emphasis within italics

[TadOverdon]

SimonDoom's is the best answer. Using italics for thought is purely personal style.

Lit evidently has a programming quirk, but are you really writing to satisfy Skynet?

 

[gunhilltrain]

Well, there were a lot of characters in Gravity's Rainbow, EB. But I don't recall alligators. So, yes, maybe V.

At least you still have a copy of GR. I have no idea what happened to mine. However, I do still have my copies of Ulysses and Finnegans Wake. It's probably time to give Ulysses another glance.

I forgot whether it was Gravity's Rainbow or V, but he lost me around page 7 or so when he had a complete shift in the scene - one paragraph to the next, I think.

I admit, the only thing by Joyce I've been able to read so far is Dubliners..

 

[gunhilltrain]

This is my method. I use italics to render song or movie or other titles and not much else. I don’t like reading long italic stretches so refuse to use them. I’ve used them when quoting song lyrics, but not sure that’s needed.

And every other book I’ve read recently or even a long time ago didn’t use italics to render thoughts. Unless they were various sorts of experimental text.

Wallace is a rare author who can do as he will.

I'm guessing that the use of italics for thoughts is a quirk of on-line publishing, but mostly unknown in print. Wallace didn't sell that well, did he? Maybe he had a sympathetic publisher.

 

[gunhilltrain]

SimonDoom's is the best answer. Using italics for thought is purely personal style.

Lit evidently has a programming quirk, but are you really writing to satisfy Skynet?

What quirk is that? Skynet does as it wishes.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I use italics a fair bit, finding them useful for emphasis and such. I have used them for internal thoughts.

Underlining is something I use much less frequently, generally emphasis on short words where italics tends to be less visible.

Personal choice and I fully agree with the comments above warning against overuse.

 

[astushkin]

My primary uses of italics are in flashbacks and dream sequences...of which I seem to have a lot (hehe). I don't use it specifically for thoughts. My rationale for using italics for flashbacks was to avoid having to write the entire section in the awkward past perfect (pluperfect) tense to emphasize it was the past ---

He ordered a pizza every weekend vs. He HAD ordered a pizza every weekend.

My use of italics never caused a problem until I submitted an edited version of a chapter earlier this year. Now I am looking for alternative ways to designate a flashback without using italics or the past perfect tense. Maybe I should just trust that the context is self-explanatory. Another interesting method I've encountered is in the book "The Disenchanted" by Budd Schulberg, in which he begins non-italicized flashback sequences with the heading "Old Business."

 

[TadOverdon]

I no longer much use italics for paragraph-length internal monologues, if I ever did. It's usually a phrase or sentence punctuating the character's thought process.

 

[Bramblethorn]

And every other book I’ve read recently or even a long time ago didn’t use italics to render thoughts. Unless they were various sorts of experimental text.

Not uncommon in my experience. First two e-books I checked from my collection both use italics for thoughts, like so:

Both of those published in the last few years by Macmillan, one of the "Big Five". As best I can recall, the print versions used the same formatting.

 

[Panty Wrangler]

I just use italics for emphasis, really. I usually don't describe my characters thoughts verbatim, mostly because I don't exactly experience thinking that way. Unless it's something that I might say to a friend who was present. No narrators inside my head.

I sometimes also use italics to mark something as a text. Letters and notes, especially handwritten sort. Depends a little on the context, but the point is to make it easier for readers.

Interesting. I've been bending towards the use of inner thoughts as a way to try to show more than tell. It's been helping me break up longer paragraphs with something more like a blend of dialog and narration.

 

[NotWise]

Interesting. I've been bending towards the use of inner thoughts as a way to try to show more than tell. It's been helping me break up longer paragraphs with something more like a blend of dialog and narration.

I've always had a hard time distinguishing between "show" and "tell." It seems to me like using inner dialog is just telling. Showing is when you use more images and actions.

 

[KeithD]

I've always had a hard time distinguishing between "show" and "tell." It seems to me like using inner dialog is just telling. Showing is when you use more images and actions.

Yep, telling us exactly what a character is thinking is telling, not showing.

 

[rescatooor]

Yep, telling us exactly what a character is thinking is telling, not showing.

That is exactly what 1st person narration is though. And especially when writing something like erotica, you'd think characters' thoughts would come with the package. Otherwise, why not just watch porn instead?

 

[NotWise]

That is exactly what 1st person narration is though. And especially when writing something like erotica, you'd think characters' thoughts would come with the package. Otherwise, why not just watch porn instead?

I think about half of my stories are first person, and I make very little use of inner dialog. The narration isn't especially different from third person, it's just from a different point of view.

Watch porn if that's what you want, but porn is usually devoid of story, meaningfull action, or images that express emotions or ideas. It's just unrealistic sex.

 

[rescatooor]

I think about half of my stories are first person, and I make very little use of inner dialog. The narration isn't especially different from third person, it's just from a different point of view.

Watch porn if that's what you want, but porn is usually devoid of story, meaningfull action, or images that express emotions or ideas. It's just unrealistic sex.

I suppose you could do 1st person narration without describing thoughts but it's seems a little pointless unless the reliability of the narrator is supposed to be a little questionable. Reported speech about oneself might be a bit of a funny character trait.

As for porn, it's pretty much been ruined by Youporn and the like. Just money shots from beginning to the end. Bring back 90s porn and the crazy storylines!

 

[Bramblethorn]

That is exactly what 1st person narration is though. And especially when writing something like erotica, you'd think characters' thoughts would come with the package. Otherwise, why not just watch porn instead?

Indicating a character's thoughts directly is a perfectly valid option, but it's not the only way to convey what a character is thinking in a first-person narrative. For instance:

"The phone rang. Jane's number. My heart thumped, sudden and hard, and I looked around hastily. My husband was nowhere in sight. I took the call. 'H-hello?'"

In that short example, I've used three different techniques to suggest what the narrator is thinking/feeling, without ever explicitly stating their thoughts.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yep, telling us exactly what a character is thinking is telling, not showing.

I don't think this is always true. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

If the narrator merely characterizes what a character is thinking, by using adjectives, that's telling, not showing.

But if the narrator walks us through the detailed thread of the character's thoughts, that's showing, not telling. It's just as much showing as narrating how a character walks from point A to point B, or cleans his gun before shooting it, or combing his hair. There's no real difference.

Example:

Telling:

Rorque was curious and fearful as he walked to the alien spacecraft.

Showing:

Rorque had spent his entire life studying the possibility of alien life. Now, as he approached the spacecraft, he wondered what he would find inside it, but he also wondered whether what he might find might kill him.

The first is telling. The second is not. The second interweaves a description of action with a descriptive showing of what Rorque thinks that reveals that he is curious and fearful. This narrator gives us some detail from which we, not the author, can establish that Rorque is curious and fearful. That's the difference between showing and telling.

 

[rescatooor]

Indicating a character's thoughts directly is a perfectly valid option, but it's not the only way to convey what a character is thinking in a first-person narrative. For instance:

"The phone rang. Jane's number. My heart thumped, sudden and hard, and I looked around hastily. My husband was nowhere in sight. I took the call. 'H-hello?'"

In that short example, I've used three different techniques to suggest what the narrator is thinking/feeling, without ever explicitly stating their thoughts.

Absolutely. My point was mostly that it's kind of rare and unusual if a 1st person narrative story had barely any descriptions of "inner dialogue" or thought process at all. The 1st person narration gives you the opportunity to do so, why not take advantage of it? Unless you, of course, there is some other good reason to specifically pick that mode of narration.

 

[NotWise]

I don't think this is always true. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

If the narrator merely characterizes what a character is thinking, by using adjectives, that's telling, not showing.

But if the narrator walks us through the detailed thread of the character's thoughts, that's showing, not telling. It's just as much showing as narrating how a character walks from point A to point B, or cleans his gun before shooting it, or combing his hair. There's no real difference.

Example:

Telling:

Rorque was curious and fearful as he walked to the alien spacecraft.

Showing:

Rorque had spent his entire life studying the possibility of alien life. Now, as he approached the spacecraft, he wondered what he would find inside it, but he also wondered whether what he might find might kill him.

The first is telling. The second is not. The second interweaves a description of action with a descriptive showing of what Rorque thinks that reveals that he is curious and fearful. This narrator gives us some detail from which we, not the author, can establish that Rorque is curious and fearful. That's the difference between showing and telling.

I think those examples are both telling, not showing. One is just more detailed telling than the other.

"Rorque counted off the familiar rules of first engagement on his finger tips, one by one. He guarded his eyes against the alien craft's brilliant light, checked his racing pulse, and then his weapon. Destiny was but ten steps away."

edit: First person

I counted off the familiar rules of first engagement on my finger tips, one by one. I guarded my eyes against the alien craft's brilliant light, checked my racing pulse, and then my weapon. Destiny was but ten steps away."

 

[rescatooor]

I think those examples are both telling, not showing. One is just more detailed telling than the other.

"Rorque counted off the familiar rules of first engagement on his finger tips, one by one. He guarded his eyes against the alien craft's brilliant light, checked his racing pulse, and then his weapon. Destiny was but ten steps away."

edit: First person

I counted off the familiar rules of first engagement on my finger tips, one by one. I guarded my eyes against the alien craft's brilliant light, checked my racing pulse, and then my weapon. Destiny was but ten steps away."

The last sentence is a thought, though. In both instances it is the narrator's.

In focalization theory they usually speak of this kind of focalization as "without". Or at least they called it that the last I checked. It basically implies that the 3rd person narrator does not know what the focalizer (or any other character) is thinking and only has the visual cues to go by. It exists, but as far as I know it's next to impossible to do with a first person narrator.

Edit: At the time when I read on it, the academics could not agree on terminology, which made it all the more confusing. So there some might call it something like "outer" or they have come up with some smarter descriptions for it by now.

 

[NotWise]

The last sentence is a thought, though. In both instances it is the narrator's.

In focalization theory they usually speak of this kind of focalization as "without". Or at least they called it that the last I checked. It basically implies that the 3rd person narrator does not know what the focalizer (or any other character) is thinking and only has the visual cues to go by. It exists, but as far as I know it's next to impossible to do with a first person narrator.

Around these parts, we talk about third person omniscient (the narrator knows all), and third person limited (the narrator doesn't know all). I don't think I've ever read a third person story completely without access to any character's thought or experience.

As near as I can tell there's no hard distinction between "telling" and "showing." The difference is usually a nuance, and that makes the show vs tell discussions difficult. It's a great subject for a fiction-writing seminar.

That said, and getting back to how this started, if you lay out the character's thoughts without use of action or imagery, then that's complete "telling" and not "showing."

 

[rescatooor]

Around these parts, we talk about third person omniscient (the narrator knows all), and third person limited (the narrator doesn't know all). I don't think I've ever read a third person story completely without access to any character's thought or experience.

That's what would suffice in most scenarios, but there's a third factor: is the narration bound to a character? If you take a novel like Mrs. Dalloway, it may feel very unsatisfactory to describe it as a third person omniscient because the focalizer change isn't random. It only jumps when characters are in close proximity with one another.

Those third person stories that are "without" do exist but they are kind of rare. They don't make a compelling read. The closest example of any kind of text type that would work like that might be a police report.

 

[Bramblethorn]

As near as I can tell there's no hard distinction between "telling" and "showing." The difference is usually a nuance, and that makes the show vs tell discussions difficult. It's a great subject for a fiction-writing seminar.

My two cents' worth: virtually all writing is "telling" something, but it can also be showing a different thing. When I tell the reader that my heart is pounding and I'm stammering, I am showing them something about my state of mind. When a narrator spends ten minutes telling us about their preferred brand names, the author is probably showing us that they're shallow and materialistic. And so on.

 

[KeithD]

I don't think this is always true. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.

I would agree that in telling a thought, something deeper in the character of the one thinking can be revealed/shown that isn't in the direct thought.

 

[NotWise]

That's what would suffice in most scenarios, but there's a third factor: is the narration bound to a character? If you take a novel like Mrs. Dalloway, it may feel very unsatisfactory to describe it as a third person omniscient because the focalizer change isn't random. It only jumps when characters are in close proximity with one another.

Those third person stories that are "without" do exist but they are kind of rare. They don't make a compelling read. The closest example of any kind of text type that would work like that might be a police report.

I haven't read many police reports. I expect that they describe the officer's motivation as well as his/her action.

As near as I can tell, there are no clear distinctions in fiction. My to-be-submitted Halloween story is third person omniscient, but it doesn't show both points of view at the same time. I intentionally start each segment of the story from the woman's POV and finish from that man's POV.

Those are all tools to be used as you need them.

 

[NotWise]

My two cents' worth: virtually all writing is "telling" something, but it can also be showing a different thing. When I tell the reader that my heart is pounding and I'm stammering, I am showing them something about my state of mind. When a narrator spends ten minutes telling us about their preferred brand names, the author is probably showing us that they're shallow and materialistic. And so on.

All story telling is fundamentally "telling," isn't it?

That said, I love telling one thing, and showing another. Could that be the root of tension?