Style guide - the AH way.

[Djmac1031]

1) Do you always have to start a new para if you're going to have a new person say some dialogue?

Almost always, yes.

In that moment, I deicded I wasn't going to be cowed'

This one.

I must confess, I didn't sleep particularly well'

This one

Nevertheless, even his attitude seemed to grate'

This one

“You won’t be needing this,” and that easily I was rendered naked before strangers.' vs '“You won’t be needing this,” and that easily, I was rendered naked before strangers.'

Neither. New sentence.

"You won't be needing this." And, that easily. I was rendered naked before strangers.

She smiled at me again as she left, and I was glad that she seemed to like me, given how good a look at me she had just had.'

This one, but strike the first "at me." Redundant.

My uniform was, of course, the same as every other employee I had seen, and in that, there was some comfort.'

This one. Although @SimonDoom has a point about the "employee" thing.

Rework the whole sentence.

 

[Bramblethorn]

"You won't be needing this." And, that easily. I was rendered naked before strangers.

That second full stop should surely be a comma.

 

[Djmac1031]

That second full stop should surely be a comma.

Just goes to show how easy it is to miss a typo. Yeah, I meant for a comma there, not a period.

 

[ronde]

I think it's fine to deviate from the classical rules as long as readability doesn't suffer. I do embed dialogue in some cases, but usually just one sentence as a reply to a question by another character. If the dialogue is going to be more than a sentence, I'll always start a new paragraph. Relative to tags, I don't like reading dialogue where "he said" is in every line of dialogue, but tags can convey more than the identity of the speaker.

"I will", she sighed.
"I will", she cried.
"I will", she laughed.

In general I tend to use too many commas, and end up removing them when I do a final edit. I've sort of settled on my own rule for when to use a comma.

1. I use a comma in a long sentence so the reader can breathe. I know, they are still breathing when reading silently, but a comma gives them the chance if they aren't.

2. I use a comma to separate two distinct ideas in a sentence, such as a statement followed by a question or a statement followed by another statement that doesn't agree with the first.

If what he said was true, why did he say something different yesterday?
I knew if she really loved me she would, but she didn't.

I should add that in any dialogue, the rules go out the window. Most people don't use proper English when speaking.

 

[Paul_Chance]

The basic issue is that high school English teachers were primarily teaching essay writing. Fiction writing is a whole different bag from that.

Bingo.

Grammar rules initially came about to structure information for comprehension in non-fiction. This insured a consistency across documents, making it easier for the reader to absorb the information.

It's a valid concern in fiction. The point being to make the story-telling easier for the reader to process by being in a familiar format.

In fiction, you can break any rule you want (until your editor/publisher tells you to shut up and follow our style guide or you're not going to get paid). If you can pull off inventing your own style guide and grammar, you'll win an award and become a critical darling. IF.

 

[ElectricBlue]

"I will", she sighed.
"I will", she cried.
"I will", she laughed.

None of those are punctuated correctly. The comma goes inside the dialogue punctuation, not outside.

You can sigh or cry words, but you can't laugh them, so for me, the last example should read:

"I will." She laughed.

There are two separate actions: speech, followed by laughter.

 

[SimonDoom]

Neither. New sentence.

"You won't be needing this." And, that easily. I was rendered naked before strangers.

While I am more of a grammar stickler than some, I agree that some leeway in fiction is fine, AS LONG AS the words are still chosen carefully and the words and punctuation do a good job clearly conveying meaning.

I keep looking at this passage, and I still can't figure out what it's doing, and nobody in this thread has tried to explain it.

What, exactly, is that middle sentence fragment doing? It's not a sentence. There's no verb. There's no subject. There's a conjunction ("And"), a comma, the word "that," which is either a relative pronoun or an adverb, but I can't tell which, and then an adverb ("easily"). It's one of the oddest combinations of three different types of words I've seen. It conveys no meaning, either relative to the dialogue snippet or standing on its own. It might convey meaning when combined with the final sentence, but by separating it from the sentence with a period the author is telling the reader that it is NOT connected to the final sentence, because that's what periods do.

There's no indication in either the middle fragment or the final sentence who is speaking the line "You won't be needing this." One doesn't have to be a dialogue tag fanatic to want clarity in knowing who is speaking. This line does not accomplish that.

Why "and"? What is the purpose of the "and"? It's not connecting anything to anything, and that's the purpose of "and", a conjunction.

What is "that"? What does "that" refer to? "That" what? Is "that" intended to stand in for another word or group of words, like a pronoun, or is it intended to modify "easily," like an adverb? I can't tell.

What does "easily" modify? It doesn't modify anything in the sentence fragment, or in the dialogue snippet before it.

If "easily" is intended to modify "rendered," (as in, "I was easily rendered naked after she said, 'You won't be needing this," and removing my clothing, then it is improper and unclear to divide the last two parts of the line into separate sections. They should be a single comprehensible sentence. The way this is punctuated, it is not at ALL clear that "easily" modifies "rendered."

What is the reasoning behind writing "And, that easily"? It's one thing to write something ungrammatical if it's clear. But this is ungrammatical and murky.

This may seem like obsessive futzing over a single line, but that's what a forum about writing for, isn't it? Can anyone explain?

 

[Djmac1031]

While I am more of a grammar stickler than some, I agree that some leeway in fiction is fine, AS LONG AS the words are still chosen carefully and the words and punctuation do a good job clearly conveying meaning.

I keep looking at this passage, and I still can't figure out what it's doing, and nobody in this thread has tried to explain it.

What, exactly, is that middle sentence fragment doing? It's not a sentence. There's no verb. There's no subject. There's a conjunction ("And"), a comma, the word "that," which is either a relative pronoun or an adverb, but I can't tell which, and then an adverb ("easily"). It's one of the oddest combinations of three different types of words I've seen. It conveys no meaning, either relative to the dialogue snippet or standing on its own. It might convey meaning when combined with the final sentence, but by separating it from the sentence with a period the author is telling the reader that it is NOT connected to the final sentence, because that's what periods do.

There's no indication in either the middle fragment or the final sentence who is speaking the line "You won't be needing this." One doesn't have to be a dialogue tag fanatic to want clarity in knowing who is speaking. This line does not accomplish that.

Why "and"? What is the purpose of the "and"? It's not connecting anything to anything, and that's the purpose of "and", a conjunction.

What is "that"? What does "that" refer to? "That" what? Is "that" intended to stand in for another word or group of words, like a pronoun, or is it intended to modify "easily," like an adverb? I can't tell.

What does "easily" modify? It doesn't modify anything in the sentence fragment, or in the dialogue snippet before it.

If "easily" is intended to modify "rendered," (as in, "I was easily rendered naked after she said, 'You won't be needing this," and removing my clothing, then it is improper and unclear to divide the last two parts of the line into separate sections. They should be a single comprehensible sentence. The way this is punctuated, it is not at ALL clear that "easily" modifies "rendered."

What is the reasoning behind writing "And, that easily"? It's one thing to write something ungrammatical if it's clear. But this is ungrammatical and murky.

This may seem like obsessive futzing over a single line, but that's what a forum about writing for, isn't it? Can anyone explain?

I can. It's a typo. Was supposed to be a comma, not a period.

 

[Bazzle]

I'm dyslexic. I can read something I have written 30 times and not spot the mistake.
Yet I read someone elses work and I can see all the errors jumping out at me.
I am learning off these discussions. My sentences have got shorter and my punctuation better. Anonymous is no longer complaining about it

 

[SimonDoom]

I can. It's a typo. Was supposed to be a comma, not a period.

A comma doesn't clarify any of the issues I raised.

 

[Djmac1031]

A comma doesn't clarify any of the issues I raised.

All I tried to do was make the example given somewhat better. I didn't tag who was speaking because I didn't know who was speaking.

It was a punctuation example, not a grammar one.

I didn't write the original sentence. Just tried to fix the punctuation somewhat.

And apparently failed miserably there too lol.

Wouldn't be the first time I've publicly humiliated myself.

 

[SimonDoom]

The sentence, as written, boils down to: someone took something away from the character that caused the character to become naked in front of strangers unexpectedly.

No further context needed. I don't need to know who is speaking to understand whether or not a comma looks right in the suggested space or not.

I see absolutely nothing murky about it. I'm not exactly brilliant but I understood what was happening in that single line of text without issue. Nothing about it was ambiguous as presented.

But I also wasn't breaking it down into sentence structure. I just read it as presented and took it at face value.

OK. We may have different philosophies.

But why not get rid of "And, that easily"? What does it add?

Just say:

"You won't be needing this." I was easily rendered naked in front of strangers.

The middle fragment adds nothing. It doesn't clarify anything. It throws in additional words that serve no function.

I get that people have different approaches to writing. I believe, however, that every word and piece of punctuation should have a clear purpose, and if one can't figure out the purpose one should get rid of it. I don't believe in the holistic approach to words: "I get what he was trying to say overall, so it's fine." To me, that's the mantra of bad writing.

I have a tentative working theory on this: sometimes writers are uneasy with short, declarative sentences, because they sound too certain or staccato or something, so they soften them by adding unnecessary words and commas. I think that's a mistake. Be bold and clear. Don't muck up clarity with meandering words and commas out of a false sense that it's somehow more "artsy" or something. It's not. If you study the works of acclaimed and successful authors, with a few exceptions they do not write that way.

 

[Djmac1031]

But why not get rid of "And, that easily"? What does it add?

Without any other context other than those words given in the original example, I assumed "and, that easily," implied some form of action by the speaker. Probably the action of removing clothing or a covering.

I agree more information is needed. Perhaps with a surrounding context it makes more sense.

 

[Altissimus]

The middle fragment adds nothing. It doesn't clarify anything. It throws in additional words that serve no function.

It is my humble opinion, as the author of that particular sentence, that those words do add something. I could explain why, but instead I will merely suggest that you are ill positioned to judge as you are not privy to the context. While it is possible that you might feel the same way within context, at least you would then be informed. The purpose was not to seek feedback on the sentence structure.

I get that people have different approaches to writing. I believe, however, that every word and piece of punctuation should have a clear purpose, and if one can't figure out the purpose one should get rid of it.

I agree with this. I maintain there is a clear purpose to those words.

I'll also point out - FWIW - that you read (at least one of) my stories and commented favourably, so how about we go with the assumption that I am happy with it like that?

Unless you want to change you positioning on editing it, of course

This may seem like obsessive futzing over a single line, but that's what a forum about writing for, isn't it? Can anyone explain?

ETA: I missed this post. You've gone to some lengths to explain your issues with the sentence, and I appreciate that. However, as I've mentioned several times, I didn't bring it up for a sentence structure analysis, only for the position of that single comma (or not, as the case may be). For this reason, I didn't feel the context was all that important and thus I didn't even post the whole sentence. You have been analysing, not only out of context, but also without the entire sentence structure. I accept some responsibility for this, though I never asked for it.

 

[SimonDoom]

ETA: I missed this post. You've gone to some lengths to explain your issues with the sentence, and I appreciate that. However, as I've mentioned several times, I didn't bring it up for a sentence structure analysis, only for the position of that single comma (or not, as the case may be). For this reason, I didn't feel the context was all that important and thus I didn't even post the whole sentence. You have been analysing, not only out of context, but also without the entire sentence structure. I accept some responsibility for this, though I never asked for it.

I just finished Eats, Shoots & Leaves, so I may be in a more truculent mood about punctuation than I normally would be.

If you don't want to discuss issues beyond the comma, that's your right, since you started the thread.

Regardless of context, the three words following the dialogue snippet don't sit well with me, and I don't think context would help. But I've stated my reasons, so I'll let it lie if that's what others wish to do.

 

[Altissimus]

I just finished Eats, Shoots & Leaves, so I may be in a more truculent mood about punctuation than I normally would be.

And I'm reading Dryer's, so I'm much more relaxed about things. For example:

Foot passengers, jostling one another's umbrellas in a general infection of ill-temper, and losing their foot-hold at street-corners, where tens of thousands of other foot passengers have been slipping and sliding since the day broke (if this day ever broke), adding new deposits to the crust upon crust of mud, sticking at those points tenaciously to the pavement, and accumulating at compound interest.

 

[XerXesXu]

As between:

God plucked my fig-leaf. ‘You won’t be needing this.’ And, with that, I was rendered naked among strangers.

and,

God plucked my fig-leaf. "You won't be needing this." I was easily rendered naked in front of strangers.

I much prefer the former; it carries so much more than the latter.

If you’ve ever wondered how it’s possible to convert gold into dross, now you know.



As between:

'My uniform was, of course, the same as every other employee I had seen, and in that there was some comfort.' vs 'My uniform was, of course, the same as every other employee I had seen, and in that, there was some comfort.'

I would go with - 'My uniform was, of course, the same as every other; there was some comfort in that.'

 

[SimonDoom]

And I'm reading Dryer's, so I'm much more relaxed about things. For example:

I have that book, too, and I pull it out as a reference from time to time. He's somewhat more relaxed, but definitely not "anything goes." I think he would have the same objections I do in this instance. But w would never know unless we were to ask him.

 

[AG31]

I enjoy books about how to write. If you haven't read it, check out one by Lawrence Block (don't remember the name just now), author of the Matt Scudder series. Getting to be ancient history now, but always worth revisiting.

Anyway, on to your quiz.

1) Do you always have to start a new para if you're going to have a new person say some dialogue?

I do adhere to this one. It mixes me up and looks like a mistake when authors ignore it.

EDIT:
"Altissimus said: The point - the question - is whether you need to start a para to place dialogue, or whether you can have other words beforehand."

Oh!! Of course you can have words before the quote. I didn't understand that until I saw your comment about "the point." It never crossed my mind that you would start a new paragraphs between, say.... "His face became mottled. He looked like he would spout something." and the following "Shut the fuck up!!!!"
END EDIT

2) Comma after a short intro sentence a) always or b) optionally? e.g.

Definitely optional. It depends on how you want the flow to go.

3) Let's play 'Comma or not':

Yes, comma for the first two. No comma for the last.

Answers on a postcard

What does "answers on a postcard" mean? Short answers? If so, how come?

 

[SimonDoom]

As between:

God plucked my fig-leaf. ‘You won’t be needing this.’ And, with that, I was rendered naked among strangers.

and,

God plucked my fig-leaf. "You won't be needing this." I was easily rendered naked in front of strangers.

I much prefer the former; it carries so much more than the latter.

If you’ve ever wondered how it’s possible to convert gold into dross, now you know.



As between:

'My uniform was, of course, the same as every other employee I had seen, and in that there was some comfort.' vs

I would go with - 'My uniform was, of course, the same as every other; there was some comfort in that.'

I agree with both of your examples. The one addition I would suggest, to the second example, is that if it's important to emphasize that it's the EMPLOYEE's uniform, I would add "employee's" after the word "other." The key point is that one cannot compare one's uniform to an employee; one must compare one's uniform to other employee's uniforms. Your suggestion, dropping the word "employee," is a bit more elegant, so if the word can be dropped without loss of meaning I agree it's better.

 

[KachinaDoll]

1. Not if the dialogue of two characters appears in one sentence:

On hearing Charlie shout, "Suzie, help!", I ran faster calling, "I'm coming, stay where you are."

 

[Altissimus]

I agree with both of your examples.

Then today is a good day.