Forum: Author Hangout

Much longer than a month. Might be a century.

Richard is right. It's not a recent construct, but is a violation of the traditional 'one speaker per paragraph' stipulation, which was never written in stone. It's simply another of those many 'guidelines' that authors seem to either follow to violate at rule. But, since it doesn't seem to have been chosen to strengthen the sentence, I'm guessing it's a newbie author not sticking to a particular style.

It's a fairly common occurrence among new authors, while rare in accomplished authors. (Though, I have used it effectively in crowd scenes, where I wanted to convey the general din of multiple simultaneous voices sounding like one incessant voice. So it does have it's literary uses.

When it's something like

Your example works because you clearly identified the 2 speakers and each speakers dialog is short and distinct. However, you could just a easily split the dialog into 2 paragraphs.

Of course, I also deviate from the accepted rules of grammar from time-to-time.

However, you could just a easily split the dialog into 2 paragraphs.

I typically handle those instances as: "they said, simultaneously". Switch's usage isn't wrong, but I prefer clarifying it, to prevent an reader confusions.

Of course, I also deviate from the accepted rules of grammar from time-to-time.

That's called 'technique', where you use a particular construct for a specific effect, where you knowingly flaunt the popular conventions.

But
Both Amanda's and Charity's eyes opened wide. Amanda said, "Do you mean it?". Charity replied, "Really?"

would be a no-no. In my most humble of opinions.

Absolutely. That full stop at the end of Amanda's question is deprecated by 99.9% of grammarians ;-)

AJ

Absolutely. That full stop at the end of Amanda's question is deprecated by 99.9% of grammarians ;-)

You wouldn't have the source to that 99.9% figure handy, do you? As I'd really question it's veracity. Though the sentiment is solid, the figure itself is highly problematic. ;)

No, it's completely bogus, as virtually all '99.9%' statistics are.

I suspect a few radical grammarians would advocate extra punctuation marks (eg the interrobang), but recognise that they're far from universally accepted.

AJ

Both Amanda's and Charity's eyes opened wide. Amanda said, "Do you mean it?" at the same time Charity said, "Really?"

That's similar to my conditional usage, as they're both representative of simultaneous dialogue. But in a normal back and forth dialogue, it's typically a mistake.

I also hate paragraphs in which the first sentence is about an actor doing something and the second sentence is an untagged piece of dialogue … where… the… speaker … [is a] different character

I modified what I quoted you saying, but the jest of it is the same.

That's a no-no and flat out wrong.

I also hate paragraphs in which the first sentence is about an actor doing something and the second sentence is an untagged piece of dialogue, and where logical deduction worthy of Sherlock Holmes is needed to deduce the actor and speaker are two different characters

I don't normally do that, but I have included an action attribution (a 'beat' in current literary terminology) featuring m ore than one person. But in those cases, the first person 'does the walking' (attribution wise), so hopefully who's speaking is still clear.

Makes me scream at my computer screen "JUST PRESS ENTER YOU DOLT!"

That's why I've always preferred reading SOL stories in a word processor, so I can add corrections on the fly, rather than encountering the same problems any time I reread a story!

Of course this ignores the occasional case where one speaker needs to say something that is more than one paragraph.

Tee-hee, like every one of my dialogues! Unfortunately, I apply that usage more often than I don't (much to Ernest and his brother's shagrin.

As long as there are only two speakers, even readers not conscious of the rule are unlikely to be confused.

I have encountered multiple cases where a 3rd person narrator is describing a situation and then there is unattributed dialog that could be said by either of the 2 speakers. It becomes even more confusing when the author continues with ping-pong dialog without attributions.

I have encountered multiple cases where a 3rd person narrator is describing a situation and then there is unattributed dialog that could be said by either of the 2 speakers.

In those, or with any unattributed dialogue, the assumption is always that it's the last person who spoke (though, sometimes, if the context clearly reveals who's speaking, some authors will leave it unattributed anyway.

You realize that multiparagraph quotes use only opening quotes until the final paragraph, correct? That's one time when only having the opening quotation marks is valid.

I believe he was referring to NO quotations at all, rather than the proper dropped quotation formatting. But, there are many readers/authors who hate dropped quotes (see the many previous 'discussions' on the topic.

You realize that multiparagraph quotes use only opening quotes until the final paragraph, correct? That's one time when only having the opening quotation marks is valid.

That is in regards to a very lengthy quote of a person speaking, not a short piece of story dialogue.

What about a long piece of story monologue?

That's when we delve into the looong past discussions about what constitutes a real quotation and needs to have the quotation rules applied, and what is a story dialogue which uses the same print marks but isn't an actual quotation. Some people hold quotes and story dialogue as being the same, while others see them as different since a quotation requires someone else to have said it first.

That's when we delve into the looong past discussions about what constitutes a real quotation and needs to have the quotation rules applied, and what is a story dialogue which uses the same print marks but isn't an actual quotation. Some people hold quotes and story dialogue as being the same, while others see them as different since a quotation requires someone else to have said it first.

That's when you have 'quotes within quotes' (either single quotes within double quotes, in America, or double quotes within single quotes, for Brits).

I think you're the only author/source I've ever encountered who defines 'quotes' like you do. Everywhere else (including books on writing printing in either the U.S. or GB, use 'quotes' to mean anything contained within quotation marks. While anything inset (from an outside source) is referred to as an 'outside reference'.

Maybe other Australians also grew up like that, but the others I've talked to never admit it. ;)

That's when you have 'quotes within quotes' (either single quotes within double quotes, in America, or double quotes within single quotes, for Brits).

So I use simple English and try not to change the meaning of words the way some people do.Lets look at the definition of 'quotation mark' in a few dictionaries (bold is added for emphasis by me):

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quotation%20mark

: one of a pair of punctuation marks " " or ' ' used chiefly to indicate the beginning and the end of a quotation in which the exact phraseology of another or of a text is directly cited.

First Known Use of quotation mark
circa 1859, in the meaning defined above

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=quotation%20mark

Either of a pair of punctuation marks used primarily to mark the beginning and end of a passage attributed to another and repeated word for word, but also to indicate meanings or glosses and to indicate the unusual or dubious status of a word. They appear in the form of double quotation marks (" ") and single quotation marks (' '). Single quotation marks are usually reserved for setting off a quotation within another quotation.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/quotation_mark

Each of a set of punctuation marks, single (' ') or double (" "), used either to mark the beginning and end of a title or quoted passage, or to indicate that a word or phrase is regarded as slang or jargon or is being discussed rather than used within the sentence.

In each case they mention the fact that a quotation is "the exact phraseology of another or of a text is directly cited."

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

next look at the dictionary definition of dialogue:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dialogue

1 : a written composition in which two or more characters are represented as conversing
2a : a conversation between two or more persons

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=dialogue

1.
a. A conversation between two or more people.
b. A discussion of positions or beliefs, especially between groups to resolve a disagreement.

2.
a. Conversation between characters in a drama or narrative.
b. The lines or passages in a script that are intended to be spoken.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/dialogue

Conversation between two or more people as a feature of a book, play, or movie.

A discussion between two or more people or groups, especially one directed toward exploration of a particular subject or resolution of a problem.
.............

Please note that the two terms are not the same, and like many punctuation marks the quotation marks are used in multiple manners.

Also, the rules on using quotation marks in grammar books are for use when recounting a quotation, not rules for dialogue.

next look at the dictionary definition of dialogue:

All of those dictionary definitions are what dialogue is, not how to punctuate dialogue. Google "punctuating dialogue" or "punctuating dialogue in fiction" and you'll learn how.

That is in regards to a very lengthy quote of a person speaking, not a short piece of story dialogue.

That's in regards to any single-person dialogue spanning more than one paragraph (i.e. covering more than a single topic).

I would have to say that the misuse of the quotation marks (no quotation marks, only one quotation mark, quotation marks in the wrong place) is only second to the misuse of the comma.

You, mean like, this? ;) But I pretty flagrantly modify the standard comma usages to improve the flow of specific sentences, helping the entire passage read more naturally.