: Is it unnecessary to mention that there is a silence in the following cases? I tend to write stuff like this a lot: (dialogue) They remained silent for a while. “Where is my

Vote Up Vote Down

The[y] remained silent for a while. “Where is my mind” by Pixies was now playing in the background. Eri stared at her palm beneath the Heineken neon sign next to her. [...]

In this first case it is redundant, as the rest of the text implies the silence between them already.

The room fell silent. An ambulance could be heard at the distance. Its sound grew louder and louder [...]

In this second case it is useful to show that they were not interrupted by the sound, but heard it because the room fell silent.

That's my opinion.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

If you want to indicate that they've stopped talking, you should do so. There are many ways: you could spell it out as you have, or you could describe their actions, indicating that they are doing something and not talking. In your first example, Eri stares at her palm, but it's not clear if she is doing that while talking or instead of talking. In your second example, there is almost nothing to indicate the passage of any time, but a careful reading would let you guess that at least enough time went by for that ambulance to pass. That takes, what, a few seconds? Maybe a minute if they're in a quiet place and can hear the ambulance from far off - but in such places ambulances often don't use their sirens because there's no need.

So I'd say you need to put something there to define the silence, if it's important to you that there be one.

(0)