How to handle a 'Thought Discussion'

[Venusian Broon]

I personally think you'd be better just letting the reader know they can communicate through the machine, and then have them talk to each other using normal speech marks, especially if they only get hooked up to this environment once.

Unless they were already speaking in the very same chapter - hence just using speech marks for thinking will actually confuse readers. ("Hey this guy is physically speaking when hooked up, how is that possible" etc...)

Hence the need for some form of demarcation.

I know, I know, I'm complicating things. But that's the way the chapter came out...

 

[Bowler1]

My one telepathic character uses italics only. I had to be careful to avoid italicising other words anywhere near her passages, lest it lead to confusion. The other option is < >. Somewhere, somewhen, Teresa Edgerton said it was acceptable.

Mine is what I called linking, humans have nano-tech that allows them to speak/share files/communicate with each other. I have generally used italics but I also used stuff like, "Shahana linked - Shahana linked back" and then have the italics.

'Sam can you help me,' linked Shahana, etc.

However, I'm now considering re-editing before submission as the "<>" is a lot clearer. I assume the speech tags would go, as it would be doubling up?

I also string verbal/talking and linking together sometimes. A person says something, as follows.
'You fix that one there, Carl,' said Shahana, pointing. 'Sam can you help me,' linked Shahana, etc.
A bad example, but sometimes a character says one things and links something different with another character.

I have food for thought, lets see what some readers say when it gets passed out.

 

[James Coote]

Well, imagine you are writing about two people chatting using an instant messaging program over the internet.

You could write about how Jane typed this and John typed that.

But imagine later on, and Jane is talking face-to-face with Sam about John. Jane isn't going to say "John typed this and that," she's going to say "John said this and that"

My issue is you're describing something that already happens, and there are existing conventions for it. People for years have been playing online games in a virtual environment where they are so immersed in the experience, that it becomes their reality. Same for 'accidental' communication of emotions, which is done through body language:

Sam remained silent, but seemed pleased by the turn of events

You could go on about how he smiled, his shoulders lifted and his walking pace quickened, but you'd end up with something far too verbose that doesn't really add anything the reader's imagination couldn't have filled in

 

[James Coote]

Mine is what I called linking, humans have nano-tech that allows them to speak/share files/communicate with each other. I have generally used italics but I also used stuff like, "Shahana linked - Shahana linked back" and then have the italics.

'Sam can you help me,' linked Shahana, etc.

However, I'm now considering re-editing before submission as the "<>" is a lot clearer. I assume the speech tags would go, as it would be doubling up?

See there are already a couple of terms for that: PM (private message) or less common, convo (private conversation).

Just as doing it with a touchscreen from a smartphone instead of a mouse and keyboard didn't lead to a new term being created, so it wouldn't just because you're using nano-tech.

You drive a coach and horses, just as you drive an automobile, despite the driving of them being markedly different experiences using very different technology

Edit:
And in fact, technology usually uses analogous terms from older technology to help new users learn how to use the technology, rather than confuse them. You send an email just as you send a letter. It's actually just good user interface design

 

[Bowler1]

You drive a coach and horses, just as you drive an automobile, despite the driving of them being markedly different experiences using very different technology

I accept what your saying alright, good buddy, but the linking is mobile phones and the internet rolled into one, and put into your head. So like the word "robot", "linking" will cement my place as a world famous author. I'd be so lucky, but I still need to draw a clear line between talking and non-verbal tech/communication. More so as the non-verbal is a key part of the plot as the "primative aliens" think the humans have another means of communication, and so on. So I really need to highlight the non-verbal.

This does not mean I don't worry about my choice of wording, I do, all the time. But as it's a key part of the plot, I've sort of painted myself into a corner on this one.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Well, imagine you are writing about two people chatting using an instant messaging program over the internet.

You could write about how Jane typed this and John typed that.

But imagine later on, and Jane is talking face-to-face with Sam about John. Jane isn't going to say "John typed this and that," she's going to say "John said this and that"

Actually I and practically everyone I know used texted or txted, messaged, mailed etc... instead of said for the later event you postulate. Perhaps 'told' at a push if I'm not thinking too hard. I reserve said for when, err, people actually speak to me. Maybe I'm just old and a bit weird (same goes with the rest of the world that I communicate with).

People for years have been playing online games in a virtual environment where they are so immersed in the experience, that it becomes their reality.

However I agree with you that speech is natural as a description when the virtual environment apes reality - avatars speak to you in Oblivion, even if it's in text form, as the mechanism is based around speech.

Sam remained silent, but seemed pleased by the turn of events

Sorry mate, but in my eyes that's a pretty dreadful sentence. First it's not clear. How can Sam be one way but 'seem' to be another way without actually doing something else. Saying your 'leaving it to the reader to fill in the details' is a cop out, but also strips you, the writer, with an opportunity to add a bit of colour to the character of Sam.

Secondly it is the dreaded telling not showing - fair enough sometimes telling is fine, if you are in the PoV of the character you could enter his head and just say his thoughts - but you don't need to be massively verbose or purple and be able show emotion through a deft choice of a few words through actions.

 

[Bowler1]

Sam remained silent, but seemed pleased by the turn of events

I missed this one the first time around. It's a bit vague.

Sam remained silent during the meeting, while linking with Carl. 'This is a boring meeting, how much longer is she going to bang on?'
'Only a few more agenda items,' said Shahana, happy that Sam was taking an active role in the meeting.

Not the best example ever, but it's the type of thing I'm attempting with my "linking". I like to have mixed messages while "linking", it adds compelixity to the plot very easily. Even better, as all the action comes from the characters I avoid the dreaded telling VB mentions.

 

[James Coote]

You're right Venusian, it isn't a good example, and it is telling.

Sam remained silent during the meeting, while linking with Carl. 'This is a boring meeting, how much longer is she going to bang on?'
'Only a few more agenda items,' said Shahana, happy that Sam was taking an active role in the meeting.

Does Sam hear Carl's voice in his head, or does the message arrive in word form, as though he had just read something Carl had written?

The italics seems to suggest it's the latter, like when you hit the quote button on these forums. However the speech marks, even if just single quotes as above, suggest it is a voice in the head

 

[Bowler1]

Does Sam hear Carl's voice in his head, or does the message arrive in word form, as though he had just read something Carl had written?

I've never explained which it is, and plan to leave it to the reader to decide. For the characters linking, they do it all the time, it's just what they do. So a lot of what you say is already assumed in my WIP, James.