"I won't go," said Tom.
"I won't go," Tom said.
Tom said seems to be much the more common.
Said Tom, though, gives a finality? a harder punch? to the sentence.
I skimmed through a few books randomly pulled from my bookshelf (so by no surprise all three are SF)--Hyperion by Dan Simmons, Flux by OCS, and Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. Simmons seemed to prefer the "said Tom" order, Card used both regularly, and Stephenson almost entirely used the "Tom said" order.
Therefore, I believe the order is a matter of style.
I found correlation, so I vote that it's a matter of style.
The question is..what feels right to you.
Pal...back from her hike and puttin in her two cents
I thought I read somewhere that 'said Tom' was bad, but I can't actually remember where or when I read that. To me it's not bad so maybe IF I actually read that it was just someone's opinion.
Are we in agreement that it can go both ways in a story, especially when the writer wants to emphasis what was said over who said it?
"said Tom." to my thinking is more formal and more traditional than "Tom said," which I perceive as more conventional and modern.
In the latter predicate/noun syntax, "said Tom," the attribution clause takes the form of an appositive clause, independent from the dialogue clause but providing vital information, who spoke. As such, it's an appropriate structure.
Conversely, it positions the noun as the object of the attribution clause rather than the subject. That's where the grammatical debate focuses. Is the speaker the object or the subject of the speaking action? Is the principal subject of the entire sentence in the dialogue clause or in the attribution clause? Who or what is performing the sentence's action?
quote:
Is the speaker the object or the subject of the speaking action?
Good question, Extrinsic. I think the answer is, it depends on how the dialogue and tag are constructed ...
Tom said, "I won't go."
"I won't go," said Tom.
In the two examples I've used a subject-verb-object construction. For me it's "Tom said" if the tag introduces the dialogue, else it's "said Tom".
In the first example Tom's the subject, while in the second he's the object ... I think.
Anyhow, the examples above show how I like to write tags--unless I want a faux-olde-fashioned feel, in which case of course it's
Said Tom, "I won't go."
Cheers,
Pat
So much so, that I can't stop.
But I don't know which way to do it is the right way, or for matter if there is one.
(I was reading a recent book, a collaboration between a well-known politician and an SF writer, and found they, too, wrote "Tom said" rather than "said Tom." Somehow I felt validated. I wasn't alone.)
Anthony
As a critiquer, I generally don't address either syntax unless it's out of character for the narrator. As a copyeditor, I find the order discretionary and only comment if the precedents are in the other syntax and consistency is in question while ever aware that timely variations are desirable in creative writing.
In another analysis through the standard written English conventional syntax of subject / predicate / object, the issue becomes clearer, somewhat. By replacing a dialogue clause with an apparent subject clause and changing the predicate from said to another verb, for me, the choice becomes easier.
"He threw the ball," said Tom.
The ball, threw Tom. Seems as though the ball threw Tom.
The ball, Tom threw. Ball becomes more obviously the object of the action rather than the subject, but out of sequence for standard written English. I've commonly encountered that structure in informal conversation but not the former example.
Which of the two examples is less murky? I'm mirroring one side of the debate and not intent on settling anything. The other side supports the view that attribution is an appositive clause that better shows the speaker as the object of the speaking action of the subject dialogue. After all, who's speaking isn't the subject focus of the sentence, is it?
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 02, 2008).]