I'd like to know why the author chooses to use this technique for quotes and thoughts. I'm finding it very distracting and have yet to finish the first book.

Wizardry takes place in the heart. Much of the conversations in this series are magically telepathic, so Diane Duane uses parenthesis or italics to distinguish between thoughts, mental conversations, and spoken conversations. Is this any help or have I confused you more?

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to ignore the parenthesis/italics/whatever's distracting you and focus on the storyline itself, cause it's really the story/plot/substance of the book that is important. You'll get used to DD's style, just give it time.

I guess maybe DD thought the same, or had some feedback from readers or whatever, and so, you'll notice in the next book, the parenthesis are out and whenever they mindspeak, it's in italics. It is a conundrum, but I think the italics works well. It's not nearly as distracting, you'll notice!

italics seems to be the generally accepted way of doing it...i read more then a few books with it, and that's how they usually do it. it's less distracting, i suppose. *Shrugs* though it makes it funny when they're really just accenting everything...*thinks of scene where there can be a lot of confusion over that and falls over laughing* anyways...i'm off.

Yeah, most books do telepathy with italics nowadays. Italics are kind of a metaphor for the negative/positive words in english — you know, "I don't (negative) never (positive) not (negative) do that!" In italics, "I don't never not do that!" *grins crookedly*

It's really strange. The italics, not the English. English is MUCH harder to read when there are those multiple negatives...

multiple negitives ARE hard...but also FUN sometimes...particularly when characters are involved, and you can use it to through a loop in the conversation...i also find it funny having two characters arguing over waht another said while all the while fighting for their lives and dodging swords...*grins* i always find that FUNNy for some reaosn...but yeah....italics ARE better in my oppinion...the only confusing part is when they take it OFF to accent something, sometimes, because some words or so small that it's hard to be certain whether or not they're italicizied mean it so much i do ok, weird sentence, i admit...but i was trying to show what i meant.

I really don't have trouble writing without the double negatives, because I've never gotten into the habit of talking with double negatives; but reading double negatives is a real hassle. When it's done in a book, the author always loses the reader's concentration as the reader puzzles out what exactly the character is saying... But yeah, misunderstandings among action can be really funny.

The hardest thing with italics is when the word that is emphasized is at the end —— for example: I hate that stupid restaurant, uclk, McDonalds!
You want to do what?
You did that?

Well, the point is that italics are like double negatives, and double negatives are harder to use effectively or comprehensibly.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dorotheia,

Professor: "In English, two negatives make a positive. In Russian, however, two negatives are still a negative. In no language, of course, do two positives make a negative."

Student: "Yeah, right."

I think that the italics are worse than the parenthesis.... Maybe instead of italics, putting 'apostrophes' would be better. That way, out of the corner of your eye, it would look like a regular quotation mark. But when you get to read it, having one mark instead of two meaning that what's there is text.

So instead of having:

The thinking looking like this,

'We could have thinking looking like this'.

I don't know, maybe that would be worse than italics but I tend to see the italics and get excited and jump a paragraph of description and it really aggravates me. Anybody else think this is a good or bad idea?

I find it slightly silly to be so concerned with the choice of punctuation, which is in no way wrongly used, technically, that you can't finish the book.

This is not without understanding however. I personally understand how hard some pet peeve can hit someone, but a lot of times it is no more than that someone having bigger issues they don't want to admit to or are trying to ignore.

If you don't want to read it, don't. However, if it's really a pet peeve, I find what works for me is to realize it is silly and let it go. She chooses to write with Parenthesis and that is that.

apostraphies would confuse people not paying enough attention! besies, apostraphies are already used for quotations within quotations...while you CAN use them twice, i STILL prefer the italics...it's less obnoxious then the alternatives! well, at least to ME anyways...but i've grown used to them. *shrugs*

quote:

Originally posted by young reader:
apostraphies would confuse people not paying enough attention! besies, apostraphies are already used for quotations within quotations...while you CAN use them twice, i STILL prefer the italics...it's less obnoxious then the alternatives! well, at least to ME anyways...but i've grown used to them. *shrugs*

That's a point with the apostrophes already being used. Although I do find the italics more distracting than parenthesis for some reason.

You know, the weirdest form of punctuation I ever saw for telepathic conversation was using double-asterisks in the Elfquest novel: e.g., **Yes, Cutter?**

Trust me, the italics and parenthesis are better.

For myself, both work equally well, although the paranthesis, given how it's normally used for internal asides and internal dialogues is actually very expressive of telepathic communication, while the italics is more general-purpose other-texty.

The fact that you "double" an italics by putting it in non-italics isn't really a problem, because it's usually surrounded by italics when it's used that way, so it still serves to work as emphasis. Single-quotes wouldn't work at all for me in this context, because I've read books where dialogue, throughout, is set in single quotes instead of double. It doesn't make it any different than "spoken" dialogue in that situation: there's not enough contrast to set it apart.

I find that the lack of law on use of italics and parenthesis very interesting. It seems like every author has their own way of doing things and can be very hard to adjust (well at least for me). I just try to use the context to figure out whats going on, but it sometimes can be very hard. Anyways, I know that wasn't any help to you, but hey.

Each author is comfortable with their own styles, and differnt ways of writing come with that...besides, even if there WAS a law, i'm not sure everyone would follow it. A teacher once told me "first you have to learn the rules...they you can decide when to break them." Which seems to be something that many writers (including me) take to heart...(besides, since there's no real agreement on what works best, the author might as well use their own method anyways!0

EricG1793,

Unfortunately, using single quotes (or apostrophes) to indicate a telepathic conversation would be very confusing, since DD's books are published in Britian as well as in the U.S..

The British usage of quotes is just the opposite from U.S. usage.

In the U.S., double-quotes are used to enclose someone's speach, and single-quotes are used when that person is quoting someone.

In British books, however, single-quotes are used to enclose someone's speach, and double-quotes are used when that person is quoting someone. Some people think this is much more sensible.

I agree that the single quotations would be hard to understand. To me, I am used to just going along with whatever an author decided to use, so once I get a chapter in, I no longer have a problem.

I do, however, think that italics work slightly better than the parentheses.

quote:

Originally posted by Selden:
EricG1793,

Unfortunately, using single quotes (or apostrophes) to indicate a telepathic conversation would be very confusing, since DD's books are published in Britian as well as in the U.S..

The British usage of quotes is just the opposite from U.S. usage.

In the U.S., double-quotes are used to enclose someone's speach, and single-quotes are used when that person is quoting someone.

In British books, however, single-quotes are used to enclose someone's speach, and double-quotes are used when that person is quoting someone. Some people think this is much more sensible.

Oh, that clears up a lot in my mind. Yes, I see now why using single-quotes wouldn't work. Although it seems as though the parenthesis are less distracting than the italics.

At this point it's pretty much either way for me....

Anybody have any other suggestions besides using italics and parenthesis?

I basically agree with what Sopranoharmony said: i usually just go with what the author chooses to use, and i have no real problem with doing so...Though that doesn't mean i don't have my favorite styles. I personally still love the italics more.
but that might just be more because i'm used to it then anything else.