Splitting dialogue

[Writer61]

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."

Well said.

 

[SimonDoom]

I remember a long time ago having a political argument with a guy who was advocating a conspiracy theory, and when challenged on the basis that there was no evidence in support of his position, he would say, with great confidence, that the "secret documents" would eventually come to light and prove him right. What these "secret documents" were was never clear, but he was absolutely certain they existed.

Of course, you can't engage in a rational debate with someone like that.

Some of the debates in this forum, including this one, have this quality.

 

[TheOneUpright]

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.

I'm done with the subject matter, not with the banter.

Not everyone is hypervigilant enough to recognise passive aggression masked as "views", I suppose.

"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.

Step 7

 

[Writer61]

Of course, you can't engage in a rational debate with someone like that.

Reminds me of talking to Brexiters.

 

[Writer61]

I'm done with the subject matter, not with the banter.

Ah, a glutton for punishment.

What you think is banter is really derision.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Reminds me of talking to Brexiters.

No politics on AH.

(you're not wrong)

I would only mention that it's not unknown for schools, especially primary level ones where one teacher has to teach a class everything, to get things wrong.

Highlights of my education included being taught that vibgyor was a synonym for spectrum and therefore it made sense to say 'the rainbow was all the colours of the vibgyor', an Assembly where we were informed that wearing remembrance poppies is to celebrate victory over the evil enemies in WWI, and being slapped for reciting the days of the week starting with Sunday - but I learnt. To be fair, the last one made me even more convinced the teacher was wrong even when I was five.

 

[SimonDoom]

Step 7

I like Hemingway. I'm not sure he's a writer to emulate, but he certainly had great talent and an artistic vision. I generally enjoy his work.

But he was also one of literature's great posers. The fact is that by the time he wrote his great novels and short stories he had extensive experience as a war journalist. So you know for damn sure he knew everything there was to know about basic writing conventions, and he had great experience following those conventions to get his stories done, capably and professionally written, and submitted to the publisher under the deadline.

 

[Writer61]

No politics on AH.

(you're not wrong)

I would only mention that it's not unknown for schools, especially primary level ones where one teacher has to teach a class everything, to get things wrong.

Highlights of my education included being taught that vibgyor was a synonym for spectrum and therefore it made sense to say 'the rainbow was all the colours of the vibgyor', an Assembly where we were informed that wearing remembrance poppies is to celebrate victory over the evil enemies in WWI, and being slapped for reciting the days of the week starting with Sunday - but I learnt. To be fair, the last one made me even more convinced the teacher was wrong even when I was five.

Vibgyor threw me; I learned it the other way round.

 

[Britva415]

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

I think he must be saying it was too confusing for him to follow.

 

[Britva415]

only one person agrees with you

If I were that person, I'd be worried about other people thinking I have a sockpuppet.

Now: I don't believe there is a sockpuppet, here, but the appearance is very striking given that for some reason 86% of all the posts they have ever made here were in this thread on that side of this subject.

I'm genuinely not accusing, just laughing. It's comical.

 

[TheOneUpright]

Ah, a glutton for punishment.

What you think is banter is really derision.

There is nothing quite like a touch of genius to soothe the baffled hearts...

“Never love a wild thing, Mr. Bell,” Holly advised him. “That was Doc’s mistake. He was always lugging home wild things. A hawk with a hurt wing. One time it was a full-grown bobcat with a broken leg. But you can’t give your heart to a wild thing: the more you do, the stronger they get. Until they’re strong enough to run into the woods. Or fly into a tree. Then a taller tree. Then the sky. That’s how you’ll end up, Mr. Bell. If you let yourself love a wild thing. You’ll end up looking at the sky.”

 

[Writer61]

the appearance is very striking given that for some reason 86% of all the posts they have ever made here were in this thread on that side of this subject.

That is striking.

 

[Voboy]

If I were that person, I'd be worried about other people thinking I have a sockpuppet.

Now: I don't believe there is a sockpuppet, here, but the appearance is very striking given that for some reason 86% of all the posts they have ever made here were in this thread on that side of this subject.

I had a very, very, very similar thought.

Funny how these little coincidences sometimes work.

 

[Writer61]

There is nothing quite like a touch of genius to soothe the baffled hearts...

“Never love a wild thing, Mr. Bell,” Holly advised him. “That was Doc’s mistake. He was always lugging home wild things. A hawk with a hurt wing. One time it was a full-grown bobcat with a broken leg. But you can’t give your heart to a wild thing: the more you do, the stronger they get. Until they’re strong enough to run into the woods. Or fly into a tree. Then a taller tree. Then the sky. That’s how you’ll end up, Mr. Bell. If you let yourself love a wild thing. You’ll end up looking at the sky.”

Irrelevant bollocks.

What is your point?

 

[Britva415]

Irrelevant bollocks.

What is your point?

just trying to change the percentage

 

[Bluebanzai]

On my recently published story, Casual Wednesday, I received this comment:

I liked the story, but had a little trouble reading it. In a conversation, a change of paragraph generally indicates a change in person talking. Several times, I had to stop and reread in order to get enough context to determine which lady was speaking. It disturbed the flow of enjoying the story.

On checking the text, I realised the person was referring to breaks in dialogue where, although it was the same person speaking, I had started a new paragraph to indicate a pause. I was taught to indicate this by not closing the preceding paragraph with a double quote, which is what I had done. I posted a comment pointing this out.

This morning, I had another comment:

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?

Your original question interested me. Forgive me, but I skipped some of the bits in the middle of this thread because I'm as uninterested in bickering as I suspect you also are.

My answer, which I think is a minority view, is this. Firstly, yes, I'm totally aware of the convention. I think it's just less commonly used now because there's a greater tendency for naturalistic dialogue: ie, short phrases. Extended monologues feel less true to life, and were probably more of a thing in writing years ago. Perhaps it was when attention spans were longer, and grammar was seen as essential (he says, provocatively). So fewer authors - certainly on here - are needing to break up speech in the way you describe.

Secondly, I don't agree that a reader's unfamiliarity with grammar should be catered to. It's a slippery slope. If we all do it, our precious tools become lost. We simplify. We dumb down. Colons disappear. Subjunctives vanish. Sentences shorten. And everything starts to look a bit similar. If your characters have something worth exploring out loud, at length, I don't think you should interrupt them. Give them the space to declaim, if that's what they need. God knows, on here, many readers will give you a one star anyway, simply because you don't cater to their particular kink.

In short? I think you should carry on regardless. If nothing else, as authors, we have a responsibility to train the next generation of AI properly.

 

[TheOneUpright]

just trying to change the percentage

Well, I did consider joining the Muppets thread, but it felt alarmingly realistic.

 

[Writer61]

Your original question interested me. Forgive me, but I skipped some of the bits in the middle of this thread because I'm as uninterested in bickering as I suspect you also are.

Fair enough.

My answer, which I think is a minority view, is this. Firstly, yes, I'm totally aware of the convention. I think it's just less commonly used now because there's a greater tendency for naturalistic dialogue: ie, short phrases. Extended monologues feel less true to life, and were probably more of a thing in writing years ago. Perhaps it was when attention spans were longer, and grammar was seen as essential (he says, provocatively). So fewer authors - certainly on here - are needing to break up speech in the way you describe.

Also fair.

Secondly, I don't agree that a reader's unfamiliarity with grammar should be catered to. It's a slippery slope. If we all do it, our precious tools become lost. We simplify. We dumb down. Colons disappear. Subjunctives vanish. Sentences shorten. And everything starts to look a bit similar. If your characters have something worth exploring out loud, at length, I don't think you should interrupt them. Give them the space to declaim, if that's what they need. God knows, on here, many readers will give you a one star anyway, simply because you don't cater to their particular kink.

The responses here have convinced me to be a bit more tolerant. It's not hard to add a 'he said' or 'she paused' at the end/start of a block of speech. There's no gain in defying the grammatically challenged.

What I am not going to do is follow the ridiculous structure advocated by two of the contributors to this thread who wish to defy all conventions. They are free to write as they see fit and I wish them well.

 

[Bramblethorn]

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?

Aware of it, have used it on occasion, have been "corrected" by a reader who didn't know it.

I wouldn't split dialogue specifically to avoid using this convention, but it's not something that often comes up because it's rare that one of my characters would be talking for multiple paragraphs without anybody else responding and with no other action that would break up the speech.

For passages where I do have one character speaking uninterrupted for a long time - telling a story, for instance - I'm more likely to use a scene break and present that material as direct narration.

 

[liliput1]

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.

Mostly what you've managed to do is insult everyone. I for one have had quite enough.

 

[AStrangeDesire]

Fair enough.


Also fair.


The responses here have convinced me to be a bit more tolerant. It's not hard to add a 'he said' or 'she paused' at the end/start of a block of speech. There's no gain in defying the grammatically challenged.

What I am not going to do is follow the ridiculous structure advocated by two of the contributors to this thread who wish to defy all conventions. They are free to write as they see fit and I wish them well.

Since we're back to the actual question, I read a story the other day that broke speech into paragraphs, but skipped the double quotes on the new paragraph. I found it odd and at times confusing and wouldn't write that way myself.

Where you landed seems to be a good place, and will help some readers who are unfamiliar with the practice of the having double quotes on a new paragraph with the same speaker. That's not bad. And an extra speech tag here or there won't hurt the flow of the story IMO.

 

[XerXesXu]

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

He proved that he doesn't even understand what a paragraph is (unintentionally, I assume).

 

[XerXesXu]

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.

There's no point on which to be correct or incorrect, only competing stylistic choices. I'm not stupid. You (collectively) aren't stupid. I can rationally and explicitly justify my choice; I see no attempt contra to rationally and explicitly justify your choice. I know why that is. The herd has stampeded. You know it; it's milling around their style guide mooing 'My style guide right or wrong'. It's wrong.

If you don't believe I'm immune to the foolishness of others' see the small writing below.

 

[XerXesXu]

Mostly what you've managed to do is insult everyone. I for one have had quite enough.

I've read the small words in your signature. They seem about right.

Read the small words in my signature.

Refuse to hand it down. Follow me.

 

[SimonDoom]

There's a suggestion that the conventional rule, while conventional, is nevertheless redundant or confusing. I don't think this is true. On the contrary, it makes it clear, to anyone who is reasonably familiar with punctuation conventions, who is speaking.

Consider the following example:

"Carlos, what happened when you showed up at Mrs. P's house?" Ralph asked me.

"I showed up at her front door around noon," I said. "She opened the door wearing a flimsy purple robe. I could tell from the way her breasts swayed that she wasn't wearing a bra. She told me to bring the pool equipment through the side gate, so I did. After I got everything set up to start cleaning the pool, she walked into the backyard. I could tell from the way the sunlight lit up her robe that she was naked underneath.

"I've been lusting after this lady ever since the neighborhood pool party at Marty's house last summer. What a body."

It's clear from the use of the quote marks that both paragraphs represent Carlos's reply to Ralph.

If you add a quote mark at the end of paragraph 1, then it looks like the second paragraph is Ralph replying to Carlos.

If you eliminate the quote mark at the beginning of paragraph 2, then it appears that the second paragraph consists of Carlos's internal thoughts after replying to Ralph, until you see the quote mark at the end of paragraph 2, in which case it's confusing precisely because it is not conventional. All trace of confusion is eliminated by including the quote mark at the beginning of paragraph 2. There is no question that it is spoken dialogue, and because of the absence of the quote mark at the end of paragraph 1 it is crystal clear that it is Carlos who is speaking.

Doing it the conventional way clears up the confusion.