Stylistic question on paragraphing

[trieste]

I don't know if there is, in fact, some definitive rule on this or not, but I do know it's been suggested by a number of writers that, as with dialogue, the actions of each individual character warrant separate paragraphs. People say it's a matter of clarity . . . flow . . . whatever you want to call it.

In general I agree, and for the most part my writing works itself out this way organically. However, I run into conflict when I have two characters engaged in a quick series of cause/effect actions and reactions. It ends up causing a volley of one-sentence paragraphs that invariably looks retarded on the page.

I am curious what other people's thoughts on this might be. Is it a mortal sin to write a paragraph with multiple actors acting in succession? For example, here's a snipet of a paragraph I am reluctant to chop up:

Still not a word, but he relaxes and starts to stroke my hair. Slowly, gently, like I’m Mink or a retarded child. I can’t tell if this is a positive or something that should offend me; his touch, however, has a hypnotic effect. I lay my head against his chest and draw a shaky breath.

So I have two sentences pertaining to "his" actions (okay, one is a fragment, but same idea), and two pertaining to the narrator's actions. Yes, I could paragraph break it after "child," but I'm worried about pacing. I have a general tendency towards sluggish pacing, and all these short, clipped paragraphs of short, clipped sentences is only going to feed that.

Anyway, I know most people probably don't care (or even notice at all), but I'd prefer to write as well as I can, so . . . any thoughts on which is the greater sin, anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[Darkniciad]

I don't see anything wrong with leaving them together. Though the actions are those of the male character, everything is happening through her perception, so continuing with her actions doesn't bump or present any conflict in my head.

As long as neither character has dialogue ( spoken or thought dialogue, not narrative thought as you have here ) , the perception is from a single character, and the actions all flow naturally as extensions of each other, it works for me.

 

[sr71plt]

Separate paragraphs for dialogue of separate speakers is not a flat rule but it's what's "usually" done. (see Chicago Manual of Style 13.37).

Thinking that short or rapid-fire dialogue looks retarded in separate paragraphs is probably largely a personal quirk of yours. It's pretty much handled that way in the publishing world.

 

[trieste]

Thanks, both of you, for your thoughts.

Thinking that short or rapid-fire dialogue looks retarded in separate paragraphs is probably largely a personal quirk of yours. It's pretty much handled that way in the publishing world.

No, it's not separate paragraphs of rapid-fire dialogue that looks retarded to me, but separate paragraphs of actions. At least if it's done solely to satisfy this "rule" and not for some other valid reason (if it's done for dramatic tension or pacing reasons I get it.)

Anyway, if CMS says the paragraphing thing isn't even a hard-and-fast rule for dialogue, I feel better about making my own decisions for breaks regarding multiple actors.

Thanks again for the help, guys.

 

[sr71plt]

Thanks, both of you, for your thoughts.



No, it's not separate paragraphs of rapid-fire dialogue that looks retarded to me, but separate paragraphs of actions. At least if it's done solely to satisfy this "rule" and not for some other valid reason (if it's done for dramatic tension or pacing reasons I get it.)

Anyway, if CMS says the paragraphing thing isn't even a hard-and-fast rule for dialogue, I feel better about making my own decisions for breaks regarding multiple actors.

Thanks again for the help, guys.

Perhaps you could give an example or too. There's no reason a character's actions can't be included in a paragraph with dialogue. So, I don't really understand your issue, I guess.

 

[trieste]

Oh . . . well, let's say you've got this paragraph:

From across the room, she met his gaze and licked her lips. He could feel something tighten inside. Her steps through the crowd were slow but purposeful; when she walked it was with the measured confidence of one used to being watched. Before she closed half the distance, he was already half hard.

Okay, so this is some stupid, overwrought shit I just made up on the fly, but hopefully you see what I mean. To me, because the above scene should probably have a brisk feel to it (it's a stage-setting bit--not the pivotal dramatic moment), my inclination is to leave the paragraph as-is; however, you have "he" and "she" alternating action in each sentence. The alternative would be this:

From across the room, she met his gaze and licked her lips.

He could feel something tighten inside.

Her steps through the crowd were slow but purposeful; when she walked it was with the measured confidence of one used to being watched.

Before she closed half the distance, he was already half hard.

. . . seemingly arbitrary breaks that just look stupid and slow down the pace, right? That's always been my take, anyway, except I keep encountering this suggestion in various "how to" articles by more than one established author of erotica (not that the rules for erotica are any different than any other fiction--just happens to be where I've found it most.)

Arguably, you could rewrite the above paragraph so that "he" is the actor in all sentences. "He watched her lick her lips from across the room . . ." or whatever. However, sometimes doing things that way makes for some tortured, convoluted sentences, and I hate to sacrifice crispness, or action verbs, or whatever else you might have to give up just to fulfill this not-even rule.

Anyway, I hope that explains the gist of my question.

 

[Darkniciad]

Everything we're seeing is from his point of view, the actions are all part of a string of cause and effect with the lead character... There's no reason ( indeed, good reason not to ) break this paragraph up.

When you're only "in the head" of one character, there's no need to divide the actions up by characters unless there's dialogue, or one character does a whole lot of things in a series without any real interaction with/effect upon the lead character.

I'm trying to think of an example that doesn't involve dialogue, but my boy dragged me out of bed really early this morning, and my creativity gauge is reading "Ha ha! Right!"

 

[sr71plt]

Oh . . . well, let's say you've got this paragraph:

From across the room, she met his gaze and licked her lips. He could feel something tighten inside. Her steps through the crowd were slow but purposeful; when she walked it was with the measured confidence of one used to being watched. Before she closed half the distance, he was already half hard.

This is good to go as one paragraph.

 

[Firebrain]

No, actions of other characters do not require a new line. Dialogue does, and if you follow the dialogue of one person with the actions of another then yes, you would switch lines -- but otherwise, no. Not unless you were actually switching to another paragraph for your own stylistic reasons (such as dramatic effect).

In other words -- your friend is talking bull.

 

[Firebrain]

Everything we're seeing is from his point of view, the actions are all part of a string of cause and effect with the lead character... There's no reason ( indeed, good reason not to ) break this paragraph up.

When you're only "in the head" of one character, there's no need to divide the actions up by characters unless there's dialogue, or one character does a whole lot of things in a series without any real interaction with/effect upon the lead character.

I'm trying to think of an example that doesn't involve dialogue, but my boy dragged me out of bed really early this morning, and my creativity gauge is reading "Ha ha! Right!"

Even if you're in the head of two characters, you should avoid doing so in the same scene. It's not "illegal" but it's difficult to do well.

If you are switching points of view then you'd definitely want a new line, purely to indicate that. Say you'd had alternating paragraphs of he/she, a quickfire succession of he/she lines at the end would make sense and build tension.

Unless you're an awesome writer, though (and I don't mean to patronise -- you might be!), I wholeheartedly discourage you from "headhopping" during a scene. If you're going that route, for the love of God -- do not clarify each person's thoughts after their dialogue, especially not to say what is usually the same thing (very common pitfall of this technique).

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Oh . . . well, let's say you've got this paragraph:

From across the room, she met his gaze and licked her lips. He could feel something tighten inside. Her steps through the crowd were slow but purposeful; when she walked it was with the measured confidence of one used to being watched. Before she closed half the distance, he was already half hard.

Okay, so this is some stupid, overwrought shit I just made up on the fly, but hopefully you see what I mean. To me, because the above scene should probably have a brisk feel to it (it's a stage-setting bit--not the pivotal dramatic moment), my inclination is to leave the paragraph as-is; however, you have "he" and "she" alternating action in each sentence. The alternative would be this:

Sure does.

With this para you are in 3rd person omniscient and it works fine, as Dark and sr said. If you write, even in 3rd person, totally from one person's POV you have a problem - without changing paragraph - to switch the thoughts.

 

[kuellar]

I don't have much to add to the posts that have already been made, except to say that I think you had the right idea initially. In your original post you mentioned "clarity", "flow", and "pacing" - these are certainly goals toward which you should be aiming.

As I see it, all the rules dealing with stylistic portrayals of dialogue and action, are there to serve the end of things like clarity and flow. The rules are certainly useful, definitely worth knowing and keeping in mind, but I think you should be aware that they are tools to help you achieve clarity, flow, etc.

In that sense it doesn't really matter (I think) if the rules are unclear in a certain instance. Go back to thinking about clarity and flow, and chances are you'll find something that works. After all, that's what people did to come up with the rules in the first place.