There are "rules" in grammar that are applied slavishly by some and ignored slavishly by others. Just in case this one doesn't fall into either case, and an author wants to know what the rule is so it can be ignored ...

In the US, traditionally, the rule for capitalizing letters is "Capitalize if it is a proper noun, or the first word in a sentence." Unlike other countries, or the custom from decades earlier, if it doesn't meet one of those reasons for capitalization, it shouldn't be.

There's one place that words are being capitalized in recent stories that doesn't quite meet this rule. Consider:

"This is a sentence," he said. "This is a new sentence, so it starts with a capital letter."

and compare it to

"This is a longer sentence," he said, "so the continuation of the sentence does not start with a capital letter."

I propose that it can be reduced to a rule for when the 'he said' is in the middle of a longer quote: If after the 'he said' there is a comma, the quote's continuation should not begin with a capital letter. If after the 'he said' there is a period, the quote's continuation should begin with a capital. It works the other way too: if the part of the quote after the 'he said' starts with a capital (because it is a new sentence), then there should be a period after the 'he said'.

This rule would not apply if the 'he said' is all the way before the quote, such as

He said, "This quote starts with a capital letter, because it is the start of the sentence that is being quoted ... but there is a comma before the quote, and 'He said' is also capitalized because it is the beginning of the whole sentence."

Yes, it violates some strict logical considerations, so that's why I suggest the rule only for when the 'he said' is in the middle of the quote, not at the beginning.

Note that the 'he said' isn't itself capitalized if it comes after the quote, as well as when it is in the middle of the quote; only when it is first. So it would be wrong to capitalize it in this sentence:

"This quote is a complete sentence," He said.

The reason is the rule about capitalization: if it isn't a proper noun, don't capitalize it. In that example, the 'he said' is not the beginning of a new sentence, and it is not a proper noun, so it shouldn't be capitalized.

Perhaps another example can reinforce the rule. It's not really an exception, just a contrast. Consider:

"This is a sentence." He jumped onto a chair. "This is another sentence."

and its variation

"This is a longer sentence," he jumped onto the chair, "that continues after I jumped."

In this case, it is not "said" but "jumped". 'Said' describes 'saying', as do variations like whined, whispered, shouted, implored, and demanded. So one uses these verbs to apply to the quote. Other verbs apply to action that is secondary to the quote, such as sighing, jumping, tasting, shrugging, or checking one's phone. The rule I am suggesting applies only the verbs that correspond to "saying" something.

The rule would also apply if the 'he said' was more complex, such as:

"This is a long sentence," he said, while rubbing his stomach in a circle and patting his head, "but the rule still seems to apply."

Think of these rules as being created to make the reading process easier. Consider that a couple of millenia ago, things were written in all caps, with few if any vowels and no spaces between words. Reading was more like a puzzle being solved, going through several possible ways to interpret the consonants before coming up with one that worked best. In this case, the "comma with no capital, period with Capital" is supposed to help the reader by eliminating ambiguity as to whether it is the start of a new sentence or a continuation of the old. Not that we can't figure it out on our own, just that it is easier to get into the story if there is less ambiguity in the punctuation.

I'm not citing various authorities here, just making a proposal that seems to match usage in professionally edited books and magazines. How does this rule compare with your experience, and do you think it does actually make things easier to read?

For most of what comes in, you're lucky that the authors can spell the word "said", or even comprehend the use of quotation marks. The idea of reading being akin to solving a puzzle is still in full practice. Rather, writing that way is, I should say.

Capitalization of letters that aren't the first one in a sentence are the least of the problems.

However, you can feel free to take over the job if you like.

We all appreciate the job you are doing. I was certainly not complaining about that, nor was I suggesting that I could do it better.

I understand the amount of aggravation you have with submissions. I wasn't thinking that this would solve all problems. I certainly wasn't thinking that you should make changes like this in every submission you receive. It's more of an advanced topic for authors already able to use quote marks with some proficiency.

If you think there is something I could do to help, and if you promise you aren't taking offense, I'd be happy to help out. Perhaps send me the most time-consuming submissions to work on? Anything to give you more time to write stories!

No offense taken at all. Thanks.