When There's Nothing After Dialogue Quotes

DwayneA · Mar 19, 2009

In a book I just finished reading, there were parts where the lines consisted of just spoken lines, but nothin after the quotes. No identifying who was speaking, no describing the characters' actions, no description of what they're feeling, nothing, just a line of quote.

Here's an example:

"Would you like some tea?"
"Yes please."

Why is this done? When is it okay to have quotes without anything afterwards?

Cyia · Mar 19, 2009

If it's clear who is speaking, you don't need any information after the quotes.

DwayneA · Mar 19, 2009

what about character actions and what they're feeling? When do they not need to be mentioned?

Cyia · Mar 19, 2009

If it's already established. For example: Mike and Pete are having an argument.

Mike jumped from his seat and took a swing at Pete, who managed to duck before impact.

"Ha! You missed." There's no need to say this is Pete speaking because the reader already knows that Mike is the one who tried to hit him.

DwayneA · Mar 19, 2009

ah, makes sense. Thanks for the insight.

Aschenbach · Mar 19, 2009

DwayneA said:
what about character actions and what they're feeling? When do they not need to be mentioned?

Feeling should be apparent from what they say, or from context.

Groucho forked his fingers and jabbed them into Harpo's eyes.
"Ow!", wailed Harpo, annoyed at the discomfort of being poked in the eyes.

"annoyed at the discomfort of being poked in the eyes" doesn't need to be mentioned. Some purists would say that "wailed" and the "!" in "Ow!" aren't needed either.

But excessive minimalism is just as bad as telegraphing. Pick your battles.

Viking Horse · Mar 19, 2009

Aschenbach said:
But excessive minimalism is just as bad as telegraphing. Pick your battles.

I won't get too technical with you, but I was just wondering, what do you consider to be excessive? I only have a handful of "long" conversations in my book, and right now I've been trying to break it up every so often with an action or another character speaking up, just so I can use the tags again and keep things established. Wasn't sure how often it might actually be needed.

Aschenbach · Mar 19, 2009

Viking Horse said:
I won't get too technical with you, but I was just wondering, what do you consider to be excessive?

When writers purge anything that isn't dialogue, leaving unnamed characters speaking in a void.

Dialogue attributions and adverbs seem to be ridiculed on AW fairly regularly. Which is fair enough when they are ill judged and over-used. But good prose makes judicious use of them. Otherwise it isn't prose, it is a script.
And even scripts have stage directions.

scribbler1382 · Mar 19, 2009

Aschenbach said:
And even scripts have stage directions.

Maybe so, but you're not the director. You're the writer. The stage is in the reader's mind. If that's ALL you allow the reader to be, why should they care what you have to say? You want to make the reader a participant, not a receptacle.

And there's nothing wrong with dialogue attributions, but when you try to make a word or phrase be both attribution and emotion conveyance, you're achieving neither.

sunandshadow · Mar 20, 2009

Viking Horse said:
I won't get too technical with you, but I was just wondering, what do you consider to be excessive? I only have a handful of "long" conversations in my book, and right now I've been trying to break it up every so often with an action or another character speaking up, just so I can use the tags again and keep things established. Wasn't sure how often it might actually be needed.

Basically you don't want the reader to lose their visual simulation of the characters' facial expressions, body language, and location; they will lose it if they don't get information about these regularly.

sunandshadow · Mar 20, 2009

scribbler1382 said:
And there's nothing wrong with dialogue attributions, but when you try to make a word or phrase be both attribution and emotion conveyance, you're achieving neither.

I don't see the logic here at all. It's perfectly possible to make a word or phrase both indicate who is speaking and how they are speaking or looking or gesturing. For example:

Jeremy rolled his eyes. "What, you expect me to believe it was abducted by aliens?"

"Well it's true." George directed a sullen glare at the toe of one shoe.

scribbler1382 · Mar 20, 2009

sunandshadow said:
I don't see the logic here at all. It's perfectly possible to make a word or phrase both indicate who is speaking and how they are speaking or looking or gesturing. For example:

Jeremy rolled his eyes. "What, you expect me to believe it was abducted by aliens?"

"Well it's true." George directed a sullen glare at the toe of one shoe.

Well, every writer has to make choices for themselves. But in the two examples you just gave, neither one has attribution.

maestrowork · Mar 20, 2009

Dialogue needs to be paced.

A sequence of dialogue alone would make the pace quick... it'd be like listening to a radio play. It can be very spellbinding -- you kind of get lost in the dialogue... so the better the dialogue, the better it is. No Country for Old Men was written mostly in dialogue alone.

Adding actions would slow it down a bit and show more layers and textures to the scene. But if you punctuate the dialogue with action on every frigging line, it gets really tiresome and boring. Actions should be sprinkled in, and they should be relevant (if you add action just to have the characters shrug or smile or nod, don't).

If two people are talking, you really don't have to tag the dialogue all the time, especially if the characters have distinct personalities and speech patterns. Again sprinkle in a tag or two, or an action or two, just to keep things clear who is saying what.

sunandshadow · Mar 20, 2009

scribbler1382 said:
Well, every writer has to make choices for themselves. But in the two examples you just gave, neither one has attribution.

They are attribution by proximity, implied rather than stated outright. More literal attribution is good too:

"Never again...! She'll never hurt me again...!" sobbed Jo.

"Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin!" Robert giggled, a mad gleam in his eye.

scribbler1382 · Mar 20, 2009

As I said, it's a personal choice. For me, those last two examples would send the book across the room.

I'll give you the proximity thing, though I didn't think that's what we were talking about here.

scarletpeaches · Mar 20, 2009

sunandshadow said:
They are attribution by proximity, implied rather than stated outright. More literal attribution is good too:

"Never again...! She'll never hurt me again...!" sobbed Jo.

"Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin!" Robert giggled, a mad gleam in his eye.

That one definitely is not good. You cannot 'sob' words.

C.M.C. · Mar 20, 2009

Well, in my book there are precisely zero dialog tags to be found. I don't like the things, so I avoided them. I am more than happy with the result.

maestrowork · Mar 20, 2009

sunandshadow said:
They are attribution by proximity, implied rather than stated outright. More literal attribution is good too:

"Never again...! She'll never hurt me again...!" sobbed Jo.

"Not by the hair on my chinny chin chin!" Robert giggled, a mad gleam in his eye.

You can't sob or giggle speech...

drachin8 · Mar 20, 2009

maestrowork said:
Dialogue needs to be paced.

A sequence of dialogue alone would make the pace quick... it'd be like listening to a radio play. It can be very spellbinding -- you kind of get lost in the dialogue... so the better the dialogue, the better it is. No Country for Old Men was written mostly in dialogue alone.

Adding actions would slow it down a bit and show more layers and textures to the scene. But if you punctuate the dialogue with action on every frigging line, it gets really tiresome and boring. Actions should be sprinkled in, and they should be relevant (if you add action just to have the characters shrug or smile or nod, don't).

If two people are talking, you really don't have to tag the dialogue all the time, especially if the characters have distinct personalities and speech patterns. Again sprinkle in a tag or two, or an action or two, just to keep things clear who is saying what.

You beat me to it, so I am just quoting you in hopes your post will be read again by everyone. Pacing in dialogue is super important. Actions and emotions are cool and all, but sometimes you have to cut them and just let the dialogue do its work.

-Michelle

sunandshadow · Mar 20, 2009

scarletpeaches said:
That one definitely is not good. You cannot 'sob' words.

scribbler1382 said:
As I said, it's a personal choice. For me, those last two examples would send the book across the room.

maestrowork said:
You can't sob or giggle speech...

I don't want to be rude, but really, are you all familiar with the same human beings I am? The ones who are perfectly capable of modulating their voices to mix words with laughter, sobs, purring, etc.? The ones who can make a phrase mean it's opposite with just a tone of voice, who can communicate a wealth of emotional meaning in how they speak a single syllable?

If you cannot sob words, what on Earth do you call in when someone speaks in a soggy, wailing, sniffling, gasping way?

scarletpeaches · Mar 20, 2009

Sobbing is something you do with your eyes, not your mouth.

dpaterso · Mar 20, 2009

scarletpeaches said:
Sobbing is something you do with your eyes, not your mouth.

Involuntary lung contractions causing short, gasping breaths, I would have thought. Not that I'd explain it like this in the novel text.

-Derek

semilargeintestine · Mar 20, 2009

sunandshadow said:
I don't want to be rude, but really, are you all familiar with the same human beings I am? The ones who are perfectly capable of modulating their voices to mix words with laughter, sobs, purring, etc.? The ones who can make a phrase mean it's opposite with just a tone of voice, who can communicate a wealth of emotional meaning in how they speak a single syllable?

If you cannot sob words, what on Earth do you call in when someone speaks in a soggy, wailing, sniffling, gasping way?

Sobbing is not speaking. If you're speaking while sobbing, you're speaking between sobs. I don't know about you, but I can't laugh and say something simultaneously.

Aschenbach · Mar 20, 2009

"Are you OK?"
"Fine."

A thousand different interpretations of this exchange are possible. The reader needs a clue.

It doesn't have to be as clumsy as;

"Are you OK?" pleaded Matt, pacing up and down anxiously.
"Fine!" she hissed.

That is overkill, and bad writing. But there is a middle ground where we don't have to declare fatwa on extra-dialogue info. Pull any book off your shelf, and if your tastes are anything remotely like mine, you will see celebrated writers using tags and adverbs.

sunandshadow · Mar 20, 2009

dpaterso said:
Involuntary lung contractions causing short, gasping breaths, I would have thought. Not that I'd explain it like this in the novel text.

-Derek

Yes gasping is an obligatory component of sobbing. Similarly with giggling, the words sound wavery because you speak in little puffs and probably higher-pitched than usual.

When There's Nothing After Dialogue Quotes

Rewriting My Destiny

Rewriting My Destiny

Moral Marjorie

Devil in the Top Hat

Moral Marjorie

Write For You, Edit For The Reader

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Write For You, Edit For The Reader

Fear the Death Ray

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Write For You, Edit For The Reader

Archetype

Fear the Death Ray

post-apocalyptic bunny

Impractical Fantasy Animal

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels

BassGirl 5000

Moral Marjorie

Impractical Fantasy Animal