Honestly, maybe I'm just not creative enough, but I find it difficult to think of a situation in which I find it important enough to call out the fact that the character is shouting, or that a particular word is being drawn out. In reality, I would probably just write the line. I'm very much a minimalist that way (at least I try to be), in that I often don't see the need to tell the reader how to read my dialog--because how it's read isn't really that important. If you're going for anger, show anger by body language or getting in your character's head: My jaw fell open. How on earth could he say something like that? My heart crashed against my ribs. My hands shook. It took everything I could possibly muster to keep the rage back. I failed. "What the hell did you call me?" Realistically, I don't see where it matters how loud that line is said. You could stress the word "hell" for effect, maybe. But I still don't really see a benefit. Like I said, maybe I'm just not creative enough. Maybe something like this? She turned back and shouted over the crowd, "So you'll call me, right?" But I'd use the narration to govern it. Maybe even go for something a little less crude: She turned back and fought against the din. "So you'll call me, right?" or She turned back, straining to make her voice heard over the bustle. "So you'll call me, right?" That narration can add additional layers outside the scope of the dialog, depending on the context. Similarly: She pouted at him. "But why? Why can't I go?" "Stop whining," he replied. "You're too old to whine." "You're the worst." Does elongating whyyyyyy, gooooooo, or wooooorst really add anything? You already have the body language and the male character's tone to work with. I think anything more would be overkill. That being said, all of this goes out the window immediately if you're showing written or typed text, as in, the contents of an email or text message. Not to use these when it would otherwise be appropriate would be unrealistic. And of course, feel free to ignore me. It's just an opinion, after all
Not really necessary to see examples, is it? Just be aware that too many exclamation marks and interrobangs can overwhelm your prose. You don't want your characters to sound shrill and hysterical all the time, do you? Not really necessary to see examples, is it?! Just be aware that too many exclamation marks and interrobangs can overwhelm your prose!! You don't want your characters to sound shrill and hysterical all the time, do you?!
Here's where I use it: “As if you’d let me. Witch.” “Witch?!” I could say: “As if you’d let me. Witch.” "Witch?" But to me, that reads as Speaker #2 is confused about the word rather than confused, incredulous and surprised all at the same time. I could try: "As if you'd let me. Witch." She gave a short, shocked burst of laughter, unsure whether to be offended or amused. “Witch?” But I don't need or want to. Their previous interactions and relationship make it obvious that he's teasing and, IMO, the ?! does everything that took me 16 words to describe in a beat. The beat also interrupts the back-and-forth rhythm of their teasing quips, which the ?! doesn't. I could probably come up with 50 alternatives to the ?! that work in different ways. But I'm happy with my ?!
It feels like some thing out of the Tom Wolfe toolkit - multiple ellipsis, frequent capitalization, onomatopoeia and the ?!. If I'm writing something a bit quirky or the situation calls for it, I'd definitely use it. It's a great little pair. But if the book is serious I doubt I'd even consider it.
To me it's obvious: Use the question mark when the sentence is a question and the exclamation mark when you want to indicate yelling. If neither is the case, use a period. If both are the case, use both. When it comes to which to use first in the latter case, my personal rule is to always put the one I think is the most integral to the sentence first, but I imagine some may find this practice a bit too pragmatic.
There are indeed times that exclamation points are needed. In my opening scene of my new novel, a woman is found face down in the river. After being revived, yet still unconscious, the guy who has saved her is phoning 911. After he talks to them, someone across the canyon, along the side of the highway, several hundred yards away, shouts and ask if he needs any help. To punctuate their very short conversation with periods is to undermine the situation. They can't hear over the rushing waters. The exclamations are necessary.
Thanks for the input and examples @xanadu. I'm with you most of the way (all the way with word elongation). My opinion's now got a better footing and taking on board what @jannert said too I think there's a place for them. Albeit one only to visit rarely; say when raising the game in climactic scenes and stepping up from enquiry to anger to rage. Josh looked over his glasses, his forehead became corrugated. 'So that's what you believe is it?' No answer. 'So that's what you believe?!' No answer. 'So THAT's what you believe?!' I'd find it difficult to spread the effect of the above out by interspersing it with exposition. I reckon it'd serve as a good tool too during a flourish when drafting arguments/verbal conflict. Chuck in the interrobangs and caps then build the behaviour round them when in refining mode later on.
Indeed. When I want to use the ?!, it's definitely not for a question such as, "Would you like some ice cream?!" Exposition slows down the nuance. Though I can see over using them.
I don't see the exclamation mark as just to emphasize yelling, sometimes it can be used to convey surprise - "What's in this martini?" "Cheese." "Cheese!" No wonder his stomach was rebelling. - example. Hence the dual - ?! Could be used likewise - "Whhaa? You used to be a man?!"
I don't think the exclamation adds anything in that sentence. Or that it won't become an accepted convention in the future **cough-italics for thoughts-cough**. And speaking of the italics for thoughts debate, I wish people wouldn't refer to style choices as crutches. It's a choice. Would you call the choice to show exclamation with an action or description, a crutch?
Of course not because that would be through words. In this case, as regards makeshift punctuation, for me, it is absolutely a crutch. It's a way to bypass words and syntax as a mode of conveyance. For me, it's just this side of an emoticon, and that is a crutch.
An exclamation point or a question mark are part of the sentence. Do you consider those a crutch? Punctuation is part of writing as much as the words are. I understand what you are saying, the same thing was said in the italics thread, that using them was a crutch. Yet using italics to emphasize a word or identify a book title wouldn't likely be called a crutch. The choice to use a sentence fragment is a style choice. Is it a crutch? What makes using an exclamation point with a question (and I don't subscribe to double punctuation, by the way) a crutch while using either in a single sentence would not be, it would just be normal punctuation?
I think a writer is justified in letting the reader fill in tone of voice, volume, etc. We have to let readers use their imaginations. I'm reminded of Marc Antony's famous speech in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." Etc. Antony, in this scene, is addressing a large crowd that has just been charged up and excited by a speech by Brutus. So read that first line again: "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears". Shakespeare ends that line with a semicolon - a pretty non-emphasizing little unit of punctuation. But the situation demands that the reader understand that Antony is shouting at the noisy crowd, trying to be heard, trying to settle them down so he can say his piece. Nowadays, it would probably be punctuated like this: "Friends! Romans!! Countrymen!! LEND ME YOUR EARS!!!" or something like that. You imagine Antony making settle-down gestures as he shouts this line. But none of that is in Shakespeare's original. He's depending on the actor delivering the line to understand the context and say it as it's meant to be said. Readers also have to understand context and read lines as they're meant to be read, even if no interrobang is included. Too much stage direction can undermine a piece of prose.
"Crutch" suggests something that is used because the author can't adequately portray it through words. When they can, but just don't want to, it isn't a crutch. I'm unsure why words should be the default anyway. Taking the long-debated italics example, I would much rather someone use them to make it clear something is a thought (where the context makes it ambiguous) than write 'xyz, she thought.' It's rude to suggest an author is doing something because they are incapable of doing it better.
You hit the nail on the head. Calling a style decision another chooses, a crutch, connotes a defect. I'm sensitive to the word having been insulted in the italics thread with the same charge.
I'm a big fan of doing whatever works. Depending on context, that interrobang might be exactly what you need. I don't believe in pandering to prejudice when it comes to any writing tool, and unusual punctuation—like an interrobang or a double exclamation point—is definitely a useful tool. Unconventional punctuation marks are not simply a crutch to support weak writing. They do work. However, using them constantly can become a habit, and that's the danger. These are the sledge hammer in your toolbox, and you probably don't want to use them to fix every job. I think of a simple exclamation mark as an ordinary hammer. That is also a tool you won't use for every job, although you'll use it more often than a sledge hammer. These are the punctuation marks (the only ones) that indicate emotional level or loudness, so they call attention to themselves the way a full stop, colon, semi-colon, comma, or question mark would not. I have just finished a long editing session in my novel, where I've removed lots of italics I used for emphasis and lots of exclamation marks in dialogue as well. While each instance seemed exactly right at the time I wrote it, the overall effect of too many of these hammer blows ramped up the emotional tone of certain scenes way beyond what I wanted. I have to thank an excellent beta reader (from here on the forum) for pointing this out. Yes, I resisted at first—as you do—but she was right. I've kept some instances, but have removed a lot more. My tone in these scenes is much calmer as a result.
You mean just by itself, to denote disbelief? Yeah, I think I'd agree, although I'd need to see it in use before making up my mind. It feels like what you'd put in a comic book. Ditto the interrobang and double !! or triple !!! or ????
It says this to me: My writing is weak so I will rely on a specific punctuation mark to achieve what my writing is incapable of achieving.
For things like ?!, if it's used once or a few times, it stands out. Which is what the author may want. If it's used regularly, it becomes part of the author or book's style. That can add a distinctive flavour to a book. Consider the style of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road". I never use multiple punctuation marks. I will occasionally use a single !. Most recently in a stream of consciousness short story where I wanted a line to have emphasis compared to the typical extremely laid-back thoughts of the character.
