My preferred way of writing direct speech is to have it embedded in text as much as possible. But this is about dialogue that goes back and forth between two or more characters, when not much or anything else at all actually happens in between, so that its not easy to create a lot of context that the dialogue is embedded in. I tried different formats how to best visualize such kind of dialogue with the options available at chyoa, and i am still not sure what i actually like best. I'm curious to know what other people think and prefer. Examples: a) To make it really clear, who is actually talking, put names in front of every line of speech. b) Put names with underscore in front of every line of speech c) Put the names in front of every line of speech, with each name in a distinct format (underscore / italic / bolt) a) till c) make sure that the reader always knows exactly which character is talking, but it can quickly get repetitive to see the names. d) Omit the names It solves the problem with the repetition of names, but it can possibly get unclear of who is actually saying what, especially if more than two characters participate in the dialogue. e) Omit the names, but use underscore / italic / bold of the whole lines always, basically to associate one kind of format to a certain character: Same as d), but with the advantage that it should be pretty easy to follow who is saying what. f) Try to have the names or another kind of association (he, she, etc..) clearly visible right after the speech It's clear who is talking, and you convey some additional feelings and emotions, but i'ts not always feasible if the dialogue is lengthy g) A combination of the previous two. I also actually dislike putting whole lines of speech as bolt (unless it is supposed to symbolize shouting), and whole lines of speech with underscore don't look very pretty either, so that some of these options are limited to a dialogue between two different characters.
Not a/b/c Not e/g, though I like that better than a/b/c You should be able to omit the names (d) on occasion, but not so much that your dialogue becomes confusing. ... Even if 'not a lot is going on' between the characters besides dialogue - a great deal of communication is non-verbal. You can use descriptions of inflection, facial reactions, bodily reactions... does it make one's toes curl up in fear? Nervous tics, unconscious actions felt or observed by the other party, changes in tone, feelings and observations. All those and internal thoughts can establish who is talking at a time fairly easily, as well as the typical 'said, exclaimed, asked...' Some combination of all that should be able to sustain even a long dialogue clearly, and will add context aids and visual aids to draw the reader in. 'Name1: Name2:' Is not narrative friendly. It's useful for lines in a play or transcripts from an event, but its clunky and jarring for storytelling, and depersonalizes and detracts from any ensuing dialogue. In short a combination of d and f, with some extra internal thoughts and observations thrown in.
I prefer example f A dialog isn't a static way of two straight-faced people. It always happens something and things like "he frowned", "he replied quickly", "he croaked", "she purred with a low voice" and so on just adds additional information and makes it more natural. Though I think that omitting the description on about every 3rd line would be fine too.
I would like to point out that you can omit names in surrounding text more often when the dialogue itself makes it clear with who is talking. For example, in your example: '"What is your decision, Adam?" "Yes" "Yes, what?" "Yes, Miss Victoria."' It's very clear because of both the relationship and name usage who is speaking. Not every dialogue is going to be like that, or should, but you can use those shortcuts when the come up, unless you *want* to elaborate on something (which you should at times)...
I usually use d and f In two character dialogue. Especially d and then tending more towards f if the dialogue has more than two acting speakers. Pretty much all of what Loeman already said.
ABC, only work for plays or if your doing a layout for a comic book or something. I typically prefer the latter since a good deal of what humans say is unspoken and can be the difference between "Fuck You." and "Fuck you." She gave a playful smirk. One of the major problems with text messages for example is you can't really add a tone to your messages so a message that one person sees as friendly might come off differently to the reader. We can add emoticons but it doesn't really capture the writers tone.
I normally do D, but when my characters are talking with the voices in their heads, I tend to use E. That way if I need to I can overlap voices.
The problem I have, personally, with E and G, is consistency. While logically it might seem cute to have two characters with different voices be written differently, the problem comes when more voices are added - in the same conversation or even later. Like: Let's say Person A always talks in normalized text, and Person B in italics. No problem so far. Then there's person C,D,E,F, and G. Seven characters is not necessarily a lot for a story. Or more. So, do you assign each person their own casing and text formatting? That begins to become cumbersome as an author and a reader. It becomes one more thing to remember, rather than a tool to make things easier. It also becomes a question of the tone you're trying to convey Does the person always written in bold have a deep voice? Are female voices in italics? What about minor characters? If another female comes along, written in italics like the main female character, does that mean they have similar voices? What happens when they talk together? Do you just have a bunch of italic dialogue running around, with no basic function, again obscuring which character is which? Do you not, and wonder what voice quality the latest minor female side character has that gives her an underscore along with italics? Or, alternatively, you just divide it up by conversation. The first person to speak always starts normal, then italics, then bold... whatever. Okay, but then you have a person in italics one conversation, and not the next. So the reader and author is switching up the designations per conversation, and if they don't they start running into the same problem as above. Then also is the question - do the italics denote a certain quality to one's voice? Does that mean its feminine? What does the underscore mean? The questions pile up. They begin to overwhelm the usefulness of a mechanic that is quite unnecessary. I think specific text formatting *can* be used in dialogue effectively, particularly if associated with a certain character, maybe one that always *does* speak a certain way (say, a nonhuman brute or a whispery little dude), but it shouldn't be the *default mode for dividing up dialogues*. Doing so creates more problems than it solves, more questions than it answers, and its unnecessary - authors have written all kinds of great dialogues in and outside of porn without needing to resort to that kind of formatting division.
I think italics do better for inner thoughts (without quotes). What a nice piece of ass! I was astonished. When thoughts don't have to convey any special mood, they can stand alone in first or second person. What a nice piece of ass! In spoken dialogs, they can be used to show a sudden change of the speaker's tone (e.g. if they imitate or cite someone) or to show certain emphasis of a word.
Thoroughly disagree on this one. Thoughts without ' ' look weird to me. I don't really care about the use of italics (Take it or leave it, makes no actual difference) but the ' ' is mandatory to me. I can read it without, sure, but I dislike it.
Well, single quotes for thoughts are okay as well, though now I'm used to thoughts in italics. The reason for using no quotes for thoughts is that they can't be heard. Actually, it should also work to write thoughts with no emphasis at all though it would make it harder to identify them as thoughts.
Well, Loeman managed to convince me with his arguments ;-) I'll try to avoid these format options in the future and stick to plain old text!
there have been a few books that have written thoughts and speech with out any punctuation. Although that was so that you as a reader where never sure what was being said and what was being thought. Not really much use on a porn site though
I've been writing thoughts straight into the text for a while, with no special designation... Not speech, though, that i cant imagine doing without quotes. And only following one person's perception/thoughts (instead of narrating from an omniscient perspective).
Calling right now that you're not British. Nothing wrong with that, but this is something only a British manual of style cannot even begin to accommodate (which none do, by the way). The British formatting reserves single quotation marks for speech, and double quotation marks for inner speech. Example: 'His exact words were, "What about that roast beef on the top shelf?" indicating he knew what was in my refrigerator,' she said. US manuals have it the other way. This is just one of the numerous differences, and it's nearly impossible to be all encompassing, but it's a good reason this is one of those things we should try very hard to avoid and unlearn. I'm not opposed to italics for thoughts, even if I do side with Loeman on this on the grounds italics already have a purpose in formatting, but that's far less problematic than quotation marks. Especially since italics for thoughts is becoming a progressively more common technique. As for special formatting for dialogue, I believe that should be reserved for bilingual characters who have pertinent, second-language conversations. If this second-language conversation is so important the reader needs to follow along, there should be something to indicate what is and is not the primary language of the piece. It should not be bold, italics, or underlining simply because those serve their own purposes, and would be put to further work if italics for thoughts becomes a formal rule. Color and font changes, while they can be tedious to remember, are naturally employed to convey the concept of "special case" - such as graffiti, handwritten notes, and more - so we're playing right into conventions with those choices.
You would be right. I am German. I have learned all my life that " " is for speech and ' ' is for thoughts with many stories using italics on top. To be honest what I have read in english books hasn't differed from that. Guess that is the US work then or Brits being different to the perceived norm (like driving on the left side). Different approachs to all things, although I agree with the USA on this one. Isn't that the style called 'Stream of Consciousness' founded by the book Ulysses by James Joyce? I might be wrong on this but this is what rings a bell in my head.
Think F is the right and always comprehesible way to write in most occasions. If it's a fast paced dialogue though, D might be easier to read. I've read works with single or double quotation marks for dialogues indifferently, i see it just as a graphical convention. But i'm not English mother tongue and i don't know what's the 'right' use of them in english language. Thumbs up for the italics-thoughts association.
I should maybe have made clear that I also like italics = thoughts just fine. I only mentioned that I had ceased using them in my current (single narrator) story as an alternative to the given mindset that, maybe, they might be completely necessary. They are not. But yes, that's a good and useful and common system for organizing text (thoughts).
