# ...he said...she declared...I yelled...



## Wordweaver (Oct 29, 2011)

So I've discovered something in reading over my WIP...I HATE repeating the same dialogue description over, and over, and over, etc.

I'm sure there is a real literary term for what I'm calling "dialogue description," but I don't know what it is. What I'm referring to is the "...he said" or "...the man roared" at the end of a line of dialogue.

Example:
"Blah Blah Blah!" the young man exclaimed. <<that part in red.

Anyway, I started...collecting...these "dialogue descriptions" (it'd be great if someone can tell me what they're really called...I feel stupid calling them by my own made up term), because I got tired of repeating the same ones, like _he said_ during back-and-forth conversations between characters, and _he roared_ when said conversation turns aggressive.

So I thought I'd post some of the ones that I've collected, in hopes that you might do the same!

" he barked.
" he spat.
" she remarked.
" she reasoned.
" the man explained.
" the woman whispered.

Best part is, I have ZERO copyrights on any of those above, so you can use them all! Anyone care to add to the collection?


----------



## Shadoe (Oct 29, 2011)

There is a book out there - and I've forgotten the title - that has nothing but tags.


----------



## Kelise (Oct 29, 2011)

I've been told by published authors that they should be used sparingly, and to generally use 'he said/she said' as the mind doesn't process them, it just reads on without noticing and it doesn't disrupt the reading flow. Also because he's not literally barking, or she didn't actually spit, and they didn't really hiss. It's also been said that the tone should be known through how well you tell the story otherwise and words in general. Like, you know the characters are going to be annoyed, if you've presented them well enough.

So I don't ever really use them. It's quite a challenge, at times.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Oct 29, 2011)

As Starconstant indicated. 'said' is invisible and it is just a tag to attribute which character said something. Nothing wrong with an occasional whispered or shouted, but don't over do it.  You don't always need tags. If it's an alternating conversation, and especially if action/movement by characters is involved, the number of dialogue tags required drops quite a bit.


----------



## JBryden88 (Oct 29, 2011)

I am very guilty of not just going with said.

Sometimes I do it with an adjective.

"He said, with a cold tone to his voice."

Otherwise...

- He snapped
- He growled
- He snarled
- He snarked back
- He countered
- He replied
- He pointed out
- He quipped
- He commented


----------



## Devor (Oct 29, 2011)

"I don't know," Devor scratched his head and shrugged, "Don't you think there's probably a list on the internet?"

"I don't know," Devor said, "Don't you think there's a list on the internet?"

Said really is invisible and a forced description really does look clunky.  I dunno, just use them wisely.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Oct 29, 2011)

Devor said:


> "I don't know," Devor scratched his head and shrugged, "Don't you think there's probably a list on the internet?"
> 
> "I don't know," Devor said, "Don't you think there's a list on the internet?"
> 
> Said really is invisible and a forced description really does look clunky.  I dunno, just use them wisely.



"I don't know." Devor scratched his head and shrugged. "Don't you think there's probably a list on the internet?"
"I don't know," Devor said. "Don't you think there's a list on the internet?"

Not trying to be critical, but the punctuation in the examples needed attention.

Beyond that, using a 'forced' description to replace a dialogue tag certainly isn't the way to go. The action should add to the scene and flow with the story and what's happening.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 29, 2011)

One of the things JK Rowling got constantly criticized for in the harry potter series is the tag modifiers she loved to use:
he said disparagingly
he said grumpily

She didn't need them, and they do tend to draw attention to themselves.  If your dialog is that bland, fix the dialog.  

Anything you do to draw the reader out of the story and pay attention to the words is distracting to the reader, and also gives them the opportunity to put the book down.  There have been books that I was thrilled to hit a chapter break because I needed to go to the restroom but just couldn't put the story down long enough.  That doesn't happen when you draw attention to the words, only when the words stop being the focus and the story does.


----------



## mythique890 (Oct 29, 2011)

Some people have said this, but to answer your question directly, their official name is "dialogue tags."  And to echo everyone else, "said" is the invisible tag.

It's pretty easy to minimize them in a conversation with only two characters because they're going back and forth, so you can drop them entirely for a few lines and the reader still knows who is talking.  It's in the scenes that several characters are speaking that I have the most problems because every single line needs a tag.

An author once said, as well, that if a character has a particular vocal... tic, I guess, that their dialogue doesn't need to be tagged because the reader will immediately identify them from their actual speech.  For example, if you have a character who is constantly starting sentences with "I say," or "anyway," or if your character speaks in a strong dialect or has distinctive word choice (like an academic vs a street kid) or whatever, the reader will always know it's that character speaking.


----------



## Wordweaver (Oct 29, 2011)

Thanks to everybody for input. Very helpful. I've actually been debating whether or not I should use _tags_ more sparingly. I worry that the dialogue by itself will not fully convey the intended mood. After reading everybody's responses, I'm kind of thinkin my possibly excessive use of tags is more of a crutch, that gives me a chance to include further descriptions to get the attitude of the statement across.

I may just be pathetically defending my own crutch here, but would you say that there are situations where a dialogue tag enhanced by adverbs and adjectives _would_ be appropriate? Or should I just have faith in the dialogue?

Example

"Yeah, right. I'm gonna write a whole chapter without dialogue tags."

or

"Yeah, right," David remarked sarcastically. "I'm gonna write a whole chapter without dialogue tags."

Thoughts?


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 29, 2011)

Don't forget body language.  People do make expressions and movements that can also portay their mood.

In you example it is pretty clear there is sarcasm involved.  "Yeah, right." is more of an identifier than you telling us the character is being sarcastic.


----------



## Kelise (Oct 29, 2011)

Agreed with Lord Darkstorm. 'Yeah, right.' is all the sentence needs.


----------



## Shadoe (Oct 29, 2011)

...and the people in my fantasy world use the phrase, "Yeah, right," all the time...


----------



## Shadoe (Oct 29, 2011)

mythique890 said:


> It's pretty easy to minimize them in a conversation with only two characters because they're going back and forth, so you can drop them entirely for a few lines and the reader still knows who is talking.  It's in the scenes that several characters are speaking that I have the most problems because every single line needs a tag.


I try to overcome that by using movement. Instead of using a said tag, I just put some action in there, like:

Shando scratched his head. "That sounds incredibly stupid."
Mai laughed. "It is, but I do it anyway."

And variations on that theme.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 29, 2011)

Shadoe said:


> ...and the people in my fantasy world use the phrase, "Yeah, right," all the time...



_Right.  Just sit there while I charge up the mountain, slay the dragon, and haul back its hoard of gold.  I shouldn't be but a minute, maybe two._


----------



## Kelise (Oct 29, 2011)

I was reading a book the other day (self published, won't name and shame) that had the word 'cool' in it. Many times. Set in an olde fantasy small village. I had to put it down after a while, it just wasn't well done.


----------



## Dreamhand (Oct 29, 2011)

::checks the Sarcasmo-meter::  Wow!  9.3 on the sarcasm scale.  Point made, Lord D. 

I agree that well-crafted dialog doesn't need dialogue tags.  The compulsion for me is to make absolutely sure I'm getting my message across to my readers.  The fear of not conveying every nuance of a scene to my audience can drive me to horrific measures of over-description and rampant tagging.

I'm leery of any "rules" that are applied to writing - we all need the freedom to explore our own voice (and be utterly wrong about the choices we make) - but there are guidelines and flags we can set for ourselves.  I recently learned of a trend among authors to do away with the adverb altogether.  While this seems ridiculous, it DOES provide an opportunity to refine our craft.  

Being aware of adverbs - or dialog tags - or other potential foibles of our eloquence gives us a chance to examine them and make a conscious choice as a crafter of tales to use them or not.

Thank you, Wordweaver, for raising this topic.  I hadn't been in my conscious awareness until I read this thread.


----------



## Wordweaver (Oct 30, 2011)

Dreamhand...I'm with you when it comes to being hesitant to adopt any hard and fast rules. As with many other things, I'm sticking with the "everything in moderation" approach (as I top off my Hennessy and Red Bull glass). But after reading everyone's thoughts on the subject, I am leaning more towards erring on the side of caution when it comes to tag use. And proofreading my WIP for overuse. Thanks again for everybody's feedback.

BTW



Lord Darkstorm said:


> _Right.  Just sit there while I charge up the mountain, slay the dragon, and haul back its hoard of gold.  I shouldn't be but a minute, maybe two._



_Slightly _ better example of fantasy sarcasm. Thanks for driving that one home for me.


----------



## sashamerideth (Oct 30, 2011)

If I need to use extra dialogue tags then I try to really write the scene and dialogue so that all I need is 'said'.  

Using adverbs is a crutch and speaks of an author that needs more practice.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Oct 30, 2011)

sashamerideth said:


> If I need to use extra dialogue tags then I try to really write the scene and dialogue so that all I need is 'said'.
> 
> Using adverbs is a crutch and speaks of an author that needs more practice.



I don't think this is a reasonable position on its own. Loads of highly-respected best-selling authors use adverbs in dialogue tags willy-nilly. I'll use GRRM as an example since I have _Game of Thrones_ at hand. There's four "[character name] [speech verb] [adverb]" instances just in the prologue (and dozens of other adverbs besides).



> "Are they dead?" Royce asked softly.
> 
> "What do you think might have killed these men, Gared?" Ser Waymar asked casually.
> 
> ...



Using _too many_ adverb tags is probably indicative of a need for better writing, but how are adverb tags themselves  inherently bad? Are they distracting? I've never been bothered by them when reading something, unless there are a huge number, and usually other aspects of the writing are bad as well. I can safely say I've _never_ read something where the _only_ problem was too many adverbs.

It seems like there's probably a threshold for most readers, below which adverb tags are fine, and above which they'll start to be noticed and distract from the storytelling. But a blanket "do not use adverb tags" is unreasonable.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (Oct 30, 2011)

I actually kind of like them.  If they're used way too much I guess it could be bad, but I like more descriptive writing, and I don't mind at all when writers throw them in.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 30, 2011)

Ok, think of it this way.  The reader is reading the text, and when they hit the part that identifies who is saying it, you then modify how it is said, after it has been said.  Now the reader has to make a mental correction on what they just read to try and adjust it to the modifier thrown in after the fact.

Years ago I was reading someones story and one of the characters had a nice long paragraph of dialog, and after that is done, I find out she has a southern accent.  I had to pause, go back, and the read it again.  

People read the words sequentially, and as writers we need to keep in mind that every time we change something after it happens, the reader then has to modify that part to fit the change.  More often than not, it drags the reader out of the story and forces them to rethink.  

If you want to find someone to use as a role model for writing, maybe pick someone who doesn't do the things we really shouldn't be doing.  To quote an author and say..."See, this person does it." is kind of like telling a copy that it's ok, someone else famous was doing it.  Maybe not as drastic, but still, why an excuse to change things to a sloppier form of writing over striving for better writing?  The reader doesn't really want an excuse, just good writing.  Shouldn't we strive to give them that?


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (Oct 30, 2011)

Lord Darkstorm said:


> Years ago I was reading someones story and one of the characters had a nice long paragraph of dialog, and after that is done, I find out she has a southern accent.  I had to pause, go back, and the read it again.



I think that's a bit of an extreme example, but obviously in that case you would be right.  However, I do not think it should be a rule that dialogue modifiers should be excluded.  I like to see the scene exactly as the author sees it, and sometimes I think they help.  Every one of my favorite authors uses them to an extent, and it has not diminished my experience of reading their books.


----------



## Dreamhand (Oct 30, 2011)

sashamerideth said:


> Using adverbs is a crutch and speaks of an author that needs more practice.



Dude... that's just harsh.   Adverbs are a part of the language, man, and as such are part of the writer's toolkit.  Whatever it takes to convey the message is fair game, isn't it?  Each of us has our own voice and our own way of telling our stories... and that's ultimately what we're trying to do as writers, right?  Tell our stories... communicate... convey experience or wonder or horror or whatever using our unique perspective as a lens for others to look through.  While I agree that there are often better choices to be made, that is a completely subjective choice and reflects only my personal tastes, not some crippling weakness in my peers.

Lord D, I think we all would agree we want to tell the best story we can, and the best writers will always strive to do just that.  But how do you convey a whisper?  How do you juxtapose contrasting emotions like:  "I'm going to kill you," she smiled. I agree that waiting until the end of a paragraph for those kind of qualifiers is frustrating, but surely four words is quick enough to refine the delivery in the reader's mind, yes?

As you pointed out, the written word is a linear experience, but the life we're seeking to express in our stories is NOT linear, at least from a sensory standpoint.  Physicality, facial expression, sound, smell, taste are all layered into a single instant of narrative.  

Now I agree that the strongest writing provides targeted cues that allow the reader to participate and fill in the details as much as possible, but there are going to be moments when an "urgent whisper" or a "purr" simply can't be conveyed in the dialog alone.  Is less always more?


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 30, 2011)

There is a slight difference between an action and a modifier.  'He whispered' is an action, and as such is perfectly fine from my pov.  'he said inquisitively', is one that I would question.  This is modifying said, and second, use of some adjectives are baffling.  I'd rather have 'he inquired', although I still think that if someone is inquiring we should get that in the dialog itself.  Also dialog is one of those things that benefits from variation in format.  

"How can you do that?" he asked.
She paused before looking at him, "Because I could."
"But," he said just audible, "it's so wrong."

Crappy example, but the way we put our dialog should have some variations to make it less monotonous.  It might have been more proper to put 'he said', over 'he asked', but my mind screams at me with a logic fault when I do.  

There are a lot of good authors out there, and many of them take short cuts to make deadlines for editors.  My point is that I noticed the majority of the tag modifiers in Harry Potter, and they were too often, and overall was the worst part of all her books.  Fortunately the story itself made up for it.  Does adding 'he said ....ly', by your favorite author make it a good thing to use....not necessarily. And if that is the excuse for not trying to write in a better way to avoid needing those modifiers, then what else will you use an excuse for?  I'm sure a lot of people have used it.  I bet I'm guilty of it too.  It is something I try and root out and remove on edits.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (Oct 30, 2011)

I'm not trying to make an excuse, I just think that modifiers are a part of the English language for a reason, and that their use or lack thereof is part of a writing style, and not necessarily a writing sin.  How does "He replied evenly" or "slowly" or "coldly" hurt a piece of writing if it is used appropriately?  In my opinion it doesn't.  And that is what this is: an opinion.


----------



## Dreamhand (Oct 30, 2011)

Excellent points and props all around.  I think this horse is dead.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Oct 30, 2011)

Lord Darkstorm said:


> Ok, think of it this way.  The reader is reading the text, and when they hit the part that identifies who is saying it, you then modify how it is said, after it has been said.  Now the reader has to make a mental correction on what they just read to try and adjust it to the modifier thrown in after the fact.



I don't think this is a problem for most people. The human mind is extraordinarily good at retroactively editing memories and comprehension based on new information. If you're claiming that most people have trouble with this, I'm going to have to disagree.



> If you want to find someone to use as a role model for writing, maybe pick someone who doesn't do the things we really shouldn't be doing.  To quote an author and say..."See, this person does it." is kind of like telling a copy that it's ok, someone else famous was doing it. Maybe not as drastic, but still, why an excuse to change things to a *sloppier form of writing* over striving for better writing?  The reader doesn't really want an excuse, just good writing.  Shouldn't we strive to give them that?



(Emphasis added.) You're declaring adverbial dialogue tags to be "a sloppier form of writing" without any supporting evidence for why this is the case. I'm not saying, "It's okay because GRRM does it," I'm saying, "Given that GRRM (and many other famous authors) do it, it probably isn't considered verboten by any significant portion of the audience, let alone by professional editors and authors." Sure, _you_ don't like adverbial tags, which is obviously your prerogative -- you mentioned how you found them distracting while reading Harry Potter -- but that doesn't mean that authors need to avoid using them, just to cater to the very small number of people who don't like them.

Basically, what I'm asking is: how does using adverbial tags in my writing keep me from achieving my goals?


----------



## Devor (Oct 31, 2011)

Wordweaver said:


> I may just be pathetically defending my own crutch here, but would you say that there are situations where a dialogue tag enhanced by adverbs and adjectives _would_ be appropriate? Or should I just have faith in the dialogue?



Does this tag express the dialogue, or does it blend with the expressiveness of the dialogue?

We're typing on the internet, everything we type is pretty close to written dialogue, and 99% of our statements don't need a dialogue tag.  The same should be true for your characters.  A dialogue tag more expressive than said shouldn't be needed.  Said is invisible.

But so is bellowed, used once in a war scene.  So is mocked, used once when characters are drunk in a tavern.  IF your dialogue is well-written and the scene is expressive, other tags will blend in and help transition the flow from dialogue into the action at hand.  They have their use.  In fact, I would say there's even a time where the tag is actually just about required, and that's when the dialogue is so expressive that "said" now stands out visibly as an understatement. 

"FOR FREEDOM!" Devor said.  Or bellowed.  Or gasped harshly with his dying breath.  Or mocked openly as he drank his beer.  One of those.

Please pardon the awful reference.

I also want to add another point, but I'm not sure if this is true for anyone besides myself.  When I see "said," written on a page, I sometimes notice and expect a change from lengthy prose into short dialogue.  If the short dialogue has already begun, I don't notice anything.  But every now and then the word breaks my concentration and sets a slight expectation, and if I then turn the page and see lengthy paragraphs I may even be disappointed.  I don't know if I'm alone in that.


----------



## ShortHair (Oct 31, 2011)

Amazing that nobody has brought up the Turkey City Lexicon (Google it if you dare). It's a collection of writing habits to avoid. The appropriate one here is the Said Bookism, so named because, in the 1950s, there was a "Said Book" (alluded to above) that listed an amazing number of synonyms for the word _said_. There's nothing wrong with the word _said,_ and as someone else pointed out, it's practically invisible.

As with anything else, of course, moderation is the key. Sometimes there is no other way to get across a character's tone of voice. A reader can't possibly know from the words themselves that a character is whispering.


----------



## Wordweaver (Nov 4, 2011)

Googled Turkey City Lexicon...wow. A boatload of helpful stuff mostly geared toward SF writing but it applies accross the board to Fantasy and pretty much anything else. I had no idea that there was a name for every thing I worry about when I'm writing. Said Bookism, Tom Swifty, Burly Detective Syndrome...Guilty. Again, all in moderation I think these things are useful, but what we should be careful of is OVERUSE.

Thanks ShortHair for the suggestion!


----------



## lawrence (Nov 7, 2011)

Currently reading Eregon, and its stuffed with adverbs. Its bugging me a bit and adds clunkiness to the story, as well as makes me check my collar for a 'MENSA application refused' label. I agree with master Clayborne and others who have reasoned eloquently...I mean said, that with a bit of care and moderation, adverbs can be employed. 

They are like salt. Season lightly! They rarely add anything of value so in my opinion there should be but a few grains throughout the whole book, not spoonfulls. Simply because the effort spent on filtering out every single rogue adverb thats sneaks into your draft would be best invested into telling a great story.


----------



## Karoly (Nov 7, 2011)

There are two schools of thought on this:

The old school is that using the same word too often is bad and your speech should be as colorful as possible. So get out a thesaurus and replace every instance of the word "said" with a description that precisely conveys the tone.
"I'll get you you bastard!" she furiously roared.
"If you can catch me..." he smugly taunted.

The new school is that the dialogue should speak for itself (no pun intended) and colorful speech is painful to read in long bouts. The best thing to do is use standard words, perhaps accompanied by actions to convey the tone.
"I'll get you you bastard!" she yelled.
"If you can catch me..." he said with a smirk.

It's a matter of taste but honestly, I prefer the second.


----------



## Devor (Nov 7, 2011)

Karoly said:


> "I'll get you you bastard!" she furiously roared.
> "If you can catch me..." he smugly taunted.
> 
> "I'll get you you bastard!" she yelled.
> "If you can catch me..." he said with a smirk.



Yeah, but try . . .



> "I'll get you you bastard!" she roared as the weapon in her hand thrust towards his chest.
> "If you can catch me..." he taunted as he stepped back a pace, his arms spread wide with whimsy.



They have a use.  The word is _segue_.  They are the transition from dialogue to action.


----------



## Karoly (Nov 7, 2011)

Devor said:


> Yeah, but try . . .
> 
> 
> 
> They have a use.  The word is _segue_.  They are the transition from dialogue to action.



I agree completely, and I didn't mean to give the impression that you should never use colorful words, but I failed to express myself by using a poor example. That scene was clearly a high-drama moment but in a more general sense, there's not always an interesting action to go with every line of dialogue being spoken, in which case, it's still better to use the standard "said" or "yelled" than more colorful phrases so as not to overuse them.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Nov 7, 2011)

Karoly said:


> There are two schools of thought on this:
> 
> The old school is that using the same word too often is bad and your speech should be as colorful as possible. So get out a thesaurus and replace every instance of the word "said" with a description that precisely conveys the tone.
> "I'll get you you bastard!" she furiously roared.
> ...



I don't think it needs to be that stark a dichotomy. I keep hearing that you can just use "said" over and over and over, and "let the dialogue speak for itself." Maybe that's the case, but as lawrence said, salt lightly! You can still have some variety: a few adverbial tags here and there, to break up the monotony of said said said. Sometimes there really is no better way to demonstrate how someone said something than with a nice adverbial tag or non-"said" tag.

Most of the time, when people talk, they use the same tone of voice from sentence to sentence, so you can use "said" for the most part, or just leave it out and put in action lines to give them something to do. But any interesting conversation is going to have people reacting emotionally at one point or another.


*John picked up the book. "It doesn't look evil."
Madeleine grabbed it from him. "Be careful! If you touch it the wrong way, it summons demons."
"Right. Do you normally leave eldritch artifacts lying on the coffee table?" John snorted.
"Normally the sky isn't raining blood," Madeleine said, clutching the book protectively. "We have to be careful with it."*​


----------



## Devor (Nov 8, 2011)

Karoly said:


> I agree completely, and I didn't mean to give the impression that you should never use colorful words, but I failed to express myself by using a poor example. That scene was clearly a high-drama moment but in a more general sense, there's not always an interesting action to go with every line of dialogue being spoken, in which case, it's still better to use the standard "said" or "yelled" than more colorful phrases so as not to overuse them.



To be honest with you, I think a lot of writers are too dialogue heavy and don't really develop the skills to deal with a character's action.  It's true that the example I typed was extremely heavy action, but that doesn't mean the point doesn't apply to most dialogues.  I think that's especially true in fantasy - how often should our heroes really be standing around chatting?


----------



## Lamar (Nov 14, 2011)

A while back, I read _The Mystic Arts of Removing All Signs of Death_ by Charlie Huston. In it, Huston never uses attributions for his dialog -- he doesn't even use quotation marks. Instead, he marks each speaker's dialog with an em dash. On the one hand, I found this very annoying, especially when there were more than two characters in a conversation and it was hard to follow who was saying what. On the other hand, it really cleaned up the prose to get rid of all the "he saids" and the like.

I'm always interested in finding new ways to tell a story, so I considered doing something similar. I have a small bit of experience with screenplays, so I thought inserting any dialog as it's done in a screenplay would be interesting. Fortunately, I came to my senses before I actually tried it.

What I decided to do in my current novel, however, is to not use any attributions at all. That is, there will be no "he saids" or anything of the like. Instead, I am using writing the descriptive text around the dialog in a way to indicate the speakers by proximity. It's a bit of an experiment; the trick will be to do it in a way that isn't awkward. We'll see how it goes.


----------



## SeverinR (Nov 15, 2011)

Dialog tags are only needed to identify the speaker,
if only two, it is like a ping pong game,
1 says the other replies,
"I saw her" says #1
"Really?"#2 asks
"Yep"
"What was she doing?"
"Riding her horse."

Once we established who started the conversation it bounces back and forth.


----------



## Lamar (Nov 15, 2011)

SeverinR said:


> Once we established who started the conversation it bounces back and forth.



That works if the dialog is short. If it gets longer than five or six exchanges, though, it gets confusing without something to indicate who's speaking.


----------



## Devor (Nov 15, 2011)

SeverinR said:


> Dialog tags are only needed to identify the speaker,
> if only two, it is like a ping pong game,
> 1 says the other replies,
> "I saw her" says #1
> ...



Well, okay . . . maybe if everyone's sitting at a table, taking turns in the conversation as happens in civilized society.

I just find it strange that the examples people produce look more like a screenplay than a work of prose.

(edit)  I'm sorry, I really am, if that was too snarky.  I just think that good writing incorporates every element to build the scene, and I don't understand why some people would so readily give up an entire category of words just because some people don't use them well.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Nov 15, 2011)

Agreed. Confusion aside, long stretches of two people talking with no description of the physical scene can get a bit bland. People don't typically have long conversations without showing facial reactions or doing something with their hands to indicate nervousness/agitation, etc. that can inform their state of mind and convey something to the reader.


----------



## ShortHair (Nov 15, 2011)

Lamar said:


> What I decided to do in my current novel, however, is to not use any attributions at all. That is, there will be no "he saids" or anything of the like. Instead, I am using writing the descriptive text around the dialog in a way to indicate the speakers by proximity. It's a bit of an experiment; the trick will be to do it in a way that isn't awkward. We'll see how it goes.



I tried that once. I still think it's a good idea, but everyone who's read for me complains about it. "I can't tell who's speaking here." A paragraph break indicates a different speaker, why can't it indicate that an action goes with a bit of speech?

One reason I like this idea is that most people don't sit still while they talk. Characters in a story don't have the luxury of sitting still. At the very least you can show someone's state of mind rather than tell it (which is what a bookism is doing). So you break up a "wall of speech" with actions (thus varying the tone), you attribute speech to a particular speaker, you amplify what's being said, and you advance the plot. What's not to love?


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (Nov 15, 2011)

Agree with both of you, although I do sometimes like to do a conversation with no attributions.  I think it creates a quick, snappy effect, and I need that sometimes.

edit: both meaning benjamin and devor


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Nov 15, 2011)

Yeah, I don't think it's always a bad idea, it's just something that defies common expectation and so has to be used carefully and rarely.


----------

