I learned to type back in the Dark Ages, when we were taught touch typing on mechanical typewriters with a single font and a single font colour (unless you were lucky enough to have a typewriter that could use a two-tone black and red ribbon). Using italics or other typography was a distant dream.
The only typographic effects were USING CAPITAL LETTERS FOR HEADINGS or Using Capitalisation and Underlining for Subheadings. Sometimes we might use underlining in a sentence for emphasis. But that was discouraged as Mrs Yates said it made our typing look untidy.
Then Apple invented the Macintosh and Microsoft invented Word.
Yes, there were other programmes—I’ve used both WordPerfect and WordStar 2000 (which dated from the 1980’s, when anything with “2000” in the name was considered futuristic and therefore cool). With the Mac and Word came bold and italic, different font sizes, and even different fonts.
With the Microsoft Office suite of products, the misuse of fonts and styles (and PowerPoint ClipArt) was born. We’ve largely recovered from the overuse of tacky ClipArt, and fiction authors largely understand that pretty headings and subheadings don’t belong in novels.
But some authors still overuse italics.
Why is this a problem?
Overusing anything is a problem, in writing and in life (examples: chocolate, coffee, or any other addictive substance). In writing, overusing any particular word, phrase, or technique runs the risk of drawing the reader’s attention away from the story.
Italics are a particular problem. They have many uses in fiction, and are easy to overuse. More importantly, they can be difficult to read for any length of time. This can affect the reading experience.
There are two main reasons for using italics in fiction:
- Our chosen style guide recommends italics are used in this situation, and there is no reasonable alternative. This is effectively a requirement—style guides may “guide” and “recommend”, but those guidelines are usually rules, especially if you’re working with a traditional publisher.
- Our chosen style guide suggests italics, but there are reasonable alternatives. In these cases, the choice is typically up to the author or publisher.
Style Guide Requirements
There are many instances where we have to use italics, depending on our choice of style guide. The Chicago Manual of Style (the accepted authority for US fiction) requires italics for:
Names and Titles
The Chicago Manual of Style suggests italics for a range of names and titles:
- Boat or ship names (8.116)
- Book, newspaper, or magazine titles (8.168)
- Play titles (8.182)
- Movies, TV shows, radio, and podcast titles are italicised (8.189)
- Videogame names (8.190)
- Blog names (8.192)
- Paintings, photographs, statues etc. (8.198)
- Album titles (but not song titles) (8.194 and 8.197)
Poem titles are not set in italics unless it’s the name of a compilation or a very long poem (e.g. Dante’s Inferno) (8.181). Song titles and blog post titles are typeset in quotation marks (8.194 and 8.197, 8.192).
Key Terms and Letters
Key terms are italicised on their first occurrence (7.56), although this applies more to nonfiction than to fiction.
Letters may also be italicised (CMOS 7.64) e.g. he signed the document with an X. But common terms like mind your p’s and q’s don’t need to be italicised, and nor do school grades (CMOS 7.65).
Italics for Emphasis
Many authors use italics to emphasise certain words, especially in dialogue. The issue with using italics for emphasis is that authors who like to use italics to emphasise certain words or phrases almost always overuse the technique.
Using italics for emphasis is like using exclamation marks. They draw attention to the writing rather than what the characters are saying or doing. Sandra Newman and Howard Mittlemark say:
Other typographical conventions used for emphasis … should be used infrequently, VERY RARELY and never.
(I’m not so tough on the never-use-bold: if a character hears from God, this can be shown with bold font. But that almost never happens.)
The Chicago Manual of Style permits using italics for emphasis, but also points out that italics lose their force if overused (7.50). The manual also notes there is no point italicising the words at the end of a sentence—the words at the end of a sentence are naturally emphasised. Robert Hudson is more blunt:
A dependence on italics for emphasis is a sign of poor writing.
In other words, revise the dialogue or interior monologue to emphasise what needs emphasising, and remove the italics.
Italics for Foreign Words
The official rule on this is that we italicise a non-English word the first time it appears (7.53), but not if it’s familiar enough to appear in the dictionary (7.54). If the word appears in the dictionary, it’s considered common enough that we expect readers to know the meaning.
This can lead to several problems:
- The foreign words in a dictionary are going to vary depending on which dictionary you are using. For example, in New Zealand, the dictionary includes many common Maori words, but does not include Maori place names. However, non-New Zealand readers might need Maori words explained. Equally, a US dictionary is likely to contain a number of Spanish words. A Canadian or English dictionary might include common French words. As an author, you can’t expect all the readers to know all the words.
- Italicising non-English words gives the subtle impression that non-English words are “other” and somehow secondary to English words. As well as being unnecessarily Anglo-centric, this ignores the large number of words English has borrowed from other languages. We all know we’ve borrowed a number of French words (e.g. gourmet and ballet), but we’ve also borrowed from others (e.g. pajamas and verandah both come from Hindi).
- Some genres use a lot of non-English words. Amish fiction is an example. Should we italicise every Deutsch word? I suspect not. Most people who read Amish fiction read a lot of it, and probably don’t need italics to show them Rumspringa or Englisch are not English words. Instead, add a glossary at the beginning of the book for those readers who are leas familiar with the genre.
Some authors will sprinkle in the occasional non-English word to show the character isn’t a native English speaker. They usually use common words that the reader will understand—hello, goodbye, please, thank you. But this also causes problems. I only speak English, but I can say hello, goodbye, please, and thank you in several different languages.
Why? Because they’re common words. They’re the words people usually use first when they learn another language. As such, it doesn’t make sense that the “foreign” character would revert to their first language when using these common words. They’re more likely to revert to their first language when they can’t think of the English equivalent.
In my experience, they’ll then try and work out the correct English word in one of two ways:
- If they’re with someone else who speaks their first language, they’ll say the word in the other language and ask for the translation:
“Honey, what’s the English word for XXXX?” - Or they’ll try and explain the word and hope the person they’re talking to will still understand:
“What’s the English word for that small thing in the Bible, the one that’s not a chapter?”
(A verse, in case you’re wondering. My Welsh-speaking father asked me that once. He’d attended a Welsh church as a child, and never learned the English word.)
If you want to show your character’s first language, then try:
- Terms which have no clear English equivalent, or where the English translation loses the flavour of the original (e.g. the Amish Rumspringa is literally “running around”).
- Pet names or endearments (e.g. the equivalent of darling or honey).
- Techncial or religious terms (e.g. the Amish Ordnung).
- Terms which are unique (e.g. the Icelandic jolabokaflod).
But I’d still be inclined not to italicise the non-English word. It should be obvious that it’s not English, so italicising is another subtle form of telling where you should be showing.
Author’s Stylistic Choice
There are also a few instances where italics are the author’s stylistic choice.
Italics for Diary Entries or Letters
Some authors include diary entries or letters as part of the plot. Italics are an easy way of differentiate diary entries or letters from the main text. Many book designers also block indent the entries to further differentiate them from the main text.
Unfortunately, letters and diary entries are often long, and long passages in italics can be difficult to read. The alternative is using another font, but this can bring up problems with finding an appropriate second font that combines well with the primary font, is easy to read (many handwriting fonts are less than legible), and one that will render properly on ereader devices.
One of my early reviewing experiences was a novel that used a lot of nonstandard characters, and none of these rendered properly on my ereader. The result was a novel with random rectangles signifying a missing letter—which definitely didn’t enhance the reading experience.
If your novel has letters or diary entries, then my preference would be to typeset them in a complementary font. Failing that, italics are an acceptable substitute. Not idea, but acceptable.
Italics for Direct Thought
Back when we used manual typewriters, we also learned to use double quotation marks to indicate spoken dialogue, and single quote marks for thought. This approach is now considered outdated, because thoughts are thought, not spoken.
A more modern convention is to use italics to indicate direct thought. However, there are disadvantages to this approach as well:
- Italics are only effective for a few words or a short sentence. Any longer, and it becomes difficult to read. It can slow the pacing of the scene, and overuse of italics will annoy the reader.
- Direct thought in italics changes the point of view of the scene from third person past tense (the most common choice in modern fiction) to first person present tense and back again . This change can be jarring for the reader. Yes, it’s less jarring if you’re writing in first person or present tense, but I’d still argue that italics are unnecessary.
- Direct thought is telling where the author should be showing.
My preference and recommendation (as an editor and as a reader) is to use deep perspective point of view, whether you’re writing in first person or third person. This helps eliminate the narrative distance between your characters and your reader, and produces a more engaging and emotional reading experience.
And third person deep perspective eliminates the need to use italics for thought.
My one exception to this rule suggestion is prayer
If a character is praying inside their head (i.e. rather than praying aloud), then it’s better to use italics. In this case, italics clarifies that the character is praying. If the prayer were set in normal type, it might look as though they were taking the Lord’s name in vain:
God, I need to get out of here. Help!
vs.
God, I need to get out of here. Help!
In this case, I think italics are the correct approach.
Conclusion
My overall advice is to use italics where necessary i.e. where recommended by the appropriate style guide. Otherwise, avoid italics … because it’s all too easy to overuse the technique.
