Thread: Direct Speech

I recently had the pleasure to purchase the 2010 Bridport Prize short story anthology, made up of the top three stories and the shortlisted entrants.

I was surprised when reading the 2nd placed story to find the author had omitted to use speech marks where dialogue was used.

My question, and I know there won't be an authoritative answer here, is why?

For those who don't know, The Bridport Prize is one of the most established competitions in short fiction writing, and the competition that awards the largest prize in English language short fiction.

When learning the skill of writing, or teaching it for that matter, punctuation is of great importance, so how is it that such a prestigious competition recognises and rewards literature which fails to meet the basic criteria of good punctuation?

A couple of examples:

We’ll have to find a place soon, I said, if you’re leaving her.

If we don’t find anywhere by the time we get to the Horse Pool, I’m
going back, I told him, aching now to be alone.

Is it that the writer, knowing his work is of a certain standard, simply thinks the rules don't apply to him? Is it artistic licence? Is it that the judges think the work is good enough for it not to matter?

Don't get me wrong here, this is no complaint or moan about it. I am merely, and genuinely, puzzled over the issue.

And it's a great piece of fiction, by the way.

I suppose the judges thought it was good enough not to matter... It's a pretty odd thing to do though Trying to be unique perhaps? I know Terry Pratchett writes his character Death without speech marks, but he explains that Death's speech tends to avoid the ears and arrive straight into the mind, hence it wouldn't make sense to have speech marks. Plus, it's made clear when Death's speaking by changing the font to be all in capitals, (with smaller capital letters for lower case). The way this guy has done it, looks like it'd get confusing.

Isn't this just a case of 'reported speech', almost how when a character thinks, you can do it two ways - either: He's a bloody fool, thought Toby hopelessly - or I think he's a bloody fool!

The example you used though, I think it's only possible to do it that way in first person. I can't possibly see how it'd work in third.

Originally Posted by outoftheblue

Isn't this just a case of 'reported speech', almost how when a character thinks, you can do it two ways - either: He's a bloody fool, thought Toby hopelessly - or I think he's a bloody fool!

The example you used though, I think it's only possible to do it that way in first person. I can't possibly see how it'd work in third.

I understand what you mean by reported speech, though it is direct speech. Here are a couple of other examples.

This is the place where Dyer’s gang held Nigel Morris down and made him do it, Carl muttered.

I was startled to hear him speak. He’d been moodily silent ever since we’d entered the woods. Head bowed, he was staring down between his dangling feet at Gypsy. She was cooling herself, ankle-deep in the glide under the bridge, sniffing the surface of the pool. Her big hanging belly just cleared the water.

Do what? I said.

He frowned. Shoot his bolt, mun. He squirmed unhappily, still watching Gypsy. They got him on his back and pulled his pants down. Dyer did it to him with his hand. Morris went leppo but he still came up.

I've added the colour in the last paragraph to highlight the speech to avoid confusion. It's not reported, it's a conversation.

Hmm, yes, I see what you mean. It's odd, but sometimes odd is quite an attractive thing. I can see why it would get confusing though - the fact you've had to highlight the speech in the speech demonstrates your point perfectly.

They do say writing is an expirement, and maybe this is just another experiment. The chemicals either blow up in your face or simmer beautifully.

With this though, I'm uncertain. I suppose if you're used to reading this kind of style, then you just read it without thinking and don't get confused by it. But then again, if you're new and read it for the first time, then I can understand why people would throw it aside in frustration. It is weird though.

It's not that uncommon in certain kinds of literary fiction, actually. While it's not typical I've seen it enough times that it doesn't surprise me or anything.

I would say it's done from a feeling that punctuation splits dialogue from narrative, which is something they don't want to happen in the story. They want it to feel more mixed together, like there's not much of a difference between the two, so that it is all just narrative (or all dialogue, depending on how you look at it... especially in first person, since the narrator is relating the story in a very personal way, even the narrative is really just the dialogue of the narrator, right? there are no quote marks when your buddy is telling you a story in real life).

At the end of the day, it's just a stylistic decision. Like using a particular tense or voice.

The first time I came across this was Norman Ollestad's "Crazy for the Storm" and thought it was very odd. For example,

p. 46 -

Norman. Wait.

She hung up the phone.

That was your dad.

Yeah.

He wants you to come with him to Grandma and Grandpa's.

I scrunched up my face.

It'll be fun, she said. You guys will surf on the way down and the ferry's really neat. ...

When learning the skill of writing, or teaching it for that matter, punctuation is of great importance, so how is it that such a prestigious competition recognises and rewards literature which fails to meet the basic criteria of good punctuation?

Because the writer was trying to emulate Cormac McCarthy and others (see above) by making a deliberate decision to leave out speech marks for stylistic reasons?

There's a difference between not meeting the basic criteria of good punctuation through lack of knowledge/experience, and choosing different ways of punctuating a story through a desire to experiment with already learned criteria.

Punctuation is constantly changing. Words like havent, doesnt, dont, wont etc. They don't always appear with their apostrophes now, even though in the beginning said apostrophes were a necessary way of letting readers know they comprise two words abbreviated into one.

Here endeth the lesson...