Integrating Dialog
Dialog (Changed)
Inserting dialog into a document should be simple; put quotation marks around a spoken sentence, and done. “Hi there.” See that easy. Well… It turns out that there are several accepted methods for integrating dialog. Each approach has benefits, and I have learned no correct method exists.
Hold on, there is a correct method that is widely documented in many books: The Chicago Manual of Style, Garner’s Modern English Usage, The Copyeditor’s Handbook, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Yeah, not so much. All these “golden standards” mostly agree on the grammar rules, and then authors adapt the rules to their tastes or go completely off the rails.
As I bumbled through my writing journey, I settled on a quote integration method and thought sharing my craziness would be fun. Let’s explore some methods:
Method 1 (no quotation marks) James walked up to Bob. I will be late tonight. That’s fine. James walked away. Is somebody speaking? Who? When did they stop speaking? Yet, there are no quotation marks, so this is super easy.
Method 1a (Improved no quotation marks). James walked up to Bob and spoke. I will be late tonight. That’s fine. James walked away. It’s a better method, but the reader still gets confused.
Method 1b (No quotation marks with afterthoughts). Bob walked up. I will be late tonight, said James. That’s fine, and he walked away. That is undoubtedly compact and clean but still leaves the reader confused.
Method 2 (Quotes stuck in) James approached Bob. “I will be late tonight.” “That’s fine.” James walked away. This is better than method 1, but the reader still cannot tell who is speaking.
Method 3 (forward hints) James approached Bob and said, “I will be late tonight.” James replied, “That’s fine.” James walked away. This is much cleaner, but there is room for improvement.
Method 3a (forward hints with breaks) James approached Bob and said, “I will be late tonight.”
“That’s fine.”
James walked away.
Before speaking, the reader knows the subject person and the target person. It is the best compromise between all the options but loads the document up with multiple “said.” To get around this issue, I mix it up with: “answered,” “asked,” “continued,” “yelled,” “whispered,” etc. James walked up to Bob and asked, “Can I help?”
Method 4 (separate) James walked up to Bob.
“I will be late tonight.”
“That’s fine.”
James walked away.
This is much better, but the reader can get confused about who is speaking.
Method 5 (The afterthought) James walked up to Bob. “I will be late tonight,” said James. “That’s fine,” replied Bob as James walked away.
Many people feel this method is the golden standard; it looks the most professional, and most books use it. My issue is that the reader does not get to learn who is speaking until the end of the sentence. I feel this method trips up the reader and disrupts the flow.
Method 5a (Integrated afterthoughts) James walked up to Bob. “I will be late tonight,” said James. “I need to see my sister.” “That’s fine,” replied Bob. “Go see her first.” James walked away.
This method is a combination of 3 and 5. The reader is informed who is speaking right after or during the first sentence of the dialog. Overall, this method reads well but falls apart during short sentence dialog.
Method 5b (Integrated afterthoughts with breaks)
James approached Bob and said, “I will be late tonight.”
“That’s fine,” replied Bob.
James walked away.
This is the most straightforward technique, and readers can easily understand who is talking to whom. However, it still falls apart during snappy, short-sentence dialog.
Method 5c (Integrated afterthoughts with logical breaks and emotions) To get around the 5b issues, I have my rule of four. This means I identify the character once every four lines of dialog. I also add emotions and descriptions.
James walked up to Bob and said in an angry voice, “I will be late tonight.”
“That’s fine.”
“What is going on?”
“My sister needs help cooking.”
“You can cook?” Bob asked with a big grin.
“Sure.”
This is the method I settled on because it offers the most flexibility and results in a smooth flow. Yet, I have not received many compliments in this area. I think the reason is that writers are not supposed to get compliments for good dialog integration. Having good technique is an expected minimum.
To make matters more complex, the rules for double quotes and single quotes are not set in stone. I settled on single quotes inside double quotes. “Kelly told me to ‘Pick up dinner on my way home.’ Sound good?” This seems straightforward, but there is a golden rule for single words. Bob said, ‘Hello.’ I like how this reads, but I ignore this rule and use double quotes to keep things consistent. Bob said, “Hello.”
Quoting gets interesting when a character is thinking. An author cannot use the word “said,” and they need to replace it with the word “thought.” For example. Bob thought, “I bet she is mad because I forgot dinner.”
Writers have an additional trick; we can put thoughts into italics. Unfortunately, this article format does not allow me to write in italics, so I improvised with capital letters. Kelly walked in and stared at Bob. I BET SHE IS MAD BECAUSE I FORGOT DINNER. We can also do a combination. Kelly walked in, and Bob thought, I BET SHE IS MAD BECAUSE I FORGOT DINNER. Both methods have merit, but my method is to use the first method when a character is alone, and when there are multiple characters, I use the second.
In my book, Pushed to the Edge of Survival, I have introduced a new technique to allow telepathic characters to interact. I replaced “quotation marks” with <greater than and less than symbols.>
Bob thought to Kelly, <Oops, I forgot dinner.>
<You certainly did.>
And finally, when a character has excessive dialog, I separate it into paragraphs with an open quote at the end. This is a gold standard, but many authors do not use it.
“I will be late tonight to help with cooking. It has been a super long week full of work issues, and I have had trouble sleeping.
“This all started with a big computer upgrade that my boss wanted. He is not a great communicator, and the project has had many delays.”
The simple topic of dialog integration should be straightforward because humans have been speaking and writing English for a long time. One would think there would be iron-clad rules that are universally accepted. Sadly, this is not the case. I have read books with every possible variation of the above methods. Even famous authors have their unique methods. They even switch methods during documents. So confusing.
The overall goal is to keep readers engaged and know who is speaking. It’s a tough road to travel down, and I wish the golden standards had more gold and less worthless fillers, but I wish for unrealistic stuff all day long.
You’re the best -Bill
June 19 2019 Updated May 19, 2024
Inserting dialog into a document should be simple; put quotation marks around a spoken sentence, and done. “Hi there.” See that easy. Well… It turns out that there are several accepted methods for integrating dialog. Each approach has benefits, and I have learned no correct method exists.
Hold on, there is a correct method that is widely documented in many books: The Chicago Manual of Style, Garner’s Modern English Usage, The Copyeditor’s Handbook, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Yeah, not so much. All these “golden standards” mostly agree on the grammar rules, and then authors adapt the rules to their tastes or go completely off the rails.
As I bumbled through my writing journey, I settled on a quote integration method and thought sharing my craziness would be fun. Let’s explore some methods:
Method 1 (no quotation marks) James walked up to Bob. I will be late tonight. That’s fine. James walked away. Is somebody speaking? Who? When did they stop speaking? Yet, there are no quotation marks, so this is super easy.
Method 1a (Improved no quotation marks). James walked up to Bob and spoke. I will be late tonight. That’s fine. James walked away. It’s a better method, but the reader still gets confused.
Method 1b (No quotation marks with afterthoughts). Bob walked up. I will be late tonight, said James. That’s fine, and he walked away. That is undoubtedly compact and clean but still leaves the reader confused.
Method 2 (Quotes stuck in) James approached Bob. “I will be late tonight.” “That’s fine.” James walked away. This is better than method 1, but the reader still cannot tell who is speaking.
Method 3 (forward hints) James approached Bob and said, “I will be late tonight.” James replied, “That’s fine.” James walked away. This is much cleaner, but there is room for improvement.
Method 3a (forward hints with breaks) James approached Bob and said, “I will be late tonight.”
“That’s fine.”
James walked away.
Before speaking, the reader knows the subject person and the target person. It is the best compromise between all the options but loads the document up with multiple “said.” To get around this issue, I mix it up with: “answered,” “asked,” “continued,” “yelled,” “whispered,” etc. James walked up to Bob and asked, “Can I help?”
Method 4 (separate) James walked up to Bob.
“I will be late tonight.”
“That’s fine.”
James walked away.
This is much better, but the reader can get confused about who is speaking.
Method 5 (The afterthought) James walked up to Bob. “I will be late tonight,” said James. “That’s fine,” replied Bob as James walked away.
Many people feel this method is the golden standard; it looks the most professional, and most books use it. My issue is that the reader does not get to learn who is speaking until the end of the sentence. I feel this method trips up the reader and disrupts the flow.
Method 5a (Integrated afterthoughts) James walked up to Bob. “I will be late tonight,” said James. “I need to see my sister.” “That’s fine,” replied Bob. “Go see her first.” James walked away.
This method is a combination of 3 and 5. The reader is informed who is speaking right after or during the first sentence of the dialog. Overall, this method reads well but falls apart during short sentence dialog.
Method 5b (Integrated afterthoughts with breaks)
James approached Bob and said, “I will be late tonight.”
“That’s fine,” replied Bob.
James walked away.
This is the most straightforward technique, and readers can easily understand who is talking to whom. However, it still falls apart during snappy, short-sentence dialog.
Method 5c (Integrated afterthoughts with logical breaks and emotions) To get around the 5b issues, I have my rule of four. This means I identify the character once every four lines of dialog. I also add emotions and descriptions.
James walked up to Bob and said in an angry voice, “I will be late tonight.”
“That’s fine.”
“What is going on?”
“My sister needs help cooking.”
“You can cook?” Bob asked with a big grin.
“Sure.”
This is the method I settled on because it offers the most flexibility and results in a smooth flow. Yet, I have not received many compliments in this area. I think the reason is that writers are not supposed to get compliments for good dialog integration. Having good technique is an expected minimum.
To make matters more complex, the rules for double quotes and single quotes are not set in stone. I settled on single quotes inside double quotes. “Kelly told me to ‘Pick up dinner on my way home.’ Sound good?” This seems straightforward, but there is a golden rule for single words. Bob said, ‘Hello.’ I like how this reads, but I ignore this rule and use double quotes to keep things consistent. Bob said, “Hello.”
Quoting gets interesting when a character is thinking. An author cannot use the word “said,” and they need to replace it with the word “thought.” For example. Bob thought, “I bet she is mad because I forgot dinner.”
Writers have an additional trick; we can put thoughts into italics. Unfortunately, this article format does not allow me to write in italics, so I improvised with capital letters. Kelly walked in and stared at Bob. I BET SHE IS MAD BECAUSE I FORGOT DINNER. We can also do a combination. Kelly walked in, and Bob thought, I BET SHE IS MAD BECAUSE I FORGOT DINNER. Both methods have merit, but my method is to use the first method when a character is alone, and when there are multiple characters, I use the second.
In my book, Pushed to the Edge of Survival, I have introduced a new technique to allow telepathic characters to interact. I replaced “quotation marks” with <greater than and less than symbols.>
Bob thought to Kelly, <Oops, I forgot dinner.>
<You certainly did.>
And finally, when a character has excessive dialog, I separate it into paragraphs with an open quote at the end. This is a gold standard, but many authors do not use it.
“I will be late tonight to help with cooking. It has been a super long week full of work issues, and I have had trouble sleeping.
“This all started with a big computer upgrade that my boss wanted. He is not a great communicator, and the project has had many delays.”
The simple topic of dialog integration should be straightforward because humans have been speaking and writing English for a long time. One would think there would be iron-clad rules that are universally accepted. Sadly, this is not the case. I have read books with every possible variation of the above methods. Even famous authors have their unique methods. They even switch methods during documents. So confusing.
The overall goal is to keep readers engaged and know who is speaking. It’s a tough road to travel down, and I wish the golden standards had more gold and less worthless fillers, but I wish for unrealistic stuff all day long.
You’re the best -Bill
June 19 2019 Updated May 19, 2024
Follow me
