Crowds of People Shouting at the Same Time?

[-K2-]

The title asks the question. What do you do to show dialogue wherein you want what each person's shouts shown (at the same time as others), without chewing up a page with brief lines and breaks? More so needing to get it said. I'm also thinking that showing it as such would suggest 'one after the other' instead of all at once.

In the past I've tried various methods which suited me then. Now however I'm considering something new. So I'd like to get your thoughts on it. What I'm considering is, a block of text broken up as shown:

"Tell me what you think," Kay yelled.

"Yes!" -- "No!" -- "Maybe!" -- "Why are you asking me?" -- "Figure it out yourself!" -- "What is ya stupid?" -- "I just came for the beer!"

"So, what do you think, or do you have some other ideas?" Kay responded nodding in thanks.

K2

 

[Brian G Turner]

Normally I've seen it done as a tell rather than a show - in other words, a summary of there being many different cries.

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

And where's the fun in that?

@-K2-: Look, I'm always going to swim upstream on these issues, everybody knows it. So I'm just going to do it, and damn the torpedoes.

Leaving aside the obvious braggadocio: if you're committed to a barely differentiated block of text (which I like, for the little that's worth), I'd suggest losing the em dashes between outbursts; they're not really necessary, since the inverted commas separate each utterance from its neighbours. As a bonus, their absence would support an impression of everyone responding at once.

A method I've adopted is to give each discreet utterance its own line, and then hang a lantern on the fact I've separated utterances which were spoken more or less at once:

Senior Sergeant Herpson cupped his hands around his mouth and bawled: ‘Federal Crimes Agency! Nobody move! Keep calm, and stay exactly where you are!’

Alas, the effect for which he was striving is so much easier to achieve when all participants speak more or less the same language—which most certainly was not the case, at Blackwater Bay. The babel commenced about immediately:

‘Fāshēngle shénme?’

‘Shì jǐngchá ma?’

‘Zhège dìfāng hěn chàjìng!’

‘Qǐng dài wǒ yīqǐ qù!’

‘Bù! Rúguǒ wǒ bù gōngzuò, wǒ jiù méi qián!’

‘Wǒ fùqīn gàosù wǒ bùyào lái zhèlǐ—’

And such as. Only all at once, as a confusing and slightly frightening cacophony, rather than as a nice, orderly sequence which is easier to comprehend.

It's cute and all, but not something you can do with writing which is intended to be serious in its tone.

 

[HareBrain]

I think your idea is fine, though maybe the em-dashes could go. This is one time where I think it's better to ignore the "rule" that a new speaker requires a new paragraph. I've done it this way myself.

 

[Ursa major]

First of all -- and this is almost an aside -- may I ask a couple of questions? Is the narrative close third person or omniscient third person. And, if the former, does Senior Sergeant Herpson (in ZlodeyVolk's example) know all those languages?

I ask because, if Herpson doesn't know those languages, he'd have trouble knowing what words were being used... and so, to get to the issue at hand, this would change what you could write, as he would merely hear lots of people saying things that he couldn't recognise, forcing you to use the solution Brian suggested: telling rather than showing, leaving you with something like ZlodeyVolk wrote:

Senior Sergeant Herpson cupped his hands around his mouth and bawled: ‘Federal Crimes Agency! Nobody move! Keep calm, and stay exactly where you are!’

Alas, the effect for which he was striving is so much easier to achieve when all participants speak more or less the same language—which most certainly was not the case, at Blackwater Bay. Instead, a slightly frightening cacophony filled the air.

Obviously, K2's example is not like this (no foreign languages), but it does reveal the question of how much the PoV character can make out amongst all the noise. It's more likely to be a few random words -- if everyone's utterances are to be included -- or the PoV character zeroes in on just of few of those speaking.


EDIT: Sorry if you read the first version of what I wrote, and wondered what I was talking about, as I hadn't written it in a way that properly addressed K2's question, but concentrated more on a PoV issue that was more obvious in ZlodeyVolk's post. I hope it makes more sense now.

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

Herpson doesn't understand Modern Standard Mandarin, no—hence his dilemma. It's also the irony of the term 'comprehend', wherein lies the joke.

But this isn't about me, it's about -K2-. It's already established that I have a snowball's chance in hell of being published, so I figure 'Hadaway wi' it.' I'm going to have fun with my writing. And if you'd like to join in, I'll be glad of the company.

 

[Ursa major]

It isn't about either of you: it's about how much the PoV character can make out from the noise that a lot of people speaking simulaneously will be making. With close third person, one is meant to be immersed in the experience of the PoV character.

The PoV character has (unless they're an alien with enhanced senses and cognitive abilities, or like Data from Star Trek, or they are a person with magical powers) only the same faculties as us. That means that they are only capable of understanding what we could understand in that situation... which is either a cacophony with the odd word coming through or, if the character is so minded, something more coherent from the one, or perhaps the couple, of people on whose voice(s) the PoV character is concentrating.

Of course, if the narrative is omniscient, the narrator can have the magical power to be able to hear what lots of people are saying all at once.

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

Let's go with that, then.

 

[-K2-]

Normally I've seen it done as a tell rather than a show - in other words, a summary of there being many different cries.

I've done exactly that quite often (or I should say more often than not). However, without character noting what was said, ex: Kay could hear the multitude's shouts of 'yes, no, maybe, more beer...' and so on, yet didn't care. ...the content of those cries are lost. The reason I'm asking now is that I already have numerous cases where the protagonist is translating (in the same or similar way) and encounters numerous events wherein the content of those shouts is important, so, must be mentioned.

Point being, I'm trying to mix it up a bit.

@ZlodeyVolk ; I see what you're suggesting, however I might change that like this, eliminating the space between lines of 'group dialogue' as @HareBrain suggests :

"Tell me what you think," Kay yelled.

"Yes!"
"No!"
"Maybe!"
"Why are you asking me?"
"Figure it out yourself!"
"What is ya stupid?"
"I just came for the beer!"

"So, what do you think, or do you have some other ideas?" Kay responded nodding in thanks.

What do you think?

...it's about how much the PoV character can make out from the noise that a lot of people speaking simulaneously will be making. With close third person, one is meant to be immersed in the experience of the PoV character.
.......
Of course, if the narrative is omniscient, the narrator can have the magical power to be able to hear what lots of people are saying all at once.

That's a good point, though my example (and situation) I suppose deals with the C3P-PoV... So, with that in mind, how does this strike you?

"Tell me what you think," Kay yelled.

"Yes-- No-- May-- Why are you-- Figure-- yourself! --ya stupid? --beer!"

How does that seem to work as to only being able to pick out bits? Or perhaps when it can all be noted:

"Yes: No: Maybe: Why are you asking me: Figure it out yourself: What is ya stupid: I just came for the beer!"

I get the use of the 'em-dashes' denoting something abruptly cut-off, interrupted and so on, so that's a good point (regarding my original example, made by many), but, I think it seems to work in the 1st green example above.

In any case, it already is giving me some ideas on top of other methods I've used and I'm naturally open to reading more. Thanks for everyone's help, I look forward to other suggestions!

K2

 

[The Judge]

I was going to agree with HB that your original idea was OK, but without the dashes between the individual voices since they aren't needed ie

Yes!" "No!" "Maybe!" "Why are you asking me?" "Figure it out yourself!" "What is ya stupid?" "I just came for the beer!"

but seeing it like this I'm not sure it works with so many voices when the dialogue of each is more than one or two words. I wonder if some readers might skim read the line. So if you do want specific answers to be seen and read as they're important, you perhaps risk them getting lost like this. Putting each speaker in a separate paragraph as is standard would ensure each line is read, but if you want to condense them all into one para then your idea of using the dashes is probably best, since the extra separation makes each voice easier to see and read and therefore reduces the eyes skipping the words which might otherwise happen.

As for putting them in a block of new lines but not new paras, it works here, but would it work in a conventionally typed novel where the opening lines are indented and there are no spare lines between paras?

As for these two suggestions

"Yes-- No-- May-- Why are you-- Figure-- yourself! --ya stupid? --beer!"

"Yes: No: Maybe: Why are you asking me: Figure it out yourself: What is ya stupid: I just came for the beer!"

I personally wouldn't put them into one set of quotation marks like this, since it then suggests only one person is speaking but can't make up his mind what to say. The use of colons also doesn't work to my mind. But I think the first line with the dashes might work, especially to give a feeling that the sentences are going largely unheard in the tumult, but I'd suggest dispensing with the quotation marks altogether and perhaps putting the voices into italics, though that might create complications if you're using italics for internal monologues/thoughts or mind-reading. But again I wonder if important information given this way in one line will be lost. (Of course, you might want the information given but hidden, in which case it works fine!)

 

[-K2-]

@The Judge ; Without quoting a bunch, I agree wholeheartedly that all of it between a single pair of quotation marks doesn't work. Perhaps (not positive) instead of the dbl.-dashes, though retaining the quotation marks, maybe colons might work?

"Yes" : "No" : "Maybe" : "Why are you asking me" : "Figure it out yourself" : "What is ya stupid" : "I just came for the beer!"

As to the individual lines without a space between, I don't think that would be an issue regarding indentation. They would simply all be indented, the space between the 'mob's' lines excluded, still looking exactly like (simply all lines indented):

"Tell me what you think," Kay yelled.

"Yes!"
"No!"
"Maybe!"
"Why are you asking me?"
"Figure it out yourself!"
"What is ya stupid?"
"I just came for the beer!"

"So, what do you think, or do you have some other ideas?" Kay responded nodding in thanks.

You bring up another issue however (though my response semi-unrelated), that being line spacing. I get it, publishers want to reduce the number of pages... Yet I LOATHE books where there is no space between paragraphs. Drives me crazy! Makes me even crazier when they have no spacing, and then begin double and triple indenting to break out separate lines of dialogue.

Indentation I can give or take (though personally, what I'd like to see is the lead line of a narrative paragraph indented... BUT, not dialogue). IOW:

-------Blah, blah, blah...
blah, blah, blah, blah...
blah, blah, blah.

"Well ain't that just special," Kay said.

-------Blah, blah, blah...
blah, blah, blah, blah...
blah, blah, blah.

The reason I say that (though realize it is against the standard/norm), is that typically the dialogue directly applies to a lead-in from the paragraph above. So to me it's more of a continuation of that paragraph, simply broken out to stand out as dialogue.

FWiW, I also tend to use italics for all verbal speech with double-quotes, and for thoughts I still use italics yet with single quotes, and do not break it out from a narrative paragraph as you do dialogue.

Thanks for your input on the issue!

K2

 

[Joshua Jones]

Two points I would like to make. First, it is possible, though rather difficult, to make out the cries of individuals in a large group. It requires some experience, the ability to focus one's vision and hearing on an individual, and preferably a bit of ability in lip reading, and it is a fair bit easier if you are familiar with the person's voice already. The catches are that you can only do this with one person at a time, and only if the group is essentially chanting their answers. If they just reply, you will only be able to make out the top two or three answers no matter what you do.

However, at least in my experience in public address, people typically don't respond that way when asked a question. Usually, there is an awkward silence as people look around, seeing if anyone else will respond. Eventually, one or two people shout out something, and if it is the latter number, they will both stop, then both start again, then someone will just go with it and blurt out their whole answer. If it is a particularly thorny issue, someone else will shout out their objection, then the arguing starts as the tumult begins. Typically, a peacekeeping sort will shout out for all parties to be quiet, and start to elaborate on the relative strengths of both positions, or everyone will just stand around in silence again until someone makes the beer joke. And, though it seems counterintuitive, people are FAR more likely to express their opinion in a group of complete strangers than in a group of people which actually know each other. Given the "free beer" joke, I am assuming this is a purpose called group, so this is where one should expect quite a bit of silence when asking a question. It is like pulling teeth to get answers out of people at times. In many such settings, the coordinator of the discussion actually plants 2-3 people with scripted questions to get people talking.

All that being said, only a handful of people in the world would care about that so I don't think you necessarily need to change this scene. I merely wanted to offer my perspective and experience as an alternative. If you want to stick with it the way you have it, I would personally go with the summary approach if you are writing in 1st or close 3rd, and the list approach if you are writing in omniscient 3rd.

But, you know what they say about opinions...

 

[Onyx]

Another method I've seen is to use the paragraph structure to graphically be the locations of the voices in the crowd:

"Kill 'em!" xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"Yes!"xxxxx "No." xxxxxxxx "Down with NIxon!"
xxxxxxxxxx "More cowbell!"xxxxxxxxxxxxxx "MAGA!"
"Speech, speech!"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"UB40!"

 

[ZlodeyVolk]

@Onyx puts forth an appealing solution, although one thought that occurred to me before I'd read so far: you could present the babble in a single block without inverted commas but separated by em dashes:

"Tell me what you think," Kay yelled.

Yes!—No!—Maybe!—Why are you asking me?—Figure it out yourself!—What is ya stupid?—I just came for the beer!—

"So, what do you think, or do you have some other ideas?" Kay responded nodding in thanks.

Treat it more like indirect speech, since none of the utterances is being linked to a specific speaker.

 

[tinkerdan]

With others above I'd say that POV makes a big difference and if in the one case it is Kay's POV there might be a limit to how many answers she can process. However that may also depend on how many people possibly could be answering. In your case lets say a dozen have answered.

"Tell me what you think," Kay yelled.

"Yes!"
"No!"
"Maybe!"
"Why are you asking me?"
"Figure it out yourself!"
"What is ya stupid?"
"I just came for the beer!"

At this point, with so many voices answering, Kay's brain is too challenged to parse out the remainder, let alone who said what.

I do like it stacked like this though.