Your opinion gave birth to a lively and multifaceted discussion directly related to writing. This is what I call a successful thread.
I appreciate how well said and thought out this was. The only thing I don't agree with quite as well is making the animal sounds off-limits. (for writing in general, not yours.) While they should be used rarely (only a handful of times in a book, I'd think,) they could be a way to use that animal as a metaphor for that person. Like how in Of Mice and Men Lenny is decided as having "paws" making him akin to a bear. If Lenny were to growl, or some other animal tag, I think it could work in that case.
Thank you. Glad I could help. Personally, I don't like them because they make me linger too long on them. I mean, I tend to pick up the simile right away, I see the authors intent in conveying that a character is overall uncouth, unpleasant, or generally unsavory. But in most cases, the pacing of the text itself makes the tone clear to me, and the reinforcement is extra. That is an extra fraction on of a second (sometimes more) where I'm thinking about this character, and usually forming a cartoonish image of them. I'd rather read something transparent that I don't even notice. As a reader it's like this. You have purposely called my attention to something. Why? Is it important? Am I supposed to pick up on something more? If it just a matter of how someone said something, it's not that important, the context will sort itself out. So as a writer, as I write for my modern audience, I consider how often little things like that might stop them or break the flow. When I think about a good movie, the editing is seamless. They can't possibly film a continuous series of events. They have to rely on cutaways and changing camera angles. I know this is what's happening, but I don't notice them. There are conventions for creating certain effects that people expect, and if a filmmaker is going to step out of convention, they have to understand why it's in place in addition to why and how they're going to step out of it to do something that viewers will notice. For instance, choosing to fade out of a scene instead of jumping right into the next one. Used well, this slow transition gives viewers the chance to ruminate on something significant that just happened, like a particularly dramatic bit of dialogue, the death of a key character or something that can totally be amplified by slowing down to let the viewers come to grips with something. I'm not here trying to convince you to drop these tags. All writers have their own tastes, and certain tags won't make or break your works. I personally feel like they tend to be overused in beginner writing, and as one gains more skill, they become less necessary and less effective. Everyone reads differently, so word choice is always important to me. I've come to realize that what I had intended with a word like "growled" can be interpreted very differently. And if readers just read them like said, it's a waste of energy to find "the right word." It's a game of timing.
I'm sure this was a discussion on here about 5 years ago. You can create bad examples of any said/not/other. And because I'm lazy, I'll copy & paste what I wrote 5 years ago. “You see those men over there,” Alice said, pointing to three armed uniformed men, “They’ll kill us if we’re found.” “Shouldn’t you be whispering then,” Wendy said. “How about you,” Alice said, “We’re hiding in bushes and you’re speaking as if we’re across a room.” “Yes well, we’re not supposed to say anything other than said,” Wendy said, “It’s the law.” “So no whispering,” Alice said. “Only said,” Wendy said, nodding her head. ‘Bang bang bang,’ said the guns. “I think the girls said too much,” one man said to the others. The girls would say no more.
I actually did the opposite and I'll say why. (I may have missed it before, but this is a big thread) The psychology of it is this, as far as I read. Using other tags distracts the reading and breaks up a certain flow. After reading so many books, the tags become interpreted by the brain more like punctuation that text. I tend to use "said", "asked", "yelled" or "whispered" as needed. The yelling sometimes I ommit and use an exclamation point, but sometimes I will use the adverb. Oh that dreaded adverb. "Suck in that gut, recruit." on its own would make most think of yelling, so it wouldnt be needed, right? "Suck in that gut, recruit," the DI whispered in a creepy tone. Is a different animal. Yes, instructors can shout, but if you've been through basic, then you know the quiet instructors are the more terrifying one. Anyways, back to said. As long as the dialogue isn't in short sentences "Report!" the captain said. "Torpedoes and plasma cannons armed, sir," the tactical officer said. "You!" the captain said. "Yes?" the new ensign said. "Yes?" the captain said. "Uhm, yes, sir?" the ensigned asked. "Get off my bridge!" the captain said. "Aren't you a bit harsh on him?" the XO said. "Are you captain?" the captain said. "Sorry, sir." the XO said. That is awkward for many reasons other than just said. So how I would write that because of the quickness of it is as follows: "Report!" the captain said. "Torpedoes and plasma cannons armed, sir," the tactical officer answered. "You!" the captain said. "Yes?" the new ensign asked. "Yes?" "Uhm, yes sir?" "Get off my bridge!" "Aren't you a bit harsh on him?" the XO asked. "Are you captain?" the captain sat in his chair. "Sorry, sir." Or something along those lines. In longer paragraph dialogue I see it perfectly fine to use said, because its not over and over if separated by fifty words. Then there's also what publishers want, and they frown at the oddest things. But I can also respect sticking to your guns. As far as amateurish, when I read Heinlein's Starship Troopers it felt so at the beginning until I realize it created an effect, of a memoir, first person narrative. Either way, this is very informative and prompts me to do a self check. AB
As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, my issue with this example is you have already read the dialog before the modifier, and you have to replay the beat to get the impact. IMO it's more effective to rewrite it as follows: The DI whispered in a creepy tone, "Suck in that gut, recruit." This way you set up the "voice" of the character before you read their words.
yes and no. I see your point and makes perfect sense, but there are two things that I have issue/question with. 1 It breaks apart a certain structure when dialogues come first followed by tag and narration. 2 It surprises the reader. Text has pros and cons so the only way to get that is by lulling the reader into an expected situation, much like a recruit would expect yelling from an instructor, only to be shocked (and subsequently wet his pants) when the creepy whispers comes out. It a recruit was allowed to move, he'd do a double take. Maybe it's me, but that was my intention for a double take, but perhaps I should have given another example. I tend to write off the cuff a lot, and even that one line, an entire plot formed, personality for the instructor, the recruit etc. So i sometimes can get way ahead of myself and fall victim to forgetting to write things because they are clear in my head. AB
I don't think it's a "good" surprise when you force the reader to go back and re-read something, like most of them would have to do to read it in the 'new' voice. It interrupts the flow of their reading and it's irritating.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I see more than one word at a time. If someone writes a line of dialogue, followed by the tag "whispered," I'm basically seeing that all at once and reading the dialogue as a whisper even though the tag comes after it.
"Suck in your gut, recruit" I've read and 'seen' in my head before I read he whispered. Something like: "Oh no," she whispered. "I think he's coming." sure.
Yep. Nearly all of us do. This is, at least in part, why those silly posts on facebook where one is shown garbled words like "Cna Yuo Raed Tihs?" are legible to most people. The eye, and thus the mind, does see more than one word at a time and expected trains of syntax are detected which allow the reader to decipher mistakes and also to correctly pronounce homographs without having to go back and reread. "The lead in my pencil is broken, can you lend me yours?" "She got the lead in the play. I'm so jealous." Just as an aside, this is why I think it's ridiculous to hold on to the accent marks in résumé. There's just no need to keep catering to this orthographic deference to Gallicisms. This is also why dangling participles are so disconcerting to the reader. Though we do read more than one word at a time, we don't read whole paragraphs and there is a limit to how far in advance of the "word of focus" one is already cognizant of.
I had not considered that using said could fall on the the showing side of show-don't-tell. This is an an interestingly phrased point. While I've never heard it as a hard and fast rule, I, too, avoid using unadorned said. My novel is in first-person and there's lots of dialogue, so I usually have a small clause of action/voice description each time a character speaks. Thinking of said as a verb in its own right, rather than just the alternative to asked as I was taught in grade school, gives it a lot more weight. I wonder if that is the root of anti-said writing: I was taught that if a sentence ended in a period (well, okay, a comma since its dialogue), you used said as the tag, while asked went with questions. And that was pretty much it! Granted I was about eight, but those lessons stick with you! There are other options out there, obviously, but that doesn't mean one must abandon said altogether.
I typically stick with said, asked, replied, continued, and added for purposes of flow, and I'll occasionally use something like whispered or snapped when called for (though it's very rare). Sometimes I'll use an adverb if absolutely necessary, but I try to avoid them (mostly because I don't care for adverbs around said, not so much because of any rule). I agree with the masses here. Let your dialog stand on its own--context should render these fancy tags repetitive--and only rely on them if context can't be made to work by itself. It does happen. It's not the end of the world to use an odd tag or an adverb. But I'd recommend not making a habit of it. Hell, it's often not even necessary to use a tag at all. Beats are great, as are unattributed lines. Everything in moderation, so they say.
I was thinking...I was doing one of the things new writers are warned about here. Defending a mistake. That is a very good example of an error. It could fit, to break rhythm, or to force a double etc, but the point was to give an example of tags as punctuation where that example was very poor as it was anything but. A drill instructor whispering is not just a simple tag. It becomes something very relevant to the picture and the scene. I'd think of a better example, but I have some bad writer's block. Two days until surgery, so I can't focus. But, it seems that a different lesson was shown to me. Defending my construction as being "surprising" or whatever else I said was a very good way for me to notice it on my own, without actual work being in focus (you know, to really let ego run rampant.) This is the second thread where I learned something that came from left field. AB
Ladies and gentlemen, clean-up is underway. Let's put in a bit more effort to ensure a civil and productive atmosphere in the future. I just got done sharpening my kukri, but even so, let's keep the number of rolling heads to a minimum.
Why kill the poor said, if it works for you and you craft a good story with it the let it breath. If you don't like, then don't use it. First they came for the said, then they came for the comma splice, then they came for runaway, they they came for wordiness.
I have not read any of this thread because I am lazy. My opinion: any "said" or equivalent should be the last resort. There are so many means by which you can describe an action in a dynamic scene and link it to a character. If you cannot do this, then your scene is frankly too passive= dull= reader has put the book down. "I'm fine." He flashed YYY a maniacal grin. YYY flinched. "You saw that didn't you?" Where is the need for said? "said" should rarely be a requirement.
Ok which is better "Because too many beats slow the pace and become intrusive, just as too many saids do." she said obtusely, feeling inappropriately clever. She skipped away. Or: "Because too many beats slow the pace and become intrusive, just as too many saids do." She skipped away feeling rather clever.
I don't think you can really get an idea of pacing and beats from a one line example. I agree with Tenderiser - if you have a beat for every line of dialogue, you're going to end up with a hell of a lot of intrusive beats. It's also difficult if you have more than two people speaking and therefore can't leave tags off most lines. I think (based on trying to write the example below) that using beats can also drag a scene off-course, because by trying to make the beats meaningful, I ended up injecting a lot more anger into the scene than I originally intended. I just couldn't put that many beats in without at least TRYING to give the beats a purpose. Try: "I'm confused." Tom scratched his head. Rachel frowned at him. "Confused about what?" "It shouldn't be that hard to figure out, should it?" Scott stepped right into Rachel's space. Rachel stepped away and peered around Scott toward Tom. "What are you confused about?" Tom looked woebegone. "All of it." "Writing isn't easy." Scott's voice was patronizingly kind. "But there are things we can do to make it easier." "Why are you always butting into my conversations?" Rachel refused to look at Scott. Scott stared right at her. "If it's a private conversation, go somewhere private." etc. The beats are a bit much, to my taste. A good "said" never hurt anybody!
A fairer comparison: "Let me just assign a smugness to your post that wasn't there," he said. "Let me just assign a smugness to your post that wasn't there." He clicked 'post reply', feeling inappropriately clever.
It was a wind up, hence I put all the bad traits in Tenderiser's version. Beats is interesting though. Yes, that sounds stroppy to me.
