Let's go back to talking about the so-called rules of writing again. Here's another one you'll meet from time to time: never ever use typographical elements to emphasise or dramatise parts of your text.

Example....
<blockquote>'EEKKKK!!! Desmond! <em>DESMOND!!!!</em> Colonel Farquhart's just been found <strong>DEAD</strong> face down in the hothouse aspidistra!!!'

'How <em>very</em> inconvenient, darling. I'd only just pruned it.'</blockquote>
There are some stinkers there. But there's also something that I think is rather handy and worthy of use, as always with the caveat 'in moderation'.

Let's deal with the shockers first.

<!--more-->

<strong>Exclamation marks</strong>.

Some people say these should never be used. I disagree. Exclamation marks are long-standing elements of punctuation that serve a purpose. They add that extra sense of power at the end of a sentence:
<blockquote>I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway!</blockquote>
I don't have any problem with that so long as exclamation marks are used very lightly indeed, not sprinkled around like confetti. What you mustn't do either is think you can enhance the process by adding in more than one. Multiple exclamation marks -- or question marks for that matter -- are bad punctuation, ugly on the page and look rather childish (which <em>may</em> make them OK for kids' books).

<strong>Capital letters for emphasis</strong>.

Avoid. Shouty, inelegant and ineffective.

<strong>Exaggerated spelling.</strong>

For example....
<blockquote>Eeekkkkk! Wooooo-o-o-o-tttt! Begorrrrrhaaaah!</blockquote>
You don't really need me to say it, do you?

<strong>The use of bold</strong>.

Bold is a typographic function principally used in non-fiction and journalism as a design feature. It's not there to emphasis individual words in a narrative work. Fiction, particularly popular fiction, emulates the oral storytelling tradition. Punctuation, used properly, signals the pauses and effects used someone reading a story. Bold has no place in that process.

<strong>The use of italics</strong>

Finally something I can and will use. But isn't it just like bold, you say? A typographic convention? Well yes, but it's a long-established one that fulfils several readily understood purposes in books.

Here are some ways you will see them used...

For emphasis. Consider these two sentences.
<blockquote>Are you the only one who's going to turn up today?

Are you the <em>only</em> one who's going to turn up today?</blockquote>
Same words, slightly different tone through nothing other than the italics in the second. I can't think of any other way to achieve that though perhaps an italics jihadist out there can suggest one.

For foreign words.
<blockquote>The <em>abbacchio scottadito</em> was perfect.</blockquote>
You'll often see this in my books since they take place in Italy. But I don't italicise everything (otherwise there'd be a lot of italics around). Very common words such as Questura I leave in Roman (i.e. plain) text since they appear so often they don't seem so foreign. This is my rule and completely invented. But you wouldn't want to italicise pizza, would you? I'm tempted to think a better rule would be to leave foreign words alone completely but this would go against the style of most publishers (and their style is what will apply to the finished book).

For interior thought.
<blockquote><em>Does he really love me</em>, Rebecca wondered.</blockquote>
Or simply a single line.
<blockquote><em>Does he love me?</em></blockquote>
I'm uncertain about the first, though it is popular and house style for many publishers. It seems to mix styles unnecessarily. The second sounds OK to me because it represents an entire interior spoken thought, which the first doesn't. But it could quickly become annoying if overused. You decide.

Book titles, newspaper names, ships... <em>The Times, Moby Dick,</em> the <em>Queen Mary.</em> All OK.

To represent historic passages. You'll find in some of my American editions, notably <em>Lucifer's Shadow</em> and <em>The Seventh Sacrament</em> whole sections are printed in italics. Nothing to do with me. This is the publisher's editorial style. I don't like it. Italics should be used for a single sentence or two at most. In big chunks they become unreadable.

One oddity about italics that people sometimes forget: if you want to italicise something within an italic sentence you revert to the plain Roman style. For example....
<blockquote><em>Perhaps we should put a notice in</em> The Times.</blockquote>
I use italics sparingly, principally for unusual foreign words and for the emphasis of single words in direct speech. They can give text a rhythm and texture that's difficult, if not impossible, to achieve through any other means. The other tricks I mentioned at the beginning, though, are best avoided except as pastiche or in fun stuff for children.