You could use a tag or other means of conveying that they're shouting, so an exclamation mark wouldn't be strictly needed even though it would probably be the simpler approach.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
What Ticks You Off?
- Thread starter DragonOfTheAerie
- Start date
You could use a tag or other means of conveying that they're shouting, so an exclamation mark wouldn't be strictly needed even though it would probably be the simpler approach.
La Volpe
Sage
But... why would you want to? That's like making sure that none of your dialogue contains the letter "m". I'm sure it's possible, but what do you gain? An exclamation mark (and a question mark(!)) is a valid punctuation mark. Why go out of your way to avoid using it?
I didn't say you would. Quite the opposite. Just countering the idea that you have to use them if characters are shouting, or else rewrite so they're not shouting.
Holoman
Troubadour
Yeah, but I think you're brain notes the exclamation mark before you've even read the text, so you read it as shouting. Whereas if you rely on the tag alone, the reader only finds out they were shouting after they've read it.
So like:
"Get off," he shouted.
"Get off!" he shouted.
I prefer the second tbh as I would see the exclamation mark as I was reading Get off.
And then you've got the "don't use dialogue tags" crowd. I think no matter what you write, there will always be that guy that has a problem with it
- Thread starter
- #65
DragonOfTheAerie
Vala
No matter what you do, someone's going to have a problem with it.
Personally, I don't see the point in not using exclamation marks in dialogue. Why would you not want to? Do they degrade the dialogue in any way?
Personally, I don't see the point in not using exclamation marks in dialogue. Why would you not want to? Do they degrade the dialogue in any way?
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
"Get off!"
That would be my preference, considering the limited info being worked with.
"one per book" is obviously an exaggeration... for most writers. In the literary crowd there might be examples of this, but even then, as part of quotes most people are going to blow by them. I mean heck, McCarthy doesn't use quotes. If you want an ! to count, use less, much like an F-bomb being more effective when used once in a book compared to every third word as in some movies. If your book is peaceful and quiet, happy dogs playing in the park with their happy owners, and the cute bunnies are frolicking and handing out candy... a single punch can seem as violent (or more so) than another soldier dying in a heap of dead on the battle field.
The real point is not to overuse. In genre fiction, I tend to think most rules get thrown out when it comes to dialogue... use them adverbs if you like, use passives if you like, use the ! & ?, but don't over do it. The key to dialogue is making it sound real, while not being real, in the end if you achieve that, exclamation marks here and there aren't going to matter a lick.
There is also a difference between these two punctuations. One is more-or-less required to denote a question, lack of a ? can be off putting. The ! is not required. In screenwriting, there is a lot of advice to not use the !, because it essentially gives "direction" to the actor. In general, how somebody says something in that medium is left to the actor/director to decide. Fiction is different, but the advice tends to be not to over do it.
Like most things in writing, its a soft rule, designed more to limit the use of things rather than eliminate them... see King's hatred of -ly adverb and the fact he still uses them.
That would be my preference, considering the limited info being worked with.
"one per book" is obviously an exaggeration... for most writers. In the literary crowd there might be examples of this, but even then, as part of quotes most people are going to blow by them. I mean heck, McCarthy doesn't use quotes. If you want an ! to count, use less, much like an F-bomb being more effective when used once in a book compared to every third word as in some movies. If your book is peaceful and quiet, happy dogs playing in the park with their happy owners, and the cute bunnies are frolicking and handing out candy... a single punch can seem as violent (or more so) than another soldier dying in a heap of dead on the battle field.
The real point is not to overuse. In genre fiction, I tend to think most rules get thrown out when it comes to dialogue... use them adverbs if you like, use passives if you like, use the ! & ?, but don't over do it. The key to dialogue is making it sound real, while not being real, in the end if you achieve that, exclamation marks here and there aren't going to matter a lick.
There is also a difference between these two punctuations. One is more-or-less required to denote a question, lack of a ? can be off putting. The ! is not required. In screenwriting, there is a lot of advice to not use the !, because it essentially gives "direction" to the actor. In general, how somebody says something in that medium is left to the actor/director to decide. Fiction is different, but the advice tends to be not to over do it.
Like most things in writing, its a soft rule, designed more to limit the use of things rather than eliminate them... see King's hatred of -ly adverb and the fact he still uses them.
I agree with what you are all saying, above. I wouldn't eliminate the use of exclamation marks, or try to impose an artificial limit of one per book. Use them where they are needed and where they will be most effective at communicating the story in the way you envision it.
I think restrictive advice like that around exclamation marks is directed more toward novices who use such punctuation as a crutch to prop up or emphasize ineffective language. However, rather than stating an absolute (or exaggerated) rule, I think it is better just to accurately explain the situation to novices.
But, as with admonitions like "show don't tell," it is easier to repeat rote advice than to look at a writer's usage and think about what is effective and what isn't, and why.
I think restrictive advice like that around exclamation marks is directed more toward novices who use such punctuation as a crutch to prop up or emphasize ineffective language. However, rather than stating an absolute (or exaggerated) rule, I think it is better just to accurately explain the situation to novices.
But, as with admonitions like "show don't tell," it is easier to repeat rote advice than to look at a writer's usage and think about what is effective and what isn't, and why.
Russ
Istar
Yeah, but I think you're brain notes the exclamation mark before you've even read the text, so you read it as shouting. Whereas if you rely on the tag alone, the reader only finds out they were shouting after they've read it.
So like:
"Get off," he shouted.
"Get off!" he shouted.
I prefer the second tbh as I would see the exclamation mark as I was reading Get off.
And then you've got the "don't use dialogue tags" crowd. I think no matter what you write, there will always be that guy that has a problem with it
For me it is not really a case of "that guy" that suggests the use of exclamation points as being far too overdone and something that should be done sparingly, it is the case of a number of top writers, writing instructors and editors giving that advice to me (and others).
I have an approach to writing "rules" that I think is pretty functional. When I am writing, and I am really sure about something (like I am really, amazingly dog-gone positive that a piece of dialogue needs an exclamation point) than I do that. If I am unsure about something, or luke warm about it, I often consider and follow advise from a writer or writing craft instructor that I respect or even the conventional wisdom.
Here is a good discussion of the point between two top writers. Steve has the edge with me due to the fact that he has edited some of the top writers in the world and many top writers seek out his advice and editing in addition to what they get from their publisher. Both, of course, suggest using exclamation points sparingly and cautiously in prose.
http://anthonyfranzebooks.com/wp-co...llins-Suspense_Magazine_August_2014_Issue.pdf
C
Chessie
Guest
So very true. I agree with you that these things are typically meant to be guidelines, not hard rules. I still use () ; -- ... all the time but it has surely taken me a long time to figure out where to use them properly (the italics is for Des
). Although I agree with Russ about the ! because I find them truly annoying, I use them, too. Like, 1-2 per book maybe. The way I see it is this: my husband is a mechanic and he has two huge toolboxes full of wrenches and other gadgets he uses to work on semi-trucks. Me...I have the entire English language & grammar at my disposal. He uses his tools to work, and I use my tools to work. He wouldn't exclude any of those tools from his box. If there's something he needs, he's going to use it. I see writing in the same way. If I want to italicize a word, then I'm going to do it. Etc.
The bad part is when a writer becomes lazy and uses repetition. I read one book ages ago that started out really well, then towards the middle the author started using "as". Constantly. It was lazy writing and it irritated me enough to put the book down forever. So we can use all the tools in our box so long as we don't overdo it, and exclamation marks are easy to notice so therefore easy to overdo, too, I think.
Every tool is, and should be, available for use to an author. This includes telling, use of adverbs, punctuation, passive voice, and the like. The trick is simply knowing when and how to use them.
- Thread starter
- #71
DragonOfTheAerie
Vala
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #73
DragonOfTheAerie
Vala
What about italicizing characters' thoughts?
Russ
Istar
Personally I do it.
Different editors and publishers allow it, or not. This is a broad variety in the traditional publishing field.
Yep. I don't do it, but lots of writers do, particular in SF/F and Horror.
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
If it's direct thoughts, I'm cool with that. Only italics I dislike are for emphasis.
La Volpe
Sage
Do you mean that you never (sorry, couldn't resist) want to see italics for emphasis? Or you don't want to see it overused? I.e. are there situations in which italics for emphasis would be acceptable?
Holoman
Troubadour
It's interesting, because on another forum I read a lot of people saying they hated italics for direct thought but were ok for emphasis
Sometimes though, the emphasis can change the interpretation of the sentence. I think I'm guilty of overusing it though
Oh, I don't know, I can think of some great books with thoroughly dislikeable protagonists. For fantasy, Ian Graham's Monument, where the protagonist has no real redeeming features or anything to make one like him.
In Nabokov's Lolita, Humbert Humbert is at least witty and engaging, but he's a thoroughly disgusting human being.
I have other examples, but those two come to mind first.
In Nabokov's Lolita, Humbert Humbert is at least witty and engaging, but he's a thoroughly disgusting human being.
I have other examples, but those two come to mind first.
Similar threads
