![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Let's talk about word emphasis. And sundry.
G. TKP: I shaved my arm-pits.
TKMom: Cool. Let me see.
TKP: Look. (hooks index in t-shirt sleeve to reveal self.)
TKMom: They're so sparkly!
R. Got 4th rejection letter. Am waiting to get rejected to 3 more grad schools. Go me.
A. Writing month! It's a time to discuss how we write, why we write, what we write. DISCUSSION, it squeezes me up out of defjection from rejection (marvel at my rhyme) like a tight hug or one of those stress things, the ones you squeeze and have to keep grabbing hand over fist lest they slip from your hands entirely. It's about being constructive, and possibly positive, and gazing at our navels with shining, dewy eyes and wondering words that tumble from our mazed-parted lips in the form of, "I'm beautiful; I'm really beautiful!"
V. Er, the point of this post...
I've seen people use
bold font
*astrisks*
/slashes/
\backslashes\
-dashes-
_these thingies_
CAPSLOCK
"quotes"
'single quotes'
~are these things called tildas?~
=equals signs--no, really!=
underlined text
and much more in order to:
-emphasize a word or phrase
-signify a thought taking place in a character's head
-denote a flashback
-emphasize a word occuring within a sentence/phrase/whatever that's already italicized because it's a flashback or a thought
Me, I only ever use italics for these things inside a fic (what I do in my posts and comments is a completely different story to me). When I want to emphasize something occuring already inside an italicized phrase, I un-italicize the word I want to emphasize, as demonstrated above. I only use italics for these purposes for several reasons:
-this is the way I see it done in published fiction.
-uniformity, which is somewhat connected to the next to ideas, so I won't go into it that much. In short, the reader doesn't have to guess why I emphasized some words in one way and other words in another way, or try to decipher whether the different ways of emphasis connotate different levels of importance.
-if I need another tool besides italics to convey my meaning, my meaning is probably convoluted, and could stand simplification until I only need italics in order to make my point.
(e.g., in Down There In The Reeperbahn I really wanted the dialogue bits to occur with as little narrative background as possible, and thus I had a problem of signifying who was saying what lines. I ended up using italics to signify Dru's voice. If it was still unclear who was speaking, there was a problem with my concept, my dialogue, and my presentation, and those are things that can't be fixed by resorting to using other "signifiers" to denote other people talking.)
-how they look. Italics are subtle and don't call a lot of attention to themselves. For me, all those other things do. Bold, CAPSLOCK, and underline have a tendency to draw the eye. (When skimming my flist, I almost always read the CAPSLOCKED text, the links, and the cut title first, because the colors and size call attention to themselves. It's lead to me missing important information contained in the regular text.)
Asteriks, slashes, dashes, et al, not only call attention, but add something to the text that is not meant to be read. This bothers me a lot. I feel that everything in most kinds of fiction should be a part of the text. Asterisks used to emphasize a word are not things that we read, but visual clues that the words they enclose are important.
I'd like to note that I am a big fan of making text a visual experience. Poetry, notably through e e cummings and the like, uses the shape of words and the space on the page as part and parcel to the piece itself. Prose is a different thing, but I don't quite believe it when people say this is the difference. Reading is looking at marks on a page, whether prose or poetry, whether the text transports you to a new world or not.
As such, I love prose that experiments/does new things with space and those marks on said page. The first time I saw it done in prose was Toni Morrison's Beloved, in which she eliminated spaces between some words in order to produce confusionurgencypanic. I've seen some fic-authors use that same technique to extraordinary effect. And when it comes to this kind of experimentation, I feel there is no right and wrong. Pynchon uses mathematical equations in the middle of text, and even though I for the most part don't understand it, I fangirl the effort.
But when some fic-authors use *asterisks* merely to emphasize a word, it doesn't appear to me to be trying something new with space or text-shape or anything like that. It appears to me to be just another way to emphasize a word, and in a way I find distracting and detrimental to the look of the text as a whole. Bold or CAPSLOCK could be used very purposely to draw the eye--to trick the reader into reading in a non-linear fashion, which could, if the author is very clever, produce an effect the reader would not otherwise experience. But when some fic-authors use Bold or CAPSLOCK , again, they seem to be doing so only for word-emphasis, and again, in a way I find distracting and detrimental.
That said, there are uses for some of these styles other than word emphasis. Some are:
-underlining book titles.
-boldfacing titles of segments of the text (part one, part two, so on.)
-boldfacing a sign, or business card, etc. Some books seem to want to physically show you the business card or sign. The block of text saying what's on the card is usually indented and formatted to look like a sign. I usually stay away from this use; it falls into the category of "if I can't show this through regular text, there's something wrong with my writing, not my visual presentation." But, I've seen some authors do it, so there, exception to the "way it's done in published books" rule of mine.
-CAPSLOCKING a disembodied or really powerful voice. For instance, JKR probably wore out her capslock button on Book 5. I stay away from this use also, for the same reasons as above.
-"quoted" or 'single-quoted' words obviously have their place in text, but they shouldn't be used as italics are, imo. I'm told there's an episode of "Freinds" and Ross air-quoting "thanks" that could probably explain the difference.
Anyway, I've seen excellent authors I admire use many of these styles, especially boldface, CAPSLOCK, and *astrisks*. No matter who's writing it, it throws me out of the text. But that's me, my opinion, my way of writing, and my way of reading. What're your thoughts on the matter? How do you use these tools, if you use them? What do you think when you see them in text?
Y. "Cheekbones so unreal they must be sparkled with god-dust"...The lovechild of Kiera Knightly and James Marsters could split atoms with his cheekbones.
!. Mmm. Brains.
TKMom: Cool. Let me see.
TKP: Look. (hooks index in t-shirt sleeve to reveal self.)
TKMom: They're so sparkly!
R. Got 4th rejection letter. Am waiting to get rejected to 3 more grad schools. Go me.
A. Writing month! It's a time to discuss how we write, why we write, what we write. DISCUSSION, it squeezes me up out of defjection from rejection (marvel at my rhyme) like a tight hug or one of those stress things, the ones you squeeze and have to keep grabbing hand over fist lest they slip from your hands entirely. It's about being constructive, and possibly positive, and gazing at our navels with shining, dewy eyes and wondering words that tumble from our mazed-parted lips in the form of, "I'm beautiful; I'm really beautiful!"
V. Er, the point of this post...
I've seen people use
bold font
*astrisks*
/slashes/
\backslashes\
-dashes-
_these thingies_
CAPSLOCK
"quotes"
'single quotes'
~are these things called tildas?~
=equals signs--no, really!=
underlined text
and much more in order to:
-emphasize a word or phrase
-signify a thought taking place in a character's head
-denote a flashback
-emphasize a word occuring within a sentence/phrase/whatever that's already italicized because it's a flashback or a thought
Me, I only ever use italics for these things inside a fic (what I do in my posts and comments is a completely different story to me). When I want to emphasize something occuring already inside an italicized phrase, I un-italicize the word I want to emphasize, as demonstrated above. I only use italics for these purposes for several reasons:
-this is the way I see it done in published fiction.
-uniformity, which is somewhat connected to the next to ideas, so I won't go into it that much. In short, the reader doesn't have to guess why I emphasized some words in one way and other words in another way, or try to decipher whether the different ways of emphasis connotate different levels of importance.
-if I need another tool besides italics to convey my meaning, my meaning is probably convoluted, and could stand simplification until I only need italics in order to make my point.
(e.g., in Down There In The Reeperbahn I really wanted the dialogue bits to occur with as little narrative background as possible, and thus I had a problem of signifying who was saying what lines. I ended up using italics to signify Dru's voice. If it was still unclear who was speaking, there was a problem with my concept, my dialogue, and my presentation, and those are things that can't be fixed by resorting to using other "signifiers" to denote other people talking.)
-how they look. Italics are subtle and don't call a lot of attention to themselves. For me, all those other things do. Bold, CAPSLOCK, and underline have a tendency to draw the eye. (When skimming my flist, I almost always read the CAPSLOCKED text, the links, and the cut title first, because the colors and size call attention to themselves. It's lead to me missing important information contained in the regular text.)
Asteriks, slashes, dashes, et al, not only call attention, but add something to the text that is not meant to be read. This bothers me a lot. I feel that everything in most kinds of fiction should be a part of the text. Asterisks used to emphasize a word are not things that we read, but visual clues that the words they enclose are important.
I'd like to note that I am a big fan of making text a visual experience. Poetry, notably through e e cummings and the like, uses the shape of words and the space on the page as part and parcel to the piece itself. Prose is a different thing, but I don't quite believe it when people say this is the difference. Reading is looking at marks on a page, whether prose or poetry, whether the text transports you to a new world or not.
As such, I love prose that experiments/does new things with space and those marks on said page. The first time I saw it done in prose was Toni Morrison's Beloved, in which she eliminated spaces between some words in order to produce confusionurgencypanic. I've seen some fic-authors use that same technique to extraordinary effect. And when it comes to this kind of experimentation, I feel there is no right and wrong. Pynchon uses mathematical equations in the middle of text, and even though I for the most part don't understand it, I fangirl the effort.
But when some fic-authors use *asterisks* merely to emphasize a word, it doesn't appear to me to be trying something new with space or text-shape or anything like that. It appears to me to be just another way to emphasize a word, and in a way I find distracting and detrimental to the look of the text as a whole. Bold or CAPSLOCK could be used very purposely to draw the eye--to trick the reader into reading in a non-linear fashion, which could, if the author is very clever, produce an effect the reader would not otherwise experience. But when some fic-authors use Bold or CAPSLOCK , again, they seem to be doing so only for word-emphasis, and again, in a way I find distracting and detrimental.
That said, there are uses for some of these styles other than word emphasis. Some are:
-underlining book titles.
-boldfacing titles of segments of the text (part one, part two, so on.)
-boldfacing a sign, or business card, etc. Some books seem to want to physically show you the business card or sign. The block of text saying what's on the card is usually indented and formatted to look like a sign. I usually stay away from this use; it falls into the category of "if I can't show this through regular text, there's something wrong with my writing, not my visual presentation." But, I've seen some authors do it, so there, exception to the "way it's done in published books" rule of mine.
-CAPSLOCKING a disembodied or really powerful voice. For instance, JKR probably wore out her capslock button on Book 5. I stay away from this use also, for the same reasons as above.
-"quoted" or 'single-quoted' words obviously have their place in text, but they shouldn't be used as italics are, imo. I'm told there's an episode of "Freinds" and Ross air-quoting "thanks" that could probably explain the difference.
Anyway, I've seen excellent authors I admire use many of these styles, especially boldface, CAPSLOCK, and *astrisks*. No matter who's writing it, it throws me out of the text. But that's me, my opinion, my way of writing, and my way of reading. What're your thoughts on the matter? How do you use these tools, if you use them? What do you think when you see them in text?
Y. "Cheekbones so unreal they must be sparkled with god-dust"...The lovechild of Kiera Knightly and James Marsters could split atoms with his cheekbones.
!. Mmm. Brains.
no subject
"What?" Angel said.
I should write:
"What?" Angel said, the word a sharp, bright flash of anger. Gunpowder in the night.
But, AUGH. Who *wants* to do that for every time Angel emphasizes a word, you know? THE TEDIUM.
I let myself off the hook a bit more when I'm using formatting shorthand in the actual dialogue, too. In the narrative, I tend to shirk away from it altogether, although I've used it there, as well, especially as the narrative with each piece is getting tighter and tighter in the 3rd person POV. But that's another quandry, and perhaps a discussion for another day.
The whole idea of the characters thoughts being transcribed in between the paragraph breaks of the story, in italics or between brackets or otherwise. God. No. I put my foot down. Down it goes.
no subject
Here, this will cheer you up: Smile! (http://www.bitboard.com/0798/armpits.jpg)
no subject
no subject
I love your comments because you so often do these fic bits that are really vivid...I wish I could think of words and phrases and little scenarios off the cuff like that.
I use italics for word emphasis in dialogue, but I would only very rarely use them on a one word dialogue like that, because as you demonstrate, you can very easily put the emphasis there without italics. But if the word is in the middle of a sentence, I'll do it just because it feels more immediate that way:
"But Doyle, you are my snuggle bunny," Angel said.
--which is how dialogue should be.
I'll also admit to sometimes emphasizing words in the narrative and more often than I should. And it is a result of me working almost exclusively in a tight third person limited--that is, slipping into free indirect discourse within the third person POV. Which is, as you say, a whole new can of worms...I read this great essay once on omnicient, limited, and intimate third person, and all the levels in between, which I'd dearly love to discuss...I'll get around to it.
The whole idea of the characters thoughts being transcribed in between the paragraph breaks of the story, in italics or between brackets or otherwise.
Oh yeah, I didn't even get into that. One thing which I mean to say in the post was that I rarely use italics for thoughts. I would much rather see:
He didn't think Doyle was his snuggle bunny.
or even
"Doyle's not my snuggle bunny," he thought.
than:
Doyle's not my snuggle bunny, he thought.
no subject
--which is how dialogue should be.
No, definitely. I've actually gone totally out of the way to avoid italics, such as:
"And what's this?" Spike asked, heavy weight on the last word, finger jabbing into Xander's rib for further emphasis.
And I think that that can get to be a really bad thing after a while, too. I mean, I'm trying for a balance between clarity and style and efficiency, and sometimes a simple, "And what's this?" Spike asked, more than suffices.
I read this great essay once on omnicient, limited, and intimate third person, and all the levels in between, which I'd dearly love to discuss...I'll get around to it.
I look forward to that.
And in terms of Angel and his snugglebunny, my 3rd person limited has grown so tight that I'd probably write that as:
Angel kept his eyes on the pages of his book until he heard the soft snicker of the door closing. He tried to concentrate on the words - De így csak akkor megy tovább - but he kept getting distracted. The cleaners were in the office next door, working their vacuums around all the furniture. From Cordy's desk, the jelly donut she'd only half eaten oozed a sugary, artificial scent. The smell of burnt coffee made his nostrils itch.
Heh. And I'm out of time, but you know what I mean. Eventually the next paragraph would lead to: He didn't know where Doyle was, hadn't asked. Doyle wasn't his snugglebunny.
And the narrative would serve as thought.
no subject
See that, I think, is going to far. It still doesn't give "this" the punch you want it too, and when you have to begin specifying, drawing out specific words in dialogue, it ruins the most powerful thing dialogue has: it's the only thing in fiction that occurs in real time.
From Cordy's desk, the jelly donut she'd only half eaten oozed a sugary, artificial scent. The smell of burnt coffee made his nostrils itch.
What did I say about fic bits off the cuff? *applauds*
And the narrative would serve as thought.
Exactly--that is how I would do it. And I love when a minor detail can replace a thought. The tapping of a cigarette, the falling ash, the shadow of a cloud, a glimpse of red--vivid details can sometimes convey the thought or feeling with far more of a gut-punch than anything explicit, because then you don't know what hit you.
no subject
--which is how dialogue should be.
I'm sorry, but dialogue should never be like that. ;)
no subject
no subject
What about things that you want to insert into the story (e.g. lines from a song, or a quote from another author) which are not part of the characters' thoughts? I did that with "Vicarious," in which I inserted "The Prayer of St. Francis" into the narrative, using italics. A bit pretentious, I'll grant you. But in some cases, I think it can work quite nicely.
*ducks the foot of Fod*
no subject
There's a ring to that, isn't there.
no subject
You're talking about this?
>> It was exactly like his first time with Buffy, and nothing like any of his previous times with Spike.
O Divine Master
There were porcelain kisses. Caresses made of silk and satin. Tangles of fingers, tongues and hair, and flesh upon flesh (of my flesh)
grant that I may not so much seek<<
It's not a way that I would write a scene, primarily because it seems like a pivotal one, and yet the prayer keeps interrupting it. I know that whenever I think about referencing the connections between Catholicism and Angel or religion and sex or prayer and obedience, I always feel like I'm being heavy-handed. Much more effective, for me, than the inserts of St. Francis is this: Tangles of fingers, tongues and hair, and flesh upon flesh (of my flesh), because that last part mirrors a prayer without actually being one. My ten cents, my two cents is free.
But! That's not exactly what I was thinking of when I made that comment. Rather, it's those instances in fic that...herm, I'm not sure I can reproduce it. I'm going to have to c&p. Okay, I can't seem to find any, despite the fact that LJ is rife with them on every other day. Thanks, LJ!
It's like this, though:
Lorne showed Snyder into the dressing room.
//That's right, my little pumpkin. Just relax now. Don't you be afraid of Uncle Lorne. He just wants to make you feel good.//
"Would you like a drink," Lorne asked, looking at Snyder from under his lashes.
Vot.
no subject