While obviously we can use contractions such as "don't" and "can't" in the dialogue of stories, what about outside of dialogue?

For example:

He couldn't find what he was searching for. (With a contraction)

He could not find what he was searching for. (Without a contraction)

Is one correct, and the other incorrect? Or is one better than the other? Which do you prefer? Which do you use in your writing?

If I saw contractions outside of dialogue in a book, I would start to wonder at the worth of the rest of the writing in the book.

I cannot really think of why one would want to use contractions except for the change in essence and sound -- and in that case I think the change would be for the worse most if not all of the time.

I've been reading Dickens lately and he often seems to take descriptions in the tone of his characters, in that case, I think it makes sense for the change of essence, but for myself, I avoid them where I can.

Good point.

Well, I tend to use contractions outside of dialogue. I don't tend to see anything wrong with it; I believe it can go either way, and is mostly a personal preference.

Ray Bradbury loved to use contractions outside of dialogue.

IMO, it all depends on how it sounds within the sentence structure. If it helps the story flow I use it, if not I don't. Ultimately, I don't want my story to sound and read like a disconnected science essay...I want to connect to the reader and present my story in a personal way. I believe contractions help achieve that tone.

I feel it is unnecessary to strictly adhere to a "no contraction outside of dialogue rule" that ends up bogging down pacing, flow and sound when it is simpler to use a contraction. *shrugs*

I used to try using no contractions outside of dialogue, ever. Problem is, it came off really stiff and wooden. I even asked my proof readers their opinion and they agreed, when I let myself use contractions, things flowed much more smoothly. That said, I don't always use don't in place of do not, etc... I try to let the flow of the story dictate what should happen at that moment in the story.

I thought I never used contractions outside of a dialogue, but then I read one of my stories to make sure, and was quite surprised to find a contraction. *horrified gasp*

Well, I don't like using contractions, and avoid them as much as possible. But if it makes the story flow better, if it fits the mood and the scene more, then I use it.

That's me, right there. I've never consciously done one or the other.

Same. To me, contractions seem a lot more natural, so if it isn't a formal essay or anything, I won't bother trying to get rid of them...

It depends on whether it fits or not. If you decline contractions and then read your story aloud and it sounds stiff, you should probably add in some contractions. But I don't think it'd be better to be absolute one way or the other. When I do NaNoWriMo, I don't use contractions, because I want as big a word count as I can get.
But I like my stories to flow naturally. When no contractions are used, I feel as if the extra words pull the reader's mind away from the story, both when I'm reading and when I'm writing.
I have one fantasy story, written in first-person present-tense, that uses no contractions, because it's a custom for women in that world to refrain from using contractions (and the POV character is a girl). When I read it aloud, the language seems a bit awkward.

The lack of contractions that would be used in normal speech draws me out of the contraction-less story and makes me pay more attention to the language being used. But that's just my opinion.

I think it's mostly a matter of style and preference, as well as the tone you're trying to convey within the given context of the story. In some places it might sound appropriate and in others it might sound stiff and forced. I tend to use both when not dealing with dialogue, although you could do the same thing when using dialogue, if you wanted to portray a character's speech as refined or "English teacher" type. I also avoid contractions when I'm aiming for emphasis. "He could not believe it" has more punch than "he couldn't believe it." At least IMO.

*nods* I haven't really thought about it that much. There are some good thoughts so far. I tend to use contractions outside of dialogue, because I think it makes it flow better. But it depends on the scene and setting. I think there's not a specific "wrong" or "right" in this case, just a matter of personal preference.

...you're not supposed to use contractions outside of dialogue? *had no idea this was even possibly an issue*

I use contractions out of dialogue all the time. I don't even think about it. It feels a lot more natural to me to have them in there. *shrug*

I just took a paragraph from my NaNo and rewrote it without the contractions. For some of them, it didn't make much difference, but for some of them, it made the sentence seem awkward to me. *shrugs again*

...I'm probably going to be looking at everything I read now to see if it has contractions outside of dialogue.

It's a question of voice. I've sometimes heard that one oughtn't to use contractions in a formal academic paper ... but academic writing calls for a rather different style than fiction. Narrative (the part of fiction writing that isn't dialogue) probably shouldn't use too many contractions (unless it's first person!), but as others have already pointed out eschewing them entirely creates a rather stiff voice that you probably didn't intend. (Though if you're not reading carefully and you notice the author's use of contractions, it's entirely possible he or she is using too many.)

Personally, I prefer books that, though not in first person, are basically written in the point-of-view character's voice, using words, turns of phrase, and (yes) contractions as the character would have, only a little less informal and more polished.

He's got a big name behind him that can counter the use-of-contractions-outside-of-dialogue stigma.

I have to say that this thread is the only place I have ever seen any reference to any such "stigma" ...

*shrugs* Perhaps it is only a personal stigma, but it does exist. And if it exists in one person, how many others? (True, the likelihood of the majority of readers caring whether you use contractions or not is probably not high; however, I do think there is a minority.)

If an author uses enough contractions in narrative that a reader notices "hey, this author's using a lot of contractions!" then I wouldn't be surprised if the reader saw the writing as less well crafted ... but as I and others have said, narrative is just prose; the occasional contraction is normal and so usually isn't noticed, and without them it may even sound "wooden" or overly formal. (A complaint that I've seen far more often than complaints that an author's prose is too informal---not that I've seen either all that often.)

*nods* Interesting. It is a small enough matter that I don't pay too much attention to it, but it does bug me slightly.

That was exactly my reaction.

I'm not sure if I view using contractions outside of dialogue is considered 'bad'...in fact, I can't even remember if I've read - or written, for that matter - any use of contractions outside of dialogue.

I think most if not all the young adult books I've read use contractions outside of dialogue. Nowadays, whenever I read writing where there aren't contractions outside of dialogue, I feel like the author is just trying to write as many words as they can, dividing the word into two words (does not versus doesn't).
Everyone uses contractions now, and it sounds weird and formal when someone does not use them in normal conversation. I vary between the two, depending on my mood.

I would like to learn when contractions began to get popular, and what point in time they were not popular in books, and then read a bunch of books back when contractions were rarely used and see how things were worded then.
I know George Orwell wrote a really good essay about how we should not use more words than necessary (and about other things too) and he didn't like how people kept using "not unnecessary" or "it was not unhealthy" "not un..." because it was two negatives and you could delete the "not un" and it would make sense reading it without the "not un[insert adjective]". After reading that essay I remembered that and it was easier to understand some books where that was used.
I think that can relate to contractions too. "Don't use two words when one will do." Except I can understand why sometimes we should not use contractions.