One of My Pet Peeves

[Agincourt]

One of the things that absolutely grates on my nerves seems to be proliferating in internet stories.

 

It is the splitting of quoted dialogue, and the statement of attribution of that dialogue, into separate sentences.

 

Here are examples taken from an actual story:

"Better get dressed before Mom throws a fit." I said to him.

 

"Alright, catch you later, bro." He said as he headed to the far side of the school.

 

"Of course, darling, of course." She said rolling her eyes.

 

No, No, No!

 

I don't know where this notion is coming from, but it's not the way dialogue is handled. You don't put a period at the end of the dialogue statement (within the quotes), and then start a separate new sentence with a capital letter for the attribution. You put a comma at the end of the dialogue, then continue the sentence with the attribution (he said, she said, etc.) with no capital letter.

 

I'm guessing that modern word processing software is partly to blame. If you type a period and a space, many word processing programs will, by default, automatically capitalize the first letter of the next word you type, assuming it to be the beginning of a new sentence. When people put a period at the end of dialogue, rather than a comma, the software may be causing the capitalization of the subsequent attribution.

 

But what this means is that the person doing the typing doesn't understand the proper conventions to use. If you are going to put an attribution after some quoted dialogue, the dialogue is ended with a comma inside the quotation marks, and the attribution continues as part of a single sentence. You don't type a period inside the quotation marks to end the "dialogue sentence." You use a comma, and then make the attribution part of the overall single sentence.

 

Wrong: "I can't find my car keys." She said, pacing around the room.

 

Right: "I can't find my car keys," she said, pacing around the room.

 

Perhaps it's a sign of the overall decline in literacy these days, but I wish it would stop.

 

A

Edited September 23, 2010 by Agincourt

[Johnathan Colourfield]

One of the things that absolutely grates on my nerves seems to be proliferating in internet stories.

 

It is the splitting of quoted dialogue, and the statement of attribution of that dialogue, into separate sentences.

 

Here are examples taken from an actual story:

 

 

No, No, No!

 

I don't know where this notion is coming from, but it's not the way dialogue is handled. You don't put a period at the end of the dialogue statement (within the quotes), and then start a separate new sentence with a capital letter for the attribution. You put a comma at the end of the dialogue, then continue the sentence with the attribution (he said, she said, etc.) with no capital letter.

 

I'm guessing that modern word processing software is partly to blame. If you type a period and a space, many word processing programs will, by default, automatically capitalize the first letter of the next word you type, assuming it to be the beginning of a new sentence. When people put a period at the end of dialogue, rather than a comma, the software may be causing the capitalization of the subsequent attribution.

 

But what this means is that the person doing the typing doesn't understand the proper conventions to use. If you are going to put an attribution after some quoted dialogue, the dialogue is ended with a comma inside the quotation marks, and the attribution continues as part of a single sentence. You don't type a period inside the quotation marks to end the "dialogue sentence." You use a comma, and then make the attribution part of the overall single sentence.

 

Wrong: "I can't find my car keys." She said, pacing around the room.

 

Right: "I can't find my car keys," she said, pacing around the room.

 

Perhaps it's a sign of the overall decline in literacy these days, but I wish it would stop.

 

A

 

Its quite annoying yes I do it myself sometimes sadly, its why i have an editor hehe

[Hamen Cheese]

I don't think it's a sign of overall decline in literacy - unless of course your definition for someone literate is knowing every style, rule, and convention of writing (novels, business letters, poetry, prose, short stories, lyrics, angry messages on the back of notebooks, etc.). If that was the case, then yes maybe.

 

I think it's more of a lack in the formal education towards writing novels. For instance, I have not received any formal education in writing novels as my course was not in any way related to writing novels.

 

So, conventions followed in that particular area of writing may not be obvious to me and thus not followed until someone finally points it out. Certainly, none of my university professors ever pointed it out because I was never asked to write a novel. Business reports, studies, essays, etc. - we did those. Novels? No.

 

It may be like asking a novelist to do a research paper and then telling him that he did not follow the MLA format for citing sources.

 

I wouldn't say that he's "showing sign of the overall decline in literacy"¹ as was suggested.

 

Maybe we should define what counts towards literacy these days?

 

 

 

SOURCE:

 

[1] Agincourt. "One of My Pet Peeves." Gay Authors - Quality Gay Fiction. Ed. Myr. 24 Sept. 2010. 24 Sept. 2010 <https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/topic/29506-one-of-my-pet-peeves/page__pid__266566#entry266566>.

[Agincourt]

I don't think it's a sign of overall decline in literacy - unless of course your definition for someone literate is knowing every style, rule, and convention of writing (novels, business letters, poetry, prose, short stories, lyrics, angry messages on the back of notebooks, etc.). . . .

 

I think it's more of a lack in the formal education towards writing novels. . . .

 

So, conventions followed in that particular area of writing may not be obvious to me and thus not followed until someone finally points it out. . . .

 

I wouldn't say that he's "showing sign of the overall decline in literacy" as was suggested.

 

I stand by me reference to literacy, because one of the main methods by which people learn to write novels is to read other novels (as well as short stories and other fiction). The conventions for handling dialogue are there for any reader to see. It is not necessary to wait to be told how to do it.

 

A

[Rilbur]

I stand by me reference to literacy, because one of the main methods by which people learn to write novels is to read other novels (as well as short stories and other fiction). The conventions for handling dialogue are there for any reader to see. It is not necessary to wait to be told how to do it.

 

You'd be surprised by how many published authors break or simply ignore those rules. Frequently.

[Agincourt]

OK, I give up. I've said my piece.

 

William Faulkner could get away with breaking rules, but he knew what they were. Same with James Joyce. And no one would claim that Absalom, Absalom! or Ulysses were particularly easy going for readers. Quite the opposite, in fact. So unless our desire is purposely to create obstacles for readers, it is my view that it is best to follow reasonable conventions that readers expect to be followed.

 

You could also publish your story in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS but readers would not appreciate that.

 

Any reputable book on English style, or specifically on the topic of dialogue in fiction, would agree with the principles I have set forth. Just grabbing a few from my bookshelf:

 

Garner's Modern American Usage by Bryan A. Garner, at p. 655: "the comma separates a direct quotation from its attribution ("Honey, I'm home," Desi said.)"

 

Revision and Self Editing by James Scott Bell (Writers Digest Books 2008) at 119-120 ("Attributions"): Every single example given follows the format I have described.

 

Writing Dialogue by Tom Chiarella (Story Press 1998) at 144: "The period appears after the dialogue tag. The following would be incorrect: 'It's like a candle in the wind.' he said." "The dialogue tag still acts as part of the longer sentence; it is not capitalized." And, as with the previous book, every single one of the many examples given in this books follows the format I have described.

 

"SHUT UP!" He Explained: A Writer's Guide to the Uses and Misuses of Dialogue by WIlliam Noble (Paul S. Eriksson, Publishre, 1987): Every single example follows the format I have described.

 

Dialogue by Gloria Kempton (Writers Digest Books 2004): Every single example follows the format I have described.

 

Notably, not once in any of these references is any example given where a quoted sentence of dialogue ends with a period, followed by an attribution that effectively starts a new sentence with a capital letter. The Chiarella book specifically states that this would be wrong.

 

But I'm not going to belabor the subject. If anyone can point to a reputable source that approves the idea of ending quoted dialogue with a period (and close of quotation), followed by an attribution that begins with a capital letter, I would certainly be interested to see it. I am fairly confident that no such authority exists. Meanwhile, therefore, I stand by my original comments.

 

A

Edited September 25, 2010 by Agincourt

[tejdog1]

I am sooooooooooooooooo guilty of this, lol.

[Krista]

It may be a pet peeve of yours, but I find that I overlook punctuation in dialog, I form my own voice in my head with the way the story is going. Like if the character is angry - normally people who are angry talk louder and faster... but anyway, I can see where a comma in the wrong place or a period creating two sentences can be a bother... I know I did that a lot when I first started writing... terrible habit of mine that I've been working on.