Avoid said bookisms like the plague.

Now that might be just me being rather ignorant, but isn't it alright to use them sometimes?
Yes they distract the reader from the actual dialogue but I think it might be fine to use them if one does not clutter a single page with them.

Sometimes I just want my characters to sigh, whisper, yell or moan. "Said" and "ask" may be acceptable, but sometimes they may not fit.

Why did said-bookisms become the byword for bad writing?
 

"I said this." John walked over to Mary. "I said that, and I said the other thing."

A crude example, but I think it makes the point. I don't always follow that---sometimes "said" is fine, and sometimes nothing's better than "whispered" or "shouted"---but I keep it in mind even when I'm using it.
 

"I don't know", he said angrily.
vs
"How the hell should I know!"

- 'said' is relatively invisible. One could say that writing is often more about making readers notice the story but not notice the writing. Hopefully made more obvious by

"You're kidding," Bella chortled.
"No, I'm serious," Antony remarked.
"Well," Bella intoned mockingly, "I hope he changes his mind."
vs
"You're kidding!" Bella said.
"No, I'm serious."
"Well I'm sure you are, big guy. But I hope he changes his mind."

I read Twilight earlier in the year (I don't have it so can't look it up) and found it relatively full of said bookisms and adverbial tags. And while they often grated on my nerves, there was one case where I noticed they were actually helpful: Where the characters were sarcastically speaking in opposites - in which case the tags reversed the meaning of the dialogue.

So I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, at least not just yet. But when writing dialogue I remain acutely aware of the points I noted above. Hopefully it's making for stronger prose.

There are a few other posts on this topic you may want to have a rummage through too.
 

I browsed through the link you provided.

I get the basic idea; the prose is simply stronger if you convey meaning and emotion through the dialogue itself, rather than using tags.

The Twilight example makes especially much sense:

"Shhh!" she shushed.
Shushed is completely redundant.

I think I understand it a bit better now.

But I won't treat said-bookisms as if they burned my house
Moderation is the key I guess.

[This message has been edited by Foste (edited December 01, 2009).]
 

But if that's the best way to say it, just use them. Adverbs too.

That's my general "throw caution to the wind" feeling. On critiques, I have one critiquer who will point out "You know you used X here, but you could have used Y, which would have made your point better/is a stronger word." I try to keep that phrase "stronger word" in mind when working on these parts of my writing.

My suggestion, just personal preference here, is to write the first draft however you naturally write. Let the adverbs and said bookisms flow. And then edit for them in second draft. That way you'll get the cadence and your voice down, you'll get plot and characterization how you intended, etc. And you can then focus in a second draft on things like this, that at least for me, can take me out of that Writing Trance and make it feel like I'm writing to a formula instead of doing something I'm passionate about.

I hope that makes sense. She said, shrugging her shoulders. Should could have said it hopefully, but that would have been silly.
 

Go ahead with all of the said-bookism's you like in your first draft. Shuddered, uttered, bellowed, hollered, mentioned, asked, questioned, whatever else you can come up with. In your second draft, start highlighting the ones you really notice (maybe you notice them all, not a problem) and replacing them with said. See if the reading holds up, or if you really truly need to use the extra description of whispered or barked. They are useful in places, as sometimes no amount of context or narration can replicate the efficiency of a said-bookism.

But do not, for the love of all that is holy and for all the Lords of Kobol, do not use adverbs in your dialogue attribution. Again, this is just my opinion, but it is one of the most amateur foibles that I see in writing and it drives me up the wall, even in published books. Those damn'd adverbs just mock me with their nature, the indecisiveness and fearfulness that I will not be able to determine the mental state of your characters given everything that I have read preceding the dialogue.

To couch this adverb in dialogue attribution discussion in something that is equally fraught with turmoil, I'll liken it to show vs. tell. A said-bookism is the equivalent of showing us how dialogue is delivered. Used in moderation, it can strengthen the immersion your readers will be feeling, and can paint a scene much more precisely for those who are control-freaks with their writing. An adverb in dialogue attribution is telling us the mental state of the speaker. He said it angrily, she whispered it lustfully Horace yelled it joyfully. We should be able to infer his anger, her lust, and Horace's joy through the context of the scene, and the actions of the characters, not by being told how they are feeling.

All that said, go forth and do your best, and commit what sins may come. We all commit them from time to time, said the guy who has used adverbs in dialogue attribution on occasion.
 

A "bookism" once every fifty pages probably won't rankle a lot of readers. Five per page might.

They seem most effective when they indicate words spoken in a tone that is at odds with the literal expression.

She drew him close. "You idiot," she said.

might give a different image than

She drew him close. "You idiot," she sighed.

But there are different ways to achieve the same result, as others have said.

[This message has been edited by dee_boncci (edited December 01, 2009).]