Clarification on Dialogue Punctuation Rules

[KeithD]

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.

Agree, but I don't have a problem with either "winking" or "playfully" that others are having. I think either/both is providing new information on atmospherics.

 

[KeithD]

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."

If someone asks for best practice, I think they should receive what is considered best practice.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I once read somewhere, from some author or critic of an author that the only dialog descriptors that should be used are simple...

he/she said

he/she asked

he/she replied

as most readers don't read past the end of the dialog anyway.

Of course I have promptly forgotten that bit of advice.

 

[SimonDoom]

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."

The problem with this approach -- and I think KeithD's comment addresses this, too -- is that by starting threads like these and posting questions like the one the OP does, people here are saying they want advice that goes beyond "Do what you want!" They want to write better. I know I want to write better. I don't think I'm alone.

If you wanted to build a chair, and you consulted people who build chairs, they wouldn't tell you "Hey, just build it the way you want!" They would show you how it's been done before, and tell you about how to build a good chair. Writing is no different from chair building. If you want to write well, pay attention to how people who do it well do it. Learn from what's been done before, successfully.

 

[Bramblethorn]

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

I would accept it if they're communicating in Morse. Otherwise, not so much.

I can understand why authors want to use this construction. The wink is part of the communication, as much so as the actual words, and it would be sensible to keep it together with the words rather than separated from them by a period or a "she said". In fact, if I was redesigning the English language from scratch, I'd be inclined to do it so that body language appears within the quote:

"It takes more than this *wink* to make me bedridden.”

As a bonus, that would then let the author specify where the wink appears within the speech, which might add further shades of meaning.

Unfortunately, the English language isn't so much "designed" as "evolved". Some of its conventions might not be the best way of doing things, but readers are used to them, and for some readers breaking those conventions is very jarring.

It comes down to a judgement call - is the benefit you get from breaking that convention worth annoying those readers? There are cases for me where the answer is an unequivocal "yes", but this ain't one of them. Other authors may well feel differently about it.

Agree, but I don't have a problem with either "winking" or "playfully" that others are having. I think either/both is providing new information on atmospherics.

For me it would depend on the broader context of the quote. If the story has already established a playful tone for this scene, then "winking playfully" might feel like over-egging it. If it's a change of mood, then it's helpful information.

One caveat with adverbs like "playfully" is that they make it easy for an author to accidentally switch perspective. If the story is meant to be third-person close, told entirely from Bob's viewpoint, but then the adverbs attached to Jane's speech are directly describing her internal state of mind, that's a small break in perspective.

 

[LupusDei]

Maybe I missed it, but one possible combination haven't yet mentioned:
She playfully winked, saying "..."

Although I believe that the true drive of this tread is the desire to get rid of that "she said" altogether, feeling it as redundant. With, although it is claimed to be invisible to readers, may feel tiresome and redundant to overly self aware authors?

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

Is the most blatant omission, it doesn't make sense unless the "she said" is inserted back in.

Actually, the initial

"Yadda yadda yadda," she winked.

Is also just a simple omission of the same. In writer's mind there's a silent, seemingly redundant, "she said" present. Now, as understand the claim is that in English it can't be readily omitted if one cares to retain simultaneously of the actions -- a full stop would denote succession in my mind, unless explicitly claimed otherwise, what would make the whole thing only more contrived.

Sure, I'm not speaking English, and shouldn't be talking, probably. In my attempts to write English I omit words a lot, especially pronouns (because my language being strictly gendered and analytical imply pronoun in the verb form itself as readily as tense in most cases) but generally, trying to translate word count increases significantly (I won't claim it double, but may feel like that).

Also, no, I don't think that "playfully" is entirely redundant, while it may be if what she said implies playfulness in the wider context. A wink can communicate dozen of different messages in concert with other clues that might be much too subtle to be readily described without needless verbosity. Adverbs exist for a reason, don't they?

 

[LupusDei]

One caveat with adverbs like "playfully" is that they make it easy for an author to accidentally switch perspective. If the story is meant to be third-person close, told entirely from Bob's viewpoint, but then the adverbs attached to Jane's speech are directly describing her internal state of mind, that's a small break in perspective.

Unless Bob is established as very observant. A lot of mental states can be assumed, especially in dialogue. It may not be reliable, but I would take it as it is how Bob perceived Jane's body language. It may or may not be what Jane's true mental state was at that moment.

 

[SimonDoom]

"It takes more than this *wink* to make me bedridden.”

.

This suggests that the winking is the thing that might make her bedridden.

One caveat with adverbs like "playfully" is that they make it easy for an author to accidentally switch perspective. If the story is meant to be third-person close, told entirely from Bob's viewpoint, but then the adverbs attached to Jane's speech are directly describing her internal state of mind, that's a small break in perspective.

Agreed. If the story is told from Jane's point of view, then it MIGHT make sense under certain circumstances that her wink is described as playful. But from Bob's point of view, it makes no sense. Bob isn't going to be able to tell a playful wink from any other sort of wink. More likely, the reader will just attribute it to a lazy narrator, who characterizes a wink as "playful" without giving the reader any idea what that sort of wink is and how it's different from other winks.

 

[ElectricBlue]

If you wanted to build a chair, and you consulted people who build chairs, they wouldn't tell you "Hey, just build it the way you want!" They would show you how it's been done before, and tell you about how to build a good chair. Writing is no different from chair building. If you want to write well, pay attention to how people who do it well do it. Learn from what's been done before, successfully.

That's a very good analogy. It's like TxRad and his boats. Pay attention if you want to build boats, the guy's built a few.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Although I believe that the true drive of this tread is the desire to get rid of that "she said" altogether, feeling it as redundant. With, although it is claimed to be invisible to readers, may feel tiresome and redundant to overly self aware authors?

The OP, maybe, but that's the point - there are more folk weighing in saying, "Use, 'She said,' because it's simple, it works, and it's correct."

To use Simon's carpentry analogy, "said" is like a common nail, grammar wise. You don't need to go all Ikea when a nail does the trick, perfectly.

 

[NotWise]

That's a very good analogy. It's like TxRad and his boats. Pay attention if you want to build boats, the guy's built a few.

I think this is only a good analogy if you haven't built chairs. There have to be hundreds of different kinds of chairs and different ways to build all of them.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

But from Bob's point of view, it makes no sense. Bob isn't going to be able to tell a playful wink from any other sort of wink. More likely, the reader will just attribute it to a lazy narrator, who characterizes a wink as "playful" without giving the reader any idea what that sort of wink is and how it's different from other winks.

Sure Bob can, if he knows her. And while adding the descriptor "playful" to indicate the variety of wink might be lazy, it's also a more efficient means of communicating intent than delineating all the other movements of a person's face and body that would indicate playfulness.

"She winked. Prior to the wink she first opened her eyes wider than usual, then closed one eye more slowly than usual. She also contracted the facial muscles around the orbit of that eye, closing the eye tighter than necessary. She slightly inclined her head to the same side as the eye being closed, while at the same time turning that closing eye toward Bob. Simultaneously she contracted the cheek muscles on the same side, making a half smile, while also raising that shoulder. Therefore, Bob inferred that she meant the expression to indicate lightheartedness and mirth."

Conspiratorial wink: "He retracted his head slightly from its previous position, and closed one eye, leaving the lid down longer than necessary to moisten his eye. His facial expression otherwise unchanged, Jenny concluded that he was acknowledging her statement and her request to keep the matter secret."

Obviously, the rest of the dialouge and other descriptions of the characters' interactions with each other communicate intent too. But, as someone wrote, a descriptor like "playfully" can indicate a change in mood, or contrast with an otherwise serious sounding statement.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think this is only a good analogy if you haven't built chairs. There have to be hundreds of different kinds of chairs and different ways to build all of them.

Yes, but they're all going to follow a fundamental rule or two, when it comes to joints and making them stand up without wobbling.

What fundamental grammar does, is stop writers wobbling when they don't need to, aka, "don't reinvent the wheel."

 

[LupusDei]

Now I'm ready curious, what is the proper way to intermix dialogue with simultaneously performed informative actions?
I would be inclined to write something like this:

"Oh my God, Bob," Harry exclaimed, "why, just why you would think mixing that cheap shit," he pointed at the paper bag, "into this precious substance," he pointed at the plastic bucket, "might be a good idea? It's expensive you know," he waved hands in despair.

"Fuck yourself Harry," Bob rolled his eyes, "it's what it's for, what instructions say! How I was supposed to guess this," he kicked the bag," doesn't meet your special approval?" He looked Harry in the eyes, clenching his fists in.
​

If the above discussion has to be believed, it's wrong in some fundamental ways to do so?

 

[SimonDoom]

Now I'm ready curious, what is the proper way to intermix dialogue with simultaneously performed informative actions?
I would be inclined to write something like this:

"Oh my God, Bob," Harry exclaimed, "why, just why you would think mixing that cheap shit," he pointed at the paper bag, "into this precious substance," he pointed at the plastic bucket, "might be a good idea? It's expensive you know," he waved hands in despair.

"Fuck yourself Harry," Bob rolled his eyes, "it's what it's for, what instructions say! How I was supposed to guess this," he kicked the bag," doesn't meet your special approval?" He looked Harry in the eyes, clenching his fists in.
​

If the above discussion has to be believed, it's wrong in some fundamental ways to do so?

Ask yourself this: Have you ever read a style guide that recommended it to be done this way? Have you ever seen it done this way in quality, published fiction?

The answer is no. I defy anyone to come up with an example of it being done this way. It reads terribly. It's confusing. The way to do this is as follows:

"Oh my God, Bob!" Harry exclaimed. "Why, just why would you think mixing that cheap shit into this precious substance might be a good idea? It's expensive you know." He pointed at the paper bag, then pointed at the plastic bucket, and then waved his hands in despair.


I think it's implied that the narrative action is happening at the same time he's speaking. It's much clearer and more grammatical than splitting up the quote into pieces interspersed with bits of narrative, set off by commas.

 

[LupusDei]

Yes, but they're all going to follow a fundamental rule or two, when it comes to joints and making them stand up without wobbling.

What fundamental grammar does, is stop writers wobbling when they don't need to, aka, "don't reinvent the wheel."

Not quite. My country men just recently reinvented a common stool making it with no joints at all, one piece form-glued plywood. Yes, just like plastic, some might say, but it's plywood.

And even with common wood sticks fastened crisscross to make a chair, there's countless varieties of possible joints and constructive schemes. And yes, I find it boring to make one without trying to invent something new or different, even if no better.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think this is only a good analogy if you haven't built chairs. There have to be hundreds of different kinds of chairs and different ways to build all of them.

I'm not a chair builder, and I imagine there are many ways to build a chair. I imagine, too, that not a single one of those chair-building ways is best accomplished by being told "Do what you want!"

If you want to learn how to do something well, observe how others have done it well before you.

 

[NotWise]

If you want to learn how to do something well, observe how others have done it well before you.

So, we should write like Shakespeare.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This suggests that the winking is the thing that might make her bedridden.

Yeah, I didn't express myself clearly in that example. My intended point was that if I was redesigning the language, it would be nice to have some symbol that goes within quoted dialogue to mark out body-language which is effectively a part of that dialogue. Unfortunately, that's not the language we have.

Agreed. If the story is told from Jane's point of view, then it MIGHT make sense under certain circumstances that her wink is described as playful. But from Bob's point of view, it makes no sense. Bob isn't going to be able to tell a playful wink from any other sort of wink. More likely, the reader will just attribute it to a lazy narrator, who characterizes a wink as "playful" without giving the reader any idea what that sort of wink is and how it's different from other winks.

I think Belle and LupusDei made a good point here, that if Bob is familiar enough with Jane that he can reliably interpret that kind of thing, "playfully" is reasonable - in that case, what we're getting is Bob's perception, not a direct line into Jane's head. I missed that case previously because I tend to write characters who aren't good at that kind of interpretation, where figuring out somebody's feelings can be a challenge.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Now I'm ready curious, what is the proper way to intermix dialogue with simultaneously performed informative actions?
I would be inclined to write something like this:

"Oh my God, Bob," Harry exclaimed, "why, just why you would think mixing that cheap shit," he pointed at the paper bag, "into this precious substance," he pointed at the plastic bucket, "might be a good idea? It's expensive you know," he waved hands in despair.

"Fuck yourself Harry," Bob rolled his eyes, "it's what it's for, what instructions say! How I was supposed to guess this," he kicked the bag," doesn't meet your special approval?" He looked Harry in the eyes, clenching his fists in.
​

If the above discussion has to be believed, it's wrong in some fundamental ways to do so?

AFAIK, the correct way to write that would be to use em dashes for interrupted speech, something like this:

"Oh my God, Bob," Harry exclaimed, "why, just why you would think mixing that cheap shit"—he pointed at the paper bag—"into this precious substance"—he pointed at the plastic bucket—"might be a good idea? It's expensive you know." He waved his hands in despair.​

The punctuation around "Harry exclaimed" is fine as-is, since "exclaimed" is a speech tag.

If it were me, I'd edit out both instances of "he pointed at the", since the context conveys it well enough.

 

[ElectricBlue]

So, we should write like Shakespeare.

He's not saying that, and you know it.

What is it with these threads, when folk rightfully say writers should know a few rules about fundamental grammar, there's an undercurrent of folk wanting to defend illiteracy and ignorance?

Shouldn't we as writers have a bit of pride in what we do, and support lifting the bar rather than lowering it? I don't get the nay-sayers. Or are people just arguing because they can?

 

[ElectricBlue]

Not quite. My country men just recently reinvented a common stool making it with no joints at all, one piece form-glued plywood. Yes, just like plastic, some might say, but it's plywood.

Glue is like a nail. It's a fundamental thing for twenty-first century woodworking. Like grammar is, for writing.

 

[mynameisben]

Or are people just arguing because they can?

That's the way I'm reading it.

 

[SamScribble]

Back in the early 1980s, John Whale wrote a series of articles for The Sunday Times Magazine which were later published as a book: Put it in Writing.

His objective (he said) was to show how to ‘write engagingly and with confidence, sound like yourself, to be understood at once, and always keep your reader with you’. And the most effective way to do that, he suggested, was through observant reading. See how the good writers do it.

John Whale’s book is full of useful tips. Perhaps the one that I found most useful was to listen: to listen to the words; to listen to the sentences. The problem with the OP’s various examples is that none of them ‘sound’ right.

 

[purpleswordpanties]

Thanks for the feedback. I see the thread grew a bit.

I will go for the "It takes more than this to make me bedridden," she said with a wink. "Playful" is definitely redundant considering the context and the relationship of the characters. So that's gone.

That said... I still think there is merit in omitting "said". Yes, it's wrong, but I'm not a proponent of following the rules just because they're rules. Rules also need to make sense and have reason to be there. And the day a rule stops being helpful is the day I must question it.

Sentences like:

"Come any closer," he glared. "And your wife gets it!"
"This fish is disgusting," he grimaced.

You cannot glare dialogue, and you cannot grimace dialogue. But the actions are part of the way they're communicating. We know exactly what's being done and being said, despite not following the rules. I think they read well.