The second way is less conventional, but it does differentiate the robot's speech from other living characters, which would make it easier to avoid endless attributions. I might have a problem with commas and other punctuation. However, my main concern is whether this would be frowned upon by a first or second reader.
The first way is what I always do, but for some reason it just doesn't feel right for this character. It's going to have a deep metallic voice.
I would appreciate any constructive thoughts.
Patty Jansen's story "His Name in Lights" makes a similar distinction: the artificial life form MC, with whom the reader should empathize, speaks "like this," but his internal computational decision-making circuits talk [like this] (and in Courier).
[This message has been edited by Grayson Morris (edited January 20, 2011).]
[This message has been edited by Grayson Morris (edited January 20, 2011).]
How about italics if you really feel the need not to use quotes? Though personally, to me, speech is speech. You'd be better showing that it's a robotic voice, through your prose or the robot's phrases or dialect, than just letting brackets tell it.
Using a convention other than quotation marks is a novelty in my mind and is distracting. The "voice" of the robot should be clear enough to not need added distinction.
Then again, there are published authors who have succeeded with a different opinion.
To me, italics imply thought - human thought - and are not something that is heard at all. I might be biased because in my WIP I use that for direct internal monologue as well as communication via thought, but I've seen it used in other works as well.
He had a mechanical man who, in dialog, spoke with ev-er-y syl-la-ble punc-tu-a-ted with dash-es like that.
"Where is the...?" A said.
"He is..." the Robot said.
"We must..." B said.
(or)
"Where is the...? A said.
<He is...>
"We must..." B said.
I don't want him perceived as human, but I don't want the different punctuation to be a distraction. Some of my characters are going to have speech and mannerisms that are almost robotic and I want to differentiate between them and the actual robot. At some points, the robot might even seem more human than some of the people, but I want him to continue to be perceived as mechanical.
Perhaps the robot has a certain manner of speaking that is unique enough to make it clear he is speaking. Or if you follow Reziac's suggestion, your task is probably easiier.
Either way, have fun!
quote:
Using a convention other than quotation marks is a novelty in my mind and is distracting. The "voice" of the robot should be clear enough to not need added distinction.
But you say your robot has a deep metallic, mechanical voice. I would approach it descriptively. Describe his voice and then how the humans around him perceive it. Are they off-put by it or disturbed by it's timber, distrustful of it or even resentful? Maybe even intrigued by the technology, depending on the character. That's my 2 cents.
I was kind of thinking about it.
Whats very distinctive about a mechanical voice is the stop-start.
Perhaps you could create a new way of looking at it.
Hello, I am robot 212, Please know, I am here, For your, Needs.
A mechanical voice to me does sound stop-start but not every syllable
so I wouldn't do
He-l-lo I-am-rob-ot-21-2 *This sounds slow. thought it could work if it was fifties and before. Real old machine language. but...
Hello-I-am-robot-212. Please-know. I-am-here. For-your. Needs.
or
Hello-I-am-robot-212-please-know-I-am-here-for-your-needs.
The feeling of stop-start makes the wording feel mechanical but I haven't seen it yet in another book.
Just a thought.
W.
[This message has been edited by walexander (edited January 21, 2011).]