# Asking about Dialogue Format



## Sir-KP (Feb 3, 2019)

Hi, I hope you guys can help me here.

Currently I am kinda stuck in a part where there is a dialog between two characters. Except, one guy keeps talking one sentence after another.

Imagine you are walking with someone. Your mate is walking five steps behind you and they keep saying things to you and you don't reply.

My question is how to write this kind of consecutive one-man speech?


Currently I'm delivering it under this format.

_Example:
_*"Xxxxxxxxxx!"
"Xxxxxxxx, xxxx!"
"Xxxxxxx? Xxxx! Xxxx!"*
_... so on and so forth_


...which I'm thinking this might be confusing to readers because the same format is also used in _a more active_ conversation where one person replies to the other.


Apologies if this question sounds dumb. Hopefully the question was clear however.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 3, 2019)

X and Y are walking home from work, when X gets an idea.

"Hey, you wanna stop off and grab a quick drink?

Several steps later, having gotten no reply, X repeats the question.

"Hey, Idiot! You wanna stop and grab a drink?"

Still no reply.

"Y, ya deaf sum'bitch! What'sa matter with ya???" X shouts, angry at being ignored. 

Y happens to look over, and notices X looks upset. He pulls his earbuds out and asks, "You want somethin'?"



Something like that?
( Which is basically the way I've been going about it. )


G.D.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 3, 2019)

Oh, and I dunno if this helps answer the question or not, it's just something I picked up a while back:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dialog with a tag

Tag following quoted dialog:
"That's fine. Whatever you decide," he said.
"That's fine. What does she think?" he said.

Tag preceding quoted dialog:
He said, "That's fine. Whatever you decide."
He said, "That's fine. What does she think?"

Tag between two separate dialog sentences:
"That's fine," he said. "Whatever you decide."
"That's fine," he said. "What does she think?"
- or -
"That's fine." He said, "Whatever you decide."
"That's fine." He said, "What does she think?"

Tag interrupting a dialog sentence:
"That," he said, "is fine. Whatever you decide."
"That, "he said, "is fine. What does she think?"

Dialog without a tag, but with an associated narrative sentence

Narrative sentence following quoted dialog:
"That's fine. Whatever you decide." He shrugged.
"That's fine. What does she think?" He shrugged.

Narrative sentence preceding quoted dialog:
He shrugged. "That's fine. Whatever you decide."
He shrugged. "That's fine. What does she think?"

Narrative sentence between two separate dialog sentences:
"That's fine." He shrugged. "Whatever you decide."
"That's fine." He shrugged. "What does she think?"

Narrative sentence interrupting a dialog sentence:
"That." He shrugged. "Is fine. Whatever you decide."
"That." He shrugged. "Is fine. What does she think?"

Dialog ending with an exclamation point, ellipsis, or emdash follows the same pattern as the question mark. 


Long, multi-paragraph speech:

You simply don't put an end-quote at the end of a paragraph, but you do put an open-quote at the beginning of the next one. Like this:

"This is the first paragraph in a speech," Mary said. "It goes on for awhile.

"This is the second paragraph in the speech. It goes on longer.

"This is the third paragraph in the speech. Are we getting bored yet?

"This is the last paragraph in the speech. You end it with an end-quote." 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





G.D.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 3, 2019)

If you have extended dialogue (which is what this is, regardless of whether there are pauses between each line spoken - you will need to show those pauses some other way) without any breaks you write it like this.

*As I walked I heard Jack behind me, his voice a baleful plea.
**"Hey Donny?
"What's wrong Donny? Don't you wanna talk to me?
"Donny? Hey! I'm talking to you!"
*
^ Notice the absence of closing " marks on the first two lines? That's the signal to the reader the piece of speech has not ended. The closing speech marks are put at the end of the entire piece indicating either a transition to a new speaker or back into narrative. Yet somewhat confusingly you still still start each new line with the " marks. That's the signal to the reader that this is still part of dialogue.

On the other hand:

*"Hey Donny?" Jack called, from ten feet behind. "What's wrong Donny? Don't you wanna talk to me?"
I kept walking, ignoring him, whistling.
"Donny? Hey! I'm talking to you!" Jack yelled.
*
^ This has the closing tags after each speech fragment because the dialogue is dispersed between narrative. It's probably the more common way to write such a scene also, because generally speaking there is action you want to describe between each dialogue, however if there is not you can write it as in the first example.

*I think this is right - it's been awhile. If I am wrong please somebody correct me.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 3, 2019)

That certainly fits in with the guide I posted. 

The only difference is the single sentence instead of a paragraph, in your first example.

And the second example is how I generally write such.

By the way, I don't really agree with this, from that guide:

Narrative sentence interrupting a dialog sentence:
"That." He shrugged. "Is fine. Whatever you decide."
"That." He shrugged. "Is fine. What does she think?"

I prefer this:

Narrative sentence interrupting a dialog sentence:
"That," he shrugged, "is fine. Whatever you decide."
"That," he shrugged, "is fine. What does she think?"

I'm probably wrong, but I think it just looks and reads better in the blue version.




G.D.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 4, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> I prefer this:
> 
> Narrative sentence interrupting a dialog sentence:
> "That," he shrugged, "is fine. Whatever you decide."
> ...



This, to me, is  wrong. You can't 'shrug' a word, which is what using shrug as a dialogue tag implies. Shrugging is an action and needs to be part of narration. If you want the act to be closely associated with the word, but not a tag, you can do something like this.

"That," he said, shrugging, "is fine. Whatever you decide."


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 4, 2019)

"He shrugged" is simply an action in the middle of him speaking.

He starts speaking - he shrugs - he finishes speaking.

Then again, there are some things I've written just like I did here as well.

Here, how 'bout this one:

"Why did you do that?  Now I've gotta - her hands flew over the control panel - fix it!"

Don't like that one either?

I've got a lot of places where dialog has an action mixed in with it... Cases where a character is speaking and doing something in the middle.

Edit: Here's another place I've found help on punctuating dialogue:

Tips for Punctuating Dialogue Tags

( Look at example #4 on that page. )


G.D.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 4, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> "He shrugged" is simply an action in the middle of him speaking.
> 
> He starts speaking - he shrugs - he finishes speaking.
> 
> ...



First, let me say you can do anything you want, it is your writing after all, but when I give my opinion here I do it with the expectation that the writer is trying to write publishable fiction, so I gear my comments toward what is considered 'standard' usage. Your example in red above is not something most editors would accept. 

The example #4 you linked to has a note after the examples which states precisely what I suggested. You'll notice in example #6, the author states just what I said above; words like 'laughed', 'grinned', and yes, 'shrugged' are actions, not ways of saying things, and need to be set off by full stops.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 4, 2019)

Terry D said:


> First, let me say you can do anything you want, it is your writing after all, but when I give my opinion here I do it with the expectation that the writer is trying to write publishable fiction, so I gear my comments toward what is considered 'standard' usage. Your example in red above is not something most editors would accept.
> 
> The example #4 you linked to has a note after the examples which states precisely what I suggested. You'll notice in example #6, the author states just what I said above; words like 'laughed', 'grinned', and yes, 'shrugged' are actions, not ways of saying things, and need to be set off by full stops.



Yes Terry, I know I can do as I please. I'm just having a conversation here on dialogue and punctuation, nothing more.
( It's not an argument... at least not yet. )

I'm also very much aware that in many cases, there are several acceptable ways to go about doing/saying the same thing.

I'm also aware that there are abrupt actions, that are jarring and maybe not consistent with what's being said, and ones that fit in smoothly with what the character is saying; punching versus shrugging, for example.

I'm just curious as to people's opinion on the subject.

And the example I gave in red up there? I've seen similar ones  in several published sci-fi works. That's where I picked it up.

Oh, and in example number 4, the action is in the middle of the sentence ( Which is what we were discussing originally ), interrupting it, where in number 6, it's at one end or the other. 

And I have noticed some inconsistencies with how some actions are handled...

She laughed, she called, she shrugged... Shouldn't all three be handled the same?

Right: “Andy,” his mother called, “come here now!”

So that's correct, but wouldn't be if 'shrugged' replaced 'called'? ( Provided the sentence still made sense, in the context of the dialogue. )

How 'bout if you changed 'his mother' to 'she'?

Again, I'm trying to get a handle on the 'rule' here.

Edit: I've also noticed that 'grinned', 'beamed', 'smiled', etc. aren't just actions, they're facial expressions. Is that possibly the reason they're handled differently?


G.D.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 4, 2019)

Here, to further clarify - or possibly muddy - the waters:

When a Comma Isn’t Enough

Excerpt from that site:

"From Words into Type (3rd ed.):

“Commas are not strong enough to set off a complete sentence interpolated within another; dashes or parentheses are required.

Their example:

Ace—people who don’t know him well call him “Goody”—is aided by a natural sense of humor.

The Writer’s Digest Grammar Desk Reference puts it this way:

“A pair of commas cannot be used to set off an interruptive element that is the equivalent of a grammatically complete sentence. Choose either a pair of dashes or a pair of parentheses instead.”"

Sorry, Sir-KP. If this stuff was easy, everybody'd be doin' it. :|


G.D.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 4, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> And I have noticed some inconsistencies with how some actions are handled...
> 
> She laughed, she called, she shrugged... Shouldn't all three be handled the same?
> 
> ...



Words like 'called', 'said', 'screamed', 'shouted', 'stammered', 'yelled', all describe how the words were spoken, they directly reference the dialogue, so they fit as part of a dialogue tag (when used sparingly). Facial expressions and movements often accompany dialogue but they are actions, not words, therefore they belong as separate narration.

New writers often worry about using 'said' too often, and they frequently worry about the reader 'getting' the emotion, or tone they are trying to establish, so they end up embellishing their dialogue tags to hammer home the point. Every bit of dialogue ends up with some attribute applied to it.

"Don't go in there!" she whispered, breathlessly clapping her throat.

"Why?" he questioned.

"Because... because..." she choked, "I may never see you again."

"What's that supposed to mean?" Guy Bad glowered.

"Leave her alone, you cad!" Hiro Dude boomed.

That stuff gets old fast. While it's not the same as using actions as attribution, it's a close cousin to it. If the scene is written well, the emotions, and many of the physical actions, will be clear without the need to be hammered in like a nail. If you are writing some tense dialogue between a father and his teenage son, you probably don't need to tell your readers that the boy shrugs when he says, "Whatever."


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 4, 2019)

Yes, it does get old.

Is it technically incorrect though?

Every writer has to find their own way of doing things, as well as what is generally expected/desired by editors, publisher, readers, etc.

And also what works for the particular genre they're wanting to write in.

I'm not questioning any of that.

All I'm looking for at the moment is what the rules dictate should be done, since if I or anyone else knows that, then we know what we have to work with, and how we may or may not be able to get away with bending those rules, or pushing the boundaries.

I noticed something at that last web site I posted a link to:

"Now, not to confuse you but to show a true exception to the rule, a dialogue tag can interrupt a sentence of dialogue. By convention we allow dialogue tags preceded and followed by a comma to interrupt an independent clause in dialogue.

“She told me she did it,” Aurora said, “smiling the whole time.”

Dialogue tags are something other. Like a question tag—you picked up the pizza, didn’t you?—they’re allowed special privileges. We don’t consider dialogue, thought, and question tags to be comma splices, even though they actually are. Their use is *a convention somebody decided on*, one that serves writers well. But the rules of that convention don’t translate to other situations."
Bolding mine.

What I noticed is the fact that a lot of what writers need to know aren't  grammar rules or anything of the like... That there are things - conditions or situations - that fall outside the norms that are considered okay or expected to be dealt with in a particular way that contradicts the usual rules.

...and that's the reason for threads and conversations like this; to figure this stuff out. ;-)



G.D.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 4, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> Yes, it does get old.
> 
> Is it technically incorrect though?
> 
> ...



What makes it incorrect (to me) is a dialogue tag's sole purpose is to represent the character of the speech. Shrugging by definition is non-vocal - you can't shrug a sound. Dialogue by definition is vocal - you can't silently speak. 

Therefore _technically_ it is as incorrect to say 



> _*That," he shrugged, "is fine. Whatever you decide."
> *_


...as it would be to say:



> _*That," he farted, "is fine. Whatever you decide."*_


You can see in the second example the problem that could/would result. It sounds like he is farting words. But it is still doing what you are doing - using a non-vocal verb in a vocal context.

Now, if you were wanting to use the idea of 'shrugging' to communicate this dialogue you still can, you just can't indicate it's a vocal form of communication Because it's physically impossible.



> _*That, he shrugged, is fine, whatever you decide.*_


or



> *He shrugged, as if to say: Fine, whatever you decide. *



By removing the " marks the verbal instantly becomes non-verbal. This may be the gray area/rule bending you are looking for? Incorporating what would normally be written as dialogue into body language is one way to still enjoy the same sort of effect as dialogue but making clear it is being communicated through a non-verbal (body language) means.


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 5, 2019)

The problem I see, 'Scars, is that shrugging is show something concerning the character of the speech that isn't being conveyed by the words... Indifference.

In your second example, although farting may very well be conveying something similar, it's still an action that doesn't _generally_ convey a communication of thought or emotion.

Because of that I would write it like this:


"That - he farted - is fine. Whatever you decide."

Yeah, it might be something the reader needs to know, but that sentence conveys tandem, unrelated simultaneous actions. 

Your first example does indeed convey both verbal and nonverbal communications, regardless of whether or not the punctuation/tagging is technically correct. But they are a part/aspect of the same thought.

The quotation marks only serve to separate the spoken from the physical. 

Someone's speaking? It gets quotation marks. They're doing? It doesn't.

Combine the two? *shrug*

Again, I'm not arguing here, I'm simply trying to work out the thinking and justification for the examples I've found elsewhere for the deviation from the normal or usual. Because there certainly doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rules for this.

And you have to admit, this is really useful information to have. No?


G.D.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 5, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> The problem I see, 'Scars, is that shrugging is show something concerning the character of the speech that isn't being conveyed by the words... Indifference.
> 
> In your second example, although farting may very well be conveying something similar, it's still an action that doesn't _generally_ convey a communication of thought or emotion.
> 
> ...



So what's wrong with the example Terry gave? _*That," he said, shrugging, "is fine. Whatever you decide." 

*_^ In the above the meaning is still the same and you don't run the risk of being misunderstood or perceived as writing clumsily. I guess I don't see the need to pursue an option that may come across as problematic (even if only to some) versus inserting a couple of words to eliminate the problem entirely. It seems to me this is the whole reason the word 'said' exists.

As far as "That - he farted - is fine. Whatever you decide." I appreciate you say you have seen it in published work (I personally have not) but it reads plain wrong to me. I was always taught that anything appearing within the two " marks belongs to the strand of dialogue. If I see "That - he farted is fine. Whatever else you decide." I am going to read the 'he farted' as being part of what the character is saying not doing. 

I'd be interested to know how it is the reader is supposed to distinguish this, especially in a context where the action being inserted into the dialogue also sounds like it could feasibly be a part of the dialogue:

_*"What happened when he was onstage - he farted - he'll never live down."

*_^ How is the reader to know if its the guy talking who farted or that the guy onstage who he is talking about farted?


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 5, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> So what's wrong with the example Terry gave? *That," he said, shrugging, "is fine. Whatever you decide." *



The "said" could be seen as extraneous, I suppose, and shrugged to shrugging, but past that, nothing. It would just another way for writing it.

So in the end, I'm just curious if the claim is that Terry's example is correct, where my version wasn't, and if so, why. when the example and excerpt from the first site I posted _seems_ to support that it's at least acceptable... if "she called" and "He shrugged" are accepted as similar... 'action tags', I suppose you could call them.
( Again, also swapping out 'she' for the identifier 'his mother'. )

So it comes down to figuring out which version works, and why or why not.



luckyscars said:


> ^ In the above the meaning is still the same and you don't run the risk of being misunderstood or perceived as writing clumsily. I guess I don't see the need to pursue an option that may come across as problematic (even if only to some) versus inserting a couple of words to eliminate the problem entirely. It seems to me this is the whole reason the word 'said' exists.



And some may see "said" as unnecessary, since it's obvious the person is speaking, and the tag doesn't identify WHO is speaking.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't have trouble understanding that someone shrugged as they were speaking, one way or the other.

As far as it being clumsy, or problematic, It's starting to look like it's just a matter of taste and opinion. 

Or that the acceptability could come down to it being supported by the sentences that precede or follow it. 



luckyscars said:


> As far as "That - he farted - is fine. Whatever you decide." I appreciate you say you have seen it in published work (I personally have not) but it reads plain wrong to me. I was always taught that anything appearing within the two " marks belongs to the strand of dialogue. If I see "That - he farted is fine. Whatever else you decide." I am going to read the 'he farted' as being part of what the character is saying not doing.
> 
> I'd be interested to know how it is the reader is supposed to distinguish this, especially in a context where the action being inserted into the dialogue also sounds like it could feasibly be a part of the dialogue:
> 
> ...



In that last instance, the middle 'he' would probably need to be changed to a specific name to identify the person as different from the speaker, if that is the case

If the person talking has the gas problem... then it would be understood as _his_ action.

But we're talking about what the person speaking is doing, either in addition to or in conjunction with what they're saying. If that person is telling what someone else is doing, then the action would have to be attributed to the other person in some way, or written in another way.


But as I said, I've seen it written that way before, in a situation where a character is having a conversation, but is doing something else at the same time. 

And there's also this bit, from the second web site I linked to:

"For the same reason we don’t interrupt independent clauses with other independent clauses using only a pair of commas, we don’t set off an action or thought that interrupts a sentence of dialogue (in lieu of a dialogue tag) with commas. The setup is exactly the same.

“She told me she did it,” Aurora pounded the table, “smiling the whole time.” X
*
“She told me she did it”—Aurora pounded the table—“smiling the whole time.”*

“I need to get to him before the police do,” at least I thought I did, “so he doesn’t think I abandoned him.” X

“I need to get to him before the police do”—at least I thought I did—“so he doesn’t think I abandoned him.”"
Bolding mine.

See the bolded version there? That's reported to be the correct one. Does pounding the table have anything to do with what's being said, other than to show an emotional content to what's being said?

Also, does this rule or convention require that it does, or can the independent clause be completely unrelated? Some task the person is doing while they speak, like working on a car engine, etc.?

Again, I'm trying to get to the bottom of the 'how and why' of this stuff, and also find an explanation for some of the seeming contradictions.

For instance, brevity, fewer words, and not using unnecessary descriptions are preferred? Yes?

Then why this? From the first site I linked to:

Experienced: “I’m not going to my room!” Amy stomped her foot and glared at her mother.
Inexperienced: “I’m not going to my room!” Amy yelled angrily.

Experienced: “Do I have to do this?” She folded her hands together to hide their trembling.
Inexperienced: “Do I have to do this?” she asked, fearfully.

In those examples, an adverb ending in 'ly' is considered inexperienced and to be avoided, while the more descriptive version with several extra words is preferred...

...no doubt bringing those folks out of the woodwork that'll claim it's "too wordy".

So again, some of this stuff comes down to preference and opinion. 

And also, the goal or intent of the author, as well as the context and situation being described.


Again, not arguing here, just trying to find a pattern to it all that makes sense.



G.D.

P.S. I'm continuing to use the two sites I posted here because they're handy and already linked to. I or anyone else can find other sources if someone thinks they are wrong or don't cover the particular situation we're discussing adequately.


----------



## epimetheus (Feb 5, 2019)

When reading these my preference is for

_*"That," he shrugged, "is fine. Whatever you decide."
*_
OK, shrug is an action here, but it also indicates the manner in which the words are spoken - rather nonchalantly. 

Not that there's much wrong with

*"That," he said, shrugging, "is fine. Whatever you decide."

*but the former conveys the exact same meaning with more visual immediacy to me.


----------



## JustRob (Feb 5, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> "He shrugged" is simply an action in the middle of him speaking.
> 
> He starts speaking - he shrugs - he finishes speaking.
> 
> ...



I'd agree with your reasoning here but am uncertain what would be the correct format. The problem is that people who deny that it is permissible to do something also cop out of stating how one would if it were. So, would it be more correct to write --

"Why did you do that?  Now I've gotta" - her hands flew over the control panel - "fix it!" 
with the extra quotes inserted to delimit the dialogue properly

-- or --

"Why did you do that?  Now I've gotta," - her hands flew over the control panel - "fix it!" 
with the conventional dialogue comma inside the quotes added as well as the dash outside

-- or even --

"Why did you do that?  Now I've gotta -"  her hands flew over the control panel - "fix it!" 
with the dash inside the extra quotes to denote the dialogue break instead of a comma (and indeed should the second dash then also be placed inside the quotes to denote continuation)? Using distinct opening and closing quotes that then appears as --

“Why did you do that? Now I've gotta – ” her hands flew over the control panel,  “ – fix it!”


Returning to the original question, surely the answer is simply to state what was said there within the piece itself, that the speaker followed behind passing remarks at intervals but getting no response, and then write the series of dialogue items after that statement to illustrate that happening. To me it's simply a situation where _telling_ it like it is is probably better than trying to _show_ it by some possibly misleading convoluted means. If you can tell us clearly in this thread what you are trying to achieve then you must be able to tell your reader as well because writing prose is ultimately just a way of conveying information, unlike poetry which can have strange prescribed rules about particular forms that have little to do with conveying any information.


----------



## bdcharles (Feb 5, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Therefore _technically_ it is as incorrect to say
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm using this


----------



## bdcharles (Feb 5, 2019)

JustRob said:


> "Why did you do that?  Now I've gotta" - her hands flew over the control panel - "fix it!"
> with the extra quotes inserted to delimit the dialogue properly
> 
> -- or --
> ...



I use this sort of interjection a lot. I go, generally, for your fourth option. They are subtly different IMO. 1 seems to have less of a pause than 4.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 5, 2019)

How’s this?

“That...” He shrugged “...is fine. Whatever you decide.”

^I generally try to avoid ellipses as they are massively abused, however it seems to me an interruption in dialogue to insert an action may be an appropriate use of them.

The above version looks correct to me. It doesn’t create a fragmented sentence by having a single period but acknowledges the shrugging as being a separate act to the utterance.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 5, 2019)

There are no 'rules' about writing dialogue other than those regarding punctuation. Here's a good primer for those. No one following this thread probably needs that article but even those rules are not intractable;I recently read a novel by Dan Simmons in which he designated spoken words by using italics and not quotation marks, Cormac McCarthy doesn't differentiate between dialogue and narrative in any way. I read a Stephen King short this week in which he used em dashes to start every bit of dialogue. As far as I know the grammar police haven't arrested any of those best-selling authors for their transgressions.

How an author structures the narrative around and within her dialogue is a stylistic choice and open to even more flexibility than is their grammar. I believe that one's writing style is like an airliner in which we transport our readers to our stories; it does its job best when the ride is smooth and only remarkable in hindsight. There are a lot of ways to give that ride turbulence, and the way we handle dialogue can be a major contributor of air-pockets and down-drafts. Dialogue is important, maybe the most important stuff we write. It needs to sound real without being a verbatim transcription of what people really sound like. It needs to provide solid information to move the story forward without letting the reader know it is really the author giving them that information. And that last bit is where too many writers screw up. We've all read a dialogue exchange in a book or story where it is obvious the writer is shoe-horning in information (although I'm sure none of us have ever written anything like that, nod-nod wink-wink). It's very easy to remind our readers that we are in the cockpit, to disrupt their ride. Getting 'creative' with dialogue tags, trying to make them do too much, and drawing attention to the bits and pieces of narration we use during our dialogue is like getting on the intercom and saying, "This is your pilot. We are heading into some turbulence. Please make sure your seat-belts are fastened."

I've been reading, writing and reading about writing for a long time. Most of the best advice I've read has come from successful writers sharing what works for them. All of them have stressed keeping dialogue, and the narrative surrounding it, simple. Don't add extra shit just to seem 'writerly'. I believe that my writing is best when I disappear, just like an airplane ride is best when you don't have to see (or feel) what the pilot is doing. So, no, I don't have my characters glower, laugh, grimace, roar, titter, or shrug their lines. They might do any of those things during a conversation, but they say their words, they ask their questions, they demand a response, or they shout to someone in another room.

"I've beaten this dead horse long enough," he ejaculated. "I can't make it any more clear."


----------



## Guard Dog (Feb 5, 2019)

Thanks guys.

( Terry D, thanks for the site link. It's stashed in my bookmarks now, for later reference. )

I dunno how much any of this helps the OP, but it certainly gives me more to work with.

...and also a better understanding of _WHY_ I'm doing things the way I've chosen to do 'em.

( I've never been the sort that just does what he's told without understanding the reason for it. )
( For that matter, I've never been much on doing what I'm told. :razz: )



G.D.



luckyscars said:


> How’s this?
> 
> “That...” He shrugged “...is fine. Whatever you decide.”
> 
> ...



Yeah, I like that one too, and have used something similar now and then.

To me, that version looks like there might be a less-abrupt pause in between the speaker starting to talk, then shrugging, finally finishing the thought. Like the person may be considering something carefully before committing to it.

Does that make sense?


G.D.



bdcharles said:


> I'm using this



For an alien race that uses farts as punctuation, maybe? :icon_cheesygrin:

( Don't stand too close when they shout or yell. 8-[ )

G.D.



bdcharles said:


> I use this sort of interjection a lot. I go, generally, for your fourth option. They are subtly different IMO. 1 seems to have less of a pause than 4.



Well, androids and synthetic people don't tend to dawdle around with such things the way us 'squishies' usually do, therefore not so much of a pause.



G.D.

Edit:



JustRob said:


> I'd agree with your reasoning here but am uncertain what would be the correct format. The problem is that people who deny that it is permissible to do something also cop out of stating how one would if it were. So, would it be more correct to write --
> 
> "Why did you do that?  Now I've gotta" - her hands flew over the control panel - "fix it!"
> with the extra quotes inserted to delimit the dialogue properly



I agree with your version here, Rob. It's one that I would naturally write, with the inner quotation marks bracketing the action, and separating it from the spoken parts. But I can see where it could go either way.

The reason I didn't add 'em  in the example I gave is that I've read that they are unnecessary in an instance like this.

I need to do more research on that one, and see if I need to go back through and add 'em in my WIP.



G.D.


----------



## Sir-KP (Feb 5, 2019)

Hey y'all, just wanna say thanks for the answers and replies. 

There are three pages! Holy snitzel! I wouldn't quote, but I'm gonna read everyone's post and take note.

Thanks again. Keep sharing and discussing, hopefully the thread can help others too.


----------



## JustRob (Feb 6, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I recently read a novel by Dan Simmons in which he designated spoken words by using italics and not quotation marks, Cormac McCarthy doesn't differentiate between dialogue and narrative in any way. I read a Stephen King short this week in which he used em dashes to start every bit of dialogue. As far as I know the grammar police haven't arrested any of those best-selling authors for their transgressions.



Italics instead of quotation marks, eh? How about italics _inside_ quotation marks to denote an inner dialogue within a character's mind then? I did this back in 2013 when I was revising part of my novel. Below is an extract. While kissing a girl this young man is trying to think of a way to extend their potentially brief encounter, but his subconscious mind keeps feeding him apparently irrelevant ideas and quotations from the works of William Blake for some reason. Eventually here his thoughts develop into an open dialogue with his subconscious mind, whose words are shown in italics.



> He closed his eyes and saw nothing but blackness, the same smooth blackness that he could feel with his hands, but his mind saw more.
> 
> ‘_Another Pumpkin, yes there is. _No, that’s wrong, it was in a future destroyed in the past. Now it’s just a memory. _All my experience is just a memory. Is all my experience non-existent for that? _Memories are dead. They can’t be relived. _You’ve not heard of living memory?_ Shut up! I want to remember this kiss. _Only as a dead memory? _Smartarse! Who or what are you? _You wanted to communicate like C-C, didn’t you? _You’re the computer? _Hardly. I’m your own inadequate intellect trying to help. _Christ, really? _No, you killed him, at least inside your mind. You must remember that. _Oh, the accident with the crook. I don’t really believe that, do I? _As much as you don’t believe that concentration is dangerous. You can’t remember how much you’ve remembered and certainly not how much you’ve forgotten, like simple unbiased geometry. Look. _Look _w_here? _Everywhere but not anywhere. It’s the deepest memory you have and never used. Bring me my spear. O clouds unfold._’



This extract may look confusing to you, firstly because here I followed the British convention and used single rather than double quotation marks, but also because there are several references to earlier parts of the story including events in his childhood that even he barely remembers. Apart from those incidental issues the dialogue is confused by my writing it all as one paragraph, but then there is only one character involved, so I have in fact abided by the normal convention for dialogue. In a way this is similar to the OP in being a one-sided dialogue, a bit of an oddity, then. Apart from adding confusion to the dialogue this compact layout also suggests that its pace is faster than spoken dialogue between distinctly separate characters, whereas the example in the OP needed distinct breaks between lines of dialogue. It was my intention to create these sensations within the reader's mind to reflect accurately how the character was himself feeling, confused by rapidly developing ideas. My use of italics is actually explained within the dialogue itself, so this aspect shouldn't be confusing.

The bottom line is that anything that achieves what you intend must be right. The conventions are there just to serve as a basic default where it isn't quickly evident that you are doing something a little different.

Returning to the OP, I think I would insert filler statements between the one-sided lines of dialogue to make the situation clear thus.

*"Xxxxxxxxxx!"
No reply.
"Xxxxxxxx, xxxx!"
Still no reply.
"Xxxxxxx? Xxxx! Xxxx!"
More silence.
*


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 6, 2019)

JustRob said:


> Italics instead of quotation marks, Eh? How about italics _inside_ quotation marks to denote an inner dialogue within a character's mind then?



Looks wrong to me. It’s not how most such scenes in American commercial publications are formatted either...

Thoughts are often italicized, but adding quotation marks to them is at best totally unnecessary and at worst potentially confusing, even if it’s “dialogue” - if it’s not out loud spoken it shouldn’t have quotes. 

If I see italics inside quotes my assumption is going to be that it’s regular spoken speech but in a stressed accent/foreign language as that’s two other places italics typically crop up. 

So yeah, potentially confusing.


----------



## JustRob (Feb 6, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Thoughts are often italicized, but adding quotation marks to them is at best totally unnecessary and at worst potentially confusing, even if it’s “dialogue” - if it’s not out loud spoken it shouldn’t have quotes.
> 
> If I see italics inside quotes my assumption is going to be that it’s  regular spoken speech but in a stressed accent/foreign language as  that’s two other places italics typically crop up.



I was responding to Terry's remark about Dan Simmons using italics for dialogue by showing an example where I equally used quotation marks for thoughts, which I did pretty consistently in my novel and consistency is ultimately what matters. I also consistently used italics within quotation marks to indicate emphasised thoughts (or emphasised speech or even emphasised quotations**), which is apparently consistent with your expectations of their use. The distinction between spoken dialogue and thoughts tends to be determined by context in my writing as that distinction is barely relevant within the novel. In my extract the remark about being able "to communicate like C-C" is a reference to a girl who talks to a supercomputer telepathically and I've no idea about the conventions as to where quotation marks should and shouldn't be employed in that situation. How "out loud" does the dialogue need to be to justify their use? In fact shortly following my extract the young man senses a third quite unidentifiable "voice" in his mind, so perhaps he has established a telepathic link with the girl he is kissing. It might just be wishful thinking though, so how would anyone sticking to the conventions decide how to write the text and why would it matter?

It is difficult to use extracts from my writing as examples because it is highly integrated and fragments do tend to look terribly fragmented. Also as this particular extract is from near the end of the novel (in its current form) I couldn't even really post the chapter in full for proper critique because it brings together so many motifs from throughout the story. 

I guess the bottom line is that style is as style does then.


** Here's an emphasised quotation from earlier in the same chapter. William Blake is effectively "speaking" within the character's mind but equally being quoted.



> ‘_Bring me my arrows of desire_’ countered Blake, which hardly helped the situation.



The young man was at that stage actually trying to resist the temptation to kiss the girl, a total stranger, but Blake's words, even though not spoken out loud, were _emphatically_ encouraging him to.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 6, 2019)

I think it is important to keep in mind that the decision to make many stylistic choices, also hinges on the author's goals for their writing. Is he writing solely for his own pleasure and that of family and friends, or is his goal to try and sell the work to a publisher? If one has no intention of marketing their work, then, by all means, use any dialogue format -- or other stylistic choice -- that suits your fancy. But, if you plan to approach agents and editors with your work, it might be wiser to stick with more traditional methods. Why insert barriers that you can avoid? Simmons, McCarthy, and King -- in those examples I mentioned above -- were known quantities for their publishers. They have a proven readership and a track record of success. New writers trying to find markets for their work are already fighting an up-hill battle, I don't see the sense in adding rocks to an already hazardous path.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 6, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I think it is important to keep in mind that the decision to make many stylistic choices, also hinges on the author's goals for their writing. Is he writing solely for his own pleasure and that of family and friends, or is his goal to try and sell the work to a publisher? If one has no intention of marketing their work, then, by all means, use any dialogue format -- or other stylistic choice -- that suits your fancy. But, if you plan to approach agents and editors with your work, it might be wiser to stick with more traditional methods. Why insert barriers that you can avoid? Simmons, McCarthy, and King -- in those examples I mentioned above -- were known quantities for their publishers. They have a proven readership and a track record of success. New writers trying to find markets for their work are already fighting an up-hill battle, I don't see the sense in adding rocks to an already hazardous path.



I been saying this - You read early work by these guys it’s almost always conventional as hell. 

James Joyce made his name writing romantic poetry. Everybody thinks Cormac McCarthy came out of the womb as some sort of literary primitivist but his early published short fiction like “Wake For Susan” is written like Jane Austen. Even has him using semi colons.

As a rock n roll band you have to earn the right to smash guitars and come on stage drunk.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Feb 7, 2019)

Sir-KP said:


> Hi, I hope you guys can help me here.
> 
> Currently I am kinda stuck in a part where there is a dialog between two characters. Except, one guy keeps talking one sentence after another.
> 
> ...





This is not a job for dialog alone.
You will need to paint both characters. No doubt the recipient of this rant will be making faces of their own, or thinking dark 
thoughts.
How x feels about Y tells you a lot about both x and Y.  Use the conversational struggle between them to illustrate both characters.

It is always fun to give them a relationship quirk. That odd element that exists only between them.  That weird thing that  they do not do with other people.  Think of Tremors and the way that Valentine and Earl would decide things with a fast game of rock-paper-scissors, or the interaction between the hitmen in Man with one red shoe.  Is there something they both vehemently agree or disagree on?


----------



## JustRob (Feb 11, 2019)

Terry D said:


> I think it is important to keep in mind that the decision to make many stylistic choices, also hinges on the author's goals for their writing. Is he writing solely for his own pleasure and that of family and friends, or is his goal to try and sell the work to a publisher? If one has no intention of marketing their work, then, by all means, use any dialogue format -- or other stylistic choice -- that suits your fancy. But, if you plan to approach agents and editors with your work, it might be wiser to stick with more traditional methods. Why insert barriers that you can avoid? Simmons, McCarthy, and King -- in those examples I mentioned above -- were known quantities for their publishers. They have a proven readership and a track record of success. New writers trying to find markets for their work are already fighting an up-hill battle, I don't see the sense in adding rocks to an already hazardous path.





luckyscars said:


> I been saying this - You read early work by these guys it’s almost always conventional as hell.
> 
> James Joyce made his name writing romantic poetry. Everybody thinks Cormac McCarthy came out of the womb as some sort of literary primitivist but his early published short fiction like “Wake For Susan” is written like Jane Austen. Even has him using semi colons.
> 
> As a rock n roll band you have to earn the right to smash guitars and come on stage drunk.



Really? I would have thought that the music industry was far more open to innovation by newcomers than the literary publishing industry, so invalidating that comparison. That's probably why it's been far more exciting in living memory as well. I was just thinking of Kate Bush's debut single _Wuthering Heights_, written by her at age eighteen and hardly considered to be conventional even in the pop music industry then. Had she written a book entitled _Wuthering Heights_ at that age instead then she would probably have had as much trouble publishing it as Emily Brontë did with the original. 

Apparently the literary publishing industry needs to become more aware of the potential of "one hit wonders" in order to survive, especially now that self-publishing is becoming more of a prospective path. Music publication went through similar growing pains before innovations could come to the market as quickly as they do now. Without such evolution the written word may soon lose out to audio-visual entertainments entirely. It is said that today's youth find it hard to watch monochrome films because they don't look real in their eyes compared to modern full colour images. It isn't just about them being old-fashioned in content but about them being old-fashioned in style. Maybe eventually the written word will also become incomprehensible no matter how conventional the style of it is if the conventions themselves don't adapt rapidly enough.

The remarks made by the above members may be appropriate advice for younger new writers, but for old-uns like myself a long career in writing is highly unlikely and we can at most hope to be one hit wonders if a means of publication presents itself. It isn't about whether one wants to publish or not but whether circumstances permit it. Apparently Emily Brontë effectively had to self-publish _Wuthering Heights_, so personal style is probably the least of the obstacles presented to some of us and we might as well write in the best possible way _for us_, much as Kate Bush did, as her subsequent career clearly proved. 

As ever the key thing is to be clear in your mind why you are writing and what you hope to achieve by it. That will guide you towards the way that you should write. Also bear in mind that some of the best known stories were originally written for friends and family and that publication came as an afterthought. A good story will always show through a flawed style, but a good style can't save a flawed story. Also, personally I am a very critical reader, so much so that I now read very little in the way of published works because they so seldom please me, so writing for my own pleasure is actually the hardest thing that I can attempt, not the easiest. The expression "writing for his own pleasure" suggests laxity, which is far from the truth for some of us. I would suggest that "writing for his own profit" actually lowers the bar, especially in the case of established writers apparently.

The bottom line is as ever -- don't ask how; write first and then ask for reactions to what you have written.


----------

