You Learn Something New Everyday.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ADJECTIVES.

Hemingway had a neat trick for using adjectives. He put them behind the nouns they modified. William Carlos Williams did the same. Like...(my example)

The street was paved with bricks, red and heavy, and dimpled where the sand under them sank.

 

[Weird Harold]

I just use quotation marks. "Now what?" John asked himself. "How do I get this bra unfastened without her knowing it?"

How do you distinguish between talking to himself and thinking using that method?

That's why I personlly prefer italicsbecause it makes a distinction between;

Narration: He thought it was a load of crap.

and

Internal Dialogue: What a load of crap!

Without the need to tell your reader the difference with dialogue tags.

 

[Boxlicker101]

How do you distinguish between talking to himself and thinking using that method?

That's why I personlly prefer italicsbecause it makes a distinction between;

Narration: He thought it was a load of crap.

and

Internal Dialogue: What a load of crap!

Without the need to tell your reader the difference with dialogue tags.

I don't make a distinction between thinking out loud and thinking not out loud.

I don't like to use italics or anything else on that order because I have so many doubts that they will come through correctly. I use quotation marks for direct quotes or titles of book, etc., because I know they will come through properly.

ETA: On the example you give, I would have said something like: "What a load of crap," he thought, but didn''t say out loud.

 

[Katyusha]

For dialogue: I've found that using an affect based on the situation at hand can help with dialogue that sounds awkward or unnatural. For instance:

Roger finally decided to introduce himself. He walked over to her table and said, "Hello, I couldn't help but notice you watching me earlier. My name is Roger, and you are...?"

How many people actually say things like that? It sounds like a cheesy pick-up and if I were the reader I'd wonder if Roger wasn't some incredible nerd or maybe even a womanizing sleazeball. But sometimes no matter how you juggle the words, how many different tactics you try, the dialogue still sounds forced and awkward. So, use the situation to make the dialogue work. These types of situations tend to feel forced and awkward at first anyway, so instead of playing with the dialogue, use an affect or a thought:

Roger finally decided to introduce himself. He walked over to her table and said, "Hello, I couldn't help but notice you watching me earlier." He already wanted to kick himself for sounding so clumsy. He swallowed slightly. "My name is Roger, and you are...?"

There, the problems with introducing yourself to someone you've never actually met but are interested in are brought to light...people do say and do stupid things in that situation and feel all embarrassed, even if they don't need to. So (at least to me) his feeling about the awkward statement mitigates how unnatural it actually is.

 

[sr71plt]

IETA: On the example you give, I would have said something like: "What a load of crap," he thought, but didn''t say out loud.

But that's redundant. I can see the swift blue pencil traveling through the "but didn't say out loud."

 

[sr71plt]

How do you distinguish between talking to himself and thinking using that method?

That's why I personlly prefer italicsbecause it makes a distinction between;

Narration: He thought it was a load of crap.

and

Internal Dialogue: What a load of crap!

Without the need to tell your reader the difference with dialogue tags.

I like the italics too. Unfortunately, Chicago Manual of Style got rid of italics for thoughts in its latest edition--which means publishers press me not to let authors use the technique. Straight roman without the quote marks seems the only understandable option to that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

But that's redundant. I can see the swift blue pencil traveling through the "but didn't say out loud."

That would depend on the context, and that is just an example

 

[sr71plt]

That would depend on the context, and that is just an example

Naw, there isn't any context that can take the redundancy out of that sentence, I'm afraid.

Later: I take that back. I can think of a context in which it would be used--but you'd have to stretch, I think, for it to fit in. And there is no context given here.

 

[tickledkitty]

Then, according to the latest Chicago Manual of Style provisions, you'd put the thought in doube quote marks or just in regular roman type (not italics). I think italics is the clearest, but CMA dropped that as a preferred technique in its latest edition.

How would you do this sentence then?

"Oh, no," I giggled. Idiot. "I've been awake for a while."

It's from an already posted story, so I won't be changing it. However, I would like to know how it should be done.

This character is speaking to someone else but at the same time thinks to herself that she's an idiot for giggling. Putting it in quotes would make it look like she's saying the guy she's talking to is the idiot.

 

[sr71plt]

How would you do this sentence then?



It's from an already posted story, so I won't be changing it. However, I would like to know how it should be done.

This character is speaking to someone else but at the same time thinks to herself that she's an idiot for giggling. Putting it in quotes would make it look like she's saying the guy she's talking to is the idiot.

For Lit? I'd use the italics. Screw the CMA.

For mainstream publishing: What a load of crap, he thought.

 

[tickledkitty]

For Lit? I'd use the italics. Screw the CMA.

For mainstream publishing: What a load of crap, he thought.

I probably will continue to use italics for Lit. I tend to do that quite a bit.

I read what you said before. My confusion comes in this particular type of sentence. She's talking and thinking at the same time.

"Oh, no," I giggled. Idiot. "I've been awake a while."

Does that still read the same way? When I read it without the italics, it looks like she's calling the other guy an idiot. Maybe that's just me though.

 

[sr71plt]

I probably will continue to use italics for Lit. I tend to do that quite a bit.

I read what you said before. My confusion comes in this particular type of sentence. She's talking and thinking at the same time.

"Oh, no," I giggled. Idiot. "I've been awake a while."

Does that still read the same way? When I read it without the italics, it looks like she's calling the other guy an idiot. Maybe that's just me though.

I'd could see where the "Idiot" is abiguous here--but it's equally ambiguous when "Idiot" is put in italics. But the sentence would throw me off for another reason before getting to the thought. You can't giggle spoken dialogue (or laugh it either), so the "'Oh, no,' I giggled" rendering is off. Fixing that would chop up the "Idiot" interjection, so I'd rewrite somehow. Something like:

"Oh, no." I giggled, feeling the complete idiot. "I've been awake a while."

This separates the spoken line from the giggle, which would have to come after speaking the line and then explains the meaning behind the giggle and clearly identifies who is being called an idiot before going on with the dialogue.

 

[WRJames]

I use italics for thoughts, for foreign language, and sometimes for emphasis to try to indicate speech patterns.

I try to go and weed out the "he said, she said" as I edit. I find that "he paused," properly placed, is a very effective substitute.

Maybe it's just my personal taste, but mentioning a woman's bra size does nothing for me -- I would have to ask my wife what hers is. I don't think it makes sense for literature to try to be too visual -- after all, that's what movies are for. What we can express in words is the way things feel, both lirerally and figuratively. Think about sex in the dark, under the covers -- not something a movie can do much with. No visual content at all. But we can describe it.

 

[tickledkitty]

I'd could see where the "Idiot" is abiguous here--but it's equally ambiguous when "Idiot" is put in italics. But the sentence would throw me off for another reason before getting to the thought. You can't giggle spoken dialogue (or laugh it either), so the "'Oh, no,' I giggled" rendering is off. Fixing that would chop up the "Idiot" interjection, so I'd rewrite somehow. Something like:

"Oh, no." I giggled, feeling the complete idiot. "I've been awake a while."

This separates the spoken line from the giggle, which would have to come after speaking the line and then explains the meaning behind the giggle and clearly identifies who is being called an idiot before going on with the dialogue.

Thanks. That makes sense. This may not have been the best example, and I'm not trying to argue the point.

I really like using italics because it wasn't just that she felt like an idiot. That little voice inside her head was telling her she was an idiot. It's inner dialogue. I guess until or if ever I have anything published it's a moot point, right?

Next problem: Now that I've been reading this thread, I'm stuck on JBJ's original point about using affect and I can't freaking stop!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Le Carre uses brackets to enclose thoughts embedded in dialog.

Looking at various writers, it seems people do whatever they like.

 

[sr71plt]

I use italics for thoughts, for foreign language, and sometimes for emphasis to try to indicate speech patterns.

I try to go and weed out the "he said, she said" as I edit. I find that "he paused," properly placed, is a very effective substitute.

Maybe it's just my personal taste, but mentioning a woman's bra size does nothing for me -- I would have to ask my wife what hers is. I don't think it makes sense for literature to try to be too visual -- after all, that's what movies are for. What we can express in words is the way things feel, both lirerally and figuratively. Think about sex in the dark, under the covers -- not something a movie can do much with. No visual content at all. But we can describe it.

"he paused" can't be a substitute for "he said." You can't speak a pause. Too many impossible attributes are "substituted" for the "he said" technique of identifying the speaker.

There's nothing wrong with "he/she said." If you feel it's being used to much, use another technique altogether:

"I hate you." Magda drew herself up in a swirl of red velvet and lumbered out of the parlor.

This will identify well enough that Magda spoke the line.

 

[sr71plt]

Le Carre uses brackets to enclose thoughts embedded in dialog.

Looking at various writers, it seems people do whatever they like.

Once again, established authors do whatever they like. Everyone else does whatever the publisher lets them do.

 

[sr71plt]

Thanks. That makes sense. This may not have been the best example, and I'm not trying to argue the point.

I really like using italics because it wasn't just that she felt like an idiot. That little voice inside her head was telling her she was an idiot. It's inner dialogue. I guess until or if ever I have anything published it's a moot point, right?

Next problem: Now that I've been reading this thread, I'm stuck on JBJ's original point about using affect and I can't freaking stop!

The point on the italicized "Idiot" is that it doesn't make clear who is being called an idiot whether or not it's italicized.

The only reference to "affect" I saw here should have read "effect." I'll have to go back and see if I missed something.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AFFECT:
a broad class of mental processes referring to a person's emotional feeling or mood, often used interchangeably with emotions. Historically, affect has been distinguished from cognition and volition. Affect can be an important factor in drug intoxication.

 

[tickledkitty]

The point on the italicized "Idiot" is that it doesn't make clear who is being called an idiot whether or not it's italicized.

The only reference to "affect" I saw here should have read "effect." I'll have to go back and see if I missed something.

Oh, no. I was done with the "idiot" thing and had moved on to something else. I apologize for the confusion.

I meant I had been pondering using the affect thing that JBJ had mentioned at the beginning of this thread (yes, I know what affect means, thank you, JBJ) and felt like I couldn't stop using it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

TK The definition is for SKY PILOT's benefit. He thinks the word is only a verb.

 

[ms.read]

"Thank you for clearing that up guys!" ms.read cheered everyone in the thread. Meanwhile, she was thinking about all the things she had to buy for groceries. She wondered if any body else ate strawberry jam on their toasted english muffin as well.

___

now where the hell do I put the italics?

 

[sxcascinn]

"Thank you for clearing that up guys!" ms.read cheered everyone in the thread. Meanwhile, she was thinking about all the things she had to buy for groceries. She wondered if any body else ate strawberry jam on their toasted english muffin as well.

I do lol

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

MS READ

I like strawberry a lot. But what floats my boat is jellies, jams, and preserves made from local vegetation. Like Guava jelly, our local specialty. Every region has a distinct fruit available at roadside stands. I look for them when I travel.

 

[sr71plt]

TK The definition is for SKY PILOT's benefit. He thinks the word is only a verb.

Thanks. You're right. That fit the definition (altough it wasn't your use of "affect" I was referring to). One does learn something new every day (including that "everyday" is an adjective; "every day" would have been proper use in the thread title)