Forum: Author Hangout

Yes, you usually add a paragraph break when switching who is talking. However, if a new person is talking the audience should be alerted and who it is. That's where the dialogue tags come in:

There is a long established process where you have two people speaking to each other you can identify them with dialogue tags at the start and then just switch paragraphs with more tags for several paragraphs as they talk back and forth. It's this sort of situation where using the quotation rules above for dialogue can a misunderstanding since it's only one very small printers mark that's missing. That's why I never use this dropped mark option as it can easily mislead the reader without intending to.

Most of the time where you see multi-paragraph quotations is when a newspaper is printing someone's speech or a document is quoting multiple paragraphs from another written text.

Most common in those academic type quotations sure, but it's not uncommon in dialogue.

The fact that some people use it doesn't mean it's the correct things to say. based on that statement it's perfectly proper to use swear words as every other word you say in everything you say in all circumstances.

The core issue is the difference between a quotation and dialogue in a story, some people see them as the same and some people don't. That's why it's an issue.

If using the drop mark process is a correct way of doing a multi-paragraph dialogue, then so is the using the block quote method for doing a multi-paragraph dialogue as both a correct multi-paragraph quote methods. Yet you never see anyone doing that because it's obviously wrong.

My main issues with the drop quote is it violates the new speaker new paragraph rule and it's so easy to cause confusion using it.

My main issues with the drop quote is it violates the new speaker new paragraph rule and it's so easy to cause confusion using it.

That's the point. If it was a new speaker the end quotation mark would be there. Leaving it out notifies the reader that the next paragraph is not a new speaker.

That's the point. If it was a new speaker the end quotation mark would be there. Leaving it out notifies the reader that the next paragraph is not a new speaker.

Yet it's so easy to miss the absences of the printers mark and that leaves the reader confused as to what the hell is happening because it looks like a messed up conversation between two people. So to sort it out they have to leave the story and try to figure it out, and that's the last thing you want to have happen. Safer to have one huge section of monologue dialogue or to add a few words to indicate it's the same speaker with each paragraph of the monologue.

Add to this the sloppiness of some authors concerning punctuation. The reader may easily misinterpret the missing quotation mark.

That's more the result of many authors to not use editors, rather than the author being sloppy. Sloppy is not relying on reliable editors, or in rejecting their advice.

Authors tend to get wrapped up in the story, and its a necessary component of an engaging story, so 'forgetting' punctuation is a frequent occurrence, but that's what a Line Editor is for, to identify the common word, punctuation, misspelling and phrasing errors the author is, because he's been staring at the same story for months, is often incapable of seeing anymore.

Add to this the sloppiness of some authors concerning punctuation.

I suspect that sloppiness is due to many of us not being English majors. I still have problems with whether a comma is needed and how to properly punctuate a sentence. I am also aware of at least one author who believes we Americans over punctuate our sentences. There are undoubtedly others.

I am also aware of at least one author who believes we Americans over punctuate our sentences. There are undoubtedly others.

Then there are those of us who go the extra yard, using (or removing) commas to improve the story/sentence flow, making it easier to read (Note: don't try this if if makes the sentence harder to understand, but most readers will physically pause their reading every time they encounter commas, semicolons and full stops).

I am also aware of at least one author who believes we Americans over punctuate our sentences. There are undoubtedly others.

Then there are those of us who go the extra yard, using (or removing) commas to improve the story/sentence flow, making it easier to read (Note: don't try this if if makes the sentence harder to understand, but most readers will physically pause their reading every time they encounter commas, semicolons and full stops).

Yet it's so easy to miss the absences of the printers mark and that leaves the reader confused

True. I often stop reading when who the speaker is confuses me. I glance back to see if the ending quote is missing. If it is, I read on because it now makes sense.

I do know I never noticed the dropped quotes in fictional monologues until it came up in discussions here, but I've been confused by it very seldom.

If you EVER notice punctuation, there's a MUCH bigger problem than the missing punctuation. Badly written and composed stories typically have many more complaints about punctuation than otherwise engaging, exciting stories. With slow, plodding stories, you focus on the punctuation because it's MORE EXCITING than the story is!

I don't agree. I have read stories where missing punctuation disturbed the flow of reading and/or unintentionally changed the meaning of the text. I agree that if you consciously notice punctuation there might be something wrong. If punctuation wasn't noticed at all there would be no reason to use it.

That's assumed. But I've long noted that my exciting chapters get NO complaints about punctuation, while my slower, plodding explanatory chapters get multiple complaints. Aft´r this many years, I'm sure they have just as many issues (probably more, since they're often read and edited more quickly), but no one notices them.

However, if the punctuation is so mangled that the story is unreadable, or the meaning of specific passages is unclear (often the result of pronoun confusion of missing tags), it'll wreck the entire story.

I'm assuming that the majority of people reading these are more experienced writers, and don't typically make those types of mistakes.

@Keet

That being said, as a reader I don't like dropped quotes to indicate that the same person continues the dialog.

The dropped quotes do NOT denote the same speaker. They instead denote that the speaker is continuing to speak. Thus, rather than poorly tagged and identified dialogue, they flag a change in topic (requiring new paragraphs) while the speaker continues with his train of thought.

Thus, another solution is to toss in a few "Hear, hear!"s and an "Atta boy" or two. ;D

The dropped quotes do NOT denote the same speaker. They instead denote that the speaker is continuing to speak.

That's the same thing.

The dropped quotes do NOT denote the same speaker. They instead denote that the speaker is continuing to speak.

That's the same thing.

No, you create new paragraphs either because there's a new speaker, or the subject of the current paragraph changes. Without protracted monologues, most modern writers wouldn't need multiple paragraphs for the same speaker.

Isn't that a designation that speaker is not changing?

Difference of opinion, I guess. I see it as a continuation of the discussion as the speaker changes topics.

Would that make a three ungulate roast - a sheep inside a goat inside a donkey?

AJ

Not spat, spitted.

There is no word "spitted."

There is no word "spitted."

Bzzzz, wrong, there is such a word and it has two meanings.

www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/spitted

1. Past tense of spit,

2. Something is well embedded on a spike of some sort.
.............................

In actual use I've only seen or heard of the second usage, such as a pig is spitted and put over a roasting pit. If you use a rotisory with a rod that goes through the animal or fowl on it then you've spitted what you're cooking.

Bzzzz, wrong, there is such a word and it has two meanings.

Since we were talking about the saliva kind of spit, I was addressing that so the second meaning isn't pertinent (there's also "spat" as in a fight and "spitting image"). The Collins dictionary is the only one that says spitted is past tense of the saliva spit, and it says "in British."

I still contend that "spitted" is not to be used for the saliva spit.

Interestingly, I recently needed to use the past tense of "spit." I chose "spit" and not "spat." "Spat" sounded old-fashioned, and using "spit" in the past tense is now acceptable.

When you follow back the post references you find the start is about: "Would that make a three ungulate roast - a sheep inside a goat inside a donkey? " - which implies a spit roast to me. I don't know why GB used the word spat, but what he was replying to was clearly the reference I was familiar with as regard a spitted roast. I was unaware of spitted being used as a past tense of spit until I saw it in the dictionary reference I gave as I use spat for that past tense usage.

"Would that make a three ungulate roast - a sheep inside a goat inside a donkey? "

I stopped reading the posts about the donkey after the first or second. Sorry, my bad.

Not spat, spitted.

There is no word "spitted." There is no word "spitted."

Bzzzz, wrong, there is such a word and it has two meanings.

I spat at your colloquial use of spitted, yet I still stand corrected. Although I've used the 2nd use occasionally, it never even occurred to me. The 1st use, however, is vastly outdated and aside from a few Shakespearean references, almost never comes up.

Based on sizes, wouldn't the goat go inside the sheep then inside the donkey? Like a turducken only a donsheego?

Goats and sheep are so similar biologically that some critters can't be confidently placed in either group. In the UK, domesticated goats tend to be taller and slimmer than domesticated sheep, so fitting either inside the other would be problematical.

AJ

For a true animal spit roast you need two football players and a roofied teen...

I bought a lottery ticket today. Is there another lottery player in the UK who would like to test whether it needs to be football players? I'm afraid they'd have to supply the roofied teen because I'm plum out at the moment.

Curious coincidence: a few minutes ago I was nearing the end of my newspaper's Codeword puzzle. One of the remaining incomplete words was _ILL_OY with only the letters 'J' and 'K' still to be assigned.

I didn't for a moment countenance complying with the instruction because my freezer is full at the moment so most of the meat would go off before I could eat it.

AJ

In which fetish magazine did you find a crossword that has "to finger a female carp" as a clue...?

A national newspaper - for those who like a nice guddle ;)

AJ

I came across it in a dead-tree novel several decades ago. It's a way of catching trout with the bare hands by tickling them from underneath with one's fingers until one has lulled them into a false sense of security, then quickly scooping them out of the water.

AJ

For instance, in a discussion of sex between animals of different species, your imagination drifts away to cooking them...

The supermarket I visited today was selling a three-fish roast - cod, salmon and haddock. No mention of which was inside which, nor whether they were committing sex acts at the time.

AJ

For it to be a sandwich a third animal would be required.

Frankly, having sex with sandwiches, of whatever species, is even weirder than bestiality! (Remind me never to eat lunch at your house.)

I didn't notice it before it was discussed here, but In the US at least, this is a standard that is used in traditional dead tree publishing.

It's standard in British English too.

I can't remember using it in a SOL story, but then I write to entertain and long speeches are deprecated. Having said that, I think redsliver gave a good example of a situation in which I probably would use it.

AJ

I can't remember using it in a SOL story, but then I write to entertain and long speeches are deprecated. Having said that, I think redsliver gave a good example of a situation in which I probably would use it.

Alas, I use them all the time, just as I frequently drop em-dashes and ellipses, because one of my fortes is large multi-person discussions, where a fairly large grounds discusses strategy, or tries to parse the latest clues.

Typically, in such a scenario, someone—typically the main character, but not always—sums up the discussion and lays out the approach that the group will follow in the next chapter. I typically plop these long debates right after my fast, action chapters, as the characters try to figure out WTF happened under cover of the fog of war. But it's also a great way to purposely modify the pace of a story, so readers run through action scenes, but then pay attention to the 'after-action' reports.

ETA: the characters I wanted don't show. They are the small single or double '>' character, not the displayed quotes. (The html codes rsaquo and raquo.)

That's an unfortunate bug in Lazeez's code, as those are the ONLY characters which are converted before the conversion takes place, meaning the converted quotes then gets converted again, where the tags with missing commands get deleted. :(

Most of the time where you see multi-paragraph quotations is when a newspaper is printing someone's speech or a document is quoting multiple paragraphs from another written text.

Not true, as it's present in a wide variety of well-known novels, where the usage is generally never noted. The main reason why it isn't recognized, is that for years, novelists have chosen to limit the number of characters, so most dialogue has become extremely simplified as a result.

Thank you for the responses. The probably is I am a person who is trying to learn the correct current way. My training is 50 years old.

During previous discussions on the topic, an odd detail turned up. While different people have different views on sequential dialogue paragraphs by the same speaker, Australians, for some odd reason, possibly resulting from their educational system, think that it's NEVER done, even when they check novels they've read and discover that, as is the design, the usage is virtually invisible. Thus the 'dropped quote' is much like using "said" as a tag—it's essentially invisible to most readers. They know enough from a lifetime of reading to know what's happening, but it doesn't take them out of the story, which is a sign that it's actually working as designed.

This is a BIG issue for me, because one of my specialties are extensive multi-person discussions, which often result in someone reverting to a monologue as they sum up what's been said and decide where they're going.

Thus I'll have frequently back and forth, intermixed with a few isolated running monologues.

As long as readers complain that "I couldn't figure out who the fuck was talking', I'm not upset with which approach you take. If how you structure your dialogue results in people stopping and saying 'what the hell is going on', then the dialogue becomes meaningless. What they never notice has no direct impact on the story.

But what you want, are 'accepted literary standards' that NO ONE ever questions, that they simply accept without EVER questioning, and really never question. It's ONLY when they notice it—for whatever reason—that they become an issue.

Note: I'm not attacking Aussies, but I suspect that by simply never addressing the usage, they're (the schools) are somehow creating a rolling traffic stop out of it. The countries that routines teach the technique, never seem to have as much of an issue with it. Make what you want of that little tidbit, as it really doesn't impact much.