Forum: Author Hangout

What if the reason others can't hear is not because of ambient noise, but because the "speaker" deliberately silently mouthed the words because the "speaker" didn't want to be heard?

That was the context of the story. But, in that case, her 'exaggerated fashion' would merely be her leaning way over and overemphasizing the appropriate mouth motions used in speaking the phrase. Which is also why I'm not fond of the term, because it varies so much given the context that it's essentially a meaningless phrase (IMHO, at least).

My question was to The Outsider about how that situation would fit into his suggestion.

Not much to report, it was in preparation for a performance from a ground of child performers, who hadn't started yet. Background chatter, possibly, but no mention of any distractions at all, so I took it as a nonfactor. After all, why assume what's not mentioned in the story. If it was a vital element, hopefully the author would know to mention it.

Still, motioning excessively won't help anyone see what you're mouthing, so again, it's really a non-entity entity storewide. Either they were close enough to see, or she would have simply walked over and talked to them. Guessing otherwise seems like a waste of time. Besides, half the time someone 'mouths' something to me, I have no idea what it is. Essentially, that ONLY works when you already anticipate the response.

I used double-quotes and italics to indicate someone mouthing (forming) words when others couldn't hear him due to ambient noise. But I also added "he mouthed in an exaggerated fashion."

Now that's really mixing formatting metaphors, as double quotes denote spoken words, while italics (for entire sentences/pargraphs, at least on SOL) tends to denote thoughts or telepathic exchanges. Not that there's any correct answer one way or the other.

However, I'd consider 'exaggerated fashion' to be redundant: by definition, it has to be exaggerated just to get their attention. But then again, many believe it's a required phrase (aka: cliche) in those contexts.

Yeah, that seems to be the go-to response, more so because it's the standard alternative to regular double quotes, not because it means anything in and of itself.

I'd consider that spoken but unvoiced, and use double-quotes.

No, it's the equivalent of of a mute person shouting, if there's NO sound, then there's no 'speaking' involved. Now thoughts, and telepathy, are both forms of communication, that don't require spoken words, thus single quotes are more appropriate as it's a ready accepted technique.

I'm not saying your use won't work, just that I'm not seeing it. After all, why buck a trend if there's no benefit. If you break a rule, it should be because it produces a stronger response, not the exact some one. Then it's just confusing. But, that's just my personal opinion, so factor that as you will.

If music was blaring in the room so loud that you couldn't hear the person talking to you, but you were able to read their lips to know what they said, wouldn't that be in double quotes? After all, they spoke the words even though you didn't hear it.

Again, not in the story I was referencing, as the children's concert hadn't started. Instead, the one person was at the end of the row with someone, and the person she was mouthing the words to was farther away, so rather than walk over—and not be ready when the performance began—she instead simply mouthed the words.

Still, the formatting for 'mouthing' (an action, not a dialogue) should be the same whether there was blaring noise or absolute quiet. But again, it's fine to bend the standard rules, but I'd stick with using double (full) quotes for actual audible words. Then, the author wouldn't say 'mouthed', but 'inaudible'. But that detail is really neither here nor there.

But, given the slant of the discussion, I feel I'm in the minority here, as everyone besides me seems comfortable using the full double quotes, I'll shut my 'big yappin' pie hole' and quit yammering about it.

It's close third person with a LOT of internal focus. And no quotes

Yes, a close 3rd-person has most of the POV character's thoughts as narrative. No quotes. No italics. In close 3rd the reader is living in that character. You only explicitly show the character's thoughts (in italics) when you want to emphasize those thoughts.

That's how I usually handle telepathy.

Seems like consistency is the key.

That's the purpose of style guides — consistency. You can argue if it should be "ten-year-old" (Chicago Manual of Style) or "10-year-old" (AP Style Guide) until you're blue in the face. Both are correct. But if you don't choose a style guide (or make up your own), then you will write it "10-year-old" one time and "ten-year-old" another time. That is not correct because it's inconsistent.

I follow Chicago with some modifications I prefer and it says to use italics for internal thoughts.

But the point I was making is that in a close 3rd-limited, most of the POV character's thoughts are written as narrative. But every once in a while a thought might be important enough for it to stand out. In that case you write it as an internal thought following whatever convention you use.