. To think is not to talk to someone as you seem to... ahem, think. But if you can come up with a standard (ie, dictionary) meaning of the verb that indicates the contrary, I'd be most interested in seeing it.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Yes and yes . . .

"I'd like to taste your navel," he thought to the woman behind the mountain in his daydream. Then, "I'm going nuts," he thought to himself.

That's so lame an example that Weird Harold is invited to have some fun improving it but it makes my point.

I'd quibble that you can think AT someone else, but you can't think TO them unless you're telepathic.

DrM's example:

"Shut up," I thought. and "Shut up," I thought to myself.

This illustrates that sometimes, peole DO "think to themselves." But the practice is NOT as wides[pread as the casual redundancy of most writers would lead us to believe.

In this example, the first case is what is typically meant when most authors type the second.

The second is actually a special case, call it "Internal Debate," where a character is thinking AT his conscience and is the equivalent of a character talking to himself -- "Self," I says, "Shut the fuck up." But Self says to me,"Fuck you, Self."

"He thought to himself" or "She thought to herself" is simply a construction that should be avoided because it is so widely misused that it is more a marker of careless writing (to those who care about such things) than anything else.

For me, seeing such a redundant phrasing usually makes me overly critical of the rest of a story's technical merits and removes some of the enjoyment in reading.

A better wording for when "Thought to *self" would actually be appropriate would be something like, I told myself to shut up.

 

[Pure]

I agree with weird harold,

//A better wording for when "Thought to *self" would actually be appropriate would be something like, I told myself to shut up.//

There is a meaning difference, not simply a 'nuance'.

Also, consider 'Shut up,' I told myself, after I realized I'd been talking for ten minutes. Quite different from,

Listening to him drone on, and ruin his chances for the job offer, I thought, 'Shut up.'

 

[HawaiiBill]

Re: Oh, come on guys...

Let's not make up grammar or language rules here.

No, Goddess forbid that Literotica would ignore rules about grammar and language. We must be very strict in those issues.

But which of us will be around to go back and alter stories as rules change over time? And, they will.

What rules, hiddenself? Grammar and language need rules when you compose a business letter or, say, write a paper for academic presentation. That helps assure clarity of meaning. Fiction, on the other hand, and erotic fiction especially, suffers terribly in the words of a writer with hands cramped by rigidity. That is a sort of arthritis of linguistic ability -- which probably breaks a hiddenself rule.

Then hiddenself adds: "... if you can come up with a standard (ie, dictionary) meaning of the verb that indicates the contrary, I'd be most interested in seeing it." Would you now. How many common words in our stories could stand that test? 'Fuck' is showing up every now and then in some dictionaries but I haven't been able to find 'cum' in any -- so far. So let's quit using it.

Weird Harold makes an interesting point but he seems comfortable ignoring fantasy and science fiction where -- frankly -- thinking to and thinking at other folks is not uncommon at all. And, Harold, what about the whole area of telepathy? You can clearly exist without it but if you don't allow folks to use the concept of 'thinking to' or 'thinking at' another's consiousness then how would you suggest they go about describing what they are getting at? Damn, I ended a sentence with a preposition! Ah well, neither I nor Churchill could think of anything better to end it with

The variety of human experience is way too great for a forum about fiction to make up a set of prim, arbitrary rules. If you don't know that a great story is just around to corner -- shattering any rule you would like to dream up -- then soon you will learn that lesson. Kindly remember those of who warned you about it in this thread.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Oh, come on guys...

Weird Harold makes an interesting point but he seems comfortable ignoring fantasy and science fiction where -- frankly -- thinking to and thinking at other folks is not uncommon at all. And, Harold, what about the whole area of telepathy?

The intial post excludes "Telempathy" frm the discussion, else I would have added the disclaimer myself. Obviously, projective telepaths can think to and at other people. For non telepaths "thinking to themselves" is redundant and an insult to the reader's intelligence except in very rare circumstances.

 

[hiddenself]

The semiliterate can find a million excuses and justifications for being semiliterate. That does not change things one bit.

 

[HawaiiBill]

Re: Re: Yes and yes . . .

A better wording for when "Thought to *self" would actually be appropriate would be something like, I told myself to shut up.

Harold, what's the difference?

If it is the case that a word is a symbol for an idea and you are "thinking" or "talking" to yourself mentally, what's the distinction.

And, a word is MERELY a symbol for an idea. My defense for the use of "thought to myself" is only to suggest that many thoughts are consciously directed at your own psyche. If you are thinking, "Two and two equals four," that is a very different mental exercise than "telling yourself to shut up."

Or, thinking to yourself that you should be quiet. We are considering "directed thought" as opposed to mere rumination. It has a place in writing. And while you are being specific about overuse as a bugaboo, my suggestion is that it just might be precisely used in most applications. The character is 'thinking to himself' rather than a more passive sort of thought such as admiring the beauty of that set of breasts before him.

"Great tits," he thought to himself, makes no sense.

"Shut up," his brain shouted, does!

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Re: Yes and yes . . .

Harold, what's the difference?

If it is the case that a word is a symbol for an idea and you are "thinking" or "talking" to yourself mentally, what's the distinction.
...
"Great tits," he thought to himself, makes no sense.

"Shut up," his brain shouted, does!

The distinction, for me, is in the rampant abuse of "thought to himself."

The example you cite as "makes no sense" is far more common than instances where it does make sense. For me, that taints the phrase with an odiferous aura of "Bad Writing" and alternate wordings that make the distinction of "talking to yourself" are preferable.

In other words, when any phrase is used to the point where it loses any real meaning, less common alternate phrases convey the intended meaning better.

 

[champagne1982]

Are we permitted to think aloud?

 

[Weird Harold]

Are we permitted to think aloud?

Why, of course you are, but people will look at you funny.

Seriously, though, I would tend to shy away from tagging dialogue as "thinking aloud" and use "Mused" or a similar tag for a character who is thinking aloud, because that idiom means speaking one's thoughts and isn't "internal dialogue."

 

[HawaiiBill]

From the first grade on . . .

. . . most kids said I was just too serious.

With apologies if that's happening still and again but I'm not quite 'done' so let's leave this in the oven for another turn of the spit.

Consider prayer. That is always directed thought. Does it ever work for someone to 'pray to himself?'

Usually, it's 'pray to God.' Or, as I prayed in my first post in this thread, "Goddess forbid." I use this to focus on the distinction between that familiar thought, directed outward, and our accepted "Shut up!" which is directed inward. We'll leave, for the moment, the question, "Directed from where, to where?"

There are many variations between these accepted norms. I'm merely rising to the defense of writers who -- with conscious intent -- use 'think to themselves' and report that. And with good conscience, I can also agree with Harold deploring overuse should it occur.

Maybe we've pilloried this enough now and I can remove the barbecued question from the heat and move on to some one-handed typing.

Happy holidays!

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: From the first grade on . . .

I'm merely rising to the defense of writers who -- with conscious intent -- use 'think to themselves' and report that. And with good conscience, I can also agree with Harold deploring overuse should it occur.

How do you distinguish between "conscious intent" and "habitual over-use?"

In a story that contains very few reported thoughts, the offensive phrase in question maight only have one or two opportunities to show up -- whether correctly used or not.

Usually, I can tell from the way an author handles dialogue tagging and other "useless phrases" whether thoughts are tagged thus with malice aforethought, but sometimes it's very hard to tell. Most of the time, "To himself" stands out like a red flag in a snowfield and that's almost always a sign it's used wrong.

 

[Guest]

Am I alone in reacting to:

'That's interesting,' he thought to himself.

by asking to whom else he might think? (Except in telepathic Sci-Fi ,of course.)

Naturally:

'What's that?' he asked himself.

is reasonable, but not the first example.

_______

"That's interesting," he thought to himself.

The 'to himself' is clearly redundant.



"That's interesting," he thought aloud.

Contrasting, the 'aloud' is necessary since the meaning is different.

 

[Guest]

Why, of course you are, but people will look at you funny.

Seriously, though, I would tend to shy away from tagging dialogue as "thinking aloud" and use "Mused" or a similar tag for a character who is thinking aloud, because that idiom means speaking one's thoughts and isn't "internal dialogue."

_____

But "muse" is often misused, though, since it can have two meanings:

Muse, as an intransitive verb, means "absorbed in thought; engaged in meditation;" one is back 'in thought' and not verbalizing anything.

Muse, as a transitive verb, however, straddles the fence a bit and means to "consider or say thoughtfully." This construction requires a direct object to complete the meaning of the sentence.




Personnally, I like to use italics for internal dialogue, eliminating the need for tag lines and quotation marks.

 

[snooper]

But "muse" is often misused, though, since it can have two meanings:

Muse, as an intransitive verb, means "absorbed in thought; engaged in meditation;" one is back 'in thought' and not verbalizing anything.

Muse, as a transitive verb, however, straddles the fence a bit and means to "consider or say thoughtfully." This construction requires a direct object to complete the meaning of the sentence.
...

Actually, that isn't how it is used in the UK. The Shorter Oxford says:

I verb intransitive.
1 Be absorbed in thought; meditate continuously in silence; ponder. Middle English.
2 Be affected with astonishment or surprise; wonder, marvel, (at). Now poetic. rare. ME.
3 Gaze meditatively; look thoughtfully or intently. Late ME.<unknown>
4 Murmur; grumble, complain. LME–Late 1616th Century.
Examples
1 L. M. MONTGOMERY In school I can look at her and muse over days departed.
R. MACAULAY She mused, her chin resting on one strong hand.
P. FITZGERALD He appeared to be musing on what had passed between them.
2 TENNYSON Then came the fine Gawain and wonder’d at her, And Lancelot later came and mused at her.
3 J. H. NEWMAN He began to eye and muse upon the great bishop.
K. TYNAN He hopes to be amused by his bully companions, but the eyes constantly muse beyond them.

II v.transitive.
5 Ponder over, reflect on; contemplate, meditate; think to oneself; ask oneself meditatively (how, what, etc.); say or murmur meditatively. Now only w. cl. or direct speech as obj. LME.<unknown>
6 Marvel at (a thing, how etc.); be surprised that. E16–Mid 17th Cent
Examples
5 M. ARNOLD Ah me, I muse what this young fox may mean!
R. K. NARAYAN Ramani stood over him, musing indignantly: "Fast asleep at eight o’clock."
D. WELCH "I wonder what sort of letters you write?" she mused.

 

[Guest]

Hmmm...

Actually, it looks to me as if though there is very good agreement between the primary definitions of Shorter Oxford and Merriam-Webster.

But then you Brits do talk funny, at times.