Splitting dialogue

[XerXesXu]

To be honest, you're not really communicating with anybody. You're just spewing bullshit like an asshole with diarrhea while several of us try to run damage control to protect the newbs who don't know better.

For the record, no, I'm not a sock puppet. This is my one and only account on Literotica. I'm sorry that you can't comprehend being right, and thus not needing to use a bunch of fake accounts to tell yourself that you're right…

Bears repeating... not even mastered the art of common and vulgar abuse.

Oracy is the necessary precursor to literacy. Concentrate on your oracy for 5 or 10 years. When you can hold, entertain and persuade the room by your speech, then start work on your literary skills, you'll find the've improved immensely. As for those who liked your post. Deep down they're ashamed of themselves for having done so.

 

[XerXesXu]

And after all, you can't PROVE it doesn't exist, right?

Bigfoot, when the moment of truth comes, like you, ghosts.

Don't choke on your mouse heads.

 

[SimonDoom]

 

[XerXesXu]

...to be fair, our two intrepid iconoclasts do claim there are style guides supporting this alternative of theirs. They also defer to the authority of a single colonial ex-soldier who happened to be a really, really good cricket batsman.

I suppose that's... something? Isn't it?

You are mis-informed, if I can put it charitably, like one or two others. There's no need to make things up. If you find yourself doing so, ask yourself 'Why?'. Do you have insight?

I've never claimed that there are style guides supporting my 'convention', 'non-rule', 'stylistic choice'. I don't read style guides, nor refer to them. I don't need to. Others feel that need. Why? Why indeed.

Someone, who I shan't name and shame (because I've forgotten his name - it's difficult to distinguish one from another in the herd), asked me where I was taught that rule.

I say I was taught English at school. Does that sound incredible to you? It would be silly to say 'Yes', so hold yourself in. As a deserved tease, I suggested that maybe he thought I hadn't been taught because he hadn't been taught English at school. (He has never disclosed where he was taught English). The herd member suggests that my teacher was an effete literary type who thought he knew it all. He was interested, so I told him who he was.

You, with your nose pressed against the asshole in front of you - yes, that's what herd members do - have trotted along behind him.

And why? Because you think, no, a better word is 'hold', that 'the absence of a quotation mark is an indication of continuity' and 'the presence of a quotation mark is an indication of continuity' are not incompatible. I do. Not only hold it, but think it, was taught it - I was also taught to think. My personal choice, as a stylist, is to omit the second limb, which is what creates the incompatibility. Keep it simple stupid - KISS XXX. Of course, I'm not calling you stupid, that's just a well-known phrase or saying, nonetheless an adage wise men adopt.

I hope you understand that referring to style guides, which are only of real interest to students of literary archeology, is not what I do. This is the 21st century, I won't be held back by the 20th century. I will do what I think is best. To anyone wishing to set their first toe into the 21st C I'd recommend Dreyer. He's half-way there. He seems perplexed that, as a person with no qualification, training or aptitude he's risen to the top as chief copyeditor for a leading publisher. Can't sentence diagram, doesn't know what a nominative absolute is. Asks who made up these absurd rules, or why? Postulates that, maybe 19th C 'Grammarians'. If an author wants 'he smiled,' well, the author knows best what he wants - and the reviewers didn't notice - shrug.

But, the most useful thing you'd learn, is that wit, humour, and self-doubt have a leavening effect. It will make your writing (and your posts) rise above the mundane, bureau-trash that turns people off.

 

[XerXesXu]

View attachment 2641330

'Ghosting' means disappearing, not appearing. I know you're writing your 'Great American Novel'. A little success leads to over-ambition. Hold tight to your style guide for reassurance.

 

[SparkleFur]

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.

I happened upon this, and Bravo! is all I can say. There is a big problem on this site with not following this simple convention to clarify who is speaking. It drives me crazy. So, thank you.

 

[Writer61]

OP here. Yes, there is the convention, and I followed it, but it seems not all readers know of it.

My takeaway from this thread was that it was best to avoid using it.

 

[SimonDoom]

OP here. Yes, there is the convention, and I followed it, but it seems not all readers know of it.

My takeaway from this thread was that it was best to avoid using it.

I definitely disagree. I don't think one should write for ignorant readers. I also doubt, whatever some might say in this thread, whether readers actually would be confused by the use of the convention.

 

[TheLobster]

I definitely disagree. I don't think one should write for ignorant readers. I also doubt, whatever some might say in this thread, whether readers actually would be confused by the use of the convention.

OP seems to be very adamant to draw the wrong lesson from our advice. The problem isn't in following the convention when some readers not know it, the problem is doing so where it's not warranted because the dialogue being split is nowhere near long enough to ask to be split into multiple paragraphs.

When it is long enough, there's usually enough context in the speech that even readers unfamiliar with the punctuation rules will figure it out. But when it's not, it will be confusing even for those who do know it.

 

[Writer61]

I definitely disagree. I don't think one should write for ignorant readers. I also doubt, whatever some might say in this thread, whether readers actually would be confused by the use of the convention.

If you read my original post, you would know that one was and left a comment saying so.

As for ignorant readers, you do you. I prefer to maximise the likelihood of being understood.

 

[Writer61]

OP seems to be very adamant to draw the wrong lesson from our advice.

Yes, that was your advice, and I am not disagreeing with it.

I simply said that it was best to avoid using it, which is hardly an adamant rejection.

 

[SimonDoom]

If you read my original post, you would know that one was and left a comment saying so.

As for ignorant readers, you do you. I prefer to maximise the likelihood of being understood.

IMO, you misinterpreted the comment. There were other issues with the way you handled the dialogue that created confusion. I don't think the missing quote mark at the end of the paragraph was the cause of the problem.

For instance, here's a passage from your story that contains two instances of leaving off the quote marks at the end of the paragraph:

Fran nodded, "I think you are right, and good job with the analysis. By the way, will you be taking part?"

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."

What's unusual here is how short, in each instance, the first paragraph is. The way it reads, it doesn't make sense to me that you would split up the quotation into two paragraphs. That's where the confusion lies, I think. The way you handled it seems odd to me, but not because of the missing quotation mark at the end of the each of the first paragraphs.

I can't speak for other readers, and especially the ignorant ones. But I can say confidently that if you deliberately choose NOT to follow the basic conventions of writing dialogue I will not understand your story as well. So by not following the convention I sincerely doubt you will be maximizing your collective readers' understanding.

 

[Writer61]

I don't think the missing quote mark at the end of the paragraph was the cause of the problem.

The comment was:

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.

And he subsequently said that he was unaware of the convention.

I accept that using it for short paragraphs is unusual, but it is not against the convention. Consequently, to avoid confusing readers, I will only use it for longer speeches.

 

[IWroteThis]

What's unusual here is how short, in each instance, the first paragraph is.

Except, paragraphs are determined by the content, not the word count. That is true for narrative and dialogue.

Compare the following:

"Welcome!

"We are gathered here on this auspicious occasion…"

AND

"Welcome! We are gathered here on this auspicious occasion…"

To me, they portray the scene very differently. The first one comes off more solemn and deliberate, while the second one comes off hurried and insincere.

 

[Writer61]

The first one comes off more solemn and deliberate, while the second one comes off hurried and insincere.

Exactly. It was the sense of having a deliberate pause that I was trying to convey.

 

[BeechLeaf]

And what some of us have been saying is to pad it to keep this effect but avoid the punctuation problem.

"Welcome!" She paused and looked around at them. "We are gathered here on this auspicious occasion…"

"Welcome!" There was a brief silence as the wind rustled in the flags. "We are gathered here on this auspicious occasion…"

 

[ColtonWrites]

To be honest, I just avoid the whole problem by not including blocks of unbroken dialog. If a character has more than a few sentences to say at once, I have the other character interrupt, or the speaker move around the room, or an action take place.

 

[SimonDoom]

And what some of us have been saying is to pad it to keep this effect but avoid the punctuation problem.

"Welcome!" She paused and looked around at them. "We are gathered here on this auspicious occasion…"

"Welcome!" There was a brief silence as the wind rustled in the flags. "We are gathered here on this auspicious occasion…"

This is the better way to do it. It avoids the punctuation issue altogether, and it conveys a "pause" in a clearer and more direct way than trying to do it through punctuation.

These are matters of conventions, not hard and fast rules. But the problem with deviating from conventions, as is illustrated with this example, is that deviations tend to lead to more deviations to fix the uncertainty caused by the original deviation. If you just do it the normal way, you avoid all these problems. Your proposal is consistent with standard conventions. Why not just do it this way, rather than deviating from the convention and creating uncertainty?

 

[IWroteThis]

And what some of us have been saying is to pad it to keep this effect but avoid the punctuation problem.

"Welcome!" She paused and looked around at them. "We are gathered here on this auspicious occasion…"

"Welcome!" There was a brief silence as the wind rustled in the flags. "We are gathered here on this auspicious occasion…"

Sure. But, again, each of those gives the same dialogue a different feel.

The first one shifts the focus from her to those she's addressing. That's fine, if that's what you actually want.

The second one goes in the opposite direction, conveying distraction and irrelevance to what she's saying. It's not quite as abrupt as, "Look! Squirrel!" but similar in effect. Again, that's fine if that's how you want her words to come across.

In both cases, if it's not what you want, then it's not okay.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

The second one goes in the opposite direction, conveying distraction and irrelevance to what she's saying. It's not quite as abrupt as, "Look! Squirrel!" but similar in effect. Again, that's fine if that's how you want her words to come across.

The second one does nothing of the kind (for me). The flapping flags create the scene--outdoors, an army camp, pennants flying, sky bleak, not a tree in sight.

 

[IWroteThis]

The second one does nothing of the kind (for me). The flapping flags create the scene--outdoors, an army camp, pennants flying, sky bleak, not a tree in sight.

Ah, but you contradict yourself. Diverting attention from the dialogue to the location is very much the kind of thing I was talking about.

 

[SkyBubble]

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?

Too common, unfortunately. They'd rather teach kids to be good soldiers for whatever trendy cause than how to write or speak correctly. You do know that using the language correctly is considered a form of oppression these days, don't you?

 

[SkyBubble]

I believe that dialogue tags, or the lack of them, are where most readers get lost.

I was working with a guy on a story he had written and he had a paragraph-long block of some unidentified person speaking. In the moment, it could have been any of four characters. I wrote him, asked who it was, and inserted [name] said for him. Left it unchanged otherwise.

 

[Britva415]

But, again, each of those gives the same dialogue a different feel

This is starting to strike me as kinda fruitless, because we're at the edge of reliability in conveying feeling.

I frequently argue against trying to use typography to take the place of actual narration with actual words, and especially so when the typography chosen is deliberately non-standard ("cutesy").

Without simply writing more (and better), there's no reliable way to ensure that the reader is going to get the same feeling the author (thinks they) put into it.

 

[Baztrachian]

How common is such ignorance?

Ignorance in general being quite common it's safe to say that this aspect of ignorance is likewise quite common.

Especially with the under 40 set, lots of them are functionally illiterate.

Simple math isn't so simple for them.

Most of them literally have no idea where they are at any given time. They've ceded their senses of place and direction to the GPS in their car and on their phone.

Their language and vocabulary skills are abominable.

Thus it is of no surprise that they are flummoxed by the composition of a conversation.