Is said dead or is everything else?

I'm the same way. Maybe it's just my pattern-recognizing superpower (yeah let's call it that) but I notice when 'said' is being repeated a lot and it annoys me. Just a few times and it remains invisible, but I don't buy into it being totally invisible. Same way with words like 'and' though - I just notice repetition.

Kids are smart. I don't think that by about 10 you need significantly different rules for them, especially for something as basic as dialog.

 

This is my point. If it shows up too often it become obvious like any pet word would, mostly because it's an action to me and there are alternatives, otherwise it's just...repeating the same action, the same way, every time? I don't know if that makes sense outside of mind.

 

Thanks izzybot, that was my view, but nice to have a second opinion.

 

If a writer needed to look up a thesaurus to get the word "sighed" or "muttered", I don't think dialogue tags are that writer's main problem. The editor also assumes the only reason anyone would use tags is to show off one's vocab - and anyway, any writer who thinks showing off their range of vocab is "good writing", again, probably has bigger problems to their writing than the use of tags!

No, using "chuckled" or "screamed" does not make the reader pause and think about the tag. It is not, "Look at me clever author, I know a word!" (you're a writer - you should damn well know a lot of words)

What I call people like this editor is "narrow-minded". And the creative arts have no space for narrow-mindedness.

We all know which words are common and which are flashy and downright weird - no one actually uses "ejaculated" as a tag, unless they're really bad writers. But using words like "muttered" or "sighed" is not flashy - I mean, c'mon. Maybe it's more colourful than "said", but it is not flashy. If one would be distracted this easily by words such as "sigh", then one probably does not read very often. How the hell could you possibly be an avid reader if a word as simple and common as "sighed" could take you out of the story!? (unless it was used inappropriately - I am assuming there's nothing logically or grammatically wrong with the usage of the tags in question)

Use your common sense. Tags have clearly been used in published works. Plain dialogue without tags have also clearly been used in published works. If an agent turns you down purely because of your dialogue tags, you probably don't wanna work with them - that, or your writing probably needs more work than figuring out the tags. No agent in their right minds is gonna reject your work because you chose to use a variety of appropriate dialogue tags instead of "said" if your actual story and writing quality is good/marketable.

 

I'm curious as to how many novels you've read, and of what type. To some extent, this is purely convention--said is a utility word because said is a utility word. If someon long ago had chosen "vocalized" instead, then that would be the invisible utility word.

But to see it as such, you'd need to have read lots of fiction where it's used as such. So I wonder about how many novels and of what type.

 

"Chuckled" and "screamed" are quite likely to distract and annoy me. That's not "think about" in the sense of, "Chuckled? What could that possibly mean? Perhaps it's Indonesian?" but it is in the sense of, "Oh, for heaven's sake, just write the dialogue and stop pinning decorations all over it."

And the statement about an agent seems somewhat contradictory. What if the agent doesn't think that the dialog tags ARE appropriate? If they don't, then they probably don't think that the writing is good. I do think that dialog tags could absolutely get your work rejected.

Edited to clarify: By which I don't mean the presence of dialog tags, but the presence of exotic ones. To me, "said" and "asked" are reliably non-exotic. Most others are risky.

 

Writing "rules" are extremely confusing to me. Some people say, "This is a rule, don't veer off!" while others say, "Phsaw, writing is an art, there are no rules--only guidelines."

Newbies tend to use adverbs a lot in dialogue tags. They also tend to use "he growled/hissed/barked." Professional editors quickly begin to hate those because they start to associate them with poor writing, so much so that any of it in an otherwise great work becomes glaringly obvious. Those editors then teach the new editors that adverbs and "he growled" are unacceptable in dialogue tags, so the new editors automatically start to dislike seeing those when before they'd enjoy them. Thus, the "rules" become rules if a writer wants their book published, despite the fact that most readers couldn't care less as long as the story is good otherwise and the tags aren't placed oddly.

That's my two cents based on my experience of being a new writer.

P.S. Head-hopping is never cool! I've read many books with head-hopping, and it always ruins the mood or tension of the scene. I've thought so many times, "Wow, that would've been so much more fun if I only knew that person's POV . . . "
. . . I guess that makes it my three cents . . .

 

I think a potential problem with some tags is that they do not relate to speech. To sigh is to emit a long, deep, slow breath, to show tiredness, relief, sadness or similar. The word has a specific meaning.

'There isn't any point,' he sighed. (My brain says you can't sigh a word).

'There isn't any point.' He sighed and rested his forehead in an open palm. (Now I can start to see him, and I know what a sigh can mean, so I can perhaps start to hear his words, how they were spoken).

 

Thanks for all your replies! I love hearing so many different opinions with their arguments and the discussions they generate.
I have the tendency to add really long pieces to dialogue. From what I'm gathering, most of you would not advice me to do this. I'll have to work on that. It's barely a choice, more of an impulse.

“Okay,” he replied. “I’ll see you here then.” His voice was icy and dismissive.

I know there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it, but I noticed it makes reading it take more effort.

 

Agreed with you and @Samuel Lighton. Said is invisible UNTIL it's overused. Then it's just as jarring as fiction riddled with semi-colons or adverbs.

You're correct, but the real problem is that "he sighed" isn't a tag: it's a beat. Many writers use sighed, laughed, giggled etc as tags, but they aren't.

 

I would consider them tags, given that you can talk through a sigh or laugh. They're both ways of speaking and actions. To me "That's ridiculous." He laughed means he spoke and then laughed, while "That's ridiculous," he laughed means that he laughed as he was speaking, which describes how the speech came out.

 

I know some people think that, but in my view it's simply incorrect. I believe most editors in publishing houses take the same view, so those aiming for traditional publishing should get in the habit of using tags/beats correctly.

For the rest, full steam ahead

 

If it are dead I will bring it back to life. I am a level one Necromancer, don't ya know.

 

Dude you're The Necromancer. It should be your little tagline thingy under your avatar.

 

But, but...I am not done pretending to be a sexy dentist yet.
At next avatar change I will go full Necromancer ok?

 

Please spare my molars! Won't anyone think of my molars?!

 

Oh my, you must be up for an exam you didn't study for. It's ok because it will be all drills.

 

You can cut out the figure to the left.

 

^ That should be used as an image prompt for an erotic short story contest.

 

H.P. Lovecraft meets Connie Mason?

 

But which bone would he use?

I think I should stay away from that particular contest, cause shit would get weird quickly.

 

"Chuckled" and "screamed" are hardly exotic. I think this is now delving into the territory of style and preferences. I think whether words like that jump out at you will depend on the style the writing is written in in the first place. From someone like Henning Mankell, whose style is very, very minimalist, those words would be jarring, because it breaks the style and tone he has going. (Or the one book I read of Lawrence Block - there was hardly even the presence of "said" - most of the time there honestly were no tags at all) But the same words in say, Brandon Sanderson's work, I just gloss right over it. Both are highly successful authors, though writing for completely different age groups and genre.

I think even if the agent thinks dialogue tags are never appropriate, if that's seriously the only issue with your manuscript, chances are she'll ask you to edit them out. What sane agent would turn you down if it's a marketable manuscript that's gonna get her money?

I wouldn't call dialogue tags "decorations" as you have - it's a choice of words, like any other. You happen to dislike the way things are described. We all "decorate" - we're writing fiction, not essays, and some will be more flowery than others, and flowery isn't automatically bad. (it is less trendy, but that doesn't make it bad, although of course trends and what is regarded as "good writing" do overlap - I was reading Ursula le Guin's Earthsea and found 80-90% of it to be descriptions and world settings and I knew without a doubt this would be considered "bad" if it were a new book today. Dune was another one - I trust LOTR would likely fall into this category too)

I think the sooner folks realised it's more a matter of style and not "right or wrong" regarding dialogue tags, the clearer the issue will be. The discussion of when does a piece of writing go from "poetic" to "purple prose" is far more interesting, but far harder to discuss and even harder to come away with any useful conclusions (not least because there's a spectrum of personal preference always in the mix), and I think that's why people focus on dialogue tags. They're easy scapegoats and make for easy discussions, there's a black and a white (presence of tags or their absence) - but when something is this easy, it is often not the real issue to begin with.

 

In my opinion, tags provide writers with a tool that filmmakers don't need. Why? Because in a film you can SEE who is speaking and hear how they are speaking. You watch what they are doing between sentences, so you know what's going on. Writers have to insert these stage directions somehow, or the dialogue passages are just statements with no life or context to them. Sometimes it's not even clear who is making the statements.

I think it's naieve to say you should never need any dialogue tags, if you write prose fiction. Not only would no dialogue tags or beats make a passage gallop along—which may not be the pace you need in that particular part of your story—but it's very possible that your reader will get mixed up as to who is saying what. Imagine writing a scene with four or five speakers taking part, and never using a dialogue tag. Or an extended conversation between two people where eventually the reader loses track of who says what, and has to start numbering the speeches 1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2. Refusing, on principle, to ever use dialogue tags is sacrificing your story's clarity for a principle that really isn't worth clinging to.

Good writers work their stage management so it doesn't call attention to itself. That means varying your tags—use 'said' as well as other words, as appropriate—varying where the tags appear (at the start of a speech, in the middle of the speech, at the end of the speech) and also interspersing action beats to replace the tags. Action beats make what the speakers are doing or reacting to come alive for the reader.

Just using 'said,' or always putting the tag at the end of the speech, or any other repetitive pattern will eventually call attention to itself. Keep in mind what the tags are for—to replace what a reader can't see or hear—and you can't go too far wrong.

 

Yes. You've pinpointed an issue that plagues lots of inexperienced writers—using a dialogue tag that doesn't describe how a person actually speaks. A person can shout a word or mutter a word or whisper a word, but they can't sigh or smile or frown a word. If you want your speakers sighing, smiling or frowning, you need to make an action tag for that speech that comes before or after the speech itself, as you've illustrated. Good point.

 

Hmmm, I disagree. For example, my character could start to sigh, and while sighing utter a few words of frustration during it. He's still talking through his sigh, but the fact that he's sighing is enough to describe how their voice is coming out. See, I would write:
"Hello," he sighed - to show he's not particularly happy during his speech.
"Hello," he said, letting out a sigh - to show he said hello normally, and then sighed.

Try it yourself, let out a sigh and talk while doing it. It sounds different to normal speech, enough to warrant it being described when written.