Splitting dialogue

[XerXesXu]

No.

The inclusion of opening quotation marks indicates that the paragraph starts with dialogue rather than narration.

No. If the paragraph starts with dialogue, you open it with quotation marks. Always.

If the paragraph ends with dialogue, whether or not you close it with a quotation mark is determined by whether or not the next paragraph starts with dialogue by the same speaker. If it does, no ending quotation mark. If it doesn't, you use an ending quotation mark.


That is not the proper use of an ellipsis either.


I haven't tested that one. Does Literotica differentiate between the two? The only way I know that works to do line breaks within a single <p> tag is <br>.

Oh dear, there are two rules. The one which you were taught which causes confusion to the reader, and the one I was taught, which doesn't confuse the reader.

I prefer the rule I was taught.

Where, as on Lit, the system forces a para break, I use trailing and leading ellipses as aa cue to continuity.

'Not the proper use of an ellipses'. Ahhh... a new boy.

 

[liliput1]

I use this quite frequently, and I don't recall ever getting scolded by illiterate readers for it. I know I'm old, but this is grade school level grammar. Not even middle school, but true grade school.

Personally, I think adding "he said" type things to every paragraph is more disruptive. Unless there are more than two people talking, scattering them in occasionally to keep people from getting lost is sufficient.

Further, adding narration at the end of one paragraph or the beginning of the next just to avoid dialogue running across the paragraph break is often more confusing, as it removes a simple indicator of whether it's the same or a different person speaking.

Are you a teacher? How many decades since you were in grade school? I can't even use cursive anymore because nobody is taught to read it. Education is changing, sometimes by a lot.

Also I paid attention quite a lot in school because I didn't have a lot else going on, and I have no recollection at all of this rule. So I'm thinking it might have been peculiar to one or two anglophile countries or regions.

 

[THBGato]

I wonder how many people (at least younger ones) are unaware of the convention about a paragraph with a missing " at the end.

How common is such ignorance? Did you know this convention? Do you avoid splitting dialogue to avoid this?

It probably isn't taught. I've no idea about the US curriculum, but my daughter has just taken her GCSEs. There was only one question on the two English Language exams that required her to write creatively, and even then, dialogue is only one skill. The qualification is all about reading and analysis, really. So this kind of rule isn't prioritised by teachers.

As a writer, I try to avoid such long monologues anyway, breaking them up with listener reactions (laughter, groans, back channeling, questions), movement, etc. I mean, apart from very formal occasions, when would one personal speak uninterrupted for such a long time?

 

[IWroteThis]

Oh dear, there are two rules. The one which you were taught which causes confusion to the reader, and the one I was taught, which doesn't confuse the reader.

I prefer the rule I was taught.

Where, as on Lit, the system forces a para break, I use trailing and leading ellipses as aa cue to continuity.

'Not the proper use of an ellipses'. Ahhh... a new boy.

No, there are not two rules. Sorry. There is a rule, which myself and several others have explained to you, and there is what you do. I'm sorry that you were taught poorly.

If you prefer to write like an illiterate fifth grader, at least have the common decency not to try and convince others to do it.

Are you a teacher? How many decades since you were in grade school? I can't even use cursive anymore because nobody is taught to read it. Education is changing, sometimes by a lot.

Not currently, and my field wasn't English. But, I have taught at the high school and community college level. I also had to co-teach one semester at the university level as part of my teacher education program.

I can read and write cursive, but I personally hate it. I think it's good to be able to read proper cursive writing, but I don't think anything more important than a love letter should be written in it.

Finally, yes, education is changing. That's not always a good thing. However, it's irrelevant, because the grammar rules have not changed, and the use of quotation marks remains consistent to this day.

It probably isn't taught. I've no idea about the US curriculum, but my daughter has just taken her GCSEs. There was only one question on the two English Language exams that required her to write creatively, and even then, dialogue is only one skill. The qualification is all about reading and analysis, really. So this kind of rule isn't prioritised by teachers.

It's not really taught in US high schools either. That's because it's taught in 3rd-5th grade (ages 8-10, roughly) and high school students are expected to already know it.

 

[usable001]

Is this one of those US punctuation vs British punctuation things? Many of the rules are different between those two countries.

 

[THBGato]

Is this one of those US punctuation vs British punctuation things? Many of the rules are different between those two countries.

No, it's the same in the UK.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Is this one of those US punctuation vs British punctuation things? Many of the rules are different between those two countries.

Not to my knowledge. I've always known it as drop the close quote when doing a multi-paragraph quote, always have the open quote at the start of the dialogue, no exceptions, only close quote when the person is done speaking or you get to narrative.

"Blah blah blah.

"More blah blah blah.

"End blah blah blah."

I've never seen it taught any differently. Maybe there's some other style guide than the ones I'm familiar with, but I've never seen anyone professionally do anything different than that, regardless of style conventions. Never seen or heard anyone teach anything differently.

 

[liliput1]

No, there are not two rules. Sorry. There is a rule, which myself and several others have explained to you, and there is what you do. I'm sorry that you were taught poorly.

If you prefer to write like an illiterate fifth grader, at least have the common decency not to try and convince others to do it.



Not currently, and my field wasn't English. But, I have taught at the high school and community college level. I also had to co-teach one semester at the university level as part of my teacher education program.

I can read and write cursive, but I personally hate it. I think it's good to be able to read proper cursive writing, but I don't think anything more important than a love letter should be written in it.

Finally, yes, education is changing. That's not always a good thing. However, it's irrelevant, because the grammar rules have not changed, and the use of quotation marks remains consistent to this day.



It's not really taught in US high schools either. That's because it's taught in 3rd-5th grade (ages 8-10, roughly) and high school students are expected to already know it.

Third graders aren't writing multi-paragraph monologues. Maybe that explains the number of people who completely do not recall this rule.

 

[TheOneUpright]

1. Don't split the speech unless it's an extremely long one.

2. If you do, don't start the new para with a quotation mark -- that's what causes the confusion.

Yeah, I know, it contradicts the Chicago Manual of Style, but it worked fine for Capote.

Cormac McCarthy didn't use quotation marks at all.

 

[TheLobster]

Arguing whether the rule makes sense and whether you should or should not include the opening quotation mark kind of misses the point.

If you've got a long piece of dialogue, so long that it benefits from being split into multiple paragraphs, then you should (1) absolutely go and split it; and (2) make sure you don't end the previous paragraph with a quotation mark, as that would indicate the character has stopped speaking. If you do both these things, for long pieces of dialogue, then everything should remain clear for the reader based on the momentum of the text alone. The rule becomes irrelevant at this point, although it is still helpful to avoid confusing educated readers who do know it.

Where it all goes awry are situation like the OP's story, with short paragraph of dialogue that are split in this way. Here it gets confusing, as there doesn't seem to be a reason why a two or three sentence-long utterance is divided between multiple paragraphs.

Yes, I do understand the desire to use paragraph breaks for impact.

Like in narration.

It's great.

But unfortunately, the accepted dialogue typography in English, though it is remarkably versatile, does not really permit this type of shenanigans. You gotta make do with speech and action tags, as well as punctuation (ellipses and em-dashes can be useful), to denote things like speed, pitch, or cadence; and only utilize paragraph breaks to make a long piece of dialogue easier to read.

 

[JGittes]

1. Don't split the speech unless it's an extremely long one.

2. If you do, don't start the new para with a quotation mark -- that's what causes the confusion.

Yeah, I know, it contradicts the Chicago Manual of Style, but it worked fine for Capote.

Cormac McCarthy didn't use quotation marks at all.

Irish writers generally don't use quotation marks either. I discovered this while reading one of Sally Rooney's books and became thoroughly confused by page 15. It took two re-reads before I realized what caused my confusion, and I tried to re-read yet again, knowing what the issue was. It didn't help. I found the voice of the narrator and the characters was so similar that I couldn't easily distinguish between them. If I'm going to work that hard to decipher an author, I'll read Proust.

I don't have that problem with Cormac McCarthy, but then, he actually knew what he was doing.

In short, unless you're Irish, Capote, or Cormac McCarthy, use the damned quotation marks properly. Uneducated readers like me need all the help we can get.

 

[Duil2]

Irish writers generally don't use quotation marks either. I discovered this while reading one of Sally Rooney's books and became thoroughly confused by page 15. It took two re-reads before I realized what caused my confusion, and I tried to re-read yet again, knowing what the issue was. It didn't help. I found the voice of the narrator and the characters was so similar that I couldn't easily distinguish between them. If I'm going to work that hard to decipher an author, I'll read Proust.

I don't have that problem with Cormac McCarthy, but then, he actually knew what he was doing.

In short, unless you're Irish, Capote, or Cormac McCarthy, use the damned quotation marks properly. Uneducated readers like me need all the help we can get.

Grand so, I won't be mindin' those feckin annoying quotation marks anymore, sure I won't. Me being Irish an' all.

There are lots and lots of good Irish writers who use quotation marks just fine.

 

[liliput1]

Not to my knowledge. I've always known it as drop the close quote when doing a multi-paragraph quote, always have the open quote at the start of the dialogue, no exceptions, only close quote when the person is done speaking or you get to narrative.


I've never seen it taught any differently. Maybe there's some other style guide than the ones I'm familiar with, but I've never seen anyone professionally do anything different than that, regardless of style conventions. Never seen or heard anyone teach anything differently.

I don't read a neurotic number of books, but I've read a lot by current standards, and I swear I've never run into this pattern except here on Lit. I just assumed you all were weirdos.

 

[Duil2]

I don't read a neurotic number of books, but I've read a lot by current standards, and I swear I've never run into this pattern except here on Lit. I just assumed you all were weirdos.

We are!

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I was reading a story a few days ago where the author used the continued speech + missing " at the end of a paragraph, and it threw me off a couple of times, even though I know the rule. My brain is just not used to stopping and noticing quotes at the end of paragraphs. Mid-paragraphs, mid-sentences, sure, but when I see an empty line, I just assume the speech is over and we're moving on, only to realize we're not.

Like most authors in this thread said, it's something I avoid in my own writing, too. I break it up with action, with reactions, with a pause, or even a simple, "She/He continued,..." I find that's much less ambiguous. And the fewer reasons I give the reader to pause and question the craft itself, the more I'm dragging them along into my character's universe and my story's flow. I prefer that over sabotaging it for a grammar rule most people don't know.

As for long speeches, I've done those before, too, and I usually play it by ear on where to insert short pauses, where to continue in the same paragraph at the risk of having a dozen lines, and where to break and give the reader a breather. I have to "see" my character saying those words. If I can picture it and hear it, then I'm sticking with it. If not, I'm adding breather moments.

I understand your stylistic preference, but I believe that it focuses too much on the visual aspects of reading. You should also listen to it in your mind.

A lot of grammar rules exists because not everyone reads a story. Stories have been read to people for centuries and consideration has to be given to how the written words sound when conveyed verbally to a person versus them reading them with their own eyes. This may not be a common occurrence with stories published on a site such as this, but it shouldn't be ignored entirely.

Dialogue within a story is where this "read-to" consideration is most important. Would someone listening rather than reading the story be able to continuously track who was speaking when? Getting lax with dialogue tags and other grammatical conventions related to dialogue can make it much more challenging, not to mention how it can affect the flow of the story as it is being told.

As writers, it is easy for us to take the dialogue in our stories for granted. We understand who said what, and when. It's our job to make certain that our audience understands it just as clearly, and some of your audience might be listening rather than reading.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I don't read a neurotic number of books, but I've read a lot by current standards, and I swear I've never run into this pattern except here on Lit. I just assumed you all were weirdos.

I think the last book I saw it in was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea - the translation on Project Gutenberg - where Nemo often goes off on one for a page and a half.

You do see it in broadsheet newspapers, when a speech gets reported. But otherwise it's pretty much obsolete because more than a paragraph of speech without a comment is very old-fashioned - regarding being taught it, it wasn't mentioned in primary school, but was when we did English Lit and someone thought Thomas Hardy had a printing error.

I agree the convention would make more sense if both the trailing and leading quote marks were omitted, but conventions often don't make sense.

I did hope that the examiners for GCSE English had heard of the convention, when my kid used it recently - the creative writing option was to describe a zoo so he had a tour guide speaking and leading special guests round a human zoo on an alien planet... I guess we'll find out in August.

 

[XerXesXu]

No, there are not two rules. Sorry. There is a rule, which myself and several others have explained to you, and there is what you do. I'm sorry that you were taught poorly.

If you prefer to write like an illiterate fifth grader, at least have the common decency not to try and convince others to do it.

People have come to this thread with a problem - they use a rule which doesn't work for them OR THEIR READERS.

I point out that the rule I was taught, in the days of meritocracy, solves that problem. I have explained how your rule produces two cues to the reader which cause confusion, I have explained how following my rule eliminates both undesired cues.

Punctuation marks and format are tools to be used.

Tools + intelligence = solutions.
Tools + stupidity = doing what you always do and getting what you always got.

Of course, I'll continue to urge others to adopt a solution to their problems: I trust you'll have the decency not to obstruct their learning.

 

[TheLobster]

I agree the convention would make more sense if both the trailing and leading quote marks were omitted, but conventions often don't make sense.

I’d speculate that this rule exists for consistent typography, where the end of the paragraph serves as a “reset” for all dangling features like quotations or parentheses. It certainly serves as a way to spot misprints, since finding a missing closing parenthesis, or both the closing and opening quote, would immediately alert the reader that something is off.

In other words, this is all a scheme by Big Font to make you pay attention while reading

 

[Writer61]

People have come to this thread with a problem - they use a rule which doesn't work for them OR THEIR READERS.

As the person who started this thread, I can assure you that the convention did work for me, and only one reader reported finding it difficult.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think the last book I saw it in was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea - the translation on Project Gutenberg - where Nemo often goes off on one for a page and a half.

You do see it in broadsheet newspapers, when a speech gets reported. But otherwise it's pretty much obsolete because more than a paragraph of speech without a comment is very old-fashioned - regarding being taught it, it wasn't mentioned in primary school, but was when we did English Lit and someone thought Thomas Hardy had a printing error.

That bastard Laurence Durrell does it often - but then he also goes for several printed book pages with a single paragraph, and puts dialogue from different characters into said paragraph. You need a literary road map to navigate his novels.

It took me three goes to get through The Alexandra Quartet, and I've optimistically got The Avignon Quintet sitting on top of a bookshelf, to give it a third go.

I have no idea how he got such a cult following in the 1960s and 70s. I suspect many book sales, but not many finishes.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Durrell! Such a beautiful stylist. A joy to read. Twice I've bought whichever the first in the Quartet is, is it Justine? And read this delicious, absorbing style... and given up. Never managed to finish the first book, twice, years apart.

 

[designatedvictim]

Oh dear, there are two rules. The one which you were taught which causes confusion to the reader, and the one I was taught, which doesn't confuse the reader.

I prefer the rule I was taught.

Can you provide some examples where this is taught.

It's not that I don't believe you, but, I don't believe you.

This is the first time I've ever heard someone espouse 'opening quote and don't see one again until the speaker runs out of air ten paragraphs later.'

I was taught the 'every paragraph that starts with dialog begins with an open-quote (single - which I'm not a fan of, or double)' rule.

The lack of the close quote on the paragraph end is to indicate that the following paragraph is a continuation of the same speaker. The opening quote on the next paragraph indicates it's still dialog.

While it is recommended that speaker/action tags be sprinkled about, they aren't required.

This thread started with one awkward mistake, not the end of the world, but holy cow, I can't imagine that unpunctuated run-on dialog is considered a good thing as a rule somewhere.

That strikes me as idiosyncratic, at best, and, let's just say, non-standard.

* I'm not an English Major, but I played on on TV.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Durrell! Such a beautiful stylist. A joy to read. Twice I've bought whichever the first in the Quartet is, is it Justine? And read this delicious, absorbing style... and given up. Never managed to finish the first book, twice, years apart.

He's one of those supremely annoying writers who writes incredibly dense, sometimes turgid content, but hidden within it, like tiny diamonds, are flashes of exquisite brilliance... but I'm never sure they're really worth the effort. I see him as my literary Everest.

I've got the Faber and Faber collected editions of each major work, where all the novels are inside the same cover, which makes it both easier (they're all there, so picking up the next chunk is easy) and harder (they're all there, so you see how much you haven't read yet).

Same with Proust. I don't know how many times I've got into the fucking garden, but Jeeesus, will you write something happening!

 

[Voboy]

If you are writing a speech that long in a work of fiction, it is probably best to have some kind of accompanying action or reaction from a listener every so often.

This. I've mentioned earlier that I've more often seen this in nonfiction when quoting lengthy passages, say from letters and such. The few times I can remember this in fiction usually deal with older pieces. I think Tolkien uses it at the Council of Elrond, which is pretty much where it belongs: in a setting where someone with a bunch of information has a lot to say to a number of listeners who don't do much but sit there. It's exposition, but placed into a character's mouth instead of the author's. Captain Nemo is mentioned above: similar situation.

Can you provide some examples where this is taught.

It's not that I don't believe you, but, I don't believe you.

I don't either.

As occasionally happens, I think this poster has made an error, refused to admit it, doubled down, and begun flinging ad-hominems. It's unfortunte.

 

[XerXesXu]

Can you provide some examples where this is taught.

It's not that I don't believe you, but, I don't believe you.

At my school. You knew that.

I've noticed that no one has advanced a compelling argument for your bizarre practice. Most spatchcock in some narrative signposts between closing and opening quotation marks. That works too.

There are many ways to skin a cat. I'll do it my way; you do it yours.

As some have noted, in the old days white space was a costly waste of space. Pages were black, paragraphs were long, containing narration and more than one character's voice.