I just now saw minstrel's post. A'men brother. I say use any character on the keyboard to express yourself. I'm tired of people asking 'why you can't use something'. Colons, semicolons, explanation points, dashes, tripe dots, what? Really? Can anyone put some literature in front of me? Trust me. I don't care how you write it. As long as I can understand it.
if you're referring to what is used to separate items in a list, that would be a semicolon, although a list may be preceded/introduced by a colon... however, i'd consider it very odd to see that level of formality in dialog and, as an editor, would suggest the writer use an alternative method...
I think you will find that in the UK we drive on the correct side of the road: the opposite side to oncoming traffic. Works everywhere As for colons in dialogue, how much of that is a "rule" and how much is simply a current US preference for a simpler style of writing? I find much current US writing irritatingly "chatty" (so I expect many US readers find UK writing irritatingly "stuffy"). Colons just wouldn't suit what I see coming out of the USA.
@mammamaia - Point well taken. That is how I would go about it. If there is an incessant need for the colon, then use it. I would never say throw it all over the place. If it's used in the right context, there shouldn't be a problem. But the one thing I'm starting to catch onto is this: Some argue there are differences between American usage and UK usage. I can't comment on that. But I just used the colon in this post. I'm not being cocky, just tell me if it looks right, because that is how I have used it in a quote with one of my characters (Of course, not the same words). If there is a lesson to be learned from this, I guess now is a good time.
But why? If the colon is used in a grammatically correct way, why oppose it? Why is the colon being relegated to the status of pariah among punctuation? Why this negative reaction to a simple punctuation mark? And saying that colons aren't often seen in dialog in modern American novels is not an adequate answer. The fact (or presumption?) that they're not there does not necessarily mean that editors are rejecting manuscripts just because there are colons in the dialog.
You don't, but if you don't use them in pairs, then the parenthetical phrase should end the sentence. Or, put another way, you should omit an em-dash that would otherwise come at the end of a sentence. This doesn't allow you to use multiple sets of them in one sentence, though.
Yea, I'm not sure I understand either why it is acceptable outside of dialogue but unacceptable in it. But of course, even if it is wrong, I don't think an editor would reject a manuscript because you used colons in your dialogue. That seems a little harsh (unless, of course, you absolutely flooded your dialogue with colons) and not enough as a standalone issue to add up to rejection.
Spoken and written English are two distinct dialects. They have different grammatical and syntactical rules. When you write dialogue, you are attempting to transcribe one into the other. This means that you use punctuation to indicate sounds at least as much as you do to use proper grammar. Commas and em-dashes are natural to indicate different kinds of pauses. Colons generally are redundant, because a comma indicates the same kind of pause. I'm of the opinion that if you want to use a colon, go ahead, but as a reader, I would likely stumble over it, which is about the worst thing you can do to me.
In my view, if a reader stumbles over a colon in dialogue that is not the fault of the writer. I find it rather difficult to believe that a reader would be able to process a colon just fine outside of dialogue but suddenly be thrown off because it appears in dialogue. In both cases, the reader is reading.
I for one, always notice when I see a colon/semicolon in dialogue, because I am not used to seeing it there. So I notice it right away. But, with that said, it doesn't "stumble" me either. I just happen to notice it, whereas in non-dialogue I barely notice it is there at all. I am not against people using it. I just don't see the point in making the reader notice grammar over what is important; the actual dialogue. Especially when periods and commas work just fine. I think of it as in terms of dialogue tags as well, you don't want people focused on your tags; so why have them focus on colons and semicolons?
That's true, you don't want readers focused on them. I just don't focus on elements of punctuation any more in dialogue than I do elsewhere. It looks like this varies from reader, but since I'm reading all of it, whether dialogue or not, it doesn't really distinguish itself in my mind. A colon in dialogue doesn't have any more effect on me than a colon outside of dialogue.
I think my problem is that ever since I began writing, I cant help but analyze every book that I read as I go. So unfortunately, I notice things like this. It is actually really annoying, I haven't been able to zone out in a book in a long time. I am to busy seeing how it is written. Hopefully this is just a beginning writers thing and will eventually go away.
I hear ya. I was that way for a while as well, but thankfully I can now turn that on or off when I am reading, so that if I want to read for analysis I do, but if I want to just let the critical part of the mind go and be pulled along into the story I can do that as well
Once again, two different dialects. When I read, I hear and see the characters talking in my head. Dialogue and narration are different things. A colon could indicate a pause, but since a comma already does that, and because it's not often used, colons can become stumbling points. When a fluent, intelligent reader stumbles over your language or grammar, it's generally your fault, not theirs. Call them incompetent all you want, but it's your job to keep them immersed in your world, it's not their job to work for it.
That is easy to say, but at some point you have to assume a certain amount of sophistication on the part of the reader, and writing the book to accommodate the most easily confused or distracted leads to diminishing returns. By the same logic, you could write everything with short sentence and small words so as not to alienate some segment of the readership. I do not agree with that approach. Like it or not, there are times when a reader's failure to understand a work, or to remain engaged by it, is specific to the reader and is not something a writer should adjust for.
I just noticed in my current work I have a sentence with three em dashes. It looks and reads fine to me. I don't see the problem. As always at this time of the morning he was reading the daily news on his paper thin tablet that could be stretched, folded and molded –– with the click of button –– to resemble a newspaper, a magazine, a book, or a normal tablet among other things –– it all depends on what you need at the time.
I respectfully disagree. Spoken and written English are not two different dialects. While dialogue and narration are different things, that doesn't mean they use different rules for punctuation. A colon doesn't merely indicate a pause, it is used to precede a list, a quotation, or an expansion or explanation (which is the way I use it most). It communicates information to the reader about what kind of material is following it. A comma just indicates a pause, or a separation of items in a list. The two marks have distinct uses and are not interchangeable. Also, fluent, intelligent readers don't often stumble over correct language and grammar. They learn from it. That's part of what it is to be intelligent. I certainly wouldn't want to require writers like Vladimir Nabokov, Virginia Woolfe, William Gass, or James Joyce (among many others) to limit their use of language just because some readers might stumble over their sentences at first. Frankly, I think it usually IS the reader's job to "work for it" - the writer requires the reader to imagine the world and the characters, the sounds of voices, and the entire physical and emotional content of a story. The reader already has imaginative work to do, and if he has a love for reading, it means he loves doing that work. This is literature, not the movies, and the demands on the audience's imagination and intellect are greater. That's not meant to be an elitist statement; a moment's thought will confirm that it's true.
Anyone speaking as if using written English will sound decidedly stilted and non-native. You may not call this distinction "dialect", but the effect on this discussion is the same. Which is exactly why it doesn't belong in spoken dialogue. This is its use in written language, but it has no counterpart in spoken language except for (sometimes) a pause: it's not valid to say that a speaker uses a colon to communicate this concept, because punctuation in the spoken language consists only of pauses and tone. This is what you are transcribing. This pause is traditionally indicated by a comma when transcribing spoken English to written English. Notice I said that I was referring to a reader who is both fluent and intelligent. What I was talking about is stumbling over nonstandard grammar (which also applies to stumbling over ambiguities and awkward construction). A colon in dialogue, whether correct or not, is certainly nonstandard by modern English standards.
Well, it appears as though we'll just disagree on this. When you're writing (or reading) a book, it is all written language, whether meant to approximate speech or not. I can't imagine any use of grammar and punctuation that would be appropriate in non-dialogue that would somehow throw me if it cropped up in dialogue.
Thing is, I don't stumble over colons: I stumble over punctuation that is other than I expect. If I see a comma or a dash where I would expect a colon then I stumble over it.
If you're not going to use colons in dialogue because punctuation in spoken language only involves pauses and tone, then we might as well do away with capital letters, periods, question marks, exclamation points, ellipses, em-dashes, etc. in dialogue. Remember, as well, that while we may be "transcribing" speech, all the pauses and tone etc. of the character's voice are not there on the page. That is precisely why we use the full arsenal of punctuation. It's all there to help the reader understand what the character is saying when we can't hear the character's tone of voice and cadence. We use punctuation in dialogue for the same reasons we use it in narrative, description, and exposition: it helps the reader understand what the writer intends.