Punctuate this sentence, class.

I'm not really confident about my answer, but this is how I think I would do it.

When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof, his first two thoughts were, one: how far can the human body splatter, and two: can you get blood stains out of suede?

Click to expand...

When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof, his first two thoughts were: one, how far can the human body splatter? And two, can you get blood stains out of suede?


That said, I do not like the "one" and "two" in that sentence. You already mentioned he had two thoughts, so to me, the "one and two" are redundant.

When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof, his first two thoughts were: How far can the human body splatter? And can you get blood stains out of suede?

I don't like the (1) and (2) either. I would say:

When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof, his first two thoughts were "how far can the human body splatter?" and "can you get blood stains out of suede?".

I don't like the full stop at the end, but it does finish the sentence, whereas the question mark prior to it applies to what he's thinking only (ie, the whole sentence is not a question).

I think I would rewrite it to something like this:

When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof, he wondered far can the human body splatter. His thoughts quickly moved onto how to get blood stains out of suede

...or:

Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof and "I wonder how far the human body can splatter," he thought. "Oh, can you get blood stains out of suede?"

::Quickly copying and pasting to keep from being influenced by other replies...::

When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof, his first two thoughts were: one, how far can the human body splatter; and two, can you get blood stains out of suede.

::Quickly hits 'Post Quick Reply' and looks to see what other said! ::

I'm just experimenting with it a little:


When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof, his first two thoughts were: 'One. How far can the human body splatter?' and, 'Two. Can you get blood stains out of suede?'

Woodsie said:

I'm just experimenting with it a little:


When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof, his first two thoughts were: 'One. How far can the human body splatter?' and, 'Two. Can you get blood stains out of suede?'

Click to expand...

Well congratulations on being the only other person to see the need for talking marks so far (is that not a completely obvious bit of punctuation????), but would you ever think "one" or "two" before two linked thoughts?

I'm still lobbying for the removal of "one" and "two". They're just wrong!

The entire thing is 3rd POV. I see the One and Two as an indicator of personality -- the narrator is likely to be 1) pedantic, and 2) rigid in his thinking.

Hmmm... why do you think you need quotes? It's a thought, not a speech.

When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof his first two thoughts were, one: how far can the human body splatter? And two, can you get blood stains out of suede?

You might also want to consider changing "careen" to "careening." That's more immediate--it clarifies that he's thinking these thoughts as he watches it happen. Of course, if he's standing behind them and they disappear the instant they fall (i.e. they fall off the building and then he instantly can't see them anymore because he's a few yards back from the edge), "careen" would be preferable to "careening." But if he can see them fall for any length of time, I'd go with careening.

There's absolutely no need for quotes here. Quotes mean someone is speaking--and he's not speaking, he's thinking. If he were thinking and remembering something that someone once said, then you'd use quotes around the thing someone once said, because it's still someone talking (albeit only in his memory). But that's not the situation here.

I like the "one" and "two," because it lends a dark humor to the passage, or I should say, it highlights the dark humor that's already there.

Well then, American English is very different to the English I learnt at school. How else do you denote where the start and the end of the thinking is?

Talking marks are most definitely required.

April Hollands said:

Well then, American English is very different to the English I learnt at school. How else do you denote where the start and the end of the thinking is?

Talking marks are most definitely required.

Click to expand...

I've read British novels. I don't remember seeing thoughts in quotes.

April Hollands said:

Well then, American English is very different to the English I learnt at school. How else do you denote where the start and the end of the thinking is?

Talking marks are most definitely required.

Click to expand...

It's not a UK vs. US thing: it's a "current publishing convention" vs. "older publishing conventions" thing.

Using quotation marks (a/k/a inverted commas) to denote interior monologue is not the norm in either the UK or US publishing industries right now.

I think it clarifies a bit. Talking quotes are encased by doubles (") and quoting quotes are encased by singles (') so, you could put it as though she is quoting her own thoughts. It sets it apart in a way that the reader could follow easily. Also, as for the 'One,' 'Two,' bit, it's a way of speaking, (or thinking) that adds to the voice of the character. I wouldn't want a character to be so proper, even in thought, that it takes away from their idiosyncrasies.

Woodsie said:

as for the 'One,' 'Two,' bit, it's a way of speaking, (or thinking) that adds to the voice of the character. I wouldn't want a character to be so proper, even in thought, that it takes away from their idiosyncrasies.

Click to expand...

I agree with that completely. The voice of the character is key--this is a story, not an article for a scientific journal or something.

Woodsie said:

I think it clarifies a bit.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, it confuses the reader, because the modern convention is to use quotes for two things: (1) to indicate speech, or (2) to indicate odd phrasing that the speaker/writer would not use him or herself. Example: Your so-called "man boobs" do indeed bounce wildly when you run. The use of quotes there indicates--probably for humorous effect--that the speaker would not normally elect to describe that part of the person's physique as "man boobs."

And of course, if the quotes surround an entire sentence instead of a short phrase, it denotes speech. So if you use quotes, the reader will wonder if he's talking--if he's actually speaking these thoughts out loud. That risks distracting and confusing the reader.

Woodsie said:

Talking quotes are encased by doubles (") and quoting quotes are encased by singles (') so, you could put it as though she is quoting her own thoughts. It sets it apart in a way that the reader could follow easily.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "quoting quotes." The singles/doubles distinction is when a person speaking is, in part of what they say, quoting someone else. For example, a student talking to her friend might say: "I was talking to my teacher, and she said, like, 'You're at risk of failing this class.' I was like, totally? And she was like, 'Totally!'"

Or as in the example above--if it were in dialogue, it would look like this: "Your so-called 'man boobs' do indeed bounce wildly when you run." The speaker is quoting the other person--using the other person's language.

It's a quote within a quote, basically. So I'm not seeing how it relates to depicting the unspoken thoughts of a character.

Some more experimenting...

Just thinking publicly, here, but because of the amount of character put into the thoughts, it makes sense to try to set it apart from the other words in the sentence. Quotations are used to denote the words a person who is other than the writer. I'm assuming that this book is written in third person, so the thoughts need to be separated from the narrative. As to how, I'll keep my original thought, but add another to be considered.

1)
When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof, his first two thoughts were: 'One. How far can the human body splatter?' and, 'Two. Can you get blood stains out of suede?'
2)
When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof, his first two thoughts were: One. How far can the human body splatter? and, Two. Can you get blood stains out of suede?

I am still at a loss because I think that 'One' and 'Two' should be capitalized and, therefore, need to be set apart more than with italics primarily because it doesn't look as clean to me.

Just thoughts....

I'm of the contingent who don't like the 'one' and 'two', but if you're absolutely certain they're necessary to the character's voice, get rid of the other 'two'. You could just make it 'his first thoughts were', but I like something more like thisOr take out the thought-tagging, since the italics accomplish the same thing, like this

IceCreamEmpress said:

It's not a UK vs. US thing: it's a "current publishing convention" vs. "older publishing conventions" thing.

Using quotation marks (a/k/a inverted commas) to denote interior monologue is not the norm in either the UK or US publishing industries right now.

Click to expand...

(btw, I'm not British, and I wasn't trying to say that was the difference: just that when/where I went to school, thoughts went in talking marks).

How do you denote it if you don't use talking marks? Do you italicise or leave it as is? I'm struggling with this (and glad I'm writing in first-person where thoughts just happen).

For example, is this sentence not confusing?

Teresa thought she was a happy person after they met.

Is Teresa the happy person?
And is she happy after they met?
Or is someone else a happy person and Teresa thought that after they met?


Damn, I had another example but I've forgotten it and now I have to deal with some late-breaking dairy news for my actual job...bum.

April Hollands said:

For example, is this sentence not confusing?

Teresa thought she was a happy person after they met.

Is Teresa the happy person?
And is she happy after they met?
Or is someone else a happy person and Teresa thought that after they met?

Click to expand...

It looks like it is in 3rd person omniscient. The narrator is telling us Teresa's thoughts, after some [context missing] meeting with an undefined 'they'.
No problems with it as written, depending of course, on the context. Unless, of course, Teresa is a personality who habitually refers to herself in the 3rd person, even in internal dialogue.

Anything out of context can be confusing. If you wrote the quoted phrase and think it's confusing - why not change it so the intended meaning is clearer?

April Hollands said:

(btw, I'm not British, and I wasn't trying to say that was the difference: just that when/where I went to school, thoughts went in talking marks).

How do you denote it if you don't use talking marks? Do you italicise or leave it as is? I'm struggling with this (and glad I'm writing in first-person where thoughts just happen).

For example, is this sentence not confusing?

Teresa thought she was a happy person after they met.

Is Teresa the happy person?
And is she happy after they met?
Or is someone else a happy person and Teresa thought that after they met?


Damn, I had another example but I've forgotten it and now I have to deal with some late-breaking dairy news for my actual job...bum.

Click to expand...

When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the top of the roof his first two thoughts were one how far can the human body splatter and two can you get blood stains out of suede

Click to expand...

The roof is usually the top of something. I'd take the words "off the top of" out, just to keep the sentence a little shorter and simpler. So (and this is just my opinion, not influenced by the other replies - I was careful about that) I'd go with:

When Xaphan saw Detective Walsh and a strange woman careen off the roof, his first two thoughts were, one: how far can the human body splatter? and two: can you get blood stains out of suede?

Perhaps it's not absolutely technically correct, but I try for "understandable" more than "correct" (and admit that usually, they're the same thing).

Teresa thought she was a happy person after they met.

Click to expand...

This sentence is punctuated correctly, so far as I can tell. If you're trying to say something other than what the sentence currently says, then you should reword it.

Teresa thought she was a happy person after they met.

(it means exactly that, she was happy after they met)


Teresa thought, she was a happy person after they met.

(the "she" is someone else, apparently)

Teresa thought she was a happy person after they met.

Click to expand...

How about putting the events in order of what happened first?
After they met, Teresa thought she was a happy person.

(They first had to meet before Teresa thought she was happy.)