Forum: Author Hangout

I can see your point. For Americans (or perhaps, according to CMOS), it's either dialogue or an ordinary word, so punctuate both in their usual way.

I agree with Switch on this for both cases. Those are how I have seen them used here and how I was taught to do it. (Doesn't mean I always do it that way, but that's on me.)

it's either dialogue or an ordinary word,

The reason i said the second one was clearly dialogue was because of the question mark. The person wasn't telling someone they said hello. They were answering the phone with a "questioned hello."

What is a comma used for? It is used to separate items in a list and it is used to indicate a pause in speech. Neither of these is present.

A comma is used for many other things than the two you listed. Here's a quick guide to commas from Purdue University's Online Writing Lab:
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/commas/index.html

I don't like the way it's written, but my guess is #10 addresses what was posted here:

10. Use a comma to shift between the main discourse and a quotation.

If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts of commas, they have a more detailed explanation here: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/commas/extended_rules_for_commas.html

What is a comma used for? It is used to separate items in a list and it is used to indicate a pause in speech.

As well as delimiting prose into logically parsable units, punctuation is there to guide people on how to read the prose aloud in a similar way to how musical notation guides performers.

Some creative writing teachers advocate reading your work aloud and noting where you pause. If there isn't a comma or similar there, add a comma. On the other hand, if there's a comma where you don't pause, take it out.

Considering the purpose of punctuation, it shouldn't be surprising that such an approach results in comma placement very similar to a strict grammatical approach.

AJ

if there's a comma where you don't pause, take it out.

Sometimes I'm not sure if it's needed. Then I read the sentence. If I have any doubt the reader will have trouble understanding (interpreting) what I wrote, I add the comma.

IMO that's a very sensible approach.

Do you read your stories aloud as a last check? Actually, the consensus at my Writers' Group is that the story should be given to a third party to read aloud from cold. That shows up a lot of punctuation and ambiguity issues that might otherwise be missed. Unfortunately not everyone has such a willing drudge :(

AJ

Do you read your stories aloud as a last check?

Not really. I sometimes read a sentence out loud if I'm stumped, but hardly ever. People say you should read dialogue out loud. I think that would work if you listened to other people reading it.

* 'no' using my option E

I don't think there's sufficient context to make a decision.

AJ

However, I agree your solution is clear and better.

"No," he said, shaking his head.

I'll look at the context, but I expect I will recommend your solution to the author.

The point is, the standard conventions are standards because they work! It's fine to 'bend the rules' if you're trying making a point, or trying something unorthodox, but these examples are just newbie authors not understanding basic sentence composition.

There are multiple ways of handling short, one-word responses. There's absolutely no need to keep reinventing the wheel when what we have gets us to where we want to go.

She handed me the phone and I said "Hello?"

Choke, gag!

Really? That breaks the standard "a new paragraph for each subject"

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, you can have multiple dialogues in the same sentence (which means the same paragraph).

She stared at me and said, "No, you can't," before I even asked, "Can I watch TV?"

No, I can't do it! I can't be enough of a pest to ask for a comma there. :-)

I put the comma in. :)

I put the comma in. :)

No, you put the comma in after getting caught with your grammar pants down, but you misplaced it. Even assuming you're using the American convention of including commas within the quotes, the "No, you can't" is a verbatim quote, so you'd need to move the comma (before the following "before") outside of the quote to show it's for the following clause and not part of what the person said.

"No, you can't" is a verbatim quote, so you'd need to move the comma (before the following "before") outside of the quote to show it's for the following clause and not part of what the person said.

I don't think so. Look at this sentence:

She stared at me and said no before I could even ask.

There's no comma before "before."

I don't think so. Look at this sentence:

She stared at me and said no before I could even ask.

There's no comma before "before."

You're right, in that example, it's unneeded. But in the original usage, the double quotes meant the statements were verbatim quotes, so you needed extra punctuation to separate what was 'said' by others from the observation made by the narrator.

But my original point was that I'd either put it into conversational form (without quotes), or break it into two separate lines/paragraphs to keep to the 'each new speaker gets a new paragraph' guideline.

But again, that's my nit to pick, as I see your usage in fairly widespread usage throughout SOL.

The entire 'before I could even ask' is an adverbial phrase

Are you sure?

Since it contains a subject and a verb, IMO it's probably an adverbial clause.

AJ

Since it contains a subject and a verb, IMO it's probably an adverbial clause.

Maybe it's just an adverbial whatchamacallit?

Maybe it's just an adverbial whatchamacallit?

That's a good idea.

So much, grammatically speaking, has had its name changed since I was at school that I'm constantly having to look things up. Calling everything 'whatchamacallit' would be a great way of knocking grammarians down a peg or two when they insinuate you can't be a writer without learning all the jargon ;)

AJ

Calling everything 'whatchamacallit' would be a great way of knocking grammarians down a peg or two when they insinuate you can't be a writer without learning all the jargon ;)

As usual, it's best to construct the story to the best of your ability, so it's captivating and readers can't put it down, despite any obvious flaws, and then let your editors correct any obvious grammatical flaws afterwards. Authors need to focus on the underlying story, rather than how each sentence is constructed.

"Nobody wants to read well-written crap."
Water Sports and Scat stories exist, even on this site. Somebody must read them.

Sorry, but "well-written crap" doesn't refer to scat stories (wrong object in the sentence/phrase). Instead, "well-written crap" would be a Buddhist monk taking months to write a detailed koan on his dried feces. 'D

Authors need to focus on the underlying story, rather than how each sentence is constructed.

IT"S NOT A THIS 'RATHER THAN' THAT THING!

I wasn't suggesting that author's avoid learning how to write decent sentences, or that they shouldn't learn how to tighten their grammar or syntax, only that, when push comes to shove, I'd rather let my already knowledgeable editors 'sweat out the small stuff' (like what constitutes and adverbial phase vs. an adverbial clause), rather than my spending five months in a generic 'English language basics' class at the local community college.

It just didn't seem focusing on what to call each syntactical piece was worth the time I could spend improving my overall writing. (but again, that's more of a 'practical use of going back to school' vs. 'I'd rather not learn how to write' argument.)

If I urged them to do one thing, it would be being curious about why their editors suggest the changes they do. If they don't understand why a suggestion was made, they should ask. If the technical explanation obliges them to learn some new term, they should research it.

I completely agree. In fact, whenever my editors keep insisting on something, I ask them to explain why. My point wasn't that you shouldn't understand and use the correct form, merely that it isn't as important for the author to understand the underlying grammatical and syntactical definitions and the underlying concepts, as long as they've learned how to recognize what's a proper sentence and what isn't. (Thus my hesitancy about signing up for an English 'overview' course where I'd be stuck learning the very things I'm least interested in, what to call what I inherently do.) The explanations for why certain words form clauses isn't as important as writing sentences that make sense on a consistent basis. Those 'trivial details' is why authors rely so heavily on their more knowledgeable editors!

what is and what is not "better" writing?

I think they are talking about sentence structure, as in grammar

An "author" can do everything a writer can do, but also has to dream up the "facts" that make a story

That creativity is something of an opposite to the aptitudes required to rote-learn all the rules of grammar and writing. How often do literary professors utilise their profundity of knowledge to produce page-turner bestsellers!

AJ

Goldilocks-size chapters

Right there, you're clearly missing the point. As my writing has evolved over 17+ books, I cringe when looking back at my earlier work. My earliest pieces were HUGE, with long chapters which seemed to never end. But as I learned to recognize what works in a story, and what's mostly nonessential, I've cut my chapter sizes tremendously. And having done that, there is a price associated with it, so learning the most effective techniques is a continually evolving process, but in the end, the stories are easier to read, the writing is more consistent, and you simply don't waste the readers' time on trivial details as much. (After all, no one here is perfect, by any stretch of the imagination.)

@Ross at Play

I see many posts here which twist the obvious fact that the story matters most into suggestions that the words don't really matter. I think such attitudes would seriously limit someone's capacity to develop their skills as an author of fiction.

The key here, is that the longer an author writes, and the more feedback he receives, he learns which techniques are more or less effective, and adjusts his writing over time.

One pitfall is that new authors will often say 'so and so does this', forgetting that (at least on SOL) longer stories normally score MUCH higher than smaller stories, so a chapter that someone cranks out in a 100+ chapter story isn't going to be as finely crafted as one where the author is trying to keep to the plot essentials, but the longer ongoing story will almost always have higher scores.

In many cases, it boils down to who you pattern yourself after. If you want huge numbers of fans, you write one way. If you want loyal dedicated fans, you write another, and your writing also changes for each different story (most often by genre and setting). There IS no single way of writing anything! Some of the most successful recent non-fiction is when authors 'fictionalize' history by writing it as fiction, including entirely fictional dialogue which never took place. Even there, what it takes to write effectively changes with the circumstances, and often knowing, but breaking the underlying guidelines pays off handsomely in the right settings.

what if the "experts" (such as those on this forum) disagree about what is and what is not "better" writing?

What is better writing will depend as much on what is the intended audience and the intended topic as anything else. The absolute best writing for a military after action reports is terrible writing for a fiction story. The best writing for an academic scientific report is a rubbish still for a romance story. You'll never get people agreeing on what is better writing.

You'll never get people agreeing on what is better writing.

You see this most often in discussions of 'showing vs. telling'. Many authors argue that these discussions are a complete waste of time, but will freely acknowledge that, when done well, it produces a much better story. There are also those who argue about efficiency, as while 'showing' makes for strong writing, it takes a LOT more time, effort and space, and if you're simply establishing a point, you don't need to belabor it by making it 'finely crafted'.

In those cases, it isn't whether 'showing' produces better descriptions, but more about when it's worth investing the time into non-essential story segments. Many argue that 'better writing' consist in not wasting the readers time, and I certainly can't argue with that. Instead, I merely argue with knowing WHEN using it will pay off.

And just how, exactly, does one do that? And what if the "experts" (such as those on this forum) disagree about what is and what is not "better" writing?

Those arguments routinely appear, most often with the same authors arguing each side. I tend to favor the 'accepted literary guidelines' simply because they've proven reliable for so long, but will also quickly dump any literary technique which doesn't appear to work well (i.e. I focus on effectiveness in writing rather than either form or simplicity), while many argue the 'I don't do that' position, and will often dig in their heels.

I'm not dictating how others write their stories, merely pointing out (endlessly) that some techniques are more effective than others in certain circumstances. So it pays to at least learn the technique, even if you flatly reject it, as it simply adds that tool to you quiver, so you can pull it out when needed and know it's drawbacks when doing so.

That's why I'm so focused on discussing technique, while most SOL authors aren't worried about it, as they're simply telling their stories and aren't concerned with making them 'fancy' or 'acceptable' to literary experts.

But again, my repeating those claims isn't going to convince anyone who isn't already interested.

The entire 'before I could even ask' is an adverbial phrase which should not be separated from the verb it modifies, 'said'.

Except:

The Wanlock launched a fireball at Christobelita before the ump signalled the start, before I could shout a warning and before Christobelita could raise her shield.

List commas trump adverbial clauses! ;)

AJ

I changed your text to the Serial Comma style

Heathen!

AJ

Spanish Inquisition!

The Spanish have their own Grammatical Inquisition established? Wow, that completely flew over (or under) my radar! 'D

The entire 'before I could even ask' is an adverbial phrase which should not be separated from the verb it modifies, 'said'.

Just to be uber-pernickety, that 'rule' isn't correct when the adverbial clause precedes the verb it modifies:

Before I could even ask, she said, "No."

1) In Brit English, the comma is optional and a matter of taste, I believe.
2) I converted the 'no' to direct speech. I'd like to see exactly what CMOS says on the subject, if you have the time and inclination to track it down.

AJ

Did I say there was an absolute rule? Or did I say a sentence was an example of one where the principle of avoiding separating adverbs from the verbs they modify should be applied? You're very fond of stating that all 'rules' have exceptions when there are good reasons for doing so.

Once again, the key in understanding rules, is also knowing when to flaunt them, while also recognizing the potential cost when doing so. But nothing says you have to blindly accept any literary guideline under penalty of law!

The best authors fault the standard guidelines with consistency, those less adept stick to a single style of writing, and never vary it, regardless of setting or context.

Neither approach is 'wrong', one simply gives you more options and a better understanding of how to use them.

But like Ross, this discussion has ceased being fruitful, now we're arguing semantics rather than issues, so I'm outta here. There are better ways to be unproductive!

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, you can have multiple dialogues in the same sentence (which means the same paragraph).

She stared at me and said, "No, you can't," before I even asked, "Can I watch TV?"

I'll admit, I've done it myself, but again, when I include multiple speakers in the same paragraph, I'm trying to do something unusual, so I understand the purpose of the standards and I accept the risk, but am trying to do something different.

In your example, there's simply nothing to be gained by joining the sentences. If the sentence is dialogue, which is sounds like without context, I'd remove the extra quotes and use single quotes (as the speaker would be referencing the responses they received). I'd then write that as:

"She stared at me and said 'No, you can't', before I could even ask 'Can I watch TV?'"

That's a conversational responses, even if it's a 1st-person narrator, rather than 'two separate people speaking in the same sentence at the same time'.

Taking your example as a 1st-person narrator, I'd write it as:

She stared at me and said 'No, you can't', before I could even ask 'Can I watch TV?'

I'd drop the external double quotes, since it's the narration, but I'd still include the referential single quotes (for us U.S. authors) to show the narrator is relating how she responded to what was said, rather than those people actually speaking.

Again, without these standard conventions, readers won't be able to make heads or tails of what you're trying to express. The conventions aren't there to limit authors, but to allow readers to follow what's happening in the story. If each author makes up their own standards, then readers will have no clue what's going on.

"She stared at me and said 'No, you can't', before I could even ask 'Can I watch TV?'"
That's a conversational responses, even if it's a 1st-person narrator, rather than 'two separate people speaking in the same sentence at the same time'.

I was thinking of a 1st-person narrator when I came up with that example. So the "She stared at me and said" is in the narrative so it wouldn't be in quotes. Therefore, the two dialogues would be in double quotes.