Forum: Author Hangout

Italics is used for emphasized words.

You'll notice (using the global "you" here), that if you choose the emphasis mode, it actually italicizes the word. Supposedly it adds an extra emphasis when spoken aloud (at least that's what the html guides say), but at least on the Mac, I can't detect any difference between the two. Still, on the off chance that it does, I still use < em>< /em> and save the regular italics command for Book titles.

Bold is typically used for shouted commands, which only confuses readers who've actually read other books (i.e. published novels). I've also noted combining those, but aside from emphasizing a single word in a strongly shouted sentence, it's really overkill.

In the end, you don't want to shout emphasis. In fact, if done correctly, you usually won't even notice it in print. But it stands out (more on a subconscious basis) so readers will pay more attention to the emphasized word, though emphasizing an entire sentence utterly destroys the point of the emphasis!

While I have used italics (not emphasize) for entire paragraph (I typically mix italics and single quotes in Sci-Fi or Fantasy for telepathic communications), I'll then un-italisize single words to denote emphasis. Again, it's not obvious, but it conveys the right impressions.

But the whole point of emphasis is not to destroy the entire nail by pounding it into oblivion, you're merely setting it aside, so it the unconscious brain pays more attention to it, rather than calling attention to it with spotlights and a megawatt sound system!

Avoid constructions like that and you'll be good. Don't refer to Brigadoon's libretto, refer to 'Brigadoon', then the libretto as a follow-on, etc. (or the somewhat awkward but manageable "In the libretto of 'Brigadoon', ..." But usually the conversation will already be about 'Brigadoon', thus "In the libretto ..."

Great advice! Thanks for those insight. I'm still waiting to see which italicized play the adult 'kids' will be performing in this latest book.

Two-part answer. There's a play in the fall (title in Chapter 24) and a musical in the spring (title in Chapter 47). Of course, I could (possibly) renumber chapters before that. 24 is likely safe. 47 could maybe wobble. My chapters have been running a little longer than I want, but not enough to drive me crazy. Yet.

I even don't like the capitalization of months and the days of the week, there's no logical reason for it. I wonder who thought up that weird rule.

The first letter is capitalized because they're proper names the same as person's name is. However, it you mean the way some fools use capitals for all three letters of the abbreviated versions I think that got started by the newspapers for some weird reason.

Mmm, yes that seems like a logical reason.

It's not always logical. The seasons (spring, autumn, etc.) are the names of the seasons so they should be capitalized proper nouns, but they are not capitalized. Heaven and hell are the names of places, but unless referenced in the Bible, they are not capitalized.

But "Spring Break" is capitalized. I guess it's the name of a holiday.

It's not always logical. The seasons (spring, autumn, etc.) are the names of the seasons so they should be capitalized proper nouns, but they are not capitalized. Heaven and hell are the names of places, but unless referenced in the Bible, they are not capitalized.

Sorry, but you're wrong here. The seasons are not proper names ("I'm really enjoying the Bob leaves this year!") but are instead types of seasons, thus they're more singular list elements, rather than a name assigned at birth.

Heaven and Hell are capitalized because they specify the NAMES of specific places, rather than 'this hell I'm in' of the common curse 'You're going to hell' which doesn't actually specify a literal place, only a figurative one. The difference makes a substantial difference in terms of how it's formatted.

Technically, Spring Break should NOT be capitalized, since it's NOT a specific holiday, but it's become such a common event with college student, it's not treated as if it is (this one you can blame on newspaper publishers for bastardizing the language!).

The DSH in richarDSHagrin should be capitalised to warn readers about deliberate self-harm ;-)

AJ

However, it you mean the way some fools use capitals for all three letters of the abbreviated versions I think that got started by the newspapers for some weird reason.

Sorry, but that wasn't the result of newspapers 'bastardization' of English, instead those are acronyms (words constructed of the combinations of the first letters, like 'FBI', 'CIA', 'MI6' or 'IRS') and as such, are a recognized part of the English language, as it's a way of capturing how people actually speak, rather than how dictionaries would prefer we state common, everyday things!

Sorry, but that wasn't the result of newspapers 'bastardization' of English, instead those are acronyms

Sorry, Vincent, I'm right and you're confused here. We were not discussing acronyms, but the way some people shorten the days of weeks and months to three letters and capitalize them. Instead of writing Tuesday or Tue. they write TUE, and they do the months the same way, so October isn't Oct. they write OCT - that is not an acronym at all, just a misused capitalization.

Sorry, Vincent, I'm right and you're confused here. We were not discussing acronyms, but the way some people shorten the days of weeks and months to three letters and capitalize them. Instead of writing Tuesday or Tue. they write TUE, and they do the months the same way, so October isn't Oct. they write OCT - that is not an acronym at all, just a misused capitalization.

Sorry, I misunderstood the reference. Shortening terms for brevity IS a classic misuse of newspaper publishing, which is why I NEVER use the newspaper formatting conventions, always focusing on publishing literary conversations instead.

But as I've noted, very very few readers will ever notice the difference, while I tend to take it as a matter of personal pride, over emphasizing something the vast majority of readers will ever detect. But then I'm pretty pedantic, and is part of how I define myself, not how I sell myself.

As a reader I hate unnecessary and excessive capitalization. Wrong capitalization disturbs the reading rhythm whereas proper use of italics, bold, and emphasis support the reading.

Serious readers have typically learned speed reading at some point in their education, which relies on readers recognizing entire phrases by the sheer shape of the letters, allowing them to skim large segments of paragraphs without loosing the underlying details.

Thus, incorrectly capitalizing words will REALLY rub those readers the wrong way, and those are typically the readers you want to encourage the most, as they typically spend the most on the books they read!

P.S. I was always a speed reader, chewing up novels in only a day or two, but discovered that it screwed up my editing, as I was reading what I expected to be there and thus missed a slew of simple typos (words that appeared like the correct spelling but switched a vowel or minor consonants).

It takes a lot of the joy out of reading, but it does help with my self-editing! (Though I went from a couple of thousand words a minute down to several hundred, though I never bothered testing myself, not being in a school environment where it's commonly encountered).

I guess I'm one of those. Not really a speed reader but at least a fast reader because I catch myself sometimes 'reading' a paragraph by just glancing it. The funny thing is I 'trained' myself to do that by learning to fast skip sex scenes :D

In my case, I took a speed-reading class in high school (American) and immediately took offense, since I was already ready around 1,500 wpm, so I challenged the teacher to 'prove me wrong' by dramatically boosting my already fast speed.

She did, but of course I undermined her the whole way, though I did increase my reading speed to around (it's hard to remember this many decades later) 3,500 wpm (often enough time for me to finally assimilate the changes in my normal everyday reading).

Again, that's useful when reading, as you 'learn' what details to ignore and which to focus on for maximum retention, but it's plays hell on your self-editing, as you're not actually reading the words, just guessing at them instead, making typos virtually invisible.

And I do spend way more on Bookapy than the cost of a premium membership.

Part of my emphasis on research (my own) and extensive formatting is that I use formatting to it's full extend in my publishing (including explain each and every image I use in my books, including the graphic titles and ornamental dividers and chapter heads).

It's really more detail than users will EVER notice, but it's the attention to detail than I like to focus on, as I like to present the most 'professional' product that I can, than than simply cranking out volumes of plain text (no offense to those who focus on the words, but I just view these things differently).

I forgot to mention that I am using for Foreign Words

That's fine. Italics are used for multiple purposes.

The strange situation occurs when the dialogue is in a foreign language so it's in italics. But if the character is emphasizing a word, it's already in italics so you take the italics off that word.

The same is true for internal thoughts which are also in italics. If the character is emphasizing a word in his head, that word is not in italics to differentiate it from the rest of his thoughts.

I try to avoid the last two situations described above. I'm always afraid the reader won't know the convention.

I didn't know it was a convention but that's how I always interpreted it while reading.

You interpreted that way because it's the convention. Whether someone realizes it or not, they get accustomed to it from reading. That's the convention published books use so that's what readers are accustomed to.

You interpreted that way because it's the convention. Whether someone realizes it or not, they get accustomed to it from reading. That's the convention published books use so that's what readers are accustomed to.

The proof in the pudding is the variances in how things are formatted in different languages. While many are consistent (at least among the common European languages), they vary more widely once you get out of those small language concave.

I try to avoid the last two situations described above. I'm always afraid the reader won't know the convention.

Again, it's not a matter of 'recognizing' the convention, as it is your brain 'noticing' the unusual shape (slanting) of the letters. Since this is part of our primeval brain which seeks to identify differences which typically highlight danger, it's picked up more immediately than the actual word is interpreted, so we 'know' that there's an additional importance to the word, even if we're not consciously aware of why.

Believe it or not, there are actual, specific scientific reasons for most of literary formatting, which have been developed over thousands of years, based on which are the most efficient and most widely used (anyone encounter an interabang lately?).

Thank you. Very good suggestions.

I appreciate the suggestions and would appreciate some more ideas.

Since it's a translation of a foreign (alien) language, use my italics surrounded by single (not double quotes). Once readers catch on to the format usage (which you introduce via dialogue), it'll be easier to follow and improve the pacing of the story (as readers stop stopping to figure out what's being said!).

It's amazing what you can accomplish by mixing and matching various formatting tools to highlight an unusual type of language.

Thank you.

I don't quite understand the differences between bold and strong and between italics and emphasized.

I thought audio books would sound different for strong and emphasized, but not bold and italics.

But I believe it was just people changing it for the hell of it.

I thought audio books would sound different for strong and emphasized, but not bold and italics.

Again, in most cases (except reading italics and emphases faster) the differences are widely ignored by virtually everyone. However, the most extensive 'readers' employed by the blind are much more precise, and those differences are appreciated, as it's otherwise impossible for the blind to differentiate between a single-quoted reference and a book title.

While I do code for those differences, the software required for the blind typically costs around $800 to $1,500, and are typically funded by government sponsorship, so I don't use them myself. I have downloaded the occasionally bootleg versions, but since they all require rebooting each time you want to use them, it's just not worth using on a regular basis!

I don't quite understand the differences between bold and strong and between italics and emphasized. Are there any?

While I've not looked into it in detail, the html code for bold has been around since html 1 and is a purely visual code. However, in html 4 or html 5, I'm not sure which, they added the html strong code it is supposed to display the same, but when put through a text to voice program it should result in the word within the strong code being vocally emphasized by the software, but the older software may not recognize it.

The reason there is sometimes an issue with it some e-book readers is that there is no real uniform standard for the use of the html and xhtml code in the e-book readers and some will process all of the code properly, and some won't. That's also why some will process and provide colored text and some won't.

I don't quite understand the differences between bold and strong and between italics and emphasized. Are there any?
Or is this a case of standard-by-committee? (can't agree over the name of a feature so they implement it twice with different names!)

Those are standards developed by the original html formatting committee, however since they aren't differentiated by most people, the majority of browsers largely ignore them (though they DO support the underlying html code (i.e. they 'recognize' the codes, they just don't adjust the text to speech usages, though those used by the blind DO follow those guidelines pretty strictly!

Bold is supposed to simply be a bold formatting, while Strong is designed to be emphasized in a strong, BOLD voice when read aloud, though it's rarely performed that way in either most browsers and most 'read-aloud' programs/tools, which is incredibly annoying for those of us trying to write for VIPs (Visually Impaired People).

Similarly, italics are simply slanted text, nominally used for foreign words/phases and or book titles, whereas emphasis (i.e. < em>< /em>) is specified to denote an audible emphasis (which is more commonly conveyed simply by reading the passages faster than normal text).

Again, I've done a LOT of research on these things over the years, including a wide variety of experimentation on various platforms and outlets, so I'm a bit more versed on the differences than most here would naturally be.

Over the years I've tried various things to show variations within the text of a story and I've run into a couple of issues due to the difference between the way text is displayed in a word processor, on a html web page, in a print book, and in an epub due to how the different e-book readers display things differently.

That's why I quit using 'in-line' formatting and now exclusively use ONLY html formatting, so that it's consistently formatted across ALL formats.

SOL is an outlier, as they typically ignore the vast majority of html formatting, but they still recognize virtually ALL in-line formatting variants (ex: < i> for italics and < em> for emphasis).

Note: Sorry for becoming SO excessive, but I've been sweating these details for the last twenty years, so I'm well-versed in the various usage, allowances and (largely) the scientific justifications for them, so the stated misuse of them just grates on my nerves! :(

Good advice.

The one thing I don't use italics for is what a character is thinking. Mostly because I rarely put what a character is thinking in my stories. Not in Aztlan Portal in particular.

But I believe the rest of your advice will be helpful to me, and perhaps others.