Splitting dialogue

[XerXesXu]

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.

Eloquently put.

You seem to understand, yet not understand, that the opening quote on the following break is redundant.

 

[SimonDoom]

This thread reminds me of Oliver Wendell Holmes' opening to his book The Common Law: "The life of the law is not logic, it is experience."

I think this is true of writing, as well.

The standard convention of using a quotation mark at the beginning of each paragraph in extended dialogue, but a closing quotation only at the end of the last paragraph, is the customary way of doing it, and everyone should feel comfortable using it. But in practice, I find it doesn't come up that much, because I rarely have characters engaged in extensive monologues that require this practice. I don't see it in that many stories written by others, too. The reasons are obvious. Number 1, people don't typically talk in extended speeches, and number 2, it can get tedious and sometimes confusing to read, even if you use the convention in the right way.

I do NOT recommend cutting up a dialogue passage into multiple short paragraphs of a sentence or so using this convention. I think it looks and reads weird. If you want to indicate a pause, then do so with narration. If not, put all the dialogue in one paragraph. This convention is best used when a character gives a speech, and it's broken up into coherent, mid-length paragraphs.

A good general rule, IMO, is that it should always be clear who is speaking. Don't get too worked up about what the "correct" rule is; read your passage and adjust it as needed to make sure it's clear.

 

[Writer61]

You seem to understand, yet not understand, that the opening quote on the following break is redundant.

Perhaps so, but that is not the convention; feel free to do it your way and potentially confuse even more readers.

 

[TheOneUpright]

Perhaps so, but that is not the convention; feel free to do it your way and potentially confuse even more readers.

How is it confusing? As long as there is no closing quotation mark, the speaker hasn't finished speaking, no matter how many breaks. Basic.

There is no universal convention, only style guides with different approaches.

 

[Writer61]

How is it confusing? As long as there is no closing quotation mark, the speaker hasn't finished speaking, no matter how many breaks. Basic.

There is no universal convention, only style guides with different approaches.

@XerXesXu is arguing that quotation marks should only be used at the start and end of speech, even at the start of a new paragraph.

My point is that if the lack of a closing confuses some readers, omitting them at the beginning of a new paragraph will be even more likely to.

 

[crookedletter]

I'm familiar with the rule, but as a reader it can be a little jarring, unless it's otherwise made clear that the speaker is carrying on a bit. I sometimes just miss that lack of closing quote, my subconscious adding it because it's expected, then I have to double back and take note of it when I lose the thread. When that happens I recognize there's nothing wrong with the punctuation, but it can break me out of the flow a bit.

As a writer if I want to break same-speaker dialogue into paragraphs I'd probably toss in something to the effect of She went on, "...

 

[SimonDoom]

How is it confusing? As long as there is no closing quotation mark, the speaker hasn't finished speaking, no matter how many breaks. Basic.

There is no universal convention, only style guides with different approaches.

It's confusing because it's not the convention.

I'm not aware of any style guides that advocate the approach you advocate. Are you?

I usually turn to the Chicago Manual of Style. Section 13.39 of the 17th edition says "If one speech (usually a long one) occupies more than a paragraph, opening quotation marks are needed at the beginning of each new paragraph, with a closing quotation mark placed at the end of only the final paragraph." See also section 13.32.

As far as I know, and have known since I first learned the rule 50 years ago or so, this is the universally accepted convention.

I'm not aware of any editor or any style guide that advocates a different way. I'd be curious to see a citation to it if there is.

 

[XerXesXu]

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.

Do you mean this gentle tease about their lack of knowledge of punctuation:
'Not the proper use of an ellipses (sic)'. Ahhh... a new boy.
or this;
'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 only can I punctuate, when I fling an ad hominem I won't sound like a limp wristed and illiterate fifth grader.

 

[XerXesXu]

I usually turn to the Chicago Manual of Style. Section 13.39 of the 17th edition says "If one speech (usually a long one) occupies more than a paragraph, opening quotation marks are needed at the beginning of each new paragraph, with a closing quotation mark placed at the end of only the final paragraph." See also section 13.32.

And even that didn't set off the alarm bells!

 

[TheOneUpright]

@XerXesXu is arguing that quotation marks should only be used at the start and end of speech, even at the start of a new paragraph.

My point is that if the lack of a closing confuses some readers, omitting them at the beginning of a new paragraph will be even more likely to.

As a reader, I intuitively see a quotation mark after a paragraph break as indicating a new speaker. It’s often confusing because you don't always notice whether the previous paragraph had a closing mark or not.

I used to follow the CMOS until I noticed that others, like Capote, do without it.

Personally, I prefer only one opening mark at the beginning of the speech and one at the very end, but to each their own.

 

[BeechLeaf]

I wish there was a clearer way of doing it, but there isn't and we're stuck with the fact that the only standard way of doing it is unclear and not universally recognized. We could make up something entirely new like explicitly chained guillemets:

<<First para

+<<second para

When I'm in charge of world punctuation I'll be open to suggestions. In the meantime, the other rule of dialogue punctuation is still in force: Dialogue is often confusing, so do whatever you need to do to make it less so.

 

[IWroteThis]

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

True, they aren't. That comes later.

What's being taught in those early grades is what the rules are. At that age, it's about recognizing more than using.

 

[Writer61]

And even that didn't set off the alarm bells!

Why should following the convention set off an alarm?

 

[SimonDoom]

I used to follow the CMOS until I noticed that others, like Capote, do without it.

Do you have an example of this? I don't have any works by Capote handy at the moment, but my recollection is that his punctuation was conventional.

 

[IWroteThis]

At my school. You knew that.

Sure they did…

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.

Well, as previously mentioned, it's the prescribed rule of grammar. Following the rule makes for a consistent reader experience and understanding. Presenting contradictory "rules" to the reader does the opposite.

Also, an opening quotation mark, whether the speaker changes or not, indicates that the paragraph starts with dialogue rather than narration.

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

That quote is about processes, not finished product. No matter how you skin a cat, you get a skinned cat. Here, you're saying we should accept a skinned dog as being a skinned cat.

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.

Yes, but the rule of changing paragraphs when changing speakers was added because of that very practice.

 

[IWroteThis]

How is it confusing? As long as there is no closing quotation mark, the speaker hasn't finished speaking, no matter how many breaks. Basic.

There is no universal convention, only style guides with different approaches.

Please provide the style guide(s) that dictate a different approach to quoting dialogue.

 

[SimonDoom]

I used to follow the CMOS until I noticed that others, like Capote, do without it.

I just found a copy of Capote's In Cold Blood and scanned it. He follows CMOS, at least at my quick glance. His handling of multiple-paragraph dialogue follows the conventional rule with quotation marks at the beginning of paragraphs.

 

[Voboy]

How is it confusing? As long as there is no closing quotation mark, the speaker hasn't finished speaking, no matter how many breaks. Basic.

There is no universal convention, only style guides with different approaches.

Perhaps you could cite one?

I'm always eager to learn new things, and for me? This would be an entirely new thing.

It would also help silence people like me, who don't believe this has ever been the convention.

 

[XerXesXu]

Well, as previously mentioned, it's the prescribed rule of grammar. Following the rule makes for a consistent reader experience and understanding. Presenting contradictory "rules" to the reader does the opposite.

Also, an opening quotation mark, whether the speaker changes or not, indicates that the paragraph starts with dialogue rather than narration.


That quote is about processes, not finished product. No matter how you skin a cat, you get a skinned cat. Here, you're saying we should accept a skinned dog as being a skinned cat.


Yes, but the rule of changing paragraphs when changing speakers was added because of that very practice.

Stop digging.

It's not a rule of grammar. Grammar relates to the spoken language. Grammar has shockingly flexible rules. Style relates to the punctuation of written language. Style has conventions, not rules. A convention is a 'not a rule'. One can chose one's style guides, and one can chose one's own 'not a rules'.

The omission of the closing quotation marks at the end of the preceding paragraph very clearly indicates that the following paragraph is a continuation of the dialogue of the same character, it can do nothing else. That's why an opening quotation at the beginning of the following paragraph is entirely redundant.

You may be a herd animal who take comfort from being with the herd. I prefer rationality.

I'll leave you to sort your cats and dogs from your sheep and goats.

 

[XerXesXu]

Why should following the convention set off an alarm?

Following The Chicago Guide should set off alarms. It's well known to be an eccentric collection arbitrary style advice.

Once upon a time it advised that the editor should always defer to the authors choice. It abandoned that advice as a promotional exercise, selling copies to those who felt they needed 'rules' as a critch.
It's sad when one sees a person citing a passage in such a publication in defult of providing a rational explanation.

 

[Writer61]

Stop digging.

It's not a rule of grammar. Grammar relates to the spoken language. Grammar has shockingly flexible rules. Style relates to the punctuation of written language. Style has conventions, not rules. A convention is a 'not a rule'. One can chose one's style guides, and one can chose one's own 'not a rules'.

The omission of the closing quotation marks at the end of the preceding paragraph very clearly indicates that the following paragraph is a continuation of the dialogue of the same character, it can do nothing else. That's why an opening quotation at the beginning of the following paragraph is entirely redundant.

You may be a herd animal who take comfort from being with the herd. I prefer rationality.

I'll leave you to sort your cats and dogs from your sheep and goats.

Sure, omitting the closing quote at the end of a paragraph of speech is a convention. And, yes, one can select which style guide, or none, to follow.

However, you are yet to provide an example of a guide that supports omitting the opening quote of a paragraph of continuing speech.

 

[crookedletter]

To paraphrase: one should be free to choose whatever style one prefers. Except those that are commonly agreed upon and included in reputable style guides. Then you're sheeple with no mind of your own.

Why. have, conventions? for punctuation! anyway; Express yourself%

 

[Writer61]

It's sad when one sees a person citing a passage in such a publication in defult of providing a rational explanation.

Following an established guide, whatever you think of it, is rational.

 

[countdowntolov3]

Cindy blushed.

With a bit of hesitation in her voice, she replied, "Honestly, I don't know.

"I have seen you, and other members of the team, get naked for some of those meetings about the Hotel de LuXXXe. And, well, you seem to light up. Confidence oozes from you. But I don't know if I have that in me."

Fran paused before replying.

"You know, that's a really insightful way of putting it.

"I was shitting myself the first time I stripped off in front of my colleagues, but when I did, I felt so empowered. Now, I take every opportunity."

I found this jarring to read. I don't think the issue is just the multiple-diologue-paragraphs formatting. It's more that the first paragraph of dialogue is so short. Usually I see the multiple paragraphs when someone is speaking for a long time.

 

[AStrangeDesire]

I was reading an e-book last night and the dialogue is indented when the speakers switch.

Having seen that in novels for years, it jarred me for a moment because I realize that I don't see that on Lit and had been reading this thread earlier in the day.

Here, I see a lot more white space (i.e. blank lines) between paragraphs and speakers. Which, frankly, I like on a web based platform where I don't actually flip pages but scroll down, otherwise everything is just a big 'wall-o-text'.

Just something interesting in terms of 'speakers switching' that I noticed and wondered if any of you had published things with indented text indicating a swap of speakers? Seems to be related to this topic, but if not, just ignore it. No need to start another fight