The difference between dialogue marks
Most authors use dialogue in writing, especially when writing fiction. Now, if I remember my first grade primary school correctly, dialogue can be directly separated from narration in a number of ways.
Either quotation marks,
"Murder," she said.
dashes,
-Murder,- she said.
or angle brackets / angle carets / Guillemets:
«Murder,» she said.
I'm a personal fan of the last example and I dislike using quotation marks for dialogue, but that's just my personal opinion. What I'm wondering here is if, from a typographic standpoint, there are reasons to prefer one over the other when reporting dialogue.
This is limited to the scope of creative writing mainly, since non-creative (e.g. technical) writing usually has stricter rules.
EDIT: Apparently dialogue writing conventions are higly dependant on country-specific cultural conventions. To be fair, I didn't imagine that.
4 answers
«TEXT» and "TEXT" are use for quoting /citation. The marks are used at the beginning and the end of the cited text.
Example:
"Of all things, I liked books best."
«Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine.»
N. Tesla.
- TEXT is used for dialogue. Example:
- Do you have some water ?
- Yes.
- It is cold ?
- No.
Dash (-) can also be used as a pause line.
Example:
– What's your name ?
– Like my grandfather - Michael.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/44557. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
As JonStonecash has said, the other choices would be jarring. I know that I expect quotation marks to indicate spoken dialogue.
While all are sound, the traditional quotation marks have the weight and benefit of tradition, rendering them invisible.
It is your book, but if you want readers to enjoy it, allow for the possibility that the punctuation you select can disturb immersion, if only briefly.
Quotation marks are so commonly used that the use of the others might make a reader pause and then go on - ah, yes, dialogue.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/44513. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I think this is dependent on the convention in the country or location where you are publishing. In the U.S., it's double quotes, but in Britain, it's often single quotes. I believe France and Italy use guillemets. I've seen the dashes but I don't recall where they are used.
The upshot is that, as JonStonecash wisely said, use whatever will be expected by and invisible to your readers.
0 comment threads
There are two other common options.
Italics.
Murder, she said.
And nothing at all.
Murder, she said.
Or more likely set up as narration.
She said murder.
I prefer anything to the nothing option. I honestly don't know what goes through an author's head choosing that. Do they think readers enjoy not being sure if a character is speaking or thinking or if the narrator is talking?
As an American reading in English, my preference for the other options is clear: double quote marks. Specifically, curly quotes (straight quotes, like you see in this post, are fine for online reading, but for a book, they need to be curly).
Italics is gimmicky for speech, though readable. I'd rather see them saved for character thoughts and other unspoken utterances.
Your other examples may be the preference in other countries that use English or in other languages. If that's the case in the language/country you're writing in, use them. None of them would make for seamless reading in the U.S.
Your typographic goal is to make the marks invisible and glaringly obvious at the same time. Just like "she said" is. There's no doubt who said it but you barely notice. Dialogue marks should be the same way. Your eye should glide across the page not even paying attention to punctuation, yet you know without a doubt which words were spoken out loud.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads