About quotation marks

[AG31]

I originally was going to make the subject of this post, "What's the point of not using quotation marks?" but I figured it would come across as a backhanded exclamation, "There's no point to not using quotation marks." But I really mean it as a question.

I was reading a book by Elizabeth Brundage, and I was on page 7 before I realized that she wasn't using quotation marks. I had already decided not to continue with the book. The note I would make in my list of rejected authors was "Characters are portrayed at a remove." The word "cool" floated around my brain as well. Not "with it" cool, but cool as in lacking in warmth.

Might leaving out quotation marks contribute to that impression?

Do any of you avoid quotation marks?

 

[SimonDoom]

Cormac McCarthy doesn't use quotation marks in his books. James Joyce didn't use quotation marks. It can be done, and it can work. But I don't see the point. I think in almost all cases an author can express his or her creative vision by sticking to normal English conventions.

But here's the thing. As long as you are careful and consistent with your conventions, so the reader gets on board with what you are doing, it's probably OK.

 

[JGittes]

I've found younger female English (and Irish) authors rarely use quotation marks.

Sally Rooney is a popular young Irish writer. I decided to see what the fuss was about and bought her first two novels. I was about 20 pages into Conversations with Friends and was so confused I had to start over. It wasn't until my third attempt that I realized she didn't use quotation marks. After I figured that out, it was still more work to read than it was worth. She is very popular, and at least her first two novels have been made into popular BBC series.

Another young English writer is Saba Sams. She doesn't use quotation marks either. Well, at least in the one book of hers I've purchased, Send Nudes, a collection of short stories. Her writing style is more vivid, so it is easier to decipher.

This must be a problem only for me, because they are both very popular.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I gave up on Amor Towels last novel, The Lincoln Highway, after about fifty pages because he didn't use quotation marks. It made the dialogue and the narrative too hard to follow, to figure out which was which. It struck me as an unnecessary affectation. Which was a bugger, because I'd paid full dollar on the book, on the strength of A Gentleman in Moscow, which was superb. I'm sure he thought there was a point, but I couldn't see it.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

With anything extravagant like that I'd personally either really, really do it and do it for a reason and milk it for all it was worth or I'd just not do it.

 

[StillStunned]

I could see how it would have an effect on the story. Beyond making it difficult to read, I mean.

I think it would create a sense of distance. Like in this bit from my WIP for the Born the Run challenge (warning: stream of consciousness, and 2P POV to boot):

“Hey, gotta smoke?”

A skinny thing, nothin’ but bones and whipcord and a pair of mirrored glasses, standin’ before you makin’ a cigarette gesture, you gonna say no, brush past, till you catch the circle on their neck, a silver circle that’s not quite closed at the base, like an old omega symbol but this is for the Poets, it’s a torc and who the fuck even knows what a torc is nowadays, this kid probably don’t, but they got news, they got the know, who’s who in the Poets these days, so you make pleasant, no smokes, but walk with me and I’ll buy a pack, soon you’re talkin’ like old friends, you and your new friend Smokes, and they got a wealth of knowin’ that they don’t mean to share but you’re smooth and you got the knows too, know what to ask, know what to say, impress Smokes with your cool aura, so they feel cool by association as you glide over the square, at home in the crowd, still markin’ all the punks and the grifters and their holotats until you get a name, someone of the Third Circle, high up in the Poets…

If you look at the bit quoted here, you'll see that it includes some implied dialogue ("no smokes, but walk with me and I’ll buy a pack"). It has a distinctive feel, not like the opening bit of dialogue in quotation marks. It's more abstract, and paradoxically it becomes telling instead of showing (as in, you're telling the reader that something is said, rather than showing the dialogue).

A story that doesn't use any quotation marks for dialogue would have this throughout, I think. By choosing not to separate the dialogue from the narration, you're making it part of the narration and making it more abstract. It will give the story a distinct flavour, but you'd have be very sure it's the flavour you want.

 

[SimonDoom]

I gave up on Amor Towels last novel, The Lincoln Highway, after about fifty pages because he didn't use quotation marks. It made the dialogue and the narrative too hard to follow, to figure out which was which. It struck me as an unnecessary affectation. Which was a bugger, because I'd paid full dollar on the book, on the strength of A Gentleman in Moscow, which was superb. I'm sure he thought there was a point, but I couldn't see it.

This is the question: what is the real reason for doing it? Quotation marks exist as a convention for a reason. I don't want to read a book and feel like the author is just fucking with me because they can get away with it. And sometimes it feels that way with some authors. I think Cormac McCarthy is a little bit that way, but he's so talented that he gets away with it. But with most authors, and especially authors here, what I want is for the author to respect me in getting the story across. And if they just want to fuck around, I'm out.

 

[XerXesXu]

Some readers seem happier with heavy cues; those that they learned as children. Some writers prefer clean text and use white space, line breaks, others use a dash. The three writers referred are very good, and successful writers.

The takeaway may be that inverted commas are not required to make a creatively successfully writer; indeed, their absence may be diagnostic of creatively successful writer.

 

[alohadave]

I did an experimental 750 word story with no quotes a while back. I doesn't have much dialog, and it's mostly internal narration, but I like it (go figure), though comments were mixed.

https://www.literotica.com/s/my-daughters-friend-8

 

[TheWritingGroup]

I originally was going to make the subject of this post, "What's the point of not using quotation marks?" but I figured it would come across as a backhanded exclamation, "There's no point to not using quotation marks." But I really mean it as a question.

I was reading a book by Elizabeth Brundage, and I was on page 7 before I realized that she wasn't using quotation marks. I had already decided not to continue with the book. The note I would make in my list of rejected authors was "Characters are portrayed at a remove." The word "cool" floated around my brain as well. Not "with it" cool, but cool as in lacking in warmth.

Might leaving out quotation marks contribute to that impression?

Do any of you avoid quotation marks?

I'm about to finish the first draft of a story that uses normal (US-style) quotation marks ... except.

The story is in first person, and is explicitly addressed to the narrator's romantic interest. When she speaks to the RI, those direct statements are not in quotes.

I can change that in the editing process, either to quotes (which I think might be confusing) or some other formatting to set off the first-person-but-talking-to-another-character dialogue. Italics?

Thoughts?

 

[iwatchus]

I use italics for the remote person in a phone conversation if other people can hear the conversation.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I picked up a Sally Rooney recently and put it down after a few pages. The lack of quote marks added to a breathless stream-of-consciousness quality that I associate strongly with teenagers and novices who are writing for themselves rather than anyone else.

 

[crookedletter]

I think the short answer -- and maybe the uselessly obvious one -- is it's a style choice. Like where and when to break up paragraphs, sentence length, word choice, rhythm. It changes the tone and the voice of the story in ways both subtle and unsubtle.

I wouldn't say there's one justification to it. It's just an effect, like any other, that changes the way the prose reads and the way the reader identifies with the narrator and the characters. Different writers use it to different effect. Some succeed, some don't.

I've never been tempted to do it myself. But I wouldn't rule it out if it seems to fit a tone I'm going for.

As a reader my attitude to it is akin to my attitude about every other similar stylistic choice: if you're going to do it, do it well. If the reader is confused about when text is dialogue and when it's narration, and that gets in the way of immersion/enjoyment in the story, then you're probably not doing it well. Some writers -- Cormac McCarthy has been mentioned already -- do it so seamlessly that I cease to even notice they're doing it.

 

[StillStunned]

The lack of quote marks added to a breathless stream-of-consciousness quality that I associate strongly with teenagers and novices who are writing for themselves rather than anyone else.

I don't think I'm a novice, and I can't pass for a teenager anymore, but my quote upthread is from a WIP that I doubt anyone besides myself will ever read more than a few paragraphs of.

 

[TheLobster]

if other people can hear the conversation

Wait, so that's what it means? It confused the heck out of me in Blunt Force Drama, because you also use italics for the internal dialogue of characters which other people cannot hear (besides MC, but he obviously also hears the phone conversions he's a party of).

Personally, I simply use regular dialogue quotes for phone convos because they are, well, dialogue.

 

[AG31]

By choosing not to separate the dialogue from the narration, you're making it part of the narration and making it more abstract.

Thanks. This supports my sense that the Brundage book "Portrayed the characters at a step removed."

It will give the story a distinct flavour, but you'd have be very sure it's the flavour you want.

This book helpled me articulate to myself that I don't particularly like books where the author does not make the characters immediate to the reader. I'd gotten a dozen "best mysteries of the last 25 years" from the library. (WSJ - I subscribed for a $1 to read the list then cancelled.) And I didn't finish most of them. They were too plot driven and abstract, to use your word.

 

[MrPixel]

...an unnecessary affectation.

Like e e cummings. Distractions intended to spotlight the author rather than the literature. Messing with the art for art's sake.

 

[PrimalDual]

I've tried it in a story that had become too talky and I wanted to condense some back-and-forth into a single paragraph to get things moving again. I doubt I would find the technique useful in an entire story, though.

Please, he implored. No, she replied. I'll reciprocate, he continued. No. Pretty please? No, you never keep your word. I'll go down on you this time, I promise. No.

I dunno.

 

[TheLobster]

I've tried it in a story that had become too talky and I wanted to condense some back-and-forth into a single paragraph to get things moving again. I doubt I would find the technique useful in an entire story, though.

Please, he implored. No, she replied. I'll reciprocate, he continued. No. Pretty please? No, you never keep your word. I'll go down on you this time, I promise. No.

I dunno.

I feel like this is one of those cases where you either bite the bullet and write it out normally -- which can be pretty short word-wise, as you likely don't need speech tags -- or condense it into one sentence of narration, like "They negotiated back and forth, but he didn't budge."

 

[PrimalDual]

I feel like this is one of those cases where you either bite the bullet and write it out normally -- which can be pretty short word-wise, as you likely don't need speech tags -- or condense it into one sentence of narration, like "They negotiated back and forth, but he didn't budge."

Fair.

I suppose what I was aiming for, there, was to demonstrate more briefly the dysfunction between them. Show, don't tell?

The risk, though, is making it hard for the reader to keep things straight. Who's the one not budging here? Both, I think, but you interpreted it slightly differently.

 

[TheLobster]

Who's the one not budging here? Both, I think, but you interpreted it slightly differently.

Honestly, I didn't take the time to trace who's speaking what here -- which I suppose backs the point that without punctuation, it's hard to keep it straight who's speaking.

I suppose what I was aiming for, there, was to demonstrate more briefly the dysfunction between them. Show, don't tell?

If it's important to showcase it, then it's all the more reason to write it out as a prominent, multiline dialogue with all the bells and whistles and speech tags that make it easy to follow and gets the point across to the reader.

 

[LilyWaters]

I'm ok with it if an author chooses this style for a specific reason that supports and enhances the themes within the novel. The Boat People by Sharon Bala is a good example of this; the novel is concerned with (among other things) telling and interpreting truth through the story of someone's life. So many people asked her about this choice that it's now in the FAQs on her site:

https://www.sharonbala.com/where-are-the-quotation-marks

Otherwise, I hate it.

 

[AG31]

Like e e cummings. Distractions intended to spotlight the author rather than the literature. Messing with the art for art's sake.

Now there's one example that I actually like. Have liked it since grade school. What makes cummings different than Faulkner?

 

[SimonDoom]

Now there's one example that I actually like. Have liked it since grade school. What makes cummings different than Faulkner?

I like Faulkner. I think his style works for what he's trying to do. e e cummings built a whole artistic identity around his punctuation and noncapitalization.

Many things can work. I don't object to writers who want to try to do things differently. What I object to is when inexperienced authors don't know what the conventions are and defend the refusal to learn on the fake argument that they're just trying to express themselves and nobody should tell them what to do. It's ignorance masquerading as individuality.

 

[StillStunned]

Many things can work. I don't object to writers who want to try to do things differently. What I object to is when inexperienced authors don't know what the conventions are and defend the refusal to learn on the fake argument that they're just trying to express themselves and nobody should tell them what to do. It's ignorance masquerading as individuality.

I remember a poster coming into the AH a few months ago complaining that their stories had been rejected, but it was unfair because they were expressing their own authentic style.