Hfrxdjt

Most authors use dialogue in writing, especially when writing fiction. Now, if I remember my first grade primary school correctly, dialogue can be directly separated from narration in a number of ways.

Either quotation marks,

"Murder," she said.

dashes,

-Murder,- she said.

or angle brackets / angle carets / Guillemets:

«Murder,» she said.

I'm a personal fan of the last example and I dislike using quotation marks for dialogue, but that's just my personal opinion. What I'm wondering here is if, from a typographic standpoint, there are reasons to prefer one over the other when reporting dialogue.

This is limited to the scope of creative writing mainly, since non-creative (e.g. technical) writing usually has stricter rules.

I think this is dependent on the convention in the country or location where you are publishing. In the U.S., it's double quotes, but in Britain, it's single quotes. I believe France and Italy use guillemets. I've seen the dashes but I don't recall where they are used.

The upshot is that, as JonStonecash wisely said, use whatever will be expected by and invisible to your readers.

As a retired engineer, I habitually focus on the end result. While all of the choices are valid, I suspect that most readers will find all but the traditional double quotes to be jarring. If that is the result you are seeking, go for it. If you want the mechanics of dialogue to disappear then I would stick to said, asked, and double quotes.

An exception might be in order if there are more than one means to convey dialogue, such as telepathy or some special communication channel. If it is important to the story, you might use one of the alternate approaches to signify the difference.

Albert Einstein said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." My point is that you should use whatever is needed to tell your story. And, if it is not needed, don't use it.

There are two other common options.

Italics.

Murder, she said.

And nothing at all.

Murder, she said.

Or more likely set up as narration.

She said murder.

I prefer anything to the nothing option. I honestly don't know what goes through an author's head choosing that. Do they think readers enjoy not being sure if a character is speaking or thinking or if the narrator is talking?

As an American reading in English, my preference for the other options is clear: double quote marks. Specifically, curly quotes (straight quotes, like you see in this post, are fine for online reading, but for a book, they need to be curly).

Italics is gimmicky for speech, though readable. I'd rather see them saved for character thoughts and other unspoken utterances.

Your other examples may be the preference in other countries that use English or in other languages. If that's the case in the language/country you're writing in, use them. None of them would make for seamless reading in the U.S.

Your typographic goal is to make the marks invisible and glaringly obvious at the same time. Just like "she said" is. There's no doubt who said it but you barely notice. Dialogue marks should be the same way. Your eye should glide across the page not even paying attention to punctuation, yet you know without a doubt which words were spoken out loud.

As JonStoneCash has said, the other choices would be jarring. I know that I expect quotation marks to indicate spoken dialogue.

While all are sound, the traditional quotation marks have the weight and benefit of tradition, rendering them invisible.

It is your book, but if you want readers to enjoy it, allow for the possibility that the punctuation you select can disturb immersion, if only briefly.

Quotation marks are so commonly used that the use of the others might make a reader pause and then go on - ah, yes, dialogue.

The convention in English is to use double quotes, or occasionally, single quotes. Anything else if jarring and confusing. I don't know what first grade teacher said that hyphens or angle brackets are a routine way to identify quotes. If this was a teacher of the English language, he was just what I like to call "wrong".

You might use some other notation for special cases. Like if you're writing a science fiction novel and you need some way to set off the aliens' non-verbal communication or the telephathic links or some such.

You can, of course, always break the conventions. But have a reason to do it, not just because you prefer some alternate convention. As for any writing rule, if the rule gets in the way of the story, sure, break it. But don't break rules just because you feel like it.

But for normal human speech, use quotes. Anything else, readers will have to figure out that you're using this other symbol instead of quotes for no apparent reason, and it will be continually jarring.

In simple prose in English use inverted commas “ ” or ‘ ’ It is a matter of preference which to use. Double quote marks are unlikely to be confused with apostrophes, but single quotes are shorter and less intrusive.

Paragraphing properly is also important. Each change of speaker requires a new paragraph, even if they only say one word.

Some authors dislike standard quotation marks. James Joyce (Ulysses) never used inverted commas, and hated that some editors "corrected" his manuscript to include them. He began each quote with an em dash at the start of a line and ended the quote by context or a paragraph break.

Buck Mulligan peeped an instant under the mirror then covered the bowl smartly.

— Back to barracks, he said smartly.

He added in a preacher's tone:

— For this, O dearly beloved is the genuine Christine [...]

Guillemets are not used in standard English, nor are the various conventions of double commas found in German, Polish and some other languages. „Guten Tag!“

I haven't heard of or seen dashes or brackets being used to indicate dialogue. Primary teachers make up a lot of things, for example that you can't begin sentences with 'because'. It is because they have to simplify things.