To Shouldn't or Should Not?

[-K2-]

So I've read a number of places that when writing dialogue that it is okay to use "n't(s)," and when writing narratives to use "not(s)" and the like. The question being, to n't or to not ?

Shouldn't - should not, couldn't - could not, wouldn't - would not, and a whole bunch of others that are, well, not not

Am I incorrect in my thinking, that at certain times it frankly makes what I'm trying to say sound too formal? I understand when I'm-- err... I am supposed to use or not use such conventions, however when I read it back, aloud, there are times that it seems to break up the flow of what I'm saying. Oft times it almost reads as though I've shifted from a casual narration of a scene or action into a formalized statement.

What's-- uh, what is your take on it?

K2

 

[Susan Boulton]

I was taught, years ago, that contractions should only be used in speech, but since, having two books edited and published, I now believe it is is fine to use contractions, as long as you use them all the time and don't swap between the two. Also, using them can add to the narrative, tone and feel of your work. It is a style choice I feel.

 

[HareBrain]

I swap between the two in narration (and dialogue), though I use them more often than not. For me the choice depends on which character's POV I'm in, and whether I want extra emphasis. ("He could not do that" is more emphatic than "he couldn't do that".) Avoiding them altogether would sound very formal these days.

 

[Mouse]

Came here to write what HareBrain just wrote. Yep, word for word.

 

[Abernovo]

Pretty much the consensus with HareBrain and Mouse.

You can swap between the two, for emphasis, but a lack of contractions can sound very formal, and distance the reader from the characters (i.e. contractions sound more like a direct narration of what is happening, so are almost necessary for first person, and close third; lack of contractions can, when read out, sound like old-fashioned reporting of events).

There are a few caveats. "Can't" has the lovely "cannot" as a useful alternative, for different circumstances. And, remember speech inflections, accents, and alternative versions of English (or any language): I use Scottish Standard English as a speech pattern so, for me, "it's not" is more common than "it isn't", "it won't" is creeping in, but "it'll not" is still more common for me.

The same must be true for different parts of the US, with alternative speech patterns and idiosyncrasies. An ex-flatmate, from Chennai in India, used to sound quite formal (but he was rather posh) when he said "does not" -- but in the same sentence, he'd use "isn't". So, variations in English can be used to distinguish between characters.

tldr: use contractions, but give your characters different "voices".

 

[The Judge]

Use whichever sounds best and fits best with flow and voice in both dialogue and narrative. I wouldn't worry about consistency either -- if someone get antsy because you used "couldn't" a page ago and "could not" now, then that person is so uninvolved with the story, the "n't" issue is the least of your problems.

 

[The Ace]

I don't think it really matters these days, I think, "Should not," can always be used for emphasis in either case.

Of course, anyone writing, "Should of," should be boiled in oil.

 

[tinkerdan]

I usually don't worry about this until I start reading it back.
Usually as I read it back out loud I get a sense for which one works in the particular instance.
Using them in dialogue is a fairly safe bet unless your speaker is particularly formal all the time.

When in doubt shout it out and if it doesn't sound right take it out.

@The Ace :: I should of been boiled in oil long ago.

 

[-K2-]

Well thank you everyone. Except for the oil boiling (we're more casual here-abouts, just staking folks out in the sun), it seems as though I' thinking as you all are.

K2

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

This reminds me of a joke, set in Yorkshire's West Riding. Shunt tell it here, though.

 

[Onyx]

I am a fan of the double contraction, as in "It couldn't've happened to a nicer fellow." Or, "He'lln't obliged to attend," or, "Who'sn't aware of her contribution?"

Y'all haven't've heard these before? I'mn't surprised. But 'tisn't've if I made up the double, just the triple.

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

Dialogue in fiction is a special case. Without the kinds of contraction that occur in natural speech, it ends up 'sounding' stilted and false. Back in the 'nineties, at HarperCollins, I was always appalled by the editors' practice of correcting that sort of thing, in dialogue. The characters ended up 'sounding' homogenous, and just a little bit like they all were on high doses of Librium.

 

[HareBrain]

But 'tisn't've if I made up the double, just the triple.

I'm afraid you can't lay claim to being first with the triple either. David Mitchell in Black Swan Green uses a lot of shouldn't've, etc (and pretty annoying it is until you get used to it).

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm afraid you can't lay claim to being first with the triple either. David Mitchell in Black Swan Green uses a lot of shouldn't've, etc (and pretty annoying it is until you get used to it).

I have no probs with that - we contract everything here so if I don’t use them in speech the speed of language isn’t conveyed.

Since I also write my narrative in deep POV the same applies

 

[Onyx]

I'm afraid you can't lay claim to being first with the triple either. David Mitchell in Black Swan Green uses a lot of shouldn't've, etc (and pretty annoying it is until you get used to it).

"Shouldn't've" is only a double, I'm afraid.

 

[HareBrain]

"Shouldn't've" is only a double, I'm afraid.

Oh yeah. Should read things more closely.

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

I winnit tell if ye winnit tell, like.

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

For me the choice depends on which character's POV I'm in

This.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I am a fan of the double contraction, as in "It couldn't've happened to a nicer fellow." Or, "He'lln't obliged to attend," or, "Who'sn't aware of her contribution?"

Y'all haven't've heard these before? I'mn't surprised. But 'tisn't've if I made up the double, just the triple.

Different strokes and all that but I think they are hideously ugly and hard to read. I have to stop and unpick them to work out what they mean. Which seems to me to be the very opposite of good writing.

 

[Ursa major]

For me the choice depends on which character's POV I'm in, and whether I want extra emphasis.

Same here, and I also try to differentiate between:

• straight narration
• free indirect speech (which is, for those who don't know, a type of narration and so not dialogue)
• thoughts
• dialogue

with formality usually** decreasing as one goes down the list, and not forgetting that the tone of the narration can change, just as dialogue can, depending on the circumstances and to whom the PoV character's narration refers.


** - But not always: a PoV character whose narration may be very informal may still have to talk in a formal manner in certain situations.