# First person narrative and thoughts - italic?



## TheYellowMustang (Aug 1, 2013)

Which one of these examples is correct:

I kept in bed for a minute, rubbing my eyes and willing them to open fully. *I would never get drunk on a Sunday again. Or maybe I would. Probably.* I was no fan of ditching school, but coming up with a good reason to get up wasn’t an easy task. Then again, a puppet show is no good without a puppet master. 

I kept in bed for a minute, rubbing my eyes and willing them to open fully. *I will never get drunk on a Sunday again. Or maybe I will. Probably.* I was no fan of ditching school, but coming up with a good reason to get up wasn’t an easy task. Then again, a puppet show is no good without a puppet master.  

I kept in bed for a minute, rubbing my eyes and willing them to open fully. _*I will never get drunk on a Sunday again. Or maybe I will. Probably.*_ I was no fan of ditching school, but coming up with a good reason to get up wasn’t an easy task. Then again, a puppet show is no good without a puppet master.   

It's not going to be in bold, I just wanted to highlight the words in question


----------



## Shadoe (Aug 1, 2013)

I like the third version best, but the bold part should be its own paragraph.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 1, 2013)

oops accidental double post, sorry


----------



## gmehl (Aug 1, 2013)

I've seen it both ways - just run into the paragraph or standing alone in italics.  I tend to prefer the latter, which gives me a clue that it's thought... _unless_ it's an extended passage.

By the way, I've read the draft as she offered elsewhere in the forum and think it has a lot of promise.  Good luck on your revisions!


----------



## Jeko (Aug 1, 2013)

Personally, I would write it like this:

I kept in bed for a minute, rubbing my eyes and willing them to open fully. I would never get drunk on a Sunday again. 
Or maybe I will. Probably. 
I was no fan of ditching school, but coming up with a good reason to get up wasn't an easy task. Then again, a puppet show is no good without a puppet master.

But that's just my own personal style. Yours will be different, and the way you choose to use italics and tenses in thoughts will affect the tone of your work and character. Ultimately it's up to you.

But generally, I dislike the second version you gave. The use of tenses felt dodgy without the italics.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Aug 1, 2013)

Thank you all  I too prefer the third one, but my mother insisted it looked stupid because "why would you put his thoughts in italic when the whole book is basically his thoughts?"


----------



## Jeko (Aug 1, 2013)

> "why would you put his thoughts in italic when the whole book is basically his thoughts?"



Because those were his thoughts at the time, while the rest of the story is him telling the reader what happened at that time. It also gives them emphasis, imprinting them more in the reader's mind, which can be useful.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Aug 1, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Because those were his thoughts at the time, while the rest of the story is him telling the reader what happened at that time. It also gives them emphasis, imprinting them more in the reader's mind, which can be useful.



That's exactly what I said, but she still disagreed.. oh well.


----------



## OurJud (Aug 1, 2013)

I agree with your mum, TYM.

I think the second is correct, personally. I don't see the point in the italics at all, as it's quite obvious this section is a thought because of the change is tense. What else _could_ it be?

What I'm trying to say is that the first sentence is a description of what you were doing at the time, but when you read the sentience in bold, it can't possibly be anything other than a thought. In fact, the sentence following the bit in bold is no different to the 'never get drunk' section.


----------



## J Anfinson (Aug 1, 2013)

Number two works, but Cadence's style is pretty much how I handle a character's thoughts. I think what it boils down to is preference.


----------



## Jon M (Aug 1, 2013)

Kind of the point of using italics is to distinguish a character's thoughts from the narrative. There is no need to make this distinction for a narrative in First Person. Pretty sure the tense change in the last two examples is incorrect--if not, then at least totally pointless. The tense change is jarring, and its only purpose is to quote the character's thoughts verbatim when paraphrasing them (example 1) is a much more elegant solution.


----------



## ppsage (Aug 1, 2013)

I agree with Jon; in this--very small--example, the degree to which part is thoughts and part is narration is too slight to distinguish typographically. That might even cause confusion. This passage is fine with nothing, the intent and situation is clear, however the reader visualizes it.


----------



## TheWritingWriter (Aug 2, 2013)

I like the third one best.


----------



## Myers (Aug 2, 2013)

I can't say that I can recall reading any published work of fiction written in first person with thoughts presented in any way other than the first example. Maybe I need to expand my horizons. Yes, the third example does work somewhat better than the second, but I agree the tense changes are jarring. And it would get very old over the course of a novel or even a short story. I think if you're properly in the narrator's head, which is kind of the whole point of first person, there's just no needs for italics. I mostly write in a  close third person, and I've never seen the need to show thoughts in italics, and no one has ever complained about it. I've always thought it was kind of amateurish. And another thing I've learned is, my mom is usually right.


----------



## WriteAboutCreativeWriting (Aug 4, 2013)

Personally, I believe that thoughts in first person writing should be in the same format as the rest of the novel. In my opinion, a good first person narrative does not distinguish between thoughts and action. In your own mind your thoughts and memories are not different or separate, so why should a first person narrative be?


----------



## 1st Spear (Aug 8, 2013)

have you considered a different font instead of italics? I don't know if it would cause problems with the publishers/printers, but its worth looking into.


----------



## 1st Spear (Aug 8, 2013)

Myers said:


> I can't say that I can recall reading any published work of fiction written in first person with thoughts presented in any way other than the first example. Maybe I need to expand my horizons.



The host does a brilliant job on this issue. Read a few chapters and you'll have a good idea of how to handle this.


----------



## Greimour (Aug 9, 2013)

For my opinion on this see http://www.writingforums.com/writing-discussion/141109-third-person-vs-first-person.html

My post is the second one and at the time of writing this, the only reply - so it is nice and easy to find my post. I could simply quote my entire passage as it directly answers my view on this ^_^


Just in case you don't want to click the link, my opinion is to use italics and I like it that way...

... as for your mothers opinion...
A single opinion on how it looks is not a concern, it is how the writing is interpreted and understood that matters. 
As long as the reader completely understands that it is a thought process (different to the first person narrative) then it is completely fine.
I would tell your mom; "The story isn't written by the main characters thoughts, it is written from their perspective (point of view). Writing in italics this way is to show a reader the protagonists direct thoughts; to explain what s/he is thinking about whatever is happening. Not describe the scene which is what the first person narration is actually doing."

A story told in first person can describe a scene that the protagonist sees, but it doesn't always express what the protagonist _thinks_ regarding what is being _seen_, which is an example of thoughts being used outside narration...
or...
Just because the protagonist is in an argument doesn't mean they _believe _the person they are arguing with to be wrong, it could be that the protagonist just doesn't want to admit at being wrong... there are millions of reasons to address direct thought process during first person.
- Or any other form of narration.

At the end of the day, direct thought process is a valuable tool when writing, especially (for me) when creating Tone or Voice in a story, and if a job is to be done right, the correct tools must be used.

In the past, I struggled with thought process - that was when someone suggested that I write in first person, where thought process is easier to handle. The experience taught me to stick with third person, but I am now much better with thoughts than I was.


----------



## Jon M (Aug 9, 2013)

> A story told in first person can describe a scene that the protagonist sees, but it doesn't always express what the protagonist _thinks_ regarding what is being _seen_, which is an example of thoughts being used outside narration...


Sorry, but this is incorrect.* First Person narratives filter everything through the perspective of the viewpoint character. There is no separation between what the protag thinks and what he sees or experiences. Everything--word choice, narrative structure, grammar, and description--is influenced by who the character is. 

Bears repeating that the only point in using italics is to quote a character's thoughts verbatim. Often this is totally pointless and awkward to read.

*Except in stories where the protag and viewpoint character are not the same.


----------



## Greimour (Aug 9, 2013)

That depends on the writer and word choice and descriptive options. When I said a 1st person narrative can see one thing and think something else, I was slightly vague, but I was thinking of an example where exactly that happened.

I don't remember the title of the book, so I will give a small over view of the scene I remember...
The 1st person narrative/protagonist was a private detective, he was looking into the disappearance of someone ... at some point in the story he is sneaking through a building and comes across a room and this is the scene that came to mind when I said 'sees one thing and thinks another' ... it expertly described everything he saw (was seeing), but then without breaking the flow of my reading, in italics he wrote thoughts along the lines of, _Oh my god, No!_ and then continued to describe what had seen that caused the sudden shock in his thoughts.

the small break with the thought process had my eyes tearing into the book thinking:  _What? What?!_ I couldn't read the words fast enough... 

So - sees one think and thinks another may have been poor explanation, but I was directly thinking of an example where that happened.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Aug 9, 2013)

You can have a lot more fun with the metatext in 1st-person — using the way the story is told to convey certain aspects of the story.




Jon M said:


> Bears repeating that the only point in using italics is to quote a character's thoughts verbatim. Often this is totally pointless and awkward to read.





Greimour said:


> it expertly described everything he saw (was seeing), but then without breaking the flow of my reading, in italics he wrote thoughts along the lines of, _Oh my god, No!_ and then continued to describe what had seen that caused the sudden shock in his thoughts.
> 
> the small break with the thought process had my eyes tearing into the book thinking:  _What? What?!_ I couldn't read the words fast enough...



Looks like you two are on the same page . . . oh wait no Greimour, you're showing that as an example of it used effectively! Hmm . . . when I first read it over, I thought you were describing an ineffective example. That "oh my god, no" looked really out of place.


----------



## Greimour (Aug 9, 2013)

Hehe, I really wish I could remember which book it was, I want to go back and read it again... because maybe you are right. 
I was so into the story I didn't think of it as out of place when I read it, but if it's stuck into my memory as being there more than what the title is, maybe it really was out of place. 

I am on the fence with this, but I remember it being there and as the reader, it only increased the tension of the sneaking/creeping scenes that were coming to conclusion.
The sudden outburst of the thought process was like that moment in a film that makes you jump, (because that was their plan) or makes you sit right at the edge of your seat just before it makes you scream when something unexpected happens. That was the feeling that little thought-break in writing gave me.

Perhaps someone less interested reading the same story would have found the thought process to be a big slap in the face that was entirely unnecessary and completely derailing. All I know is that for me it worked well and it made the concluding scenes have a real impact on me - I couldn't put the book down.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Aug 9, 2013)

I usually put inner dialogue in single quotes, and speech in double. For example:

'I'm never going to drink again.' he thought.

"I'm never going to drink again!" He screamed.

I don't know if either are in some standard anywhere, but they seem to work well enough.


----------



## Greimour (Aug 9, 2013)

WechtleinUns said:


> I usually put inner dialogue in single quotes, and speech in double. For example:
> 
> 'I'm never going to drink again.' he thought.
> 
> ...



I've seen that used a lot too, but as I haven't read a great deal of first person narrative work; I can't think of an example where it was done in first person. I would imagine it comes down to the same thing; as long as the reader _knows_ it is an inner thought process (or inner dialogue), wouldn't it come down to the same thing? I had started to reach the conclusion we were now discussing if using inner thoughts during first person is the actual problem.

~ As I am trying to expand on my writing, and because I am truly interested in peoples thoughts, opinions and the general standard... I am trying to drag out as much info as I can on the subject - so to those who have commented in the past, is this method in first person using thoughts any different?


----------



## StevieG (Aug 10, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> I kept in bed for a minute, rubbing my eyes and willing them to open fully. _*I will never get drunk on a Sunday again. Or maybe I will. Probably.*_ I was no fan of ditching school, but coming up with a good reason to get up wasn’t an easy task. Then again, a puppet show is no good without a puppet master.



Personally I would prefer to read it as quoted above. It's highlighting the difference between the story im being told to the thoughts of the character at the time.


----------



## Myers (Aug 10, 2013)

I'm not trying to be contentious, but I think anyone who thinks you need to differentiate thoughts when writing first person might try picking up something like _The Bell Jar, Lolita _or Kazuo Ishiguro's _Never Let Me Go_ with a fresh and critical eye, even if they aren't to your tastes. There are authors who have mastered first person, and it seems like there is a lot of value in learning from them. If it's done right, italics or other typographic tricks just aren't necessary.


----------



## gmehl (Aug 10, 2013)

I've seen first person done a variety of ways, typically with thoughts run right into the narrative paragraph or italics both run in and in separate graphs.  I thought it was never done in a different font, but a recent book had serif font for regular and a sans-serif for italic (it looked really odd).  I've occasionally seen a blend of first and third (the first being the  protagonist, the third being others, especially villains), and also  heard a lot of people find this bothersome. 

It's probably more important to pick a style and be consistent throughout, maybe even setting the pattern up right away for the reader to grab and then move on.

I don't think there will be points against you when submitting; the focus is more on marketability than style.  Just follow their rules for fonts when submitting (typically either Times New Roman or Courier, italics okay but bold probably not). If the book makes it all the way to a traditional publishing house and their editor insists on one approach or the other, your problem is, in more ways than one, solved for you.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Aug 10, 2013)

Okay, another example: 

“I like Jackson. He’s carefree, sometimes a complete idiot, childish, well meaning. Kind of an ass, but who here isn’t,” she said and sent me a pointed glance. _Fair enough_. I waited for her to continue, but she didn’t show any signs of having such plans. 
“And…?” I probed. 
“I haven’t really thought more about it than that,” she shrugged. 
_Yeah right. Don’t spend much time intriguing people with mysteries and riddles, my ass_. 

I seem to prefer putting direct thoughts in italic, as that's the way I've done it throughout the whole novel. I think those lines would've lost some of their "punchlineliness" if they hadn't been. Btw, that last line is referencing something she said earlier.


----------



## Pluralized (Aug 10, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> _Fair enough_. I waited for her to continue, but she didn’t show any signs of having such plans.




I'm no fan of the italicized internal thoughts, only because the narration is supposed to be that very thing. But others have already said that in this thread, so I'm just curious - what are you telling us the difference is between the italicized and normal text in the above sentences?


----------



## Greimour (Aug 10, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> Okay, another example:
> 
> “I like Jackson. He’s carefree, sometimes a complete idiot, childish, well meaning. Kind of an ass, but who here isn’t,” she said and sent me a pointed glance. _Fair enough_. I waited for her to continue, but she didn’t show any signs of having such plans.
> “And…?” I probed.
> ...



I prefer this method personally. As I have stated.
I do however see how it can be done different; choice words can remove the italic choice entirely.

He’s carefree, sometimes a complete idiot, childish, well meaning. Kind  of an ass, but who here isn’t,” she said and sent me a pointed glance_, _and I suppose that's fair enough. I waited for her to continue, but she didn’t show any signs of having such plans.

^ The same thing can be done with his continued thoughts after her shrug, but I still prefer to see the difference personally. I get more attatched to characters that _share thoughts_ in this way; rather than share their experience as they tell the adventure that is their life.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (Aug 10, 2013)

Pluralized said:


> I'm no fan of the italicized internal thoughts, only because the narration is supposed to be that very thing. But others have already said that in this thread, so I'm just curious - what are you telling us the difference is between the italicized and normal text in the above sentences?



The thought-quotes are written in present time, the rest it written in past tense. Or...? That's the way I see it at least. Everything else is written like "This is what I did". Thoughts in italic are "This is what I'm thinking right now".

"I sighed, thinking to myself that thoughts should probably be in italic."

"I sighed. _Thoughts should be in italic_."


----------



## bazz cargo (Aug 10, 2013)

Hi Yellow Mustang. _Great name by the way_.

I am only at the beginning of writing. So I try and stick to the tutorial book I have bought.

 Internal dialogue in italics. _Well that makes sense_.

It is like a special effect and can be used to add to the readers experience. _Or not_.

It is your book, your choice. _And your style._

Bazz


----------

