I need an authourly question answered

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Fake orgasms should be put in italics. Perdita

Fake orgasms should be put in subscript if its a woman, in superscript if its a man.

 

[Weird Harold]

I see the single quote thing put forth here a lot. It seems revisionist and modern to me, but I'm fifty. I can't think of a book I've ever bought with singles used for interior monologue.

How widely used is this idea with the single quotes, anyhow?

Both the "single quotes for internal dialogue" and the "don't punctuate internal dialogue at all" approaches are indeed "revisionist and modern" -- specifically they're a result of the spread of computers and word processers.

Up until about 1980 or so, Italics was THE proper way to punctuate internal dialogue -- regardless of genre.

With the spread of ASCII Text files -- which don't support Italics bold or underlining -- the alternate solution of single quotes began to appear; especially in amateur fiction. NOTE, the ASCII conventions of using a '/' to mark Italics and '_' to mark Bold was used widely for a while -- long enough for MSWord and several other Word Processers to recognise them when converting text files to proprietary word processer format -- but were never accepted by readers.

It was in the mid-90's or so that Strunk & White and the Chicago Manual of Style were revised to adopt the "no special punctution" standard. (a standard I personallly dislike from a reader's standpoint because it makes internal dialogue hard to distinguish from narration at times.)

Using Italics is the "old rule" and will be understood my most readers -- where Italics are supported it is, IMHO, the best choice; even if you're prone to writing four page flashbacks as thoughts.

Using no special punctuation except context and "tagging" is the "New Rule" according to prestigious "Style Manuals." But not all publishers accept the "new rule" and, as others have mentioned, it's easier to remove Italics than add them later.

The single quotes method is a compromise adopted (primarily) by newsgroups that is widely recognised but is NOT a "proper" way to punctuate thoughts.

Science Fiction and Fantsy has generally informally adopted an asterisk for punctuating telepathic communications, although it's often combined with Italics -- *Can you hear me now?* -- to emphasaize the non-verbal nature of Telepathy.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Fake orgasms should be put in subscript if its a woman, in superscript if its a man.

Fake orgasms should be put in italics.

Perdita

Both make sense, but which one's formal?

Q_C

p.s. Oh, and the point of the thread?

I've only seen italics used for internal thoughts, or quotation of said thought I should say. Naturally, you could always paraphrase and say:

Mary thought perhaps Doug was lying, but how could she tell for sure?

Instead of:

He's lying, Mary thought. But how can I know for sure?

The single-quotations thing seems to have the possibility of confusion more so than the other. But then, I'm American. It might just be that I'm used to it.

Q_C (again)

 

[Quiet_Cool]

It was in the mid-90's or so that Strunk & White and the Chicago Manual of Style were revised to adopt the "no special punctution" standard. (a standard I personallly dislike from a reader's standpoint because it makes internal dialogue hard to distinguish from narration at times.)

Using Italics is the "old rule" and will be understood my most readers -- where Italics are supported it is, IMHO, the best choice; even if you're prone to writing four page flashbacks as thoughts.

Science Fiction and Fantsy has generally informally adopted an asterisk for punctuating telepathic communications, although it's often combined with Italics -- *Can you hear me now?* -- to emphasaize the non-verbal nature of Telepathy.

So Strunk had it right and White fucked it up? (or do I have them backward? Shit, which one was the teacher, y'know, the dead guy?)

And I wouldn't bank that people are aware of that last part, the * and italics thing. I've read both, though not throoughly, and I would't have recognized it unless it was made clear in the print beforehand.

Q_C (a third time)

 

[Weird Harold]

And I wouldn't bank that people are aware of that last part, the * and italics thing. I've read both, though not throoughly, and I would't have recognized it unless it was made clear in the print beforehand.

The Punctutation of Telepathy isn't something that most authors have to deal with and style manuls seldom cover. The meaning is usually clear from the context.

If the question of how to punctuate internal dialogue had been raised twenty years ago, their would be no question at all of the "proper" method -- use Italics.

Any other method of punctuation is "revisionist and modern" -- mostly as a result of ASCII not directly supporting Italics.