Exclamations and commas

Hi all! I read that I shouldn't add commas after exclamations with quotes, but what about in this case?

 

All rules of grammar may be bent and occasionally broken. In this case, however, the syntax is, for lack of a better description, kind of odd. You have an independent clause, followed by a quote with an exclamation, followed by a dependent clause. The exclamation makes the sentence feel complete, and the dependent clause is kind of orphaned. I would suggest writing it independent, dependent, exclamation. On a side note it doesn't make sense that Fizzy would be in the possessive of 'never gonna change'. I am assuming what you wanted to say is 'Yo Fizzy is never gonna change', which would make much more sense.

Something like this:
He leaned back as if greatly hurt, winked and gave me a once over, and said "Yo, Fizzy is never gonna change!".

 

Weird, I don't know why the quote itself doesn't show up. You only need either a comma or an exclamation point, not both, and whichever you use should be inside the quotation marks. Any punctuation at the end of a quote goes inside the quotes. As I understand it you never place a punctuation mark outside of the quotes in such a case. I have to frequently correct myself, because I have a lifelong habit (until recently, when someone here pointed it out repeatedly) of putting punctuation outside of the quotes. You just need to decide which one you want to use, and put it inside the quotation marks. If you really want strong emphasis, use the exclamation point, but if you do the sentence ends there, and then you must make the rest into a new sentence, starting with a capitol letter. Like this:

He leaned back as if greatly hurt and said “Yo Fizzy’s never gonna change!” Then he winked and gave me a quick once-over.​

And now I see why the quote didn't show up, because it was inside a quote box already in your post. I changed your sentence a bit because of somthing @Joe_Hall said—it felt awkward the way you had structured it. That would work better reversed (as he suggested), like this: "Yo, fizzy's never gonna change," he said and leaned back as if greatly hurt. You'd use the comma because it's all one sentence, it doesn't end at the end of the quoted part. If you use a period or an exclamation point then it ends there and you must make the rest a separate sentence beginning with a capitol letter. Actually I might be wrong about that, you might be able to use an exclamation point and treat it like a comma—I'd need to check on that.

 

Here, this should explain it thoroughly:

• Quotation Marks: Rules and Examples

Well, that changes just about everything I thought I knew! I shall study it.

 

There should be a comma after 'said' and no punctuation after the closing quotation mark.

There should be a comma after 'said'

 

Huh, not a construction I often use but I've just assumed (if maintaining the sentence rather than breaking it up) you would simply omit the comma:

>He leaned back and said, “Yo Fizzy’s never gonna change!” then winked and gave
me a quick once-over.

If > "Yo Fizzy's never gonna change," he said.
and > "Yo Fizzy's never gonna change!" he said.
and > "He leaned back and said, "Yo Fizzy's never gonna change," then winked.
are correct,
then > He leaned back and said, “Yo Fizzy’s never gonna change!” then winked.
should be correct. At least I'm pretty sure. I've never actually looked it up.

 

You're generally best off to look it up. Everybody's got their opinions, and people go by different sets of rules.

 

I'm not seeing any example online yet, nor from flipping through the book I'm currently reading. It's just a clause following pre-attributed dialogue. I don't see why it would be a problem, but I also don't often see people writing it. To me, the construction is just the same as: > He leaned back and lit a cigarette, then winked.

The OP's original sentence is trying to do too much and should probably be broken up, but that's besides the point.

 

I was talking in general, not about anything anyone had written specifically. When in doubt, look it up. Of course different websites will also use different approaches at times.

 

You are correct. I missed a comma in my attempt to write with OP's original phrasing. The period, however, is something that for right or wrong I learned in college from my English professor. He was quite adamant that if the quotation was set in a sentence, but not the substantive part of the sentence, it should be followed by a period to bring the sentence to a close. I got nicked some points on my first paper I turned in to him and have followed that advice ever since. It is probably wrong, since he was the same professor who told us to remove ! from our papers because it was a lazy way to convey emotion or excitement. I still touch that key so rarely I forget it exists.

 

Does he say Fizzy's never going to change as he leans back? If not, then maybe this is the way to go:

He leaned back, as if greatly hurt. "Yo," he said, "Fizzy's never gonna change!" Then he winked and gave me the once-over.

(But I have to add - do you really need the exclamation mark here? Someone who is hurt, even if feigning, doesn't not usually exclaim.)

 

Hmm; different people's viewpoints on this are certainly interesting. I'm a little surprised that Yuriy hadn't come back to this thread, but oh well.

I have a follow-up question about exclamation points:

Catriona mentioned in another thread, I think, not to overdo exclamation points, and mentioned The Elements of Style, which I've read.

So, my question is this: what happens if exclamation points are used for comedic effect? For instance, something like this (which is obviously trivial, but it's just an example):

====================
"Tea is obviously better than coffee!" said A, raising his cup. "That's just common sense!"
"I concur, good sir!" said B. "Hear hear and two lumps for me!"
"I must politely disagree with you both!" said C. "Coffee is much more revitalizing, more energizing, more herbalizing -- indeed, more surprising than tea!"
====================

All right, surely no-one would seriously write like this. (It reminds me of the way characters talk in Archie comics! With Jughead! And Betty! And Veronica!)

But ... is this simply a question of taste -- or fashion (i.e. this used to be fashionable decades ago, but not any more)? Or -- if you're going for comedic effect (as I was, above), then perhaps the exclamation points add to the comedy (since they imply that A, B and C are so old-fashioned and politely emphatic, dash it to heck!!)?

(And yes, I'm well-aware that no-one speaks like that anymore. I was deliberately going for an old-fashioned, melodramatic effect. I can just imagine A being so surprised that his pince-nez drops in his cuppa, and he bellows: "Consarn it and damme, sir! Why, such talk is treason! Treason, I say!")

OK, let's calm down on the exclamation points a little. Obviously such dialogue would never pass muster if my setting is anywhere in the 20th century, but the 19th? I don't see why not -- but I'd be interested to hear your views ...

 

That's actually very common. Frequently people come in, make a handful of posts, never respond to anyone on their own threads, and then disappear. Honestly that's probably the majority of members who join here. The ones who actually respond and stick around and take part on anything like a long term are the rarities.

 

Probably mostly fashion and changing times. That sort of over-emotiveness goes with the very melodramatic movies that were coming out in the silent and early sound period, when they hadn't discovered closeups yet and they thought movie acting had to be done like stage acting, so people all the way in the back row can clearly see every movement and facial expression, so everything had to be highly exaggerated. And movie makeup was harsh because the film stock was poor and needed massive amounts of light that made faces turn into plain white glare-blobs otherwise. It took a good deal of time to gradually discover, stage by stage, what was possible using things like the close-up, and how subtle facial acting and whispered words etc could really be. And then we still needed Marlon Brando to show us some more realistic acting. I guess he was what kicked off Method acting. Eventually we got to the point of stories that dig deeper into people's minds than they ever have in the past. I'm currently reading a book called Transparent Minds which is built on this fact.

If you go back to the period of Victorian novels, their contemporary artforms were the stage and the opera, both extremely melodramatic at the time out of necessity. Parallel artforms often influence each other, and that's been very true for theater, stage, and novels, with movies and television drastically changing things in our recent past.

 

Thanks, Xoic! That makes a lot of sense.

Yes, I've done some delving into the Victorian era -- its history, social conditions, literature, its operas (mostly Gilbert & Sullivan, but also Mendelssohn -- still one of my favourites).

I especially studied 19th-century (aka the Romantic period) composers of music. Again, Mendelssohn is a firm favourite -- he has a sure and light touch in everything he does, but he can do drama just as well. Some people swear by Wagner, but I find his music overblown and tedious. I much prefer Brahms, Verdi, Tchaikovsky or Fauré to Wagner.

 

Well, I'm back!

- After reading the above thread and "the elements of style" I've come to now realize that while one can be creative with plot, character motivations, etc, it's best not to be too creative with grammar and punctuation

thanks to all for your advice!