/lit/ - Literature

>"Someday he's going to hit one of those long shots, and," his voice turned huffy; "I won't be there to see it."

>>3613996
Alternative methods of conveying the message are fine, but I am actually curious about the rule itself, because it makes no sense to me.

Who told you you should be able to remove the em dashes and it would leave a normal sentence?

This is not true.

What don't you understand? The em-dashes in each set of sentences "belong" to their respective sentences.

>"Someday he's going to hit one of those long shots, and"--his voice turned huffy--"I won't be there to see it."

The em-dashes here signify that his voice turns huffy after "and" and before "I". However, there's no actual pause in his speech.

>"Someday he's going to hit one of those long shots, and--," his voice turned huffy, "--I won't be there to see it."

Here the em-dashes signify an actual pause in the person's speech, a pause in which his voice turns huffy.

>>3614028
Em-dashes are supposed to be used within complete sentences, either in the middle of or at the end, so their removal will not affect the sentence should you decide to do so. That's what I was taught in my writing class.

>>3614046
So it's merely a convention, then?

Because such dialogue as:

"I wanted to tell you that--"

"I LIKE CHOCOLATE MILK."

"--that you are better..."

Are supposed to represent a character who didn't stop speaking, but that some was said in-between what he was saying. This, in conjuction with the afformentiond fact you shouldn't leave behind an incomplete sentence when using the em-dash leaves me wondering what the hell.

The intent of the em-dash is to link between fragment and introduce another one, but by putting them outside you aren't doing the linking between the dialogue parts but rather two incomplete dialogue segments.

Now, if it is merely convention so one is a break and one isn't, I guess there isn't much more that can be said because convention doesn't follow any straightforward logic most of the time anyway.


There is still the matter of when was this set to be standard practice, because I can't find it on any old style guide, so it has to be a recent (in the last hundred years) thing.

>>3614070
I dun-goofed, the second that doesn't belong there.

Anyone have ideas about the origin of this? Maybe a collection of old Chicago Manuals or other style guides?

>>3613955

Em dashes have three uses:
>>1. They mark an important point or digression:
Since that night—as far as I know—nothing has stirred in the swamp.
>>2. A break in the structure or a volta (turn) in the content:
There was peace in the land—until darkness enveloped the world.
>>Or:
I haven't killed anyone—yet.
>>3. To indicate scattered or interrupted speech.
"Hey, what the fuck are you doing in my—"
>>Or:
"Then I said—no she said—that we should totally go out."

On the question of style: em dashes are not on a standard keyboard and usually require an alt code (PC) or a combination key (Mac). Instead of a proper em dash it is common to use two hyphens ( -- ). The prominent style is to keep em dashes touching both words they fall between—especially in Canada, Australia, and the United States—but do not place a space before an em dash that interrupts a word (hou—). Do not include a single em dash then a pair of em dashes in the same sentence for clarity.

>>3614170
I follow you all on those things, but that still doesn't quite answer the question:

Why do people say this make sense:

"Someday he's going to hit one of those long shots, and"--his voice turned huffy--"I won't be there to see it."

When:

"I wanted to tell you that--"

"I LIKE CHOCOLATE MILK."

"--that you are better..."

Is considered that the speaker didn't pause talking but rather that segment happened between what he was saying, which goes to the whole notion of em-dashes as bridges that allow you to remove the segment in-between (or between itself and a period) and leave a valid sentence behind. If such is the case, this:

"Someday he's going to hit one of those long shots, and"--his voice turned huffy--"I won't be there to see it."

Would turn into:

"Someday he's going to hit one of those long shots, and""I won't be there to see it."

Which doesn't make sense.

Anon here>>3614046 stated that it is to allow for the distinction between --" and "-- to represent two different things (an actual interruption rather than just an in-between segment), but why not instead use commas to represent an action in between as such:

"Someday he's going to hit one of those long shots, and," his voice turned huffy, "I won't be there to see it."

But, ultimately, when did this become a rule and who decided it? Because I can't find it on old style guides.

Eh, let me try bumping this.

>>3614205
The different in placement is based on different usage of the em dash:
>"Someday he's going to hit one of those long shots, and"—his voice turned huffy—"I won't be there to see it."
This is marking an important point or digression.
>"I wanted to tell you that—"
>"I LIKE CHOCOLATE MILK."
>"—that you are better..."
This is interrupted speech. As other posters have pointed out, the first example could be replaced with commas instead of the em dashes, but the dashes provide an emphasis that commas do not provide. Commas, em dashes, and parenthesis have similar uses and sometimes the answer to which should be used is not as clear. However, I would argue that the em dashes provide clarity and cleanly distinguish the point from the surrounding dialogue. If I where to not use em dashes it would end up something like this:
>"Someday he's going to hit one of those long shots." His voice turned huffy, "And I won't be there to see it."
I know it removes the first comma, but just replacing the em dashes with commas does not have the feel.
The second example places the em dashes inside the quotation marks because they are a part of the dialogue and not part of the narration.

I fail to see how the following does not make sense if the em dashes are removed:
>"Someday he's going to hit one of those long shots, and I won't be there to see it."

>>3615429
While true, I am pointing that their usage is not consistent, as different asssumptions are going to each, but at this point I think it is just that I have conceptualize them differently and thus I'm left with my whole dislike of the situation.

Still leaves the matter of origin, or when did this become standard practice and who decided it to be so.

>>3616023

The earliest I remember seeing em dashes, off the top of my head, is from the early 19th century (Dickins, Austen, Wilkins). It seems to be fairly regular by then but I haven't worked on women writers for a while. However, I do know of a book where I can find out this information.

Better question...who gives a crap?

>>3618796
OP does, I suppose. I'm just looking for a distraction from a stressful relationship with 'work stuff'—then I became caught up in this and thought, why not?

>>3616023
A mediaeval latinist (Buoncompagno) is the first to use punctuation similar to an em dash called an uirgula plana, which was used when the sense of a sentence was complete. This symbol appears again in Roger Bacon's Opus tertium. The uirgula plana was replaced by the periodus at the end of a complete idea. The clarity that the mediaevalists sought pushed the period into common use.

The 'em rule' was used by novelist Samuel Richardson when using dashes to express sudden changes in direction of thought in spoken discourse. His book Clarissa (1748) was very influential for shaping the use of the em dash.

By 1768 (due to publishing standards, the rise of novels, and other works on grammar based on Bacon's), em dashes were being used in English print, such as The Sentimental Journey by Laurence Sterne
>I felt a pleasurable ductility about her, which spread a calmness over all my spirits —
> — Good God! how a man might lead such a creature as this round the world with him! —

Using em dashes inside quotations appears in Charlotte Bronte's novel The Professor (1846)
>"Do you live alone—?"
But Bronte uses en dashes instead of em dashes in the following circumstance:
>[…] I should certainly devise some slight punishment – at your age – you must be two or three and twenty [.]
Though over the course of the mid 19th century the punctuation normalized to what it is today. Dickins and Austen were important in the standardization.