In a high school English class our teacher had the class amass a list of words to replace the word 'said' in our stories and we were encouraged to use as many as we could to avoid the repetition of said.
In university a more experienced writer taught us to use Said bookisms sparingly and only when the words of the dialogue were insufficient to convey subtler nuances.
In practice, I took that as good advice, using said because it was mostly invisible. But I would use some other words to characterize the speakers or modify the dialogue/action. My only rule was to use the others sparingly.
I have critiqued many drafts that definitely overused Said Bookisms and I have limits to my patience for them (please, no ejaculations), but should they be shunned altogether?
When I get a crit back from a Hatracker I notice that there are very few who can resist the urge to jump on a saidism and act as if I had made a mistake. (Of course I am not bound to follow any advice from a crit)
In my face to face writing group I actually got a critique suggesting that in a particular situation I should use one.

My question, fellow Hatrackers, is this: are we too anal retentive in our critiques? Do we stress artificial rules to a degree that hampers creativity? What is your level of tolerance for unpopular stylistic 'choices'?

And when I critique, I look at the story from the same perspective as I do when in my work for FFO. What grammatical problems throw me out of the story?

So no, I don't think many readers here are too anal retentive. Everyone does have their opinions. Personally, if there's something grammatical that someone tells me doesn't work, I will look at other reviews to see if there is a consensus on that issue. If not, I use my opinion as to whether to change the sentence/style type or not.

And my tolerance for unpopular stylistic choices is: if you can pull them off so that I don't notice you've made them, it's great. But if it distracts me from the story and makes me wonder why you chose to use such a method, I will suggest changing it in a critique.

But what this stuff all comes down to, after all the verbiage, is that some people (Like Elmore Leonard) like to use just said. Or at least claim to.

And other writers or equal stature like to use other words instead of said.

Anybody who say's you "can't" or "shouldn't" use words other than said is wrong. Because you can. And if you want to you should.

Simple as that.

quote:

---

Not sure that "riposted" is even a word.

---

It should be

quote:

---

"Shut up," SHE explained.

---

quote:

---

"Destructive (as in only negative so as to tear down) criticism is not encouraged on the Hatrack River Writers Workshop forum," SHE built up.

---

Let me put it this way. I never heard the word used, though I'm sure you could dig it up somewhere. As a refutation of using only one word is speech tags, it seems a little tautological.

Is there any real reason for you to come in and get all snotty about it?

Just asking.

I'm new here.

Within a day or two I find my self sujected to personal attacks for stating my opinion, some clown stalking down my site and posting quotes from my work on the boards.

So let me ask here and now. Is this the norm here. Is this to be expected and tolerated.

Because if so, I'm a pretty nasty guy my ownself and get bored and looking for mean fun sometimes.

So let me know.

I'd be surprised if there were any writer that actually used only 'said.' It'd make characters asking questions a little confusing! My favorite substitutions are 'whispered' and 'murmured', but I do try to be sparing.

But you constantly see an article by Elmore Leonard circulated that says exactly that:

Never use a verb other than “said” to carry dialogue.

The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But said is far less intrusive than grumbled, gasped, cautioned, lied. I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with “she asseverated,” and had to stop reading to get the dictionary…

Seen here; http://www.43folders.com/2006/02/14/elmore-leonard

I have a lot of admiration for Leonard and am a big fan, but I think that's absolutely crazy.

He's coming from "how to disappear from your writing". The "transparency" concept was a big buzz a decade ago. The idea that you are completely unaware of the writer as you read.

There's something to it, but it's also one of the puristisms that doesn't really make much sense and readers don't particularly give a damn about it.

How is it a puristism, and how does it not make sense, and which readers don't particularly "give a damn" about it?

quote:

---

The idea that you are completely unaware of the writer as you read...
...readers don't particularly give a damn about it.

---

Perhaps because they don't notice it's happening?

In point of fact a lot of readers delight in the author's voice and presence and it is why they buy that author's books in the first place.

It would be hard to think of Lemony Snickett as "transparent" just as the first thing that comes off the top of my head. Yet very popular.

For that matter look at somebody like Jack Vance. People NOTICE that sort of verbal filigree. They like it.

The idea that the writer whould "disappear" is, oddly, both an extremely recent concept in the history of literature and, to me, a dated one.

The idea that the reader is zooming along in a trance and wil waken at the slightest intrusion is a peculiar one, and used to justify almost every little bit of litfascism that catches my eye.

(Another being the dread idea that the reader might become confused if confronted with unfamiliar words or things not spelled out for him.

So given the idea that the reader might not be a hypnotized numbskull of fickle faith, what then would be the great advantage of "transparency"?

And no, they don't fail to give a damn because they are unaware of style. It's probably more like they didn't go to writing classes and get cluttered up.

It always astounds me that I see so much polemic over things that "just aren't done" when you can walk into a bookstore or library and snatch two books off the shelf, open them and find the forboten things immediately.

Like I say, these things come and go.

Google indicates that you subscribe to many if not all of the writer's forums on the internet, and in many posts you claim long experience of such, with comments like "I'm doing this post because I'm sick of answering the same question over and over in forums." While you may be new to Hatrack please don't pretend you don't know how to behave in discussion forums.

(An aside: You will often see the same things coming up again and again in writers forums. It's a necessary part of learning and if you have no patience with it go somewhere else.)

At Hatrack we treat each other with respect, something lacking in many of your posts which label us variously as kibitzers, knuckleheads and clowns. Labelling people in such a fashion is a personal attack and not tolerated here.

You warned one of our experienced contributors that she "let kibbitzers push you towards sounding like everything else. This is a problem you have to watch out for when you get advice. " It is illogical and wrong to draw specific conclusions from what you see as a general pattern. If you believe that some new writers can get pushed into sounding like everyone else by internet writer's forums, okay, that's true. That does not mean the writer concerned allowed herself to be pushed--had you bothered lurking to understand us for a while, you'd know that--nor does it mean that Hatrack tolerates such pushing when we see it.

When we post a first 13 and ask for crits, we get crits and choose whether to, and how to, respond. We do not need you sitting on your sanctimonious perch high up in the tree of published writers to dump on us when we do what we do.

When people post first 13s your opinion on their work is welcome. Your opinion of other people's opinions is generally not welcome especially when it's dismissive and lacking in respect.

Also, you said, "I would NOT take seriously anybody who says that anything that happens in 13 lines is "too slow" or represents things being "held back". " That's plain intimidation. When this kibitzing, knuckleheaded clown read that, he decided not to bother offering crits of your work.

Not that you're likely to ask for crits, not with your attitude towards writers forums and your arrogant belief in your own abilities and your disdain for our ways of helping each other.

Listen, knucklehead, we wanna learn how to write, okay? To do that, we discuss technique and stuff. To do that we have to have a volcabulary, a set of shared concepts. We use terms like "POV violation" and "show don't tell" 'cos they're the best we got. We know they ain't accurate and sometimes they're wrong but many of us have vastly improved our writing through such discussions, eventually dicovering our own--unique, not pushed around by the forum--voices.

Now if you think that's wrong you're entitled to your opinion. But if you want to express it here do it with respect, please.

Which raises the question, why do you want to express it here? Clearly, you have no intention of learning from us, you bein' an award-winnin' published author 'n all.

So why are you here? To destroy this writers forum because you think it's bad for writers? Some grudge against OSC or KDW? To shift us away from our rules and vocabulary to anarchic contemplation of writerly navels? To persuade us to adopt Linton's rules? To attract visitors to your website in the hope they'll buy your "How to make videos" book? Or buy your "cult classic"? To take out your anger with the publishing world for not publishing your books by trolling? Why are you here, Linton?

Whatever the reason, if you do stay, please be civilized and show the respect for others that you yourself would like to enjoy--and now will need to earn.

If you continue to intimidate and insult, you will drive some into silent lurking and others away from Hatrack, and I hope that long before that, KDW will remind you of the terms for joining the site.

Regardless,
Pat

P.S. On "riposted": In American English, though not so much in British, it's common to verb nouns--I got that from the Economist's Style Guide.

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited December 06, 2008).]

Didn't read much of that but I hope you feel better now. Charged with a sense of superiority and wisdom.

He riposted.

(Doubt you'll admit that you've never heard or seen anybody use that technically dictionaried word before yesterday.)

My general statements regarding my opinions have met with a remarkable amount of personal commentary and attack considering just how vulnerable and weepy people alledge that other posters here are.

Any other personal comments you want to get off your trembling chest?

LOL!

Good one.

By the way... you are looking at books that are published and saying I'm bitter for not being published? Odd.

Stick around. I have two more books out by first of year. Or so they claim. And another by March.

I just started moving into trying to get books published. That seems really stupid now, but at the time it seemed important to make a living with my writing and I was mostly trying to climb to the top in magazines (other than a sojourn in mail catalogs, where I kind of DID climb to the top) and did pretty well, I'd say. Articles in Penthouse and Harpers and such. Local desk for American Photographer. Four figure fiction sales. That sort of thing.

Having moved into the area of getting books out there, I haven't done too badly over the past eight months.
The screenplay thing is going slower, but that's the hardest thing to crack that there is. On the other hand, I DO have a TV series in development with a well-known Hollywood producer after a little over a year of writing scripts. So I'm not giving up hope there.

Okay. You gave me the "bitter about not being published" riff. I'm saying you're full of crap.
I suppose the next lick is "you think you're a big deal just because people pay for your writing when actually EVERYBODY is a writer and entitled to opinions, so shut up".

Lot of hostility around here. Amazing. And it looks like such a nice place: sun coming through the autumn leaves, blue mountains majesty, sunrays from above.

I'm didn't come in here to hurt people's feelings and feel badly that feelings seem to have been injured. I guess I'm just not used to this sort of thing. I'm more used to posting in forums where there are professionals around and people don't get all threatened and ego-involved by general comments.

So if I've hurt anybody's feelings here, I apologize. It wasn't my intention.

I think even the most biased observer would have to say I've gotten a lot worse from you guys than anything I put out, though. And all of it deliberate, personally aimed, and intending to be hurtful.

So if you're through, I'm hoping that I can post here without everything turning into a gangbang of recrimination.

Guess I'll see.

Now...wasn't there a topic here somewhere?

The problem with any Rule-of-Writing is you can always find a successful writer who's violated it.

My own viewpoint is that published doesn't automatically mean well-written.

On substitutions for "said"...I know with my own experience that I picked up the habit of avoiding anything simpler than "said" or sometimes "asked," and more rarely "whispered" or "shouted." Mostly I got it from so-called "rules" laid down by one Barry B. Longyear, who avoided using any variety of "said" and excluded it from his work (except one story I recall where it was a joke.) I think I probably inclined that way to begin with...though I tried removing it a couple of times (way back, now) and didn't like the results.

As to Cheyne's original question:

quote:

---

My question, fellow Hatrackers, is this: are we too anal retentive in our critiques? Do we stress artificial rules to a degree that hampers creativity? What is your level of tolerance for unpopular stylistic 'choices'?

---

I think the answer is yes, sometimes we do stress rules too much. It's in many ways the easiest thing to critique and point out. Which is why I try to check it with my end all be all rule: Does it work? Am I engaged?

But the point is, this is a writer's forum. The majority of the site is devoted to the purpose of critiquing content, style, etc. I think the responsibility is up to the writer, really, to figure out what crits make sense for him or her, and which to ignore. Perhaps we don't stress that enough. If you like "Wait," he grunted then by all means use it. But it's still good to know what effect it has on readers, be they writers or not.

I think there is the tendency at any workshop to "write for the group". I know I've fallen into the trap of thinking, OOh, I bet skadder will like it more if I..."

People act like using said for every quote is somehow invisible. When to many it's like woodpecker outside or the drip on your face at Guantanamo.

The really "transparent" thing would probably be to use no tags at all. And that has been done. And works.

But the best way to acheive the highly-coveted authorial invisibility is to use the appropriate word that flows smoothly into the context.

Skadder: yeah grunted works- I like wheezed; both can serve dual purpose by describing the dialogue and the speakers physical state at the same time.
As IB said they must be used sparingly and should not stand out.
I guess what brought this question out was a recent critique in which the critter marked what I thought was a clearly understandable and acceptable dialogue tag as (in her words) a beginner's mistake. The tag remains in my second draft.

Other areas of over-sensitivity are adverbs and lengthy sentences. Another critique I received complained that one of the sentences was too long. It was a complex sentence but was not a monster by any means. When I asked if they understood the sentence they said yes, was it confusing? no. Was it unclear in any way. Again, no. What was wrong with it? It was too long. The critter seemed to think that length, rather than clarity, was the important issue.

"I am not trying to knock any critters here; I really appreciate the critiques that I receive, and value everyone's views, but we must always remember that we are the ultimite authors of our own works," I riposted. (reposted?)

"I don't want to go either!" He kicked his suitcase under the bed.

So if people move around enough and light enough cigarettes you don't have to line count back to see who's talking.

I have always used adverbs and tags--sparingly--but they are there.