Aye. There's been a few people over the years who've done quite well for themselves in breaking the rules of prose, grammar and language to create something more aesthetically pleasing or sounding... I believe they're called poets.
@Magnatolia Is there any chance you could point me in the direction of these definitions, please? You've got me curious. Edit: I've had a look myself. Yes... apparently it is acceptable in direct speech according to a few dictionaries, but the sibilant variety of definitions seem to take the top spot in most of them. Even the etymology suggests it is more to do with imitated sound, (like that of a snake, a goose, even a female turtle) rather than an inflection of mood. And, given that several of us here have said that the usage, when it comes to direct speech without sibilance, doesn't sit easily with us, I can't deny that many potential readers would feel the same. Why alienate a hefty portion of readers when it can be avoided?
@obsidian_cicatrix I used dictionary.com, merrian-webster.com, dictionary.cambridge.com, and thefreedictionary.com. The reasons behind the choice of words from a writers perspective seems to be filtering into them now Some of the examples are literally "dialogue," he growled/whined/hissed.
I selected around ten or so, some of which you have listed. I do appreciate the point you are making. Maybe I'm a bit more of a purist at heart than I thought. To me, just because it can be done, doesn't necessarily mean that it should. To me, something reads well or it doesn't... I strongly dislike the usage when applied to direct speech without sibilance, it just causes me to shake my head, no matter what the context, but I do appreciate that others might not feel the same. I'm going to go with my gut on this. I don't feel as a method of conveying mood and tone it does a very good job, so I'll continue to refrain from doing so. Each to their own, I guess.
I don't think we can really make a call about what most readers would prefer. I know readers who just read, readers who assess a book on everything. Everyone's different. Although I feel I should point out that JK Rowling sold over 450 million copies of her books. I just did a google search and found she used words like babbled, whined, growled, retorted, etc. And even one instance of "What if we get caught?" worried Hermione. Now I don't personally like the last thing but it works. I think if you have a story that sucks people in then the words don't really matter as much.
Just edit them out afterwards, what's the problem? Another thing is, what's the purpose of showing the grin/look/sigh? If you use the phrases too often, the likelihood is you probably use the action too often. I have a similar habit of "He smiled" and "She glanced at him" or something similar. I'm thinking visually, like in a film, rather than in narrative. Write and use all those repeated phrases to your heart's content on the rough draft. Then when you come back to edit, ask yourself what it is you wanted to convey with that smile/look/sigh/whatever, and think if there isn't other ways of conveying it. Other types of description, other forms of body language, or if sharper dialogue would make it clear enough that you wouldn't even need the phrase in the first place.
I personally like that style. It's too the point. I can read 'he growled' and provided the actual dialogue has a gruff, gritty tone then I get a very clear image in my head. It would be way too wordy to show the reader that he is talking in that tone. This is the example: My guess is the reason it works is that she doesn't simply use the word to hold up poor dialogue. The growl automatically shows me that he is talking in a deep voice, and he starts yelling, denoted by repeating two words, and then getting so worked up that he for a split second loses his mind, and then shouts the final word. Whereas if she had said "Do you mean to tell me," he growled at the Dursleys, "that this boy knows nothing about anything?" It loses the charaterization and the tone. The only saving grace is that he growled, and that's not really a saving grace. How could this scene be written without being wordy? The only way that comes to my mind is to put a showing action before the dialogue such as 'He glared at the Dursleys. "Do you mean to tell me that this boy knows nothing about ANYTHING?" Glaring could be done with cold, cool voice tone so it doesn't convey the same intent. Plus this is just my view but the second one feels like I'm pushing my construct of what I want the reader to see. Because in reality if someone glares, their nostrils might flare up, their skin may flush, their jaw might tighten, they may tighten their shoulders, cross their arms. I don't/can't describe all that. But that one choice of word 'growled' allows the reader to picture what this means to them. It's been so long since I've read the books, but I think she describes the scene by a towering giant bashing the door down. So she's already created the framework of what she wants people to imagine the character as, and then given a little bit of freedom in that other part of the scene.
I think if you're going to use words like grin/look/sigh, you're right. There does need to be a reason. It might be 'He looked longingly at her. "She doen't even know I exist," he whispered sadly, more to himself than anyone else. Would you agree/disagree with the idea in my previous post about descriptive words that convey a package of body language? For me if I choose something like 'she glanced at him', I don't use it unless there's a reason to use it. I would never simply write 'She glanced at James. "How's it going?" because by talking to him it's common sense that she chose to look at him. I might however write, "How's it going?" She smiled coldly. Because by having two opposing elements it gives me a reason to add it. If this is the first indication of this type then the reader will be wondering why she's not giving him a normal smile. They're wondering what's going on. And because I've indicated that she's not being warm to him I don't need to repeatedly remind my reader in the rest of the dialogue, unless I want to make it more clearer, or decrease/increase it. "How's it going?" She smiled coldly. "Good. Yourself?" "Fine." She stared at him silently for a few seconds. "Well? Do you have it?" He handed over a small ringbound book. She ripped it from his hands, and stormed out of the room. I've only used two actions. One, her smiling coldly. To me this indicates hostility. I further this by her waiting, nobody's speaking so the tension is increasing. She then says nothing, but grabs it and leaves the room. What do you think? Am I on the right path with that? It was just a very quick example. I also 'think' I alluded to the fact that he wasn't surprised or really that bothered by her attitude. Like he was expecting it almost. I could change the tone and have him stutter at the beginning.
@Magnatolia - I haven't read your previous post properly - only skimmed it, and I think it was about dialogue tags regarding "hiss" or "growl" versus "said" or something like that. Personally I use whatever tag that conveys best how my characters are speaking - I don't care for the "ONLY ever use 'said' and 'asked'" rule. As for above - the cold smile feels weird. If you're that cold, you're not gonna ask "How're you doing?" I'd prefer something like "smiled politely" or "strained smile" or "the smile did not reach her eyes". "ripped out of his hands and stormed out" is a little dramatic considering she was supposed to be "cold" (hence "cold smile"). Ripping and storming suggests rage or fear - which is at odds with an icy smile. Cold anger doesn't induce you to rip and storm. So, not sure what you mean by "the right path" - it's not so much that "She smiled coldly" is wrong as that I just don't feel you've put logical descriptions together. It doesn't feel human. It feels like the author's hand is forcing the characters. As for "glance" - that's different to "smiled coldly" in any case. People glance when they're uncertain, when they're shy, when they're scared. Depending on context, "glance" could convey the right emotion. However, it's one of those super understated ways, which is hard to use effectively. Perhaps "She refused to meet his eyes when she spoke" is better - there's no ambiguity and one can imagine where she's looking, gives the reader more freedom without hindering what the author's trying to convey. I used to be a huge fan of the understated ways (copying Henning Mankell) and as I've developed, I'm leaning more and more towards a kind of prose poetry. Still learning where the balance is personally. PS. You use too many adverbs. Try writing out their actions/body language directly. PPS. And lose the comma before "stormed" so the reader doesn't pause at a moment that's meant to happen quickly.
@Mckk, thanks for the feedback. The example was merely an example. And smiling coldly can go hand in hand. Maybe she's controlling herself until she gets the book. But I agree, it was rough and not meant for actual review/analysis, more for a genral analyis which you also provided. Could you give me an example of writing their actions/body language vs using adverbs. I felt like I was writing their actions and body language so if you could demonstrate how to improve that it would really appreciated. Thanks!
@Magnatolia - I guess I picked on the "coldly" and "silently" (and they're in pretty close succession - just one line apart). I felt that "silently" wasn't really necessary, nor was "a few seconds". Actually, looking at it now, if the guy had "handed over" the book, then there's no need for the girl to rip it out of his hands. Hmm. And I guess I felt that there're other ways of saying "smiled coldly" - "a cold smile" for me is more effective, even though it means the same thing. I guess personally, I'd prefer something like: "Hey." Her smile was strained, her eyes cold as she studied me. "How're you doing?" "Good. Yourself?" "Fine." Silence fell like ice between us. "So you have it?" she asked. I held out the ringbound book and she took it. Too quickly. Her smile faltered as she realised in the same instance. The facade suddenly gone, she spun and marched out of the room, the sound of her heels sharp against the cold, tiled floor. I dunno, that's how I'd write it myself lol. Above, where I wrote "too quickly", I realised that I could have written "and she snatched it out of my hands" - and I think that'd be fine too probably. But I'm going for "Too quickly" because that's more an observation - she didn't really snatch, esp as I wrote this in first person rather than third. It allows me to put more emphasis on the speed by fragmenting "Too quickly" into its own sentence. If I'd used "snatched", then what I wrote afterwards wouldn't make any sense anymore, so I wanted to convey she simply took it a little quicker than she ought to have if she were actually calm. Hence my choice on using an adverb rather than a stronger verb for "took". My line "Silence fell like ice between them" could be played with - there's a million ways of conveying this particular one. But hey, I'm only spending about 10min on this so... Either way, I feel there're many ways you could've done it that would still be a lot stronger than "She stared at him silently for a few seconds." If you'd chosen a POV character, then I'd say delve into the POV character's emotion at that precise moment. In general, I feel the original sentence was weak. "A few seconds" is vague and therefore lacks power, and the silence is implied without the need for the adverb. So we're left with "She stared at him", which itself is fairly standard. But this is a moment of tension, so something stronger would be better. For myself, I chose to separate it out into a new paragraph, make the reader take a longer, deeper pause to feel the silence.
A lot of good comments here, and as suggested, there is no one way to solve the problem. I think @JayG hinted at a good question to ask yourself, which is, "Why am I having this problem?" In other words, is finding other words or expressions really the problem, or is it what you are trying to say? In cases like these, I think it's a good practice to isolate each incident, as @jannert suggested, and to take a hard look at it on it's own and in context. Is it just the phrase that's the problem, or is it what you're trying to convey? Or did a problematic (probably "telling") structure of the section as a whole force you into a limited corner of phrases? Try turning the entire sentence into a sort of kernel sentence, very plain, very simple conveying only the basic of idea. Then, determine whether the information is necessary or could be put to better use in another place or could be said differently, negating the use of certain phrases. As Jay said, thinking about what is trying to be said, and how and why, will help writers avoid the trap of writing prosaically. Also, keep what @Cogito said in mind. Does the expression make logical sense? If it does, it could still be silly or simply draw attention to itself. I always notice (and hate) such expressions as "her eyes darted..." or "his lips curled into a grin." These types of expressions, while not inherently wrong, imply involuntary action done by arbitrary body parts. Unless the subject has no control over their body at the time, I prefer not to see these expressions. Their style is sort of trite, in my opinion. So, summary: Look at incidents individually Look at them as isolated expressions and in context Reduce sentences to core elements and determine what, why, how, and where. Make your changes.
@Mckk, thanks for that. I was always under the impression that you had to try and use fewer words which is why I wrote what I wrote. I like what you've suggested though, and will try to incorporate it. Thanks!
By now my plot has changed, so my character has no need to hiss anything, but I cannot help feeling, especially after this discussion, that it was the right word in that context. Like Magnatolia said, words need punch and there also needs to be a rhythm to the sentences. With me, on second and third reading I often delete and rewrite to tighten the prose, but one time when I deleted too much to get within a required word count for a creative writing assignment, the sentences lost that rhythm.
This is why editing and revising is more than cutting and refitting. We must look at what is trying to be conveyed and think of how to say it better. Cutting is the starting point. Next comes restructuring, and rewriting. Balance and rhythm should be maintained, so once certain information is cut, rewrites will probably be in order to create new rhythm.
My writing history is of writing patchwork instructions. Before you roll your eyes and snigger, the pieces are like those in puzzles, they have to fit together, the cutting and sewing has to be in a certain sequence for it to work, so it is quite technical and I was pretty good at it. I taught patchwork as well and knew how to write it so women of all skills and experience could follow the instructions and end up with something they loved. The writing had to be both precise as well as written in a friendly style. The quilter should be able to look at a picture of the project, scan the instructions and feel that, yes, I can do that. I really enjoyed doing that for many years. Writing fiction is a big change, but like Andrae posted, the essence remains the same: telling a story that communicates exactly what you want to say in a style the reader likes. Also, when we ask a question, like I did with the 'hissing', the forum doesn't see the context nor how the word fits into the rhythm and the style of the story. I found this a great discussion. Thanks everyone. Hetty
Is it possible, though, that it might have trained you in the habit of the wrong kind of precision? For example, you might write a long, detailed description of a character, but what you really want to communicate is that she is beautiful in a bright, warm, light-filled, but somehow frightening way. A lot of precise descriptions of hair color and cheekbones won't get you there, while less precise words that inspire the readers to produce their own mental pictures--perhaps a different mental picture for every reader--might. It may not matter whether they see her hair as long or short, blond or bright-brown, her eyes as blue or brown or grey, as long as they get the mood.
No, it didn't affect me like that at all. It's more that I feel too many words can confuse the issue and whatever I write, has to matter. I am not keen on long descriptions because I usually find them boring to read and often just scan over them to get to the better bits. Of course, sometimes I have to go back, because I missed something important. So I don't want to write too many, although I may write them as a background for my own use. But I may let my character describe something, when he or she reacts to it. I might do a great job describing a beautiful sunset, but there is no point unless that sunset means something meaningful to the plot or to one of the characters and is not just something to get the word count up or show off. My interest is in the psychology of people and the how and why of their behaviours, thoughts and emotions. I like dialogue and for me the personality of the characters, how they interact with the different people they meet and with the events of the plot, is a lot more interesting than the colour of their hair or eyes. I've always been interested in an read a lot about psychology and at this stage of my life, I have a lot of life and people experiences as well and it is fun to play with that! But hey, as I said, it is my first attempt.
So long as you stick to this throughout the book. You can't leave it to the readers imagination then later tell them about the short brown hair if they've pictured the character with long hair.
Or, another idea might be to not describe it at all. If she's a warm, beautiful person with a frightening edge, why not have the story tell us that? Show us these things through her actions and choices in the story. That said, a little physical description of her is fine I think. Especially if her appearance somehow reflects her personality in someway.
omg this gets dense. this forum is so smart sometimes. Those little "adds". I used to call them (those phrases that tend to repeat too often) "adds". When I was younger, I typed the: "she grinned at him" and "he smiled at her" and so forth. That's what I get for reading too many trashy teen romance novels. Just nix them. Instead of trying to explain a response or a reaction, skip that part and let the reader discover what character the writer has just by how the story lives up to its premise. And as a writer myself, I have to say I don't rely on a favorite phrase anymore. Reading things aloud also helps when you're trying to cut down the added "adds".
This is very true and probably accurate in a lot of cases, however the 'adds' are good if they're done in moderation and have a particular purpose. "Where have you been?" she purred vs "Where have you been?" Obviously I'm exaggerating with the purr. But I think the other way to show this is to use filler. The writer could describe the detail between them so that the reader knows she likes him. But if they do this constantly it becomes too wordy. Like I said use in moderation. In my example you could say 'She peered out from behind the wall. There he was. Her heart stopped for a second then began pounding in her chest. That could effectively cut a lot of the 'adds'.
@Magnatolia - I'd argue what you wrote as an example of "adds" (eg. unnecessary detail that shows nothing) isn't really an example of such. Everything you wrote shows something - she did something (peer out from behind the wall) and she felt something (heart pounding, indicating excitement or nervousness). That's a far cry from the examples of "She smiled" or "He glanced at her", which shows far less. What you've written is actually the kind of detail that's necessary.
