"Whether or not to use quotations for thoughts..." she wondered

[gaigirl]

"Whether or not to use quotations for thoughts...", she wondered

I had some feedback after my stories that used pretty definitive statements, such as "Never enclose thoughts in quotation marks!". I have also heard it said that each character always needs a new paragraph for dialogue. I have seen (in REAL literature) both ways, so I went to my trusty Chicago Manual of Style to see what the "Bible" says on these issues.

I find that 10.45 says:
"Thought, imagined dialogue, and other interior discourse presented in more or less conventional syntax is often but not always enclosed in quotation marks. Alternatives include use of italics... The choice -- in fiction especially, should be the author's but consistency ought to be observed within a single work." (page 370 10.45)

so I wonder how the idea got perpetuated on lit that thoughts shouldn't be in quotes. Any thoughts? No quotes necessary...

As for whether dialogue requires a new paragraph for each speaker, that question has a listing in the CMS. (see 10.36 and 10.37)


10.36
...A change in speaker is usually indicated by a new paragraph."

I don't see any always here, although it is my personal choice as well, . However, there are times when the dialogue is less the focus than the narrative, so I read on looking for justification, and behold!...

10.37
"Authors sometimes prefer to run an exchange of dialogue together within a single paragraph, choosing to make the paragraphing depend more on the narrative than on a change of speaker."

I'm new at this erotic story thing, and my ratings/votes might indicate that I am not very skilled, but I am not at all new at editing or proofreading-- I do it for a living (which doesn't necessarily mean I am skilled, now that I think about it...).

I sometimes wonder where those with generous offerings of feedback come up with their always... and never..., and I am wondering what kinds of reference materials they are using that I don't know about. I'm sure there is more out there than the Chicago Manual of Style, and I wonder if these other materials contradict what I have been using.

 

[chatbug]

Change in speaker

Reading on a computer screen is harder than reading from a printed page. Unless the narrative is so much more important than the dialog, it's much easier for the reader if the dialog is broken up into separate paragraphs.

I use much shorter paragraphs in my writing for the same reason. It feels easier to read an online story with lots of white space.

 

[Pee J]

Whether or not to use quotations for thoughts...",

Gaigirl is of course right, there is no absolute in writing (in English) or any form of art for that matter. Even so it is 'usual' and 'normal' to use separate paragraphs for each person speaking. This is a convention to help the reader. The writer's job (amongst others) is to make their writing as seemless as possible. This is one which if not followed is usually very confusing. You might be able to get away with it if you are James Joyce, but for most normal mortals the conventional way is preferred.

One instance where it might be acceptable is in a very rapid and repetitive exchange:

"I will." "No you won't." "I'm telling you I will." "I'm telling you you won't." and so on. Even so many readers will find it difficult to work out who says what.

When writing estories, then it is preferable to have a blank line between each new speaker - it just makes it so much easier to read.

As for 'thoughts' in the printed-on-paper world italics solves the problem, which also applies to web pages. In Usenet italics are not possible so the alternatives are to use quotation marks, and I think it is a good idea to use single quotation marks so it distinguishs thoughts from dialogue. The other obvious way is to use 'that': he thought that . . . This way no quote marks are needed.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Whether or not to use quotations for thoughts...",

As for 'thoughts' in the printed-on-paper world italics solves the problem, which also applies to web pages. In Usenet italics are not possible so the alternatives are to use quotation marks, and I think it is a good idea to use single quotation marks so it distinguishs thoughts from dialogue. The other obvious way is to use 'that': he thought that . . . This way no quote marks are needed.

From my observations reading numerous books over some forty years of reading, mostly science fiction and fantasy novels, Italics is the most common method of indicating "internal dialogue" -- ie thoughts -- and that is what I recommend when editing. I suggest the use of single quote marks if Italics isn't available.

That isn't a suggestion based on ironclad rules or a definitive source like the CMoS, it's simply what I've found works best to maintain a distinction between External Dialogue (audible words,) Internal Dialogue (thoughts expressed as words,) and narration of a characters state of mind, (unformed thoughts, or thoughts not expressed in words.)

As for paragraphs:

from my "Lexicon Webster's Dictionary:
Paragraph, ..., ..., n. [O.Fr. Fr. paragraphs, < M.L. para-graphus, < Gr.paragraphos,a line or mark in the margin.] A distinct portion of written or printed matter dealing with a particular point or quoting the words of one speaker and usually beginning with an indentation on a new line; a note, item, or brief article, as in a newspaper, usually forming a distinct, undivided whole. -v.r. To divide into paragraphs; to express in a paragraph; to mention in a paragraph; write or publish paragraphs about. -par-a-graph-ic, ..., a.-par-a-graph-er, ..., n. One who writes paragraphs or short pieces as for a newspaper; also esp. Brit. par-a-graph-ist.[/qoute]

It doesn't exactly say "quotes should start a new paragraph whenthe speaker changes," but that can certainly be inferred from the definition of what a paragraph is.

Again from long experience as a reader, I personally prefer dialogue that follows this definition bcause it is much easier to keep track of who is speaking and requires fewer dialogue tags to maintain order.

The definition would also seem to imply that action and dialogue should be separated into distinct paragraphs, but that's a much harder choice for me that separating dialogue between speakers. I generally go by what "flows better," regardless of how "correct" it is.

Like so much other advice for writers, dialogue and paragraph breaks dpend on the context more than they depend on iron-clad rules of grammar.

"If it works, don't fix it" can apply to writing as well as mechanics.

 

[Rainbow Skin]

Both are issues of readability. Both are usually most visibly violated by writers who haven't sat back and re-read their text. You as the writer know who's saying what; but a stranger might not. Another example, not involving paragraphing to start with: in your head you've got these two people and they say:-

"Yes it is."

"But I thought you couldn't."

"Well I did."

"If only we could all the time."

"Maybe."

"Maybe?"

Now by the time you've got this far, you're the only person who has the slightest idea who's saying what. Every now and again you need to throw in a "said Bill".

The next big problem is if you start mixing speakers in one paragraph. It's so easy to do.

"Yes it is," said Mary, reaching out her hand to Bill. He hardly knew how to react. It was disturbing news. "But I thought you couldn't."

Now you the writer are following this exactly in your head and you know Bill has thought these things then said something. But to the reader, for whom usually all the speech in one paragraph is from the one speaker, it looks like Mary said the second bit too.

Same principle with thoughts. If most of it is she-said and he-said, but you've got some unquoted bits with subject "I", it should be clear they're thoughts, depending on how you write it. But mixing it could be confusing if they're unmarked. So marking (italics or single quotes) is useful if it's ambiguous without them.

But never believe anyone who lays down the law. There are no laws in writing.