Dialogue Punctuation

[Cia]

Avoiding using certain types of punctuations in certain places because it ruins the flow of your dialogue is one thing. I don't agree with it, but I do understand why some people do so. Ignoring using a comma at the end of a sentence that has a speech tag instead of a period or no punctuation at all simply because the author doesn't care to learn or follow the rules is far different from adding an extra comma where the rules might not say to put one because your character pauses when they speak that way in your head.

 

This is why I always say it's best to make the effort to learn the rules, rather than just saying, "I don't care to do it the way everyone else does." I've had that said to me, and it instantly turned me off reading that work ever again. Bucking the rules to try a different style is one thing. Ignoring basic writing rules just to ignore them smacks of disregard and disrespect to me--both for the readers and the craft itself.

[Graeme]

All this grammatical rules are fine and dandy but if I'm writing dialogue, I don't think they should be of primordial importance.

I think everyone accepts dialogue doesn't necessarily follow normal grammatical rules because it's what someone is saying, not what is written down to convey a specific meaning. I constantly have this occurring with my writing (and have ever since I started) because all my editors have been American and I'm an Australian. The compromise is to use Australian speech patterns in dialogue, but to try to keep narration to the standards that my editor is comfortable with. The problem actually tends to be accentuated in dialogue. Australians have a tendency to leave off words, which drives my editors nuts because they don't know if it's a typo (common with my drafts -- I think faster than I type, so I often leave off words inadvertently) or if it's an Australian speech pattern.

 

I would also argue that the same would apply for first person narration, which is essentially personal dialogue to the reader.

 

However, having said all of that, this thread was originally about dialogue punctuation, and grammatical rules only apply tangentially to that subject. I agree with Cia that there are certainly punctuation basics that should apply universally. There are certainly areas where there are options or debate, but others where there should be no discussion.

 

On the subject of dialogue and pauses, I feel that dialogue should be like what we hear in TV (good) shows -- it sounds realistic, but if you compare it to a conversation in real life, you'll realise how fake it is. Real life dialogue has lots of pauses, umm's, ah's, etc. You don't need those in written dialogue unless it's deliberate, because the idea isn't to reflect real life dialogue, but to produce realistic sounding dialogue that doesn't take the reader out of the story.

 

Otherwise, you...er...get something...umm...like this...sort of; I think, which...ah...is realistic sounding, but...not particularly fun to read.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Graeme
fixing typos, not that I'm obsessive with that, but....

[Cia]

Yes on natural speech vs narration! But I agree, you still should try to emulate speech as you can. A good way is to listen to speech patterns around you as you move through life. You don't have to stare, though dark sunglasses are good if you want to watch body language in conversations, but it can lead to a better understanding of how to share a more natural scene that's dialogue heavy if you pick up on little changes to flow and body cues that you might forget to write.

 

And yeah, a lot of people have speech mannerisms you just can't write. I once had to suffer through a 4 hour field trip at a rock and mineral museum with my 9 year old where the guy leading us around and sharing exhibit information repeated seriously 57 times in less than 5 minutes. And it went on ALL DAY LONG. It was his 'um' phrase. Drove me batty.

[Irritable1]

 

 

If I follow Cia's suggestion of reading out loud, and I do, then the commas would be in completely different places than most editors would have you place them on.

 

As an editor (stole the smiley setup from Sasha):

 

"So, um, I, um, I really don't know," he stammered in a gust of nervousness. 

 

"Dern tootin if I know, y'all should've looked 'at up 'fore y'all came by," he drawled. 

 

"So. You'll have to excuse me," she said curtly. "I'm afraid I really don't know."  

 

"I don't know," he said. 

 

"I don't know." He said. 

 

"I don't know." He said. 

 

"I don't know." He said.  ​ 

 

"I don't care if it's wrong, I like to write it that way!" 

 

Edit: It won't be posted for probably a couple weeks, but check out David_AB's All We Have Part II, The Road, CH5 for some really interesting work on speech patterns. I'm editing it now and the sound of it is really paramount. 

 

Edit 2: Damn. I think "dern tootin" is only ever used in an affirmative sense, isn't it? 

Edited November 8, 2014 by Irritable1

[Carlos Hazday]

Irri explained it better than I ever could. [Particularly at this moment considering I just arrived home and I may have had a couple of cocktails this evening.]

Been reading a story here recently that has made me think about this a lot and questions some of the rules I've been trying to follow.

 

So, Cia, I will respect the basic rules but I still feel there has to be some leeway for differentiation. I think someone here called it our "voice". Considering English is not my first language, I perhaps see things with a different lens sometimes. That changes the way things sound in my head and sometimes transfers to the written word. See what happens when you spend the first nine years of your school life attending an all boys Catholic school where most of the teachers were Spaniards, members of the religious order running the place?

 

Graeme, I've had some of this conversation with an Aussie, not someone on GA, whose work has only been edited by Americans. The tales of woe concerning the differences between our shared language, and his fights for his characters to sound as if they where from Oz and not the USA, made me laugh often.

 

Within the last couple of days I began using a little editing software someone suggested to me a couple of months ago. It was part of some great advice I received when I first posted a sample of work here in the Forums. I think my commas before a character's name, or before a tag, will be spot on next time I send something out to an editor.

 

Thanks for the feedback guys. Makes me feel real good y'all are willing to take the time to respond.

 

Time to end the day, got me some writing and self editing to do early in the morning!

 

Carlos

[Irritable1]

Honestly, if all fictional characters talked like they were from precisely the same town and socioeconomic status, I don't know if I could read fiction anymore. Edit: I really, really love listening to accents, so a good reproduction of dialect makes me so happy. I love it when I can pick up Australian or English speech from a story on GA.

 

Edit: I think that's one of the difficulties, isn't it, with reading fiction in translation? None of the quirks in speech come through.

 

Edit2: Sorry, you've started me off. Here's Joseph from Wuthering Heights,

 

'Nay, nay, he's noan at Gimmerton,' said Joseph. 'I's niver wonder but he's at t' bothom of a bog-hoile. This visitation worn't for nowt, and I wod hev' ye to look out, Miss—yah muh be t' next. Thank Hivin for all! All warks togither for gooid to them as is chozzen, and piked out fro' th' rubbidge! Yah knaw whet t' Scripture ses.'

 

and of course we've got American classic characters like the Joads.

 

Sasha Distan's got a fun Scottish-accented character, in the GA story Summer Camp, Paddy, and that accent seems really successfully written IMO.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Irritable1

[Aditus]

 

 

Edit: I think that's one of the difficulties, isn't it, with reading fiction in translation? None of the quirks in speech come through.

 

I admit I jump right into the conversation without reading much from above. But this sentence picked my interest. Reading fiction in translation is usually okay, but reading poetry in translation is just plain wrong, *shiver* unless the author did the translation.

[Irritable1]

I think it depends on the type of verse, maybe? But I don't speak any language but English well enough to really appreciate poetry, so it's not like I ever know the original source.

 

I remember reading an interesting text back in college, which argued that dropping the original poetic structure is often the best way to go in translation. I guess we're getting a bit off-topic though. Is anyone interested in a translation thread?

[Headstall]

I am exhausted, but I found this so fascinating that I couldn't stop reading the thread. As a new author, I have much to learn. As a reader, I know what I like. There were many little gems in this thread that caused my very tired brain to struggle at times... I particularly liked the passion for the topic. If there is a moral to this story, it would be, for me, to learn all you can and in the end use some common sense to go with that knowledge. Much of what I learned in school appears to be somewhat obsolete, and I am cool with that. I hate stilted dialogue more than anything else, when my reader hat is on. For that reason alone, I will bastardize some words... such as 'gonna' as opposed to 'going to'. Another turn-off for me as a reader is when every character sounds the same, as in using the same words, the same phrasing and the same cadence. As Cia suggested, my dialogue attempts are spoken in my head, and if I don't feel it, I can't write it. What I took from this thread is that a little irreverence is okay, if it is done as a choice and not out of ignorance or laziness. This was an important thing for me to hear/see. Thanks to all of you for this. I believe I will be revisiting this thread more than a few times.

[Cia]

Not using proper English when it comes to the actual speech is completely okay when it comes to characterization and dialogue flow, and shouldn't be considered wrong if it fits the story and character. A pediatric doctor might say the word "Ouchie" when they see a child but a general practitioner would likely be more formal and say, "That looks painful.". That element is very individual and should be, when done right.

 

For me, the distinction of good vs. bad dialogue mostly comes into play when the author fails to understand even basic dialogue punctuation. Most of us don't start off writing knowing these rules (again and again, I point out The Price of Honor, my first ever story, as a prime example of an author with a story to tell but NO clue how to tell it well) so we have to learn, or re-learn, them. It's hard to know when you're doing something wrong if someone doesn't tell you, but I always hope all the information authors have taken the time to share in this topic will help those just learning how to refine this skill.

[WestcliffWriter]

I'm British (if you didn't know lol) and I learnt my craft from Lisa, who is American and Faxity, who is Canadian. So this British way of writing is all new to me and personally, until I read this entire thread I didn't even have a clue there were so many variations. I've read books by British and American authors, and I cant say I have really paid attention to the differences in how they are punctuated.

 

I'm guessing that's really bad.   

[Cia]

No, it's really common! I'm a voracious reader; I always have been. Yet, writing fiction wasn't intuitive because I'd read fiction for so long. Even though I know how to say each instinctively when I read something punctuated as it should be, that didn't mean I knew what should be a comma, or semi-colon, ellipses, or em dash when I was writing it. Or how to punctuate split dialogue--much less regular dialogue! Or that he said could be called a said-bookism, speech tag, attribution... and I'm sure many other terms!

[Headstall]

I have an amazing editor in Timothy M and I have learned a lot from him, with lots more to learn. I also pay a lot more attention to writers I respect. It can be a little overwhelming at times because a lot of you do things so differently. I didn't just fall off a turnip truck but I can still get very confused. I used to understand the comma, but now it has become somewhat of a mystery. I liked, in an earlier post, that Cia feels it's okay to put in an extra comma if you hear the pause in the person's speech that way. It would be easier if everyone used them the same way but that would not necessarily be a good thing. An issue I have right now is that there are words and phrases and ways of saying things that are very much Canadian. They are ingrained in me and are comfortable to me, yet I don't want to come across as regional. I often say 'pretty' as opposed to 'very'... or 'really' instead of 'very' and apparently I overuse 'just' and 'that'. These are all things that are a part of me and I find it hard to let some of them go, especially since I hear them every day, over and over again. This writing thing isn't easy.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Headstall

[Irritable1]

My personal preference is to keep the narrative voice fairly crisp and neutral, and let the characters natter on any way they please. It's one reason I advise people (should they ask me  ) to read a lot of the classics. I think it helps a writer to find her own balanced voice.

[Zombie]

...or his

[Aditus]

My personal preference is to keep the narrative voice fairly crisp and neutral, and let the characters natter on any way they please. It's one reason I advise people (should they ask me  ) to read a lot of the classics. I think it helps a writer to find her own balanced voice.

Ha! Crisp...someone said something about bacon is crisp when I used it out of the food context. Nevermind. For me it's very difficult to keep my narrator neutral, that's probably why I prefer first person perspective. And I love writing  dialogs, so I had to pay attention to all the advice around here and now I finally manage without too much red (and blue) from Lisa and Zombie.

[Irritable1]

 

 

Ha! Crisp...someone said something about bacon is crisp when I used it out of the food context.

 

Huh. Crisp is pretty standard usage even for non-food.

 

Edit: I've added a link for CMoS in my signature.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Irritable1

[Zombie]

Huh. Crisp is pretty standard usage even for non-food.

 

the difficulty with local slang is we tend to assume it's "standard" for everyone whereas most of it remains local and even when it does become general that takes time - by which time the originators have long since moved on to new slang and spurn the earlier "hip" words as cliché

[Irritable1]

the difficulty with local slang is we tend to assume it's "standard" for everyone whereas most of it remains local and even when it does become general that takes time - by which time the originators have long since moved on to new slang and spurn the earlier "hip" words as cliché

 

1) Is this about "crisp" now? because if it is, 

a) HAHA I thought it was you 

It's not slang. It's an accepted way to describe speech, though I admit it's more used in writing. Check your OED. (edit: now that I think about it, you might make a case that it's writers' slang, since I've never heard anyone else use it).

c) even if it had been slang, you could have let it back in as a sensory description

2) we're off-topic

Edited March 4, 2015 by Irritable1

[Zombie]

2) we're off-topic

 

true, but I guess it was my oblique way of saying "what do you mean?" So crisp = "lively" or "concise"? But not many people talk like that. You might have one character who does, but if they all did wouldn't that be a bit tiresome if not weird? Since I'm off topic, reminds me of someone I once met who was a "crisp" talker and spoke not just in structured sentences but structured whole paragraphs - not a word out of place. It was very... disturbing...

[Irritable1]

You caught me, I came back in to correct this: 

 

you might make a case that it's writers' slang jargon

 

Writers use it when they're praising quality of non-fiction output! That's mostly where I've seen it used.

 

 

 

So crisp = "lively" or "concise"? 

 

Clear and concise, I think. Terse enough to keep the attention, not enough to sound harsh.

 

 

 

ou might have one character who does, but if they all did wouldn't that be a bit tiresome if not weird? Since I'm off topic, reminds me of someone I once met who was a "crisp" talker and spoke not just in structured sentences but structured whole paragraphs - not a word out of place. It was very... disturbing... 

 

Yes, absolutely.  

 

I remember hearing an instructor comment on a student who did that once. He suggested that it was because the guy was a genius programmer and could keep multiple logical sub-clauses open in his mind.

 

Edit: you know, there's a whole essay in the American use of "crisp" in non-food related contexts. For one thing it always turns up in the same para as the character with the British accent. Wait, hang on. I'm taking it to my Lit contact on Facebook.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Irritable1

[Aditus]

What did I do? And while we're at it I think I read crisp in connection with cold. Something like a cold, crisp morning...there is a similar phrase in German 'knackig kalt' so I thought why not. Hmmm

[Irritable1]

God how I love librarians 

 

 

 

 I grabbed 200 sample uses of crisp (not as a proper name) out of some recently published academic monographs. I could identify the topics if you would like

 

There was also an outlier who went here:

 

 

The swirl continues....

[JackBinimbul]

Dialogue punctuation is one of my greatest failings.  This was the first technique thread I read when I joined and I repeated it to myself like a mantra as I wrote, and still Cia linked me here when she skimmed my work

It's just one of those things that really doesn't come naturally to me.  To complicate matters, I really try to avoid a long string of "He said, she said, the potato exclaimed" since I find it often unnecessary and it ruins my flow when I'm reading it.  Because of that, it's easy for me to lose track of when to use commas and capitalization:

"This is confusing," he said.

 

And when not to:

"This is confusing."  His disapproval was palpable. 

 

And when I should bite the bullet:

"This is confusing," he said, disapproval palpable.

 

I try to err on what reads the most naturally to me, but in doing so, I make mistakes.

Edited June 20, 2015 by JackBinimbul

[Adam Phillips]

Wheels within wheels! Or, such a winding path, and so many branches!

 

Punctuation, of course, came after writing, chronologically. Lynne Truss points this out in Eats, Shoots & Leaves. And because punctuation (and actually each punctuation mark) has a history, it's only natural that the usage is going to vary over time and place. It's all well and good to say something to the effect of, "Sentences can only end with [choose your requirements]," etc. But there is no World Punctuation Authority making definitive pronouncements on the matter. It's always--always--a matter of house style, or current and/or regional convention, or aesthetic preference. There are exceptions: Of course it's almost always clear that there are only a few punctuation marks that make sense when you're ending a sentence. But even there, I wouldn't cast the "rule" in stone...

 

(or ". . ." if you prefer).

 

I've seen famous authors regularly violate what most of us consider the "correct" way, and nobody bats an eyelash. And I've seen egregious violations of the rules which demonstrate that the author is clueless.

 

What's worth keeping in mind is that, at least these days if not always, punctuation performs two functions. One function is its DNA-encoded one, and one function is tangentially related but separate:

 

1) Punctuation originated and evolved as an aid to clarity. This is why it was invented. And this is the concern that guides the rules we've been discussing concerning punctuation of dialogue.

 

2) Punctuation also serves to guide the speed and the cadence of a sentence. This is a derived function, but in my estimation it's no less significant. This function involves a writer's aesthetic decisions.

 

And the thing is, use #1 and use #2 sometimes clash with each other. The "correct" way to punctuate a sentence may not "pace" the sentence the way the author wants it "heard," and punctuation marks of various sorts may assist in the pacing.

 

If an author has a good ear, she can usually let matters of cadence and pacing guide her punctuation, as long as she knows the "rules." The result can be pleasing, and it often is.

 

But for my money, that's a pretty big "as long as." Don't deviate until you've learned the template.

 

To summarize my opinions:

 

1. I'll say it again: There's no World Punctuation Authority that demands an absolute standard, and that's why we have deviations across history, region, and style manual.

 

2. Knowledgeable deviations from the standard can add spice and flavor to the writing.

 

3. Nevertheless, it's a good idea to adopt as a baseline an "authority"--such as the CMS--at least for a definable "time being," until "standard usage" shifts and your resource gets replaced by a subsequent "authority." Because at least that way you'll be consistent with yourself, and you won't embarrass yourself by mangling punctuation.

 

"I was aware of that already." You may be saying.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Adam Phillips