Yes, that's the key. I do think, however, based on what is out there in the marketplace, that writers think about this stuff and recognize "errors" far more than the average reader ever does. From an academic standpoint, it's odd, isn't it, that I can say all the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players, and other writers will identify my meaning, but if I say that someone smiles a bit of dialogue, those same writers won't form the intended image in their minds?
I see a few people answered before I saw this. IMO "hissed" can be a tag or a beat. You can hiss out words (whereas you can't smile out words) and you can also speak and hiss as a separate sound (like you can speak and smile as separate things).
True, you don't really smile words. But then, the world isn't really a stage, and people's eyes aren't really flint, and old women aren't really towers of Pisa, experiences aren't garments that cling to a person, and fog doesn't really have cat's feet. So why allow the latter and not the former, except for what @ChickenFreak mentioned about people (primarily other writers) perceiving one thing as an error and the other as not an error?
A simile or metaphor is used to convey a particular meaning. If "x smiled" is used to convey a particular meaning (e.g. that a person smiles while saying something, which changes the character of the words), why does it have to be a similar or metaphor? I could point out using a longer phrase exactly what I mean, but if the short phrase actually conveys the right message to the reader it is more economical. I'd be interested to know how many readers, who aren't themselves writers, trip over this kind of language. I see it enough in commercial fiction that I think it can't be a large percentage.
"We do not talk about those people, you must learn the rules, the first rule of Bench Club is you don't talk about Bench Club," Tenderiser spliced.
@OurJud - You could say it lots of different ways. "Come on. Just flip it," I repeated. (Especially if it's not clear that this line has been said before, or was far enough back in the dialogue passage to have been forgotten by the reader. By choosing 'repeated' or a similar word, you're emphasising to the reader that this is not the first time this statement has been uttered.) "Come on. Just flip it," I said again, trying to keep a stranglehold on my patience. I refused to let him off the hook. "Come on," I demanded. "Do what I said. Just flip it." It's important to realise that just using 'said' as a dialogue tag, and refusing to try anything else makes for dull reading. You don't want to go over the top with exploding, snorting, fuming, or whatever other inappropriately dramatic tag comes to mind. However, it's important to vary your word choices enough so the repetition of the same one doesn't call attention to itself. He said, she said, I said, they said, said said said said ...that does call attention to itself. And while doing so, adds nothing to the passage except clarity as to who is speaking. You can achieve that clarity in many other ways, and add to the meaning of the story as well. Variety is a good thing to work for in writing. You don't intentionally repeat other pet words, except for emphasis, do you? So why does 'said,' seem to get a pass? Dunno. I always notice it when it's used to the exclusion of anything else. Mostly because it leaves a hole in the visualisation of the story. It adds nothing. You might as well be colour-coding the speakers. I'm of two minds about 'persisted' in that context. I think I'd need to see the surrounding dialogue and the scene. There is something that feels awkward to me about it, but I'm not sure what it is.
Just to take up the other side of the debate, when a tag is needed, I'm firmly of the opinion that 'said' is usually the right tag--I believe that it is the mostly-invisible tag. If there are enough 'saids' to seem repetitive, my own solution is never to find different words, but to figure out how to eliminate the excess tags.
