Hi,

Is there a rule for speech marks? What is the preferred usage?

I have heard so many conflicting opinions, that I dont know what is better. Do most people use the double curly speech marks? I have been using just the single curly mark for ages. Then there are the double straight marks - what is the general consensus of opinion - what do editors and publishers prefer?

Kat

Kat, this side of the Atlantic I would say single, and curly if the font you're using has them. Double curly for a quotation inside single speech marks.

Anna picked up the teapot as she said, 'Dad didn't say I musn't, he just said, "Be careful, Anna",' and poured herself another cup of tea.

Straight ones are ambiguous as to whether they're opening or closing or apostrophes; they're just a hangover from typewriter typefaces that didn't have enough keys to differentiate. Occaisionally the 'intelligent quotes' that wordprocessors can do to get curly ones the right way round automatically get it wrong, though, so you have to be prepared to keep an eye out and override it if necessary.

Emma

Emma,

That's what I thought, but loads of things I have read recently use double curly ones with single curly ones for quotation inside, so the opposite way to what you said.

I prefer the look of single ones, but I dont suppose it matters really - does it?

Kat

Someone may tell me I'm wrong, but I think that's the usual way round in America - is it US-published stuff that you've seen it in? On the whole I'd stick to UK practice.

Emma

<Added>

But no, I don't think it matters very much. Double-curlies do look old fashioned to me - maybe it's yet another example of the US sticking to older habits, and UK ones having changed.

One thing to do is to check the house style of anything you're submitting to - you might as well do what they do.

Emma

Kat, I was wondering the same thing the other day.

I like the apperance of curly ones: "I think it looks cool."

S.M.

Double quotes for speech. Single quotes for quotes, whether it is within a speech or not. 'Curlies' sounds an awful word; for my liking it's too near the expression 'short and curlies'. While we have the proper quotation marks, I see no reason to muck about with them.

I have seen speech and conversation marked by an indent or an indent plus a dash. Ugly and not very clever.

If one wishes to experiment with new or creative forms then I suggest that the writer concentrates this energy into creative ideas within his or her writing and leave the format of the presentation to tried and tested communication marks.

Len

Hmm, obviously some people prefer one way and some another.

I heard that the double marks were outdated now, and that more publications prefer the single marks Emma was talking about.

I prefer the look of them, so I guess that's what I'll stick with.

Kat

I have seen speech and conversation marked by an indent or an indent plus a dash.

You see the latter as standard in French fiction, I think.

Emma

<Added>

Just taken ten paperbacks off the shelf at random. Result:

Four American editions: double curlies
FourEnglish editions: single curlies (or however they are in that typeface. Essentially, opening and closing are differentiated)

A US edition of a Sue Grafton, and a British edition - and yes, double in US, single in UK

Only one UK edition with double curlies, which is a World's Classics Dickens with origial typography.

Emma

I wonder if there's anyway of finding out which publishers prefer. It's bound to make a difference if they have a preference. I'm tempted to go with single ones now.

Let me practice, see what it looks like online:
"Sure, there were seven crates of fish on the roof."
'Sure, there were seven crates of fish on the roof.'

S.M.

<Added>

I don't know, I can't decide! It's like having two girlfriends - both just as good.

Ste,

I suppose if you want to be modern, the single ones, if you are writing for a more set in their ways old fashioned publication, use the doubles.

I think the single ones definitely look nicer.

Kat

The UK standard is as Emma said: single for speech, double for a quotation within speech. The other way round is US standard. They should indeed be curly but that is really a matter for typesetters so we needn't worry too much about that aspect of things.

Myrtle

<Added>

Sorry, should add, this applies to books - I don't know about magazines etc.

Kat, single it is. They do look nicer. Easier on the eyes.

Myrtle, thanks, I'm definitely sticking with singles.

S.M.

Myrtle thanks - it's so good to have someone around who really knows.

But I have to say, that I don't believe which sort you use would ever be make-or-break as to whether something was accepted. Of course, you're saving the typesetter a bother if you're supplying the text electronically, but that's a publisher's headache, not yours.

Fundamentally, either something's what they want, or it isn't.

Emma

Emma,

Couldn't agree more.

Anyway, you wouldn't want to take away from a copy-editor/typesetter's right to moan about these things.

Myrtle

OK... I have carried out some investigation into this question and, if there are any truly definite guidelines, then they appear to be

Anerica - Double quotes for speech. Single quotes for quotations within that speech.
and for Europe and Australia - Single quotes for speech and double quotes for quotations within that speech.

So, girls, I was wrong in being so adamant.

Let me add that this is not universally applied and one has to exercise some caution. For example if one is writing a technical or an intellectual paper and references to other works are included these should be double quotes.

I do have a doubt in my mind as to whether book and magazine publishers all follow the same line?

Len