Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Open Discussions About Writing » Dialogue Ques

   
Author Topic: Dialogue Ques
sakubun
Member
Member # 5719

 - posted      Profile for sakubun           Edit/Delete Post 
Is it just a matter of style or is one bad and one ok?

"I won't go," said Tom.

"I won't go," Tom said.


Posts: 72 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
arriki
Member
Member # 3079

 - posted      Profile for arriki   Email arriki         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know why exactly, but -- to me -- I feel a difference. I know from experience that sometimes I do feel one order fits the sentence much better that the other.

Tom said seems to be much the more common.
Said Tom, though, gives a finality? a harder punch? to the sentence.


Posts: 1580 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspirit
Member
Member # 7974

 - posted      Profile for aspirit   Email aspirit         Edit/Delete Post 
I also feel a difference. "Tom said" would emphasize what Tom did, except we are all too familiar with "said". So, "said" is a simple clarifier and the reader passes over the phrase more quickly. "Said Tom" emphasizes Tom as the person committing the action and, in my mind, is read more slowly.

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.


Posts: 1139 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SaucyJim
Member
Member # 7110

 - posted      Profile for SaucyJim   Email SaucyJim         Edit/Delete Post 
I actually did a study of some books of mine and saw who used what construction, and who was the more recognized author.

I found correlation, so I vote that it's a matter of style.


Posts: 59 | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Palaytiasdreams
Member
Member # 8154

 - posted      Profile for Palaytiasdreams   Email Palaytiasdreams         Edit/Delete Post 
I think it's all about you and what you're comfortable with.

The question is..what feels right to you.

Pal...back from her hike and puttin in her two cents


Posts: 79 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sakubun
Member
Member # 5719

 - posted      Profile for sakubun           Edit/Delete Post 
Good.

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?


Posts: 72 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
No prescriptive rule of style recommends one over the other. The choice is a matter of writer preference, tradition or convention, level of formality, varying syntax, or perhaps conforming to contemporary expectations of sentence structure.

"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?


Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RobertB
Member
Member # 6722

 - posted      Profile for RobertB   Email RobertB         Edit/Delete Post 
I've definitely read that 'said Tom' is bad, though it crops up so often that I'm not sure that's true. It made me think about it though. The whole point of an attribution os to tell the reader who's speaking, or doing whatever. So the important thing is their name; 'said' is almost invisible. So it seems to make sense to put the name first.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TaleSpinner
Member
Member # 5638

 - posted      Profile for TaleSpinner   Email TaleSpinner         Edit/Delete Post 
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


Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Robert Nowall
Member
Member # 2764

 - posted      Profile for Robert Nowall   Email Robert Nowall         Edit/Delete Post 
I think I've mentioned it when this comes up before, but...at some point in my life, but I think no more than a year after starting to write seriously, I got to thinking about the "said Tom / Tom said" dilemma. "said Tom" seemed backwards to me, so thereafter and up till the present day, I've written "Tom said," no matter where it happens to be in the sentence.

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.)


Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AWSullivan
Member
Member # 8059

 - posted      Profile for AWSullivan   Email AWSullivan         Edit/Delete Post 
Who's Tom?

Anthony


Posts: 374 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zero
Member
Member # 3619

 - posted      Profile for Zero           Edit/Delete Post 
My question is, should a person be consistent? Or would it matter if your book was half "said Tom", and half "Tom said."
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
extrinsic
Member
Member # 8019

 - posted      Profile for extrinsic   Email extrinsic         Edit/Delete Post 
Neither structure is wrong or necessarily bad. In writing, it's whatever the narrator's tenor demands that makes the choice easiest for me. Be it the biblical formality of an educated narrator, sayeth Tom, or the conventionally educated narrator, Tom said, I consider the narrator who's telling the story.

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).]


Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2