It makes sense that this could be written this way. I might though, start a new paragraph with the speaker pounding the gavel. Who is shouting shut up? "Shut up, all of you!" Alice looked at the crowd in shock and confusion as the Speaker pounded the gavel and shouted "Order! Order!"If Alice shouts 'shut up', then it would be acceptable to not use a new paragraph for the Speaker. "as the Speaker pounded..." would be a subordinate clause of Alice speaking rather than new paragraph dialogue.
Until now, I would allways have done that in three paragraphs. But if the talk fits on one row, and there is no tag. This is good and can reduce whitespace. I have made a mental note! (Without thinking to much about it I think it can strengthen a weak beat, maybe so much that you can skip a tag.)
I think it also depends on the pace - if you are writing a slow paced scene then long lines and little white space migt be desirable, but if its an action packed scene You might want some white space Punchy sentences Short and to the point Like the action
Ah, but "Shut up, all of you!" was something that was coming out of the crowd, and not from Alice. So I think it would stay within the paragraph. A case could be made with starting a new paragraph with "Alice looked at the crowd..." since the Speaker's sentence is distinct from that of the rest of the crowd, but it seemed to make more sense to keep it in the paragraph, because it reinforces the fact that he's shouting over the crowd. And I didn't want Alice's reaction to be a separate paragraph from the shouts from the crowd, since they are all of a piece and putting a new paragraph there would suggest (at least to me) that the crowd has quieted down as Alice looked on. In short, I was painting a picture of several things happening all at once: the crowd shouting, Alice reacting, and the Speaker attempting to restore order. Hence the inclusion of all of this action in a single paragraph. I thought of another instances where multiple quotes can go into a single paragraph but it, too, is a special case. You'll see something like this: Note that these are quotations, not dialogue. (And I should add that I made them up.) If I were actually describing a situation where all three of them were in the same room and I was transcribing their conversation, the quotes would be legitimate dialogue and would go into separate paragraphs.
Then it belongs in the crowd noise paragraph and 'Alice...' should start a new paragraph. The Speaker pounded is still a subordinate clause to Alice's action. Or, if you put "The Speaker pounded" first, then 'Alice...' would become the subordinate clause. This all shows one why those paragraph divides convey important information.
Everybody's tweaking this one, so my vote is: 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!" Alice looked at the crowd in shock and confusion. "Order! Order! Shut up, all of you!" shouted the Speaker, pounding his gavel.
How 'bout? ... 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 [in]confusion[.] as The Speaker pounded the gavel, and he shouted, "Order! Order!" ?
But it wasn't the speaker saying "Shut up, all of you!" It came from the crowd, as I explained before. I think I'm going to stick with it being all in one paragraph, though. The single paragraph condenses and concentrates the action in a way that separate paragraphs wouldn't. Allow me to offer another example. One could write: Or you could write it as: There's nothing grammatically wrong with the second treatment, but the urgency isn't there anymore. It seems like everything's in slow motion. If that was the writer's intent, that's fine. But if he's trying to convey the action at the speed it's really taking place, I think he'd be better off with the single paragraph. That would work, but I end up getting the feeling that the people in the crowd are speaking one at a time, rather than everybody speaking at once. I agree that it's a matter of ear, and that others may feel that the construction may be awkward and not quite kosher. Remember when the discussion was simply about whether to have quotes from separate characters in a single paragraph? Ah, those were the days!
I was reading a book by George MacDonald (a fantasy writer from the the 1800's) and observed him following a tell with the reply. He did not do this in all dialogue, but where the speakers were responding without a pause. I tried to use it in a short story and failed miserably. But, my favorite definition of a marksman is 'someone who knows why he misses'. By breaking away from conventions we can gain a better understanding of why those conventions are in place. But, there is a time and place for everything and the general reading audience do not make good guinea pigs.
