Forum: Author Hangout

Leza rushed forward waving her hands. "NO!"

or

Leza rushed forward waving her hands and screamed, "No!"

I like this better. As a reader it is easier to follow.

Leza screamed, "No!" rushing forward and waving her hands.

concur, I missed that missing comma in the original.

Does anyone know if that is just an example of the British style,

Yes, British, not American.

The period and comma in American go inside the quotation mark; in British it's outside.

I think the exception in American is when it's a single letter, such as, I got an "A".

Does anyone know if that is just an example of the British style, or should it be done for American English as well?

Ross,

Since we're talking about fiction writing, that convention you mention isn't very relevant, because it says (with my added bold):

Quote

single quotation marks are used, and only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks;

end quote

This is clearly about quote someone else's written text. That won't happen often in fiction.

This is the damn sentence ... "That", he said, "is how it should be."

I thought in British punctuation the ending period would be OUTSIDE the quotation mark.

It is VERY CLEARLY about DIALOGUE.

Based on what you quoted in the earlier post this statement is wrong and it has nothing to do with dialogue. Here's what you said was from CMoS

quote

In an alternative system, sometimes called British style (as described in The Oxford Style Manual; see bibliog. 1.1), single quotation marks are used, and only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. (Exceptions to the rule are widespread: periods, for example, are routinely placed inside any quotation that begins with a capital letter and forms a grammatically complete sentence.)

end quote

two points:

1. In this the word dialogue does not appear at all.

2. It clearly states to punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks showing it's quoting an existing external source, not a new source the dialogue in fiction is.

Based on what you quoted in the earlier post this statement is wrong and it has nothing to do with dialogue. Here's what you said was from CMoS

Ernest, you are the ONLY person here who continues to insist that every style guide on the planet Earth distinguishes between dialogue and "quoted material", despite the lack of acknowledgement of that point by the style guides themselves. Clearly, "quoted material" includes fictional dialogue. You're arguments only amount to nit-picking over non-existent details.

@docholladay

Looking more like one of those situations where there will be no satisfying everyone. Regardless of which form is used. Someone will be unhappy. Another case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't. So just use the form which best suits your style of writing.

I'm not sure whether you're referring to Ross's 'English style' question or an earlier point, but the English style of formatting is clearly a little used alternative style, rather than a mainstream usage, even within British publications.

Again, it's not a universal guideline, but only limits those hoping to publish via a specific publisher. For those that do pursue that route, they'd likely assign an editor to ensure the formatting meets their demands, rather than expecting authors to catch every single instance.

Clearly, "quoted material" includes fictional dialogue.

No style guide or dictionary I've ever seen has stated quoting original material and fictional dialogue is the same.

In the current text under discussion I'm simply stating what it already says using the standard dictionary definitions of the words used. Quoted material talks about the punctuation marks in the original material is obviously about something that already exists, not new text.

No style guide or dictionary I've ever seen has stated quoting original material and fictional dialogue is the same.

Duh! If they're viewed as one and the same, why would they?

In the current text under discussion I'm simply stating what it already says using the standard dictionary definitions of the words used.

My definition of 'nit-picking' results. You ignore the opinions of everyone in the industry, and instead focus on the words used in a dictionary definition. You're not convincing anyone, you're only reassuring yourself that you're right.

I agree that there's a difference, and style guides should differentiate the difference, but the lack of specific rules about dialogue doesn't imply that there are NO rules concerning dialogue!

@Docholladay

I am mainly referring to the fact that there are so many options and opinions as to the best way to punctuate the sentence. At least as have been mentioned under the current topic.

That was my impression. It was a mistake asking for opinions, like assholes, everyone has their own. What's more, I'm putting a lot of weight on the order of the sentence, as it's a pivotal element in the book, but when everyone asks for more context, I can't without tossing in story spoilers, thus reducing the entire discussion to uninformed conjecture about the story, rather than what's the proper way to format something. Frankly, what happens first and second, or how someone else would structure the sentence is besides the point, as I was asking about mixing exclamation points and commas!

@D.S.

The fact that Earnest has been the lone voice crying out in the wilderness does not mean that he is wrong.

No, it doesn't. As I've acknowledged, the lack of discussion on fictional dialogue is alarming, given how much of the industry it comprises, but being the lone voice crying out about an unproven point doesn't make him right either. My point wasn't that he didn't have a point, only that nit-picking objections doesn't negate the central claim: that the rules for quoted material applies equally to dialogue as it does to non-fiction, academic works.

His arguments convinced me, but I can't see how it changes how I use the commonly accepted conventions concerning dialogue usages.

there are no existing standards for fiction.

We're talking punctuation, not fiction. It's the way quotation marks are used. There is no difference between that in a novel or an academic paper.

When you end a sentence with a question mark, you do that in both fiction dialogue and everywhere else. Nowhere does it specifically say it's done the same way. It's assumed/implied/whatever. They state the punctuation rule for question marks and it applies to all forms of writing when a question mark is used. The same is also true for quotation marks.

The argument is ridiculous.

Not really, it has brought out the fact that there are no existing standards for fiction. It led to a debate of which methods are the right ones. Who knows maybe even I can learn something.

The disagreement wasn't really over the punctuation: most agreed you can't use both and comma and an exclamation mark. Instead, the general discussion has been over how everyone would write the sentence in their own way. That's what I was referring to as everyone's opinion, as they were basing their decision (on how to write the sentence) based upon how they envisioned my story unfolding.

@D.S.

No, it doesn't. However, in my opinion, he has the far better argument on the merits. Almost all of the opposition on this and other threads amounts to little more than argument from authority or argument from consensus, both of which are logical fallacies.

I doubt anyone here is looking for an overriding authority on the topic, as few restrict themselves to a single style guide, however, most are interested in the 'commonly accepted' view on the matter, thus they're looking for where the predominance of evidence lies, rather than a stray outlier opinion.

As I said, Ernest makes for an interesting case, but it's hardly convincing, since it doesn't negate everyone else's opinion. Most reference consider "quotes" and "dialogue" to be the exact same thing, so arguing that the rules for one don't apply to the other is a false dichotomy.

If you choose not to follow a specific guideline, that's fine. But to argue it's invalid because, using a random example, it was written in red ink (a New York banking law), doesn't negate the intent between the signators.

Ernest has yet to turn up a single source who specifically says: "this (or any) rule only applies to quotations, but not fictional dialogue".

@D.S.

Such common usage and spellings can and do change over time.

Fine. I'll grant you that. As soon as Ernest's point becomes the predominant opinion, I'll accept it. However, since he's the only one making the argument, I'll only accept it as an outlier, indicative of nothing other than a single person's opinion.

yet you and Switch keep insisting that he must be wrong because he doesn't agree with you.

Nope. It's because he is wrong.

But I know when to stop.

not until you can come up with a logically valid argument

Logic?

If you have a closing quotation mark, the reader will expect the next dialogue to be a new speaker. Therefore, you cannot have an ending quotation mark until the end of the last paragraph of dialogue.

Present a logical argument that invalidates my logic.

Your logic is predicated on unproven and likely false assumptions about reader expectations. You do not and cannot know what readers do or do not expect.

The convention is to start a new paragraph when the speaker changes. I expect a reader to know that the same way I expect them to know a question mark at the end of a sentence is a question.

So my logic is not based on a false assumption.

And, btw, trying to invalidate someone's logic is not presenting a logical argument.

Ending a question with a question mark is taught in grade school English classes. The new paragraph/new speaker convention, if it is taught at all, is not taught below the college level.

I not only knew it before reaching high school, but I was already recognizing it in a variety of popular novels at the time (over 40 years ago).

So you're now arguing that anything taught in college is, by definition, demonstrably false?

@Ernest, we all agree that the majority of style guides are biased towards non-fiction, however, that doesn't invalidate any of their claims. We're only asking you for any evidence that there's any agreement that the rules for non-fiction quotation marks is any different than the guidelines for fictional usages.

We understand your claim, and agree that your logic is impeccable, but it's based on a false-assumption that there's some vast conspiracy to cheat fiction writers by making widespread false claims.

We're only asking you for any evidence that there's any agreement that the rules for non-fiction quotation marks is any different than the guidelines for fictional usages.

In the long post in the other thread I gave proof of them being different, and this was especially so outside of the USA.

In the long post in the other thread I gave proof of them being different, and this was especially so outside of the USA.

You found a discrepancy in a dictionary definition: which is already an unaffiliated source with no direct evidence to how the literary establishment thinks. However, that's not proof that it's the consensus among the worlds authors/publishers/reviewers/readers. It's an interesting point, but it doesn't change anything. If no one believes it makes any difference, it doesn't impact anything.

What's especially frustrating is that you continually insist the usage is completely invalid, despite the fact it doesn't impact you in the slightest, since you're already going out of your way to avoid using the commonly accepted standard. That's fine, I don't object to your preferred usage, but don't offer it is a golden proof that the rest of the world is wrong!

By the way, the largest component of people here objecting to the practice seem to originate in Australia, so I take that as the non-acceptance is a regional thing, rather than it's usage is a strictly American thing.

You found a discrepancy in a dictionary definition: which is already an unaffiliated source with no direct evidence to how the literary establishment thinks. However, that's not proof that it's the consensus among the worlds authors/publishers/reviewers/readers

Your second sentence is just as applicable to CMoS as a anything else in regards to world usage, but may be applicable to US usage where they so many see it as carved in stone handed down by God.

I 'm only responding to this because you said I never posted any reliable sources and the dictionary was unaffiliated. Well I did link to reliable affiliated sources in the thread linked below, where I quoted from Miriam-Webster Dictionary, The Grammarbook.com, udemy (a university site), Bristol University, St Marks publishing house, Linguapress publishing house, Grammerly.com, and Oxford university - that's 2 publishers, 3 universities, and 2 editor / writer blogs that are widely respected, and a major US dictionary site. I won't waste space here be requoting them, you can look up the other thread.

https://storiesonline.net/d/s2/t1486/feedback-not-wanted

I read the entire discussion, and the source, when you first posted it, and I was an unconvinced then as I am now. Once again, you're parsing meaning into "quoted material" that was never intended, assuming it's a separate creature from "dialogue", which you've never yet been able to support.

However, it's clear the longer we go around in circles, the longer you'll insist the rest of the world is wrong, and every other writer is an ignorant conspirator, so I'll finally shut the frig up. This is obviously a losing battle.

I don't care what you choose to believe. You can accept that the moon is made of tapioca jello for all I care, or that Donald Trump is a financial genius for bankrupting multiple corporations in the same year, and then claiming their personal losses (which they absorbed by going out of business) were his own losses, despite his not paying a cent to their debtors. Neither effects me personally, but please, stop attacking everyone else every time we mention using a widely accepted technique you don't approve of. All you're doing is canceling our ability to discuss valid writing techniques to advance your own suppositions.

Whatever your crackpot personal theories, we're going to continue using it until someone demonstrates to us it's either invalid (with more proof than a dictionary definition unrelated to the literary advice) or is an uncommon usage. You've done neither, so I remain skeptical of your claims.

you're parsing meaning into "quoted material" that was never intended, assuming it's a separate creature from "dialogue", which you've never yet been able to support.

Except by the fact the dictionary definitions are different and even CMoS didn't have dialogue listed for many decades after it started up.

I've provided valid references, so it's not a crackpot theory. I said what I wanted to say in the other thread, and have no intention of bringing it up again, except when people make claims about me not providing support for what I say, or make invalid claims by incorporating something that isn't in the text of what they quote from elsewhere.

Going back to the CMoS quote that started this drift, in the current CMoS there are a couple of places where they mention how to handle quoted material and also mention dialogue in the same paragraph. Which shows they do not assume one includes the other, so when they mention only one they must be referring to only that one, as is the case in the paragraph quoted.I don't always agree with it, but COMoS don't assume one is in the other, so I can't understand why you do.

Ending a question with a question mark is taught in grade school English classes. The new paragraph/new speaker convention, if it is taught at all, is not taught below the college level.

I have a BS and MBA and was never taught grammar at the college level.

So it has nothing to do with authoritarian sources. It has to do with what you learned in school or remember what you learned in school.

Instead of arguing against it, learn it here and embrace it the same way you embrace the ?. It's something you should have been taught.

Ernest has yet to turn up a single source who specifically says: "this (or any) rule only applies to quotations, but not fictional dialogue".

In the other thread where we raised the dialogue issue I had a number of sources listed in some of the posts. However, I find it interesting that when I simply point out what is actual stated in the CMoS quote it's now being claimed what they said is being expanded beyond the words they say.

amounts to little more than argument from authority or argument from consensus, both of which are logical fallacies.

So since the authority says a word is spelled a certain way means it's a logical fallacy and isn't proven that's the way it should be spelled? [rhetorical question]

Such common usage and spellings can and do change over time.

But at any specific time, there's a right way to spell it.

True, but argument from authority lends zero weight to your claims about what the correct spelling is.

I beg to differ. In this instance, if 80% of the sources all suggest a single spelling, you can conclude that it's the most common spelling. It would still be an optional alternative, but no one here is looking to a single expect to dictate what they can and cannot do.

@D.S.

Everyone else's opinions don't negate Earnest's opinion either, yet you and Switch keep insisting that he must be wrong because he doesn't agree with you.

I've never once said that! Instead, I've only reacted when he keeps making the same point, that there's not a single source who agrees with his perspective, and thus, he's got no objective evidence it's an agreed-upon, accepted standard rather than a single stray opinion. It is a well-reasoned argument, but given the lack of support, or a change in rationale for using the currently accepted guides (i.e. that anyone agrees that quotations are significantly any different than dialogues), it doesn't change anything.

So, essentially, you're saying that Ernest's and my continued requests for supporting evidence has convinced you that Ernest is correct? You must be a favored target of political campaigns! The more people request fact-checks, the more you accept any outlandish, unsubstantiated claim someone makes.

And quite frankly, unless/until you can find a style guide that discusses fictional dialog directly and as a primary target of the guide (not an afterthought), citing style guides against him is not an adequate counter argument.

That's not the point. We're not asking for proof, we're asking for evidence that anyone, besides him, believes that the rules for dialogue is substantially any different than it is for quoted sources. That's an absurdly low threshold to cross. We're just asking if he has any basis to believe that anyone at all (anyone that's studied the various style guides and has a substantial background in publishing, that is) supports his unsubstantiated supposition.

until you can find a style guide that discusses fictional dialog directly and as a primary target of the guide (not an afterthought), citing style guides against him is not an adequate counter argument.

Lack of proof is not, in itself, proof. Otherwise, you can claim that Prince George is the rightful ruler of England, as there's no proof that he isn't! Also, Switch and I aren't arguing for "proof", only that anyone agrees there's the slightest difference in the use of quote marks in fiction and non-fiction. Again, a surprisingly low bar to cross.

No he's not, at least not until you can come up with a logically valid argument for why he's wrong.

Sorry, Switch, but I obviously don't know when to quit, because I can be just as stubborn as D.S. is when he continually insists his opinion is the only one that matters in an open forum.

We've both presented a perfectly valid argument for why he's wrong: the fact that no one considers dialogue and quoted material to be two different things. However, you've already stated that, because anyone disagrees with someone else, that proves they're correct (at least to you), there's really no point is discussing formatting, standards, accepted usages or even opinions with you. You appear to be suffering from delusions if your only bar to accepting something is true is anyone else insisting it's completely unproven.

By the way, you'll notice that Ernest himself gave up arguing the point a long time ago, and I only repeat my same argument any time that Ernest insists that the entire world is wrong because he found an irrelevant inconsistency, not in any style guide, but in a dictionary definition.

Your logic is predicated on unproven and likely false assumptions about reader expectations. You do not and cannot know what readers do or do not expect.

Your continued insistence that everyone else present empirical proof of commonly accepted standards beggars the mind. NO ONE COMPLIES SUCH STATISTICS, so asking for empirical proof is akin to demanding proof that the moon ISN'T made of green cheese. If the only proof you accept is the opposition to outright lies, then you're a bigger idiot than I previously suspected. (Note: I don't think you're an idiot, only that you're 1) misguided and 2) so sleep deprived you aren't thinking straight.)

2. I did not demand empirical evidence. I asked empirical evidence or logically valid reasoned argument.

I gave that to you. It's the only way to know the next paragraph is the same speaker without having another dialogue tag. You just don't want to accept it.

The assertion at issue is false in my personal experience, so I don't consider asking for some kind of proof unreasonable.

That's the key, neither Switch nor I ever asked for "proof", statistical evidence, or authoritative sources. I did specify I was looking for someone knowledgeable within the publishing field, as I knew you'd suggest yourself as the single alternate source who'd back up his claim, and I wanted to circumvent that argument.

Both Switch and I have been discussing the 'consensus view' on the subject, which Ernest has been arguing is "invalid" because no one (apparently) believes that non-fiction and fiction follow the same rules. We were simply arguing it's a false claim, as nearly everyone has been arguing, since the first style guide was published, that the rules are identical for both. There are variations, such as the uses of em-dashes or ellipses in dialogue, but those don't negate the many other standards accepted across most style guides/authors/editors/publishers.

Note: By the way, I deleted my initial post, since my question was never directly addressed, other than two "You're right" votes. Instead, the thread took a sideways turn as everyone began discussing preferred writing techniques (how they'd write the sentence instead, rather than discussing the punctuation question), and the thread rapidly degraded into a shouting match from there.

Nearly every author her believes that, but they believe it based on style guides that were written for news or academic writing by people who don't write fiction so they have no authority when it comes to fictional dialog.

Those style guides were written by the publishers of fiction, and are used by the fiction publishers the world over, so arguing they "have no authority when it comes to fictional dialog" is pure hogwash. If they didn't want fiction written that way, they'd simply adopt an entirely new style guide. Instead, the largest publishers in the U.S. (at a minimum), decided there wasn't any substantial differences between the two, and the few cases where there is a difference in style, they'd corrected the original style guides.

NO style guide is written for the benefit of authors, or by authors. Instead, they're produced, used and enforced by the publishing houses. They simply won't accept any books which don't follow their own style guides, so if authors wish to be published, they either get on board or change careers (in the days before self-publishing, at least).

You and Switch say yes, but you present no real argument to support that answer.

Here's one, most readers across the globe now accept the standard, as it's been used since the 50s (I'm assuming). As I noted before, the main argument against the standard seems to be focused on Australians (for the most part). I'm guessing Australians never accepted the standards, never taught it in the schools, and now Australian authors are insisting that no one accepts the international standards.

Don't use it if you don't want to. No one is requiring you accept it. It isn't even required to publish with publishers which include it in their style guides. It's purely optional. But don't dictate to the rest of the world what are "valid" standards and which aren't, because you're talking out of your hat (and if you don't get the analogy, look it up!).

Those style guides

I'll say it again. This is not a style issue. It's punctuation.

Not true. The one you like to cite the most (CMOS) is written / published by the University of Chicago Press, a strictly Academic publisher.

I have never once cited CMoS, as I don't follow it. Instead, since I'm not a big fan of style guides in general, I go for the consensus view, which is based on what readers, in general, expect to see in books, rather than what one particular publishing house happens to require for their book submissions.

If you're going to attack someone, then pick the proper target, rather than painting everyone who disagrees with you with the same brush.

Your general issue with style guides has been made multiple times before, however, while they were first developed by academics, they've since been adapted by most major publishing houses, and once they were, they exerted their influence to force them to adapt and add elements specific to fiction. I keep quoting the various guidelines of using em-dashes and ellipses in dialogue as an example, as they have NO place in academia whatsoever.

The only reason why the same influence wasn't exerted on the guidelines about using quote marks, was no one (either fiction or non-fiction users) saw any difference between the two! It's that simple. There's no vast conspiracy to keep the phenomenally success fiction market at a disadvantage (the majority of book sales, and profits, are from fiction, not stuffy academic works)

I was born and raised in Wisconsin, USA. I did not learn that standard in school.

Hence my use of the term "for the most part". If you're unfamiliar with the term, I suggest you look it up. It means (roughly speaking), "primarily but not exclusively". I've known all along that you're an outlier on the larger Australian contingent who've (more consistently) protested the dropped quote protests, I was just pointing out that most of the opposition was based on a regional usage.

I often use European (British English) spellings rather than American. Does that mean no one else is Ever entitled to call an American on their spelling, simply because one of us is inconsistent?

That's a hollow, meaningless argument. I'm also sure, there are PLENTY of Australians who have no problem with the usage (although I have yet to hear from them). As in most discussions, I'm NOT debating absolutes, but dealing with generalities. There is no iron-clad rule which dictates that Everyone who objects to dropped quotes must be Australian, I'm simply pointing out a predominance of opinion, largely restricted to this particular forum--hardly a representative sampling.

@Ernest

Which shows they do not assume one includes the other, so when they mention only one they must be referring to only that one, as is the case in the paragraph quoted.I don't always agree with it, but COMoS don't assume one is in the other, so I can't understand why you do.

Again, that's another false assumption based on your personal biases, which is also based on your interpretation of that single dictionary quote.

It's unfortunate, but for the most part, these style guides consistently use "quoted material" to refer to ANYTHING which is placed within quote marks. The ONLY time they make an exception, is when they're specifically referring to exceptions in the case of dialogue. Those are the Exceptions, NOT the rule, and those exceptions don't exclude every other guideline they stipulate.

Again, you're cherry picking what words you're choosing to follow, much as many Christians cherry pick which portions of the Old Testament they treat as "the Devine Word of God", thinking an off-hand comment about sleeping with your brother's wife dictates how God views gays, while ignoring the commandment to stone adulterers. You argument is just as convoluted. Instead, most reasonable people take words as they were intended, not as isolated commandments, but as templates regarding how things word together. Cherry-pick if you wish, I don't object to the shmorgishbord (sp?) approach, but don't dictate what others are allowed to accept for themselves based on your random selections.

DS indicated that style sources in the US are prepared for the purpose of publishing non-fictional works. The people preparing those sources were undoubtedly focused on non-fictional works and did not consider fiction. I suspect the people developing the sources used by EB to have been focused in the same way - tunnel vision on non-fictional works.

If I understand EB, one of his main points is that his sources do not specifically state that quoted material and fictional narrative are the same, thus they must be different. If his sources are like the sources listed by DS, the part about 'the source not stating they are the same' is probably a true statement because if the people creating the source did not address fiction then they would not have addressed any similarities and differences.

However, I am not aware of EB ever being asked to provide, or volunteering, the sources that specifically state that quoted material and fictional narrative are different.

If he cannot provide a source that states they are different, then using the 'absence of a statement' about similarity or differences does not substantiate that the conclusion is valid.

However, I am not aware of EB ever being asked to provide, or volunteering, the sources that specifically state that quoted material and fictional narrative are different.

REP,

It's not the narrative, but the dialogue that's at issue. In the other thread I've already provided the Miriam-Webster's dictionary definitions of quoted material and dialogue. Re-quoted below:

Simple Definition of quote

: to repeat (something written or said by another person) exactly

: to write or say the exact words of (someone)

: to write or say a line or short section from (a piece of writing or a speech)

Full Definition of quote quoted quoting

transitive verb

1 a : to speak or write (a passage) from another usually with credit acknowledgment
b : to repeat a passage from especially in substantiation or illustration
c : borrow 2a

2 : to cite in illustration

3 a : to state (the current price or bid-offer spread) for a commodity, stock, or bond
b : to give exact information on

4 : to set off by quotation marks

intransitive verb

: to inform a hearer or reader that matter following is quoted

...............

Simple Definition of quotation

: something that a person says or writes that is repeated or used by someone else in another piece of writing or a speech

: the act of using quotations in a piece of writing or a speech

: a written statement of how much money a particular job will cost to do

Full Definition of quotation

1 : something that is quoted; especially : a passage referred to, repeated, or adduced

2 a : the act or process of quoting
b (1) : the naming or publishing of current bids and offers or prices of securities or commodities
(2) : the bids, offers, or prices so named or published; especially : the highest bid and lowest offer for a particular security in a given market at a given time

............................

Simple Definition of dialogue

:the things that are said by the characters in a story, movie, play, etc.

: a discussion or series of discussions that two groups or countries have in order to end a disagreement

: a conversation between two or more people

Full Definition of dialogue

1 : a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing

2 a : a conversation between two or more persons; also : a similar exchange between a person and something else (as a computer)
b : an exchange of ideas and opinions < organized a series of dialogues on human rights >
c : a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution < a constructive dialogue between loggers and environmentalists >

3 : the conversational element of literary or dramatic composition < very little dialogue in this film >

4 : a musical composition for two or more parts suggestive of a conversation

.......................

The key points are:

A quote is - to repeat (something written or said by another person) exactly

Dialogue is - the things that are said by the characters in a story, movie, play, etc.

Which shows they are two very different activities, despite using the same punctuation marks (something that happens with many punctuation marks). However, some people see them as the same activity, or one being a sub-set of the other. And that is the core of the dispute. Of course, if someone wishes to not accept the Miriam-Webster definitions, there's nothing I can do about that.

's not the narrative, but the dialogue that's at issue

I know. For whatever reason, I use the wrong word when my mind if focused on what I am trying to say, and miss my error before posting.

Which shows they are two very different activities, despite using the same punctuation marks (something that happens with many punctuation marks).

I totally agree with that statement.

What I disagree with is, stating that they are different because your sources do not state they are the same. I strongly suspect your sources do not state they are different.

While I agree they are different and punctuated the same, I do not agree with your using the absence of a statement in your sources to prove you are right. Your opponent could the same position, by indicating that your sources do not say they are different, therefore they must be the same.

What I disagree with is, stating that they are different because your sources do not state they are the same.

OK. I suspect you're now going back to the CMoS quote we were talking about earlier. Please follow with me for a moment.

1. The above dictionary definitions sees a quote and dialogue as two different activities.

2. In one section of CMoS on the use of Quotation marks (I don't have a copy on hand and can't remember which it is) it states a certain usage as being for the quotation of quoted material, and then says it's also used for the quotation of the speaker's dialogue.

3. In the quoted section from CMoS earlier in this thread it said quoted material but didn't say speaker's dialogue. Since CMoS had previously seen reason to list them as two items, it's logical to accept they see them that way for the whole section.

4. Thus, if CMoS meant it to apply to both they would have said so, and not go with some assumption one includes the other.

........................

Now back to the general point of quotation and fiction dialogue being different is the many sources for styles that list how to present quotations in your documents all mention how to cite them properly. Usually by giving the either the author and title (some also ask for the page), or the speaker with where and when the speech is being given. In fiction dialogue you don't give such details because you're the creator and not quoting anyone. Mind you, where you do include a real quote or wish to introduce something as if it's a real quote, then you follow the usual quotation rules.

................

Now going back a step in the original quotation discussion. The drop of the closing quote for multi-paragraph quotes. Regardless of if you claim it's valid to use in fictional dialogue or not, I did provide references to show it is not a worldwide usage by quoting UK universities that don't list it as a valid method when quoting anything.

That, alone, goes to prove fiction writers should be very wary of using the missing apostrophe method, because many readers will not know what it means due to not having been taught it. Which is the core part of the entire discussion - to use or not use a system that may lead to reader confusion due to one missing punctuation mark.

You obviously did not understand the point I was trying to make. My point has absolutely nothing to do with quoted material, dialog, or how these two items are to be punctuated. It has nothing to do with CMoS or any other style guide.

What my point was about is logical thinking.

What you said in earlier posts was Document X did not say Item A and Item B were the same. Therefore you stated that your conclusion was that according to Document X, Item A and Item B must be different.

That is faulty logic.

I doubt that Document X states that Item A and Item B are different. Therefore your adversary could apply the same faulty logic by claiming that Document X does not state that Item A and Item B are different, therefore Item A and Item B must be the same.

You obviously did not understand the point I was trying to make

No, what I said was document X said in this situation you can do it for A and also do it for B, but later when it says in this other situation you can do it for A the failure, at that point, to say it can be done for B means it doesn't apply to B at all.

The logic failure comes when you want to suddenly incorporate B into every time A is mentioned, which I don't do or accept, especially when they've already shown them split into 2.

We have all stated many times.
But they "[use] the same punctuation marks" in exactly the same way.

Wrong, the punctuation are not being used in exactly the same way every time which is the point I've been making. If they were being sued in exactly the same way every time they'd always come in pairs, not singles, not threes, not fives, the system of dropping an apostrophe would never happen.

Also, the UK references do not mention using the drop apostrophe in any situation at all, so it's not a universal process (as some claim) and it's not just my imagination to not use the dropped apostrophe. Feel free to use the dropped apostrophe if you want, but don't get upset when readers bitch about being confused by its usage, because not everyone is taught about it, and not all printers or authors use it.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING THAT SUGGESTS THAT IS NOT SO.

Ross,

The only time I post anything that has your name on it is because it's in response to something you've posted that I'm quoting. Nothing is intended to be a direct attack on you or anyone else.

The way you use paired quotation marks in quotes and fiction dialogue is the same. Regardless of the source of the quote or the dialogue. Also, the punctuation is the same in this situation. I've no trouble with that, and never have had.

The issue comes in when people don't want to use paired quotation marks in fictional dialogue, but use the dropped mark version. That is where the split comes in. And only there. I've never had an issue with it being used for multi-paragraph quotes from texts by other people or even speeches by living persons, although it's a US taught format and not an internationally recognised one. The problem, for me, comes when they want to use the same system for multi-paragraph fictional dialogue because of the reasons previously stated. However, some people violently disagree and also claim it's an international format for fictional dialogue.

I've said a few times, that we should agree to disagree, and leave it. But someone keeps posting a further post saying I'm wrong on all counts or didn't post any supporting evidence, when I have, - and those two points I won't leave unchallenged. Sorry. Now, can we all agree to disagree, and leave it alone before Lazeez spits the dummy on us all.

Correct. THAT is not just YOUR IMAGINATION.
I started this whole exchange because I was looking for:
* support from more experienced authors so I could put a stronger case for the authors I edit for that the use of the dropped apostrophe convention is never NEEDED, and it is highly desirable they find ways that would not require its use
* extra ideas from experienced authors for HOW they write so there is no "requirement" to use it

The key here, when you advise authors, is that they need a reason for including the dropped quote (i.e. they're writing for an American audience, they're story is set in America (so you'd use the American methods), and you've already addressed potential issues of confusion over it's use).

Just because something is 'allowed' doesn't mean you're justified in confusing readers. If a segment is confusing, for any reason, it needs to be clarified, rephrased or rewritten.

Also, because there IS a regional variation, authors should ALWAYS be aware there's likely to be confusion over it's usage. As a result, even if you follow the dropped quote usage, you should minimize it, break it up, and only use it when it's clear it's the same speaker speaking.

However, the one thing I've picked up from this extended discussion (over multiple threads), is that the blockquote method should NOT contain ANY quotes whatsoever--not simply a beginning and ending quote for the entire segment.

Also, because there IS a regional variation, authors should ALWAYS be aware there's likely to be confusion over it's usage. As a result, even if you follow the dropped quote usage, you should minimize it, break it up, and only use it when it's clear it's the same speaker speaking.

It's not regional. It's the correct way to do it for a multiple paragraph quote (if you don't use blockquote) or multiple paragraph dialogue. Everywhere.

It may not have been taught in school or people may have not learned it or have forgotten it, but I never came across anything that said it differed between American and British (and all the forms of that) English.

It's not regional. It's the correct way to do it for a multiple paragraph quote (if you don't use blockquote) or multiple paragraph dialogue. Everywhere.

The missing punctuation usage not everywhere I was never taught it in Australia, it's not mentioned in several UK university and printing references I provided. The only places I can find it being promoted are in some North American style manuals.

The missing punctuation usage not everywhere I was never taught it in Australia, it's not mentioned in several UK university and printing references I provided. The only places I can find it being promoted are in some North American style manuals.

I've read many articles on the differences between American and British punctuation. I've never seen the ending quotation in a multi-paragraph quote/dialogue mentioned.

Grammarly.com says the biggest difference is:

The big difference between British and American punctuation involves quotation marks and final punctuation. Americans put everything inside the quotation marks, and the British put everything outside the quotation marks unless it's part of the quote.

I've also seen the preference of single quote (what you call apostrophe) and double quote. For example at: http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/british-versus-american-style.html

American style uses double quotes (") for initial quotations, then single quotes (') for quotations within the initial quotation.

British style uses single quotes (') for initial quotations, then double quotes (") for quotations within the initial quotation.

and that article reinforces what grammarly.com says:

The above examples also show that the American style places commas and periods inside the quotation marks, even if they are not in the original material. British style (more sensibly) places unquoted periods and commas outside the quotation marks. For all other punctuation, the British and American styles are in agreement: unless the punctuation is part of the quoted material, it goes outside the quotation marks.

I've also read that American always has a period in abbreviations like Mr. and Capt. but the British leave off the period if the last letter of the word is the same as the last letter of the abbreviation. So for the two I mentioned would be Mr and Capt. in British (notice the missing period in Mr).

But I cannot find any reference to a difference for the quotation mark in a multi-paragraph quote/dialogue.

I've never seen the ending quotation in a multi-paragraph quote/dialogue mentioned.

The UK universities don't mention the dropped punctuation at all because their style manuals state to put multi-paragraph quotations in block quotes. They only offer quotations in paired quote marks with a citation for each paragraph or block quotes.

BTW I came through the Australian school system being taught UK English and we were taught to use single apostrophes as quote marks for actual quotations of people, and to use double apostrophes to designate dialogue in fiction. That was in the late 1960s. That always made it clear what was a quote and what was dialogue. Can't say I've seen anything about that recently, but it's also hard to find any advice on actual fiction writing now, just about everything is on academic, government, and news report writing styles.

The UK universities don't mention the dropped punctuation at all because their style manuals state to put multi-paragraph quotations in block quotes. They only offer quotations in paired quote marks with a citation for each paragraph or block quotes.

I don't remember being taught about the dropped quotation mark either (in American schools at any level). But that doesn't mean it's not a punctuation rule.

I have never seen anything in writing that talks about differences between countries/regions using a different convention for a multi-paragraph quote/dialogue (like the many other differences).

Article after article says to drop the quotation mark until the last one for dialogue. No article says to do it another way. So as far as I'm concerned, that rule is universal.

Article after article says to drop the quotation mark until the last one for dialogue.

The only articles I've seen saying this are from North America, and when I can trace them back they all relate to people who were taught at US colleges that push using CMoS. I have seen, and listed many other articles that do not mention the dropped punctuation rule at all, simply because they only list two ways to do quotation, and state there are only two ways - Paired Quotation Marks and Block Quotes. Since they don't recognise the dropped punctuation process they don't list it at all. These later references I found and posted are from the UK and Australia.

I also find it interesting you say the dropped punctuation method isn't taught at the US schools, to your knowledge, so that suggest it may have slipped in the back door.

Both the above make it clear it isn't a universal process, but likely a US process and not a strict grammar rule at all. But, hey, if you want to use it, do so, but don't complain when people not used to the convention bitch about you not writing well.

I also find it interesting you say the dropped punctuation method isn't taught at the US schools, to your knowledge, so that suggest it may have slipped in the back door.

I didn't say it wasn't taught in American schools. I said I don't remember learning it and maybe it's only taught in advanced English classes.

Ok, check this article out: http://baxtercommunications.nl/quotation-marks-multi-paragraph-rule/#.V_fS86KnwcY

It specifically addresses US and UK English.

"To solve this problem, both UK and US English have adopted the following technique.

. To indicate the original speaker is still talking, the first paragraph is left open: no closing quotation marks are placed.
. To indicate that we are still dealing with quoted material rather than the narrator's prose, quotation marks are placed at the beginning of the second paragraph.

"In other words, when dealing with quotations that extend over more than one paragraph, you need to put quotation marks at the beginning of each paragraph but at the end only of the final one."

Ok, check this article out:

An article from the Netherlands about quoting some one you interview that starts off with:

In an interview article, it's important that readers are never in any doubt as to who said what: is the interviewer (or narrator) speaking, or are these the words of the interviewee? And the problem naturally gets more complex if several people are being interviewed. One of the more subtle ways writers in English guide their readers through an interview is by using punctuation.

In this article, we explain and exemplify what to do if a passage quoting the interviewee extends over more than one paragraph. It involves a rule that many native speakers are not consciously aware of, but which journalists, editors and publishers know and apply regularly.

Which makes it clear it's not to do with fictional dialogue. However, I find ti interesting Andy Baxter, the writer of the article, is from the UK and not one of the UK universities listed the dropped punctuation as a viable option on their webstites.

Which makes it clear it's not to do with fictional dialogue.

There is no difference for fictional dialogue and quoted material.

There is no difference for fictional dialogue and quoted material.

I can't recall seeing fictional dialogue embedded within quoted material.

I meant the quotation mark rule.

I can't recall seeing fictional dialogue embedded within quoted material.

That's why we differentiated the use of 'indented text' in fiction to only reference certain types of messages: notes, reports, newspaper readings or broadcasts, otherwise all dialogue is presented as ordinary quoted text. ( Again, note how I use the term "quoted text", which doesn't mean I'm quoting it from a separate source).

I use the term "quoted text

I understand that to mean: dialog in a story is the author quoting what his fictional character has said.

Which makes it clear it's not to do with fictional dialogue.

Again, you're making fallacious arguments. All it means is that an article, directed towards journalism students, focuses on journalists needs rather than on things they're not interested in.

All it means is that an article, directed towards journalism students, focuses on journalists needs rather than on things they're not interested in.

Actually, when you look at the site it's a blog article from a guy running a business selling his people as translators and editors of business communications. He doesn't cite any sources for his advice anywhere on his website that I can find. The only books the blogger is listed as writing are two academic works he co-wrote with his wife.

I find it a tad amusing that the best cite you can find for UK English using the dropped quote method is a commercial website out of a country (Netherlands) where the native language isn't English.

First of all, non-English speaking people who learn English as a second language typically follow the rules more closely than those who speak the language every day.

The reason I used that article is because it's the only one I found that specifically said "both UK and US." All the articles assume that.

The articles I found concerning differences between US and UK never mention this punctuation, therefore, my assertion is there is no difference.

I was actually looking for an article where the author used UK spelling (like "colour") but couldn't find one.

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN:
Show me any reference where they say punctuating multi-paragraph dialogue is different in the UK and US.

I also find it interesting you say the dropped punctuation method isn't taught at the US schools, to your knowledge, so that suggest it may have slipped in the back door.

No, it means that neither Switch nor I ever took advanced English courses in college, since we never envisioned making a living as writers. We only came to it late in the game. However, that doesn't mean it's not taught.

I'm willing to accept that it originates with CMoS, but I still contend it's a valid usage in dialogue.

NOT likely a US process.
Jane Austen (1775-1817) used it.

Actually it was the publisher of the novel.

BUT, according to Wiki, the publisher of CMOS, "The University of Chicago Press was founded in 1891."

CMoS didn't invent that punctuation rule. It simply tells what the rule is. Some of CMos is a style guide (like the serial comma) and some of it is a grammar guide.

You should have directed that post at CW

I was replying to the highlighted text I quoted, not you. It just happened to be in your post.

Jane Austen (1775-1817) used it.

I've not read much of her work, but the only times I've seen it in her works was when she used it as quotation and not dialogue. The examples I've were in quotations from a letters. Maybe someone will read all her works and find out how many examples are quotes of documents within the story and how many are actual dialogue.

I've not read much of her work, but the only times I've seen it in her works was when she used it as quotation and not dialogue. The examples I've were in quotations from a letters. Maybe someone will read all her works and find out how many examples are quotes of documents within the story and how many are actual dialogue.

As we've discussed endlessly here, they are two separate styles of handling quoted material. In the first, in "normal" dialogue, if it extends beyond a single paragraph (something that rarely happens when quoting from another source), you indent it so you don't need to add quotes to each paragraph. In fiction, we only use this for external sources of dialogue: notes, newspaper clippings or television broadcasts.

In both fiction and non-fiction uses, they are clearly two separate styles of referencing quotes, which follow two separate guidelines.

Also, in the use of indent quotes, you drop ALL quotes, including the initial and ending quotation marks.

According to Wikipedia, the University of Chicago was not established until 1890.
Jane Austen was using it 80 years before then.

It's likely CMoS picked it up from current literary usage, rather than dictating entirely new uses. As such, they'd merely reinforce what was already 'accepted behavior' in an attempt to standardize usage, rather than randomly change everything readers expect.

Even with the usage of ellipsis, where some sources use "..." instead of " ... ", they were picking up on already standardized usage by the newspaper industry for saving space by eliminating the extra spaces.

American style uses double quotes (") for initial quotations, then single quotes (') for quotations within the initial quotation.

British style uses single quotes (') for initial quotations, then double quotes (") for quotations within the initial quotation.

Please note, Ernest, that when Grammer Girl refers to "quotes within quotes", she's not referring to quotes by one reporter of another reporters work, but concerning any use of quotation marks, regardless of the content. That's consistent with virtually all the guidelines regarding quotations. They don't mean it's only limited to quotations from other sources, only that it's a universal guideline for the use of quotation mark usage.

Nuff said. I think we all know where we each stand on this issue. Belaboring the point is fruitless.

I've also read that American always has a period in abbreviations like Mr. and Capt. but the British leave off the period if the last letter of the word is the same as the last letter of the abbreviation.

Except, strangely enough, for "Miss". For some strange reason I've never understood, you never add a period to it like you do to every other abbreviation/title/form-of-address.

The reason for that is simply "Miss" is NOT an abbreviation.

Most sources attribute "Miss" as an abbreviation for "Mistress", a reference which has fallen into disfavor, and which most people don't want to emphasize. It's more like a case of collective amnesia.

It's more like a case of collective amnesia.

Mistress used to have two main meanings. 1) A woman who is being 'kept' by a man. 2) A woman who is the superior of the person speaking to her.

The first meaning is alive and well. The second meaning is still valid, but, at least in the US, it is rarely used as a method of addressing your boss. Probably due to the negative connotation associated with the first meaning.

With all this discussion about Miss, I wonder how people in the future will think about the term Mz the politically correct insist on using now.

With all this discussion about Miss, I wonder how people in the future will think about the term Mz the politically correct insist on using now.

"Mz." fell out of favor a long time ago. Most people still aren't comfortable with "Mrs." and "Miss", but they haven't really settled on a preferred alternative. As far as I'm concerned, "Mz." works as a non-specific female equivalent of "Mr.".

Of course, the next roadblock is picking a non-gender specific/non-marital status form of address. "Significant other" and "lover" are both terrible choices.

What about target shooting?

Don't know about you, but when I'm ready to shoot, I would rather hit a Mistress's target than a Mister's target. :)

Don't know about you, but when I'm ready to shoot, I would rather hit a Mistress's target than a Mister's target.

What if the Mistress's target is the Mister and vice versa? For myself, I'd rather not be the target, in either case. :)

: By the way, I deleted my initial post, since my question was never directly addressed, other than two "You're right" votes.

I gave you an answer that a comma is required after "screamed."

I gave you an answer that a comma is required after "screamed."

Sorry, Switch, I misspoke. Another source seconded my own opinion, that you don't, and backed it up with a reference specifically targeted to the question. My only question was what to do when the sentence structure requires the comma. Apparently the answer (commonly accepted answer, that is) is that it doesn't matter, you don't violate the duplicate punctuation rule. That was convincing enough for me, since I wasn't requesting empirical proof!).

Duh! If they're viewed as one and the same, why would they?

Because they aren't the same, and weren't viewed as being the same until a few decades ago certain people in the USA started pushing that view.

@Ernest

Because they aren't the same

@Zom

Hear, hear!

As I said, if you don't agree with the dropped quote standard, then DON'T use it. However, don't dictate to everyone else that the accepted international standards aren't valid because of some unknown international conspiracy by non-fiction authors.

I've been reading it my entire adult life, and many years before that, so I consider it an accepted standard, simply because it IS. The fact that Australians don't accept it is a purely Regional variant.

The fact that Australians don't accept it is a purely Regional variant.

Except it's not a standard for the UK universities and not accepted by some US editors as well. Australia seems to be a lot bigger than I thought if it takes in parts of the US and the UK.

And there is never any suggestion that the whole world must adhere to a regional variant where that region is the US. Of course not.

This discussion has never centered around enforcing the dropped quote rule, rather it's centered around the validity of the (presumably) American system of using dropped quotes for prolonged monologues. (I still haven't seen much evidence that other British speakers don't adhere to it, mostly because of the many stories I've read where they use it extensively.)

My point was, it makes sense to account for differences in writing styles in different regions, because it'll trip certain readers up, and you'll undoubtedly get criticized for it. The solution, is to approach it sensibly, rather than apply any given technique as a grand fiat to use on any occasion you feel the need to use it.

rather it's centered around the validity of the (presumably) American system of using dropped quotes for prolonged monologues. (I still haven't seen much evidence that other British speakers don't adhere to it,

That was my point. It's not an "American" system. I've never seen an alternative from any country's form of English.

The bottom line is it's a rare thing that's evidently not taught except for maybe an advanced English class (which none of us ever took). But that doesn't mean it's not the rule.

And in this case, the rule makes sense so why not use it?

Or, better yet, delete the entire thread, since the initial question was answered a long time ago, and the follow-up discussion didn't cast any light on the topic

On the contrary, I believe people here learned something they didn't know. That made it worthwhile.

It is not certain readers will instantly know from the context these two paragraphs have the same speaker continuing. Insert 'But' as the first word of both sentences. That makes sense in both sentences, and there's no way a reader will NOT know it is the same speaker is continuing on.

Ha-ha. Except it's grammatically incorrect. You can get away with it on occasion, but only if you don't overuse it (it's another roadblock many readers trip over in fiction). However, if you substitute "However", you should be okay. ;D

But don't we all agree authors of fiction are allowed to do things that are "grammatically incorrect" to assist in the clarity of readers. :-)

See my other comment. It's okay to use occasionally, for an effective presentation, but using it repeatedly just marks you as a lazy writer, not wanting to be bothered to check a thesaurus. Once shouldn't use it as a rule.

It is not certain readers will instantly know from the context these two paragraphs have the same speaker continuing. Insert 'But' as the first word of both sentences. That makes sense in both sentences, and there's no way a reader will NOT know it is the same speaker is continuing on.

I couldn't count the number of times I've heard someone jump into the middle of a conversation with the word But as the start of their rebuttal of the person who just spoke. It's not an option I'd recommend, unless I had an ID tag of some sort.

I couldn't count the number of times I've heard someone jump into the middle of a conversation with the word But as the start of their rebuttal of the person who just spoke. It's not an option I'd recommend, unless I had an ID tag of some sort.

That's why, in fictional dialogue at least, I'd reserve "In that case" for those instances, instead of "But". As I stated earlier, no author should ever make a habit of starting sentences with "but", as it's an incorrect usage of English grammar. It's okay, on occasion, as an effective presentation, but it's a detriment if used repeatedly.

In my view, the morons here are ...

Now, now. We're discussing grammar. It's an objective point of view, but it's not person. To start calling people names is attaching significance to a minor, but prolonged and intractable, discussion that it doesn't deserve. No one has yet called anyone a Nazi, so it hasn't yet degraded to basic name calling, let's not push it over the edge because we're all tired or arguing the same points.

No one here is a moron. We each have our opinions, and most aren't willing to change their standard practice, but the differences are personal attacks or signs of mental adaptness.

So how would you define the White House today: an Imbecile or Moron?

Nit: A building has no intellect. It's an inanimate object. And no one here has an IQ anywhere near the levels being discussed here, which was my initial point. There's no need to throw insulting terms around, simply because they don't agree with you, unless you prefer making enemies.

The impression I got from the original is that it was supposed to be simultaneous. She was rushing, waving and screaming all at once.

That's why I said it's hard to pluck a sentence from a scene and say what the best version is. It depends so much on what came before and what comes after.

I imagined the woman seeing the man point the gun. Her first reaction would be to yell "No!" Then she might run at him waving her arms to draw his attention to her.

When running towards him, she might yell or not. If she yells, she might yell, "No, no, no!" or "Here. I'm here." or something else.

without moving your hands. (???)

I suppose someone doing a pull up would be moving their arms without moving their hands. :)

No argument there EB.

I was just responding to one of CW's earlier posts about waving arms to be an Americanism that many would not understand.

If the sentence said Waving her hands I'd expect the arms to be still while the hand is in motion, kind of like how Queen Elizabeth waves to people when driving by in a car at a public appearance.

I think it's more culturally based than that. In America, we wave frantically for all kinds of things: football games, waving to friends, waving in plains. I suspect Australians are a bit more reserved, not wanting to focus too much attention to themselves, they reserve outward signs to the 'barely registered' by anyone but those who're looking for them. In that case, they wouldn't recognize 'waving her arms' as involving the hands, as it's a foreign concept.

@Ernest

The "No!" can fit at the front, the tail, or the middle of the sentence, as you wish. If in the middle or the tail it needs a comma before it. If at the front it needs no further punctuation around it.

Yes, the "No!" can technically go anywhere, though the use of the comma is restricted not by it's placement in the sentence, but by the preceding exclamation mark. English doesn't allow multiple punctuation symbols, so the comma can't follow a period or a question or exclamation mark, regardless of whether it's required to make sense of the remained of the sentence.

@Ross at Play

I also noticed something in my Oxford dictionary. It states that if a 'he said' or similar is included inside a quotation, the comma before that comes after the end quote, i.e. "That", he said, "is how it should be."

Does anyone know if that is just an example of the British style, or should it be done for American English as well?

I've often followed the 'if the punctuation belongs in the quoted speech, keep it there, if it's needed for the rest of the sentence, then put it there (after the quote). However, I've often stood alone in that decision, as it's not popular among this crowd.

However, the vast majority of English references insist that ANY quote followed by an attribute contain a comma, despite the comma not being a part of the quote. Based on that, I doubt you could argue for the 'it's not part of the quoted material' argument (i.e. it's a British thing).