Grammar Peeves #5

 DING-dong.
 “Can I help you?”
 “Good afternoon, ma’am—Grammar Police. We need to ask you a couple of questions about an alleged crime that occurred at this address last night. May we come in?”
 “Oh—er, yes. Come in. What’s this all about?”
 “Ma’am, did you or did you not use the phrase: ‘they sprung up from behind the furniture’ in an email last night when describing a surprise birthday party your friends threw for you? And did you not later on send the following tweet: ‘I got 27 present’s’?”
 “You’ve been monitoring my internet activity? You don’t have the right to do that!”
 “We have the authority under the Language Security Act when certain key words and phrases are flagged by our computers. Now will you answer the questions? Just the facts, ma’am.”
 “What about my rights?”
 “I think we’d better finish this conversation downtown, ma’am. Will you come with us?”

Okay, so maybe this little fictional scenario is a bit extreme. I certainly don’t advocate any such rigid, iron enforcement of grammar rules (or anything else for that matter) but I am deeply concerned about the erosion of our language. I implore all of you to do your little bit—be brave enough to use proper English when all around you, others are slaughtering it word by word. Everyone seems to agree that it’s the computer era that is responsible for this, but I have noticed, since finally joining the twenty-first century and getting a smartphone, that when texting it’s very easy to simply select most words, properly spelled out, from the suggestion bar. So why do ppl still insist on usg brokin, mispelt English? The phone even puts in apostrophes for us, which even I probably wouldn’t bother with otherwise *hangs head and self-flagellates for a minute*.

Okay, enough of that. On with Grammar Peeves #5!

In Grammar Peeves #2, I addressed the issue of punctuating dialogue properly. The following set of examples says it all quite handily:

"It’s time," Jack said, "to get to work on our plan."
"It's time to go," Jack said. "There's nothing more to do here."
"It's time to go; there's nothing more to do here."

The next big issue for writers when it comes to dialogue is proper paragraph construction.

Here’s the main rule: The actions and the dialogue of the SAME ACTOR (i.e., Jack in the above examples) almost always go in the SAME PARAGRAPH. This is not a hard and fast rule, however. If you prefer to start an actor’s next words or actions in the next paragraph for, say, emphasis, or because the actor is changing the subject, that’s fine. But here’s what I see over and over in newbie writing:

Jack peered over at Jane.
“I wouldn’t do it that way,” he said.
Jane looked up in surprise.
“Why not?”
Jack sighed and looked out the window.
“It’s going to get you in big trouble.”
“Why?”
Jack smiled.
“That’s for me to know and you to find out.”
He shrugged mysteriously and left the room.

There seems to be a widespread belief out there that everything needs to go on its own line. But it ain’t necessarily so!

If you pay close attention in that example, you can suss out who is saying and doing what. But the reader shouldn’t have to do this. The reader shouldn’t notice anything but the ideas, impressions and feelings the author is trying to evoke. The story, in other words.

Let me rewrite the above example using the paragraph rule I introduced above.

Jack peered at Jane. "I wouldn't do it that way," he said.
Jane looked up in surprise. "Why not?"
Jack sighed and looked out the window. "It's going to get you in big trouble."
"Why?"
"That's for me to know and you to find out." He stood up, giving her a mysterious smile, and left the room.

Notice that I left the dialogue tag off Jane's Why? You can do that if there are only two people speaking and the conversation is moving back and forth between them, but not with a group, and only when it is instantly clear who is speaking. Otherwise, you need a tag or some kind of hint as to who is talking.

You might have spotted another little trick I used: The action of a speaker in the same paragraph can substitute for the dialogue tag. Since it was Jack who stood up immediately after speaking, you know it was he who spoke.

On the other hand, I often see writers bunch up different characters’ dialogue and actions in the same paragraph. The general rule is: If a new actor speaks or acts, put it in a new paragraph.

The two Labrador puppies tumbled together in the hay, mock-fighting. Chocolate pulled free and cocked an ear. “The farmer’s coming!” he exclaimed. His sister, Vanilla, looked out. “Is he bringing us a bone?”

As soon as Vanilla acted or spoke, the writer should have created a new paragraph for her. Keep her actions and words all together in the same paragraph.

The two Labrador puppies tumbled together in the hay, mock-fighting.
Chocolate pulled free and cocked an ear. “The farmer’s coming!” he exclaimed.
His sister, Vanilla, looked out. “Is he bringing us a bone?”

You may notice that I started a new paragraph for Chocolate. To me, this is an individual actor starting something new; thus, a new paragraph is called for. But you don’t necessarily have to do that. As always, it’s not a hard and fast rule and there are exceptions. If you want to express multiple quick reactions to something, for example. You don’t have to sweat this rule; if it feels right to keep it together, do it. You’re the author. Just try to keep a single character's words and actions together in the same paragraph.

Again, this is not about making sure the reader knows. Of course most of them can figure it all out from the text. The point is, you don’t want to distract them, not even for one second. This takes the reader out of the story and kills the pace.

And that's it for now! If you have any questions about dialogue, or any grammar questions at all, fire away in the comments (this link will take you back), and I’ll do my best to answer.

Until next time, happy reading (and writing)!