Forum: Author Hangout

But I don't understand your issue.

I agree with Ross's interpretation. Taking the Oxford Dictionaries guideline literally would require the start of Arlene's speech to be at the start of a new paragraph.

AJ

Taking the Oxford Dictionaries guideline literally would require the start of Arlene's speech to be at the start of a new paragraph

No it wouldn't. See my example.

ETA:
Your problem is "to be at the start of a new paragraph" should be "to be in a new paragraph"

It seems we disagree about the literal meaning of 'Every time a new speaker says something, you should start a new paragraph'.

We'll have to agree to disagree :(

AJ

Every time a new speaker says something, you should start a new paragraph

That statement is true. But it doesn't say you should start the new paragraph with the dialogue or even the dialogue tag (as in: Joe said, "No.").

All it means is that when a new speaker speaks, start a new paragraph. But you can start the paragraph with action and then the dialogue.

I interpret it as suggesting that when a new speaker speaks, the dialogue should be in the first sentence of a new paragraph.

Why?

Joe glared at her and shook his fist. "You better not!"

Joe's dialogue is in the 2nd sentence of that new paragraph.

Joe's dialogue

Why Joe's dialogue? The woman could be warning Joe not to hit her. :)

Why Joe's dialogue? The woman could be warning Joe not to hit her. :)

Then the dialogue would have to be in a new paragraph. That's the reason for the rule. In that paragraph, it's Joe talking. Put it in a new paragraph, and it's the woman talking.

Joe glared at her and shook his fist. "You better not!"

You missed my point. You said Joe was speaking, but there is nothing in the above that defines who is speaking. The woman may have said "You better not!" instead of Joe.

ETA: It could be written as:

1. Joe glared at her and shook his fist. She said, "You better not!"

2. Joe glared at her and shook his fist. Joe said, "You better not!"

1. Joe glared at her and shook his fist. She said, "You better not!"

"She said" would need to be a new paragraph.
__________________________________________________________

Joe and She are talking. The assumption here is that the paragraph before this one was She talking. The discussion is about starting a new paragraph when there's a new character speaking. If the new paragraph begins with an action by Joe, it's assumed the dialogue that follows the action is spoken by Joe.

Now if She was speaking, I guess you could write:

"Hit me and I'll leave you," she said. Joe glared at her and shook his fist. "You better not!"

Since "You better not" is not in a new paragraph, it's She speaking.

The assumption here is that the paragraph before this one was She talking.

That is a problem for in the example provided, we aren't aware of what the content was in the prior paragraph.

Based solely on the example, "Joe glared at her and shook his fist." would be the narrator informing the reader of why she was making the statement.

In this case, it could be assumed that Joe had been talking in the prior paragraph and expressing his anger in dialog. Since she was to speak, the narrator introduced her dialog with a brief explanation of Joe's physical actions that made her fell threatened.

Minor edit.

I would not start a paragraph with the action of Char A and then have Char B speak. I'd put that action is a separate paragraph.

When needed, I often define the context associated with one of my characters dialog. If the prior paragraphs do not provide the information necessary for understanding what Character A did to warrant Character B's dialog, I will provide the explanation in the same paragraph immediately prior to the dialog.

That is the way I do it and I have seen many other authors doing the same thing in their stories.

As long as I don't combine two characters dialog in the same paragraph, I see no problem with what I do.

Perhaps one of the authors here who self-publish could find a page or so of dialogue from their stories which required very few or no attributions?

I just wrote it, so it's raw. Haven't edited it yet.

From the floor, Buck stared up at Steele, sizing him up. "You don't look like a reporter."

"I'm not."

"Then why are you asking about Pete?"

"His mother called me."

Buck's eyes widened. "Elena called you?" He scrambled to his feet. "Why'd she call you?"

"I'm an old friend. Are you a warrior?"

"Huh? I'm a mechanic."

"Ka-e-te-nay. It means warrior."

Buck's face broke into a toothy smile. "Actually, it means warrior and chief. You speak Apache?"

"My apologies. No, I had a buddy who was Apache. We talked a lot."

"From around here?"

"New Mexico. He's Mescalero."

"A mountain Apache. I'm from the desert. What else did he teach you?"

"How to use a knife."

"For scaling fish?"

"Survival."

Buck raised an eyebrow. "Hunting?"

"You can say that."

"But not animals."

"Not the four-legged kind."

Buck's eyebrows furrowed. "So what can I do for you?"

It actually goes on longer than that.

I was hoping for something which had been edited to prove to REP the point I had just made, i.e. that carefully placed actions can be enough for readers to keep track of who is speaking now without attributions.

What's the difference if it was edited or not. It has "carefully placed actions." It even has a paragraph with action-dialogue-action-dialogue (now that awnlee pointed out my incorrect line space). In fact, there's not a single dialogue tag.

Switch, no need to expend any time putting something together to help Ross prove anything to me; especially Ping-Pong dialog. I have been very much aware of that and used it in my stories on many occasions.

I don't know why he brought that up since that is not what I have been addressing in this thread. My point was that in the single paragraph provided as an example, the speaker was not identified so it could have been either person.

If you think Joe is speaking, the narrative describes Joe is angry about something in the prior paragraphs and he is warning the woman not to do something defined in earlier paragraphs. If you think the woman is speaking, the narrative sentence describes Joe has a threatening posture so she is warning Joe to not harm her. It's all in how you choose to look at the example paragraph.

If you think Joe is speaking, the narrative describes Joe is angry about something in the prior paragraphs and he is warning the woman not to do something defined in earlier paragraphs. If you think the woman is speaking, the narrative sentence describes Joe has a threatening posture so she is warning Joe to not harm her. It's all in how you choose to look at the example paragraph.

Once again, that demonstrates the dangers in providing 'examples' in these discussions. Without context, and fairly extensive context, we're all likely to rip it to shreds. And it's carried to such extremes, most authors (myself included) are reluctant to ask for advice about ANY non-edited and thoroughly proofed samples. While the feedback IS appreciated and used, the arguments it generates rapidly descend into the absurd, rather than addressing the central question the author is trying to get help on.

The difference is that once you corrected the mistake AJ detected I can read that section without becoming confused about who is speaking.

But it was correct in my Word doc. The mistake was made copying it to this forum, changing indent to line space.

The subject of the next three sentences is still Buck. He must NOT start a new paragraph.

Actually, it could be a new paragraph. Let's say Buck is talking from underneath the car.

"His mother called me." [from the previous paragraphs we know it's Steele talking]

"Elena called you?" [in this version, Buck is talking from underneath the car]

Buck scrambled out from under the car. He jumped to his feet and stared at Steele. "Why'd she call you?"

Depending on how the attribution is placed, I read this two different ways.

Nothing can be done about that since it's not an audio book. Hopefully the context would make it clear if it matters.

Depending on how the attribution is placed, I read this two different ways.

Nothing can be done about that since it's not an audio book. Hopefully the context would make it clear if it matters.

You can address that with emphasis tags (i.e. italics), though many authors eschew those because they're too readily overused. If the usage is central to understanding the statement, then you should italicize it to denote the proper inference, otherwise it's not worth bothering with.

* Use the principal actor's name the first time they are mentioned in any paragraph. After that, use pronouns.

Or, if there is ANY doubt about who the pronoun refers to (i.e. both characters are "he"s), then clearly switch back to proper names to eliminate ANY confusion!

Buck's eyes widened. "Elena called you?" He scrambled to his feet.

"Why'd she call you?"

Doesn't the ping pong presumption break down there? I got the impression Buck spoke the dialogue in both of those paragraphs.

AJ

Doesn't the ping pong presumption break down there? I got the impression Buck spoke the dialogue in both of those paragraphs.

That was supposed to be one paragraph.

My document has indents for paragraphs. After copying it from Word to this forum, I had to put a line space to separate the paragraphs. I put it in the wrong place on that one. I'll go back and fix it now.

That aside, someone on SOL recommended a dialogue tag every 3 or 4 paragraphs and that sounds a sensible compromise to me, with the proviso that an action statement will function equally well provided the author is writing 'cleanly'.

AJ

someone on SOL recommended a dialogue tag every 3 or 4 paragraphs

It's good to have one every once in a while to keep the reader on track as to who's speaking. In my example, I did it with action rather than dialogue tags.

It's good to have one every once in a while to keep the reader on track as to who's speaking.

If you don't, it slows the reader down because they have to remember for themselves. Otherwise they can read quickly without having to remember whose turn it is to hit the ball back, and research shows that enabling readers to read quickly increases their enjoyment of a story.

Having said that, I read a very good story earlier which contained a paragraph containing two sentences. The first sentence described an action by person A. The second sentence was unattributed dialogue, and yet what the character said unequivocally pointed to the speaker as person B. So authors can get away with unattributed dialogue if their characterisation is distinctive enough.

AJ

So authors can get away with unattributed dialogue if their characterisation is distinctive enough.

And there's another way. Use the person's name in the dialogue. For example, a son talking to his mother:

"Mom, why me?"

It's clear the son is talking.

Use the person's name in the dialogue.

Ouch! A number of 'writing experts' will be unhappy with that. In real life, the only people who use names in a two-person dialogue are trying to sell you something.

AJ

Ouch! A number of 'writing experts' will be unhappy with that.

It was actually one of the things that bothered me in "The Hit." The author constantly ended dialogue with ", Robie" or another character's name. But there are times people use someone's name in dialogue and it is something done in fiction.

And there's another way. Use the person's name in the dialogue. For example, a son talking to his mother:

"Mom, why me?"

It's clear the son is talking.

"Hey, jackass, why me?"

Yep. Clear as a bell! 'D

Your term 'principal actor' above is growing on me. For me, looking for the subject of a sentence gives a simple yes or no answer, but I can see that for others (with lesser Nazi inclinations) might find principal actor more convenient thing to look for. They are exactly the same thing to me.

I'm a good example, since I typically write ongoing group discussions where the subject is rarely "I" or even "you", but is usually whatever they're debating (most often either a third party or a particular situation).

Using 'principal actor' addresses each usage, as it covers both discussions about a non-participating third party and discussions about unfolding situations.

Luckily, few authors are stupid enough to attempt this 'multi-person dialogue' more than once or twice, but then, I've always been a glutton for punishment, choosing stories for their challenge, rather than which are popular or in demand.

That aside, someone on SOL recommended a dialogue tag every 3 or 4 paragraphs and that sounds a sensible compromise to me, with the proviso that an action statement will function equally well provided the author is writing 'cleanly'.

It's a decent 'general' guideline, but doesn't address the underlying issues (i.e. WHEN do you need to include dialogue tags).

Buck's eyes widened. "Elena called you?" He scrambled to his feet.

"Why'd she call you?"

Doesn't the ping pong presumption break down there? I got the impression Buck spoke the dialogue in both of those paragraphs.

Actually, that's more 'the exception which proves the rule'. While it does break the 'keep a character's dialogue to a single paragraph, it demonstrates just how easily readers are at differentiating variations in the technique.

It actually goes on longer than that.

That sample, although fairly long, has already sold me on the story. However, when the sentences are ALL short and simple, as in your example, it's not really a fair comparison. Few of us write that way for long periods.

Perhaps one of the authors here who self-publish could find a page or so of dialogue from their stories which required very few or no attributions?

I'm not sure there are any clear-cut examples. My editors are constantly giving me grief, as who's speaking isn't always clear to each, even when most have no problem with it. Again, it's mostly a VERY blurry line, depending on where you're coming from (personal history, rather than nationality or background).

In short, I think it's best if we focus on general principals, because if anyone offers an example, someone else is sure to attack it, whether the example works or not. :( It's simply too easy to tear apart an example sentence when you don't have the proper context for it.

if anyone offers an example, someone else is sure to attack it, whether the example works or not. :(

This is ancient history, but that didn't happen this time.

I never claimed it happened here, I was just stating, having gotten burned multiple time, why some authors (like me) might be reluctant to include samples because, without the proper context, they're setting themselves up for prolonged arguments.

But … in Switch's case, his sample was long enough, it included most of the needed context.

It could be written as:

1. Joe glared at her and shook his fist. She said, "You better not!"

2. Joe glared at her and shook his fist. Joe said, "You better not!"

The first violates everyone's understanding of the Oxford rule. The fact they're both in the same paragraphs presumes they're the same speaker. If not, then readers would never know who's speaking during a protracted dialogue.

Why Joe's dialogue? The woman could be warning Joe not to hit her. :)

In Switch's example, Joe's shaking his fist at her and her responding would automatically go into separate paragraphs. By definition, if they're both in the same paragraph, then it's assumed to be the same person. That's a largely social convention to make keeping track of dialogue easier for the reader.

I interpret the first line of the OP, a quote from the Oxford Dictionary, as suggesting your example is wrong.

This is the quote from the OP:

"Every time a new speaker says something, you should start a new paragraph," say Oxford Dictionaries.

All it says is that you should start a new paragraph. It doesn't say the dialogue must be the first sentence in the paragraph.

- every time
- a new speaker
- start a new paragraph

Can we agree it is poorly written?

No. To me it's perfectly clear. There is nothing in that statement about the first sentence. All it says is that when the character speaking changes, you do it in a new paragraph.

All it says is that you should start a new paragraph. It doesn't say the dialogue must be the first sentence in the paragraph.

- every time
- a new speaker
- start a new paragraph

Hear, hear. Precisely! Though how you dress up the dialogue with general descriptions of the speaker are up to the author, as long as you don't switch the subject of the paragraph (the current speaker).

I interpret it as suggesting that when a new speaker speaks, the dialogue should be in the first sentence of a new paragraph. I see no reason that dialogue by a new speaker cannot appear late in a multi-sentence paragraph, provided the speaker is unambiguously identified.

I agree, but the descriptions preceding the dialogue shouldn't be about someone, which only confuses readers about WHO is speaking. Each paragraphs subject (dialectically) should be the same as the speaker.

It seems we disagree about the literal meaning of 'Every time a new speaker says something, you should start a new paragraph'.

We'll have to agree to disagree :(

That was actually my initial point, that the Oxford quote doesn't preclude action identifiers, only stipulating that you can't change the Subject of the paragraph.

1. Change subjects, change to new paragraph.

Could you provide a definition of 'subject' please.

I was taught similar rules. Ideally every paragraph should have a unifying theme. But I've found that when writing fiction, if 'subject' means the same as subject of a sentence, I end up with an excess of very short sentences. Hence I combine some of them into 'dustbin' paragraphs.

One example could be a fight scene:

Grimsby Bronze feigned a swinging left-handed punch towards Vlad Putoff's chin. The giant Russian took the bait, raising his fists defensively, leaving him momentarily unsighted. Bronze was ready, launching a right-handed haymaker into Putoff's soft centre. The giant Russian collapsed like a burst balloon.

One paragraph, but the subject of each sentence varies.

AJ

Could you provide a definition of 'subject' please.

I was taught similar rules. Ideally every paragraph should have a unifying theme. But I've found that when writing fiction, if 'subject' means the same as subject of a sentence, I end up with an excess of very short sentences. Hence I combine some of them into 'dustbin' paragraphs.

That's a common problem, as "subject" has a very precise definition in English grammar, which flies in the face of these guidelines.

Rather than specifying "subject", each paragraph should deal with the same topic. In your example, the 'topic' is the two fighers' fighting techniques, so all the sentences fit (i.e. it's not just a 'dustbin' receptacle).

1. Change subjects, change to new paragraph.

I also wonder what constitutes "subject."

The following is from my WIP. It was one big paragraph because the subject was the boy walking around the room shooting everyone in the classroom (the next paragraph was him in the hall shooting someone else). One "subject." But it was too long so I broke it into two paragraphs.

The boy turned away from the teacher lying in a pool of blood with lifeless green eyes staring up at him. He spotted Maria Lopez standing next to her toppled chair, her hands covering her open mouth, her eyes wide. The boy fired. BANG! BANG! BANG! Two bullets entered her chest. One her throat. She grabbed her throat and made a gurgling noise as her legs folded beneath her and she crumbled to the floor. He pointed the pistol at Steve Smith huddling under his desk in the front row. Steve always sat in the front. He was the teacher's pet in every class. The boy put two bullets into Steve's body. Big-titted Juanita Salvo sat frozen in the next desk. The fingernails of her right hand drew blood as they sank into her left forearm. Her tight sweater-top flaunted her big, round breasts that a Playboy centerfold would envy. The boy had once grabbed her tit. When she had slapped his face, everyone laughed. He fired two quick shots, one in each breast. No one's laughing now, he thought. Juanita's hands flew to her breasts as she fell forward. With all the screaming, no one heard the bone in her nose break hitting the desktop. Her arms hung limply at her sides.

Leaving her, the boy walked around the room shooting everyone he saw until the slide of his semi-automatic pistol locked open. The boy pressed the button on the side of the pistol. The empty magazine flew out of the handle and rattled on the floor. In a flash, he inserted a new magazine from his waistband and pressed the slide release with his thumb. The slide slid forward with a click that didn't sound as loud as it had outside. With a new round in the chamber and a full magazine, and everyone in the classroom shot at least once, the boy stormed into the hall.

In a flash

Is that a cliche?

AJ

In a flash

Is that a cliche?

If it is, I don't care. It works. :)

In a flash

Is that a cliche?

If it is, I don't care. It works. :)

Sorry, but i disagree. Something becomes a 'cliche' when you use it out of habit, rather than the expression adding something to the scene. Your use of "in a flash" is a result of your picking the very first phrase that popped into your mind. The sentence, invoking the old-fashioned flash photography of the 1920's, has little meaning in the age of modern cellphone video capture technology, and thus adds nothing at all to the sentence (especially since it takes some time to change magazines). "In a flash" doesn't convey "it happened faster than replacing the individual bullets", and thus has no bearing in the scene at all. :(

The sentence, invoking the old-fashioned flash photography of the 1920's, has little meaning in the age of modern cellphone video capture technology, and thus adds nothing at all to the sentence

I looked "in a flash" up. It's actually an idiom. The idiom alludes to a flash of lightening and dates around 1800.

pruning some sentences

Getting rid of words that don't add anything is good. But by eliminating "in a flash," the quickness is missing. That's important. Once he starts shooting, everything is happening quickly.

Getting back to why I posted the two paragraphs, I don't believe "subject" is the same as "the subject of the sentence." In some cases, breaking into a new paragraph could be done for effect. Or in my case, the paragraph was getting long.

But by eliminating "in a flash," the quickness is missing.

I didn't get an impression of quickness from your writing, but of deliberateness. Hence, to me, the quickness of 'in a flash' sounded incongruous.

I would have suggested 'He smoothly inserted a new magazine', only I know your distaste for adverbs and for others trying to write your story for you ;)

AJ

I know your distaste for adverbs and for others trying to write your story for you

I use adverbs. Just not a lot of them.

As to the 2nd part, I'm always open to feedback/suggestions. I even make changes sometimes. :P

I didn't get an impression of quickness from your writing, but of deliberateness. Hence, to me, the quickness of 'in a flash' sounded incongruous.

That was my impression too, though I phrased my objection different. The 'irrelevent details' struck me because that level of detail seem wrong. No one is going to go into that much detail without purposely slowing down the entire scene, and forcing the reader to slow down to a snails crawl too. So instead of conveying how fast events are unfolding, you're shouting "THIS IS TAKING FOREVER" to the readers with your techniques.

I go for 'fog of war' approach. During a action scenes, no one knows what the fuck is happening, but the strangest details get seared into your memory. Things like a sheet billowing, or you notice the barrel of the gun, instead of the shooter's face, or even whether they're aiming at you or someone else. But most of all, you use short choppy sentences, you leave thoughts largely half-bakes and unformed, and once the smoke clears, everyone tries to figure out WHAT THE FUCK ACTUALLY HAPPENED!

I would never parade that kind of excruciating detail unless I wanted to convey that this was the slowest shooting in recorded history, that everyone present was able to notice, fully analyze and figure out every single detail, and permanently commit it to memory, and that there is absolutely no fear of your getting shot at all (i.e. the person recording this detail is more interested in 'figuring it out' than in trying to save themselves!

Again, it's your story, I'm just saying that I'd never use that technique, because it seems self-defeating. But then, I typically pick stories because they're challenging (i.e. they're almost impossible to write). That's where the challenge comes in. In that case, you've hit the motherload! This has got to be the MOST difficult story to pull off. If you succeed, then I'll salute you, because you've done something that no other author is capable of, but even as I acknowledge your greatness, just having read this much of the one scene, I will never read it regardless, as it simply doesn't seem real. It seems entirely false, put on, and extreme aiming entirely for the 'gore' market.

Sorry, but that's just how i see it.

I loved the superfluous and haunting detail Switch used of the click not sounding as loud as before.

That was tied back to something that happened right before the shooting.

Lifting the bottom of the sweatshirt with the school logo on the front, he snatched the semi-automatic pistol from the waistband of his jeans and ejected the high-capacity magazine. It was full, as it had been the two previous times he checked it. After snapping the magazine back in and flipping off the safety, the boy racked the slide. The click of the round loading into the chamber was like a crack of thunder in his ears. His breath caught and his body tensed. He clutched the pistol to his chest, one hand on the handle with a finger on the trigger, the other hand pressing the weapon to his body. Someone with more experience would have realized the gun's muzzle pointed at the underside of his chin. A twitch of his trembling finger would blow his head off. But his thoughts were on someone catching him as his eyes darted around and his ears strained to hear any sound.

I was showing his anxiousness.

My advice is to keep on doing what you're doing, ignoring all nay-sayers.

I always do what I feel is best, but I do listen. I've made good changes based on feedback here.

I don't consider them nay-sayers. Sometimes the problem is simply that the example is a snippet from the story. Take a polka-dot skirt (white with black dots). Cut out a single black dot and it looks like a black skirt. You don't see the whole picture.

I was showing his anxiousness.

Yeah, in that case, the isolated detail perfectly captures the shooter's mindset at the time, while during the violent spree, when he feels fully in charge for the first time, slowing the pace down to reflect his mastery of the situation around him also captures his mindset. (I just hadn't figured out the scene was from his perspective yet.)

you notice the barrel of the gun, instead of the shooter's face, or even whether they're aiming at you or someone else.

Sorry, but that's not even possible. The scene is from the shooter's POV. I can't get into anyone else's head even if I wanted to, which I don't.

You're putting too much emphasis on the shooting. It's critical to the story, but not the way you're thinking.

Sorry, but that's not even possible. The scene is from the shooter's POV. I can't get into anyone else's head even if I wanted to, which I don't.

That was probably my problem, as it wasn't clear from the passage that it was the shooter's perspective, and so the overly broad stereotypes focusing on specific people seemed to be read false for the situation. But since the shooter wasn't facing a traumatic situation himself (or at least not in the same way), the slow pace and focusing on specific details does fit the situation.

Again, my previous objections were mainly a caution for other authors to consider when writing a scene like this, as you, Switch, generally have a good feel for the proper way to handle these types of scenes. (in short, I generally trust you to get it write, but I was stressing how the scene felt wrong when taken out of context.)

Given that larger context, I can understand why you'd take that approach.

One last suggestion: you may want to reemphasize who's perspective it is, just to remind readers at that point, but if the entire scene is following him around, it's probably unnecessary. :(

P.S. The timing of this discussion is interesting, as it follows a previous discussion where I caution asking for author examples, because of the danger of taking scenes out of context, but Switch offered a scene which included the context. In this case, Switch again offered the scene, but it was missing just a small, but essential part of the context, and it provoke a mild firestorm. That largely emphasizes my initial point about asking authors for examples from their stories.

While they often work well, when they are misunderstood, it's often painful for the contributor. (Sorry again, Switch).

So instead of conveying how fast events are unfolding, you're shouting "THIS IS TAKING FOREVER" to the readers with your techniques.

I would have said it almost comes across as being in slow motion.

AJ

I would have said it almost comes across as being in slow motion.

Yeah, I agree (both with the sentiment and with the fact I'd badly phrased my point in the quote).

I didn't get an impression of quickness from your writing, but of deliberateness.

Okay, I changed it. See, I do listen. It's now simply:

In a flash, the new magazine was out of his waistband and inside the pistol.

Okay, I changed it. See, I do listen. It's now simply:

After considering it overnight, I really regret my overly strident tone. Although my critique as an outright rejection, my complaint (when stating the passage would prevent me from ever reading the story) was simply pointing out that the entire scene felt wrong (i.e. it just didn't seem to be working in this one case).

That said, Switch's technique would work in the right instances, and not knowing the context of the scene, it may have been entirely fitting.

For example, if people are cowering under their seats while hearing shooting outside, I'd employ my own 'fog of war' approach (which I wouldn't recommend everyone else adopting as a matter of course). But when confront by the shooter, and the threat suddenly becomes very real and personal, then I would slow the pace WAY down, as Switch's technique does. As a way of showing how the entire tenor of the scene changes for the participants.

Where Switch and I differ is more over how we'd slow it down. I'd still keep the details relatively random, simply because all the research I've done on how warriors and victims both respond to shootings reflect, while Switch seemed to focus on very specific details (who each person being threatened was, but doing it with a broad brush rather than in a more personal a nuanced way).

Again, I was responding because the out-of-context scene just felt wrong, without seeing it in a larger story. And while I generally trust Switch to recognize the difference, I always like to warn new authors when discussing techniques when they may want to apply caution and carefully consider their choices. (So again, my argument wasn't really with Switch, but was an object lesson to other authors who may try to imitate his technique.)

Switch generally has a very good feel for these types of pacing details, so I was kinda thrown by his missing the pacing discrepancy here, but he clearly said he had a reason for using it, and I don't understand the larger context.

In short, Switch, I apologize for my overly strident tone, and I'm eager to see the larger scene in the future, just to see how you did handle it.

Switch, I apologize

No need to apologize. I wasn't offended.

Getting rid of words that don't add anything is good. But by eliminating "in a flash," the quickness is missing. That's important. Once he starts shooting, everything is happening quickly.

I'm sorry, but your perspective is all wrong. It's what you're expect, but it doesn't reflect reality. Instead, it's the single longest seconds of a shooting. During the shooting, everything seems like forever and also really quick, as time has little relevance. But as someone is reloading, suddenly there isn't a threat, time suddenly stretches out, even though the elapsed time isn't very long, and yet, it seems infinitely long, because you know that as soon as you try to run away, he'll already have reloaded and he'll shoot you, so again, it's like waiting for death, but nothing is happening the entire time.

When you watch a movie, it seems "huh, what was that, maybe a couple of seconds, on the outside. But to the participants, from shooter to victims to those bleeding out, they're the longest moments of the entire encounter.

@PotomacBob

I wouldn't feel the need to write a response to this if we simply had a tool to indicate "I agree." I notice we do have a "thumbs down" that I've never used for fear I might be throwing someone to the lions.

That's exactly what that button is. It alerts Lazeez that someone wants the post deleted and the entire discussion shut down. It isn't a 'I don't like this one comment', it's an official 'take down' notice.

Your paragraph break is fine (as the first 'subject' was his shooting specific people everyone in the class would recognize, while the second is him reloading in preparation for continuing his shooting spree.

But—and this is merely my personal preference—the first paragraph seems both overly specific and overly general, as the characters don't seem to be easily recognizable to readers. Specifying "big-titted Juanita" is pointless and needlessly belittling of a helpless victim, while the long list of unrecognized individuals seems overly generic.

I understand your wanting to make the situation 'real' for your readers, but rather than describing the characters being killed using the broadest stereotypes imaginable, you would do better describing their responses (i.e. invoke the readers compassion and the student's fear, rather than creating 'empty' characters simply to showcase how violent you can make the scene). For example, I'd use:

One girl sat frozen in the next desk, watching the killer approach but having no way to escape, so she sat unmoving as she observed her killer preparing to shoot her.

In my example, I'm not focusing on general stereotypes and naming unrecognized people, but am showing both her fear and her plight, as well as explaining why she was 'frozen in place'. That approach is thus more 'personal' than 'naming names' and also more effective than just showcasing how much carnage you can describe.

But again, it's your story, not mine. If you're going for a 'horror show' audience, then more power to you. But if you're trying to make the readers care about the victims, then showcasing the violence does nothing other than minimizing the victim's responses.

the first paragraph seems both overly specific and overly general, as the characters don't seem to be easily recognizable to readers

Done on purpose. Won't tell you why, though. Don't try to write my story. LOL

If you're going for a 'horror show' audience

Absolutely not! You don't see me hacking people up with a chain saw or cutting their eyeballs out. That was an unjust comment.

It's the carnage that's important, not horror. And some other things that I won't go into.

It's the carnage that's important, not horror.

But, isn't that the very definition of "horror"? No one ever writes a movie that's 'just' a horror movie, instead they're trying to 'capture' the carnage, or the extremes the killer goes to, some something else, but in the end, they're focused entirely on how horrendous it is, but they don't seem to care about capturing the people's responses beyond simply the fact that they're horrified as well.

In other words, you can call it whatever you want, but if it walks like a horror show, talks like a horror show, and sells insurance like a horror show, chances are, it's a damn horror show.

And you can tell, I don't watch horror movies because I've never quite 'gotten' what fascinates people. For me, if you want horror, do something stupid (but not on purpose in front of a camera) and you're instantly praying you'll change you entire life if you just survive—even if you're an atheist—and then 30 seconds afterward, you think "nah, I can't be bothered changing my life after all."

In short, people who never face hardships in life seem to be captivated by horror, because it's about OTHER PEOPLE. Since they're largely immune to uncertainty, fear, or regular threats of violence, they like to gloat about others who live (and die) because of it. Nope. I just don't comprehend how it helps any one. Like many things in live, I just can't make sense of it.

But, isn't that the very definition of "horror"?

No, "Friday the 13th" is horror. This is not a horror story. And it has nothing to do with how the victims felt. It's about what happens after the shooting.

paragraph breaks at points where the killer has finished with one victim and is about to move on to the next

Maybe that's what "subject" is.

As usual, I typically do what "feels" right.

As usual, I typically do what "feels" right.

For most of us who've been doing this awhile, those 'feelings are usually spot on. For newbie authors, unsure of what they're doing, I'd urge a bit more caution, at least until they understand more of what they're doing.

However, we keep picking these samples apart, as they reflect our own approaches, or we aren't sure of the larger context of the story, and thus raise cautions about applying it in other (imagined) settings. But then again, that's why I'm hesitant to volunteer 'samples' of my work, as it's often difficult to understand the larger context the scene fits into. :(

When editing others' stories I often check the word count of long paragraphs. I don't have any set limit but I'd usually look for places to suggest dividing paragraphs when they approach or go over 100 words. I become more keen to do that when several long paragraphs are close to each other.

I generally aim for 50 as my upper limit for my descriptive chapters. For actions scenes, I like to stick to one thought per sentence, rather than including both the underlying thoughts and their exceptions and/or ramifications. Thus my actions scene sentences will often be more in the 5 to 25 word range, as I shift the 'heavy lifting' analysis to later chapters.

To my eye, breaking up the long paragraph makes it easier to read. I'm not an English teacher so this is just my opinion so my logic could be totally out of whack!

Nope. Your observations are right on the money, which is why 'action scenes' often use short, direct sentences, while the longer descriptive scenes use much more extensive sentences paragraphs. It's more a pacing issue than a grammatical issue. Though, for many of us, we're trying to get a particular thought/message across about the character's actions, so we often time include many more words than we would otherwise. It all depends on how much we're trying to convey in a short space. That's why I keep my actions segments short, and then have much more expansive sections immediately following them, as the characters piece together WTF happened! 'D

I don't wish to tell authors how to craft their stories, but rules are rules ... You can ignore them or follow them, but you can't change them. The rules taught 50 years ago in American English (maybe it's different for Canadian, British, Australian or other countries speaking English) were simple.

1. Change subjects, change to new paragraph.

2. Change speakers, change to new paragraph.

3. Speaker changes subject (or topic if you will) change to new paragraph. (No close quotes at end of old topic, Open quotes to start new topic to let the reader know its the same speaker.)

I agree with each of your points, but I provided a few additional techniques (rare cases where someone might bend the guidelines by including multiple speakers when the individual speakers aren't identifiable to indicate a situation of sheer pandomonium (as often occurs during press conferences nowadays). But that was only intended to show where someone might want to try a different technique.

Again, there are no "rules" in literature. If you violate a guideline, no one revokes your 'author' license. Instead, fiction writers (and bloggers, and even non-fiction authors like Bill O'Reilly) use whichever techniques works best in the story they're telling, rather than only using what they were 'taught' in school.

If a technique works, we use it. If it doesn't, we don't continue the practice. But when we discuss different techniques, we (specifically "me") like to suggest alternatives which authors may want to consider, just so they'll be equipped if they ever run across a situation where they can use a different approach. But guidelines work because they work reliably most of the time. However nothing works ideally every time.

However, we collectively can change the rules, and the the so called authorities will be left scrambling to catch up.

Or. more likely, commanding the waves to turn back until the water's up to their necks.

AJ

Or. more likely, commanding the waves to turn back until the water's up to their necks.

You can't change the inevitable, but rules get broken all the time, and success is it's own reward. If you can write a single successful book that breaks rules, people for generations will try to duplicate your technique. In short, it's its own sense in immortality. (So, in the end, maybe Switch simply has a Divine spark guiding him, but you always have to consider the risk when you 'break' a rule. The odds are tremendous that you will fail, so you'd best try to account for it and try your best to counter it, and when you eventually do fail, you can't blame anyone but yourself.

In short, your best chance of succeeding in 'breaking the rules' is in realizing just how unlikely and difficult it is, and to go into it with your eyes wide open.

Tacking the Arlene sentence to the end of the previous paragraph is wrong. One way to avoid dialogue tags is to have the speaker do something before she speaks. In this case, Arlene is doing something. It doesn't belong in the previous paragraph.

Thanks, Switch, your alternate example clarifies the discussion, getting it off of Roustwriter's example and back on target discussing the 'central figure' principal.

Not being familiar with the above quote,

I took liberties with Roustwriter's characters. I hope he doesn't sue me.

AJ

I took liberties with Roustwriter's characters. I hope he doesn't sue me.

from what I hear about that story you come well under the 10% allowed usage in the Berne Convention, so you should be OK.

from what I hear about that story you come well under the 10% allowed usage in the Berne Convention, so you should be OK.

Isn't that for copyright? My piece is more like dark fanfic.

AJ

Isn't that for copyright? My piece is more like dark fanfic.

I've yet to see a fanfic that doesn't breech copyright. The specific characters and universe are copyrighted.

edit to add: Anyway, I thought you were quoting from his story as an example.

I thought you were quoting from his story as an example.

Dayum, I hope not too many others think that. I thought the veiled references to the story title, 'Arlene & Jeff', were an adequate giveaway.

AJ

I thought you were quoting from his story as an example.

Dayum, I hope not too many others think that.

I thought that as well

I thought that as well

Oh dear, Roustwriter is DEFINITELY going to sue me :(

AJ

I took liberties with Roustwriter's characters. I hope he doesn't sue me.

Or putting it in Ernest's typical vernacular: I hope Roustwriter doesn't use me, which better fits the semi-erotic dialogue. 'D

3. There is no reason why you can't have the same speaker talking in two consecutive paragraphs as long as you clearly identify them at the start of each paragraph with a suitable tag.

One critique concerning point 3: it's difficult to apply with only two speakers, or when there's a group discussion, and one speaker goes into a soliloquy. If you're (the author) forced to attach a separate dialogue tag to each and every paragraph for multiple paragraphs, it quickly becomes tedious.

Instead, you want to note that the one speaker is going off in his own direction, essentially taking over the open discussion, and then let his soliloquy run its course.

IIRC, one of the older school ways of addressing that was to leave something of an "open quote" at them and of the paragraph if the character is in monologue mode. One of the few cases where quotations don't get "properly closed" and actually having it be an accepted practice. Which brings up the matter of there being exceptions to almost everything in English.

That is a commonly accepted exception, unfortunately every time time its been raised, several authors attack it since they 'don't see it' in their regional publications (it doesn't seem to be a recognized technique in Australian publications, although Australians don't seem to have any trouble with it when reading either American or British novels). :(

IIRC, one of the older school ways of addressing that was to leave something of an "open quote" at them and of the paragraph if the character is in monologue mode.

While I've seen this techniques used by some authors it's listed in most style books as a way of quoting long speeches, usually political speeches, by live people. Thus you get into the question as to if dialogue is a quotation or not - which usually ends up in long heated exchanges with no real out come.

I avoid the 'dropped quote mark' system and I strongly recommend people don't use it for two reasons:

1. It's so easy to miss the quote mark being absent, and even if it's missed it's easy to think it's a typo. Thus readers are easily confused about who's saying what.

2. It's a system most commonly used in block quotes of speeches and lectures where other contextual aspects help to show it's an extended single quote.

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

For long speeches by the same speaker I find it best to break up the text now and then so the reader does not have a 'great wall of text' in front of them and I open the new paragraph with an action and something along the lines of - After taking a sip of water Fred continues with, "blah, blah..." - or something similar to re-identify the speaker. The main aim of the identity tags is to eliminate reader confusion, you just have to find a way of including them in sufficient numbers without overwhelming the reader with the tags.

2. It's a system most commonly used in block quotes of speeches and lectures where other contextual aspects help to show it's an extended single quote.

Sorry to disagree (and trigger yet another heated discussion), but that 'technique' is used in the vast majority of fiction novels I read on a regular basis. The only ones where you don't see it are either non-fiction (where you don't have tag-team discussions) or fast-paced novels utilizing very simple dialogue to keep the pace moving at a quick pace.

Although I don't recommend relying on it, my stories typically rely on protracted group discussions, where each party ventures their own interpretation of events, and which typically end with one of more parties spinning off into a soliloquy. However, in those situations, readers are expecting that type of discussion, and thus are more likely to anticipate and look for them.

but that 'technique' is used in the vast majority of fiction novels I read on a regular basis.

I wonder what you read, because I've not seen that system used in the dialogue of any of the printed fiction I've read, and I read a lot. But I have seen it in used in block quote form in printed fiction to represent a reported speech, and I have seen it here at SoL, but that is all.

edit to add: Where they had the block quote form usage the context and method of display made it obvious it was all a single speaker and not part of the normal dialogue exchange. It was done as an extended quote of another.

but that 'technique' is used in the vast majority of fiction novels I read on a regular basis.

I wonder what you read, because I've not seen that system used in the dialogue of any of the printed fiction I've read, and I read a lot. But I have seen it in used in block quote form in printed fiction to represent a reported speech, and I have seen it here at SoL, but that is all.

Wait, which technique are you referring to? You reference block quoted text, but the quote you used of mine was in reference to dropping the beginning quote of continuing dialogue (and no, the passages were NOT 'quoted text', it was normal dialogue). While I use that technique quite a bit myself, I learned it long ago while reading a wide variety of novels which used it.

But, we've had this entire discussion before, as you raised the exact same arguments (i.e. it's only a 'special instance' technique and you've never seen it outside of those isolated instances), so let's not repeat it.

I listed it just as a reference to our previous disagreements, not to restart those old flame wars.

Wait, which technique are you referring to?

CW, I was referring to where I seen authors use the drop quote method of leaving off the closing quote as a way of linking the 2ndparagraph to the 1st paragraph as an extension of the same person speaking.

I said where I'd seen it in printed books I'd read they also incorporated the block quote style which helped to make it clear it was a quote of something and not a normal in-story dialogue.

Like you, I don't want to go back over the old ground as to if it's valid to use for dialogue or not. It's already been mentioned in can lead to reader confusion and some of us avoid it because of that.

Like you, I don't want to go back over the old ground as to if it's valid to use for dialogue or not. It's already been mentioned in can lead to reader confusion and some of us avoid it because of that.

Good, it's great getting rid of at least one feral (literary) cat! 'D

I'm just saying what I see ... and that is newspapers routinely using the convention when providing inline quotes of the words someone has said which extend over multiple paragraphs.

I consider that dialogue but I won't argue if anyone disagrees.

To both your and Ernest's point: Yes, non-fiction works use the dropped quote and block quote in combination, but that doesn't change how fiction authors use the dropped quote technique.

You still have to be clear about who's saying what, but it's not uncommon, if a single character goes off on a rant, or has a lengthy point to make, to use the dropped quote to show that he's NOT finished yet.

You can make it clear who's speaking by NEVER using the technique at all (Ernest's approach), or you can focus on the initial transition (like I try to do). Again, your approach typically rests with how often these types of things tend to arise in your stories. For me, who uses large casts with large group discussions, I'm constantly encountering it. For Ernest and others, probably less so. One approach isn't wrong, or even necessary, but neither is the other approach incorrect or invalid (not that Ernest has claimed it is).

We each pick the techniques which fit OUR stories, rather than always trying to use a technique exactly how we've encountered it before.