Clarification on Dialogue Punctuation Rules

[purpleswordpanties]

I need some opinions here. I'm comfortable with writing, and so I tend to bend rules, often enough that I do it without thinking now.

Now, after a few people called me out, I'm not quite sure what is the best way to punctuate a line of dialogue, followed by a dialogue tag, and an action.

Take this excerpt from my story:

“James, it takes more than this to make me bedridden,” she winked playfully.

I did it this way because I wanted to describe how she said the dialogue, and it was by "winking playfully." The alternative was:

"James, it takes more than this to make me bedridden," she said, winking playfully.

I dislike this version. The reason: I don't need to say "she said" because the fact that there is dialogue implies that she said something, and the sentence would be less wordy if I just used the action.

However, I've been told that the following is the correct way to do it:

"James, it takes more than this to make me bedridden." She winked playfully.

While this third version is grammatically correct, the period now separates the action and the dialogue entirely. I don't think it reads as well, and it really goes against my habits...

But what do you think?

 

[SimonDoom]

I dislike using verbs like "wink" as a dialogue tag, so I don't like following a quote with "winked playfully." Winking has nothing to do with saying something, so it's a contrived use.

I generally prefer to keep dialogue tags simple. That's the way most of the pros do it.

Here's what I would do:


“James, it takes more than this to make me bedridden,” she said with a wink.

Get rid of "playfully." It adds nothing. "With a wink" says all you need to say. "Said" is the accurate tag. This is the simplest and clearest way to do this, which in my opinion accomplishes all you are trying to accomplish.

Ask yourself this: What's the difference between winking playfully and winking non-playfully? There is no difference. Winks are playful by their nature. "Playfully" adds nothing.

 

[oggbashan]

I don't like either the winking or the playfully.

It is my personal opinion that dialogue tags should be so simple that the reader barely notices them. I would have the winking and playfully separated from the speech. E.g. She winked playfully at me. [Line break] "James, it takes more than this to make me bedridden." Followed either by [Line break] or She said. [Line break]
..
As for a comma or full stop at the end of the speech - if she is going to say something else - a comma. If her speech is a complete statement, and if another person is to speak next - a full stop.

 

[KeithD]

You can't wink dialogue. Wink and see if any sound comes out.

You might not like the second example, but it's correct. If you don't like it, completely redo your whole approach.

 

[NotWise]

If you want to skip the tag and keep things playful, you might also write it as:

She gave him a playful wink. "James, it takes more than this to make me bedridden."

There are probably an endless number of ways to write it, but you shouldn't use "winked" as a tag. Like KeithD said, a wink doesn't make much noise.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I dislike this version. The reason: I don't need to say "she said" because the fact that there is dialogue implies that she said something, and the sentence would be less wordy if I just used the action.

You have dialogue and you have action, so grammatically you have two things to deal with.

Your second example is grammatically correct. "Winking" is an action, not a speech tag.

"Playfully" is a little redundant, given the nafure of winks, but that's a quibble. I'd use the second example, and lose the 'playfully.'

 

[Handley_Page]

I need some opinions here. I'm comfortable with writing, and so I tend to bend rules, often enough that I do it without thinking now.

However, I've been told that the following is the correct way to do it:

While this third version is grammatically correct, the period now separates the action and the dialogue entirely. I don't think it reads as well, and it really goes against my habits...

But what do you think?

"James, it takes more than this to make me bedridden," and she winked, playfully.

 

[SimonDoom]

"James, it takes more than this to make me bedridden," and she winked, playfully.

I've never seen it done this way. Why would you follow a quote with a conjunction? It's grammatically incorrect.

It seems to me the obvious answers are either

. . . she said, winking.

OR

. . . she said with a wink.

"she said" is the obvious tag. "Playfully" is an extraneous adverb and can be ditched. Some combination of "said" and "wink" seems like the best way to go.

Start with the simplest solution and see if it works. If it does, you don't need to consider anything else.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I dislike using verbs like "wink" as a dialogue tag, so I don't like following a quote with "winked playfully." Winking has nothing to do with saying something, so it's a contrived use.

"It seems okay to me," she shrugged.

"I agree," he nodded.

 

[SamScribble]

“James, it takes more than this to make me bedridden,” she winked playfully.

The first time I come across a line like this, I think: Oh-oh. We have a beginner. We have an author who hasn't learned to use the tools of their trade.

When I come across a second example, I think: Yep, that first time probably wasn't accidental.

And, on the third encounter, I stop reading.

 

[KeithD]

"It seems okay to me," she shrugged.

"I agree," he nodded.

Nod. See what sound comes out. No, that's not a proper dialogue tag.

 

[NotWise]

I've never seen it done this way. Why would you follow a quote with a conjunction? It's grammatically incorrect.

Can you explain why this is grammatically incorrect? Inquiring minds and all.

"she said" is the obvious tag. "Playfully" is an extraneous adverb and can be ditched. Some combination of "said" and "wink" seems like the best way to go.

"Playfully" may not be necessary in context, but I wouldn't say that it's redundant. Not all winks are playful. They can be knowing, or conspiratorial for instance. I would tend to use "playfull wink" rather than "winked playfully," but that's just me.

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

“James, it takes more than this to make me bedridden,” she winked playfully.

The first time I come across a line like this, I think: Oh-oh. We have a beginner. We have an author who hasn't learned to use the tools of their trade.

When I come across a second example, I think: Yep, that first time probably wasn't accidental.

And, on the third encounter, I stop reading.

Yup.

Setting aside that “bedridden” implies she’s sick or incapacitated....

The correct tags and structure may feel uncomfortable now, but it seems like you’re asking why it feels wrong because you want to improve your writing and express your ideas in a grammatically correct way. For most people, the first time on a bike may not feel “natural”, but once they get the hang of it, the turn of phrase about how easy it is makes sense.

 

[SimonDoom]

"It seems okay to me," she shrugged.

"I agree," he nodded.

I don't agree at all. I'm with KeithD. I think this is bad, sloppy writing.

You cannot nod a statement. You cannot shrug a statement. Writing like this is not using words carefully and accurately.

If you read published, edited fiction, you'll see it's seldom done this way. Good writers don't write like this. Pick a published author you like and look at what they do. I'll bet you don't see them writing this way.

I'll go back to what I said before: keep it simple. Burn the surplusage and deviant stuff down to the ground. See if what's left works. If it does, then most of the time what remains is the right way to do it. If you want your prose to be more flowery, more strange, then OK, but make sure you are using your words carefully and precisely.

 

[SimonDoom]

Can you explain why this is grammatically incorrect? Inquiring minds and all.



"Playfully" may not be necessary in context, but I wouldn't say that it's redundant. Not all winks are playful. They can be knowing, or conspiratorial for instance. I would tend to use "playfull wink" rather than "winked playfully," but that's just me.

A conjunction is used to combine two independent clauses. I've never seen it used to follow a bit of dialogue. I can't think of the conjunction "and" ever being used in a situation like this. It's not proper usage of a conjunction. It's hard for me to prove a negative, but I would challenge anyone to find this usage (a) supported by a style guide, or (b) located in a work of published, quality fiction.

Re "playful": how does one wink look different from another? I agree that there might be different motives behind a wink, but the motive doesn't result in the wink looking any different. It's just a wink. It's unnecessary guilding of the verb. It's telling, not showing.

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

The alternative was:

Quote:
"James, it takes more than this to make me bedridden," she said, winking playfully.

One last note. The alternative you offered wouldn’t be correct either. “She said, winking playfully” incorrectly mixes tenses.

 

[SimonDoom]

One last note. The alternative you offered wouldn’t be correct either. “She said, winking playfully” incorrectly mixes tenses.

Tense isn't a problem. "In this context "winking playfully" is a participial phrase that modifies the verb "said." It's not grammatically incorrect. A participle may be a past participle (in this case) or a present participle. I think "playfully" is unnecessary, but that's a stylistic choice, not a grammatical problem.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I don't agree at all. I'm with KeithD. I think this is bad, sloppy writing.

You cannot nod a statement. You cannot shrug a statement. Writing like this is not using words carefully and accurately.

If you read published, edited fiction, you'll see it's seldom done this way. Good writers don't write like this. Pick a published author you like and look at what they do. I'll bet you don't see them writing this way.

I'll go back to what I said before: keep it simple. Burn the surplusage and deviant stuff down to the ground. See if what's left works. If it does, then most of the time what remains is the right way to do it. If you want your prose to be more flowery, more strange, then OK, but make sure you are using your words carefully and precisely.

Thanks for the clarification.

"I agree." He nodded.

I don't like that though. He didn't say he agreed, then nodded. He said he agreed, while nodding. It may be correct but it's not a true description of the action.

Oh well, live and learn.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

I'm really glad I read this thread.
I realized I make the OPs same mistake frequently, and I wouldn't have noticed it as a mistake on my own.
Thanks, all of you, for the education.

 

[NotWise]

Re "playful": how does one wink look different from another? I agree that there might be different motives behind a wink, but the motive doesn't result in the wink looking any different. It's just a wink. It's unnecessary guilding of the verb. It's telling, not showing.

They differ in the expression and physical action associating the wink. They may also be quick or slow. By using "playfully" I expect that the wink is accompanied by a smile and sparkling eyes.

 

[Hypoxia]

Unpaid, we write and post to LIT for our own amusement. We can thus write and submit whatever the fuck we want, however we want it. Break the few rules and be rejected; or write blatant or experimental crud and be down-voted (*); or write to please some of the tiny subset of LIT authors who frequent AH; or something else entirely.

IMHO we've an ordered set of approvals to pass.

1. Laurel, the publisher. Publishers always take command here.
2. Ourselves, the authors. We probably shouldn't submit what we dislike.
3. Readers. A fraction of LIT's audience that bothers to consume our stuff.
4. Attorneys and evil spirits. They're pretty remote here, I hope.

Other AH participants don't make the list. Nothing and nobody else matters unless we WANT them to matter, unless we TARGET somebody. Note Larry Niven's First Law: "Writers who write for other writers should write letters."
_____

(*) "Blatant or experimental crud" brings to mind Niven's Fifth Law: "If you've nothing to say, say it any way you like. Stylistic innovations, contorted story lines or none, exotic or genderless pronouns, internal inconsistencies, the recipe for preparing your lover as a cannibal banquet: feel free. If what you have to say is important and/or difficult to follow, use the simplest language possible. If the reader doesn't get it, then let it not be your fault."

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't like that though. He didn't say he agreed, then nodded. He said he agreed, while nodding. It may be correct but it's not a true description of the action.

Oh well, live and learn.

The true description would be:

. . . he said, nodding.

That's the simple AND accurate way to say it.

 

[MelissaBaby]

The true description would be:

. . . he said, nodding.

That's the simple AND accurate way to say it.

Good tip, thanks.

 

[mynameisben]

"...," she winked playfully.

is flat out wrong. As others have said, you can't SAY something by winking --- unless, maybe, she's winking out her message in morse code, the very antithesis of being playful. By using "winked" as a dialog tag you're bending the rules past the breaking point. It may sound better to you, but just be aware that you're wrong and your better readers will know it.

Also, as others have pointed out, "playfully" is unnecessary and a bit misguided. If you wanted her dialog to be delivered playfully, you already captured that with "winked." Adding playfully only cheapens winked. It's as if you are admitting to your readers that you lack the conviction of your own writing by adding playfully. Winked was the word you wanted, it embodies playfulness. Go with it. Believe in yourself, and trust your readers can actually read.

"...," she said with a wink.

is how I would do it. It's simple, it gets the point across, and it's grammatically correct.

"...," she said, winking.

also works. Whichever you choose is a matter of personal style.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Unpaid, we write and post to LIT for our own amusement. We can thus write and submit whatever the fuck we want, however we want it. Break the few rules and be rejected; or write blatant or experimental crud and be down-voted (*); or write to please some of the tiny subset of LIT authors who frequent AH; or something else entirely.

IMHO we've an ordered set of approvals to pass.

1. Laurel, the publisher. Publishers always take command here.
2. Ourselves, the authors. We probably shouldn't submit what we dislike.
3. Readers. A fraction of LIT's audience that bothers to consume our stuff.
4. Attorneys and evil spirits. They're pretty remote here, I hope.

Other AH participants don't make the list. Nothing and nobody else matters unless we WANT them to matter, unless we TARGET somebody. Note Larry Niven's First Law: "Writers who write for other writers should write letters."

There's grammar, and there's "not grammar." This notion that writers can write however they like is sending a false message of hope. Sure, if someone wants to project themselves as an illiterate nubbins, that's their call, and I won't deny them that. But if they do want to be read and measured by their peers, they really should shape up.

It's one of the reasons we have schools, so hopefully we end up with an educated populace. Doing it your way, only stupidity will prevail. And look where that's got us .