Forum: Author Hangout

When you get into going through all the experts blogs on writing you'll find some agree with your editor, some will say it can be two paragraphs, and some will say it can be one paragraph. And it all comes down to personal choice.

That's what confused me. She (my editor) created a single sentence paragraph to isolate one narrator observation, but then left three such lines in another paragraph of dialogue (i.e. she's not consistent in her approach).

Since I dislike awkward single sentence paragraphs (at least one's which aren't single focus paragraphs, like an exclamation), I'd prefer grouping dialogue and observations into more logical groupings. I feel it makes for easier reading as all the relevant information is grouped together, instead of being broken into multiple paragraphs.

I'd prefer grouping dialogue and observations into more logical groupings. I feel it makes for easier reading as all the relevant information is grouped together, instead of being broken into multiple paragraphs.

I agree with you, and in the sample you gave I can see it as either all one paragraph, or split at the end of the first sentence so the new paragraph starts with the dialogue - for me, a lot would depend on the material before and after it.

for me, a lot would depend on the material before and after it.

Here's the additional material, after editing (note that the initial line is about the main character, while the last is Em's dialogue, which wouldn't fit into the other paragraphs:

Em was heading for her apartment when she heard a door open behind her.

"Oh good, I caught you."

Em recognized the voice immediately.

"I hope you don't mind, but I let someone into your place today," Amanda continued. She was a pretty young thing, struggling to get her music career started. She had the brightest smile and a pleasant, positive attitude. She was also Em's "key pal."

"Nah, that's why I gave you my spare key," said Em. "Who was it? A delivery guy? I wasn't expecting anything."

I'd prefer it as:

Em was heading for her apartment when she heard a door open behind her.

"Oh good, I caught you." Em recognized the voice immediately. "I hope you don't mind, but I let someone into your place today," Amanda continued. She was a pretty young thing, struggling to get her music career started. She had the brightest smile and a pleasant, positive attitude. She was also Em's "key pal."

"Nah, that's why I gave you my spare key," said Em. "Who was it? A delivery guy? I wasn't expecting anything."

Frankly, if it's all in one paragraph, there's no need for the "Amanda continued" comment, allowing me to drop that attribution entirely, changing it to "Amanda was a pretty young thing ...".

Frankly, if it's all in one paragraph, there's no need for the "Amanda continued" comment, allowing me to drop that attribution entirely, changing it to "Amanda was a pretty young thing ...".

That's OK, however, I'd probably write it as:

Em was heading for her apartment when she heard a door open behind her. "Oh good, I caught you." Em immediately recognized Amanda's voice. "I hope you don't mind, but I let someone into your place today." Amanda was a pretty young thing, struggling to get her music career started. She had the brightest smile and a pleasant, positive attitude. And was also Em's 'key pal.'

"Nah, that's why I gave you my spare key," said Em. "Who was it? A delivery guy? I wasn't expecting anything."

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

I find all those 'she' words a bit too much that close together, and using the double quotes for 'key pal' makes it look like dialogue at first.

and using the double quotes for 'key pal' makes it look like dialogue at first.

That was another of my editor's choices. "Key pal", as used here, is not a quote by anyone. No one said the term "key pal". It's instead a common term which readers not from a major American metropolitan area likely wouldn't recognize. (It was a common practice in Manhattan, where everyone used specially designed keys which couldn't be picked or even duplicated, which meant, if you lost your keys, you were out of luck and couldn't call a locksmith. Thus you had to rely on your neighbors to have a backup set.)

"Key pal", as used here, is not a quote by anyone.

I'd never heard it before, but worked out what it meant from the context. However, I saw it like a title or a nickname and that's why I put it in single quote marks, like you usually do for the name of a book or nickname etc. Some people don't use quotes at all, just italics for those situations, I sue single quotes and italics the first time it's used, then drop them. But double quotes are just wrong for that usage.

But double quotes are just wrong for that usage.

Double quotes are fine. I wouldn't use single quotes at all (unless there's a quote within a quote). It could be italics, like a foreign word. But I'd probably do it the way your editor did it or simply have it like all the other words.

Double quotes are fine.

The reason I wouldn't use the double quotes is it looks like more dialogue and you have to stop and think about it to realise it's not Amanda saying something else. You shouldn't need to have to think about it that much, it should just read with the meaning quickly clear.

She was also Em's "key pal."

That can't be dialogue. I don't want to reopen the disagreement we had before, but dialogue has unique punctuation rules.

"key pal" can't be dialogue in that sentence.

which 99% of readers have no constructive knowledge of.

I believe most people have at least a basic reading comprehension. So who would be saying "key pal"?

Here it is again:

She was also Em's "key pal."

In that sentence, who would be saying "key pal"?

In the original the meaning is absolutely clear; Amanda is the pal (friend) of Em and is entrusted by Em to hold the key. I have seen this done with single inverted commas and elsewhere with italics; you pays your money and takes your choice.
It's all about clarity

Thanks, Sejintenej, that makes me feel more confident about my usage. Using double quotes is clearly wrong, as it's not a quote, but not using single quotes is also wrong, as it leaves the readers floundering.

"key pal" can't be dialogue in that sentence.

Switch I didn't say it had to be dialogue, I said at first glance it looked like dialogue and that can be confusing. The whole idea is to not have any confusion. Which is why I make sure all my dialogue is the only thing that looks like dialogue.

Which is why I make sure all my dialogue is the only thing that looks like dialogue.

Ernest, I use italics for internal dialogue (thoughts). But I also use italics to emphasize a word (it can also be used for a foreign word, but I don't typically use foreign words). So I assume when a reader sees a word in italics he doesn't assume it's internal dialogue.

Ernest, I use italics for internal dialogue (thoughts). But I also use italics to emphasize a word (it can also be used for a foreign word, but I don't typically use foreign words). So I assume when a reader sees a word in italics he doesn't assume it's internal dialogue.

I occasionally use italics to emphasize how certain words are stressed during conversation, so I was worried highlighting a particular term would be interpreted as the term's delivery. I thought single quotes would distinguish it from a quote and show it as a regional usage. The next-best option would probably be hyphenation, rather than italics. But I'm still not sure it's entirely needed. According to most responses here, the meaning is fairly clear from the limited context.

I use italics for internal dialogue

Switch, I also use italics for thoughts (didn't always, but do now). I also use italics and single quotation marks for the first time I use a nickname and also for the first time I use a formal name for of an object or a book title. This way I leave the double quotation marks for just dialogue because most readers' first thoughts on seeing the double quotation marks is it's dialogue. Thus I have things like:

Mike thought, I hope he likes the story.

Fred 'Hoppy' Levit - Hoppy being his nickname

Fred gave Jim his copy of 'Tom Sawyer' to read.

Joe went for a ride on the 'Southern Belle' because he'd not been on a riverboat before.

Jim said, "Go away!"

this way the formatting helps with the identification of the text.

The reason I wouldn't use the double quotes is it looks like more dialogue and you have to stop and think about it to realise it's not Amanda saying something else. You shouldn't need to have to think about it that much, it should just read with the meaning quickly clear.

I agree with Ernest's thinking, but from a different perspective. I reserve double quotes for actual quotes from someone. I typically use single quotes for a movie or theater title (ex: 'Godfather'), so why would I apply it to a concept?

However, I assumed no one other than New Yorkers would recognize the term, so I presented it like that so they'd recognize it as a regional usage, and I defined it for them in the next line.

@Switch

In that sentence, who would be saying "key pal"?

I'm confused, Switch. Are you suggesting I switch back to single quotes, or drop the quotes entirely (leaving the fact it's a regional usage up to the readers to figure out on their own)?

I'm confused, Switch. Are you suggesting I switch back to single quotes,

No no. I was responding to someone who said 99% of the people don't know punctuation rules. I don't agree with that, but my point was you don't have to know punctuation rules to know that's not dialogue. All it takes is basic reading comprehension. There's no way "key pal" is dialogue in that sentence.

I was born and raised in NYC and never heard the term "key pal."

I don't know about other style guides, but a movie title, book title, etc. are in italics not single quotes. A short story, article, etc. are in double quotes.

Single quotes are reserved for quotes within quotes.

I did not say that 99% of people don't know punctuation rules. I said that 99% of people don't know that there are special rules of punctuation for dialog there is a difference.

Like a comma splice or a run-on sentence, or when the verb is missing. I don't think you give readers the credit they deserve.

Why did Em change her name to Amanda between recognizing the voice and continuing? And whose voice did she recognize, and what did they say?

In this layout there is one speaker, Em, who is called Amanda once, presumably by mistake.

I'm sorry, tppm, but I can't agree. The statement about Em recognizing the voice wasn't an action by Em, but a comment by the narrator, just as the comments of Amanda's looks are. There's a big difference between narrator descriptions and character comments and actions.

How is recognition not an action?

When it's not made by the person mentioned, but by the narrator. The problem is the editor never grasped the story was told in 3rd person omni, which she doesn't seem to comprehend.

If it said, "Em responded to the question, spinning around," I'd agree with you. But Em never responded in either words or action.

It clearly says "Em recognized the voice." that's Em doing the recognizing.

Tim,

An omniscient narrator is telling the story. One thing I don't like about omniscient is it's more telling because, well, the narrator is telling you what everyone is doing and thinking.

So the narrator is telling the reader that Em recognized the voice.

the action of recognizing the voice is Em's, not the narrator's, nor Amanda's, thus requiring a new paragraph.

Switch is correct. 3rd person is more telling than showing. If Em had responded, jerking back or nodding, then I could see it as her acting. But it's not. It's an unidentified person telling you how what she observed.

Tim,

Yes, the action is Em's. The narrator is telling the reader how she reacted.

But I wouldn't put it in another paragraph. I like it this way:

"Oh good, I caught you." Em recognized Amanda's voice immediately. "I hope you don't mind, but I let someone into your place today."

because the narrator is inserting what happened in the middle of Amanda's dialogue. But there's no right or wrong. Whatever feels right to the author is the way he should do it.

Seeing that cold, and particularly as it's taken out of context, I would interpret that as:

Amanda says something not recorded here.

That's partly covered by context. The scene occurs at the beginning of the chapter. Em's just run up the stairs and is heading for her apartment, so it's clear there's no one else there. She hears a door opening, turns and ... I can't imagine anyone thinking someone not present in the story is talking.

The reaction is entirely within Em's head, recognition is, IN AND OF ITSELF, a reaction.

So you're telling me, if I wrote the following paragraph:

Sally recognized the tune. Sam sang along.

that it would require two separate paragraphs because it includes two different actions by two different characters?

Sorry, but I don't buy that. The common element in the paragraph is the music, not Sally's actions. These are narrator descriptions, and have nothing to do with character speech. (The rules about 'one character/one paragraph' are dialogue guidelines.)

If I was reading it, I would prefer CW's version over yours.

The nice thing is, it's a style difference, not dictated by any "Rules", meaning we can each use what we think best. Few are likely to call us on it (unless we're clearly ignorant on a particular subject) and the style differences help define you as an author.

In this layout there is one speaker, Em, who is called Amanda once, presumably by mistake.

Em never spoke. Amanda spoke and the omniscient narrator "spoke."

On second thought, I'd probably do it as:

Em was heading for her apartment when she heard a door open behind her.

"Oh good, I caught you." Em recognized Amanda's voice immediately. "I hope you don't mind, but I let someone into your place today."

Amanda was a pretty young thing, struggling to get her music career started. She had the brightest smile and a pleasant, positive attitude. She was also Em's "key pal."

I would guess today's editors are not proficient in omniscient.

Her confusion of the use of Omni threw me. I wrote it, as I do all my stories, as 3rd person omni. However, after considering it for a couple months, I now realize that perspective is a relative thing. It's what's in the story that counts, not one's intents.

The entire story revolves around the main character, so it comes across as 3rd person omni limited (limited to the main character), so every time I describes the motivations of the other characters, she ripped them out, leaving the story with one dimensional characters.

What I gathered from this, is that if you write a 3rd person omni, you've got to constantly announce it to your readers by continually reporting what everyone is thinking throughout the story, less they forget. Sigh! Writing to counter reader expectations and assumptions is really exhausting!

As for it not being clear who's speaking, the reason why I combined the paragraphs is because it's clear the entire passage is about Amanda and no one else. Even though it mentions Em (the MC), it's about her recognizing Amanda. But you're right, Switch, shifting the observations about her to a separate paragraph does read better.

The entire story revolves around the main character, so it comes across as 3rd person omni limited (limited to the main character), so every time I describes the motivations of the other characters, she ripped them out, leaving the story with one dimensional characters.

There is no such thing as 3rd-person omniscient limited. There's 3rd-person omniscient (POV of an omniscient narrator) or 3rd-person limited (POV of one of the characters or more than one (sometimes called limited multiple)).

My guess is your editor did not understand omniscient so any time the omniscient narrator was getting into another character's head she thought it was head-hopping. Of course this assumes you did omniscient correctly and never got into any character's head directly.

What I gathered from this, is that if you write a 3rd person omni, you've got to constantly announce it to your readers by continually reporting what everyone is thinking throughout the story, less they forget.

No, you never announce it to your readers. They should know right up front. What I read is you establish the omniscient narrator as soon as possible so the reader knows it's omniscient. But that's the academic rule. I doubt if most people would know the difference between limited and omniscient.

No, you never announce it to your readers. They should know right up front. What I read is you establish the omniscient narrator as soon as possible so the reader knows it's omniscient. But that's the academic rule. I doubt if most people would know the difference between limited and omniscient.

I believe my stories are clearly 3rd person omni, just from the style I use, though I never explicitly state "I remember when ...", or "I was told".

I suspect you're right. I keep trying to give this idiot editor credit, despite her giving me fairly consistent bad advice. She did a good job, as I'm keeping the majority of her suggestions, but when she goes off base, she goes way off into left field!

I do not like overlong paragraphs - I like to pause and reflect on what I have read so if this was simply a part of a two screen paragraph then I would be unhappy

A three sentence paragraph is overly long? The longest sentence in the paragraph is 16 words, well below my 'rethink the sentence' limit. I'll admit, though, that the reference to the others (Lamar and Mui) means the one sentence has two different topics/subjects, which makes it harder to read.

It's fine as is, except that it should be clearer that it's still Delilah talking in the second quote. Or, if it isn't still Delilah, the speaker should be identified, and it should be a new paragraph.

The fact it's the same paragraphs shows it's the same speaker. That's why I'll often replace dialogue tags with actions (by the speaker). The placing of the tag, and the subsequent action, was intended to slow Delilah's speech, so it feels more natural. She mentions how difficult the passage is, helps with the gurney, then continues describing what they're plans are (separating the problem statement and the solution).

By the way, I'm not expecting readers to know the rules of English in this case, but most readers have read enough to recognize that you don't mix speakers in the same paragraph (except in special cases, which we've discussed in the past).