Quick Question - Dialogue & Agent

[KTC]

I know these were probably covered in other threads, but I have 2 very quick questions.

1. In dialogue, when one person interrupts another, which is correct:

"I thought I told you to..."
OR
"I thought I told you to---"

2. When looking for an agent, does one wait until their MS is complete, or does one send partial to the agent? (I ask this one because I went to a workshop type thing yesterday..."WOULD YOU TURN THE PAGE" and there was an agent there that gave positive feedback on my work. I wonder if I have to complete it before querying her interest in the rest?)

Thanks in advance, and I apologize for my laziness in not searching out the answers in previous threads.

[Richard]

The way I read those is that the first is the person trailing off, the second being interrupted.

[Torin]

The dash is correct for interruptions, and for fiction, complete the manuscript before querying. You don't want an agent saying, "Hey, that sounds great! Please forward the entire manuscript A.S.A.P." and having to reply, "Uh, well, it's not really finished yet. Can you wait another few months?"

Good luck!

[Cathy C]

1. The three dashes, known as an "m-dash" are correct for this purpose. Ellipses, the . . . (always with spaces between the dots,) are used for thought breaks, WITHIN a sentence. So,



"I thought I told you to---" Bob began, when Wendy interrupted.

and

"I thought I told you to . . . I can't believe . . . aw, hell, just go to your room!"

2. Wait until you're done. I've done it both ways, and it's infinitely easier to query when you have the whole thing. Don't rush the process. You might find that later developments in the book force you to change the beginning, which can be critical if you've already sent it out.

Good luck!

[KTC]

Thanks to everyone. Great responses in great time. I thought that was the case with ellipses and m-dash. Just wanted to be sure. I am going through what I have and checking things like this. I think I mixed the two usages in a couple of places. Your replies have been very helpful. Thank you all.

[reph]

The Chicago manual says to use dashes for interrupted or faltering speech. By that rule, there's no place for ellipses in dialogue.

[Cathy C]

I beg to differ, reph. Para. 10.39, Page 368 of the Chicago Manual, (14th ed.) says this:


10.39 "Authors and editors are not always consistent in the way they use ellipses and dashes in interrupted speech, but an attempt should be made to establish a distinction. Ellipsis points suggest faltering or fragmented speech in full sentences accompanied by confusion, insecurity, distress, or uncertainly, and they should be reserved for that purpose. The dash, on the other hand, suggests some decisiveness and should be reserved for interruptions, abrupt changes in thought, or impatient fractures of grammar."

The example I used was confusion and distress, so my comments stand. ;)

[Kasey Mackenzie]

I agree with Cathy and that's how I use the ellipses and em-dashes in dialogue. They seem to work well in these situations.

[maestrowork]

The Chicago manual says to use dashes for interrupted or faltering speech. By that rule, there's no place for ellipses in dialogue.

Fiction is different. Many house styles dictate that ... be used for faltering, dashes for interruption/abrupt stop. I think with fiction, the Chicago manual is loosely often loosely followed; instead, common use (within the fiction world) is considered.

p.s. and yes, KTC, you should have your ms completed before querying agent. If an agent is interested in seeing the full ms, you won't be in a jam. Also, you want to present to the agent your BEST draft.

[KTC]

Thanks all. I just realized the book I'm reading right now uses ellipsis throughout for interrupted dialogue. And, visually, it looks improper. How odd is that? It's a Canadian released Alfred A. Knopf. There always seems to be so many answers to each question when it comes to style, formatting!? I'm going with the original replies given here. It just seems to make more sense. Thanks to everyone.

[ChunkyC]

I think you'll be in good shape with that, KTC. The big thing then will be making sure it's consistent throughout the manuscript.

[reph]

I beg to differ, reph. Para. 10.39, Page 368 of the Chicago Manual, (14th ed.) says this:

10.39 "...Ellipsis points suggest faltering or fragmented speech in full sentences accompanied by confusion...."
I have the 12th edition. They must have changed their (collective) mind in between. I wish I knew why. I still suspect that "..." at the end of a speech that trails off came from comic books.

Chicago is primarily a guide for nonfiction.

[Jamesaritchie]

I have the 12th edition. They must have changed their (collective) mind in between. I wish I knew why. I still suspect that "..." at the end of a speech that trails off came from comic books.

Chicago is primarily a guide for nonfiction.

Using an ellpsis plus a period to indicate dialogue that trails off didn't come from comics. Comic writers got it from grammarians. My professors taught it to me way back when, and their professors taught it to them, long before such usage in comics came into vogue.

In English, we use an ellipsis to indicate an ommision of words within a sentence. This also applies to missing words at the beinning or end of a sentence. The etymology of "ellipsis" can be traced back to elleipein, which means "to fall short."

Though four dots should be used at the end of a sentence, with three being the ellipsis, and the fourth being the period.

Even my dictionary definition of "ellipsis" is "Ommision or suppression of parts of words or sentences."

Whether the ommision is at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, this has always been the proper usage of an ellipsis.

I was also taught that dashes should be used only when the missing words are not the point, but that a hard interruption is.

The use of an ellipsis within a sentence to indicate a soft pause is fairly new, and has been acceptable in fiction for only forty or so years. But using an ellipsis plus a period at the end of a sentence to indicate a trailing off, an incompleteness, is very, very old usage, and to my mind, always the correct way to do so.

[Euan H.]

... Comic writers got it from grammarians. My professors taught it to me way back when, and their professors taught it to them, long before such usage in comics came into vogue.

In English, we use an ellipsis to indicate an ommision of words within a sentence. This also applies to missing words at the beinning or end of a sentence.

Even my dictionary definition of "ellipsis" is "Ommision or suppression of parts of words or sentences."

Whether the ommision is at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end, this has always been the proper usage of an ellipsis.


No offence, but ellipsis in the grammatical sense has a different meaning to ellipsis in the sense that is being used above.

Grammatical ellipsis is a system of omission of certain words. So frex, in the sentence "I went to the party and then went home", the Subject 'I' has been elided from the second clause. This kind of ellipsis is related to the grammatical system of substitution ("I went home and Jason did too"). English doesn't use three dots to mark this kind of ellipsis (nor AFAIK is it marked in this way in other languages).

The meaning of ellipsis above--three dots to indicate faltering speech--isn't the same thing.

[Jamesaritchie]

No offence, but ellipsis in the grammatical sense has a different meaning to ellipsis in the sense that is being used above.

Grammatical ellipsis is a system of omission of certain words. So frex, in the sentence "I went to the party and then went home", the Subject 'I' has been elided from the second clause. This kind of ellipsis is related to the grammatical system of substitution ("I went home and Jason did too"). English doesn't use three dots to mark this kind of ellipsis (nor AFAIK is it marked in this way in other languages).

The meaning of ellipsis above--three dots to indicate faltering speech--isn't the same thing.

In your example, no, it isn't generally used this way. But that isn't at all what I'm talking about. When I say missing words, I mean missing words, not just a word left out in an understood sentence.

It's used in partial quotes all over the place, and it's the way we always did it in journalism. You leave out part of a quotation, you replace this with a three dot ellipsis. You leave words out in the middle, you replace them with a three dot ellipsis. You leave off the end of a sentence, you replace the missing/unsaid words with a three dot ellipsis plus a period. When you leave out a significant number of words because they aren't important to the overall meaning, you do use an ellipsis to indicate this.

If someone says, "In my humble opinion, Twinkies and better that Ding Dongs," you may quote him as saying ". . .Twinkies are better than Ding dongs."

If somone says, "Twinkies are better than Ding Dongs, hot dogs are better than hamburgers, but Twinkies are not as good as Ho-Ho's," you might quote him as saying "Twinkies are better than Ding Dongs. . .but Twinkies are not as good as Ho-Ho's."

If someone says, "Twinkies are better than Ding Dongs, and hot dogs are better than hamburgers," but your article is about Twinkies, you might quote him as saying "Twinkies are better than Ding Dongs. . . ."

Quotations are dialogue, and so the same technique is used whenever a subject lets a sentence trail off. You quote the trailing off sentence, and end it with a three dot ellipsis plus a period.

I can only say it was done this way by all my professors, both jounalism and English, and has been used this way in newspapers and nonfiction for more years than comics have been around. It's also been done this way in fiction for a very long time. It isn't new, and all the English I read DOES use three dots to mark this kind of ellipsis. At least, every guide I can find outside of Chicago says it is. So do the dictionaries. For that matter, so does Holy Mother Grammatica, and that's good enough for me. And there's seldom a day when I don't see an ellipsis used this way in print somewhere.

I think the problem is that too many grammarians have tried to turn the ellipsis into something new, and it hasn't worked out very well.

This is old hat. It was done this way in my youth, and it was done this way in my professor's youths. Newspapers and nonfiction books have been doing this forever. It's still done this way. I haven't in fact, seen any other way it can be done. Using dashes to indicate dialogue that trails off doesn't even make sense, any more than it would make sense to use dashes to show the first half of a quotation has been left off.

Dashes are often used to show doalogue has been interrupted, even in journalism, but an interruption is a very different critter. An interruption is from an outside source, while dialogue that simply trails off is the choice of the speaker. The way to show that it trails off, that it was the speaker's choice to leave the sentence unfinished, is with a three dot ellipsis and a period.

[MarkPettus]

I'm no expert, but, if an agent told me she liked my work I would send her a letter thanking her for her kind words, and ask if she would look at my unfinished manuscript.

She will undoubtedly remember you today. She might not remember you or your writing 3 months from now. Even if she says no, she may invite you to send your ms when it is complete.

A friend of mine's brother is a VP at one of the major publishing houses. He doesn't even look at unagented queries, much less manuscripts, but he read my first three because I once bought him a beer.

Publishing is a tough business. Take every advantage you can get.

[KTC]

I'm no expert, but, if an agent told me she liked my work I would send her a letter thanking her for her kind words, and ask if she would look at my unfinished manuscript.

She will undoubtedly remember you today. She might not remember you or your writing 3 months from now. Even if she says no, she may invite you to send your ms when it is complete.

A friend of mine's brother is a VP at one of the major publishing houses. He doesn't even look at unagented queries, much less manuscripts, but he read my first three because I once bought him a beer.

Publishing is a tough business. Take every advantage you can get.

Thanks for your insight here. She did like my work and told me it was great writing. So you think a follow-up letter would be in order. I could just explain that the MS is not complete but that I would like to send it to her when it is, kind of thing? And, of course, thank her for her comments thus far.