Aussie Readers discussion

I tried one of hers for the same challenge Deborah and didn't like it either!

Brenda wrote: "I tried one of hers for the same challenge Deborah and didn't like it either!"

I am glad it is not just me! What was it about her, I wonder? I feel like I could have enjoyed the story and the character but I just didn't. And it bothers me that I can't put my finger on exactly what it was.

Hmm, I used this technique in my book and love it, although I agree, it would be annoying with a lot of dialogue

The Land of Short Sentences by Stine Pilgaard

Unsheltered by AA Clare Moleta

I'm not far in and struggling already :(

I'm just reading a book of essays by Lionel Shriver, Abominations: Selected Essays from a Career of Courting Self-Destruction, which includes an excellent essay on quoteless dialogue. When I'm done, I'll post some quotes here.

Extracts from Lionel Shriver’s essay Quote Unquote:
In comparison with jouncing about the internet or lounging in front of the set, reading seems to demand an onerous degree of concentration. So you’d think that these days literary writers would be bending over backward to ingratiate themselves— to make their work maximally accessible, straightforward, and inviting. But no.

The principal reason (for objection to quoteless dialogue) is simple: fiction without quotation marks is harder to read.

Optimally, then, the text should be as easy to process as possible, saving the readers’ effort for exercising imagination and keeping track of the plot— assuming that there is one.

Reading dialogue without quotation marks is like driving without signposts. A tired or impatient reader will easily get lost.

Two-to-one in my unscientific poll, editors, agents, critics, and established authors bristled at no-quote dialogue as affected, confusing, imitative, and gratuitous.

the responses of ordinary readers to the quote- free fashion were, without prompting, fierce, immediate, and hostile.

I no sooner raised the issue than a friend or neighbor exploded, “Oh, I hate that!” By contrast, I’ve yet to hear any reader despair, “This would have been a great book, if it weren’t for all those pesky quotation marks!” Surely most readers would happily forgo “elegance” for demarcation that makes it easier to figure out who’s saying what when their eyelids are drooping during the last few pages before lights-out.

That expresses my feelings precisely!

Ditto! Well said. I wish those authors and publishers that believe quotation marks aren't needed would read that enlightening book!

Marianne wrote: "Extracts from Lionel Shriver’s essay Quote Unquote:
In comparison with jouncing about the internet or lounging in front of the set, reading seems to demand an onerous degree of concentration. So yo..."

I totally and utterly agree!

Hear hear to that!

Marianne wrote: "Extracts from Lionel Shriver’s essay Quote Unquote:
In comparison with jouncing about the internet or lounging in front of the set, reading seems to demand an onerous degree of concentration. So yo..."

Well said. My first encounter with this was a Tim Winton book. I had listened to a couple of his audio books previously but now I shun those as well, on principle. I think quoteless dialogue is an abomination. What's the matter with the publishing houses? Don't they like selling books any more?

Precisely Thomas - and I wish a lot of someones would let them know!! Actually I was sent an ARC which was raved about by the publisher who sent it, but when I went to read it I discovered it had no speech marks. When I emailed her to explain why I wouldn't be reading it she was quite put out. Though she did acknowledge there are people out there who don't like lack of speech marks! No change though...

Brenda wrote: "Precisely Thomas - and I wish a lot of someones would let them know!! Actually I was sent an ARC which was raved about by the publisher who sent it, but when I went to read it I discovered it had n..."
I'll never understand the "logic" of this. Why do something that makes a book harder to read? Shouldn't we be making it easier? I know it's a "Literary" thing with many authors. I think it's just arrogant and pretentious.

I agree - it's a current fad (though there are others who have done it for awhile) but I really hope they change and go back to the correct way of writing books!!

All the Lovers in the Night by Mieko Kawakami

Perhaps even WORSE than 'no speech marks', this one changes from speech marks to no speech marks in the middle of a character's dialogue! Very confusing!!

Kim wrote: "All the Lovers in the Night by Mieko Kawakami

Perhaps even WORSE than 'no speech marks', this one changes from spe..."
Oh, that would be confusing

Sweeney and the Bicycles by Philip Salom, why oh why, such a great book otherwise!

Kim wrote: "All the Lovers in the Night by Mieko Kawakami

Perhaps even WORSE than 'no speech marks', this one changes from spe..."

Maybe this was an editing mistake.

Kim wrote: "All the Lovers in the Night by Mieko Kawakami

Perhaps even WORSE than 'no speech marks', this one changes from spe..."

Oh bummer, I have another by the same author - hope it's not the same!

I enjoyed this book so much, I did not even notice! Just goes to show how we see what we want to see. :-)

The Death of John Lacey by Ben Hobson.

I assume a few people already have this book given it's a title A&U were offering in their most recent comp.

Thanks Em - I didn't choose this one, thank goodness!

Em__Jay wrote: "The Death of John Lacey by Ben Hobson.

I assume a few people already have this book given it's a title A&U were offering in their most recent comp."

Aaaargh, why!

It's not a good trend Marianne!

Brenda wrote: "It's not a good trend Marianne!"

Loses half a star even before it's been read.

I don't read them if they have no speech marks, so you're better than me!

It's the first time I'm reading a book with this 'unique feature'. 😀
It's not as bad as I imagined but it's definitely taking me longer to read. The time factor doesn't bother me as much having to reread some passages because I get confused who's talking. Quote marks certainly make reading easier for me.

It makes a lot of readers struggle for that reason Em. I don't like it at all.

Em__Jay wrote: "It's the first time I'm reading a book with this 'unique feature'. 😀
It's not as bad as I imagined but it's definitely taking me longer to read. The time factor doesn't bother me as much having to..."

I'm halfway through now, and I think it's really good, plot-wise, but I agree about having to reread to figure out who is talking, which isn't so much a quote marks thing as not bothering to occasionally put "John said" or "said Joe".
I asked the author what was he thinking, and this is his reply which, frankly, doesn't cut it for me (sounds a bit wanky, TBH):
"I understand not everybody will like that choice. To me, removing the dialogue marks emphasises the desperation of the people of that time - dialogue marks are luxury desperate people might not have been afforded. And it’s taking a bit of note from the Jerilderie letter too. I stand by it, but yes sorry if it’s not to your liking!"

I'm tempted to say, "find me three ordinary readers who would prefer a book without quote marks for speech"

"I understand not everybody will like that choice. To me, removing the dialogue marks emphasises the desperation of the people of that time - dialogue marks are luxury desperate people might not have been afforded. And it’s taking a bit of note from the Jerilderie letter too. I stand by it, but yes sorry if it’s not to your liking!"

Um....what? Pretentious twaddle is another term that comes to mind.

Leonie wrote: ""I understand not everybody will like that choice. To me, removing the dialogue marks emphasises the desperation of the people of that time - dialogue marks are luxury desperate people might not ha..

"Um....what? Pretentious twaddle is another term that comes to mind.
Thank you, Leonie, exactly the term I was looking for.

"dialogue marks are luxury desperate people might not have been afforded." Really!!! I laughed out loud at that bit!
He actually sounds rather angry to have been asked at all.

Phrynne wrote: ""dialogue marks are luxury desperate people might not have been afforded." Really!!! I laughed out loud at that bit!
He actually sounds rather angry to have been asked at all."

No, he started with "ha ha, Thank you, but yeh"

But I go back to: why make your book harder to enjoy than it has to be?

That's just the discussion a friend and I were having this morning. She and her husband had been listening to a podcast on (what I assume is literary fiction circles, but maybe stream of consciousness writing) which suggested that the meaning of a book is completely up to the reader, and that it doesn't really matter how it's written or what the writer intended. It's all up to interpretation.

While I can always appreciate beautiful writing, I really struggle with writing without conscious purpose/story. Or for that matter, flouting the conventions of grammar and/or punctuation in the name of literary greatness. (Self determined literary greatness, perhaps.) I would have thought that writers are always thinking about their readers, and making their writing accessible, even if said writing isn't to every one's taste.

Leonie wrote: ".I would have thought that writers are always thinking about their readers, and making their writing accessible, even if said writing isn't to every one's taste..."

Hit the nail on the head Leonie. If they don't, their readers won't buy them - then they'll be without work.

Marianne wrote: "Em__Jay wrote: "It's the first time I'm reading a book with this 'unique feature'. 😀
It's not as bad as I imagined but it's definitely taking me longer to read. The time factor doesn't bother me a..."

What an odd response. I haven't finished the book yet but one thing that has struck me is the lack of desperation on the part of many characters, in particular John Lacey. Resignation and frustration, sure. But desperation, not so much, overall. So to hear the author write that response really has me scratching my head.

I'm past halfway and I would say that Isabelle is pretty desperate, considering her final act, the gold prospectors in the tent city are quite desperate, and Ernst at 33yo, but I still think it's pretentious twaddle, as Leonie said, to omit quote marks on their behalf.

This is such a fascinating topic. Thanks to Angela for pointing it out to me. I have enjoyed reading your responses. I just finished The Death of John Lacey and believe it's the first book I have read without quotation marks for speech. I have seen it growing as a trend across literary journals, but haven't read a book that has it until now.

To be honest, I barely noticed it. Now, you're all far more well-read than me when it comes to fiction. I can imagine if someone reads hundreds of books per year that have similar stylistic choices (i.e dialogue marks) it could then be jarring to encounter one without.

But I actually found in this case, the dialogue wove itself in naturally with the narrative, and somehow made my reading smoother. I actually found it refreshing and different.

I don't know if I agree with the author's reasons for this style, but I do agree these are desperate characters. All of them. John Lacey? His desperation was fueled by greed and power. Every character is living in a harsh landscape, in relative poverty, desperate to create a life, desperate to survive. That desperation goes to whole new levels when Indigenous characters are present.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to start seeking out books without quote marks for speech. But in this case, it didn't impact my reading in a negative way.

Good to hear your point of view Rowan, and to know it didn't affect your reading. The few I've tried haven't worked for me, but as per usual, everyone is different :)

Brenda wrote: "Good to hear your point of view Rowan, and to know it didn't affect your reading. The few I've tried haven't worked for me, but as per usual, everyone is different :)"

Absolutely, Brenda. I think like most things, it could be something that works better in some books than it does in others.

Interestingly enough, my top read last year (Our Share of Night) was a book that sometimes included speech marks. It was quite an interesting approach - I noticed she did seem to choose to use them when a character was speaking, however if it was talking about what someone had said there were no speech marks. It was very subtle but there was a difference and it was quite agreeable to me actually! I am describing it badly though haha

Krystal wrote: "Interestingly enough, my top read last year (Our Share of Night) was a book that sometimes included speech marks. It was quite an interesting approach - I noticed she did seem to ch..."

I think you described it great, Krystal! Haha Sometimes including speech marks sounds like an interesting approach. Glad that it worked for you and you loved the read!

Re:The Death of John Lacey by Ben Hobson

I have just finished this book and liked it very, very much indeed, I really did.
BUT… I am struggling to write my review because this is a real issue which affects not just the reading experience, but also the flow of the story.
I don’t understand the logic behind the author’s reasoning (as stated above) for omitting speech marks or any other indicators 🤷🏻‍♀️
If it were live, I would know who was speaking. If I were watching the movie, I would know who was speaking, if I’m listening, I know who is speaking…I’m wondering now how the audio version would go…would the voices change to reflect the different characters speaking..and their moods? Or would they remain a monotone, to reflect the author’s logic? Because that’s how it reads in places, like a monotone devoid of the implied emotions.
It reads like an unfinished or unedited work, which to be honest, I thought was down to my copy being just that, and that it would be polished for the final edition.

This is a lengthy story involving many strong characters with big personalities. It’s not a letter written by one man who’s own character and personality is and was larger than life and well known all over the country.
To liken it to the Jerilderie Letter is…well…a little bit bombastic imho.

This is what I wrote as a footnote to my review of The Death of John Lacey..

“The lack of quotation marks throughout interrupted the flow of my reading experience enough that I don’t want to let it go unmentioned, as it obviously didn’t go unnoticed and is the only reason for me giving a 4.5 star rating instead of 5 stars.
I don’t understand the reasoning behind it, it certainly does nothing to enhance the reading, on the contrary it is disruptive in that it continually breaks the continuity and therefore the overall mood of the story.”

Well said Julie. I have not read this particular book, but from past experiences with the absence of speech marks I know just what you mean!

Jülie ☼♄  wrote: "Re:The Death of John Lacey by Ben Hobson

I have just finished this book and liked it very, very much indeed, I really did.
BUT… I am struggling to write my revie..."

Pass!!! So many good books, so little time to enjoy them that I wouldn't waste a second.

I guess in the end it is totally up to the author to exercise (or not) their choice of poetic license when writing, even at the risk of alienating their audience.
Perhaps it follows the nonchalant notion of “any publicity is good publicity.”
I find myself scrutinising all previous reviews of his past work now, because it’s not just about a personal preference of his, but rather an absence of overall structure and “chalant”…so to speak.

Agree 100%, Julie

Jülie ☼♄  wrote: "Re:The Death of John Lacey by Ben Hobson

I have just finished this book and liked it very, very much indeed, I really did.
BUT… I am struggling to write my revie..."

This is well expressed, Julie, and I agree. It does take a skilled author to do it effectively, but sometimes I think it's just too much of a gimic. Happy to hear any counter arguement, though.
Cheers from CB

Thirst for Salt by Madelaine Lucas
*sigh*