Forum: Author Hangout

I like that thought, I will start using that as most of the conversations L write are brief and no more than five paragraphs

You need to identify the first speaker. He speaks until there's a closing quotation mark. Then the other is assumed to be speaking until the next quotation mark.

Unless you've already identified the speaker, then it always defaults to the previous speaker (i.e. when the current speaker, the next person to speak, is usually the one he responded to).

Thus, as Switch said, in a two-person dialogue, it's ALWAYS the OTHER speaker. But you still have to clarify who's speaking (i.e. remind readers who's speaking now and then, so they don't have to keep track indefinitely).

Meh. I remember reading...one of Robert Jordan's novels. Page and a half of dialog (not a long monolog, like Ayn Rand was good at - she had some real 'spontaneous speechwriter' characters) with no attributions beyond the beginning. And both characters occasionally had multiparagraph lines.

Meh. I remember reading...one of Robert Jordan's novels. Page and a half of dialog (not a long monolog, like Ayn Rand was good at - she had some real 'spontaneous speechwriter' characters) with no attributions beyond the beginning. And both characters occasionally had multiparagraph lines.

I was describing the standard default in two or multiple person dialogue. If you follow that standard, then you should know WHEN you need to acknowledge a change in attribution, as well as knowing when to break dialogue into multiple paragraphs.

But, alas, it's not always followed universally by all authors, regardless of their stature. Often, the most striking pieces of literature are when they purposely flaunt literary standards to emphasize a particular passage, ensuring that readers remember key elements.

I understand the reason for splitting in multiple paragraphs if the dialogue is long but personally I would prefer using a single linefeed (< br >, n) to start a new line instead of paragraphs to get some kind of split and still keep a single dialogue to a single paragraph.

The reason for splitting dialogue is NOT because the paragraph is "too long". It's because the subject being discussed changes. So if a character is discussing how hot his new girlfriend is, when he starts talking about what classes she's taking, it's a new paragraph. When they start talking about her family, it's a new paragraph, etc., etc., etc.

The reason for splitting dialogue is NOT because the paragraph is "too long". It's because the subject being discussed changes.

Agree, IF authors respected it that way. What I see in a lot of stories is multiple paragraphs that should have been a single paragraph. If such an author did the splitting because he thought the paragraph would be too long a better alternative would be the < br > (linefeed) I mentioned. I guess some authors think paragraphs shouldn't be long even if the subject remains the same.

(by-the-way, a linefeed is possibly difficult because I think the SOL script creates a paragraph when it encounters a linefeed.)

The second paragraph was the end of the first paragraph before I broke it out. As a separate paragraph it has more impact. That was the only reason I made it its own paragraph.

"The exception to the rule." That split is actually smart. Although it stays with same subject it does have more impact and changes the reading flow in a positive way.

But that was not the example I was referring to. Splitting paragraphs for the sole reason to have shorter paragraphs does the opposite from your example above. As a reader you expect a new subject or a new character speaking with a new paragraph so unnecessary breaks disrupt the expected reading flow. It has it's uses as your example proves but not as a regular thing.

I'm now breaking up paragraphs into multiple paragraphs, keeping paragraphs shorter.

I've begun doing the same thing, after including younger (pre-teen) protagonists. But, in those cases, since the dialogue is inherently less complex, the basic sentence structure ensure that the paragraphs are shorter by definition. Yet, those younger speakers also tend to pause more often when speaking, as they have to stop to consider how they'll deliver their next point.

Again, you typically match dialogue to each specific character, whenever possible. But learning how to do that successfully really changed how I approach written dialogue.

I guess some authors think paragraphs shouldn't be long even if the subject remains the same.

In those cases (of an overly long same-subject paragraph), I'll often split it using action attributes (descriptions of physical actions), rather than arbitrarily breaking a paragraph up at the wrong points.

(by-the-way, a linefeed is possibly difficult because I think the SOL script creates a paragraph when it encounters a linefeed.)

Not quite. Instead, the SOL text parser swallows lone linefeeds, and only inserts a NEW blank line when it create a new paragraph following a double linefeed (which I've always found annoying!).

I'm one of them. In my opinion, the advantages of splitting outweigh the disadvantages.

I'm kinda the opposite. With reading online, paragraphs look really quite too short sometimes.

I'm new at this and ran into this issue early on. I debated on which way to format multiple paragraphs. In the end I polled a half dozen readers on what they preferred and all agreed that not having the closing double quote for each paragraph bothered them. I've since gone the technically incorrect route and included started and ending quotes for each paragraph. Cater to your audience.

Classic Rookie mistake (whenever you made that choice). The choice isn't limiting each speaker to a single subject, it's HOW you continue the dialogue. You've got Switch's technique, where you drop the ending quotation and just keep going, or you've got Ernest's, where EACH new paragraph by the same speaker gets a NEW dialogue tag (action dialogue are often handy for these types of 'affirmational' tags).

Example:

"So, I says: 'Marty, them cars ain't gonna fly themselves.'

"Then he says, 'Well, they will if they's programmed correctly!'"

vs.

"Nope, that's not the way you tie a half-hitch. You loop over, not under."

"But," he continues, "If you're doing a cloverleaf, then it's a whole different ballgame."

This can sometimes be done by the content of the dialog.

I call this baton passing. There are two ways to handle this.

The first requires a more formal setting with a clear leader.

For example, the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of a company meeting with the other CXOs.

CEO starts the meeting by asking the CFO(Chief Financial Officer) a question.

Then you get a back and forth between the CEO and the CFO.

At the end of this, the CEO turns and directs a question to the COO (Chief Operations Officer).

followed by back and forth between the CEO and the COO.

The second method involves a chain of baton passing. A starts a conversation with B. B directs a comment to or about C. C responds and makes a comment/question to or about D.

Mom, daughter and two sons.

Mom: "Sally, you left a mess in the kitchen! Get in here and clean it up!"

"It wasn't me, I was helping Bobbie with his homework. Right Bobbie?"

"Mom, Sally was helping me with my homework. I think I saw Eddie come out of the kitchen as we were finishing up.

I would no consider a paragraph that mixes narrative with dialog in a paragraph to be one of the paragraphs in multi-paragraph dialog.

I recently read a story (CRS, can't remeber which one it was) where this happened throughout the whole story. In many instances I found it confusing.

Nowadays I mix dialogue and narrative in the same paragraph but only if they have the same actor. Is that a technique you'd find confusing?

As I said, I can't remember which story it was or I could show a snippet as an example. A lot of the story looked like this:

Blabla blablabla bla, "dialogue dialogue", blabla bla, "dialogue dialogue dialogue", blablabla.

Blablabla bla, "dialogue dialogue dialogue dialogue dialogue", blablabla. "dialogue dialogue", blabla bla.

So dialogue integrated between descriptive text, sometimes multiple dialogues in one paragraph. I even remember cases where two dialogues in the same paragraph were from different characters. Yeah, that was confusion in more than one occasion.
Now if each paragraph was limited to some text and a piece of dialogue, that would not be a problem. It's the mixing and doubles that make it difficult to follow who's who.

What's wrong with that? Again, here's an example from my WIP:

"They don't send soldiers in the Mediterranean theater here." Her smile spread wider, showing two perfect dimples, and her blue eyes sparkled. "So what makes you so special?"

Why is that confusing?

That's not confusing, the speaker remains the same.

That's not confusing, the speaker remains the same.

Again, one speaker per paragraph. However, the narrator is NOT another speaker in dialogue, instead the narrator is generally consider to be 'descriptive text'. But, beyond that, I'm afraid most of us will have to see a specific example of what you're describing to grasp your point. :(

, I'm afraid most of us will have to see a specific example of what you're describing to grasp your point.

Oh, I've seen a few examples where both Dick and Jane have speaking roles in the same paragraph. Only very rarely is it ever done appropriately (to indicate people basically responding at the same time).

Oh, I've seen a few examples where both Dick and Jane have speaking roles in the same paragraph. Only very rarely is it ever done appropriately (to indicate people basically responding at the same time).

Unfortunately, I've seen quite a few examples of that, given the range of author expertise on SOL. It's similar to mixing tenses and past/present/future tenses.

Unfortunately, I've seen quite a few examples of that, given the range of author expertise on SOL.

Frequently, I'll give up on a story for bad writing before I run into that particular error. Unless a story is extremely interesting, I don't put up with bad writing. Hell, with some writing, I'd never be able to even determine if the story is interesting.

Good guess.

I call this baton passing. There are two ways to handle this.

I tend to use this fairly extensively in my writing, so I pay a LOT of attention to how it's used. Just as I like complex plots, with complex sentences, I like complex discussions with multiple parties. It's not always a straightforward back and forth 'baton passing'. Often, it's a general round-robin discussion, intermixed with several characters going at each other when they have conflicting motivations or agendas, so it produces a wonderful conflict between the protagonists to help make the detailed 'explanation' segments more interesting.

Generally, you don't use the DQ technique ALL the time, but you save it for the final summary by whoever's in charge (generally the protagonist), who's listened to everyone's point of view, and who then pronounces how the group will proceed through the next stage of the conflict. Thus he summarizes the basis of the next few chapters (preparing readers and building tension) without giving away what's actually going to happen in those upcoming chapters.

Generally, you don't use the DQ technique ALL the time

Just to be clear, my own personal stance on the DQ technique is that it's largely irrelevant.

That said,I'm trying to follow the convention where appropriate, because it is a convention.

In my opinion, properly done, a context appropriate monologue will not be confusing to more than tiny fraction of readers, regardless of the DQ or dialog tags.

The context of the proceeding narrative and the text of the monologue itself will be enough by themselves to clue 90+% of readers in that this is a monologue.

In my opinion, properly done, a context appropriate monologue will not be confusing to more than tiny fraction of readers, regardless of the DQ or dialog tags.

In most cases, the Dropped Quote convention mainly benefits speed readers, who typically read sentences based on the shape of groups of words and other non-obvious clues. Readers who parse each word, generally can't jump ahead and take in subtler clues. But then again, it's the massive reader, who consume multiple books each week, who generate the most sales. The plodding readers generally don't influence sales much, thus don't set literary trends.

A closing quote at the end of each paragraph of a passage of multi-paragraph ping-pong dialogue would be very awkward. The author would have to identify that the same speaker is continuing the passage.

We've had LOTS of arguments about Dropped Quotes here over the years. But the entire point is that it's supposed to be virtually invisible to the reader. If someone has to stop to figure out what's happening, then you'll potentially permanently lost that reader.

The most convincing argument for it, though, is the proponents of the Australian non-DQ standard NEVER having noticed how nearly every significant work of fiction for multiple decades used the technique and they never noticed until they went back and searched for it's use.

The point isn't whether you notice it every now and then, but how often you follow complex dialogue without ever noticed the techniques used behind the scenes.

But the entire point is that it's supposed to be virtually invisible to the reader.

I'm not Australian. but I have to say, if it's invisible to the reader, then it informs them of nothing and does nothing to prevent confusion over who is speaking.

I find the notion that something can be both "invisible to the reader" and help the reader avoid confusion to be absurd.

I'm not Australian. but I have to say, if it's invisible to the reader, then it informs them of nothing and does nothing to prevent confusion over who is speaking.

It's only "invisible" to the reader because it's handled subconsciously, which is what the research on the subject demonstrates (though, of course, the major publishing houses who conducted the research generally refuse to release the specific studies to the general public!).

Thus, readers who've read a decent amount of fiction will inherently recognize the usage (having encountered it repeatedly), but just like commas, won't stop and mentally read each individual punctuation mark to themselves.

That's when those passages really work, when the typical (non-literary educated reader) won't even notice when it's being used. When you have to stop to figure out what's going on, you've obviously dropped the ball, usually for other reasons entirely (JMHO, but feel free to disagree).

which is what the research on the subject demonstrates (though, of course, the major publishing houses who conducted the research generally refuse to release the specific studies to the general public!).

Maybe they won't release the specifics because they are just making it up and the research doesn't actually exist.

Maybe they won't release the specifics because they are just making it up and the research doesn't actually exist.

No. The research is based on sales and reader perceptions, which are publisher specific privileged information (related in income/profit and earning ratios and author earnings, which are all protected personal/corporate information).

But, while the specific details which the research is based on is protected, the results aren't (i.e. how specific techniques relate to reader approval, author prestige and book sales), so they're generally copied by the other publishers.

related in income/profit and earning ratios and author earnings, which are all protected personal/corporate information

None of which would tell you anything of real value about specific individual techniques.

Many times when I'm reading a novel I stop to check if the previous paragraph has the ending quotation mark (to see if the same character is speaking). So for me it's not invisible. But it's needed.

And that's the problem: you have to stop and check back. That's something that you don't want to do when reading.

I do it to double check. Usually I know it's the same speaker, but I check anyway. I'm a compulsive perfectionist. Makes me a good editor. Also a slow reader.

I'm the same ("compulsive perfectionist") yet still very different ("good editor, slow reader," I'm not!).
I find that I have progressed as a reader over the years. I recognize mistakes that I didn't recognize years ago. Mind you. I'm not native English so that plays a role too. My English knowledge has progressed from basic high school English and technical English (programming) to what it is today which is a much broader knowledge.
That's why I recognize "problems" in stories I didn't notice before and it unfortunately takes away a part of my reading enjoyment.
The current discussion about the open quotes and short paragraphs is one of the things that bother me although I know that leaving a dialogue open to the same speaker by not closing it is an official rule. I think it's more about splitting paragraphs without any real for it. There are other punctuation rules in English that I think are plain stupid but there's nothing I can do about that. For the open quotes I can at least argue that paragraphs shouldn't be split.

I'm the same ("compulsive perfectionist") yet still very different ("good editor, slow reader," I'm not!).

That's natural, in part, because there are several 'literary techniques' which you'll normally never notice until you're hip deep into writing.

But, after I got fed up with missing so many typos, I deliberately slowed down my reading speed (which is difficult because I learned speed reading way back in high school, where you read based on the shape of each sentence, often reading only the closing line of each paragraph—which typically summarizes the paragraph).

So, now as a result, I'm better at self-editing, while I've virtually given up on recreational reading (since it now takes so damn long!!!. :(

P.S. You meant "without any real reason/point/objective to it.

There are other punctuation rules in English that I think are plain stupid but there's nothing I can do about that.

That's typical, because each language how it's own structure, which sounds wrong to other language speakers. Plus, English keeps changing, so it's more complicated than most other 'restricted' languages. The same reason English is now a 'universal' language also makes it as complicated as hell!

So, now as a result, I'm better at self-editing, while I've virtually given up on recreational reading (since it now takes so damn long!!!

See now me, when I'm reading recreationally, I deliberately don't read at the fastest pace I can manage.

And that's the problem: you have to stop and check back.

I do it to double check. Usually I know it's the same speaker, but I check anyway. I'm a compulsive perfectionist. Makes me a good editor. Also a slow reader.

That's why it makes sense for authors to listen to their postings via a text to audio app (Apple devices offer it independently of each individual program). Whenever I do, not only does it highlight those discrepancies, but I also spot several sections where I can cut quite a bit as it interrupts the narrative flow. Something I'd never learn without listening to the chapter read out loud. (Though it helps if you wait at least a week, just so you don't know who each person speaking is.)

I find the notion that something can be both "invisible to the reader" and help the reader avoid confusion to be absurd.

The reader doesn't see a close quote, so they subconsciously realize the speaker isn't finished. The close quote is the sign that the speaker has finished. The subconscious is aware of this, so the reader doesn't consciously question.

The reader doesn't see a close quote, so they subconsciously realize the speaker isn't finished.

That what is claimed by it's supporters. I'm skeptical it actually works.

That what is claimed by it's supporters. I'm skeptical it actually works.

It requires the following:
1. the reader learned proper grammar
2. the reader actually reads from time to time

With people who never learned, or people who did learn but read so infrequently that they forgot, the subconscious could fall down on the job. Put a note at the beginning (like Ascending Author did for his variant) to remind people of the rule (that a speaker isn't finished until there's a close quote) and their subconscious should do the job.

It requires the following:
1. the reader learned proper grammar
2. the reader actually reads from time to time

I am skeptical it works as claimed with any reader under any conditions.

I've almost never had a problem with it (unless I was distracted and resumed reading in the middle of a conversation)... and it regularly is used.

I'm not claiming the DQ it isn't used.

And I understand how it's proponents think it's supposed to work. I didn't need to have that explained to me.

I am just doubtful that it does in fact work the way it's proponents claim.

Simply repeating the explanation of how it's supposed to work is rather unconvincing.

I'm not claiming the DQ it isn't used.

...but you're claiming I've actually had problems with it and didn't realize it? That's unlikely, given the speed I typically read at.

.but you're claiming I've actually had problems with it and didn't realize it?

Actually no, that's not what I'm claiming at all.

My claim is that it is simply irrelevant. It does nothing. It neither adds nor removes clarity. It doesn't cause any problems, but it doesn't solve any problems either.

I'll use it in my own writing because it is a convention and in the end it's harmless.

Don't do either of the above and you have a confused reader because if the closing quotation mark is there and the next paragraph begins with a quotation mark, the reader assumes it's a new character speaking.

I think this is a bunch of bull.

Good writing with distinct voices for each character and a reader will be able to tell from other contextual cues in the narrative and dialog, with little or no effort, that it's the same speaker continuing.

There really is a reason for the convention.

I never said there wasn't. The question is whether or not that reason is actually valid, which isn't a given.

The problem lies in proving that it's the DQ convention and not something else that's preventing the readers from becoming confused.

The only way to really go about proving that the DQ works would be to do a study using two texts identical except for the DQ(or not).

That said, I try to follow the convention because it is a convention and at worst it's harmless (it won't add to reader confusion).

If that were the case you'd never need a dialogue tag. The reader would know who's speaking without telling him simply by the character's voice.

Even if you are right on this point, that doesn't mean the DQ convention actually does for you what you think it's doing.

If that were the case you'd never need a dialogue tag.

Not quite. You would need to identify each speaker at least once and then probably periodically refresh the identification in a longer work.

I for one am not that good at writing characters' voices.

I can do it occasionally, for a specific character, but I can't do it for every single character, especially not in a 'visually obvious' manner in each character's first line of dialogue. :(

Good writing with distinct voices for each character and a reader will be able to tell from other contextual cues in the narrative and dialog, with little or no effort, that it's the same speaker continuing.

Alas, if you have more than just a few characters, your minor characters will typically sound alike. Not every author is knowledgeable about written dialogue, especially for regions they've never lived in.
That said, I try to follow the convention because it is a convention and at worst it's harmless (it won't add to reader confusion).

Or, just don't use multiple paragraphs in dialogue, which seems to be a large part of the chorus here. ;)

Alas, if you have more than just a few characters, your minor characters will typically sound alike.

True, but then minor characters generally don't get as much dialog and probably shouldn't be monologueing.

True, but then minor characters generally don't get as much dialog and probably shouldn't be monologueing.

Really?

Think, in movies now. There's a perfect example of a minor character who gets a great monolog, with no other lines - Silent Bob.

Think, in movies now. There's a perfect example of a minor character who gets a great monolog, with no other lines - Silent Bob.

1. Movies are not books. Things that work in movies don't translate well to books. Things that work in books don't translate well to movies.

2. IIRC: Silent Bob was not exactly a minor character.

Outside Jay&Silent Bob Strike Back, he kinda was. Think 'Chasing Amy'.

Outside Jay&Silent Bob Strike Back, he kinda was. Think 'Chasing Amy'.

There is a reason he was called "Silent" Bob. You can't monologue if you never say anything.

Once per movie, he'd have some really inciteful monolog. But that would be the only lines he had.

Once per movie, he'd have some really inciteful monolog.

A one liner is not a monolog.

The point is, you do it that way or you do it Ernest's way, by closing each paragraph and opening the next with words to tell the reader the character is still speaking.

Switch is correct. There are ONLY two variations, though I often mix Ernest's 'action attributes' into my normal dialogue too (it's a handy tool, whichever approach you take). If you don't like the drop-quote technique, then simply don't use it. That's pretty straight forward.

I'm not Australian. but I have to say, if it's invisible to the reader, then it informs them of nothing and does nothing to prevent confusion over who is speaking.

Invisible is the wrong word. Unnoticeable would be better. If there's any reason for a reader to stop enjoying your story and ask "what's that doing here?", it isn't good.

The thing that stops the reader might be the presence of something unexpected, or the absence of something that is normally taken for granted

Like, for example, the lack of a period in the previous paragraph.

Invisible is the wrong word. Unnoticeable would be better.

No it wouldn't be better. Unnoticeable has the same problem. That which is unnoticed conveys zero information.

How about non-intrusive?

Better as terminology.

The problem for me is I do believe that the dropped quote is largely unnoticeable, not just non-intrusive. Which would necessarily mean that it can't be doing what you think it's doing.

The problem for me is I do believe that the dropped quote is largely unnoticeable, not just non-intrusive. Which would necessarily mean that it can't be doing what you think it's doing.

Then how in the hell do you think so many of us who've read novels that use it regularly have never had problems understanding?

You don't need to be consciously aware of something to know it. The lack of a closing quote may or may not be consciously noticed, but unless the reader physically can't see well enough to know if it was there or not, the brain did not process a closed quote and thus (if it knows the convention) knows the quote will continue.

Then how in the hell do you think so many of us who've read novels that use it regularly have never had problems understanding?

*Edidted

Because I think there are other factors, other contextual clues, besides the dropped quote that are actually doing what you think the dropped quote does.

I also think that in cases where there is a valid story based reason to have one character delivering a monologue it is far less difficult than you seem to think for readers to recognize this.

Can it be done badly in a way that confuses readers, sure. but so can lots of other things.

but unless the reader physically can't see well enough to know if it was there or not, the brain did not process a closed quote and thus (if it knows the convention) knows the quote will continue.

The part I bolded is doing far too much work here.

The convention is not taught anywhere below the college level, and even then only in advanced writing course that would mostly be taken by people looking to become authors.

You are assuming that readers somehow absorb this convention without ever being consciously aware of it. But an assumption is all it is, you have not the smallest scrap of evidence to back it up.

likely 99% of your readers don't know the convention.

The convention is not taught anywhere below the college level

I'm certain I learned it in high school, actually.

But I wouldn't be shocked to find that my high school had standards and content beyond any current high school in murica...

Not just current. I'm 51.

To the extent that my high school covered the dropped quote at all, it was only in the context of formal report writing where you are doing lengthy quotes of cited material.

If you are assuming that people will transfer that to reading fiction, that again, is just you making assumptions with out any evidence.

To learn writing fiction you need to take specialized courses, typically in college. They are not on the normal curriculum.

Yes, but readers don't take those courses, so expecting readers to understand things that are taught in them is rather unrealistic.

To learn writing fiction you need to take specialized courses, typically in college. They are not on the normal curriculum.

Every high school English class I had had at least one 'creative writing' segment. And there was (in larger schools) actual English courses that were entirely creative writing.

If you are assuming that people will transfer that to reading fiction, that again, is just you making assumptions with out any evidence.

Again, the 'knowledge' isn't transferred. Instead, it's generally picked up via reading fiction, not from studying non-fiction reports or studying the technique in school.

it's generally picked up via reading fiction,

You won't pick up what you don't notice, and what it means even if a novice does notice it is non-obvious.

Again, this is nothing more than assumptions made with little or no supporting evidence.

I was certainly taught it in school

In high school?

It's MLA Style:

The style guides you mention are irrelevant to my point. Certainly the high school I went to didn't teach or use any formal style guides.

And this fiction style guide, as one example:

Irrelevant. How many non-authors do you imagine have read this or any other style guide?

Nobody can force anyone to write in any particular way

And I'm not arguing that the dropped quote convention shouldn't be used. In fact I've repeatedly said I use it.

but to say that 99% of people don't know is, well, an extreme exageration.

99% of people are not authors and have no desire to be authors. You've offered nothing that would convince me that any significant percentage on non-authors would be aware of this convention.

All I'm doing is questioning it's effectiveness in meeting it's stated purpose.

The style guides you mention are irrelevant to my point. Certainly the high school I went to didn't teach or use any formal style guides.

Mine did.

Of course, most students that went to my school found university level English courses easier than high school.

Of course, most students that went to my school

Can you offer any reason to believe that your high-school would be more representative of high-schools generally than mine was?

Not especially, since I don't know what your school was like. I went to a small country school, maybe 400 students? Not the best funded, not the most appealing place to work. We were constantly getting new teachers fresh out of teachers college. Oddly, we also had a lot of exchange students.

Not especially, since I don't know what your school was like.

Urban public school.

Given basically every novel I read uses it, I'd say is very effective or they would adopt something new.

Sorry, but there are other factors at play as well, you can't isolate just the effect of the dropped quote that way.

And there are lots of things done in publishing and in other industries that are done for no better reason than "that's they way it's always been done."

The fact that nothing has changed for 'readability' purposes is pretty strong evidence for my point.

I can't agree with that. In my opinion, for the reasons I already stated, it's no evidence at all.

The dropped quote would only be expected to drop out for "readability" reasons if it negatively impacted readability.

That's not my argument. My argument is that it's impact on readability is a nullity.

You are assuming that readers somehow absorb this convention without ever being consciously aware of it.

Non-native English readers probably have never heard of it. Heck, I'm not that bad using English but I didn't now about it until I read it here in the forum some time ago.

Non-native English readers probably have never heard of it. Heck, I'm not that bad using English but I didn't now about it until I read it here in the forum some time ago.

I'm a native English reader and I had never heard of it until it I saw it in the forums here.

The problem for me is I do believe that the dropped quote is largely unnoticeable, not just non-intrusive. Which would necessarily mean that it can't be doing what you think it's doing.

It's 'unnoticeable' in the same way that using nonconsecutive adjectives is. Most English speakers can't list the proper order of verbs (it's generally recognized by most foreign speakers, though), but they'll instantly notice when the words are in the wrong order.

In this case, for anyone who regularly reads novels, they've literally trained themselves to recognize the usage, even if they can't define them. When they see the markers (i.e. the missing quote) they adapt, recognizing but not acknowledging the specific technique. At least, that's how it's supposed to work. But when it doesn't, it's often because something else is wrong with the dialogue.

Again, I'll point out how our Australian contingent often note the missing drop quote, but never seem to notice the technique is commonly used in the various published novels they read.

It's 'unnoticeable' in the same way that using nonconsecutive adjectives is.

I'll disagree here. I never noticed it at all until it was mentioned the first time on this forum.

No it wouldn't be better. Unnoticeable has the same problem. That which is unnoticed conveys zero information.

No, "invisible" means that you can't observe it, while "unnoticed" simply means that readers don't observe the technique in practice, as they're more involved in the story than in the literary techniques employed.

The thing that stops the reader might be the presence of something unexpected, or the absence of something that is normally taken for granted

Like, for example, the lack of a period in the previous paragraph.

And 99% of readers wouldn't be stopped by that because they wouldn't notice it missing.

And 99% of readers wouldn't be stopped by that because they wouldn't notice it missing.

I, for one, notice it every single time. Commas, not so much (it's part of my speed-reading techniques) as you look for recognizable sentence fragments, allowing you to quickly skim text while recognizing 95% of the details (you're actually demerited for remembering anything over 92%).

Like, for example, the lack of a period in the previous paragraph.

That's what the twelve exclamation marks are for! :)

We've had LOTS of arguments about Dropped Quotes here over the years. But the entire point is that it's supposed to be virtually invisible to the reader. If someone has to stop to figure out what's happening, then you'll potentially permanently lost that reader.

(added bold)
And that's exactly the problem I have with dropped quotes. Too often I have to figure it out. In general, just continue the paragraph and dropping quotes becomes mood.

ETA Memory problems, it was a double hyphen, not a tilde; the first example I've found is in ch.6

Unfortunately, there are very specific uses (and advantages) to using the tilde and em-dash in fiction which would interfere using the punctuation marks elsewhere in the text in a non-standard usage. It's likely to sow confusion, rather than making reading easier if the punctuation usages are highly inconsistent. :(

What I do, not necessarily the best way, is to
1 Only use an ending quote mark when the speaker is finished.
2 When I think it won't be clear, add a tag to the second (but usually not third, paragraph, " he continued, "
3 Try to give each character an individual enough voice that the frequent reader will have some idea of who is speaking even without tags.

And 4 throw in frequent 'reminder' tags so that, if readers lose track of who's speaking at the moment, they won't lost their place in a back-and-forth baton passing dialogue.

Every paragraph of narrative and starting dialogue was indented, but when they had a dialogue split up into multiple paragraphs the dialogue continuation paragraph was not indented. Thus it stood out more and was harder to miss.

I haven't seen that one yet but it might be the best of both worlds. No need for dropped quotes and authors who like small paragraphs can still do so without interrupting the dialogue.
It wouldn't work on SOL though since paragraph indention setting is all or none.

I haven't seen that one yet but it might be the best of both worlds. No need for dropped quotes and authors who like small paragraphs can still do so without interrupting the dialogue.

In my case, it's not that my paragraphs are so small, but that the final summation by the main character tends to be fairly detailed (i.e. it switches from an open dialogue to a one-person monologue with intermittent comments). That's especially useful following a complex multi-party discussion, where many issues and views are discussed, before someone wraps up, coming to a conclusion they'll all follow--even if everyone's not entirely comfortable with it, which only heightens the story tensions.

I'm talking about how a printed traditionally published book would do it. For me, that's the standard.

Punctuation is a separate issue. But for purely formatting issues are Dead Tree conventions really appropriate for e-books?

Punctuation is a separate issue. But for purely formatting issues are Dead Tree conventions really appropriate for e-books?

Yep, 'cause they're universally recognized. But eBooks can easily duplicate the various printed publishing techniques (using paragraph style definitions), the problem we're discussing is SOL's stripping out ALL formatting from submitted text, which is a separate issue.

There's a reason why the style manuals call the dropped quote and block quote 'Quotation Styles' and not 'Dialogue Styles' - however, we've hashed that out in the past and agreed to disagree.

Technically, those are two separate issues, however, for whatever reason, they're both handled in similar ways (for once, English took the most logical approach--probably because it was chosen by publishers rather than usage patterns).

The *** depicts the scene change

Something like this or a < hr > should be used much more often. I sometimes wonder what I'm reading because the next paragraph suddenly changed time, place, and characters without any indication. Don't over use them but what I now see in most stories is a definite under usage.

ETA: typo

Something like this or a < hr > should be used much more often.

Unfortunately, SOL strips out all non-inline formatting (italics, bolding and underlines), stripping out ALL paragraph definitions. The alternative (which I typically use to demark narrative and dialogue from telepathic communications) is to use 'indented' text, which has problems of its own.

For dialogue, though, it really doesn't work.

If you have something in itaics in your docx, SOL will not strip it out.

As I said, SOL strips out ALL the non-inline formatting. Both italics and bolding ARE inline formatting. What it doesn't support, is paragraph styles, since it strips those out and trashes them. Thus, italics and bolding displays properly, while document-wide text formatting is not.

@Keet
Something like this or a < hr > should be used much more often.

Unfortunately, SOL strips out all non-inline formatting (italics, bolding and underlines), stripping out ALL paragraph definitions. The alternative (which I typically use to demark narrative and dialogue from telepathic communications) is to use 'indented' text, which has problems of its own.

For dialogue, though, it really doesn't work.

< hr > is not stripped out. I specifically mentioned using it more often if there's a radical scene change instead of just starting a new paragraph.

< hr > is not stripped out. I specifically mentioned using it more often if there's a radical scene change instead of just starting a new paragraph.

Duh! Sorry, I misread that line, anticipating a comment about < br >.

My bad. Though, technically, a horizontal rule is more of an 'inline' edit, rather than a paragraph style declaration. It affects the entire line, which always stands alone, but it ONLY affects the words covered by the command. (That's my own version of twisted logic.)

The novel is written in 3rd-person limited past tense so I jump back and forth in the chapter from the current time in the novel to something like a flashback, except the flashback is the story she's telling him. I use scene breaks to jump back and forth from the current time to the flashback time. So it begins with her agreeing to tell him:

Technically, that's not a new technique, as you used action dialogues with each change of perspective (i.e. description breaks before each subsequent dialogue paragraph), which is Ernest's preferred technique.

Poor example. The audience is looking at the lone speaker talking. And audio is different. How would the audience even know there were paragraph breaks?

In doing it in a story, the paragraph breaks would be necessary for readability. And the audience of a real lecture would know from pauses in speaking. The lecturer has to breath now and then.

Poor example. The audience is looking at the lone speaker talking. And audio is different. How would the audience even know there were paragraph breaks?

Just like they identify ALL punctuation in spoken dialogue, by the pauses. Each paragraph mark has a distinct pause following it. It's yet another common knowledge that's picked up by living with others, rather than being taught in schools or being listed in a Style Guide. Some things you don't necessarily learn, you just 'pick it up' without ever being aware of it.

Some things you don't necessarily learn, you just 'pick it up' without ever being aware of it.

1. No, you generally don't just "pick it up". Some things are learned by lots of trial and error. Somethings are learned by observing other people.

2. It isn't necessarily valid to assume that the drop quote convention is one of those things.

To add to my earlier comment:

Things that we see as people "just picking up" are either learned by trial and error, or by observation.

For a reader "picking up" the drop quote:

Trial and error isn't applicable.

Observational learning requires a feedback or observing two things together.

Stick your hand in a fire->pain from getting burned.

Where/what is the secondary factor that goes along with a dropped quote that would tell a novice reader what the dropped quote means? If readers are to "just pick up" the dropped quote such a secondary factor has to exist and it has to nearly always accompany the dropped quote.

Why wouldn't that secondary factor itself work to convey the same information in the absence of the dropped quote?

Where/what is the secondary factor that goes along with a dropped quote that would tell a novice reader what the dropped quote means? If readers are to "just pick up" the dropped quote such a secondary factor has to exist and it has to nearly always accompany the dropped quote.

Let's put it this way. Since the DQ standard IS widely used, does everyone actually believe that NO ONE understands anything which includes DQs in famous novels, or do readers struggle with it initially, and then eventually pick it up on their own, with with or without training in school.

But again, it's so widely used, I refuse to believe that only college educated readers are still reading novels in middle age. Somehow, all those high-school graduates have managed to pick it up anyway. Otherwise, no one would ever read another book by anyone who employed the DQ technique.

Now we can snipe back and forth about how 'learning' takes place, but I've known a hell of a lot of dedicated readers who've never completed high school. Somehow, they manage, so clearly, we're missing something here. But while I appreciate higher learning, I also don't believe that only college graduates are allowed to read. If nothing else, I have renewed faith in high school English teachers, as apparently, they're the only things currently holding the world together! ;)

Since the DQ standard IS widely used, does everyone actually believe that NO ONE understands anything which includes DQs in famous novels, or do readers struggle with it initially, and then eventually pick it up on their own, with with or without training in school.

There is a third possibility, that the issue of continuing multi-paragraph dialog is less confusing to most readers than has been assumed and the DQs are unnecessary. In this scenario, readers may or may not understand the DQ itself, but it doesn't matter.

As I said above, it does not make sense that readers would simply pick it up on their own unless there is some other factor cluing them in to one speaker continuing across multiple paragraphs so that they can learn to associate the dropped quote with it.

However, if this is the case, my third possibility is the most probable case.

However, if this is the case, my third possibility is the most probable case.

And then there's the case where the closing quote is unintentionally forgotten and the reader gets even more confused. I've seen that happen too. Or where the opening quote for the continuing dialogue paragraph is forgotten...

A typo is a typo.

Of course, but for most non-native English readers a typo that is a "correct" style IS a problem. Not if it's an incident, but most authors seem to have one or more specific typos that they keep making. So if that is their "regular" typo is does become a problem.
I don't have a problem with incidental typos. I fix them in my copy and if possible report them to the author.

So you're saying that for an author who consistently makes the same "typo" (error?), it's not a typo for him because it's his style.

No, that's not what I was trying to say. The missing closing quote can be deliberate to signal that the dialogue continues but it can also be a 'typo' as in that it was forgotten by accident. Since the missing opening quote is a style rule it can be a problem for authors who forget the closing quote regularly when it should have been there.

Since the missing opening quote is a style rule it can be a problem for authors who forget the closing quote regularly when it should have been there.

While a missing closing quote may or may not be a typo, a missing opening quote is ALWAYS a typo, as there is NO legitimate reason for dropping an opening quote (aside from Kafka's novella, "The Metamorphosis")!

I don't remember. Maybe because the tense change - in a past tense story the dialogue is often present tense

That is completely wrong. In a past tense novel (which is the only correct tense, so I'm not sure why you specify that) every piece of unattributed dialog has the implied '(s)he said' as attribution. 'Said' is of course past tense. The dialog is simply a reporting of the words that were spoken by the characters at that point in the story.

I said "the dialogue is often present tense" not the dialogue tag.

Again, 'dialog' is simply a transcription of what the characters (allegedly) said at the point the story action had been described up to.

And yeah, even mainstream publishers have given up enforcing correct tense... it's so bad anymore that before I'll buy a book, I open it up at random to make sure the verb tenses are correct.

The last one you mentioned was after publishers gave up. And the others... as horrible a writer as he was, can you imagine a publisher telling Dickens that he couldn't publish whatever he wanted? He'd already built a following and was really just cashing in by that point. The others were mostly established as well... mostly trying to branch out like you see when bands that were really successful try releasing their next album in some mostly-unrelated genre like a death metal group releasing a folk album, just to see if it would sell.

(And really... James Joyce? He made abnormal writing his signature. You could argue that including anything he wrote in a list of similar works is proof that none of them were correctly written.)

past tense

My Uncle used to say, we are way past tents, we live in bungalows now.

Getting people past tense is the job of a masseur or masseuse.

a masseur or masseuse

Or a massage therapist who isn't French. Except therapist can be adjusted to the rapist. So Physio goes to jail, he is Physio the rapist.

But most authors should follow the established conventions, especially for punctuation. A reader should not have to figure out how to read every author.

Not to point fingers, but you should watch where you take this line of thought, as we both tend to filter commas on the fly, based on the pacing of the sentence, rather than the formal comma requirements. Thus our own 'style' of applying commas is highly dependent on context, rather than ANY standardized guidelines. And that, my friend, is an extremely slippery slope.

The difference between helping "your father, cousin, and uncle Jack, off the horse", and helping "your father, cousin, and uncle jack off the horse".

Except the comma between jack and off in the first is not an "Oxford" comma. The Oxford comma would be the one between "cousin" and "and".

The oxford comma vs not would be a difference in the number of items in the list.

Oxford comma vs not would be

Help you father, cousin, and uncle jack, off the horse.
vs
Help you father, cousin and uncle jack, off the horse.

Here, dropping the Oxford comma doesn't really create ambiguity because the list is so short, if it was only two items there would be an and between father and cousin.

But if we pretend the ambiguity is there, the first list is three people and the second could be read as two people, one of whom is both your cousin and your uncle.

would a police murder be murder by the police or murder of a police officer?

So you're saying that for an author who consistently makes the same "typo" (error?), it's not a typo for him

From editing, I found that most of the time, the errors I found in a given chapter would have a number of repetitions. I'd tag the instances, and explain why they were wrong, and what the fix was. Depending on the author, after a chapter or two of that, those particular errors would decrease drastically, and something else would end up being the predominant error. Which would usually drop in frequency after a couple chapters.

typo

Type O is a blood type. If a father has type A, B, or AB blood, type O in a child is definitely an error.

If you want to talk about confusing, it's when one story has it one way and another has it another way.

Actually, as is the case when using non-standard formatting or punctuation (like in stories featuring telepathy), readers will readily accept an author's usage within the first couple of chapters, and hold them to it. But, in those cases, the most confusing uses are the inconsistent usage, most often in how internal thoughts are portrayed (especially in telepathy stories).

By the way, the MW Dictionary is an exclusively Royal-English dictionary, so it would (by definition) refute the usage of "irregardless", irregardless of context. (Again, see my note on the English needing to refute Shakespearian English.)

As for not finding typos in traditionally published books, I find them ALL the time! However, the rate is much lower than it is for self-published books (mainly because of the time-frames involved in publication, and the number of eyes which review each book). However, that's countered, somewhat, by the ability to quickly correct ANY observed typos in an eBook, whereas a printed book can NEVER be corrected short of republishing the entire work.

And then there's the case where the closing quote is unintentionally forgotten and the reader gets even more confused. I've seen that happen too.

In that case, the reader has every reason to be confused, as it's an obvious author error. But alas, that's also one of the most frequent corrections overlooked by most proofreaders. :(

In that case, the reader has every reason to be confused, as it's an obvious author error. But alas, that's also one of the most frequent corrections overlooked by most proofreaders. :(

Yep, that's why I argued that using this rule is a bad thing for a lot of readers, especially those who are not native English. There are other ways that even a moderately proficient author can use.

Yep, that's why I argued that using this rule is a bad thing for a lot of readers, especially those who are not native English. There are other ways that even a moderately proficient author can use.

That's why one should always temper it's use. Even though I frequently switch from multi-person dialogues to single-person monologues, I often alternate between DQ and action attributions (defining the current speaker with the narrator's description what the character is doing at the time).

That's how you lesson the confusion, by continually reminding readers who is speaking at any given time. Since the DQ technique is inherently confusing, even among those of use formally trained in its use, it helps to remind reader semi-frequently precisely who is speaking when. Only, not in each line, otherwise the entire passage becomes a redundant mess which readers will utterly ignore. :(

However, if this is the case, my third possibility is the most probable case.

Though, this flies in the face of the defacto standard of 'any unacknowledged dialogue is assumed to be a reply by the previous speaker'. Thus, dropping the DQ would automatically confuse every single reader, rather than eliminating the occasional confusion in using a recognized standard usage.

Either every new piece of dialogue is the previous speaker, or it's the SAME speaker. There's no way you can default to both! As my big sister always warned: "Pick a side and stay on it!"

A pair of graphs. Or one delivered by parachute. A para graph. Like a para trooper.

My brother used to say when he saw a busty girl: Look at the pair of keets on that bird

If you include plays and screen plays,

For this purpose, we shouldn't. They are vary different mediums than a purely written story that sre meant to be read by their audience. Things that work in those mediums don't work in written stories, and the reverse is true as well.

Actually, plays are completely dialog, interspersed with directions to the actors as to what is supposed to be done when the various lines are spoken. However, the play is merely replicating the same previously-occurred scenes, over and over for new audiences.

Screenplays are even a better example - the audience watching knows that everything on screen happened before they even sat down.

There's really only one thing on TV that's really present-tense: live sports programming. If I ever were to try writing a story in present tense, I'd have dual narrators - one a play-by-play guy, and the other providing color commentary, addressing each other by name (or nickname) every so often.

I'd have dual narrators - one a play-by-play guy, and the other providing color commentary, addressing each other by name (or nickname) every so often.

Earth as a reality show for aliens.

telling someone about your fishing trip,

Unless I'm telling someone about my fishing trip over the phone while the trip is happening, the correct tense is past. Because - wait for it - the trip occurred IN THE PAST. If there was a conversation, I'd tell my listener what was SAID (not 'saying', because again, it happened in the past) at the appropriate times.

A priest, rabbi, and minister walk into a bar…

The priest is dazed, the rabbi knocked out and the minister says "Ouch!".

That's only true if the narrator is doing live coverage. The narrator can't be a character, unless the character is some youtube asshole who live streams his entire life and gives a running commentary. Otherwise, it's something that happenED either minutes, hours, or days ago, from the point of the person telling the story (that is, after all, the role of the narrator - to tell what happenED in the story).

Although the asshole live streaming actually could work for a story...

No, I meant that none of the characters in the story can also provide the narrative. Like I said, if the MC (or a minor supporting character) was to be relating the story of what happened when they were younger... well, that obviously means past tense is correct. Since the story was in the narrator's past.

Obviously, the asshole livestreaming and pretentiously narrating his life as he lives it is another story. Then is one of the only times present tense is even remotely correct.

Oh, in that case the past tense would only be appropriate, according to your statements, for first person stories.

No, even in third limited, the story necessarily happened in the narrator's past.

In that regard, present tense would only be appropriate in third person omniscient, with a genuinely omniscient narrator relating the story as it happens.

In that regard, present tense would only be appropriate in third person omniscient, with a genuinely omniscient narrator relating the story as it happens.

Third semi-omnipresent (depending on where the alien sportscasters' cameras are) or first person (if the narrator is the MC and a pretentious enough asshole to livestream and commentate his entire life) can work.

But yeah, in almost every case, you understand.

Third semi-omnipresent (depending on where the alien sportscasters' cameras are)

I would personally go more alien version of Steve Irwin "Crocodile Hunter" than sportscaster...

I would personally go more alien version of Steve Irwin "Crocodile Hunter" than sportscaster...

Sportscasters do a live broadcast.

'Reality' TV is commentated after the footage has been edited together, so...

I'd add: Present tense is just about unreadable, and makes any educated reader constantly want to correct the tense.

As to it being a wrong way to write fiction, this is from the article:

Recently, I asked one of my talented undergraduate students why she wrote all of her stories in the present tense. "Isn't that the way fiction's supposed to be written now?" she said, then added, "The past tense makes a story seem kind of '19th-century,' don't you think?"

That comes across to me as a very groupthinkish response.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink

More to the point: the demise of the traditional publishing business started a couple decades ago. In that time, present tense writing has gone from being limited to rare works from writers attempting to make a work stand out as completely different from normal novels to being commonplace. It's also valid to note that publishers don't generally employ editors all that much, and instead rely on writers to have their work edited independantly, so there's very little in the way of standards.

No, it's a shift in attitude.

A shift in attitude doesn't preclude groupthink.

The young woman quoted doesn't seem capable of articulating why fiction is written that way now, just that that's the way everybody does it now. That is the essence of groupthink.

Or it's simply a shift in technique, like shifting from omniscient to 3rd-limited.

You are missing the point. Whether or not the shift itself arose out of groupthink, the fact that her response to why is "that's how everybody does it now" displays groupthink on her part, since she can't be bothered to more deeply understand why.

No, it's a shift in attitude. I saw it with the young people on wattpad. And why so many new novels targeting the young 'uns are present tense.

I figure it's because young'ns resent there being actual standards, don't like admitting that there are such concepts as 'right' and 'wrong' and also don't understand that they're butchering the language.

I read his opinions about the pros and cons of writing in the present tense and I found them very manufactured. I'm not convinced they have a solid underpinning.

Again, My groupthink comment was only about the reported response of the undergraduate student and what that response said about her thought process.

present tense for children's books because it makes them more relatable, but past tense for adult books.

You also have the issue that children, particularly young children, don't have as well developed an understanding of the boundaries between past and present.

You also have the issue that children, particularly young children, don't have as well developed an understanding of the boundaries between past and present.

Also, children see the pictures in their books, and since the words describe the action in the picture, and the picture is right there in front of them...

But even so, not all kids books are in present tense.

DISADVANTAGES OF PRESENT TENSE

I'd add:

5. Because having the same events happening again in the present is rather less likely than recounting the same events that happened in the past, re-reading is inherently discouraged (although this could be seen as an advantage, by encouraging reader churn - though I'd say this is an incorrect attitude, as authors will find it less easy to build a good rep - c.f. the thread 'what to reread')

and, as AJ notes above,
6.

present tense for children's books because it makes them more relatable, but past tense for adult books.

When I got to the second paragraph I assumed it was the same speaker but I glanced for an ending quotation mark at the end of the previous paragraph, confirmed it wasn't there, and kept reading.

It took a fraction of a second.

The technique works.

That sounds more to me like the technique (dropped quote) was unnecessary.

It removed doubt which would have interrupted my reading.

And having to glance back didn't interrupt reading? Specifically that having to glance back is what always interrupts my reading.

It removed doubt which would have interrupted my reading.

Your original comment on it doesn't express any significant doubt.