|
While I can understand (to a degree) a writer using a cultural tradition in this matter, such as dashes for dialogue, which seems to be the norm in some cultures, I can't see the value in using unconventional or nonexistent quotes unless it enhances the work, rather than detracts from it.
The convention in English literature is the single or double inverted commas, and there would have to be some very sound reasons to depart from this standard, which is a proven aid to intelligibility.
The problem with the dash to introduce speech is that it doesn't have a "close quote" indicator, and this is what makes reading it difficult. In the Flann O'Brien novel I cited which uses dashes, there are numerous paragraphs which start with the dash, indicating speech, and then well into the paragraph comes another dash, indicating speech again, by someone else. Somewhere in the middle of the paragraph the first speaker gave way to the narrator, and then a second speaker began. But it's very hard to tell where. And this is the reason why unconventional speech indicators impede understanding. I am quite sure that every writer (save a few eccentrics like James Joyce) really do want their reader to understand what's going on.
If you are writing in English today, your readership, whoever they might be, expect conventional speech indicators. You abandon them at your peril. I am quite sure that a writer of today doing otherwise is being pretentious or being lazy. I say lazy, because a quick flick with a finger at the dash key is easier than shift/flick for the inverted comma key--twice.
|