Andy, Editor at Zondervan, Stops By...

Things to Unlearn.

Italicized thoughts.

I don’t know if I’ve been around long enough to be a curmudgeon. There’s got to be an age cutoff, or something. I would eschew the term Luddite, for obvious reasons, though I have yet to create a Facebook page or post home videos to YouTube or upgrade to Vista or the iPhone. I do have a wireless Media Center Extender so I can watch recorded TV that I have stored on my external firewire drive through Media Center (with dual tuner). I’ve only met one other person who does that. So perhaps I’m just really really progressive, and forward-thinking. Yeah, that’s it.

But I do have enough things on my list to call this post the beginning of a series. A series called “Things to Unlearn.” And in this series, I will be making the case for a change in the status quo when it comes to telling stories in books. Chances are you just learned at a writer’s conference from some published writer to do exactly the thing that I’m telling you never to do again. Sometimes it happens.

And so my first curmudgeon’s rant—I mean, discourse on the bleeding edge of the craft of writing for postmodern times—is this: Please stop using italics for interior monologue.

I’ve heard that the Chicago Manual of Style used to recommend italics for interior monologue. Currently, in the fifteenth edition, the options given are quotes, or no quotes. (I looked at the fourteenth, and it lists all three possibilities. So it is a distinct change to no longer include italics.)

That might be the only evidence I need, but even if CMS gave unction to italicized thoughts, I would disagree. As readers become more and more sensitive to authorial intervention, italics seems another way of saying, “Look here, see what I’m doing?” It distinguishes the narration from the interior monologue, distancing the reader from the character and creating a false dichotomy.

When it comes to the point-of-view character, there is no need for italicized thoughts. That’s the beauty of the limited third-person or the first-person POV: the character’s voice is integral to the narration. A switch from third-person narration to first-person monologue can be done skillfully and easily, without confusing the reader, and without needing to distance the reader through a this-is-narration, this-is-interior-monologue indicator like italics.

In the rare case of the more omniscient third-person narrator, I would even advocate the much-malaised thought attribution in order to work around the italics problem, if absolutely necessary. Though, still better to use paragraph breaks or just ease into the thoughts by going from third person to first person.

There’s only one instance in which italics are appropriate, in my opinion, and that’s when a voice is speaking inside the character’s head. You know, the voice that tells you, Great job, Meisenheimer, could this sound any more arrogant? Because to the point-of-view character, this is a voice, unheard, but with the possibility of being an independent entity, although, of course, in my case, I sure hope not. It represents an actual dialogue within the character’s head, and a distinct voice separate, we assume, from the narrator’s thoughts. Though, I admit, there’s a good possibility this could be done without the use of italics. And if a writer figures out how to do that, then even better, I say.

ANDY MEISENHEIMER is married to Mandy and is a proud father. His best friends: Duncan, part Jack Russell and all bark, and Barnabas, a chubby and aloof shar-peagle. By day, he is an acquisitions editor at Zondervan. By night, he is an avid recorded TV watcher, novel reader, Wii player, and diaper changer. Likes: Phish, About Schmidt, the Enderverse, Berry Punch. Dislikes: Serial killer novels, Celebrity news, Biopics, Soda pop.
http://thesearebooks.blogspot.com

Comments

[Merrie Destefano]

Andy,
I agree completely about italics. My only wish is that I could have written this in italics because I'm not really talking out loud right now. There's a voice in my head and it's telling me not to be so silly.

Seriously, I do agree. Italics are a pet peeve of mine, the kind of pet that isn't allowed in the house until its wiped its feet and if it drools on the furniture, it's out in the backyard again.

And if this truly is the beginning of a series, then I'm looking forward to the next installment.
:)

Chip-your blog is rockin'and rollin' with great guests this week!

[PatriciaW]

Yep, I'd say that flies in the face of just about every book I've read on writing craft, advice-laden blog post, or online writing course.

But since when to italicize and when not can be confusing, I like it!

The only problem I see is if other editors are not as forward-thinking, and haven't cracked their CMS in a while, upon reading a manuscript with no italics, they might assume the writer didn't know what she was doing.

[Nicole]

Well . . . wouldn't you know? I disagree. But you're the editor, so those who submit to you better know what you like, huh?

You mush it all up together or force the mental meandering to include "I" instead of just reactions/thoughts, and it becomes indistinguishable from dialogue or narrative. As you noted, the mental thoughts/remarks used to be separated by quotation marks just like dialogue.

I know a lot of you professionals detest italics. As a reader and a writer, I don't. And none of you have given a good reason for your distaste of them other than your opinion ("It distinguishes the narration from the interior monologue, distancing the reader from the character and creating a false dichotomy.")

To each his own, I guess. Except as an editor you wield a certain influence and power, so you've probably just sent a bunch of up and comers into an horrific blue funk--or whatever there color for misery is.

[Nicole]

I meant "their" color, just so you know I'm not a complete idiot. Or maybe I am since I'm outnumbered here, and I even like the occasional bold print. Variety is good. Formulaic is boring.

[Kaye Dacus]

I'm with Nicole and disagree as well. Without italics, if someone writing in 3rd person/past tense writes something that's a direct thought--present tense and in 1st person--it doesn't come across to the reader as the internal dialogue but as a POV/tense shift. I am FOR limiting the use of italicized internal dialogue, because most of that can be accomplished with deep POV narrative, but I think it would be a mistake--especially for beginning writers--to do away with putting direct thought in italics. In fact, it is a good practice for beginning writers to do it so they learn to differentiate between internal dialogue/thought and narrative.

On the technical side of the question, it's like saying we should do away with quotation marks signaling spoken dialogue; after all, shouldn't the reader be able to distinguish between narrative and dialogue? No, nor should we expect them to know that something is internal thought as opposed to narrative simply by changing the pronouns and verb tense. If putting direct thoughts in italics is "authorial intervention," couldn't we consider quotation marks, paragraph/scene/chapter breaks, rhetorical devices, etc., to be the same intrusion?

[chipotle]

Interesting. Of course, you don't have to agree with Andy. This is his chance to mull things over.

As a kid, I thought we should do away with the letter "R," since I couldn't say it. (And imagine that, with a name like "Jerry MacGregor.") But I've given up the notion of deleting all R's. Now I'm hoping we can just give up the use of the endings "-wise" and "-esque"(as in "speaking money-wise" and "you sound Clintonesque").

[Merrie Destefano]

This has become an interesting discussion, so I decided to jump back in.

In my opinion, italics have become a tool to state the obvious, but it's already obvious so the italics only turn it into something trivial or even laughable.

That probably sounded way too vague, but I've seen books come out recently that had one or two italicized phrases per page. It began to sound like the author was screaming at me and I had to put the book down.

I like a book that challenges me and makes me think. But I don't like a book that tells me where the emphasis is in the sentence (I usually disagree), or when a character is talking to himself. I think a well-written interior monologue, even when interspersed between spoken dialogue, is beautiful and makes the character just that much more believable.

[Nicole]

Merrie, interesting points, but . . . if I'm the author and my character emphasizes a certain word in a sentence (shown by italics), you, as the reader don't get to decide that the character didn't emphasize that word. Just as if I'm speaking and emphasize a word you wouldn't have, you can choose to interrupt me and tell me you wouldn't have said it like that, but I doubt you would. :) And, as a reader reading the story, if the character is talking to himself or reacting silently to someone else who is talking or acting (again in italics), you might want to argue with the author's device or choose to put the book down, and that's your choice and opinion about his writing or the story, but it is equally his decision to use those methods, techniques, or that style to tell his story.

I still maintain running "exterior" and interior dialogue together, possibly changing tenses or POV, is equally if not more distracting than italics separating them are purported to be.

Creativity . . . subjectivity.

[Andy]

A thought: technically, yes, it's exactly like doing away with quotation marks or paragraph breaks. All of those things are subject to the common practice of the times. We do not use punctuation or formatting the same as we did 50 years ago, or the same as they do in the UK or Australia today, and that's due to many factors, including the effect upon the intended reader.

[Pam Halter]

Thanks for the insight, Andy. I used to use italics for thoughts, but don't anymore.

I am using them for a character in my fantasy who happens to be an ocelot and when he speaks (telepathically) his words are in italics.

[Rebecca LuElla Miller]

I find reading italicized lines hard, which is why it irritates me. Plus, I wasn't aware that the fourteenth edition of the Chicago Manual of Style said italicizing thoughts was an option. I only knew that the fifteenth didn't give that choice. Add to that the fact that books published by general market presses don't seem to include italicized thought.

Some years ago, I read an article in a writing magazine giving some simple steps that make it unnecessary to 1) change to first person; 2) change tense; 3) and consequently to use any punctuation clue for "exact words." (My thinking is, exact words in thought are as exact as in dialogue.)

Andy, thanks for mentioning the "thought within a thought" exception. I've wondered about that. My instinct was to italicize, then I wondered how that would fit with what CMoS said.

Becky

[Susan Meissner]

I must say I'm rather bored with the use of italics in inspy novels to switch over into God thoughts and spiritual ponderings and lotsa, lotsa protagonists' prayers. I'm restless with reading so many characters' conversations with God in italized type. It's been over done; to the point of being ineffective. Or worse, to the point of being clunky and overly obvious.

Italics are lovely when used sparingly, you know? They look lacy and elegant on the page, and they suggest something here is different and notable and not visible anywhere else. Just here. Most of their charm is in their scarcity.

Too much of a good thing is still too much.

Thanks for your post, Andy. Does this mean you don't like Diet Coke?
Sooz

[Brian T. Carroll]

While we're talking clunky italics:

I frequently write about bilingual characters who would naturally do a lot of code-switching, i.e., starting a sentence in one language and finishing it in another. I try to minimize this for monolingual audiences, but I can't eliminate it completely without losing an important fact about my characters. Recently one group of readers told me to drop the italics and simply run both languages in regular text. So I changed it, and the next group of readers insisted I italicise the minority language.

I realize I will never have concensus on this, but I'd be happy to establish a simple majority.

[Rob Sargeant]

I used quoted italics in my latest work of literary fiction when indicating the thoughts of a Texas oil tycoon, who speaks to his associates in a winning business voice, but thinks in Texas style slang. It's used sparingly throughout, and seems to read well.

[Danica/Dream]

Really great stuff... Chipotle, you've outdone yourself with all these great folks stopping by. Do they even have Chipotle in Ft. Wayne? Or is that a sore subject?

I, for one, am really glad to hear about the end of the italics. People make me dizzy with the whole use them/don't use them debate. Now I'll leave the silly things out, and if someone gives me guff, I'll say, Andy said so, and work on more important things. Like writing a good book.

[Michelle Pendergrass]

And here I thought I was breaking the rules by not using italics.

I don't like italics at all. I like to be in a POV that doesn't yank my chain.

[Michelle Pendergrass]

Am I allowed two comments because I thought of something else. If I'm not allowed go get some popcorn or something.

The italics in a book remind me of that soap opera I hate, loathe, and despise...One Life To Live. I can't deal with the looking up into the left, sighing, index finger tapping on the chin, self-pondering every single character in that show does. Drives me freaking insane.

[Robert Treskillard]

This is a good discussion! A few questions:

(1) Aren't these final formatting issues more for the publisher to decide? When a manuscript is submitted to a publisher, all sorts of things will be changed before it goes to print.

(2) Is this issue important enough that a manuscript would be frowned upon for using them? Isn't craft more important than a font issue? If the publisher doesn't want any italics, that can be changed in the blink of an eye. Why is this an issue for writers? Obviously the last thing we want to do is fill pages with italicized text, but if used sparingly, I don't exactly see the problem.

(3) Chip, as a literary agent, do you submit proposals / manuscripts looking different for different publishers based on issues like this? What if publisher 'B' didn't mind italics here and there?

Thanks!

[Stevie Rey]

This here feller's kindly high-falutin' I reckon, Chip, but I like 'eem. I shot a curmudgeon tryin' to break in the chicken coop one time. He was fixin' to eschew up my rooster.

I had some a that there Luddite baggage but it flew off my pickup on the way back from momma n'ems one Thanksgivin'! Speakin' a Thanksgivin' y'all have ye a good 'un and gitchee lots a Hillbilly Bibles fer yer heathern loved 'uns fer Christmas. It'll cure what ails 'em! Sure 'nuff! King Jesus said so!

Bless y'all,
Stevie Rey
The Hillbilly Bible

[sally apokedak]

Andy, Mandy, and Ralph Edward. I love it.

Love the name Chipotle, too.

I like names.

I have a character named Magdalena Meisenheimer. I can see her and hear her--I've just not quite found a story for her yet.

Italics?

If the story is good I don't care if there are italics or not. I think with a close third person narrative, italics are unnecessary, but I don't really stop to scrutinize if I'm liking a story. Not that my opinion on the matter will make one whit of difference to anyone.

[Linda M Au]

I'm a proofreader and copy editor by trade, as well as a writer, so this wasn't news to me. I get to claim CMS and new dictionaries as a tax deduction. :)

I think the distinction needs to be made that it's not about beginning writers or advanced, multipublished writers. It's about what goes into print, which is where CMS comes in. CMS is a style guide for book publishing, although it also addresses manuscripts and other book-related formatting issues.

So, in print, remember that any book publisher "up" with the times will probably not italicize your characters' thoughts anymore. (I say "probably" because every publisher with which I've worked has handed me a style guide of modifications they've made to CMS for their own books.)

But in manuscripts? I don't see an agent or editor rejecting an otherwise stellar manuscript because the writer italicized or underlined thoughts. When it comes down to it, it's about the writing more than the formatting (to a certain degree--be professional and accurate when possible!).

Have I hedged all my bets enough for one comment? :)

[Andy]

A lot of great comments. Am I allowed to add a few? Man, this Andy guy is really smart...oh wait. Right. That would look pretty bad for me to--So, anyway.

As an editor, italicized thoughts alone aren't going to cause me to toss a proposal or write off some writer as amateurish. It's all part of the overall presentation. But skillful POV handling is one of the best signs of a good writer.

Oh, and good luck with "Andy said so." I try that with my wife, never works.

[Chipford]

You know, I'll have to try that on MY wife.. "But it's okay to sit and drink beer all afternoon during football season...Andy said so."

Maybe if I put it in italics?

[Ane Mulligan]

And then there's Lisa Sampson who pulls off pages of it as a character journaling in her recent release EMBRACE ME.

That said, I'm going to try it and see how it works in my WIP. I try to keep any I have to pithy thoughts or God's voice. But I think it might be fun to see if I can pull it off -- or at least use a bare minimum.

But then I'm a curmudgeon. :o)

[John Robinson]

Frankly, I don't understand what Italy has to do with ANY of this.

[John Robinson]

Frankly, I don't understand what Italy has to do with ANY of this.

[John Robinson]

My commeent was so nice, I said it twice.

Now excuse me while I try to pry what's left of the jelly donut out of the keys...

[Richard Mabry]

Chip,
Enjoyed the guest appearance by Andy. Have you considered posting your next blog in italics? Why? Because it's your blog, and you can.

[Bonnie Calhoun]

This is a great discussion Andy. I was fearful that my sporadic use of italics was going against the grain, until I got to your exception :-) Whew! Internal monologue is the only place I use them! I wait with anticipation for the rest of your suggestions!

[Michael Ehret]

Good stuff. Andy's and the comments. I look forward to more. Chipotle? Chipford? Chippendale?

[sally apokedak]

"But skillful POV handling is one of the best signs of a good writer."

This, I think, is the key. This is why writers need to think about this, not just figure the editor will fix it.

When writing in third-person past tense, it's the switching to the first-person present, that is jarring. It doesn't matter if the writer uses quotes or italics to show that we're in the thoughts of the character. The switch in tense and POV is a bump in the road.

Much smoother to keep the thoughts in third-person past tense.

[Deb Kinnard]

Aargh! Chipolata, how can you do this to us? Now I have to go over my WIP and take out all the...oh, no. Can't do it right now, the Bears are about to kick off. Thank you, Monsters, for saving me from yet another edit.

When I sold my first book, the publisher told me to take all the semi-colons out of it. Seriously. This was/is one of her personal hot buttons, and I didn't know anything about it.

This tells me to concentrate on story and leave the tweaks to whatever I need to change to meet the publishers' needs.

Besides, it's almost time for kickoff.

[Dee]

Ane, I was thinking about Lisa's Embrace Me, too. It is a great read so far.

[Nick]

I like the use of italics if it's not overdone. It's simply a signal in the same way quotation marks are a signal that what you read next is spoken. More than once I've had to re-read a line in a novel that was unitalicized thought and I didn't read it as a thought on the first read. With no signal, it was assumed by me, the reader, that what I was reading was simply part of the narrative, not a switch to the thoughts of a character. So, yes, I usually opt for such signals, if, as I say, they're not overdone.

[David Meigs]

Chip & Andy,

When I saw the word “curmudgeon” and then “curmudgeon’s rant” (my blog name) I took this as a sign from above. But removing the italics from my inner dialogues was less painful than I first thought. Thanks for the head’s up!

[eric wilson]

I love this discussion. I rarely use italics in my manuscripts, yet my publishers always change this back. It annoys me, honestly. Many of the "rules" I learned in "Self-editing for Fiction Writers" don't seem to have passed to the editing world. Bottom line: most readers don't really care. On the other hand: we writers get annoyed by the clunky old forms.

[Marilyn Pontuck]

In my book, internal dialogue is often interspersed with regular dialogue. I've changed it to quotes, but it really reads better (distinguishes between internal and spoken words)in italics. For example:
“He sees the connection I made between his association with Renni and the assassination attempt,” thought Aye.
“But there is no way Aye could know what has conspired. He knows nothing. He is just setting a net,” thought Khaemhet.
“He’s trying to pre-handle their meeting with Amonmose,” thought Aye. So Khaemhet either knew of the conspiracy or was involved. It’s time to shake him up a bit.
“I understand that you and Renni met with Amonmose,” said Aye casually.
“As I said,” responded Khaemhet, “I was with Renni when his personal shrine arrived. Amonmose brought it.”
Noticing the pulse in Khaemhet’s neck, Aye thought, “He’s afraid.”
“How strange,” said Aye, “I would not have expected the high priest himself to make a delivery.
Please comment.