Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/44515
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/44515
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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.**

Original score: 7