Splitting dialogue

[Writer61]

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.

I understand that, so given the feedback here, I intend to avoid it in future.

 

[TheLobster]

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

Indenting the first line is just an alternative way of indicating a new paragraph (as opposed to vertical margins, like on Lit). You can probably see the indentation also in the narrative (non-dialogue) parts of the e-book.

 

[AStrangeDesire]

Indenting the first line is just an alternative way of indicating a new paragraph (as opposed to vertical margins, like on Lit). You can probably see the indentation also in the narrative (non-dialogue) parts of the e-book.

That's a good point. Thanks

 

[XerXesXu]

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.

Why? What difference would it make. I think we've now agreed that it's not a rule, it's not rational and can cause confusion. There's nothing more to be said. Nothing would change. You've got hold of a duff convention. In time, you'll probably find you've uncritically adopted a few more.

 

[XerXesXu]

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

Following an established guide is brain failure. Writing creatively and switching off your brain don't mix well.

 

[liliput1]

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.

I can recall which rule wrt to CMoS I heard someone first rant about but am I wrong in thinking Chicago hates the Oxford Comma?

 

[Writer61]

I think we've now agreed that it's not a rule, it's not rational and can cause confusion.

We have not agreed that. Whether it is a rule or a style is only a matter of semantics; call it what you will. Following a convention is completely rational. As for causing confusion, most readers manage it without difficulty. On the other hand, your preference is much more likely to.

Again, which style guide recommends that?

 

[Writer61]

Following an established guide is brain failure. Writing creatively and switching off your brain don't mix well.

Write in whatever style you like; I don't care, but I guarantee that non-standard choices will confuse many readers.

Calling those who do follow an established style guide "brain dead" is not cool.

 

[Britva415]

The cue that the speech continues is the omission of closing quotation marks. The inclusion of opening quotation marks is a cue that the speaker has changed.

"I can tell you believe this strongly, but it's just not right.

"This is all the same speaker.

"And that is what the convention is.

"If you can find a professionally published example of either a story or any style guide where it matches the 'convention' you're alleging, be free to cite it.

"But I bet you anything you can't."

 

[TheOneUpright]

"I can tell you believe this strongly, but it's just not right.

"This is all the same speaker.

"And that is what the convention is.

"If you can find a professionally published example of either a story or any style guide where it matches the 'convention' you're alleging, be free to cite it.

"But I bet you anything you can't."

LOL. You just proved our point (unintentionally, I assume).

 

[Writer61]

LOL. You just proved our point (unintentionally, I assume).

It was a perfect example of the convention. How does it prove your point?

 

[TheLobster]

"A paragraph that starts with an opening quotation mark doesn't necessarily mean the speaker has changed," Lobster said.

"Here, for example," he continued after a pause, "it is still me."

 

[Voboy]

Why? What difference would it make. I think we've now agreed that it's not a rule, it's not rational and can cause confusion. There's nothing more to be said. Nothing would change. You've got hold of a duff convention. In time, you'll probably find you've uncritically adopted a few more.

Lol.

No.

Nobody here has agreed with you. I know you'll reply with an ad hominem and claim you don't care, but I don't hold with gaslighting and I want to be very clear what's going on here: you are attempting to construct a narrative that hasn't happened, about a point on which you were incorrect and continue to be incorrect.

 

[TheOneUpright]

It was a perfect example of the convention. How does it prove your point?

OK. Bye.

 

[SimonDoom]

It was a perfect example of the convention. How does that prove your point?

It doesn't, but you won't get a logical reply. You'll get a dodge.

This thread continually proves my point. One side of the debate points to an actual, existing, and nearly unanimously adopted convention, and other side asserts a convention for which it provides no proof, or just claims that conventions aren't necessary (which is an intellectually honest position, even if, IMO, a foolish one).

Writing is a communicative act, between the author and the reader, and this is why conventions matter. Conventions enhance communication.

 

[crookedletter]

Sometimes you can tell who's speaking without quotations or attribution, just because they're saying the same thing over and over again in a never ending argument that goes constantly in circles without either side ever likely to yield.

 

[Voboy]

OK. Bye.

Got that cite for me? From the style guides you claim support your view?

 

[Writer61]

OK. Bye.

Fair enough; it's hard to justify a ridiculous position.

 

[Voboy]

Sometimes you can tell who's speaking without quotations or attribution, just because they're saying the same thing over and over again in a never ending argument that goes constantly in circles without either side ever likely to yield.

Most people here are interested in sharing their views and having others share theirs.

There are those, however, who have zero interest in anything but disagreement. I try not to engage with such people, but I think it's important to clarify what's happening when they are as wrong as they are here.

 

[TheOneUpright]

It doesn't, but you won't get a logical reply. You'll get a dodge.

This thread continually proves my point. One side of the debate points to an actual, existing, and nearly unanimously adopted convention, and other side asserts a convention for which it provides no proof, or just claims that conventions aren't necessary (which is an intellectually honest position, even if, IMO, a foolish one).

Writing is a communicative act, between the author and the reader, and this is why conventions matter. Conventions enhance communication.

@Britva415 provided a brilliant example, albeit unintentionally, of how a convention can make zero sense, yet people stick to it simply because everyone else does. Creative minds don't seek validation from others for their artistic expression; they follow their gut and basic logic.

I don't feel people here are looking to exchange ideas, but rather to twist arms and "win" an argument, so I'll back off now.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

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.

I can see where this would be confusing, I suppose.

In all this discussion about splitting dialogue between paragraphs, the conventions surround paragraphs themselves seems to getting ignored.

If a paragraph is structured to deliver a self-contained discourse, and the dialogue within it remains on point, the need to split that paragraph is lessened. When the idea or topic being discussed changes or gets modified, a new paragraph typically makes sense.

In the example that you shared, I see no compelling reason why the paragraphs were split. They would have worked fine without the split.

My example from comment #31 shows what I consider to be, and what convention defines as, a proper paragraph split of dialogue.

 

[Voboy]

@Britva415 provided a brilliant example, albeit unintentionally, of how a convention can make zero sense, yet people stick to it simply because everyone else does. Creative minds don't seek validation from others for their artistic expression; they follow their gut and basic logic.

I don't feel people here are looking to exchange ideas, but rather to twist arms and "win" an argument, so I'll back off now.

Well, no. That's not what's happening, and you're now gaslighting too.

OP asked a question. A number of us chimed in, on-topic, and the OP's question was answered. Then along came a known troll to start pissing in our collective Cheerios.

That's when things got tense.

You jumped in on his side. Both of you are incorrect, which is why people seem to be piling on you. Just clarifying. Still waiting on you to back up your words by citing the style guides you say support you. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know... in the interest of exchanging ideas.

Welcome to the site. I'm sure you'll learn a lot here.

 

[Writer61]

@Britva415 provided a brilliant example, albeit unintentionally, of how a convention can make zero sense, yet people stick to it simply because everyone else does. Creative minds don't seek validation from others for their freedom of expression; they follow their gut and basic logic.

I don't feel people here are looking to exchange ideas, but rather to twist arms and "win" an argument, so I'll back off now.

You still here?

Anyway, there has been an exchange of ideas. However, only one person agrees with you; that can happen when your opinion is out there. As for twisting arms, I have not seen that. Just people expressing their view.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Why? What difference would it make. I think we've now agreed that it's not a rule, it's not rational and can cause confusion. There's nothing more to be said. Nothing would change. You've got hold of a duff convention. In time, you'll probably find you've uncritically adopted a few more.

If all you aspire to do is to publish on Literotica and other amateur on-line sites, it makes little difference. Ignore the established conventions to your heart's content.

On the other hand, if you ever want to be taken seriously in trad publishing or even by knowledgeable readers (there really are a few here), it will make a difference. Your writing would have to be worthy of any dispensation of the accepted norms in literature and publishing to have "your way" trump the "right way" as viewed by the publishing world.

Trying to educate and inform new writers of how to better themselves should not include advice that is contrary to accepted publishing standards and expectations. I think this is where you might be seeing some of the push-back on your comments.

 

[SimonDoom]

@Britva415 provided a brilliant example, albeit unintentionally, of how a convention can make zero sense, yet people stick to it simply because everyone else does. Creative minds don't seek validation from others for their artistic expression; they follow their gut and basic logic.

I don't feel people here are looking to exchange ideas, but rather to twist arms and "win" an argument, so I'll back off now.

No, that's not the case. This is a forum about writing, and people with very different levels of writing and reading experience participate, and some look for guidance. Nobody is twisting anybody's arm.

I could not disagree more with you about authors "following their gut and basic logic." No they don't. That was the point of my post earlier. Experienced authors rely on their experience -- actually writing and actually reading. Experienced authors learn the conventions of grammar and style. They use professional editors. They are familiar with how other, real, mainstream published authors actually do things. They do not make up "rules" but fail to cite authorities for those supposed rules, and then when challenged claim, "Well, rules don't matter anyway. Do what your gut says."

Nobody tells a brain surgeon, "Just do what your gut says." This isn't a recipe for success at anything in life. You learn. You work at it. You pay attention to how other people do it. Yes, you follow your muse, but not in a vacuum. Experience matters more than pure logic.

It's a free country and you are free to write how you want. That's fine. But there's a lot of misinformation being propagated in this thread, and it's worth correcting it, because otherwise some will be misinformed.