Splitting dialogue

[designatedvictim]

At my school. You knew that.

No I didn't.

I wouldn't have asked.

And this 'school' would be...?

Did you mention this 'school' in this thread and I simply missed it?

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

Wow.

I follow a 'bizarre' practice.

You do you, I suppose.

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.

You're awfully confident in your assertion that you're promoting some well-known or widely-accepted rule or convention.

I've asked for some hint of rationale for your claim.

All I'm seeing here is 'because I say so.'

Having said that, we can all admit that conventions are just that. Conventions. Rules of presentation.

For someone who writes, clarity and consistency of presentation doesn't seem to be high on your list of goals.

Conventions exist so that both sides of the conversion know what's going on. Suggesting otherwise is deliberate obfuscation.

I think we can all agree that rules such as these evolve. They can change over time. As Captain Barbossa might say, they are, after all, more guidelines than actual rules.

Break them at your will - knock yourself out - but don't expect people to agree with them, when they diverge too greatly and reduce clarity.

If you really learned this in school, I suspect it would have been from some idiosyncratic, know-it-all, self-indulgent literary artiste for whom the 'rules' don't apply.

 

[designatedvictim]

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

No, it's not.

It separates dialog from naration.

 

[designatedvictim]

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.

The lack of indenting (by default) is a 'web-thing,' not a 'writing-thing.'

I prefer visually-indented paragraphs, for pleasure reading.

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'.

Also, derived from a 'web-thing.' Thus the never-ending web-battle between paragraph elements and line-break elements.

Page styling can be adjusted, if the site wants to do so.

 

[designatedvictim]

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

Wow.

This reads like an admission.

 

[TheOneUpright]

No, it's not.

It separates dialog from naration.

Are you implying that Cormac McCarthy was retarded?

If the convention were reversed, you'd still defend it with the exact same zeal -- because that's what sardines do.
That's why arguing with the herd is poinless. Just deliver your thought, sigh, and shake your head.

 

[XerXesXu]

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.

"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.

I’d have done it, this way or that, to achieve the same ends whilst discriminating between dialogue and internal monologue.
THIS WAY:
"Carlos, what happened when you showed up at Mrs. P's house?" Ralph asked.
"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."
OR THAT:
"Carlos, what happened when you showed up at Mrs. P's house?" Ralph asked.
"I showed up at her front door around noon," I said. "She opened the door wearing a flimsy purple robe. She wasn't wearing a bra.
I've been lusting after this lady ever since the neighborhood pool party at Marty's house last summer. What a body.
She told me to bring the pool equipment through. After I set up to clean the pool, she walked into the backyard. The sunlight lit her robe; she was naked underneath.”

I know you like a curvy bit of surplus adipose tissue; I like mine slim ,trim, and frisky. Please forgive my compulsion to cut out the fat.

Conspiracy theories, really?

There’s more.

 

[designatedvictim]

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

It's not that most of us don't believe this has ever been the convention.

Most of us don't seem to believe this has ever been a 'convention' at all.

 

[SimonDoom]

I’d have done it, this way or that, to achieve the same ends whilst discriminating between dialogue and internal monologue.

OR THAT:
"Carlos, what happened when you showed up at Mrs. P's house?" Ralph asked.
"I showed up at her front door around noon," I said. "She opened the door wearing a flimsy purple robe. She wasn't wearing a bra.
I've been lusting after this lady ever since the neighborhood pool party at Marty's house last summer. What a body.
She told me to bring the pool equipment through. After I set up to clean the pool, she walked into the backyard. The sunlight lit her robe; she was naked underneath.”

This is thoroughly confusing. It perfectly illustrates my point.

Your use of italics suggests that these are Carlos's internal thoughts. That was not what I wrote. In my example the second paragraph was Carlos's continued dialogue, and the question was what was the best way to do that.

But if the italicized paragraph represents Carlos's thoughts, then a quote mark should follow "bra," to make clear that the spoken dialogue is giving way to internal thoughts. Then a quote mark should appear in the last paragraph before the word "she" to indicate that dialogue has resumed.

 

[designatedvictim]

Are you implying that Cormac McCarthy was retarded?

Such the straight line. Brave of you.

If the convention were reversed, you'd still defend it with the exact same zeal -- because that's what sardines do.
That's why arguing with the herd is poinless. Just deliver your thought, sigh, and shake your head.

Actually, I might be able to agree with you, there.

Conventions are just that, conventions. An acceptable - or perhaps, preferred - means of presentation that matches an appreciation of how such presentation is interpreted.

Has anyone provided references or citations for this, um, non-standard convention (an oxymoron, if I've ever seen one) yet?

Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

I'd really like to see something that supports your certitude.

 

[XerXesXu]

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.

We’ve locked horns before so I know you’re well-intentioned, though unable to distinguish grammar from style and suffer inexplicable perturbations of memory.

When asked for evidence of meritorious style, you cite CMoS. Like others, you’re unable to give any compelling rationale in support of your choice – Just ‘See CmoS’.

I can picture you now, in your Inquisitors robes waving some duty volume of nonsense, berating heretics.

As others have correctly said, ‘Yet it moves’.

And I’ll bet you never thought yourself a conspiracy theorist.

 

[XerXesXu]

No, it's not.

It separates dialog from naration.

No. The absence of closing quotations marks signposts that the following para is a continuation of the present character's dialogue.

 

[XerXesXu]

This is thoroughly confusing. It perfectly illustrates my point.

Your use of italics suggests that these are Carlos's internal thoughts. That was not what I wrote. In my example the second paragraph was Carlos's continued dialogue, and the question was what was the best way to do that.

But if the italicized paragraph represents Carlos's thoughts, then a quote mark should follow "bra," to make clear that the spoken dialogue is giving way to internal thoughts. Then a quote mark should appear in the last paragraph before the word "she" to indicate that dialogue has resumed.

You indicated you had difficulties with internal monologue; I was simply showing you how to resolve your problem.
No quote marks required after bra; the italics do all the heavy lifting.

I'll put it down to your surplusage in words being carried over into punctuation.

 

[TheOneUpright]

I'd really like to see something that supports your certitude.

I don't know, whipping out a smartphone, zooming in, taking photos of pages from my edition - which isn't a first edition and might not be accurate - and uploading them here feels like grueling work. Especially for a dolphin surrounded by sardines.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The lack of indenting (by default) is a 'web-thing,' not a 'writing-thing.'

Agree. It's based on best web presentation practices, along with white space and so on, to factor in multiple device screens presenting content. Also, taking into account blind readers who are using text to voice, or vision limited folk where colour and contrast are important, and simple block formats work best.

I prefer visually-indented paragraphs, for pleasure reading.

That's very much a printed book legacy, these days.

Also, derived from a 'web-thing.' Thus the never-ending web-battle between paragraph elements and line-break elements.

People set up their word processor defaults to include space at the end of paragraphs, which is not the same as a double return, which is what you need for Lit paragraph breaks. They're confusing line height with extra lines. It's not really a battle, once people fully understand how their writing software defaults work - although a lot of folk don't seem to have much of a clue.

Page styling can be adjusted, if the site wants to do so.

The site has an established house brand, left justified, right ragged, standard font, no indents. Presumably to maximise compatibility with multiple devices accessing the content.

People keep wanting to introduce either print-based formatting or phone based formatting, forgetting that different devices present pages differently. They also think formatting adds something to stories, when really, the words should be all you need.

 

[XerXesXu]

No I didn't.

I wouldn't have asked.

And this 'school' would be...?

If you really learned this in school, I suspect it would have been from some idiosyncratic, know-it-all, self-indulgent literary artiste for whom the 'rules' don't apply.

I see your problem. You weren't taught English at your school. I understand.

My school was an emergency, maintained-selective school used to accommodate baby boomers in the rubble following WW2. All the masters were graduate ex-officers from various arms.
My English teacher, specifically, was an ex-officer who on de-mob chose to be a teacher and was given a teaching certificate. He was a graduate of Witwatersrand University.
He opened the batting for SA before the war. You can be sure he was an impressive figure who played a very straight bat.

 

[Voboy]

I don't know, whipping out a smartphone, zooming in, taking photos of pages from my edition - which isn't a first edition and might not be accurate - and uploading them here feels like grueling work. Especially for a dolphin surrounded by sardines.

You made the claim… it seems churlish not to back it up.

 

[designatedvictim]

I don't know, whipping out a smartphone, zooming in, taking photos of pages from my edition - which isn't a first edition and might not be accurate - and uploading them here feels like grueling work. Especially for a dolphin surrounded by sardines.

Ah, yes...

When asked to support your assertion, resort to referring to everyone as ankle-biters.

Good luck with that.

 

[SimonDoom]

This thread is getting increasingly silly.

At least, nobody's mentioned Nazis yet.

Oh, oops.

 

[SimonDoom]

You indicated you had difficulties with internal monologue; I was simply showing you how to resolve your problem.
No quote marks required after bra; the italics do all the heavy lifting.

I'll put it down to your surplusage in words being carried over into punctuation.

I can't even begin to think of how to respond to this, so I'm just going to raise my vodka tonic glass and say "Cheers!"

 

[designatedvictim]

I see your problem. You weren't taught English at your school. I understand.

Wow.

OK.

Whatever you say.

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.

You waltzed into this thread with the claim that there were 'two' rules.

The one everyone else uses and the 'right one.' Or, at least, the rules people are familiar with (regardless of agreement) and the 'rules' no one has ever heard of before.

When asked to establish where this rule was supported, it turns out it is done so only in your own feverish mind.

I feel bad for any writers who come across your oh, so well established and supported 'rule' and think it has any basis in reality.

My school was an emergency, maintained-selective school used to accommodate baby boomers in the rubble following WW2. All the masters were graduate ex-officers from various arms.
My English teacher, specifically, was an ex-officer who on de-mob chose to be a teacher and was given a teaching certificate. He was a graduate of Witwatersrand University.
He opened the batting for SA before the war. You can be sure he was an impressive figure who played a very straight bat.

This may, indeed be true.

Which tells me nothing relevant. Nameless, anonymous 'school' staffed by Top Men.

There's also nothing in there that refutes my suggestion that if true, you were not 'taught' by someone who wasn't "idiosyncratic, know-it-all, self-indulgent literary artiste for whom the 'rules' don't apply.."

No one is suggesting that you can't continue to claim your silliness about 'bad rules' and 'the right rules.'

Knock yourself out.

It's interesting watching someone be wrong with such confidence.

 

[TheLobster]

 

[SimonDoom]

View attachment 2640917

I'm going to need some extra butter with this. And can you throw in a few mouse heads?

 

[XerXesXu]

Wow.

OK.

Whatever you say.


You waltzed into this thread with the claim that there were 'two' rules.

The one everyone else uses and the 'right one.' Or, at least, the rules people are familiar with (regardless of agreement) and the 'rules' no one has ever heard of before.

When asked to establish where this rule was supported, it turns out it is done so only in your own feverish mind.

I feel bad for any writers who come across your oh, so well established and supported 'rule' and think it has any basis in reality.


This may, indeed be true.

Which tells me nothing relevant. Nameless, anonymous 'school' staffed by Top Men.

There's also nothing in there that refutes my suggestion that if true, you were not 'taught' by someone who wasn't "idiosyncratic, know-it-all, self-indulgent literary artiste for whom the 'rules' don't apply.."

No one is suggesting that you can't continue to claim your silliness about 'bad rules' and 'the right rules.'

Knock yourself out.

It's interesting watching someone be wrong with such confidence.

Surprised that I was taught English at school. 'Course you were. Yet you, like every native speaker, was also taught English at school.
......
Alternative stylistic 'non-rules', or conventions, as they're conventionally called.
......
The other one, as compared to the best one
.....
The reality is that 'the absence of quotes signposts continuity' and 'the presence of quotes signposts continuity' do not sit easily together.
Drop the second part of the convention. Job done. To assert otherwise is perverse.
.....
Had I been taught by St Paul of the Oxford Comma I wouldn't have refuted it either. Your opinion is an unshakeable article of faith.
.....
Rational and irrational stylistic choices.
.....
Five down, one to go.
.....
Believe me, it's rather more interesting watching someone prove beyond all doubt why he's the designated victim.

 

[Voboy]

There's also nothing in there that refutes my suggestion that if true, you were not 'taught' by someone who wasn't "idiosyncratic, know-it-all, self-indulgent literary artiste for whom the 'rules' don't apply.."

But the man was really, really, really good at cricket. So.

 

[XerXesXu]

But the man was really, really, really good at cricket. So.

see #173.
You too.