Internal thought in third-person

[cheekychook]

I'll take on the question of "to italicize or not to italicize" in terms of those precious first few pages...

As much as I keep wishing that agents all wanted the same things included with query letters, they do not. Some agents want the first 5 pages, but others want the first 10, some want the whole first chapter, so depending on your story/style/etc it may be impossible to do without an internal thought for that length of pages. (I won't even mention the agents who want the first 50 pages, because they just scare me right now.)

For my WIP it's essential for there to be internal thought---it's used throughout the book (not tons, but enough), and it's a big part of the opening story. It's also significant because my novel is told in multiple POV. Since I am committed to the use of italics rather than the use of tag lines like "he thought" (because I prefer the flow of not having those tags), I have really been looking into the formatting issue. What I have discovered, through a combination of research and trial and error are the following:

If you remove the other formatting from your pages you can add back in just the italics and it won't change any other formatting you have (or don't have, as the case may be). I didn't run across any email recipients who didn't receive the italicized words in italics (I sent from a gmail account to hotmail, gmail, yahoo, and 5 private servers---I'm lucky to have a friend with several private email accounts). Oddly enough the spacing between paragraphs is what varied from recipient to recipient, not the italicized words. That said, if you choose not to risk using the italics for fear of wonkiness it is apparently acceptable and fairly widely known that placing words between "/"s is the shorthand equivalent of italics. In other words /italicized phrase/.

[polymath]

A related question on italics: has the old standard of underlining words one wishes to indicate italicized changed enough by now that we can assume our manuscripts can be generally sent out with italics where indicated?

No, there's a lot of outspoken technophiles pushing for the demise of Standard Manuscript Format disregarding the value of plain mansucript formatting. However, for paper submissions, the plainest style is still regarded as the mark of professionalism. In my view the least disruptive a manuscript can be the more likely it will be read. The basic precept being a manuscript is a manuscript; formatting for publication is a layout editor's job not an author's. I predict the demise of proportional typeface use for manuscripts instead because of monospace typeface values for publication consideration and planning. No, I'm not a technophobe. I just do a lot of manuscript reading and editing. Times New Roman is eyestraining when editing, all those tiny lower case I's and L's crammed into words.

The assorted values of SMF are its ease of reading and markup for editing changes and suggestions, and ease of calculating space consumption for paper publication. An SMF manuscript has wide margins and ample space interlineally for markup. Also, perhaps a judgement call, excessive italics call attention to themselves, for a writer's benefit and for a screening reader's. What's excessive in my estimation is abundant discretionary uses on top of nondiscretionary uses.

One way to notice unnecessary italics is by bracketing them with underscores in plain text format protocol. They become a nuisance to input and a nuisance to read, more of a nuisance to read than underlining and a big pain in the neck for typesetters and layout editors and proofreaders and writers when they get the galley proofs for final nondiscretionary proofreading input, paper and digital, even though publishers today use software layout programs instead of setting lead type. I.e., Margie _looked_ the evil eye at _her_, _Tabitha Louise_, the women's dorm nemesis. _The vilest creature who ever sucked the romantic air out of the dormitory_.

Digital publication means inputting italics style source code tags for opening and closing italics string. The only way a reader can save an editor that chore is to input them, but that means knowing HTML raw source code writing. It's the same tedious chore with publishing software for paper output. And a proprietary Word italics format code in one file format can cause all kinds of headaches in any given software application. Quark, In Design, Corel Draw, Adobe Acrobat, etc.

Also, how does italization play into our recent discussion about formatting challenges in pasted-into-email text? I'm speaking of those first few pages we attach to the query. If wonky to the point of losing italics, our prose loses meaning and isn't properly represented, is it. A reason to avoid characters thinking to themselves in the first five pages of our stories? Hmm.

My personal practice is to leave out italics formatting altogether when sending e-mail queries, samples, or synopses. If italics are nondiscretionary, when they ask for a full manuscript, and they will ask for it as an attachment rather than in an inline e-mail, I send a version with all the nondiscretionary italics and etc., as I know they're supposed to be. Again, my philosophy is the words should speak for themselves; special formatting is just stage direction acrobatics.

[Margo]

A related question on italics: has the old standard of underlining words one wishes to indicate italicized changed enough by now that we can assume our manuscripts can be generally sent out with italics where indicated?

I seem to recall a post somewhere on the forums from Nathan indicating italics could just be italic now instead of underlining. You might want to do a search for the post to see exactly what he said. I can't recall if he said that was his preference or the standard now.

[Quill]

A related question on italics: has the old standard of underlining words one wishes to indicate italicized changed enough by now that we can assume our manuscripts can be generally sent out with italics where indicated?

I seem to recall a post somewhere on the forums from Nathan indicating italics could just be italic now instead of underlining. You might want to do a search for the post to see exactly what he said. I can't recall if he said that was his preference or the standard now.

Margo, if I recall correctly it was I who asked this. I do remember him saying italicizing was fine by him. I don't think he was speaking for the mass of agents, just for him.

In general Nathan has been making the point that things don't have to be strictly one way in queries and manuscripts, and even a few typos is no big thing. See his blog of today, which is on that very subject. This is heartening after reading other agent and editor blogs that seem to indicate that strict formats are to be followed, and rarely does anyone get it completely right.

edit: or maybe I was asking about # between scenes. In any case I do remember Nathan saying italics were fine.

[Holly]

A related question on italics: has the old standard of underlining words one wishes to indicate italicized changed enough by now that we can assume our manuscripts can be generally sent out with italics where indicated?

I seem to recall a post somewhere on the forums from Nathan indicating italics could just be italic now instead of underlining. You might want to do a search for the post to see exactly what he said. I can't recall if he said that was his preference or the standard now.

Yes, I recall the same thing. And the reason: typewriters. Writers used to underline words to indicate italics when everybody tapped out their novel on a typewriter. Since we all use computers now with gobs of formatting stuff, we don't have to underline -- unless you send your work as a text email.

[Quill]

polymath, it is interesting to hear you say you believe the old "typewriter" standard is still the way to go for manuscript formatting (Courier over Times Roman, underlining rather than italics, etc). It seemed the general wave of advice was rolling away from that. I do see the advantages.

Regarding italics for direct thoughts, I can see advantages and disadvantages. A disadvantage I can see is how it would cheapen the actual words in the ms I wish to specially emphasize. In my ms I have maybe 2 words per page italicized for this attention, as I believe that like adverbs, less is more when it comes to such emphasis.

What happens when every time my character has a thought I'm italicizing it? What does that do to those precious emphasized words? Will they lose meaning? I'm italicizing for two different reasons then.

I'm kind of on the fence, then, about the thought italization. I see polymath's point about maintaining simplicity in one's text (heck, I've already made the decision not to use the semi-colon in my fiction), but I see others' noting of advantages such as the clarity and agility with which one can write and shift perspective within the prose, particularly with multiple viewpoints.

[Margo]

(heck, I've already made the decision not to use the semi-colon in my fiction)

That's an interesting coincidence. I decided fairly recently to minimize the use of all punctuation beyond periods and commas (by minimize, I mean I might use something else two or three times in a novel, if I can't convince myself otherwise). And I already limit the number of commas I will use in a single sentence, for the sake of flow and clarity. I find it so interesting how distracting punctuation can be when allowed to run amok. I'm really noticing that lately.

[polymath]

polymath, it is interesting to hear you say you believe the old "typewriter" standard is still the way to go for manuscript formatting (Courier over Times Roman, underlining rather than italics, etc). It seemed the general wave of advice was drifting away from that. I do see the advantages.

Some niche genres rely on discretionary formatting for emphasis, others avoid it like the plague. It's another cultural coding convention, subcultural though.

The typewriter standard became the standard for the benefit of publication convenience. Moving away from the standard has thus far caused more complications than put paid to the standard. It's those software designers deciding italics didn't fit into the 128 glyph ASCII code standard who dictated the change, and desktop publishing software self-publishing to meet the industry standard publication aesthetic. I suggest considering how much effort a layout editor has to put into preparing a manuscript for publication. If he or she can just drop it into a publishing application, it's once and done. If it'll take eight hours, eight days to prepare it, it might not be worth the trouble.

Regarding italics for direct thoughts, I can see advantages and disadvantages. A disadvantage I can see is how it would cheapen the actual words in the ms I wish to specially emphasize. In my ms I have maybe 2 words per page italicized for this attention, and I believe that like adverbs, less is more when it comes to such emphasis.

What happens when every time my character has a thought I'm italicizing it? What does that do to those precious emphasized words? Will they lose meaning? I'm italicizing for two different reasons then.

That's the dilemma of when, where, and why to italicize. Set self-imposed rules and follow them according to the target audience cultural coding conventions so that readers can readily learn what they mean and understand without having to stop and take time to figure out what's meant by an emphasis. Unfortunately, that has to be done in an opening where the least amount of disruptive formatting is desirable.

I'm kind of on the fence, then, about the thought italization. I see polymath's point about maintaining simplicity in one's text (heck, I've already made the decision not to use the semi-colon in my fiction), but I see others' noting of advantages such as the clarity and agility with which one can write and shift perspective within the prose, particularly with multiple viewpoints.

I've read manuscripts willy-nilly full of italics strings, semicolons, colons, dashes, and ellipsis points. What a bunch of excitable, gibbering, insecure, rudely disruptive, and dictatorial stage directing characters. Flow suffers mightily. I don't like telling my readers how to read emotion, like, telling them what to think, what to feel, how to act. Too much telling readers what to think doesn't effectively and entertainingly engage their contributory share of creative vision.

[cheekychook]

I've read manuscripts willy-nilly full of italics strings, semicolons, colons, dashes, and ellipsis points. What a bunch of excitable, gibbering, insecure, rudely disruptive, and dictatorial stage directing characters. Flow suffers mightily. I don't like telling my readers how to read emotion, like, telling them what to think, what to feel, how to act. Too much telling readers what to think doesn't effectively and entertainingly engage their contributory share of creative vision.

Will-nilly use of anything, not just punctuation, disrupts the flow and winds up detracting from rather than adding to the writing. That said, italic strings, semicolons, colons, dashes, ellipsis points, etc, like adverbs, 50-cent words, even the occasional cliche, can all be used appropriately and can add to the work when done so.

I look at the use of italicized internal thought much as I look at the use of things like adverbs or semicolons. None of those are things I want to overuse, but if they make the sentence/scene/thought/ambience/emotion stronger, I use them.

I think the genre and voice of a book often dictate when and how much to use internal thoughts or certain types of punctuation. A YA novel written half in first person and half in journal entries is going to have very different stylistic needs and punctuation requirements than a piece of adult literary fiction. A chick lit book where the character is constantly having an internal monologue is going to have different needs than an action adventure novel full of chase scenes. It is appropriate for a YA novel to contain exclamation points, sometimes lots of them, adult novels, not so much. It's important to decide what makes your particular book better. I agree you shouldn't tell your reader how to read emotion or tell them what to feel, but you can engage your reader and involve them in the experience of your characters and their story in a multitude of ways.

[Mira]

I feel sad for the sweater.

I'm sorry you're so ugly, sweater. But I'm sure you have much warmth and comfort to offer.

Besides, what is beauty? We all grow old and the bloom fades, but the true essence of our being, the true fabric that weaves within us, continues on.

Don't be sad, sweater. You may be ugly in some eyes, but you will always be beautiful in mine.

[polymath]

In an alternative, solely nondiscretionary usage of italics fosters building writing muscles.

Adverbs in my final analysis are for viewpoint characters or overt narrators expressing commentary, never both in the same narrative. And best for estranging viewpoint characters from covert narrators for the benefit of closing narrative distance.

Discretionary usages of semicolons, dashes, and ellipsis points are meaningless in my estimation. When used for nondiscretionary purposes, though, they appeal to sophisticated readers, another subcultural coding convention.

I've encountered usages of all that are personal bête noires when I have to take time to figure out what's intended and often conclude they don't mean much, if anything.

I look at italics emphasis or italicized thought as a writer telling me in shorthand stage directions what context should do. I'm a narrative's cast of characters receiving relentless direction from a tyrannical director when I'd rather and am capable of acting it out in my own creative vision. And that for me is the key, let me read and create my own vision of a narrative, don't tell me how to intrepret it. If I'm told how, I feel as though a writer has underestimated my intelligence, is talking down to me. If I'm turned off, it's over and done, the worst outcome for a narrative. And not too coincidentally, a major issue with condescension many contemporary readers' cultural coding conventions have with traditional narrative styles of the not too distant past.

[bcomet]

Very interesting discussion. We writers want and need to step up to professional standards and it can be tricky as/when the rules are changing. So all this is helpful.

Regarding # between scenes: I researched that a bit and understand that double space at end of scene break then ## centered and the double space before next scene. (I have been thus using that format and find it helpful, although I would personally have preferred three *** or two ~~ as I think it looks more appealing, but have wanted to go with the industry standard.)

Any thoughts? Polymath? Others? If that is right or wrong, I'd sure appreciate being updated.

~~

Also, on emails: I recently discovered that my me.com mail (also mac.com) sometimes just removes apostrophes. I thought, "Oh NO! The agent will think I'm sloppy." They were there when I checked it and came through on several emails, but on the "sent/saved" mail, nada.

[Ermo]

Wow, I am sure glad I started this thread both because there is so much great advice on here and I'm comforted that so many are wondering the same thing. Maybe Nathan should bestow upon us his wisdom regarding internal thoughts and italics.

As for the sweater, it's a treacherous thing covered in nicotine and baby tears. Nobody could love it.

[polymath]

The professional Standard Manuscript Format for indicating scene breaks is one typesetter's space mark, also called hash mark or pound sign, paragraph indented on a standard double-spaced line break. Some say two or three space marks, Some say paragraph indented. Some say flush left. Some say centered. Like so is we typesetters' preference for clarity and simplicity's sake and reading ease;

   Indented paragraph block text.

   #

   Indented paragraph block text.

Two or more makes us wonder if it's a nonce glyph place holding for some kind of type art. Centered means we have to focus on it and think about whether it's place holding for type art. First law of manuscript formatting, decoration for publication is a designer's job as per house standards.

A typesetter of lead is going along at a good clip, say, ten words per minute for cold lead and up to forty words per minute for hot lead. A digital typesetter at up to world record pace typewriter keyboarding 128 words per minute, but averaging 60 to 80 words per minute or one or two pages per minute for proofreading. Extraneous glyphs slow us down, among other formatting issues. A writer doesn't want to annoy a typesetter--or an editor. We can make life difficult for writers who make life difficult for us. We keep score; payback in kind is a likelihood.

Ms. Vonda McIntyre's manuscript formatting guidelines express the industry standard SMF and the reasons why each aspect is important for publication convenience.

http://www.sfwa.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... ssprep.pdf

[bcomet]

Thanks Polymath. That's helpful to learn.

Are you situated in the USA or are you primarily focused abroad? I ask because I wonder if there is a difference in styles.