Conveying a "Thought"

J.D.Rajotte

J.D.Rajotte

Active Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
34
Location
Long Island, NY
So I'm having some trouble figuring out which would be the best method to convey a thought of one if my characters in writing. I initially started by putting the thought in italics, within a set of parentheses and quotations and having the tag "Thought such n' such" at the end. At this point in my writing I've kept the "Thought so n' so" tagline at the end of a thought ( or at the end of a first sentence of internal dialogue), but have removed the parentheses and have replaced the italics with bold lettering. Which us better? And does it really matter? I'm starting to like the appearance of the parentheses and italics more than the bold lettering but I'm just not sure which seems I don't know... cleaner or more tasteful?
 
If you write very close to the character, you might not need to do anything but, if you do, use either 'they thought' or italics, not usually both. So the three might read:

The night was dark, the moon obscured by cloud. It was going to be a bitch catching sight of anything.
The night was dark, the moon obscured by cloud. It was going to be a bitch catching sight of anything, thought Tom.
The night was dark, the moon obscured by cloud. It was going to be a bitch catching sight of anything.

It's up to you which one works better, I think. :)
 
Yes, I started editing it to add a rider that one could do indirect thought, or add "she thought" without the italics, but it spoiled the elegance of the joke!

But I'd quibble with your last option using the italics. Tom isn't going to think in past tense, surely, so I'd suggest it's better as It's going to be...
 
The Judge said:
Yes, I started editing it to add a rider that one could do indirect thought, or add "she thought" without the italics, but it spoiled the elegance of the joke!

But I'd quibble with your last option using the italics. Tom isn't going to think in past tense, surely, so I'd suggest it's better as It's going to be...
Click to expand...
I think that's probably more correct but we can blame my Northern Irish idiom for that one - I'd say it was going to be as the action of catching something is in the future.
 
Not sure I can get my head around that one!

If Tom spoke the words out loud at that point, how would you write his dialogue? Would that be in past tense even though it's discussing the future, or would you use eg "It's going to be..." or "It will be..."? To my ear, whatever you'd used for dialogue should be used for direct, italicised thought, which is effectively speaking to oneself.

Just in case JDR (or anyone else) is confused, the past tense for Jo's first two options is correct, because the narrative is in past tense. If the narrative were in present tense, then the thought, even when given indirectly, has to be the same ie

The night is dark, the moon obscured by cloud. It's going to be a bitch catching sight of anything, thinks Tom.​
 
I’m not sure to be honest - was sounds right and it is how I’d write it but is makes more sense.

But, also - why can’t first be in past tense? Can’t we look back on things that have happened from an I perspective?
 
If writing in third person, past tense, the following rule set works for me:
  • Format internal thought in italics, no quotation marks.
  • Use a thought tag sparingly. Typically, once early to introduce the format to the reader and after that only when the thought is a stand alone paragraph. Use similar rules as for dialog tags.
  • Thought is in first person, present tense.
  • Mix non-italicized third person, past tense thought renderings with occasional interjections of italicized first person, present tense. This helps highlight key thoughts or to show two sides of an argument in a character's head.
If writing in first person, the italics can be omitted and thought tags are not needed. Thoughts will be in present tense.
 
Last edited:
Jo Zebedee said:
But, also - why can’t first be in past tense? Can’t we look back on things that have happened from an I perspective
Click to expand...
Oh, of course it/we can! But that thought wasn't looking back -- the narrative of the first sentence was, so past tense is right, but the direct italicised thought is thinking in its present and looking forward into its future. It might help to think of it as the difference between telling (being told what happened = past tense) and showing (hearing it happen = present tense):

I headed for the buffet. I planned to have one of the prawn sandwiches. -- all narrative, therefore all simple past tense​
I headed for the buffet. I was certainly going to have one of the prawn sandwiches, I thought. -- again all narrative, and therefore the past tense has to be used, but it's more complicated than using the simple past, since it's also looking forward to what would happen when I reached the buffet ​
I headed for the buffet. "I'm having one of the prawn sandwiches," I said. -- dialogue in present tense as it's reporting/repeating what was said, but dialogue tag in past tense to accord with the narrative​
I headed for the buffet. I'm sick of prawn sandwiches. -- direct thought in present tense, as it's repeating what was thought at that time, not subsequently narrating what was thought​
 
Okay I ran it past my English husband and he says it’s definitely a dialect thing, that this is something people do here but in England it would be is.

Despite the was seeming past tense in my example, in the colloquial lingo here it would also be used as being in the present.

Op - sorry we’ve derailed things a little!
 
J.D.Rajotte said:
So just italics is a good bet? With maybe a "They thought" tagline at the end towards the beginning of the book?
Click to expand...
Taglines can be important if you are showing multiple character's thoughts or it wouldn't otherwise be clear who's thinking.
 
J.D.Rajotte said:
So just italics is a good bet? With maybe a "They thought" tagline at the end towards the beginning of the book?
Click to expand...
I'd use just italics, as per my first post above unless there is a real risk of confusion -- eg something like

The silk dress caught Sally's eye. But I bet it'll make my bum look big.​

doesn't need a tag, as it's pretty clear that it's Sally's thought. But if you had a long paragraph with two women shopping, then the italicised thought on a separate line, that would likely be confusing if if wasn't otherwise clear who is thinking it. Personally, though, I still wouldn't add "Sally thought" there, but I'd re-arrange things or perhaps instead I'd use indirect thought eg

But Sally thought the silk dress would make her bum look big.​

About the only time I would use "she thought" after an italicised thought is if my characters speak to each other telepathically, for which I'd also use italics, so as to make it clear that she is thinking it, not "sending" it, but even then I'd probably use indirect thought to avoid the problem.
 
italics, yes, italics...
Dune is a great book to look at for use of italics for thoughts.
Though, it did drive me to distraction to getting into two or three peoples heads and thoughts within two pages at a time.

Dune is also a great one to see just how to frame those thoughts to make them effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Any Thoughts On Dune Prophecy ? General TV Discussion 6
Christine Wheelwright Thoughts on Fandom SFF Lounge 3
B What Would Peoples of Earlier Eras have Thought Of Tolkien's Works ? JRR Tolkien 28
K Conveying Radio Traffic Dialogue... Writing Discussion 25
M Conveying emotion in a flashback/monologue Writing Discussion 5

Similar threads


Back
Top