In my WIP I have multiple instances where a character is asking another one a question or saying some small sentence to someone, but instead of writing it out like: "What's the time?" he asked. "Five o'clock," she replied. I format it like: He asked her for the time. "Five o'clock," she replied. I've seen this in other works like To Kill A Mockingbird, but I'm really not sure, even after seeing it used then, if it's a good way to do it. Which way is the preferred way? Is this acceptable?
That's totally fine. It's essentially narrative summary, though it's about the same amount of words, so it really doesn't summarize anything.
Perfectly fine. Just be aware that variety works best. If you repeat any formation too often, it can become annoying and call too much attention to itself. Repetition can be good, however, if there's a reason the 'he' character is never directly quoted AND you want the reader to notice this. Always keep in mind the effect of what you're doing. Any effect—even annoyance—is fine, as long as you intend it.
Both examples can work, but if you're getting too dialog heavy, I would consider switching it up. It's something I tend to do. I used to write real dialog heavy stuff, not even realizing it was a problem. But it was. Personally, I would go with the second example. I've learned to be more selective about what I actually make dialog and what I summarize. I think it's made quite the difference.
Just to put a spanner in the works, it would become a little distracting for me. With a first-person narrative it would be fine (I asked her the time rather than "What time is it?" I asked), but in third-person I would very quickly begin to wonder why you weren't allowing us to 'hear' the other character.
I also feel these summaries are useful. Probably sprinkling them evenly throughout the novel is best, so the reader doesn't feel jarred, or suspicious. Haven't used many myself. Perhaps five, in my 82,000 WIP. Freshness is always best, and allowing the reader to hear things in the same way as the MC. They're ideally used, as others said, to avoid being dull. Or to make sense of things like who knows what. For instance: I'd come through this window the last time I broke in. I told Austin. "I landed in the larder, " I said. (I wouldn't be able to dash on with the story in any other way. Austin needs to know where the window leads to, so they can decide if they'll use it. But there's no time to explain.)
I'd probably do it in this manner: -- I'd come in through this window the last time I broke in. I told Austin as much, adding, "I landed in the larder." -- But that's just me, idk how 'correct' that is or what rule makes it so.
Isn't that the opposite of what the modern school of writing says? That, for example, the writer shouldn't vary but stick to "said" as much as possible because it becomes invisible that way? If you vary between "uttered", "said", "voiced", "spoke" etc. it draws attention to your writing in a bad way. My guess is the effect would be the same if the writer mixes it in the two ways the O.P. exemplifies. My advice is to pick a way to indicate dialogue and stick to it.
Basically, you are simply leading into dialogue with a tell. It's perfectly fine, and let's be frank about it, the line: "What's the time," is not going to be rocket science in the show category, so just telling us that he asked the time is just as colorful. On the other hand, this isn't what we usually refer to when we speak of unspoken dialogue. Generally that's some kind of action that replaces dialogue, but you are right insofar as it can also be this. Joe looked at his watch then tapped on it and frowned. "Five o'clock," she said.
This is usually called indirect dialog. It's dialog that is presented in summation. It's a powerful technique, I think.
Possibly that's why I don't enjoy a lot of modern writing. She said, he said, Jane said, Max said, I said, is SO repetitive it DOES attract attention if it's used too often, without anything to soften it. It's also pretty colourless and dull. But if you write lots of dialogue and don't use an attribution every third or fourth change of speaker, your reader is very likely to lose track of who is saying what. So it's either said said said, or you employ some other tricks. 'Said' is a useful word, but it does nothing for the story but tag the speaker. There are more interesting ways to do that. 'Said' is useful, but I don't think it should become a mantra either. Don't be afraid to mix it up a bit. And beware of 'schools' of writing that try to limit you or give you a 'formula' for writing that takes away your tools. A good school should show you how and when to use every tool in the box. All speech attributes have their uses—and using a variety of them is usually the most effective way to employ them, in my opinion. One of my favourite speech attribution tricks, for example, is the meaningful action beat. (As opposed to the ones that are kind of silly if they don't do something for the story ...he scratched his head, he took a drink, he lit a cigarette, etc.) A good action beat not only attributes the speaker, but gives the reader some notion of what else is going on besides just talking heads. And because action beats illuminate what's going on as well as who is talking, they truly are invisible, because the reader stays firmly in the story world. Clarity is important—but it doesn't necessarily equal brevity.
