For that, the period would go inside the quotes. Third example. You would never put punctuation like that outside of the quotes unless its the name of something. There's a few other exceptions, but you're better off Googling that or getting a grammar book. But in the case you just presented, period inside the quotes is the way to go.
Exactly. The third example you gave is correct. You would never, ever use a period in the way you showed in the second example. The first example was wrong as well. But it sounds like you're starting to learn, which is good.
Sorry I misunderstood your first post. I thought you were referring to the third example in the last sentence. My bad
...what second point?... this one? if that's what you don't get, it means you are including one character's actions [narrative] with another one's dialog in the same paragraph... and they need to be kept separate... since i post replies/advice/etc. in many threads on several writing sites daily, and reply to over 150 emails per week, plus work with countless mentees and clients all day, every single day, this is the method i've developed to save me time and keyboard hassle... and you're one of an extremely rare few who find it difficult to read, the vast majority not minding it [or at least not saying so 'out loud'], so i'm afraid you'll either have to get used to it, or stop reading my posts... if it's dialog or a quotation, then yes, it must end with the closing quotation mark... that is the way it's done in the US... in the UK, the period or comma can come last, but even there, the US rule is being followed more and more... no, that is never correct, as noted in other posts above... the ellipsis was incorrectly used... rules of punctuation call for a comma there... as for the semicolon, i am one who believes [as many others do] that semicolons and colons should be avoided in fiction aimed at the american market... in all instances, a comma, period, em dash, or conjunction will do a better job and be understood more easily by most readers... this may not be true in the UK... there are spelling differences and as explained above, some publishers in the UK differ with their US counterparts re punctuation... of course you can, if you can get a publisher in both... but you should ideally be writing for one or the other market, due to the differences mentioned... i didn't think any further explanation would be needed... all you had to do was ask... and since you did, i've now answered all your questions... hope that helps... a comma after and is called 'the oxford comma' and is optional... one can also follow and, if what comes next is a separate phrase, such as in this sentence... and this: He was shy and, due to his physical deformity, he felt embarrassed whenever someone looked at him.
OK then, thanks for the clarification. Since as you may have noticed by now, I live in the UK and was brought up in Cambridge, I think it would be redundant to criticize with US rules, as I have no plan to re-learn English again after I spent months, no years, trying to learn a foreign language. I often use very... unusual punctuation to express myself, since English is not my native language and the punctuation and grammar rules in Romanian and French (the two other languages I speak) are quite different. There's a reason I don't want to hire an editor to help with publishing; they often don't quite understand what I'm writing and may change the exact meaning of my sentences due to "correcting punctuation". For example: The ellipsis in this case was used to indicate that Jack's sentence was unfinished. More specifically, it was used to show that Jack's sentence was finishing off into silence, to indicate his unspoken idea (the reader would presumably find out Jack's idea when the characters get into the nightclub). By changing it into a comma, you're removing that meaning. Hmmm I never realized that. I never had trouble distinguishing character dialogue from narrative, but if the rules call for it, I guess I could employ it to keep my writing clear. Anyway, thank you for your replies. They had useful information.
I don't believe that your interpretation is incorrect. Not to beat a dead horse, but here are some examples for Douglas Adams: (I mean heck, if it sold over 14 million copies, it has to be good.) I think an ellipses is just used to convey a pause longer in length than a comma, or a trailing off of dialogue, or switch in thought mid-sentence. I don't see any problems.
if you hope to have your work published, you will have to abide by the punctuation rules of the country where you want to be published... and jj is right about the ellipsis... it's used to indicate a pause... the em dash is what shows an interruption, or trailing off of speech...
I didn't know about the em dash. I thought the ellipsis was doing the trailing off, as well as the pause. Anyway, I thin, the reason why the ellipsis doesn't work in your example ( "I don't think that will be a problem..." Jack said, eyeing the streetlamps above ) is that it just doesn't come across that Jack has some other thoughts or ideas. The ellipses doesn't make any difference in my view, whatever meaning you're trying to give it. You're telling the reader that Jack will somehow use the streetlamps to solve the problem. If I was writing your example, I'd do something like this: "I don't think that will be a problem. Let me just..." And with that Jack climbed up the nearest streetlamp to get over the wall. Not sure if the punctuation or capitalisation is right here. Never start a sentence with "and" and all that...
Actually one more thing. Not using an editor, agent or even a publisher is your choice, but don't expect to becoming a famous author. Self-publishing is fine, and it's what I'm doing, but I'm not trying to earn a living from writing. I'm just doing it for fun. I think if you want to write seriously, to earn a living, you'll need an editor, an agent and a publisher.
i agree with revil there... it doesn't read as a trailing off at all... and i apologize for my goof in re the em dash being correct for trailing off, since it is indeed the ellipsis that is used in that instance... obviously, i shouldn't be posting before having my morning mug of green tea! :redface:
Uhm... Jack was supposed to do something with the streetlamps after the sentence- he was supposed to suddenly make them explode, causing temporary panic among those in the queue (note that this was just a made up sentence- it has nothing to do with what I'm writing). You see, mammamai's example is a typical reason why I distrust editors. They think to correct my punctuation and end up changing the meaning of the story. Now of course, it wasn't fair because that sentence wasn't in context and thus she (?) would not have known it was supposed to be trailing off, but then, I didn't ask any of you whether the ellipsis should be used. Anyway, you're comment about self-publishing is off-topic. Regardless, I'll give a response, even though it will probably make this whole thread veer of topic Plenty of self-published authors have become famous(and rich). Take, oh I don't know, Christopher Paolini, who has made... Eh, £3000 000 or Amanda Hocking who has made, uhm... £1 500 000 or that guy who wrote Wool... Yes, having an "agent" may give you a little more marketing power, which would have been important in the days of old (it still is), but the world has changed since then. It's called the Internet, and ebooks. I mean, just being on a site like Amazon or Google Play gives you publicity. Then think about all the other things you can do to market yourself- reviews, blogs, free-ebook websites like epubbud can all give a writer more publicity. Yes, the traditional route may be easier (if they accept you), but it doesn't come without a significant cost- be it low royalties or lack of control such as pricing or DRM, then one must ask oneself if it is really worth it? I can't say I really buy it. In any case, it is never a good idea to make such wide reaching generalizations.
LOL I know. But I think it had to be said; don't make generalizations on how successful an author will be based on whether they are published "traditionally" or self-published.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I really don't see how an author by himself/herself can create the same quality of writing as an author with an editor. Authors are generally great at coming up with brilliant stories - and editors are generally great at refining those stories even further. Similarly, an author on his/her own can do great marketing, but an agent with plenty of valuable contacts can do it even better. Finally, an author self-publishing on her/his own can create a book that's layed out well and looks good, but a publisher has the expertise to take it to the next level. So I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from self-publishing. After all, I'm doing it myself. But I don't want anyone to think they can just create a great result without the experience and knowledge of those who have done it many times before. At the same time I accept that agents and publisher, even editors, add to costs and overheads, reducing the author's reward, and some agents and publishers certainly charge extortionate rates. I'm not oblivious to that fact. However, I think rather than authors trying to take on three or more roles all at once, trying to excel at all of them to become successful, it would be better if there was a new breed of agents and publishers who weren't just in it for the money - just as an auther isn't successful because she/he made thousands of Dollars. I write because I love writing and I don't buy books because they have sold may times and made the author a millionaire. In fact, the opposite can often be true - less known authors are often the better writers.
An author must be able to refine his or her own writing. That includes correcting spelling, usage, punctuation, grammar, sentence and paragraph structure, modulating pace and tension, painting compelling imagery, constructing strong, memorable dialogue, and many other things. An editor can do some, but not all of these things, and no writer worthy of the name would relinquish all that control over his or her writing. It is a matter of core competency. No editor knows your story's intent better than the author, and the author's voice is a distinguishing feature of writing that no editor will be completely able to substitute. Sure, a professional writer with a tight deadline may choose to use the services of an editor to perform a certain amount of cleanup, but the final decisions should be made by the author. This presupposes the author knows his or her craft. As for agents and publishers, that is quite a different aspect that the writer should not have to take on. There will be negotiations enough, and that is unavoidable, but the author's focus should be on the writing. I do not endorse self-publishing, unless one is an unshakeable masochist with money and time to waste. Mostly, you will pad other people's pockets for little personal gain. And on that note, let's return this thread to the original topic, which is the standards of dialogue formatting.
