Hello all, I know this seems like a noob question, but is it acceptable to not give each line of dialog it's own paragraph? I've read books that do this, and books that don't, but is there one that is accepted more then the other? For those who don't know what I mean, here's an example: 1. Bill stopped Kyle at the door. "Where are you going?" he asked. "None of your business" Kyle snapped back. Or 2. Bill stopped Kyle at the door. "Where are you going?" he asked. "None of your business" Kyle snapped back. The reason I'm asking is because I've always written like #2, I don't give each new speaker their own line, and I often just insert dialog in the paragraph. However, recently I've seen a lot of people write more like #1, and I want to know which way is correct. Thanks in advance for any help!
No, fairly sure of that... challenge yourself to find one where the dialogue's not split out into its own paragraph. Also, fwiw, it's good to make a habit (I'd humbly suggest) of weighting your dialogue tags—have them most often before the speaker speaks. It makes it easier to read, knowing who's saying what from the off.
Generally, that's a no-go. I'm sure there are exceptions here or there... maybe if the dialogue is extemporaneous or being recalled/surmised as part of a larger thought. Can't recall ever seeing a book do it that way for more than a gag or two, but I could be wrong. It kind of screams amateur hour.
I see, I looked through a couple of books, and you're correct, all of them do it like #1. I don't know where I picked that habit up from, but I'll stop doing it that way, as it's clearly not correct Thanks for the help!
There is no "correct" way. Example 1 is definitely the most common, but there may be times where the second example is more appropriate. Go with what works best for the flow of the piece. I would look back at novels/stories that follow example 1 and ask yourself why the author chose to do this in certain passages. A good writer will have reasons for breaking convention.
In general, it's best practice to divide separate characters' speech into separate paragraphs, if for no other reason than clarity for the reader. Also, separate paragraphs create an instinctive pause or breath between dialogue passages. Occasionally, however, you will see more than one speaker's dialogue in the same paragraph. Assuming the writer knows what he or she is doing, what is the effect, the intended effect, of breaking convention? If not laziness, then it must be to make the dialogue fragments less separate, less closely bound to each speaker. Breaking convention should always be purposeful, and rare. If you don't keep it rare, it just looks sloppy and inconsistent.
One of my favourite authors, Jose Saramago, doesn't break paragraphs for dialogue, or even use speech marks. Laszlo Kraznahorkai, another great writer, does likewise. I don't know if it's more of a regional convention. I don't recall anything originally written in English that puts multiple lines in one paragraph. Even Ulysses doesn't got that far But I've certainly read a lot of translated fiction that does.
Same with Cormac McCarthy in The Road (he may do it in his other books as well, but I haven't read them). Although, that book is very odd from a grammatical standpoint, so I'm not sure if that's a good example
I would never do it like 2. It's difficult to read, takes longer time. It's easy to make mistakes as a writer. You will find it's so easy to mess up the quotation marks. I have seen all to many of those. Maybe you get them right the first time but then you start editing. I would do. Bill stopped Kyle at the door. "Where are you going?" he asked. You have a question mark, and the pronoun gives nothing. "None of your business." Kyle snapped back. It's obvious who is talking and the reader should self understand the tone. Don't forget the period inside the quotes.
I personally favor #1. I tend to see it a lot more in literature, and I find it much clearer. As @GB reader said, it's incredibly easy to get lost and mess up, and furthermore, you don't always need pronouns to clarify. Hope that helps!
Saramago is an amazing writer. I remember reading Blindness for the first time and being blown away by his creative use of language. He's definitely a writer to aspire to.
Thank you all for your helpful replies I think I've realized that #1 is generally the best way to go. As I said above, I don't know why I started writing dialog the way I did, but I'll stop doing it from here on.
I like tags, the 'he said/she said,' and tend to write tag-heavy when I can... Also, I hope they melt away in the eye of the reader, and they're pretty - a breath, for rhythm, for the narration. Though I sent a narration piece away this week - probably requires the original narrator to achieve any 'sense...' [this is] my perennial glass ceiling.
I use tags too, but try to limit them for short bits of dialogue and for conveying different tones. Mainly due to the fact that since you can't see their facial expression all the time, you can't really judge how they will say something at a given point in time. Also if you have more than 2 parties speaking in a conversation you will deff. need tags so that it does not get confusing about who is talking at any given point.
If you are going to muck around with basic writing conventions like a new paragraph for a new speaker, you better be one hell of a talented writer or readers are going to write you off before they've finished the first chapter.
Blindness is superb, and it's sequel/opposite Seeing, which I actually read before it (which was interesting). The first of his I read was The Cave. My partner at the time worked for a publishing firm and got hold of a proof of the English translation before it was published. That completely blew me away, so I got hold of The Gospel According to Jesus Christ. I've been a bit obsessed with him ever since. I've got The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reiss lined up to read this year, can't wait. His style is extremely strange and I tried to copied it for a while (those rambling, chatty discourses; pages of unbroken sentences), so yeah I think he's a fine writer to be influenced by. I say if it's okay by Jose, it's okay by me.
For me, as long as it flows and is not confusing, it works and is ok. IMHO, modern publishing is more interested in page/chapter/word counts than it used to be. In the past 10 or so years popular fiction has nearly doubled the amount of chapters typically seen. Novel writing and screenwriting are on a slow vector to meet. A big part of this shift is the money in visual mediums means more money to option novels, and if you want your novel optioned- the best way to do that is to write it so a visual medium person instantly 'gets it' and can see it.
Tags serve one purpose, and that is to identify who is speaking a particular piece of dialogue. You can occasionally tweak a tag to indicate how something was said, but that quickly becomes intrusive. Tags like Brandon said or Ana asked virtually disappear from the reader's notice, keeping the focus on the dialogue itself, as it should. Tags can also be omitted, if it's already clear who is speaking, particular in a conversation with two alternating speakers. Beats are an alternative to tags. A beat is a separate short sentence adjacent to a dialogue fragment that simultaneously place focus on the speaker and provides an anchoring context to the scene. For example: Ethan pushed back his chair. "I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you are all overlooking the key point. Only one of you has a clear motive for lying about the missing keys." From this, you know that Ethan is the speaker, and pushing the chair back emphasizes that he is about to close the discussion. Some time ago, I tried an exercise, a conversation with multiple speakers and no tags. It's in my blog, and the title is "Table Talk." I found it an illuminating challenge, and would recommend trying something similar to anyone wishing to take their dialogue skills to a new level.
Breaking dialog into separate paragraphs is not only standard usage, but I find that it also makes the text easier to read on electronic devices. That doesn't mean that you have to modify the dialog with "He said" or "She replied" at every paragraph, but you should throw in enough of those from time to time that the reader doesn't have to back-track half a page to figure out who is talking to whom. (Readers have a tough enough time as it is, usually, and appreciate the occasional life preserver thrown in their direction.) The only exception I can think of is a case where a lot of people are talking more or less at once, and you want to convey that situation: The room exploded in an uproar. "He's lying!" "What about the budget? Doesn't anybody care about that?" "We can't let him get away with this!" "Shut up, all of you!" Alice looked at the crowd in shock and confusion as the Speaker pounded the gavel and shouted "Order! Order!"
picking up from Cogs point about beats "Bob stopped kyle at the door" could be a beat - and snapped is a tag so you don't need the the 'back' (arguably you don't need the tag either if its just the two of them Bob stopped Kyle at the door. "Where are you going ?" "None of your business"
