# another dialogue question.



## k3ng (Jun 10, 2010)

For my work involving predominantly dialogue.

I'm trying to imply action and movement without actually writing it down. I'm not sure how good of a job I'm doing. 

Example.

In this particular sentence I'm implying that my character has just finished a phone conversation with a friend and hung up and then proceeded to complain to himself. 

'Goodbye, Nate. That man can be a pain sometimes...'

As far as implying that he's put the phone down after the period, I'm not happy with that. Is there a better way to do that, without actually breaking the dialogue and writing 'said Ben, hanging up' or something to that effect?


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 10, 2010)

Sure.
I generally find that the most useful way to do dialog is broken up with action lines.

'Goodbye, Nate," he said sweetly, then slammed his phone shut.  "That man can be a pain sometimes...'

"Goodbye, Nate." He stared at the phone before pocketing it. "That man can be a pain sometimes..."


----------



## k3ng (Jun 10, 2010)

Is it possible to exclude the dialogue tag altogether? That's what I'm really trying to do. I know it's kind of restrictive but that's the kind of style I'm approaching - the idea that you were eavesdropping on a conversation without seeing it... hence the omission of actions.

I should really post up a sample sometime soon.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 10, 2010)

What lin said is generally how I do it, too. If you want to be rid of everything but dialogue you have to imply things even more carefully.

When I read: *'Goodbye, Nate. That man can be a pain sometimes...'* It sounds like your character is still talking to Nate. I assumed he was saying goodbye and then tagging on a comment about a third party.

Break it up with punctuation: *'Goodbye, Nate.' That man can be a pain sometimes.
*Here the parts in quotes are spoken aloud, the commentary on what the character thinks of Nate is not spoken.

However, you wanted to have the character muttering the second part to himeself. With no tags, no action, no anything to break it up this is going to be confusing. You could try:*
'Goodbye, Nate.'

'That man can be a pain sometimes.'*

I'm not a huge fan of using ellipses as they are more properly used in writing to show that something has been left out. For instance if you wrote the other side of the phone call when the call was breaking up. For example:
*'...doesn't have a clue! And...said that you...consequences of your...breaking up, I'll...can you hear me?'*

Really, attempting to write it all as dialogue is a great exercise but it is a pain. Toss in a few tags or action lines sparingly if you just can't get it to be clear otherwise. That is what they are for.


----------



## k3ng (Jun 11, 2010)

Hm.

I'm leaning towards that paragraphing idea, Foxee.

How effective do you think it'll be? I mean, is the implication of hanging up the phone strong enough? Can I get away with it?

Also, on the note of punctuation - I'm not sure if you meant to close those quotes after the first sentence. I though if speech was continued by the same person, that wouldn't be necessary in a new paragraph? Or is it way too confusing altogether.

Excerpt from said conversation.
***

'Hello, can I speak to Nate please?'

'This is him.'

'Nate, what exactly does your god sound like?'

'Oh. My. Word. It happened, didn't it?'

'Nothing happened.'

'I can't even see you and I can tell you're lying. He -'

'Look, nothing happened. I just had a weird dream.'

'Then why on earth are you calling me first thing in the morning with a question that no human being on this planet would ever guess would come from your -'

'Stop being smart. I'm just -'

'What did He say to -'

'Look, he didn't say anything, okay? There is no "he". Nothing happened. Forget I said anything.'

'Ben.'

'What?'

'I told you so.'

*'Goodbye, Nate. That man can be such a pain sometimes. (etc) .. .. ..*

***

Also in an earlier question some time ago I mentioned the idea of dialogues sort of trampling over each other and this is one of those examples with the sentences being cut off a lot. How's that working you think?


----------



## Julianne (Jun 11, 2010)

K3, I'm going echo what lin said above. In order to make it clear that the statement "that main can be such a pain" is not said to Nate, there needs to be some kind of a break. Action without a dialogue tag is fine, as long as the action makes it clear that the other character is no longer on the phone.

"Goodbye, Nate." He hung up. "That man can be such a pain sometimes."

Or, if you're in the other characters POV, then "that man could be such a pain" could simply be an unspoken thought, which might be more realistic if no one else is around to hear the statement.

"Goodbye, Nate." He hung up. That man could be such a pain sometimes.

Just a couple suggestions to think about.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

> Is it possible to exclude the dialogue tag altogether?



Of course.  And often the best way to go.  Especially with a conversation ping-ponging back and forth.

You can exclude quotations marks if you want.  I've read several books with no marks on dialogue at all.   Doesn't seem to be a problem.  In fact the last one I read I didn't even notice it right away.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 11, 2010)

As Julianne has pointed out, you need clarity. By not using dialogue tags or action lines you are kind of breaking rules already, right? So you are almost going to have to think of this in a different way than prose (even though it is prose). If you're going to avoid using prose tools then you have to use visual tools, rhythmic tools, really watch your words within the dialogue and use them to push the actions that you want. Breaking the line into two isn't technically correct because one speaker is still speaking but in the name of clarity you can break it apart visually (like poetry) to direct the reader.

I thought the dialogue wasn't bad and having the two speakers trample the ends of each others' sentences is true to life, especially when it's a stressful subject and they're metaphorically elbowing each other out of the way to express their opinions or concerns.

I'll dig up a dialogue-only piece that I wrote and I'll put it on my blog for you to look at. Maybe you'll get some ideas, maybe you'll just get a chuckle out of it but either way I'll find it for you.

Here it is: A Little Dark Humor


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

By "prose" she means "non-fiction".    The rules of style (as in style manuals, etc) don't apply to fiction.  Simple as that.   
You've got grammar and spelling (although you can fiddle with that if you want, as well) and you've got a vague canon that's something like,  "If it sucks too bad, nobody will want it".  But the rules that apply to English essays, newspaper articles, business reports, etc,  do not apply to fiction.  Absolutely not.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 11, 2010)

That's pretty much what I meant.  Although if the piece is submitted for publication a lot will depend on the editor one subs to whether they see such style rules as being applicable. In a case like this if the editor wanted the author to edit to toe the lines in the style books and it would wreck the piece to do it, the author can assume either that the editor didn't get it or that the author missed the mark and the piece doesn't stand strongly enough on its own.


----------



## Killer Croc (Jun 11, 2010)

I don't think it would break the action too much by including dialogue tags, but if you're really trying to avoid it, you could always do this:

"Goodbye, Nate."  _That man can be a pain sometimes._

The italics would signify that the character is thinking rather than speaking.

Just a suggestion.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

Thing is, though, it doesn't require the italics to make that clear.  What else would that sentence be?


----------



## Killer Croc (Jun 11, 2010)

Well, if it was written in first person then you're definitely right, because it would make sense if the narrator is the one speaking to Nate.

But if it was in third person, then maybe k3ng wants it to be clear that it's the character who's saying "that man can be a pain sometimes," not any kind of narrator.  Plus I've seen in many books the italics used to indicate that the main character is thinking.

You're right of course, I just thought the italics would make it unquestionably the character's thoughts.  Maybe I'm just over thinking it


----------



## k3ng (Jun 11, 2010)

Firstly, Foxee, I love the banter. It's great!

I'm being really anal about my concept approach this time around and I'm avoiding any kind of written thought or narration during the dialogue chapters. I know it's like digging myself into a ditch. Everything is spoken word.

Maybe I should rethink the defining lines of my concept to accommodate such happenings. 

Then again, this is starting to get me thinking. How do you imply in writing that someone is speaking out loud to themselves? My brain is dead for examples right now. I'm sure I've come across some before, but I just can't think of it.

*To make the idea of the concept a little clearer, this piece is attempting to simulate a third person POV, listening in on conversations built around the main Character - Ben - who occasionally talks to himself too. Certain chapters between the conversations act as 'breaks' for Ben's thoughts and the entire chapter would be a narrative written by Ben. And then the other chapters would be distinctly dialogue between Ben and whoever. There is also an entire chapter with Ben talking to himself. I'm putting that in the workshop section soon. Bear with me.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 11, 2010)

You're setting really narrow parameters for this which I think is really good! It makes you think and work at it. One risk with internal thoughts expressed as spoken word is that your character may start to sound like he's got a severe mental condition.

Keep working at it because at the best you amaze yourself and end up with a piece that works. At worst you have to reluctantly give in further down the line and add things you aren't accepting now. In either case you could end up with something you really like.


----------



## k3ng (Jun 11, 2010)

Foxee said:


> You're setting really narrow parameters for this which I think is really good! It makes you think and work at it.


 
I really needed that. I was about to compromise from all the 'stop limiting yourself' advice I was getting from some other peeps.

How's this for a fix?

'Goodbye, Nate.

...

That man can be a pain sometimes.'

In my mind, the pause is indicated by the ellipses and coupled with the 'goodbye' it seems to work. But then again, I'm the one writing so I don't know how effective it is for the reader.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 12, 2010)

If you're going to take that route I'd get rid of the ellipses again. In this case they seem to denote more of a passage of time and they make the comment about Nate pretty confusing as in who is saying it and now we don't really know when? It's too much of a break. I'd just say put the two parts on two separate lines for now and leave it. Write the rest and come back to it later. If people keep stumbling over that part then it will need done a different way.

Glad to encourage.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 12, 2010)

"Goodbye Nate, I am hanging up now." "Sorry, Dave. That man can be a pain"


----------



## k3ng (Jun 12, 2010)

But Olly, there is no Dave. He's muttering to himself. 

Oh and Foxee, not to worry. I'm not holding up because of this. The writing is continuing nicely. Just this one hitch that I wanted to find a good fix for. Till it comes up again I suppose.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 13, 2010)

Ok so:
"Goodbye Nate, yes, goodbye." "Gone at last, God that man can be a pain"

The clue is in the closing and reopening of the "." , shows he is talking to someone else, even if it is himself


----------



## Foxee (Jun 13, 2010)

Yes, exactly, Ollie, and note the added "Gone at last", that's what I was aiming for (but missed in my examples, I think) when I said that the implication of actions would have to be stronger in the dialogue if you don't write the actions themselves.


----------



## Sam (Jun 13, 2010)

You need to break it up with prose, otherwise the reader will still assume you're talking to Nate. I'd do it like this: 

"Goodbye, Nate." As he hung up the phone, he muttered, "Jesus, that man's a pain in the ass."


----------



## Reese (Jun 16, 2010)

As lin mentioned, you want to put an "action" tag along with the dialogue which seems resolute and decisive. Don't be afriad of using short and assertive sentences when dealing with dialogue.


----------



## thewordsmith (Jun 17, 2010)

k3ng said:


> Is it possible to exclude the dialogue tag altogether? That's what I'm really trying to do. I know it's kind of restrictive but that's the kind of style I'm approaching - the idea that you were eavesdropping on a conversation without seeing it... hence the omission of actions.



Note: if someone is angry or agitated when they disconnect a call, there are usually still audible cues. The phone snaps shut or, if a land line phone, is slammed down in its cradle or on a table or something. So you could still maintain the illusion of eavesdropping and utilize the ever-so-helpful dialog tag. (a loud snap as the phone was closed ... the bell ting-ed as the phone was slammed down ... Don't get too hung up on it. Relax and the solutions will usually present themselves.)


----------



## tekp (Jun 18, 2010)

I don't really like the following:

"Goodbye, Nate," he said, hanging up. "God that man can be a pain sometimes..."

Or any variation thereof. I just don't think the distinction of talking to someone and talking to yourself is clear. It just seems that if it's all in the same sentence or in the same little dialogue paragraph that it should really be on the same 'level' of talking, and I think muttering to yourself and explicitly speaking to someone are on different 'levels' of dialogue within prose (if that makes sense) so they should really be in separate paragraphs.

Then again, I don't really like:

"Goodbye, Nate."
"God that man can be a pain sometimes..."

As two neighbouring dialogue paragraphs conventionally implies they are being spoken by opposing parties, hence why you can usually safely omit 'he said/she said's in a conversation between two people, the reader will automatically assume the source of the dialogue is switching back and forth. For this reason it kind of looks like Nate is saying the second line.

So since I don't think you should put them in the same paragraph, and I don't think you should put them in neighbouring paragraphs, the way I would do it is to have them in the same paragraph but only have one of them as explicit dialogue.

So either:

"Goodbye, Nate," he said, hanging up and muttering his annoyance at the man under his breath.

Or:

He bid Nate goodbye and hung up the phone, "God that man can be annoying sometimes..."


----------



## JosephB (Jun 18, 2010)

Hard to say when you're seeing a piece of dialog out of context. But the situation and conversation or some subsequent action could convey that the character thinks Nate is a pain -- and you could lose that obvious bit of inner dialog altogether. It seems kind of phony to me. Think about it. Do you say things like that to yourself?


----------



## Eluixa (Jun 18, 2010)

LOL, Jo, yes, I do talk to myself as such. I even roll my eyes at the phone afterward.

Could you not use double quotes for talking to someone and single quotes for talking to yourself? That is probably how I would try it. Course, like italics, it might imply thinking too.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 18, 2010)

Can someone explain to this dummy - me -  what a dialogue tag is?


----------



## Foxee (Jun 18, 2010)

He knows. What some of the people who are commenting may not have noticed is that he is attempting to write this without them. It's an experiment or a challenge.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 18, 2010)

Why did you alter my post? I'm the one who wants to know what a dialogue tag is.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 18, 2010)

"Sorry, total misunderstanding," *Foxee said*, "My bad."

Dialogue tag in bold.


----------



## Reese (Jun 18, 2010)

"That man can be a pain sometimes..."

Insert your own character's reaction into the action. Just thinking someone is an ass doesn't say much. What does your chracacter really think of the person they are commenting on?


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 18, 2010)

Foxee said:


> "Sorry, total misunderstanding," *Foxee said*, "My bad."


 
Comma after 'said'? But thnx anyway.


----------



## Killer Croc (Jun 19, 2010)

Just curious, K3ng, but have you decided on a solution yet?  I'd be interested to know what you chose...


----------



## Reese (Jun 19, 2010)

"In this particular sentence I'm implying that my character has just finished a phone conversation with a friend and hung up and then proceeded to complain to himself."

Your entire premise is kind of crappy. Sorry if I stepped on any feet there.

You had a guy that makes a phone call, and then had an afterthought about said phone call? Do you understand how silly that premise is?

I'm a reader. I'm coming and looking for a piece to read ...and you tell your reader this? It's a missed opportunity.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 19, 2010)

Well, reader, I don't think you read the OP very carefully. Where did he say anything about this being a "premise" for anything? He's asking a questing about a single line of dialog. I think you may be stepping on your own feet.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 19, 2010)

Joe is 100% correct. "Reader" has a marvellous ability to misinterpret just about every post that appears on this site.


----------



## Killer Croc (Jun 19, 2010)

Reese said:


> Your entire premise is kind of crappy. Sorry if I stepped on any feet there.
> 
> You had a guy that makes a phone call, and then had an afterthought about said phone call? Do you understand how silly that premise is?


 
I think that's kind of harsh, especially since K3ng didn't ask for criticism about whether or not the sentence was silly or not...


----------



## thewordsmith (Jun 21, 2010)

k3ng said:


> How's this for a fix?
> 
> 'Goodbye, Nate.
> 
> ...



Actually, K3ng, that's a pretty good take on the delivery. But I would not break it down by lines like that.  Breaking your quoted comments into three lines would just add clutter to the character's delivery. 

"Goodbye, Nate ... that man can be such a pain."

The ellipsis clearly shows a break in time, albeit a very brief one. It's just a beat but I get the impression that's what you're looking for and it would work well.


----------



## thewordsmith (Jun 21, 2010)

JosephB said:


> Well, reader, I don't think you read the OP very carefully. Where did he say anything about this being a "premise" for anything? He's asking a questing about a single line of dialog. I think you may be stepping on your own feet.



JoeB, I'm not sure one has to state, in so many words, that something is a premise in order for it to be so. The premise is that The guy was on the phone to Nate. Something in the phone conversation annoyed him in some way and after he hung up the call, proceeded to mutter to himself that Nate was a pain in the ass. The second part of this premise, if I remember correctly, is that he doesn't want any visuals in the passage but more as if someone were on the far side of a door listening to the conversation, ergo the after comments by the character, and that listener would not be able to see what was going on on the far side of the closed door.  

Yes, Reese misinterpreted the gist of the premise in interpreting it that the caller was irritated about the phone call itself rather than something Nate had said. 
Joe misinterpreted, or rather misunderstood, the use of the word 'premise'.  (When a writer writes an action there is always a premise behind it, whether stated or not.)

Now, wouldn't it be nice if we could disagree politely and not be so devisive?


----------



## Foxee (Jun 21, 2010)

I think part of my problem with trying to make this work is that the guy's talking to himself at all. I know people do it (I know I do it) but it seems odd...in this instance it seems smoother that it would be a thought rather than speech but you know the character better than I do.

I'm curious to see how you eventually decide to handle this.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 21, 2010)

thewordsmith said:


> Joe misinterpreted, or rather misunderstood, the use of the word 'premise'.  (When a writer writes an action there is always a premise behind it, whether stated or not.)



No, he didn't. The premise is widely considered to be the central idea of the story --- or more simply put, what it's about.

That he would talk to himself after hanging up the phone is kind of forced, as I said previously in the thread -- and I also explained why I thought so.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 21, 2010)

JosephB said:


> Hard to say when you're seeing a piece of dialog out of context. But the situation and conversation or some subsequent action could convey that the character thinks Nate is a pain -- and you could lose that obvious bit of inner dialog altogether. It seems kind of phony to me. Think about it. Do you say things like that to yourself?


 

I don't know about anyone else, but I often grumble after hanging up the phone.  Maybe I'm a phony.   I'll ask Holden the next time I see him.


----------



## thewordsmith (Jun 21, 2010)

JosephB said:


> No, he didn't. The premise is widely considered to be the central idea of the story --- or more simply put, what it's about.
> 
> That he would talk to himself after hanging up the phone is kind of forced, as I said previously in the thread -- and I also explained why I thought so.


 
I repeat: When a writer writes action, there is always a premise behind it... not necessarily the main premise of the story. 

Thus, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he misunderstood. And it's not so far-fetched that someone - who would be in the habit of talking to him or herself all of the time, anyway - might grumble and mutter, or even sigh in frustration, about someone he just spoke to on the telephone. Obviously, the fact that he talked to himself would have to be established long before, or at least solidly before, this particular scene or it would, indeed, seem forced. But then, as others have noted, taking this bit out of context, it's pretty hard for any of us here to get a good hold on the character and/or the scene.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 22, 2010)

thewordsmith said:


> I repeat: When a writer writes action, there is always a premise behind it... not necessarily the main premise of the story.



If you get on a sailboat and you start referring to the sails as a jib or a mizzen or a mainsail, the sailors will get the idea that you know what your talking about. If you call them all sails, well -- they're going to know you're a landlubber.

When you're talking about writing, premise has a particular meaning. And it isn't the reason behind every little thing a writer puts into a story. So you can repeat it all you want, but folks will just think you've never been near a sailboat.



thewordsmith said:


> And it's not so far-fetched that someone - who would be in the habit of talking to him or herself all of the time, anyway - might grumble and mutter, or even sigh in frustration, about someone he just spoke to on the telephone.



I didn't say it was "far-fetched." I said it was kind of phony or a little forced. Sure, it happens. It just comes across as  artificial when I read it.

_I would prefer_ to do it with the dialog, the situation -- and although this doesn't apply in the case of our OP -- in the narrative, where I could just say, "Fred was getting tired of Nate and his incessant phone calls" or whatever.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 22, 2010)

> When you're talking about writing, premise has a particular meaning.



Actually, not.  It's not like a jib that only means one thing.  The word has its own meaning and can be applied as such.  You wouldn't say that a review of a novel about conspiracy can only use the word "plot" in a certain, tightly defined way because it's sacred writer jargon.

The meaning was quite clear from context.  (Clearer than trying to get two writers to agree on what "premise" means, I'd say)


----------



## JosephB (Jun 22, 2010)

So, if you were to ask  several writers what a premise is, you don't think they'd say it was something like the central idea of a story, what it's about, or at least something close to that -- as opposed to the reason behind some little  bit of action or dialog?


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 22, 2010)

Not really.   Especially not.... here we go... in the context.

It's not bizarre or incompetent for somebody to say,  "The whole premise behind the blonde being in the closet is questionable".
Or "How can the hero know to ditch his cell phone if he's not yet aware of the plot?"


----------



## JosephB (Jun 22, 2010)

Not really? Well,  OK. I do think premise has a meaning -- in reference to writing -- on which people would mostly agree, that could be used  as starting point -- at least. And yes, in this example, you can get it by the  context. My point is, if you're using  a bit of jargon among people who have an  idea of its meaning, why not use it in a way that is generally  accepted?

 OK, I'm done  splitting hairs.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 22, 2010)

Because, to continue to try to unsplit the hair, it's A WORD.  You can't reduce it to jargon across the board.   I have no idea if you understand that or not, but most do, instinctively.   To say that you can't use the word "theme" (whatever the hell THAT means to writing discussions) when talking about writing is silly.  A cigar is still a cigar.
And yeah,  context is a clue.  It always is.  Would you enjoy somebody reading through everything you wrote and saying things like, "when you say 'the characters crime didn't warrant the sentence' it's confusing because 'sentence' is special writerspeak"?

Confusion minimal unless chosen and abetted.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 22, 2010)

Well, in just about  every endeavor known to mankind there are words that have a generally excepted  meaning among people who are involved in them. Premise is such a word. Using those words as most understand them leads to less confusion, I'd say.   Yes -- even if you use them in some other way, where they are understood in context -- though it might not be as precise or clear. 

It's pretty  much that simple. If you want to complicate or dispute that (and you likely will try) -- be my guest.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 22, 2010)

It's not me who is complicating it, it's you.  You're the hair splitter, and it's not even a real split.  You're the only one who got snagged into this weird little "in any writing discussion, an word can only mean some specific definition and nothing else, not matter how obvious it is from context."

You don't seem to want to weigh in on whether one can say "plot" or "sentence" in a critique unless using them in the narrow sense of writing teminology.  Probably because you realize you'd look ridiculous.   Why you don't realize this about "premise" is hard to figure.  My guess is that you screwed up and just can't back off it.   Seen it before.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 22, 2010)

Actually, he's not the only one.  While I may not feel as strongly that premise has only one useful meaning in a writing context, the usage here did strike me as a little odd.  Not wrong, just odd.


----------



## Sam (Jun 22, 2010)

The word "premise" is a misnomer here, because it has absolutely no meaning at all in the context that it's been used. To wit: 

"Premise" ~ [logic] a previous statement from which another is inferred. An underlying assumption.

I don't understand where you can use "premise" to mean what the gist of a story is. Not on the above definition.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 22, 2010)

The word is perfectly good, doesn't obtain only to that definition, and makes perfect sense in the phonecall comment.

If not, what word would have been better?  And who's to say so?


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 22, 2010)

In fact, here's a little help in salvaging this horrible instance of misusage that nobody would even notice if one person hadn't stumbled over it and fallen down:


Main Entry:     premise 
Part of Speech:     noun 
Definition:     hypothesis, argument 
Synonyms:     apriorism, assertion, assumption, basis, evidence, ground, posit, postulate, postulation, presumption, presupposition, proof, proposition, supposition, thesis 




Of course, to a realtor "premises" are somthing else entirely.  But you don't see them getting anxious over people using it in other ways.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 23, 2010)

So, if he had written "the hypothesis here is that the guy was on the phone with Nate", you would find that perfectly acceptable?


----------



## Foxee (Jun 23, 2010)

I should have moved this to the debate section.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 23, 2010)

I found it perfectly acceptable as it was.  I thought I'd made that clear.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 23, 2010)

lin said:


> I found it perfectly acceptable as it was. I thought I'd made that clear.



According to the definition you posted, premise means "hypothesis".  So if premise is acceptable there, hypothesis should be, too.  If you think it is, that's fine.


----------



## Blood (Jun 23, 2010)

In fiction, the premise is the take-away, the meaning, the cause and effect.  So while it most often correlates in the mind of the writer to a central concept, it can apply to sentences as well.  The premise here would be ‘talking on the phone to an annoying person leads to hanging up [with mutterings]’, which is mostly true.  I do it all the time.  The sentence - said sentence I suppose - just illustrates this point.      Although the concern with this seems hardly relevant to the OP.


Zzzzzzz...


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 23, 2010)

What he said ^^

(Zzzzzzzz...)


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 23, 2010)

> According to the definition you posted, premise means "hypothesis". So if premise is acceptable there, hypothesis should be, too. If you thinkit is, that's fine.


 
Study logic.  Enlarge the grasp of your mind.  Try not to lay the little itsyness of it on others unhampered by faulty thnking, your own limitations, and obsession with worrying to death the inconsequential.

I shouldn't bother, because it does no good and will probably just lead to a dozen more little loopy arabesques, but I keep hoping in spite of experience:

One synonym for "field" is "area of expertise", another is "athletic court".     So, to answer you question (if it's even valid in your odd little world of competitive narrowness)     The sentence  "He was an outstanding lawyer in the field of collective torts"  is not the same as "He was an outstanding lawyer in the stadium of collective torts".

Duh.

So we have two moderators here, one saying that any word that might have a specialized significance in writer jargon has to be rigidly interpreted as having that meaning in any discussion that involves writing. (Though never did say whether he considers "sentence" and "plot" as part of the same regimentation as "premise")
And another moderator who seems to be saying (or actually kind of passive-agressive insinutating, as usual) that any of a word's synonyms have to be directly replaceable in a give sentence or.....    or what?   That's what I always ended up scratching my head over in these things....what the HELL is his point?  And why?

The original use of "premise" was just fine.  The contradiction and multi-page straining of it has been ridiculous and immoderate.


----------



## Fantasy of You (Jun 23, 2010)

Using writing specific jargon on a writing forum shouldn't be cause for debate. 

To the OP, the task you're setting yourself is a very hard one indeed. Since it would be hard to accommodate your need without confusing some readers, why not omit the last part entirely & simply edit the dialogue (if you even need to!) throughout the conversation to ensure the reader knows your character thinks the other is a pain?

- FoY


----------



## k3ng (Jun 25, 2010)

The fix as of now - after taking several looks back at it and not being satisfied with anything I came up with. I decided to do what FoY suggested to a certain extent (actually decided on this change before reading this hijacked thread again haha)

(continued)

'Ben.'

'What?'

'I told you so.'

'Goodbye, Nate... that man can be such a pain sometimes.'

'Ben, I'm still on the line.'

'Well, you are a pain and you ought to know it. Now Goodbye!'

***

I also decided to use that as a chapter break. I feel much better with this. Opinions?


----------



## RM Americano (Jul 20, 2010)

The way you have it written makes it seem like one continued sentence and there's no implication that the phone has ever been hung up.  Have you considered using an unorthodox format?

For example (using your convo from above):

'Look, nothing happened. I just had a weird dream.'

'Then why on earth are you calling me first thing in the morning with a question that no human being on this planet would ever guess would come from your -'

'Stop being smart. I'm just -'

'What did He say to -'

'Look, he didn't say anything, okay? There is no "he". Nothing happened. Forget I said anything.'

'Ben.'

'What?'

'I told you so.'

*'Goodbye, Nate.'*

*--*

'That man can be such a pain sometimes.'


----------

