Susan, are there sources you can check for that? How did Thackeray do it, or early Dickens?

I'll have to look next time I'm at the library on those, which probably says something bad about my home library. (Though, given space and budget constraints, I've made a conscious decision only to buy classics I'm sure I'll re-read regularly, because I don't have to worry about them going out of print or being tough to track down in a library system.)

Anyway, what I ended up telling her was that the "Umms" and "Uhhs" distracted me in interior monologue, because they seem more like filler sounds than filler thoughts, and that made sense to her.

Apparently my brain really wants to be writing Chapter 12. When I started chapter 10, I entitled it Chapter 12 and then was scratching my head about what was wrong with word when it wanted to name the file that, until I realized my mistake. Then I started Chapter 11 and again typed in 12, realizing my goof a minute or so later. I hoping this means Chapter 12 is going to kick ass when I get to it, because my brain seems really entusiastic about it.

I'm nearing 42,000 words, over halfway to the end. It's hard to believe I just started this up in earnest only 7 and a half weeks ago.

I do have a rather odd formating question. I know when you're writing a character's thoughts verbatim, you use italics. The problem is, I have a character that only communicates telepathically (really long story I don't want to bore you all with) and I'm sure entire conversations in italics with no quotation marks would drive most editors nutty (and many readers as well). So how how should I handle it? At the moment I've been bolding it to differentiate from the protagonist's thoughts, but I've read that using bold is a big no-no for manuscripts.

Kalshane, what you could do for now is t put telepathic thoughts in brackets.

That could work as a temporary measure. BTW, if you want to see a neat example of telepathy portrayed in writing, check out "The Demolished Man" by Alfred Bester. It's worth reading, even though it's a bit dated (it was written 40-50 years ago, and is obviously a product of the times.)

Kalshane, I agree that bold is a bad idea, but I think underlining, italics, brackets, or anything along those lines is fine as long as you're consistent and clear.

ION, is it OK if I whine here a bit?

Brackets could work. I'm just worried about people's eyes melting having to read a page full of italics.

"The Demolished Man" by Alfred Bester.

I'll look for it. Thanks.

ION, is it OK if I whine here a bit?

You have my permission. Though as the thread's newbie, I doubt that counts for much.

If whining isn't part of writing, I don't know what is. Hell, I'm about to make a request of my own.

Kalshane, there's a chapter in one of mine that's basically three characters communicating that way. I displayed their thoughts this way: Character one, the primary from whose POV the episode occurs, is in straight normal text. Character two, Character One's young niece, was in parentheses. Character three, a used to be human killer who is related to both one and two, was in italics.

I'd stay far the hell away from bold. Really.

A request to all and sundry: if you haven't already, could you give your local library a call and ask them to order "Matty Groves"? We loves and depends on the library sales, we do.

It's probably the natural let-down of finishing a ms, but I'm in a bit of a funk and feeling discouraged about the whole process. I read a new-to-me author whose voice has certain similarities to my own, only he Kicks. My. Ass. Especially WRT description, at which I am lousy. And in my state of funk, my reaction to this wasn't, "Look how good I might be once I've written a couple dozen books," but, "I'm NEVER going to figure out how to do this right."

And now I've got CPs questioning character motivations and reacting to certain situations almost the opposite way than I'd intended. Obviously that's my fault, but there's still this part of me that's all, "Dammit, it was perfectly clear in my head. Can't you just hate Anna's evil first husband and take it for granted he was in the wrong because you like Anna?" Of course I have to find a way to clarify my intent on the page. But knowing that just puts me in a greater funk about my talents, because it WAS clear in my head, and I can't figure out what got lost in translation on the way to the page. And I don't know how I'm going to make my ms SHORTER when I have to explain all these things that aren't coming through right in the first draft.

Susan, I have no answers to most of that. I wish I did, but it isn't where I live. I do wonder, though, about the whole "accept X as evil" deal. Because how many people really are? If he had no redeeming characteristics, then you're putting your protagonist in a deep dark hole, because why was she stupid enough to marry him in the first place? If he had nothing going for him except good looks and snake oil, you've hamstrung her.

Besides, a reader is rarely going to simply "accept" on that level. What did you show them? The Sebastian I remember from the first book wasn't evil; he was spoiled and opportunistic and male in a very bad way. Maybe that's where you lost it in translation?

I don't know. I haven't read your second one. But that might be part of it,

Also, evil is very easy to do and, as a result, readers with any sophistication tend to snort at it and dismiss it, unless the writer shows it.

Sorry this is rambly. Kitten in lap sucking hand.

What did you show them? The Sebastian I remember from the first book wasn't evil; he was spoiled and opportunistic and male in a very bad way. Maybe that's where you lost it in translation?

Well, he's gotten worse--add misogyny and an epic ability to justify his own flaws and blame them upon others. But he's not meant to be Pure Evil, so I've got CPs saying, "But I felt sorry for him at this point," or, "I can understand why he acted this way, especially if Anna acted the same way she's acting around Jack." And I'm all, "Nooo! Anna good! Anna heroine! Anna normal! Sebastian mysogynistic asshole! You're suppose to HATE him!"

But that makes him one-dimensional. Was there something you showed between the first and second book, to make him get that much worse?

Put it this way. If your readerr only has the second one to go on, and you're portraying him as a complete asshole with nothing to recommend him, then you've got a problem. Because Anna is very definitely a sympathetic character. Yet she married him.

So, if you've done a good job with Anna, the reader is going to blink, and say okay, there had to have been SOME reason she hooked up with him in the first place. And they're going to look for sympathetic bits of him to relate to Anna.