The last writing class I had was back in the 80's and then I read an article by Piers Anthony, I think. It was his position that the he said, she said convention was too cumbersome and suggested only doing enough of that to identify who is saying what. He suggested that we double space lines where we switch from one character to another.
I see some slight variations in technique in the stories here, so I am just curious about what everyone thinks is correct.
Gwen Brown
Writing convention
I think he's right (or is that write?)
It depends upon how the dialogue is going, how many are involved and the pace.
Overall I know I'm not best known for following rules and such, but I'd say Piers was right, less is more.
Online writing in particular.
Print and online text have differences in how they're composited and read, so they have slightly different guidelines. The rules you mentioned work particularly well for online prose, where newlines are free and help soothe the irritation of staring into a fluorescent lightbulb (CRT). In print, they're so much wasted blank paper, but, on-screen, having a separate paragraph for each speech in a dialogue makes your prose a lot more readable.
In writing a tete-a-tete (two-party) conversation, you can often let speaker-tags (words cluing the reader as to who's speaking) go entirely after the first back-and-forth exchange, for a screen or so or for the rest of the conversation, at least until one of the characters has some stage-business to do, and then use that description/action (Richard slumped deeper into his chair. "How long until the change is complete?") instead of an explicit speaker-tag ("she said", "he proclaimed", "he vouchsafed"). You'll probably want to liven things up with some actions and description, anyway, since long unbroken stretches of dialogue get as irritating as long unbroken stretches of narrative; just be sure to put the action or description of the character in the same paragraph of the speech they're about to say or have just said. I've seen some fanfic which was very hard to read and visualize because the author consistently put a character's description or action in the next paragraph after their spoken line, often at the start of the other character's speech, necessitating rereading for me to figure out who was saying what.
One test you can use for readability is to read stretches of dialogue aloud and assume a different cast of voice for each character; even better, have a friend do it. If you-or-the-friend has trouble knowing when to adopt which assumed voice, you need more clues. If the readaloud is starting to take on a tick-tock feeling, particularly in bursts of short-speech repartee, maybe you need fewer explicit speaker-tags.
Ah, Conventions!
I was at a nice hotel in which a dialog convention was being held. The conventioneers were all wearing stick on name tags and funny hats, so as to identify themselves to other convention goers. The hats were brimless, with chattering teeth on a little stalk attached to the crown.
They weren't any more annoying than most drunken convention attendees and they seems to be enjoying themselves.
Mr. Ram
dialogue
I had a complaint about my last story that my grammar was incorrect because of how I wrote my paragraphs with quotations, so some readers still expect things to follow the traditional conventions.
Dialogue and conventions...
I believe that written prose (fiction/drama) is its own form and requires no reference to the cues that aural or visual identification provide in other media. If it's entertaining, fulfills coherent (if complex) dramatic intent... and does what the author wants, then... hey!
But that's me. Me and Joyce ;-)
Smies
Michelle
Dialog
I agree with Piers Anthony: do enough to attribute the dialog, but no more. However, in my opinion, one should err on the side of clarity, and I wouldn't go more than four speaking parts before putting in a "he said" just to make it absolutely clear in case the reader looked away for a moment. There's little more annoying (to me) than having to go back through an entire section to puzzle out who said what.
A few more thoughts on dialog:
In print, one indents the start of speech. Some do it for on-line prose, too, but most don't bother because the reader already knows a new person is speaking from the new paragraph.
If a speaking part gets pretty long, it's nice to break it into separate paragraphs so one doesn't have a monster block of text to go through, and one should make a separate paragraph when beginning a new thought, such as a single person talking about philosophy one moment, then the weather in the very next sentence.
Most of the writing books much prefer the "he said" rather than the "said he" form of attribution, and most tell the author to choose one style or the other and stick with it, but many big time authors use them interchangeably, according to some internal meter or rhythm. An unending use of the "said he" construction looks archaic to me, but usually the reader doesn't notice a mix of "he said" and "said he" -- unless he's read a writing book. :)
Most authors will use a form of action by a character immediately preceding a portion of dialog to show the attribution. This is a very common practice. Ex: Kahlen looked up. "Is there something you wanted?"
Some people like to use the other person's name in the dialog as an easy way to show attribution, the "Now Sweety, you know you want to" or "It's all right, John." Some of that is all right, but don't make it a habit. I used to do it a lot until somebody once told me that excessive use of a person's name in dialog was annoying. It IS annoying, besides being unnatural. Practically no one in real life uses the other person's name in direct conversation unless they're trying to make a point or get his attention.
Try to make different people sound like different people. Besides helping with attribution, it's good writing practice to make each character unique. Generic characters are poison to a reader's interest.
Unless your name is Samuel Clemons, whose use of dialect was sometimes borderline, at best, keep any dialect simple so the reader doesn't have to decipher. I've put down many a story over this annoying trait. Also, keep the use of foreign languages down. It may be "tres chic," to the author, but there's not much more irritating than reading an entire line in a foreign language and not seeing the translation. Heck, it's nearly as bad to see the line and THEN the translation. One pretty French woman once said, I think quite seriously: "You Americans are very clever not to learn any other languages. This forces everyone else to learn English." While I enjoy being included in a world-wide conspiracy, insulted, and praised simultaneously as much as the next guy, and my schadenfreude was tingling at a pleasant pitch, it's true that, for most, there is little practical reason to learn a foreign language if you live in the US unless you want to enter the diplomatic corps or live where illegal immigrants predominate. The British started the world-wide spread of English, but the Americans certainly reinforced it to where English is THE de facto international language. Let's pat each other on the back and (Harumph!) keep that record intact, shall we? :)
This is important: Make dialog more interesting than real life. Very rarely should dialog be used simply as a way to get from point A to point B or as a way to tell the reader a bunch of facts. If you possibly can, fill dialog with something that develops the characters, brings up intriguing points of view, and use it at pivotal moments, not where you can more easily summarize. A story with 90% dialog is almost always boring.
Aardvark
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."
Mahatma Gandhi
Contractions in dialogue
I would add to Aardvarks comments that contractions usually sound more natural in dialogue. Listen to people talking and you will hear can't and won't and you're more often that their longer counterparts. Too much uncontracted dialog sounds stilted and does not, as they say, flow off the tongue.
Compare:
"I will not come to your apartment," she said.
versus
"I won't come over to your place."
Exceptions are often used for emphasis, as in:
"I will NOT come over!" she said and slammed close the phone.
Just my humble opinion.
Jamie