Inline dialogue - is it really that bad?

It's come to my attention that I write a lot of inline dialogue. Like, a real lot. What is your opinion on the matter?

 

If it's crowded on both sides by what should be two paragraphs worth of content then please stop. But if it's like:

James looked at Sarah incredulously as the head dripped blood of his white shag carpet, he shook his head and pointed at the door. "Get out."

Sarah turned and left, bumping the head into as much furniture as she could on her way out. "You're cleaning my furniture Sarah!" He called after her.

Then it's fine.

Also, if your dialogue is on the same line as dialogue from an alternate character... just don't. Please. Really it comes down to how legible every part of the writing is. If I'm reading your story I want to know that I'm reading dialogue. I don't want to get through and entire paragraph, realise it doesn't make sense and then have to go back and reread it because I didn't notice quotation marks in the middle of a super long paragraph. Because I won't go back and reread it if it happens enough, I'll just close the book and find something else to read that's legible the whole way through. I think, the best thing to remember is that avid readers are speed readers and when you do things quickly you need it to be streamlined and clear cut because if it's not, it won't make sense, won't work out and you just end up frustrated enough to give up on the whole thing because it's annoying that you can't go as fast as you want to.

 

I'm puzzled. I hadn't heard the term 'inline dialog/dialogue' before, so I looked up the definition. I got this:


Somehow I get the feeling that's not what you meant?

How do you define 'inline dialogue?' Do you mean dialogue that gets hidden in the same paragraph as the narrative?

I just found an excellent blog that deals with punctuation of dialogue. I assume it's mostly the American style of dialogue punctuation, as the British do it differently in some respects, as do other countries that write mostly in English. But as I grew up being an American (I'm now a UK citizen, and have lived in Scotland for the past 33+ years) these tips seem valid. The blog does deal with the way I was taught to punctuate dialogue. Hope it helps.

http://theeditorsblog.net/2010/12/08/punctuation-in-dialogue/

 

Is it a problem for you ? Have beta readers commented on it ?

 

As in:

Bob run into the room. "Help!" Bob stood there and puffed.

I called it that, not sure if it's the right term or not.

 

*Chants*
"One of us, one of us, one of us..."

But yeah, my biggest bugaboo is the generally accepted ultimate no no - if I see two characters speaking in the same paragraph, i'm out.
I'm stupid enough as it is without having to be confused further.

 

IMO, there should be no more than one piece of inline dialogue per paragraph, and no more than one sentence after each piece of inline (though this can vary, depending).

 

Yeah, a rule of thumb like that can be useful. Again, though, it all boils down to clarity, doesn't it? If you know exactly who is speaking and what is going on, it's okay that the writer bent the rules a bit. If they must.

These kinds of things, like formatting, punctuation, etc, are usually more conventions than strict rules—which is why they can differ a lot from country to country within the English-speaking world. Readers in a certain country assume when they see a certain way of formatting a sentence or a paragraph, that it means what it 'usually' means. So they'll read it that way. Mess with those conventions and you can lose the immersion of your reader while they stop and try to figure out what's what.

I remember reading my first book by the famous contemporary Irish writer Roddy Doyle, only to be baffled by his complete omission of quotation marks for dialogue! Instead, he uses the long dash to indicate speech. I had a rough time following, but discovered that many Irish writers do this.

And some British writers (and some British rule books) advocate using a single quote mark for dialogue.

And they would use the double quote mark for internal dialogue: '

That's the exact opposite of what Americans are taught about dialogue punctuation! So these regionalities also factor in. (Hard on us expats! )

 

I totally agree- - a writer should know when to break the "rules!.

I've seen that rule about the single quote marks in guides on manuscript formatting, but I've never been sure about it. I'm sure the double speech marks are more common here these days. I certainly prefer it that way.

The issue I have is with a passage like this:

"Come on, people!" said Naomasa as he girded his sword, "it's time to go!" He vaulted on to his horse. "Ow!" he yelped as something stuck into his groin, then grabbed the reins. "Hi-yo Silver!"

 

I have a tendency to write like this. What advice would you give to avoid this sort of issue?

I feel like if I were to break it up into separate paragraphs it would look like a new person is talking and would potentially create more confusion. Obviously using proper dialogue tags and actions can avoid that somewhat, but I'm just so used to the idea that a new paragraph starts when a new person begins speaking that I'm worried that the reader would assume it as well.

 

My advice would be, if possible don't split up the dialogue lines. In my example, the first two pieces of dialogue can be concatenated, and the third ("Ow!") can be omitted. Then you're just left with one at the start and end.

 

Well, it's clunky, but it did make me laugh. And in all fairness, it was obvious who was speaking and what was going on. This kind of approach could actually be used for comic effect.

 

It’s better to write more and then cut it out than to write less, and then think about what you wanted to say here.


The inner monologue must carry one of two things.
New information about the world.
Example:

Charles. How can one be such a miser? The boss is borrowing money from subordinates. You always need to have an excuse with him why you cannot lend him money. I found out in a bad way, he still owes me 2 thousand.

The internal conflict of the protagonist.
What is right. Isn't that too much. We do not have the right to decide the value of human life, to establish values on life. It was not for this that I learned to save human lives. But I can’t leave, human lives depend on me. One must think, there must be another way.

If this is not one of these, then it can be cut out if it seems to you that it does not complement the story.

But personally, I love the internal monologues, and I try to keep them all.

 

The example has both dialogue tags and beats:
"Come on, people!" said Naomasa(dialogue tag) as he girded his sword(dialogue beat), "it's time to go!" He vaulted on to his horse(dialogue beat). "Ow!" he yelped(dialogue tag) as something stuck into his groin, then grabbed the reins(dialogue beat). "Hi-yo Silver!"
Dialogue tags are suppose to tell the reader who is speaking, but if there's a beat (like in an action sequence) they could be repeating the job as the beat is doing, and slowing the sentence pacing. Here's the example without the repeating tags and beats:

"Come on, people!" Naomasa girded his sword, "it's time to go!" He vaulted on to his horse. "Ow!" Something stuck into his groin, and then he grabbed the reins. "Hi-yo Silver!"

Here's a link to a good video about dialogue from Shaelinwrites:

 

Alright, the quick answer, referencing your phrase A LOT OF. That's a problem. Here is why: When you mix several breaks between action, thoughts and dialogue, you slow pace. Pace is god. Generally new writers slow pace too much (the opposite is possible, but less likely).
What I mean by pace, here, is the pace of the sentence and paragraph flow, a kind of grammatical pace, not a storywide pace. Readers are being asked to keep switching gears.

I know some writers who will almost constantly interrupt the dialogue, to the point where they have 2 or 3 bits of dialogue in every paragraph. That is fatal to pace. It reads like a slog, making the reader tired. As well, it is almost never necessary. In the mind of the writer, the actor did A, said B, thought C, said D, did E then said F. The problem isn't that this could not have happened in that order. The problem is that the writer is an idiot and can't reimagine the space.

Otherwise, let me completely retract the whole thrust of what I just wrote, and argue in the other direction.

Abide the law Same actor/Same paragraph. New actor/New paragraph. This means that if you have a new actor doing or saying something, break to paragraph. If you have the same actor doing and saying and maybe even thinking something, retain the paragraph (unless there is some other change calling for a 2nd paragraph). This being the case, the idea of mixing dialogue in with action or thought is a given. It has to happen. And, if you don't do this, pace, once again, suffers because the reader can't tell who is who without tons of added tags and directions.

For example, you can write this:

John said, "Get the car. We're leaving."
or
John had heard enough. "Get the car. We're leaving." He grabbed his coat.

The pace of the 2nd example is fine. And it is embedded dialogue. It is also an example of knowing who is speaking without a dialogue tag. We get away with that because of a consistency regarding SAME ACTOR/SAME PARAGRAPH. But, imagine this:

John had heard enough.
"Get the car. We're leaving." He grabbed his coat.

Now, who grabbed the coat? An informed reader would assume that the person saying to get the car and who grabbed his or her coat, is not John. Why? Well because dropping to paragraph means new actor or new subject or new content, but the dialogue, if connected to John, is not new space, time, subject, or anything. So the rational assumption is that it's a new person who spoke. NEW ACTOR/NEW PARAGRAPH.

In the moment, writers might get away with this infraction, but storywide it's a nightmare because once you break the pattern and convince the reader that you are unreliable, they slow down to sort through and try to make sense of who is doing what.

So, like I said, there is no easy out. If the pace is hampered by too many interruptions or changes in form within a paragraph, the solution is not to simply bust it all apart. The solution is to be a better writer.