posted
I dont know if its just me but when I read somthing that starts:
He said, "xxxxxx" She said, "XXXXXX"
It is bland, and of coures they said it, but how did they say it.
"XXXXXX," He accused. "XXXXXX," She bellowed.
In my writing I try to never use the word 'said'. I try to describe the convorsation. To me it make my dialog seem more real and less like "The Gillmore Girls" (I mean, yes people can be whitty and snappy with responces, but come on every line?).
What makes your dialog flow for you? Do you have a cadence or rythem? I feel that my dialog while isnt bad needs imporvment. My recent dialog feels forced and cookie cut form my own mold that I am having a hard time breaking or reforming to a more interesting dialog.
I use to use things like "accused" and "bellowed" a lot but:
1) good dialog will tell you this if you use the right words; and 2) agents/authors will routinely say, just use "said." "Said" is nearly invisible. If you must tell the reader that "he accused" you've picked the wrong words. Sure, occassionally you will use the other but generally "said" is your best choice.
If the dialog is good the conversation describes itself. Using "accused" "tells" the reader what he/she is supposed to get from the dialog when the dialog should suggest it. If the dialog seems forced than it is. Try cutting the descriptions and having the words people speak give us that information.
As an example:
"Damnit it, Bill. You have got to be kidding," he said.
Tells me more about what is happening then "You have got to be kidding," he accused.
posted
Funny, I have a related topic that I'm about to start.
I have read recently that the word "said" is almost a non-word, as in most people skip over it not even reading it. It's completely understood. It's unobtrusive.
I'm not a very experienced writer, but this makes sense to me. I am using some descriptors (or things like "she said, looking away playfully") when I need them, but mostly I'm using the word said. I'm curious to hear what others have to say.
posted
I think your dialogue may be cookie cutter as a result of you not using "said". By using "accused" or "explained", you reduce the need to make the dialogue imply those words. If a character is accusing someone of something, then the character's statement should be enough to get that across without help.
Posts: 162 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there is enough running dialogue to dominate a page I will start out with saids, but will drop them when, and only when, speaking characters become obvious to the reader. Of course, as a follow-up I need to proofread from the reader’s viewpoint.
Another option uses action within dialogue: Alice turned to him with a shy smile, “Would you like to come in for a while?”
posted
The problem I sometimes have with "just use said" is that sometimes dialogue, by itself, is ambiguous. Being an instant messaging addict, I've long since realized that tone of voice, body language, etc are lost by mere words on a page. Several times I've gotten into unnecessary fights with my girlfriend because I joked about something over AIM, for example, and it didn't come across on her end as a joke, etc.
Also, in real life, since we DO use tone and body language to give our words subtext, we don't use the strong, specific dialogue that only requires a "said."
For example. John and Jane Doe arrived at the party two hours late, and found their friend Bob not two feet from the front door. "You finally made it," Bob said. "What took you so long?" "We got a little side-tracked," John said.
Is Bob angry because they're late? Is Bob happy they finally arrived? Is John sorry they got side-tracked? Was their delay unavoidable? A lot of information that a person *would* have if they could hear the tone of voice of this dialogue has been lost. As such, I have a tendancey (for better or for worse) to do the following:
"You finally made it," Bob said, crossing his arms curtly, shooting his friends a fierce glare. "What took you so long?" John gave a sheepish glance at Jane before replying. "We got a little side-tracked," he said with a wink.
This is probably a horrible example, as I made it up on the spot. But how else do you convey body language, facial expressions made while in speech, or tone of voice? I've heard many time to avoid things like "John said angrily/sadly/forcefully/depressingly/___-ly" but how else do you get this information across?
posted
John and Jane Doe arrived at the party two hours late, and found their friend Bob not two feet from the front door. "You finally made it," Bob said. "What took you so long?" "We got a little side-tracked," John said.
How about --
"You finally made it," Bob said. "What took you so damx long?"
or
"You finally made it," Bob said. "I called and called your cell. Why didn't you answer?
Are those different in implication? Angry, whining?
posted
Astro...I think you may have been trying to go the other way, but interestingly, your example uses just the word "said" each time. You added extra descriptors to make it clear what's going on, but it didn't require the "ly" descriptor for *how* things were said. Even Bob just crosses his arms curtly, an action. Your example is, to me, a great illustration of how said can be a non-word, allowing you to put in actions and descriptors that give more of an idea of the character's states of mind or points of view.
Since I'm stumbling in trying to express this thought - I'll try another way - I think that your example works great to illustrate the simplicity of the word "said." It also illustrates how other words can be used to describe the situation, while still relying on a simple "said" to convey who was speaking when.
I often found myself lost on OSC's pages of dialog in the Ender and Shadow series (I remember it happening somewhat often in the books that follow Ender's Shadow.) It's that presumption that we've caught on to which speaker is which and are now paying close enough attention to each new line to know to switch mentally to the other speaker. I must skim too much when reading, because I found the lack of "Bean said" and "Carlotta said" to be problematic for me. Didn't impact my enjoyment of the books, but made me work harder every once in a while, re-reading those pages a few times to get it straight who said what.
quote: In my writing I try to never use the word 'said'. I try to describe the convorsation. To me it make my dialog seem more real and less like "The Gillmore Girls" (I mean, yes people can be whitty and snappy with responces, but come on every line?).
Just about everything I've read on the topic says you should just say 'said'. It's an invisible word used to let us know who's talking. Sure, if you really need to you can show body language, but please don't say something like "said angrily". Do the job right in the dialog. If you can't get your message across in the dialog, then it's the dialog that needs work.
OSC had this to say:
quote: What we're really talking about is "tagging" dialogue -- letting us know who says the words within the quotation marks. The tagword said is invisible to the reader. Just as readers don't take particular note of the common marks of punctuation, except to mentally (or orally) read the pauses and the melodic line of the sentences, they don't notice the repetition of said (with one exception). Think about it -- do you ever find yourself thinking, "He sure uses the word the too much." Of course you don't -- because the is invisible, attaching itself to the noun it makes definite. Likewise, said attaches to a name or pronoun, identifying that person as the speaker of the sentence in quotation marks.
The only time said becomes visible is when you overload it or replace it too much. You should only replace said or include adverbs modifying said when the dialogue itself does not contain enough information to let the reader know how the words were spoken. For instance:
"Get your filthy hands off me," she said.
With that statement, I certainly don't need to say, "she said angrily" or even "she shouted," though of course I can use those tags. But I would need an adverb if I wanted an eccentric reading:
"Get your filthy hands off me," she whispered as she licked his cheek.
In that case, because it is not redundant information, the word said must be replaced by another tag verb and a modifier ("as she licked his cheek") or the reader won't understand that "she" is making a seductive joke. But even then, you can avoid loading the tag by simply putting most of the information in another sentence:
She took his wrists and pulled them behind her, so she was folded in his arms. "Get your filthy hands off me," she said.
Unfortunately, an astonishing number of elementary and secondary school teachers, utterly ignorant of good style, instruct their poor students to avoid overusing said. As a result, these poor students think that it's good -- even necessary -- to indulge in "said-book-ism," where the word said is always either replaced or accompanied by an adverb. Nothing is ever simply tagged; it's always replied, whispered, shouted, uttered, remarked, commented, intoned, murmured, wondered, laughed, hissed, muttered; or said bleakly, happily, merrily, snidely, nastily, angrily, loudly, softly, in astonishment, under his breath, with a smile, or ... well, you get the idea. Quite apart from the hilarity that arises from inadvertent Tom Swifties -- "I'm afraid we'll have to amputate," said the surgeon disarmingly -- it is this variety that becomes repetitive and annoying. That's because the reader is constantly being distracted from the dialogue and forced to examine meaningless, uninteresting tags.
Most of the time, all you need is said, because it, plus the name or pronoun, contains all the information that's needed to tag a line of dialogue. The repetition of said is only annoying when you have a long stretch of short speeches with only two speakers active in the scene. And then the solution is not to replace said with other tagwords, but to omit tags entirely for several lines of dialogue at a time. The danger in omitting tags, however, is that the author can sometimes lose track of whose turn it is, and the dialogue doesn't come out even -- you end up with the same person speaking twice in a row, without a tag, and the poor reader gets lost trying to figure out who is saying what.
Tagging is mostly a mechanical task. When you go back through your manuscript to edit, you'll pick up on a few places where you have too many tags, or overloaded tags, and a few others where you need to insert more information at the tag. My advice, though, is not to think about it at all during the writing process. Just use said routinely, except when you must -- and I mean must -- include more information than a mere tag.
However, I must in all fairness point out that in the genre of women's romance novels, "said-book-ism" is the convention, not an error. Both the readers and writers of romance novels seem to have believed those misguided schoolteachers, and the result is whole novels in which said is never used alone. This is one of the reasons I can't read romances -- I go too insane with the said-book-ism to get through more than a few pages at a time. But if that's the genre you want to write, then you have to respect the conventions of your audience. Beware, though, if you ever want to escape that genre -- because you can't carry those said-book-isms with you, and that's a habit that's hard to break!
In "Self-Editing for Fiction Writers", the authors came up with the acronym "RUE" which stands for "Resist the urge to explain". Don't try to explain everything to the reader, or they'll think you're calling them an idiot:
"I hate you!" he yelled. "Surely you can't be serious?" she asked seriously.
On words that end with -ly: seriously angrily haughtily jokingly Usually you can get by without these words. When I edit, I look for these words, take them out, and see if the story still works.
Okay, that's enough from me right now. If you really want to know what works and doesn't from an editing stand point, go buy "Self-editing for Fiction Writers". It is a valuable resource and you won't have to ask many of the editing questions if you apply it. You can buy it at Amazon.com. It's $11.16 new, and I found used copies for under $7.
Matt
[This message has been edited by RMatthewWare (edited March 08, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by RMatthewWare (edited March 08, 2007).]
posted
Many great writers, including Orson Scott Card, have suggested that dialogue should speak for itself and that "said" is just a tag to let you know who was speaking. If your dialogue is good, you almost never need to emphasize it with bellowing, yelling, or exclaiming.
I have often been complimented on my dialogue and told it is one of my strengths and I almost never use anything but "said" if I have that kind of tag. The alternative, if there is a lot of back and forth and it's starting to drone, is an action tag. That also has the advantage of breaking up the dialogue with a big of movement.
Jason got right up in Meg's face. "I don't care if you got hurt, I forbid you to quit."
posted
Often dialog tags aren't required to make the meaning understood if it's only a conversation between two characters. If the dialog is strong enough, and well written, it should stand on its own. The only purpose of a dialog tag is for pacing, or to make it clear who is speaking. Ernest Hemmingway often wrote dialog without using any dialog tags.
As a final note, good strong dialog is a skill worth developing. There are a lot of good writing books out there with advice for this, but a good way to check your dialog is to read it, or have someone else read it, after taking out anything other than "he said", "she said", etc.. If the action is understood from the dialog alone, then it works. If not, then it needs some work.
quote:Another option uses action within dialogue: Alice turned to him with a shy smile, “Would you like to come in for a while?”
Just a note about action tags (which is what the above is):
Don't use a comma, use a period.
The comma is used with "said" and other such to make the tag part of the sentence which includes the spoken words. When you use an action tag, it needs to be in its own sentence, hence the period to set it apart.
quote:Another option uses action within dialogue: Alice turned to him with a shy smile. “Would you like to come in for a while?”
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited March 08, 2007).]
posted
I sometimes get tag anxiety. I agonize over where to place tags. Are they better before or after the dialogue? I know in context it can probably go either way, but as a general rule, what do you guys suggest?
I find parts of my writing getting front heavy with action tags, and I have the suspicion that it reads/looks funny.
Such as: Jane looked at Joe. "What are you grinning about?" Joe's smile widened. "You got something on your nose." Jane wiped her nose. "Did I get it?" Joe reached up and wiped off one last speck. "There, all gone."
Any suggestions?
[This message has been edited by Hunter (edited March 09, 2007).]
quote: I sometimes get tag anxiety. I agonize over where to place tags. Are they better before or after the dialogue? I know in context it can probably go either way, but as a general rule, what do you guys suggest?
No, you don't need all of those tags. Nor do you need to have all the action. Are your characters talking or acting? I would limit the actions that occur in dialog.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
quote: If you really want to know what works and doesn't from an editing stand point, go buy "Self-editing for Fiction Writers". It is a valuable resource and you won't have to ask many of the editing questions if you apply it. You can buy it at Amazon.com. It's $11.16 new, and I found used copies for under $7.
Matt
[This message has been edited by RMatthewWare (edited March 09, 2007).]
posted
Generally I find that actions that are themselves the reply to a line of dialog fit in fine. If they aren't really a reply but the author attempting to circumvent using "said," they usually-- only usually -- need to be cut.
Jane looked at Joe. "What are you grinning about?" "Honey, you got something on your nose." Jane wiped her nose. "Did I get it?" "Not quite. There, all gone."
posted
This discussion seems to have moved very quickly...what can I add now?
I leave fairly long stretches of dialog by itself, surrounded by complete sentences. I throw in the occasional "he said," and, even more rarely, things like "he shouted," or "he whispered."
With the last, you can get carried away and the result winds up looking grotesque...."he cautioned," "he warned," "he cackled," "he admonished," "he gasped," "he bloviated," "he dissembled," "he prevaricated," and so on...
posted
I miss worte, I guess. I wanted to be short, so I use action tags, instead of posting actual dialog. I should have took the time and wrote a discriptive narative as was my intintion.
So, what I meant was that 'He said' and 'She said' are not needed . . . . Sometimes they are because we have no other way to tag a line of dialog, but not often because they are invisiable.
Look at this passage.
"You ready for tonight?" Frank said.
"Don't know Frank. I don't know." Navin Said.
"I know kid, everyone will understand if you bail on us. Today has been one hell of a day, one I hope to never repeat. You scared the piss out of me, just walking in there." Frank said.
Bland? How does that set tone or mood? To me, they are standing there like cookie cut outs talking AT one another.
Now read this one.
Frank walked up and clapped his hand, a little to hard on Navin’s shoulder. "You ready for tonight?"
"Don't know Frank. I don't know." Navin trod towards the locker room. His steps slow and unsteady.
Frank walked along holding Navin’s Sholder. "I know kid, everyone will understand if you bail on us." Frank turned Navin, and looked him in the eye. "Today has been one hell of a day. One I hope to never repeat. You scared the piss out of me, just walking in there."
Can you hear a diffrence in tone? Is the mood diffrent? The acton is moving the story along, and as you can seen no tags.
I have my own issues with doing this, sometimes I can't seem to get it right, rewrite after rewrite. Other times I do it without ever thinking about it.
[This message has been edited by Alye (edited March 20, 2007).]
The word said is perfectly ok. I just read a novel by Raymond E. Feist (I think that's spelled right...) where a decently sized chunk of dialogue had the word "said" to imply the speaker in a signifigant amojunt of places. So...if he can get away with it, why can't the rest of us?
Sorry...wanted to get that in before it got expelled in the next infamous "brain fart" ... coming up after I take my vicadin and go to sleep. Generally occuring during my sleeping, sometimes before. But that's inconsequential. That's my two cents.
- starsin
*edit* ehh...bugger. This is what I get for not reading all the posts previous. So...when not much is going on, I guess that "said" is ok, but otherwise, if capable without being distracting, I try to use anything but.
[This message has been edited by starsin (edited March 21, 2007).]
posted
Interspersing action through dialog is good. Avoiding the word said is bad, especially if other words are used instead. Dialog simply has to be tagged sometimes.
Joe put his coffee on the table. "I need three sugars."
That's not actually obvious who is speaking in and of itself. There needs to be an established method and rhythm before we can skip tags.
People can't talk through a smile. Smiles are poor substitute tags.
The absolute worst writing is done by people who follow set rules. The more rules you make for yourself, the more your writing will suffer. Learn and understand the rules of grammar, writing and story building. But don't let them limit you or your story. Take it a step further and learn when the rules can and should be broken.
Avoiding the word 'said' will make a story read funny. Don't do it. But do learn to use action instead of dialog tags when it's best to do so - not all the time.
posted
Said is necessary, some times, but its so invisible it can usually be cut out.
But that is not to say that you can't write that way. I just prefer to write a different style. The whole idea of this thread was to gain insight on how other writers deal with dialog.
posted
Alye, I've got a better method to spice up your dialogue:
quote:"You ready for tonight?" Frank articulated.
"Don't know Frank. I don't know." Navin verbalized.
"I know kid, everyone will understand if you bail on us. Today has been one hell of a day, one I hope to never repeat. You scared the piss out of me, just walking in there." Frank commented.
posted
Not perfect. That’s just to people talking AT each other with some rather confusing taglines.
you think that is better than this?
quote:Frank walked up and clapped his hand, a little to hard on Navin’s shoulder. "You ready for tonight?"
"Don't know Frank. I don't know." Navin trod towards the locker room. His steps slow and unsteady.
Frank walked along holding Navin’s shoulder. "I know kid, everyone will understand if you bail on us." Frank turned Navin, and looked him in the eye. "Today has been one hell of a day. One I hope to never repeat. You scared the piss out of me, just walking in there."
It conveys a scene and moves the story as well as shows communication between Frank and Navin. They move. You can see Navin walking slowly along and Frank coming up and slapping his back. You can see Frank turn Navin to look in his eye.
[This message has been edited by Alye (edited March 21, 2007).]
posted
Alye, trousercuit may be trying to play devil's advocate by giving you suggestions that are so bad they should never be used.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
