Quotation Marks?

[MatterSack]

Is it correct to use single or double quotation marks when denoting speech? I've seen it done both ways.

Is there a convention for denoting thoughts? E.g., double quotation marks for "speech", single for 'thoughts'?

Is it acceptable to experiment a bit? Not just mixing and matching to create one's own style, but potentially even incorporating new quotation devices? Or does this result in agent/editor/publisher Hulkage?

 

[JonH]

As far as I can work out, you can use either. When it's published in the US it will be changed to use double quotes and in the UK to single quotes. I don't know if there's an Aussie standard, but I'm sure that if you get a publishing deal it will be converted for you, whichever you used. (I write using straight quotes, so it's going to have to get converted by everyone.)

In self-publishing you get to choose.

 

[MatterSack]

|Like this?|

 

[Ursa major]

|Like this?|

I always** used to use single quotes for dialogue, knowing that it was acceptable (particularly in the UK). However, since I realised that it's far easier to change from double quotes to single (as one can do most*** of it with a bulk replace without affecting all one's apostrophes), I have stuck to using double quotes.


** - Obviously, quoted speech within dialogue uses the opposite: "Jim told me, with a straight face, 'I'm leaving!'" -- 'Andrea was fond of saying, "No one listens to me."'

*** - Again, obviously, any changes to single quotes will have to be don by hand, because, so apostrophes aren't changed by accident.

 

[Laeraneth]

Really?... *thinks back*

I honestly don't remember noticing that UK published books would only have single quotation marks... I've always used double "..." for speech. Even when I was a kid (when I would assume schools would have corrected me, but... maybe not )

Either way, I use " for speech, and try and use single ' marks very sparingly in my writing. I (over)use them all the time in emails, or on forums, and consider them a sort of... indicator of a stressed word?... I suppose that's the best term.
Essentially, for any time that in actual speech, I would call attention to that word, whether it's to show that it's 'airquoted', or, like right then, to call it out as a specific/accepted/expected term.

For what it's worth, I believe it's 'correct' (there I go again! ) to use single quotes within double quotes, or vice versa, whenever a speaking character is quoting someone else.

ie.
"I know it's hard to believe, but they really did say 'Take me to your leader'. Who says that?"

 

[Ursa major]

Really?... *thinks back*

I honestly don't remember noticing that UK published books would only have single quotation marks...

Did someone say that they did? I didn't:

...used to use single quotes for dialogue, knowing that it was acceptable (particularly in the UK).

Back when I checked, more than a decade ago, I was naïve enough to believe that the formatting of a manuscript had something to do with how a book is formatted (which is why I didn't indent the first line of the first paragraph of a scene back then). I looked at some of the UK novels I owned -- all of the ones I checked were paperbacks -- and saw that they mostly used single quotes for dialogue. That was good enough for me... until I thought about the ease of changing it if required. Then I started using double quotes.

 

[Ashleyne]

|Like this?|

Technically, you could punctuate your quotes like |this|, but people may find it uncomfortable on the eye because they're already use to seeing single or double apostrophes as quotes.

Whilst we're on the subject of quotes, like Ursa major and Laeraneth, I use double apostrophes for speech and single apostrophes for other quotes; however, I don't like using commas to introduce or end a quote unless those commas are needed for definition. I don't mind reading stories that use commas to set off quotes, but I can't bring myself to write like this. I was taught, at a young age, that the only thing needed to introduce or end a quote is an, aptly-named, quotation mark.

 

[Kylara]

I come shall come at it from an academic essay writing PoV and probably incorrectly single quote quotes from books and double quote quotes from critics to differentiate between what is critic and what is egs from the books.

I single quote in writing dialogue because I think it looks neater. Personal preference I think, and country editors will change it to whatever they fancy. As long as quotes within quotes are done with the other type of quote to the original dialogue you should be fine.

Also, a couple of books I have from Germany use the weirdest system of dialogue quoting that upsets me.

 

[Laeraneth]

Did someone say that they did? I didn't:

My mistake sorry.

Inferring is a bad habit of mine. It's a defensive habit born of people I live with never actually saying what they mean

(I know, no inferring was needed. What you said was perfectly clear, it was all definitely my doing)

 

[Ursa major]

No need to apologise. I've been known to misread others' posts before now.


And, to be fair, when I started writing my response to you, it was to clarify what I'd done in coming to that earlier decision to use single quotes. It was only when I read what I'd actually written (only half-an-hour before) that I realised that I hadn't said something from which you could have inferred what you did.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I was under the impression there is no strict convention on what to use in general, (of course some in-house styles will no doubt exactly specify) . But you always have to be consistent - otherwise it can get very confusing.

As for thoughts, although there is even greater freedom to do what you want - I'm pretty sure it's a no-no to use any quotes. I can't remember them being used that way in anything I've read off hand.

 

[Ursa major]

Consistency is necessary, if only to prove to agents, editors and readers that one knows what one is doing and that things are the way they are in one's book because one wants them to be so.


As an aside, one of the members here, Ian Sales, wrote a short book that didn't use any quotation marks. His book, Adrift on the Sea of Rains was described by the Guardian national newspaper as "one of the most outstanding self-published books of the year". It won the 2012 BSFA Award in the short fiction category, and was a finalist for the 2012 Sidewise Award for Alternate History Best Short-Form. (It was the first of a quartet. I have the next two -- the fourth is due out soon -- but as they're on my Kindle, which isn't to hand, I can only say that I'm sure quotations marks are also absent from them.) Whether a publisher would have insisted on there being quotation marks is another question.

 

[MatterSack]

An example: I've been planning to denote *radio communications with asterisks*. Would that be acceptable?

 

[Venusian Broon]

An example: I've been planning to denote *radio communications with asterisks*. Would that be acceptable?

Personally I think it might look a bit odd and cumbersome.

I'm reading M. John Harrison's Empty Space at the moment and he has his characters occasionally communicating with each other over 'FTL dial-ups', which are I think 'space phones'. He just uses normal quotation marks for the conversation and it works fine.

 

[MatterSack]

I think it looks fine (great even, the cog-like asterisks give the speech a quasi-mechanical property ), and it helps to ID characters without tags, but I'm worried it might be construed as immature?

I figure I can always change them back later if necessary anyway.

 

[tinkerdan]

I use the double quote marks for speech and single for internal quotes within that. For thoughts I was using double quotes but the editor's preferred italics with no quote marks. I think a point you will run into an area that remains as style preferences.

For telepathy I used < > but there were variations and I ended up with a few other indicators that had to be diligently adhered to in each specific instance and that did get to be a bit tiring.

If you do use other creative quote marks its a good idea to send a list of items to any editors so that they won't try to edit all the garbage out and undo all your creative work. The same may hold true of names and titles that might be out of the ordinary. It helps to be consistent but no matter what you do the editor will be confused.

Worse than all of that;I was confused once and sent the wrong instructions and then had to go through a pile of pre-edit crap to restore a section.

Consistency. Consistency. And keep notes for your own piece of mind.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I think it looks fine (great even, the cog-like asterisks give the speech a quasi-mechanical property ), and it helps to ID characters without tags, but I'm worried it might be construed as immature?

I figure I can always change them back later if necessary anyway.

Yes, doesn't really cost you much to experiment and see what it looks like. But perhaps I'm really not the sort of person who can tell you if it's a great idea or not.

Although it should be pointed out that the asterisk has a range of standard uses anyway - i.e. indicating that there is a footnote, a form of emphasis, striking out portions of words ('f***') or

Bounding asterisks as "a kind of self-describing stage direction", as linguist Ben Zimmer has put it. For example, in "Another school shooting *sigh*," the writer uses *sigh* to express disappointment (but does not necessarily literally sigh). **

Using them as quote marks may be deemed confusing given the above.

-----


** From Wikipedia

 

[MatterSack]

If asterisks were used solely for radio communications, would you personally find it confusing? Would an agent/editor/publisher reject it outright?

Thanks.

 

[ratsy]

An example: I've been planning to denote *radio communications with asterisks*. Would that be acceptable?

I use quotation marks and then italicize the speech when doing radio communication. That being said, I am doing the same sort of thing with ghosts talking to a woman who can see them in my new WIP...let's just hope I don't have radio communication and ghosts in the same book! that would just get confusing...I suppose they are both being 'broadcast' from somewhere

I've always used double quotations but have noticed a lot using single quotes...most recently Scott Lynch (i think). Like Ursa said, you can find and replace if needed. I don't think it will ever matter to an editor or publisher since it's a simple change.

 

[MatterSack]

Maybe you could find a little skull icon somewhere.