|
-
[I need to know the accepted rules of when to give a character’s line of dialogue it’s own ‘separate line’ and when to ‘combine’ it with a paragraph of description or action.]
Azel
[As far as I'm concerned, I'd (almost) never put lines from two people in one paragraph, and I'd tend to have mainly things concerning the speaker in the same paragraph as their speech, and not anything that wasn't to do with them.]
Emma
So are you saying that it is completely up to the writer, or are there any guidelines concerning this in writing?
When I wrote my first draft, I put each line of dialogue on it’s own line, to speed things along. I had planned on combining dialogue with paragraphs during the revision. And I am doing my revision now. I’m just not sure what the copyeditor will want. If there are no rules, that is wonderful, I can do as I wish. If there are, I better follow standard publishing layout.
My second question is do you agree with this author’s views below? I have many ‘suddenly’ words in my draft. I never was totally comfortable with them, and then I ran across the quote below.
*****************
Adverbs, especially those ending in -ly, often weaken writing. Eliminate the adverb whenever possible. In many cases you should be able to find a more precise verb.
Example:
Suddenly, the thief came at me with the knife.
The thief charged at me with the knife.
I hope you agree the second sentence is better. I find that when I draft action scenes, I have a tendency to overuse adverbs like suddenly, quickly, and immediately. Removing the adverbs speeds up the action. Short quick sentences and paragraphs are better at increasing the tension than these adverbs.
***************
Thanks
Azel
-
I don't know the 'rule', Azel, but I had always just put each speech in the dialogue on a new line, and also each piece of action, ditto. But then I recently had my manuscript back from the copy editor and attempted to distil a 'rule' from what she had done. Basically, she'd combined them into one para when the action related to the charcater who was speaking, but not otherwsie. Sometimes (though not consistenly, as far as I could see!) she had also linked two bits of dialogue into one para if they were the same speaker, together with the linking action.
e.g. if I had written:
'Get lost!'
Jane swung away angrily and stared at the opposite wall.
She would run it together:
'Get lost!' Jane swung away and stared at the opposite wall.
And usually:
'Get lost!'
Jane swung away and stared at the opposite wall. Then, relenting, turned back.
'Unless you think we might still be able to fix this?'
would become:
'Get lost!' Jane swung away and stared at the opposite wall. Then, relenting, turned back. 'Unless you think we might still be able to fix this?'
But she kept it separate if the action was unlinked (or, obviously, if the speeech was followed by another character's words). So this would stay as it was:
'Get lost!'
As she swung away, Peter stared at Jane's angry back in despair. Would they ever be able to fix this?
Stupid examples, but I hope you get the idea.
Others, who may know the actual theory, will no doubt correct/amplify?
Rosy x
<Added>
Oh dear, I was going to make that lovely and clear with italics and it went wrong! I wish we could edit our posts on here!
-
Rosy has it about right. You need readers to be clear who is saying what, and you want the writing to flow. In this example:
'Get lost!'
Jane swung away and stared at the opposite wall. Then, relenting, turned back.
'Unless you think we might still be able to fix this?'
it’s not clear who is saying the second line of dialogue, and the whole thing reads a bit choppy.
A good tip, if you're not sure whether you’ve got it right, is to get someone else to read it aloud to you. You’ll be able to hear the glitches.
Dee
-
Yes, I'd agree with Rosy and Dee.
But I don't think it's a question of 'rules' exactly, more of what reads fluently, what readers are used to, what won't confuse them.
Your quote about adjectives is a good one - people get ridiculously doctrinaire about this, and I'd agree that it's usually better to use the right words. I'm a bit prone to 'suddenly' too, but there are times when you need that jolt at the beginning of the sentence. The adverbs most necessary to avoid, to my mind, are the ones which attach themselves to verbs - 'she ran quickly' 'he said guiltily' 'they sat thoughtfully'.
Emma
-
That's interesting, Dee... So you mean that running the dialogue and the accompanying action together can be the equivalent of a speech tag? I never really thought of it that way! (Probably very dense of me.)
Rosy
-
| So you mean that running the dialogue and the accompanying action together can be the equivalent of a speech tag? |
|
Yes, it's incredibly useful. I remember noticing aged about nine that Noel Streatfeild does this all the time. In fact it's so useful that I tend to over-do it, and get things like this:
She lowered the eggs into the saucepan. 'What's the time?'
He looked at his watch. 'Ten to. When do you have to be at work?'
'Not till nine. Do you want cereal?' She didn't see his face.
'Ah. No. I - I don't eat cereal.' He turned away. 'Don't you remember?'
Emma <Added>It's also very useful if you're tempted to use things other than simple he said/she whispered in order to show what they're feeling or how they say it. You don't have to tag on 'guiltily' or 'airily', or worse still, succumb to 'He joked' or 'she complained'. You just tag the speech with an action which shows how they're feeling.
-
"I remember noticing aged about nine..."
OK, so I am unobservant as well as dense!
R x
-
I worry about this one - finally by trial and errr came up with something like Rosy's solution.
And yes, it can get you out of speech tags - someone recently pointed out I had way too many in an older piece and I amended accordingly - but it's occasionally helpful to leave one in - say at the end of an exchange of dialogue when something is about to happen or to mark a change of direction - just to anchor who said what before moving on.
If that makes any sense?
sarah
-
| I remember noticing aged about nine |
|
I only know this because I didn't read Streatfeild after around that age... I don't think I consciously noticed anything else about writing technique until I read Jane Gardam in my twenties.
| but it's occasionally helpful to leave one in |
|
Oh, yes, I think there's nothing inherently wrong withe speech tags at all - specially 'said' which is almost invisible - to sprinkle in to keep the reader on track. It's just a case of the more writing tools one has well-sharpened and ready to hand the better.
Emma
-
Azel, I'm not sure where I got this from but it seems the usual method:
Never put lines of dialogue from two different speakers in the same para.
Use a new line for new dialogue (as it changes to each speaker), but you can also put actions of that same speaker interspersed with the dialogue, or after it. And if it's a viewpoint character we can have those thoughts in thir dialogue para too.
eg, in Audrey's POV.
'Hi,' said Sam, jumping up and running forward to greet Audrey. 'Did you find it okay?'
'Hi. The directions were good, thanks.' said Audrey. Audrey wiped her hands on her skirt. 'I've heard so much about you.'
If we want to include Audrey's thoughts but the thoughts are directly about Sam, I think we include them in Audrey's para:
'Hi. The directions were good, thanks.' said Audrey. Sam looked dishevelled, as if he'd been decorating. He smelled a bit ripe, too. 'I've heard so much about you.'
Perhaps Sam looking dishevelled could go in either Audrey's or Sam's dialogue para, because it's all from A's POV, but the smelling ripe bit should only go in Audrey's para since it's more of a thought than a fact?
I would welcome clarification on this last point if anyone knows. Emma, are you around?
Deb
<Added>
Gosh, all these other msgs have suddenly appeared which weren't there a minute ago! Bizarre!
-
I think that's a good summary, deb.
One small thought about this -
'Hi. The directions were good, thanks.' said Audrey. Sam looked dishevelled, as if he'd been decorating. He smelled a bit ripe, too. 'I've heard so much about you.'
- is that we rightly read the second speech as Audrey, because it's in the same para, and it's all from her PoV. But if I happened to have a lot more narrative - lines and lines of stuff - between 'said Audrey' and that second speech, I think I'd be inclined to slide in something to confirm that it's still Audrey speaking.
And a real nit-pick because I'm in editing mode suggests the early para perhaps should be:
'Hi. The directions were good, thanks.' said Audrey. She wiped her hands on her skirt. 'I've heard so much about you.'
Emma
-
Thanks Emma - I totally agree with both those points.
Deb 
|
|
Follow us on Twitter |
Articles |
Site Tour |
Help |
Terms |
Privacy |
About | Contact |