Breaking up long dialogue with paragraphs/punctuation

[spookym]

Hi all

I have a couple of scenes where a character needs to give a significant block of advice/opinion and wondering how best to break this up so it doesn’t end up one big para.

Elsewhere I’ve used some structural approaches like:

• inserting the interlocutor’s reaction. (He nodded his understanding...)
• inserting the speakers action. (She brushed a stray blonde lock of hair back...)
• inserting a brief interruption. (“But -“)

However in the particular instances I’m asking about, the character needs to speak without interruption. They need to hold the floor completely.

I wanted to know if there was a way to do this with correct punctuation/paragraphing instead?

My understanding has always been that a new para indicates a change in speaker so is it possible to break the dialogue into separate paras without inserting other narrative/dialogue that would interrupt the character’s flow?

Thanks

Fox

 

[CuttingEdge]

What you are talking about is a Monolog, and it is permissible...however, not often.

Usually it comes at the climax of the story and is VERY poignant.

Just as a reference, I just finished a novel-trilogy (so three, 82,000 word books) and I had ONE monolog in one of the three novels. It was also in a court-room setting where conversation is guarded and quite confined.

Often times, a lot of monolog's is indicative of poor writing because the writer is "telling" instead of "showing", which is the number one rule of writing (show: don't tell)

It is also indicative of lazy writing because often times a lot of dialog means the writer is stuck, does not know what to "show" so they use dialog to continue the story.

It is also indicative of unrealistic dialog because just listen to a few conversations. We get interrupted, and the conversation goes askew, ALL THE TIME! So ad those interruptions in.

So really, really, really look at the monolog and see if it is needed. Most of the time it stems for poor writing, or poor story telling.

If you do need a monolog portion though, I break it up into multiple paragraphs when it seems a break is needed. Is this right? It might not be proper grammar, but the readers of today are different then readers of of the Victorian Era when most grammar etiquette was defined. My goal as a writer is to make it an enjoyable, easy read. It's okay if my high school language arts teacher may cringe for a page; they probably won't be reading my novels anyway. I write for my readers enjoyability.

 

[KeithD]

I wanted to know if there was a way to do this with correct punctuation/paragraphing instead?

It's usual to interject with action that propels the plot, but if you want nothing at all but one person's speech, you can do that if you want. You begin the first paragraph and every subsequent appended paragraph with an open quote but you only put the close quote at the end of the last paragraph.

 

[SimonDoom]

You can break the monologue into multiple paragraphs even if the speaker speaks without interruption.

But I'd suggest breaking it up with a little narrative here and there to make it easier to read. You can describe the stillness of the room, or describe how the speaker appears, or hand gestures, or anything. It's good to break up long paragraphs or long stretches of one type of writing for the sake of interest and enjoyment.

 

[NoJo]

Try reading it aloud, while being aware the natural breaks (if any) in your speech. Then insert a para break (remembering not to close-quote the previous para, but to open-quote the new one.

And I couldn't agree less about dialog being lazy, even as a general rule. (Unless, CuttingEdge, you meant to type "monologue" instead of "dialogue")

Talking is an act - a speech-act, and using dialog has nothing whatever to do with the showing/telling dichotomy.

Think of Harry saying to Sally

"You're really attractive, you know?"

Ostensibly an example of telling, but clearly it shows a lot more about Harry's character than the mere fact that he finds Sally attractive.

ALL lines of well-written dialog have a subtext, and indicate more than the superficial intent of the speaker.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Here's an excerpt from one of mine that demonstrates a couple of the techniques that have already been mentioned:

“Once upon a time, there was a fairy named Lilabel, daughter of the Dandelion King. She had beautiful long hair”—I stroked Anjali’s head—“and her skin glittered in the sun like a dragonfly’s wings. Lilabel was a good and kind fairy, and every day she and her sisters went into the forest to paint spots on the toadstools so people would know which ones were dangerous to eat. And then as the sun set, they would hurry home to their father’s palace.”

From the shift in her body I knew I’d caught her attention, and when I moved my hand from her mouth she kept silent. I lifted myself so that my lips were against her ear, and I whispered. “But the forest was home to another fairy. Lady Tanglespine made her palace in a great gloomy tangle of blackberry bushes with thorns like claws. And one evening, as Tanglespine rose from her sleep and looked out at the world, she saw Lilabel and her sisters hurrying home from their work. She saw Lilabel’s beauty, and she wanted her.”

I paused to kiss the back of Anjali’s neck, and she tensed.

“For days she watched the sisters, studying Lilabel’s ways and coveting her beauty. The more she watched the more she wanted Lilabel for her own, and she was the sort to take what she wanted. But she couldn’t just pop her in a sack and carry her away, as much as she might have wanted to. There are rules in Fairyland, even for the likes of Tanglespine.”

I stroked Anjali’s throat, and caught the corner of her scarf between my fingers, and pulled it slowly free, and as I talked I retied it in her hair like a ribbon.

“One fine morning, Lilabel was sitting on a tree-stump, putting the final touches on a beautiful fly agaric and looking forwards to her sandwiches, when she heard a noise behind her and turned just in time to see a dog-fox making off with her lunch. She grumbled at the beast, but told herself ‘well, I daresay he needed it more than I did,’ and went on with her work.

“But as the day lengthened, she began to feel her stomach growling. She was working by the river, and down by the riverside grew thick thorny vines laden with juicy berries, big and fat, so ripe that they oozed sweet juice at the slightest touch. The sight of them made her mouth water, and although her father had told her not to, she couldn’t resist. She plucked a handful, and ate them, and they were more delicious even than they looked, so then she took another, and another, and then behind her she heard a voice.

“‘What have we here? A thief, stealing from my vines?’ And there stood Lady Tanglespine, smiling with teeth that glittered like razors. And there was Lilabel, face and fingers purple and sticky with blackberry juice...

At the start of this sequence, the dialogue segments are short, intercut with description of what the narrator is doing with her audience. As it continues, the dialogue segments get longer and when I get to multiple paragraphs of uninterrupted speech, I punctuate them as NoJo described, quotes at the beginning of each new paragraph but no closing quotes until there's a break in the dialogue.

 

[CuttingEdge]

Try reading it aloud, while being aware the natural breaks (if any) in your speech. Then insert a para break (remembering not to close-quote the previous para, but to open-quote the new one.

And I couldn't agree less about dialog being lazy, even as a general rule. (Unless, CuttingEdge, you meant to type "monologue" instead of "dialogue")

Talking is an act - a speech-act, and using dialog has nothing whatever to do with the showing/telling dichotomy.

Think of Harry saying to Sally

"You're really attractive, you know?"

Ostensibly an example of telling, but clearly it shows a lot more about Harry's character than the mere fact that he finds Sally attractive.

ALL lines of well-written dialog have a subtext, and indicate more than the superficial intent of the speaker.

No, I pretty much meant what I said.

The problem with dialogue is that it is the easy way out. Having Harry tell Sally that she is attractive, is a secondary means to an end, but is hardly riveting reading. There are many ways to SHOW that Harry finds Sally attractive without using dialogue.

You can do it by the way he looks at at her, especially in a way that he likes, when every one else in the universe would not think so. Like for instance, her tripping on a crack in the sidewalk and she pretending that she didn't for a few steps. From Harry's perspective, her form might looking lanky, and graceful, when to everyone else, she was a clutz. How the readers sees Sally from Harry's perspective is how you hook readers into your story.

You really know you are hitting the "show, don't tell" aspect of writing when you do not even use the word you are describing. In showing how Harry finds Sally attractive, I would NOT use the word "attractive" to show that. In that way, the reader deduces for themselves what is happening, and that is why they read in the first place. They want to make that connection, not be told it.

 

[CuttingEdge]

Monologue is often a writers cheat in another way...it ends up being a short-cut for them to form plotlines.

As an example, instead of explaining out some clues and letting the reader decide what has happened in the story and why, the writer of the tale just uses dialogue to tell the reader. The main character is talking to someone, and they blurt out the whole scenario of what happened an why.

Yep, the reader finds out all the details in one quick package of dialogue (often in monologue form), but the reader feels cheated. The writer in that case did not show them through intricate details so the reader might figure out on their own, they flat out told them, it just happened to be by another character in the story.

Do that too many times, and you lose readers. Your story or book falls flat.

Remember, it is not about a writer being able to make a story work in a compact, cute little package: it is about giving the reader a fun experience as they spend THEIR valuable time reading your words.

That is why I say, really, really, really check to see if monologue is really needed. Most of the time, it is cheating as a writer.

 

[NoJo]

No, I pretty much meant what I said.

The problem with dialogue is that it is the easy way out. Having Harry tell Sally that she is attractive, is a secondary means to an end, but is hardly riveting reading. There are many ways to SHOW that Harry finds Sally attractive without using dialogue.

That was exactly point I was not making - what is being shown is not the fact that he finds her attractive - it's something else: It's shows what kind of a guy Harry is - he's the sort of guy that is up-front, to the point of being cheeky .

Telling, in this case, would be, for example, adding an unnecessary adverb:

"You know, you're really attractive," said Harry tactlessly.

When people talk, they are rarely merely stating facts, they're more often doing much much subtle things, like ingratiating, appeasing, intimidating, coercing, seducing, rejecting, etc.

With dialogue alone, you can show people's inner life and motivations. That's how plays work! It's rare (and considered an imposition on the actors' freedom to interpret the words) for a playwright to use adverbial directions, unless there's a danger of confusion about the way the lines should be spoken.

 

[CuttingEdge]

But I did not get that, on your first set of dialogue. I read it in the totally opposite way, that the man was pretty low-key and chill, which highlights the limitation of dialogue. A reader might not read the wording the same as what you (the writer) wants to convey.

And it's not as interesting.

Here is an example. In my latest novel I have a woman who happens to be working with two men, one of which is lazy, and the other she is attracted to. I have three ways I can convey that to the readers.

1. I can just type out in words, that the man is lazy. (the worst way)

2. I can have a conversation between the woman and the man she likes stating that the other man is lazy (better)

3. Through multiple situations, I can describe that the man she likes is working really hard at various times, but the other man never jumps in to help him. I never use the word lazy in the book, but several times in the book that character shows his character flaw. But I can also do more with that, as I can have the woman always jumping in to help.

So with a little creativity I can show that a man is lazy, but by always wanting to help out, the woman is interested romantically with the man at the same time. This is done in several scenes which allows the reader to have "clues" and they can make some deductions based on that.

It allows for a more interesting story, because it slowly reveals deeper characterization and character flaws without it being told to the reader directly.

 

[HappySpouse]

I disagree with the idea that people do not speak in uninterrupted paragraphs, especially Literotica paragraphs (which need to be short to fit the formatting). That may not be how a conversation about what to eat for dinner goes, but spookym's question named "advise/opinion' as an example. If someone wants to slip a little nuance into an opinion or bulk up their advise with reasoning, then they will sometimes speak in multi-paragraph formats. Same with story telling, and I don't just mean bedtime stories.

I imagine most of us have at some point just asked a significant other how their day was and had our eyebrows singed by a couple minutes of response that didn't require our usual uh-huh's and no-kidding's. I find that a Lit story's paragraph starts looking wordy after about 75ish words. Obviously some work shorter and some work longer, but that seems to be an average cap for looking and reading well on the site.

Call it a monologue if you want, it fits, but that doesn't mean it is lazy or important. Sometimes that's just how a person talks.

Also, a whole story can pivot on the things a reader intuits from Harry telling Sally she's pretty. It can be much more impactful than several examples of him admiring her. What is best depends on the story and the characters. Sometimes using 200 hundred words to avoid using 2 is showing instead of telling, and sometimes using 200 words when 2 would do is telling instead of showing.

 

[Sextified]

I personally like to break up the rhythm of my stories. Short, medium and long paragraphs. One word paragraphs. Long blocks of fevered impassioned pleadings, trying to convince a loved one to change their lives.

Graphically, I used to do paste up for newspapers, magazines and ads. We were even taught how to manually kern headlines, with an Exacto blade! One of the big No-No's we were taught to avoid was making rivers of text appear on the page. Blocks of copy that looked like unintentional patterns on the pages. Gray messes, that the reader's eyes just kept getting lost in. Tombstoning was a word that partially covers that effect.

If you always write conversations that follow the exact same pattern and length, they can become both visually and literarily deserts of monotone gloom on a page.

One of my favorite lines about real dialogue, comes from John Steakley's award winning novel, 'Armor'.

A notorious heroic character is talking about why people must be killed sometimes, and the multiple reasons he had done that deed so many times himself. The much more inexperienced fighter speaks first, upon learning that his idol had killed not just one person, but many. The younger man wanted to know the real reason his hero had killed the last person to make the mistake of confronting him.

- - - -

“Because it was the right thing?"

"Oh shit, I hope not."

"Afraid of becoming noble?" he asked, his eyes twinkling.

"That too. But basically, that's the worst reason I can think of for killing. 'That its the right thing to do'. You kill out of outrage or fury or to keep from dying or something like it, that's fine. Hell, kill them rather than bother with them - or be bothered by them. But if you're killing them because 'its the right thing to do', its only the right thing because you've done so many wrong things up until then to make it to that spot. It's not the right thing to do. It's the best of the last of your choices."

"That's the longest I've ever heard you talk at one time."

"That's because you never ask me about my hair.”

- - - -

If you MUST have a long monologue? Be sure that it is for real reason, and one that advances your story.

All of your other tricks and techniques, that you already mentioned, are GOOD things! People DO need to breathe though!

A little break here and there, even if just visually for your reader, will help keep them from jumping lines and confusing themselves.

 

[CuttingEdge]

One spot I use dialogue for is writers block!

This is not really a monologue thing, but sometimes I will start a new chapter and then just blank out.

What I found was, I typically know what I want characters to say, it is the descriptions that can be problematic. So I write out the conversations, and when I get to a point where I need to describe something, I just type out "description of dress" (an example), highlight it as a #3 heading, an keep going with what the characters are saying.

That way in my navigation screen, the need to go back and fill out that description pops right out at me.

Typically with a conversation to get me thinking, I can easily add the descriptions in later. For me, it really helps me keep my stories going.

 

[Athalia]

Try reading it aloud, while being aware the natural breaks (if any) in your speech. Then insert a para break (remembering not to close-quote the previous para, but to open-quote the new one.

And I couldn't agree less about dialog being lazy, even as a general rule. (Unless, CuttingEdge, you meant to type "monologue" instead of "dialogue")

I would agree with that. Even spoken monologues need breaks. Nothing invites the reader to quit reading like the Great Wall of Text that goes on and on and on.

And no good speaker would think of droning away. I insert things at the beginning of the next paragraph like: "She paused, gauging the reaction of the audience, and then continued." Or "He took a deep breath."

A simple paragraph break will usually suffice, although an insertion of the speaker's action or thought here and there might help the reader keep track of who's talking. Above all, remember that your reader is not you. You know perfectly well what's going on ... who's talking and for how long ... but the reader doesn't, and needs your help.

 

[spookym]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. The punctuation is what I was after. The other advice about the need to break up or avoid long monologues, I was aware of but appreciate all the reminders.

Looking at the examples some of you have given perhaps my para lengths aren’t as problematic as I thought at first so I’ll probably end up with 2 rather than 3-4.

Thanks again

 

[CuttingEdge]

I would agree with that. Even spoken monologues need breaks. Nothing invites the reader to quit reading like the Great Wall of Text that goes on and on and on.

And no good speaker would think of droning away. I insert things at the beginning of the next paragraph like: "She paused, gauging the reaction of the audience, and then continued." Or "He took a deep breath."

A simple paragraph break will usually suffice, although an insertion of the speaker's action or thought here and there might help the reader keep track of who's talking. Above all, remember that your reader is not you. You know perfectly well what's going on ... who's talking and for how long ... but the reader doesn't, and needs your help.

I kind of disagree with this because I do not think readers are as dumb as writers sometimes think they are. I am of the mindset that they can pull more together than what writers give them credit for.

I truly believe that readers can see through the added fluff that sometimes get added in writing as what was suggested here. It really depends of course on setting. The more exotic a setting is, the less familiar a reader will be with it, and so they need more descriptive wording. But if it is a scene that is pretty basic, not so much.

An example might be a hospital room. We have all been in one, and so the reader does not need a lot of description in that kind of setting. To add in lots of words just to break up the wording on a page is "fluff" to me because the reader does not care. They want the heart of the story, and can add in what they already know. A writer should focus on giving them a new experience, or a novel way to convey what they know. In the example of a hospital room, describe what sterile smells like...make the reader think.

Keeping the reader engaged with good content is what makes a page-turner, not fluff.

Refer to the old classics on this. In Two Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, three men engage in conversation for 20 pages with no identifying who said what at all in there! That is literary skill, and confidence in readers!

 

[CuttingEdge]

Monologues can be powerful, but only if they are done right.

In the movie, A Few Good Men there is a good example of this. The General is set up and ends in a powerful monologue that really shows his heart in the matter of a marine being killed.

It is a monologue, but properly done, and is a powerful scene because it shows the why of why the attack on the marine was ordered. At this point in the movie, watchers already know what has been done.

In other words, it is character revealing, not plot revealing. Most monologues in writing get that reversed.

 

[Athalia]

I kind of disagree with this because I do not think readers are as dumb as writers sometimes think they are. I am of the mindset that they can pull more together than what writers give them credit for.

<snip>

Refer to the old classics on this. In Two Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, three men engage in conversation for 20 pages with no identifying who said what at all in there! That is literary skill, and confidence in readers!

In a way, that proves my point. In that passage, IIRC, there was a distinct difference in the way the characters used words, and each had a different perspective to be speaking from. The readers, therefore, were continually given clues as to who was speaking.

That's how RLS got away with it. Most writers, I think, don't have that level of skill, and require other things to clue the reader in on who's speaking and when and for how long.

I think it might have been Kurt Vonnegut who said that readers have a much tougher job then writers do, because the writers know that they're thinking about, and the readers don't. That's why they need all the help they can get.

But, as you point out, adding "frills" isn't always the best answer, because the writer runs the danger of distracting the reader instead of guiding him.

 

[KeithD]

The OP didn't ask whether or not to write a long monologue, but how to punctuate it, having chosen to write a long monologue. It was the OP's considered choice what to write. So, those who went beyond answering the specific question asked were just trying to impose their writing style on someone else's.