How about you let me explain myself to others. I don't need you to try and do it for me. Especially since you got the context of my post completely wrong. Worry about yourself, I can handle me. We can avoid all these useless posts that way.
I think the hostility in this thread is getting out of hand. I can see what JHunter wants to do: rather than using the colon, he avoids the issue by rephrasing, which is always a good thing. I believe digitig said that using colons reveals a certain characteristic, which is also good. RusticOnion and others say the colon is good because it's a punctuation mark like any other and can be used to prepare the reader for things such as elaboration or lists. Also fine. I think at this point we should do what minstrel said: let bygones be bygones and use the colon as we (as individuals) see fit. If there's anything this thread has done for me, it's made me watch where I put my colons in dialog. I find it fitting in places and have replaced it with commas, periods, or rephrasing in others. Why doesn't each person use it as they want so we can avoid the arguments, backtalk, communication, or however we define words here?
lostinwebspace is right. Do you all wanna take a good hard look at yourselves, please? You're basing personal arguments on a thread about colons. What does that say about you? The hostility and ridiculous arguing stops here. If it doesn't, I'll start handing out infractions. You have been warned.
So, bringing this back around to the original question, let's summarize what we collectively decided (yes, we decided on an answer, even though we disagreed on it, just bear with me): We seem to be split on whether it's even really acceptable (in common use, not from the perspective of proper grammar) to use a colon in dialogue in the majority of cases where you would be inclined to. What this tells me is that the best answer we can give is that if it's really how the character speaks, and it's well-phrased dialogue, not unnecessarily stilted, etc., and you feel that a colon will add clarity, then it's up to you to decide to use it or not -- there's no consensus on that, and so, like many things in writing, we can't answer it for you, it's up to your own personal discretion. Some readers will appreciate the extra clarity that the colon adds, and others will find it strange (and possibly specifically notice it, which could be an effect you really want, or one you want to avoid at all costs). That said, I believe, based both on the discussion here and on generally well-accepted writing rules (of thumb), that if you are using a colon simply to cover up awkward or unnatural phrasing (does the character sound like he's reading from an encyclopedia?), then you should be rephrasing first. Then, and only then, should you go back and evaluate your choice of punctuation. I'm specifically bringing this up because, while any of the examples brought up in this discussion could occur in decent writing, some of them don't really sound natural, and would more likely be spoken by an overly formal character, or a character specifically using unusual phrasing (for emphasis or what have you). We don't all agree on whether or not it is generally acceptable to use colons in dialogue, but it is an objective fact that colons tend not to occur as often in dialogue as they do in narration, or especially in exposition, simply because of the tones and levels of formality involved.
Man alive. Yes you can use them and there are times when you probably should use them. A quick flick through some books finds dialogic colons in Hardy, Barth, Updike, Huxley, David Foster Wallace, Ron Currie Jr. (The latter two, recently published Americans.) Minstrel has come up with a great example. Certainly, they are not peculiar to formal or staid or pedagogic talkers. Eg: (Warning! Naughty words afoot) -DFW, Infinite Jest
aside from the fact that the wording in that example makes little or no sense to me, that colon, while perhaps ok in narrative, in dialog would be best replaced by an ellipsis, since it's clear that a dramatic pause was desired there... my last [i hope!] word on the subject of this amazingly long thread...
Don't forget the other possibility I mentioned, which is certainly the case here: "a character specifically using unusual phrasing (for emphasis or what have you)." Leaving the question of whether it's appropriate to use aside, as mammamaia mentioned, a colon isn't necessary here, so the example can't be used as a hard and fast proof that colons are sometimes necessary. You know my stance, but, for the sake of civility, I agreed to disagree and included both viewpoints in the summary. If you have something to add to it, feel free, but it's completely pointless to continue debating whether colons should be used in dialogue, and, as with just about everything else there's broad disagreement on, we can just give all the facts, then leave it up to the individual writer to decide.
Once again, I respectfully disagree. I assume that you're referring to art's example from David Foster Wallace. The colon is necessary, because it links the "attempted powdered milk" to the "ultimate dietary cluster-f###". With the colon, the sentence makes grammatical sense. The colon does more than create a dramatic pause, it creates a relationship between two elements of the sentence. With an ellipsis, that relationship doesn't exist. You only have the pause, and that's not enough to convey the sense of the sentence. Punctuation marks are not always interchangeable, in dialogue or not in dialogue. They have specific purposes. The fact that a sentence appears in dialogue does not mean that it should be incorrectly punctuated. Quote marks are not an excuse to abuse punctuation, in my opinion. And with any luck, this will be my last post in this thread!
Frankly, I did not forget the other possibility. I discounted it. Your 'unusual phrasing' is, simply, people talking. People talking animatedly and emphatically. People listing. People lecturing. People proffering faux-lectures and so on. The debate was never about whether dialogic colons are necessary. Commas are not necessary in dialogue but it would be an odd person who refused to use them. Your summary was grand, but a simple soul like me prefers bullet points. We have learned: - You can use colons in dialogue. - Dialogic colons are found in many works of fiction. They are found in contemporary American efforts. - Some folk stumble over them. - Some folk don't stumble over them.
You're also discounting the fact that there was no consensus on this. Please don't include only one side of the debate in your revised summary. You summarized *your* position, which isn't terribly useful when we've already decided that we don't agree on this. I was intending on answering the initial question in the best manner possible. Because we don't agree, this answer must be "you need to decide for yourself, given the information we've presented." Every one of these, with the exception of listing, is unusual dialogue. People are revising what they say and their tone to achieve a specific effect. If I'm having a casual chat with one of my friends, any such construction would likely be tongue-in-cheek. This: 'And then now the ultimate dietary cluster-fuck: attempted powdered milk.' is tongue-in-cheek, and is unusual phrasing used to emphasize the point. If someone is listing things, it's generally unnatural to use a construction that would use a colon when writing it down. If I need someone to get three things from the grocery store, I'm going to say, "I need eggs, milk, and bread." If I say "I need three things: eggs, milk, and bread" (this is, more or less, the example that was given earlier), then I am specifically using unusual phrasing to emphasize something (here, either "Make sure you remember these things." or "Don't go buying yourself anything else. Stick to my list."). This point was, in fact, core to the discussion. If they are necessary, then asking whether they are acceptable is moot. Please don't dismiss our position out of hand just because you don't agree with it. And, once again, please do not resort to reductio ad absurdum to muddy our points. No one here was talking about commas. (edit: "If they are necessary, then asking whether they are acceptable is moot." should read "If they are necessary in a given context, then asking whether they are acceptable in that context is moot." -- the original statement was a bit more general than I intended.)
I'm familiar with reductio ad absurdum. It can be legitimate in some cases, but is, in addition, a common logical fallacy, specifically when used to present a false dichotomy (here, making the claim that our position necessitates "all punctuation is permissible" or else that "no punctuation is permissible"). We can claim that one punctuation mark is not allowable in this context, without necessitating that commas, for example, shouldn't be used. This is reductio ad absurdum in the sense that minstrel, art, and others tried to discredit our point by reducing it to its absurd logical conclusion. This isn't what we're saying at all. If you prefer, however, I'll just call this a straw man argument (which I chose not to use because it's become diluted by overuse just as ad hominem has). "- You can use colons in dialogue." This is the very point we disagree on. You shouldn't be including it in a summary of the general consensus, at least not in such an unqualified manner.
Ok then. I'm a magnanimous sort so will now revise my summary. - Dialogic colons are found in many works of fiction. They are found in contemporary American efforts. Hardy uses them. Updike uses them. David Foster Wallace uses them. Some folk on an internet forum maintain they cannot be used. - Some folk stumble over them. - Some folk don't stumble over them. Congratulations on the three hundred posts baby!
Thanks, I feel so much better now that you've taken to marginalize my position, and declare my opinion invalid. (I mean, it's on the Internet, so it must be drivel, right?) I've already conceded that no rules in writing are hard and fast. I will continue to say that you should avoid adverbs or overly colorful prose. I'm sure you can find dozens, if not more, of successful authors who don't follow those rules. I swear we've had this discussion before -- anything that is stated as a "rule" in writing is rather a rule of thumb (but, for some reason, the writing community continues to cite them as if they are laws of nature... you'd think we, of all people, would know to use clearer semantics...). You should at least agree that colons should not be used as a crutch to get away with awkward or unnatural wording, which was the main thing I took exception to. Most of the examples given could have their uses, but in the vast majority of dialogue, would sound stilted or nonfluent (now, if that's the effect you're going for, then, sure, go ahead).
My apologies. It could have been worse. I was thinking of rustling up a summary in graphic form. In Paint. Take it easy.
What the hell. One more post. This has been the funnest thread so far. In my whole three months here, I have never seen so much back-stabbing, throat cutting, will not budge attitudes. I love it. Yes, three months. I can only imagine what I've missed. And yes, you can still use a colon in written dialogue.
Your face can use a colon in written dialogue. Haha, joking. But this indeed has been an interesting thread to say the least.
