[SOLVED]Thoughts without italic (thank you everyone)

[old_prof]

Why are "we" (collectively, I mean. Not me) giving those people such a superlative status in this discussion? I think they're wrong.


Do you just mean that their examples are "wrong," in the sense they they're using the wrong person's thoughts for the examples?

I took you to mean what you basically said again just now - that the advice about how to write the thoughts was bad/wrong advice because it shouldn't be written the same, in those two situations (narrator's thoughts vs. received thoughts via telepathy).

I still can't tell whether that's what you think or not, even though I tried to ask it like 3 times.

Me, I don't think it should make any difference, other than obviously spelling out who it is who's doing the thinking.

You said "it's not a typographical problem" but then you gave a typographical "solution" as your example of how to make it clearer, whereas I myself really think typography isn't the problem and shouldn't be used to "solve" it either.

Maybe I should just drop this. I'm not trying to be argumentative or needle you, I've really been just trying to see what it was you ever even really meant in the first place.

Somewhere I read recently (I think it was in an article by a supposed 'expert'), ascribed the need for tags and quotes for internal thoughts as a difference between 3P and 1P. You do not need to quote and tag ideas by the narrator, so no need to do so in 1P.

 

[Britva415]

Somewhere I read recently (I think it was in an article by a supposed 'expert'), ascribed the need for tags and quotes for internal thoughts as a difference between 3P and 1P. You do not need to quote and tag ideas by the narrator, so no need to do so in 1P.

My opinion is that one would have to do it at least once, to establish what's happening, but one doesn't have to do it every time for every instance of a narrated thought.

"Rules" never cover every case. Writers need to be mindful and critical and willing to finesse each instance as it suits the immediate context.

I also really continue to disbelieve that this is somehow different for 1p vs 3p vs the kind of 3p where the 1p is mindreading the 3p and narrating about it in 1p.

 

[Katie_Mae]

Why are "we" (collectively, I mean. Not me) giving those people such a superlative status in this discussion? I think they're wrong.

Because a close narrative distance is more popular right now, especially for first person. And, also, because they are not aware the author is writing about a character who reads minds.

We walk out onto the street.
"Gosh! It's cold," I think.

is correct, however people are (correctly) saying you don't NEED to do this. That you can simply go

We walk out into the street. Gosh! It's cold!

In this instance, both are correct, but the second one is more popular in modern writing.

I took you to mean what you basically said again just now - that the advice about how to write the thoughts was bad/wrong advice because it shouldn't be written the same, in those two situations (narrator's thoughts vs. received thoughts via telepathy).

Some of the facts/advice given:
"In first person, all thoughts belong to the narrator." True, UNLESS they are reading someone else's mind, in which case, not all thoughts belong to the narrator. Meaning this is wrong.

"writing she said means it's in third person, not first." True, UNLESS it's in first person and the narrator is reading someone else's mind. Meaning this is wrong.

"There is only one person's thoughts" True, UNLESS there is more than one person's thoughts. Meaning this is wrong.

I believe it's wrong to say there's only one person's thoughts in a story where there's more than one person's thoughts in the story. I'm saying it's factually incorrect.

Me, I don't think it should make any difference, other than obviously spelling out who it is who's doing the thinking.

People are saying, that because their only can be one person's thoughts, that there is no need to identify that they are thoughts or who they belong to. Because in a first person pov with a close narrative distance, every thought can only belong to the narrator, because mind reading doesn't exist in real life.

However, in this story, we are seeing multiple people's thoughts, because mind reading exists in this fictional story. Therefore, I believe that we need some way to indicate they are thoughts, and who the thoughts belong to.

Let's take the earlier example.

We walk out onto the street.
"Gosh! It's cold," I think.
"Wow, it sure is beautiful," Sara thinks.
I take another look, and...

is correct.

We walk out onto the street. Gosh! It's cold.
"Wow, it sure is beautiful," Sara thinks.
I take another look, and...

is also correct.

We walk out onto the street. Gosh! It's cold. Then I sense beauty coming from Sara's mind. She thinks it's beautiful. I take another look and...

is also correct, but not what the author wants to do.

We walk out onto the street. I think it's cold, but Sara thinks it's beautiful. I take another look, and...

is also correct, but not what the author wants to do.

We walk out onto the street. Gosh! It's cold. Wow, it sure is beautiful. I take another look and...

Is correct ONLY if the two thoughts belong to the narrator. There is nothing in this to indicate that the "wow, sure is beautiful" belongs to Sara, not the narrator, which makes it an incorrect way to demonstrate to the reader that it's Sara who is thinking those thoughts. (And yes, if the point of the story was to confuse the reader whose thoughts where whose, maybe this could be a correct example, but that's not the point).

However, this last option is the only option some people are giving the author, because they say there's no need to indicate who is thinking (because they don't realise more than one person is thinking.)

You agree with me, that, as we see multiple people's thoughts, you need to spell out who's thinking what.

I believe the advice "There is no need to indicate who is thinking or that these are thoughts, because there is only one person thinking" is not applicable in a situation where there are multiple people thinking.

And I'm really sorry, but I don't know how better to explain that.

You said "it's not a typographical problem" but then you gave a typographical "solution" as your example of how to make it clearer, whereas I myself really think typography isn't the problem and shouldn't be used to "solve" it either.

Okay... what do you mean by "typography?" I thought you meant "use of italics, differing fonts etc" where it appears you mean "use of quotation marks and tagging." (tagging being "she thought" etc)

Because the initial solution and the first examples I gave used quotation marks and tagging. (The italics is to indicate the examples here on the forums, obviously I'm not suggesting the OP use italics, the point of this thread was that they can't.)

I sat down in my assigned desk and waited. A young woman entered, and after a moment of looking, she sat in the desk next to me. She was cute, but did she think I was too? I dopped my pencil. She looked over and I reached into her mind.

"Oh, he's really cute," she thought.

or, possibly they intend something like this.

"Oh, he's really cute," she thought.

"Which one?" I think.

"That one in the red shirt."

"Him? Cute?"

Maybe I should just drop this. I'm not trying to be argumentative or needle you, I've really been just trying to see what it was you ever even really meant in the first place.

Yeah, I understand you're not trying to be argumentative, which is why I'm here trying to explain. I have no problem re-explaining to someone who genuinely doesn't understand and is simply trying to understand.

I would say "let's agree to disagree," but, from what I gather, you're agreeing with me. So how about we just agree to agree?

 

[SissyBrandi19]

Hey, I'm writing a kind of first-person story where writing thoughts is quite important because the main character is psychic. The problem is that, as I'm writing a story game, italics are not an option. The options I found on the internet are normal quotation marks with the appropriate tag:
"Oh, he's really cute," she thought.
And the other one is using the simple marks:
'Oh, he's really cute,' she thought.
I also thought that I could use guillemets:
<<Oh, he's really cute,>> she thought.
In your opinion, which is best? I like the second and the third ones because they differentiate inner dialogue and external dialogue, but I don't know. In case of using the second or third type, should I write an explanation at the start of the game to make this special use of quotation clear?

Here's my opinion: Consult the Chicago Manual of Style. My understanding (noting I understand very little) is that it has something to do with (going out on a limb, here)...writing? Anyone?

 

[Katie_Mae]

Somewhere I read recently (I think it was in an article by a supposed 'expert'), ascribed the need for tags and quotes for internal thoughts as a difference between 3P and 1P. You do not need to quote and tag ideas by the narrator, so no need to do so in 1P.

Not exactly. If we're comparing first person and third person limited, it's a stylistic choice. The below are all correct.

I walk out onto the street.
"Gosh! It's cold," I think.

I walk out onto the street. Gosh! It's cold.

Aloysius walks out onto the street.
"Gosh! It's cold," he thinks.

Aloysius walks out onto the street. Gosh! It's cold.

Are all fine. You'll hear the second and third options referred to as "close POV." eg, "Close third limited."
If you're doing third person omni, then it might be necessary to use thought tags, but honestly I've never written in that POV.

 

[SkyBubble]

I've used 'single marks' for internal thoughts, but I've also seen {these things, not sure what they're called} used.

Braces

 

[Britva415]

what do you mean by "typography?" I thought you meant "use of italics, differing fonts etc" where it appears you mean "use of quotation marks and tagging." (tagging being "she thought" etc)

You’re mostly right: Italics, fonts, and quotation marks or any other punctuation, those are all typography. They aren’t words, they’re ways of presenting the words. Some choices among these various typographical options are perfect, others are perfectly wrong, others are optional alternatives. No matter which is chosen, consistency is critical. No mixing of different conventions, please. Even if it’s different people’s thoughts.

Tagging is not typography, it’s just the words. Good typography is important, but only the words can correctly tell the story.

Thank you, your intentions are clear to me now! And I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[SkyBubble]

I use italics. I don't see the problem with it.

 

[YmaOHyd]

I use italics. I don't see the problem with it.

There's no problem with it, but it can't be done in story games.

 

[Katie_Mae]

I use italics. I don't see the problem with it.

You can't use italics in a story game.
The site's formatting doesn't allow it.
Italics are not an option here.

 

[HotCosmo]

I don't believe there is any language which mixes them with hanging quotes.

We do, in spanish we use both. The next is an example taking from the RAE (the institution of the Spanish language): «Desde Medicus Mundi reconocieron ayer sentir "impotencia y congoja" por este asesinato y exigieron "un compromiso de las autoridades para el esclarecimiento de estos graves hechos"»

 

[Britva415]

We do, in spanish we use both. The next is an example taking from the RAE (the institution of the Spanish language): «Desde Medicus Mundi reconocieron ayer sentir "impotencia y congoja" por este asesinato y exigieron "un compromiso de las autoridades para el esclarecimiento de estos graves hechos"»

I think I see what you mean. It’s different from what I was calling “mixing.” In English we do what you’ve indicated here by single-quoting something which is quoted within a double-quoted passage.

That’s different from using <<angle quotes>> for certain kinds of quotations while also using “high-quotes” in the same manuscript for other kinds of quotations.

 

[TheWorldBuilder]

Consult the Chicago Manual of Style.

The author isn't in Chicago.

 

[Britva415]

The author isn't in Chicago.

I assume that that was tongue in cheek, but either way, it wouldn’t have to be the Chicago. Any style guide could be employed and be better than making up one’s own inconsistent and nonstandard style.

 

[TheWorldBuilder]

Yes, sarcasm. Did you know that modern BBC journalists now ignore the Corporation's manual of style? My style is instinctive and subconscious; it hasn't changed substantially since my first novella 40 years ago.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I write at a standing desk.

I sit my phone on a raven and type.