You had me worried for a moment lol This is a great discussion. Tomorrow, I'm going to look at my ms and see how many times I used something other than said and how necessary that use is.
It's no problem at all, you have nothing to feel bad about, really--I wasn't offended. But, since you showed me your personal style, I guess I'll show you how I would write this little piece: "I just don't believe Beth would hide anything from us," Joe said, sighing. "She seemed like such a good person." "Oh yeah?" Bob said, cocking his right eyebrow. "She always struck me as a little...curious." "Well, I won't believe anything until I see some proof that she killed him." "Can you come with me, then?" Not much different, but it's always fun to see how two different writers go about writing a piece.
Excellent point here. There are many ways to construct things. What is important is to tailor a well-balanced, easily readable (for the age/difficulty level) piece of writing. It's great that there are so many options, although I guess it's fair to say some work better than others. It all depends on how you use them. This is a great and very insightful discussion!
Yeah, this is a fun one. I wish we had these threads more often, especially when they don't turn into flame fests. It's nice to have civil conversations.
Oh good, I was worried for a minute! But I like this. Not much difference, as you said. Had I read it in a book somewhere, then seen it here I wouldn't have noticed the difference. Both work for me, but I guess it all comes down to how readers interpret the words and their meanings. All we can do is try our best to be specific enough to make our point as we see it, and general as said to let the readers' minds fill in the meaning.
I think this exchange of dialogue works well, just as it is. Interspersing tagged action, as you've done with the first two spoken quotes, is effective, because it helps to set the scene as well as identify the speaker. The tone of voice Mark uses in the last quote doesn't really need 'scolded' or something like that, because it's plainly implied in the words and punctuation you've chosen. 'Said,' just slips past. Just do what works in any given spot. Even the dreaded '-ly' words are useful, at times. Just be aware of what you're doing, and why you're doing it. That way, bad habits don't creep in. But don't be afraid to ignore convention and 'rules,' whenever your situation calls for it. This really made me laugh, by the way, Minstrel!
"chimed" makes no sense there at all, in fact you cause the reader to stop and puzzle over why it was used. The same for most other tags apart from said--sometimes they are actually inappropriate, sometimes they come across as childish, or perhaps I should say, more suitable in fiction for younger readers, or "pulp fiction". Only use different tags for a really good reason, such as irony. "Adding variety" or "making things clearer" is not a good reason (I'm just giving two examples here of arguments people put forward, I'm not trying to quote anyone in particular). The dialogue itself, the context, the body language and actions, what we know about the character... all these nearly always suffice to help the reader realise how the words are being said.
I think it is a case of what fits. You don't want intrusive dialogue tags that add absolutely nothing to the description. At the same time however, I feel as though there ought to be some form of variation to prevent overuse of the word said. Whispered, shouted, asked are all fine in my opinion but words such as retorted and bellowed just seem a little over the top. I think it's subjective really, some people don't mind them whilst others will probably hate them.
Tom Clancy and Agatha Christie sold a lot of books, and they use non-said, non-asked attributives all over the place. With Clancy, it annoys me, but maybe that's because there are so many other problems in his writing. With Agatha, it's charming. Go figure. I use "said" mostly and "asked" occasionally, and I insert attributives when it's been too long since I identified the speaker. Too many lines of talking heads without a signifier might require the reader to reread the dialogue to count off who says which line. It bugs me when I have to do that. Having the characters address one another by name to avoid an attributive can be effective but probably only when they would really do that in real conversation. People tend to use a name to punctuate what they are saying or to add emphasis to the meaning being conveyed. "George! Put down the gun." Here's Sal Glynn's take on it. http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/attributives.aspx
there's nothing inherently wrong with using the alternatives you listed ['griped' et al.], as long as they're used only rarely in your ms and the 'invisible' recommended 'said' is the norm... the major problem arises when new writers use verbs that can't possibly relate to speech, such as 'laughed'...
The problem I find with non-said type tags is that writers either: 1. Use them too much, so it becomes not only distracting but farcical. 2. Try to be too creative and end up distracting the reader with words no one has used in a hundred years. 3. Try to be too creative and end up using words incorrectly/confusingly - such as the "chimed" versus "chimed in". Did the character sound like a clock or was she adding her two cents to the conversation (and no, it doesn't necessarily mean interrupting, either). 4. Use them because they're too lazy to show how the character is speaking. 5. Any combination of the above. I don't see any problem with using a non-said tag occasionally, but the point is to keep the 'mechanics' as invisible as possible.
That's what she said. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't get why people are so down on the humble 'he said, they said, she said' tags. It's not the extent vocabulary that impresses me, it's how you use it. I can think up a list of a good few variants on the word 'said', and the longer that list goes on the less I seem to care.
It's because teachers hammer in the notion that word repetition is bad, without qualification. Nobody worries about using "the" or "and" too often, unless it becomes completely ridiculous. The same situation applies to "said," but it just seems counter-intuitive that avoiding that repetition is worse than accepting it. In truth, omitting a tag entirely is a better solution most of the time, as long as you know when it really is necessary to inform the reader who the speaker is. Occasionally, a substitute tag works well. The problem arises when the writer feels compelled to substitute tags to avoid repetition. It's made even worse when the substitute tag isn't a speech verb. You can't grunt a sentence, or groan it, or unless it's parseltongue, hiss it. You can whisper it or shout it, but squealing a sentence is pushing credibility. Most of the time, the speech tag should quietly slip into the shadows and vanish, having identified the speaker. That way the focus remains on what is said, rather than how the character hams it up like Shatner.
There's nothing inherently wrong with using attributives besides said and asked. Hell, David Foster Wallace used words besides those two all the time, and he rocks rocked the literary world. I hate when writers say "never do this" or "never do that", because that's simply not the way writing (or any other artistic skill, such as painting,) works. Writing isn't like math or science, where all you need to do is follow a given set of steps in order to get to the right answer. It's much more complicated than that. Even the most respected rules, like "show, not tell", get broken all the time by so-called wonderful writers. Holes, by Louis Sachar, which has 2,664 positive reviews on Amazon, and which also won the prestigious Newbery Medal, directly states to the reader that one character is "stupid" and "obnoxious". If there's one rule for writing that I'll listen to 'till the day I die, it's "There are no writing rules, only writing suggestions."