Forum: Author Hangout

If the first "I" is meant to be an interrupted "It" it would be clearer if the phrase was like "It ... It ...", at least for me.

Technically, since I've spent so long researching obscure details like this, the correct form would be an ellipsis with no leading space and a trailing space. That indicates that there's a break in the usual dynamic, frequently something immediately following the single letter. However, that's a pretty rare formatting, so readers wouldn't be likely to recognize or know how to interpret it.

As indicated, and em-dash would fit, but seems like overkill, since it flies in the face or every legitimate use of em-dashes, both fictional and non-fictional. However, both the ellipsis and em-dash would be formatted the same (ex: "I… " or "I— ").

@Switch

I would need context, but I would think it would simply be: "It, it…"

That's actually a decent alternative, as it supplants rather that replacing the first ellipsis. Thanks for that suggestion.

This.

As a standalone quote without the context, I would say the speaker started to say something about themself (I), paused, and then said "It". If the second ellipse was not followed by text (i.e. the ellipse representing missing text), then the speaker was not sure of what they wanted to say, thus the second pause.

Your assumption is correct. I've already forgotten the original quote (having progressed about 3 to 6 chapters since then), but an analogous quote would be:

"I… it … never happened like that!"

I like Switch's suggestion of "It, it…", I would read that exactly as intended.

That words, because the intuitive pause inherent with ellipses and commas are fairly close to each other, so you'd tend to view them the same without ever actually considering it. There is a difference, but not enough to be immediately obvious. The main takeaway is that there's a 'significant' (i.e. noticeable) pause between each.

I read them a little different: the ellipses with a slightly longer pause than a comma.

They do, and longer too than the slightly longer semicolon, but they're in the same ballpark, whereas the em-dash or complete stop is a more sustained pause.

On a spectrum, a comma is simply a momentary pause, as you refocus on the next sentence element, whereas an em-dash is putting aside the current sentence topic to explore a sub-thought, before pausing again to return to the same thought again. A colon is another 'significant' delay, but not nearly as long as the em-dash, since the elements are related.

Again, the time difference between different punctuation marks is directly related to the topics. If you're simply moving from one item to the next, in a related string, there's a very small pause, but if you're going on to a new topic altogether, like a new paragraph, the pause is more substantial, allowing the reader to process the current thoughts before diving into the new one.

whereas an em-dash is putting aside the current sentence topic to explore a sub-thought, before pausing again to return to the same thought again.

Or, when read aloud (as an audiobook for example), read without pauses but with the part in em-dashes read in an 'aside' tone of voice.

AJ

whereas an em-dash is putting aside the current sentence topic to explore a sub-thought, before pausing again to return to the same thought again.

Or, when read aloud (as an audiobook for example), read without pauses but with the part in em-dashes read in an 'aside' tone of voice.

In that case, simply consider the pause related to each is the time the narrator takes to 'get into that mindset'. It doesn't take long, but it does take a moment or two, much more than a simple pause or full stop requires.

When the narrator is doing the live version of the narration, I'm not sure there's any getting into a mindset - they will have worked out and rehearsed how to read the story beforehand. And that's why no pauses for em-dashes come across in certain contexts.

AJ

When the narrator is doing the live version of the narration, I'm not sure there's any getting into a mindset - they will have worked out and rehearsed how to read the story beforehand. And that's why no pauses for em-dashes come across in certain contexts.

I wasn't talking about someone literally employing the Stanislavski method to 'get into the character's head'. I was giving a real-world explanation for how the inherent delay in reading punctuations marks likely developed.

But again, since you're taking everything literally, most punctuation takes moments, not minutes or hours, so if you want to get pedantic. For now, let's just state that commas take the least amount of time, semicolons and colors a bit more, while ellipses and em-dashes take a bit more. That's ALL I'm saying! There's no applying makeup and studying various character interpretations and studying under a foreign voice coach just to add a single mark on a page!

But, if a narrator doesn't pause for an em-dash or ellipsis, then he's reading it wrong, as you miss the entire context of the exchange. If an ellipsis is nothing more than a simple comma, than there's simply no point in EVER using on in any kind of fiction--but then, that's likely a reflection of authors more concerned with non-fiction, since the uses of both ellipses and em-dashes are considerable different between literary fiction and non-fiction research papers.

For now, let's just state that commas take the least amount of time, semicolons and colors a bit more, while ellipses and em-dashes take a bit more.

That's the order of strength of the punctuation but not necessarily reflected in a length of pause, if any.

But, if a narrator doesn't pause for an em-dash or ellipsis, then he's reading it wrong, as you miss the entire context of the exchange.

The narrator has a lot more tools at hand than simple pausing - volume, tone, pitch. I don't think you can call it wrong when a narrator purposely uses them.

AJ

It's still wrong if a narrator skips over pauses indicated by the punctuation.

Does punctuation indicate a pause?

I know there's a rule of thumb saying that you should put a comma where a narrator is supposed to pause, but IMO it's just that. A pause is just one several ways way of indicating a break in the flow of a sentence. I've given one example of where a pause is unnecessary, when narrating what's between two em-dashes as an aside.

AJ

The whole concept of artistic comma

The key word here is "artistic."

We're not talking about grammar where there are specific rules. We're talking about fiction, which sometimes intentionally breaks grammar rules. And authors of fiction use punctuation for artistic value.

MC is chided for 'using too many commas', where each individual comma use is correct

British English can claim superiority over American English in that respect, since quite a few of our commas are optional and can be omitted if they don't change the meaning of a sentence.

AJ

British English can claim superiority over American English in that respect, since quite a few of our commas are optional and can be omitted if they don't change the meaning of a sentence.

Again, thinking of 'necessary' and 'optional' punctuations is difficult to follow. If you instead think of pacing and flow, you stop thinking of what's required, and instead try to capture how the sentences are spoken aloud in better indicate how the speakers are feelings while saying them.

Commas are very much like 'filler words' like 'are', 'be' and 'that', and while they proper fit into the sentence, the story flows better if you keep those extraneous details to a minimum.

The whole concept of artistic comma or omission of the same is alien to me. In my native language commas are analytical decisions that either are correct or not, even if in rare cases can be disputed of grounds of two different block schemes of the sentence implying at least slightly different meanings.

That's why I think it's better to consider the relative pause in narration, rather than simply considering them 'necessary formatting requirements'. Once you get out of that trap, you realize that many of those are truly optional, and that commas, semicolons, and especially ellipses and em-dashes, provide readers sufficient time to absorb what's been said before they move on to the next sentence element. An important plot point, you use the em-dash, a mere listing of multiple related items, you merely use a simple comma.

Dashes and ellipses are different animals. Dash is rather regarded as a silent word (and can even have legal comma either before or after as there's however slight, but nuance which part of the sentence it belongs to).

Except, in literary fiction, they have additional implications, and ellipses indicate either spoken pauses (hesitation) or hanging sentences (unfinished statements that call into question the implications of the sentence).

Ellipses and em-dashes mean something entirely different in non-fiction and fiction!

A pause is just one several ways way of indicating a break in the flow of a sentence. I've given one example of where a pause is unnecessary, when narrating what's between two em-dashes as an aside.

Again, as expected, we have very different views on this. If some simply drops the em-dashes (emphatic dashes?) then the aside is nothing more than another simple comma splice.

This is particularly important (i.e. essential) for me, because I often use em-dashes to flag essential details (foreshadowing). By putting it as as aside, a separate independent clause, the reader will read it, acknowledging it, before refocusing on the main subject of the sentence—which after all is more important.

However, by highlighting those details, the readers remember them without worry about it. That was, when there's a big story revelation, readers will strike their foreheads and say 'Ah, that's what the character was hinting!' and is better prepared to understand the revelation's justifications.

But, if it's spoken as a simply sub-element (comma pauses instead of full em-dash pauses), then that distinguish is essentially flushed down the crapper, the foreshadowing and red-herrings lost and readers are left scratching their heads over the most vital story elements.

For some of us, those are minor elements, but for others of us, those are the basics of plot building!

It's a bit hyperbolic to say you lose the entire context, but you do lose an important piece of the context.

Especially as a few of us SOL authors specifically alter our punctuation (ex: removing 'optional' commas) to improve the pace and flow of the narrative. Thus, if a narrator drops or adds unnecessary commas, they're effectively overruling the author's intentions. Which is fine, to a certain degree. After all, no one expects a movie based on a book to be the same as the book (as much of the material is left on the cutting room floor), but it does effect how it's perceive, which is one reason why I'm not a fan of audiobooks.

Since starting this thread, I've encountered several SOL authors who've actively used the "I ... It ..." in an active sentence, as the speaker can't figure out how to approach a given topic, whereas I hadn't really noticed it before (apart from the given usage, that is, but certainly enough not to see it as a specific usage in stories).

Of course, another alternative in those situations are the action breaks.

"That's what I was saying. I … we …" John dug into his collar, glancing between the others before continuing. "We normally do …"

for stuttered letter sounds. "I-it" would also work (and might be better)

Rather: "I-It". You're repeating the first letter of the first word in the sentence so both I's are capitalized.

As to "I ... it's not you ... I've been a real bitch ..."

I would put an em-dash after the "I". She's starting to say something and then suddenly stops and says something else. In fiction, the em-dash is used for interrupted speech. So I would write it as:

"I— It's not you ... I've been a real bitch ..."

The reason "It's" is capitalized is because it's the beginning of a new sentence. The first sentence is interrupted and a new sentence begins. The ellipsis is a pause in the second sentence.

Go a bit further, and replace both ellipses with em-dash, making them parenthetical and showing that 'It's not you' is not part of the surrounding sentence. The downside is that you reduce the implication that the leading I was the start of a different sentence, but that implication was already so weak as to be near invisible anyway.

I know that GreyWolf doesn't agree with this convention, but generally, you don't put spaces around the em-dash, including when it's used for interrupted speech. But, in this case, I'd split the difference to show that it IS interrupted speech, and use "I— it's not you—I've been a real bitch …" (By the way, a trailing ellipsis like that (without the trailing space) is how you format a hanging, unfinished and incomplete sentence (where the reader's supposed to come to their own conclusion as to what the sentence was.)

But, that's my personal opinion, and I'm sure there are plenty of differing views on the subject.

I would put an em-dash after the "I". She's starting to say something and then suddenly stops and says something else. In fiction, the em-dash is used for interrupted speech.

While I agree with this, the rules generally differ when they don't use complete words (i.e. the spaces get dropped for partial words), so I'd write your example as: "I—it's not you … I've been a real bitch …"

You'll note that I did switch the case from "I" and "it" in that case, but that was simply to highlight the different words, so the readers won't misinterpret my intention, as I think that provides a more complete picture than capitalizing them all (initial letters, that is).

the rules generally differ when they don't use complete words

"I" is a complete word. The dialogue began with "I (to be followed by something she was going to say)" but she stopped after the "I" and said something else.

the rules generally differ when they don't use complete words

"I" is a complete word. The dialogue began with "I (to be followed by something she was going to say)" but she stopped after the "I" and said something else.

You're right, which is why I suggested modifying the punctuation to differentiate between the complete "I" from the aborted "i" in "It". The punctuation should be used to more properly identify which is which, while not disturbing the story of screwing up the implication of the speaker's frustrations.

differentiate between the complete "I" from the aborted "i" in "It".

I guess authors should take into account that what they write correctly might be confusing to a reader so they should simply reword the dialogue to avoid the confusion.

"I ... it's not you ... I've been a real bitch ..."

It would seem less like a stutter if you used "I've ... it's not you ... I've been a real bitch ...".

Would someone about to say "I've" actually manage to stop after "I"?

AJ

In that specific case ("I ... it's not you ... I've been a real bitch ..." - for reference, chapter 31, Book 1) that I is not a cut-off 'it'. That's Mel starting to say "I've really fucked up", then changing course a few times. She's deeply upset and not speaking very clearly. Yes - I see others read it that way further down, but wanted to make it clear.

I think you're safe on that one, as that's the impression the phrasing suggests. Beyond that, I can't honestly remember the specific reference which triggered my original post.

In the style that I'm using (which is certainly arguably wrong), I'd have written "I..it's" if it was a stuttered 'it'. I use '..' for stuttered letter sounds. "I-it" would also work (and might be better).

That's certainly a unique standard, and as anyone who's ever read my works knows, I've been known to create my own standards (notable using a combination of single quotes and italics for telepathic messages), but you'd want to clarify that early on in any given story (ex: "I..i..it," she stuttered, unable to complete her thought."), other than that, I have no objection to any author using that style.

Usually, authors are given a lot of latitude in the opening chapters of a book to set the story's universe, but the essential thing is consistency. Once you establish a rule, you need to follow it consistently (at least enough to remind them you're still following your convention and haven't just abandoned it after the first use).

Note - it's entirely possible that I messed up somewhere and wrote e.g. "U ... ugh." where I should have written "U..ugh." It happens.

You're right there, as the standard convention is that you only apply spaces around an ellipsis when you're dealing with complete words. For interrupted phrases or partial words, you'd drop the space on either side of the ellipsis, which is how you'd normally see such a phrase in a published novel. P.S. In most cases, you'd always surround an ellipsis in spaces, except in this one case, so it's not unusual a style guide simply wouldn't explicitly state the exception when describing the standard usage (plus, it's really only used in literary fiction, which limits how applicable it is to the general public).

I agree on your 'romantic screams', as authors are all over the map on this (much like adding 23 exclamation marks to indicate the duration and intensity of their ecstatic howls). I don't mind a bit of hyperbole, but think it best kept to a minimum. We get the general idea with only a few characters, and like exclamations, more doesn't actually buy you any that the first two didn't.

Although I've never used dialogue to speech conversions, I often proof my text to help improve the flow and pacing of the story, which is what I base a lot of my timeflow estimates on by having the computer read the text aloud to me (though I've yet to find one which uses the same reflections across the different voices). Otherwise, I think we all amend our initial assumptions when more evidence comes into play, and literary trends tend to begin and end, so it's largely an ongoing process (i.e. "Kawabonga, duce!").