To set the scene, Robert Cale, a wealthy businessman, is talking to an architect he's hired and is meeting for the first time.
Version one:
"What I want to do is put up houses. Sell them. People said I should talk to somebody before I bring in the builders, so we put everything in the right place. You're younger than I thought."
Version two:
"What I want
to do is put up houses. Sell them. People said I should talk to
somebody before I bring in the builders, so we put everything in the
right place." Then, with no audible pause, "You're younger than I thought."
I'm assuming Clare Beams (or her editor) recognized both versions were possible, and I'd guess Clare (or her editor) thought long and hard about which version was preferable. The second version tells you that there's "no...pause" between two sentences, but by adding the words that tell you there's no pause, the story pauses. I see a conflict between what the text says and what the story does.
If you don't believe me, then try this third version, which I definitely made up:
"...so we put everything in the right place." Then, he didn't pause at all, he just went right on talking with no hesitation, no delay, no amount of time spent being silent between words... nope, he just went on to his next sentence and you couldn't have blinked twice in the time between his previous and his next sentence: "You're younger than I thought."
You see the problem.
I also wonder about the word "audible" in "no audible pause." Why not just "Then, with no pause..."? A pause in dialogue can be only heard. It can't be smelled or seen or tasted. Imagine the author writing "Then, with no smellable pause..." Ridiculous. So I wonder if "no audible pause" in this case contains a redundancy.
By now you've probably guessed that version two, with the spelled-out lack of an audible pause, is the one the author or editor chose. I wish I knew why. The only argument for it I can think of is to prepare the reader for a change in the subject of Robert's dialogue. It's a sudden change. Version one above might surprise readers enough that they'd have to re-read that bit. So I can see the need for something to mark the transition. But why "Then, with no audible pause..."? Why not "Then he changed the subject." or "His eyes narrowed as he added," or something much better written than either of these suggestions? There has to be a better "beat" available than one that blatantly contradicts itself, especially since self-contradiction plays no role in the story, thematically or otherwise.
See what happens when you take editing seriously? I can't just read stories anymore, I have to play around with the parts that bug me.
Maybe if you put the pausing part after he says it? Then it tells, but doesn't create a pause in the story like before, and after cover it up with something to distract the reader?
ReplyDeleteIdk, but hey, I'm giving it a shot:
"What I want to do is put up houses. Sell them. People said I should talk to somebody before I bring in the builders, so we put everything in the right place. "
"You're younger than I thought," he said slowly, not letting her continue talking about her dream. He looked at her childish face, he could tell her tongue was behind her sincere heart and just a spokesman, not a mind maker.
I like your idea of splitting the dialogue into two paragraphs. In fact, I like that suggestion better than any of mine. Technically there would be no pause in the dialogue, but the formatting would indicate the change in subject. Good going!
ReplyDelete