Dirk
Indeed, there's a sorta new fashion in the way inner dialogue is treated. I would go farther away and say it's a kinda new way of managing your POV (just for the sake of vaccinating myself against the smartasses, if it's not new at all, please spare my life and your scowling; I'm mentioning what I know, given my limited sources).
Some authors call it “Deep POV” but don’t consider it an accepted convention. The idea is that the author deeply immerses the reader into the character’s mind reducing—even obliterating—the distance between both. If this is properly done, italics are not any longer needed because everything on the book’s page comes from the character’ minds.
There are several rules for this the deep POV to work. Not rules in the sense of guidelines that have to be followed or else you’ll be frowned upon by agents and editors alike, but in the sense of elements that must be present or else the deep POV thing won’t work. At all.
The main rule is the absolute lack of the narrator’s intrusion. Everything narrated in the scene must be from the character’s POV, in the character’s voice, so all observations and comments are the character’s and not the narrator’s. It’s like narrating in thirds person, as if it were first person. If you shift to another character´s POV (different chapter, different scene) then the voice must be quite different. If the voice remains the same, then the deep POV thingie doesn’t work because it seems it’s the same omniscient narrator, only in the head of a different character, but not a different character narrating.
Comments like “had she known” must be avoided. That kind of lines are the narrator intruding the story. It’s okay and there is no problem with them in other writing styles but, in deep POV, they break the illusion precisely because the character didn’t know, so it mustn’t be even hinted.
In deep POV, the narrator opinions on the POV character must be avoided as well because, once again, it’s the narrator intruding the story. “John’s childish reactions were about to derail the whole negotiation.” This is the narrator intruding, describing John’s reaction to the reader from the narrator’s standpoint (which is usually based on what is generally accepted) and foretelling the reader the outcome of the scene. In this kind of narration, italics, and even thought tags, are used, clearly creating a gap between the character, the narrator, and the reader. Once again, it’s not necessarily bad, it’s only a different way of narrating a story.
The main challenge with deep POV is the large amount of “showing”, as opposed to telling, required for the reader to grasp John is behaving childishly, and for the reader to realise the potential outcome of the negotiation given John’s attitude.
I’m finally coming to the italics issue that worries you. Another deep POV rule is the lack of direct dialogue (the one you write in italics) because it’s understood that the narration itself, all of it, is indirect dialogue. In deep POV, no thoughts are written in italics because the indirect inner dialogue is powerful. As if the character’s thoughts were imbedded in the narration because they are being thought as the narration deploys—even if the narration is in past tense.
Two examples:
Traditional:
John’s childish reactions were about to derail the whole negotiation. As he gave his back to the men at the conference table, they silently glared at him.
These people are a bunch of idiots, John thought.
Deep POV:
John crossed his arms and pouted, giving this back to the conference table. On the sly, he glared at the men to find them glaring back at him. A bunch of idiots them all.
Differences:
1. In deep POV, there’s no indication the negotiation is going to be derailed. John can’t know this.
2. Also, there’s no judgment about his reaction (“childish”). His attitude is described and it’s the reader who must conclude it’s kinda childish.The omniscient narrator can see the men glaring at John while he’s giving his back to the audience. In the deep POV narration, John needs to turn his head to realise the men are glaring at him.
3. John’s thought, that the people behind him are idiots, is in italics in the first example, but, in the deep POV example, is part of the narration (as indirect inner dialogue). Because the narration comes deeply from the character’s mind, there’s no need to indicate who thinks the audience is a bunch of idiots. The reader knows it’s John, thus, no italics are required.
Of course, a single scene as short as this one is a poor example. However, after a full chapter narrated from a particular character’s deep POV, where all descriptions and events are narrated from the character’s biased standpoint (e.g., if the character hates pink, anything pink should be described as “ugly”; when the narration shifts to the character who loves pink, anything pink should be described a “cool”), the reader won’t miss the italics and will understand it’s one of the character’s thoughts.
Hope I’ve answered your concerns.
Kiss,
Gacela
