# Let's have a dialogue about, well, dialogue



## BWFoster78 (Jul 24, 2012)

The topic of good dialogue has come up a lot lately, both on this forum and with my writing group.  I like putting together lists to help me clarify my thoughts and to spark discussion.

BWFoster78’s Tips for Dialogue

1.	Pay attention to all rules of writing in dialogue except where you need to deviate to demonstrate voice - One of my pet peeves (I have many) is people saying: “It’s dialogue.  Grammar, etc. doesn’t matter.”  I couldn’t disagree more.  If writing, whether poor structure or overuse of words, distracts in the text, it distracts in the dialogue.  The balance comes in trying to create a specific voice for a character.  Sometimes the additional authenticity outweighs the distraction.  You have to make that determination.

2.	You are not trying to capture an actual conversation — Alfred Hitchcock (I think I’m attributing the quote correctly) said, “A story is life with the boring parts removed.  BWFoster78 said, “Dialogue is a conversation with the boring parts removed (I came up with that all by myself.  Clever huh?).”  Never show the exchange of greetings.  Don’t start speeches with “okay” or other throw-away phrases.

3.	Dialogue can be a battle — The best dialogue captures tension.  One person speaks.  The other person doesn’t even necessarily answer anything to do with the first person, instead going on the attack.  A conversation like this can show as much action as a physical fight.

4.	Keep it simple, stupid — Whenever I cringe at a piece of dialogue, it’s usually because the author, though they keep their prose tight, tend to go on and on with the dialogue.  Don’t be redundant.  Cut deep.  The problem with this approach is that it can lead to the speech sounding stilted.  

5.	Make the dialogue personal — Expose the character through the pattern of the dialogue, the word choice, the style, etc.  Include feelings.  This tip tends to be in direct opposition to Tip 4.  Use your judgment to balance the two.

6.	Eliminate speech tags when you can — The only purpose of a speech tag is to identify the person speaking.  If you can do that with an action, all the better.  Note that you have to change paragraphs in this situation when another character acts.  Make sure, however, that the reader always knows who is talking.

7.	Don’t overly use names inside the quotes — You can get by with it occasionally, and, when you do, it adds emotion.  Overuse dulls the impact and distracts.

8.	Keep it snappy — Characters speak in fragments.  They cut each other off.  They use contractions.

9.	Don’t try to insert too much exposition — “As you know, Bob, dialogue needs to move the story along and can be used to impart necessary information to the reader.  Too much exposition, especially poorly done, can be cringe-worthy though.”

10.	Don’t overuse exclamations — It’s fine to use them sometimes!  Just don’t do it all the time!  It gets really annoying!  See what I mean!


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 24, 2012)

I disagree with No 1. Sorry, but people don't speak according to the rules, so your characters shouldn't either. In dialogue rules = flat. It still needs to sound and feel authentic regardless of how you approach it.

I'd add...

11. Avoid at all circumstances fake dialogue - the exposition already mentioned, and the characters telling each other things they already know for the sake of the reader.

12. Dialogue is always action, so don't break its flow with too many beats, and long descriptions. 

13. Dialogue should always move the plot forward, avoid meaningless background.

Edit- 

14. My pet peeve, Never ever use dialect to add accents. I neva cannae wurk oot woot e's sayin.


----------



## Ireth (Jul 24, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> 14. My pet peeve, Never ever use dialect to add accents. I neva cannae wurk oot woot e's sayin.



I advise you not to read Elizabeth Ann Scarborough's "The Lady in the Loch", then (despite that it is an AMAZING book and I highly recommend it for other reasons, like the plot and characters). Every character in that books speaks with a Scottish accent that's fully written out in the dialogue. Every. Single. One.


----------



## Ankari (Jul 24, 2012)

> 14. My pet peeve, Never ever use dialect to add accents. I neva cannae wurk oot woot e's sayin



I used to not agree with this, but then BWFoster78 pointed out how much he hated it when reading one of my scenes.  After reflecting on it, I feel that both Butterfly and BWFoster78 is right.  In one of Steven Erikson's book he introduces a character that I couldn't understand because he wrote out his accent.  I hated it.  Although I didn't write with such extreme butchery, I can understand how others may find my minor inflections annoying.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 24, 2012)

These are mostly good, I think. A few I don't agree with.

1. I agree with Butterfly on this. There is no reason to feel confined to following all of the rules of grammar dialogue. As noted later in the tips, people speak in fragments. If done well, you can make dialogue seem more natural if you're not following all of the rules of grammar. If you have a very proper character who follows them in speech, then of course that is different.

2. I agree as a general statement, but the tip is messed up by the example, in my view. Something like "never show the exchange of greetings" is just silly, and I can't imagine why anyone would heed that advice. The general statement that you are not trying to capture, verbatim, an actual conversation, whether in terms of what you present or how closely you try to mimic speech, is good.

3. Makes sense to me. Dialogue doesn't have to be a battle, but it certainly can be, and that can serve the story well.

4. I don't agree with this one. Not every character is going to have the same speech patterns of speak in the simplest way possible. You don't want generic speech where everyone sounds the same. Some characters may ramble, some may embellish. That's fine.

5. Sound advice, in my view.

6. I agree with this as well. I try to keep tags to a minimum, and use "said" almost all the time if I employ one.

7. Good advice in general.

8. Good advice, with the caveat that the speech reflects the character. Not all characters have to speak this way.

9. Depends on how it is handled. Having characters run through information that everyone in the scene already knows, so that it is clear the author is creating an unnatural conversation to give an info dump...that's a problem.

10. I rarely use them. I use them more often in children's stories than those for adults.

11. Yes.

12. Generally true, I think, but it is up to the author to make decisions of pace and style. If the effect the author wants to achieve is achieved by breaking the dialogue up, adding description, and slowing things down, then fine.

13. Also generally true, but I'll add that it can also be used for characterization. It doesn't have to move the plot forward directly (at least not in a novel; in a short story it probably should). 

14. I agree with Ireth, though I'll say you have to be very careful about it. Scarborough is an excellent writer. Other books, like Trainspotting, actually rely on the use of dialect in dialogue (in other words, it would be a much poorer work without it). But for most authors, the chances of really bungling this and ending up with a mess are greater than the chances of pulling it off successfully.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 24, 2012)

> I disagree with No 1. Sorry, but people don't speak according to the rules, so your characters shouldn't either. In dialogue rules = flat. It still needs to sound and feel authentic regardless of how you approach it.





> 14. My pet peeve, Never ever use dialect to add accents. I neva cannae wurk oot woot e's sayin.



I'm confused.  You shouldn't use rules because people don't speak according to rules.  However, don't use dialect because it annoys you.  Don't people speak with dialect?  By the reasoning of your first statement, you should write how people speak.

To me, both points are the same.  If something is annoying, it's just as annoying in dialogue as it is in the text.  As I stated, you have to balance this with giving the character voice, but it's a decision you need to make consciously.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 24, 2012)

Steerpike,

You and I have fundamental disagreements about writing.  At this point, I don't think there's much point in trying to convince each other.

Regarding 2, though, have you ever read the following:

"Hi, Alice.  What's up?"
"Not much, Phillip.  Anything new with you?"
"Nah."

It's terrible.  It's dreckitude.  It's appalling.  I can't come up with a word to describe how absolutely terrible it is.  In most cases: They exchanged greetings.  is far superior.

Regarding 4: the main problem seems to be when writers try to throw in a lot of phrasing to add character, but it's all redundant.  They use five ways to say the same thing.  They just keep repeating stuff - you get the picture.  It's annoying and it detracts more than establishing character benefits.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Steerpike,
> 
> You and I have fundamental disagreements about writing.  At this point, I don't think there's much point in trying to convince each other.
> 
> ...



That's OK, we don't have to agree or convince one another. The forums are good for the exchange of ideas.

The example you give of dialogue is really bad, sure. But anyone can make an example of a bad way of doing something. That doesn't mean never do it. The fact that you can write a bad exchange of greetings doesn't mean not to exchange greetings any more than the fact that Douglas Niles could write a bad fantasy novel means no one else should write fantasy.

Regarding number 4, yes I agree that would be problematic. Even if the character is the sort who might ramble and repeat himself, it doesn't take very much of it to establish that fact with the reader, after the which the reader should be spared. I think you're right about that.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 24, 2012)

> That doesn't mean never do it.



Did you catch my brand new signature?


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Did you catch my brand new signature?



No, I don't read signatures very often. Having read it, I guess my question is why not just say what you mean in the body of the post, instead of saying something other than what you mean and relying on a caveat in the signature line? It takes scarcely more effort to type "in general" than "never." It is certainly more clear and more efficient, which should fall right in line with your philosophy on good writing


----------



## Lorna (Jul 24, 2012)

> 'You are not trying to capture an actual conversation...  “A story is life with the boring parts removed."



I agree with this one. Unless you're developing character, moving on the plot or creating tension between characters don't let them yap on. I've cut so many conversations in halves and quarters again.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 24, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> No, I don't read signatures very often. Having read it, I guess my question is why not just say what you mean in the body of the post, instead of saying something other than what you mean and relying on a caveat in the signature line? It takes scarcely more effort to type "in general" than "never." It is certainly more clear and more efficient, which should fall right in line with your philosophy on good writing



I don't know.  It's more fun to be hyperbolic?

Actually, my philosophy with most of these kind of posts is that I'm trying to reach the people who are just starting out writing.  

Frankly, if you know what you're doing, you have your own ideas about dialogue.  You can certainly find some good tips or get reminded about something you forgot, but, in general, your techniques are set.

For the beginner, I'd rather spell out: do this/never do that.  Once they learn the rule, they can experiment with breaking it.

I understand that some people disagree with my philosophy in this regard, but I feel it helps the new writer more than it stifles their creativity, or some such.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 24, 2012)

Lorna said:


> I agree with this one. Unless you're developing character, moving on the plot or creating tension between characters don't let them yap on. I've cut so many conversations in halves and quarters again.



It's amazing what a difference taking the knife to a run-on conversation makes.  To those who disagree, I'd seriously recommend that they try it.  Read your dialogue out loud.  Then cut deep, get rid of everything you can.  Read it again out loud.  If the first works better for you, keep it, but I think it's worth the effort.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I understand that some people disagree with my philosophy in this regard, but I feel it helps the new writer more than it stifles their creativity, or some such.



I hear you, and I don't think that's necessarily wrong. My only concern in using absolutes is that I might negatively impact a writer who is going to develop along a unique path. That probably isn't likely, and in many cases I suspect whether you say 'never' or not isn't going to matter.

It is also an artifact my my own work-related reading and writing. I write all day long and have to be careful about my word choice; likewise, when I read at work I have to assume every word is there for a reason. As a result, no matter what I read I assume the author has chosen a specific word intentionally, and means precisely that. So if I see the word "never," my instinctual reaction is to assume that the author used that word because he intended it literally. Of course, not everyone else writes that way.

In any event, the philosophical aspects of fiction writing are interesting to me. I admit that a lot of what I see in writing books and the like seem to me to be geared toward producing rather generic, non-distinctive fiction, and I find the authorial "voice" of a lot of what is on the shelf to be so flat and interchangeable with the next book that one wonders whether it even matters who the author is. People differ on whether that is good or bad, but I tend toward the latter. It isn't a necessary consequence of overly rules-based writing, but I think it is a possible consequence.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 24, 2012)

Steerpike,

I hear you.  I did choose "never" deliberately as I think it's better for my intended audience.

I take a different tack, obviously, on authorial voice.  

To me, the important part is developing characters and story.  The writing should allow you to tell the story without getting in the way.  Admittedly, I do sometime fall in love with a particular bit of "purple prose" and keep it in, but, for the most part, I want the story to be the thing, not the writing.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 24, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> I disagree with No 1. Sorry, but people don't speak according to the rules, so your characters shouldn't either. In dialogue rules = flat. It still needs to sound and feel authentic regardless of how you approach it.
> 
> I'd add...
> 
> ...



My question is about #14. My books starts in a town with a lot of country/farming folk, who don't enunciate their words well. For instance, "walking" would be said as "walkin'" .... "walking and talking" would be pronounced "walkin' 'n talkin'". It is not necessarily a dialect, but a way of speech from less educated characters. Where do you draw the line on this? How much should the author stay true to the sound of their speech, at the expense of making these characters sound more well-spoken than they actually are.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 24, 2012)

JonSnow said:


> My question is about #14. My books starts in a town with a lot of country/farming folk, who don't enunciate their words well. For instance, "walking" would be said as "walkin'" .... "walking and talking" would be pronounced "walkin' 'n talkin'". It is not necessarily a dialect, but a way of speech from less educated characters. Where do you draw the line on this? How much should the author stay true to the sound of their speech, at the expense of making these characters sound more well-spoken than they actually are.



One thing you can do is note, outside of dialogue, that they are speaking in a country dialogue or what have you. That can be enough to establish it in the reader's ear. If you want to actually write the dialogue so that it reflects the country-style speech patterns, my view is that a little bit goes a long way.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> To me, the important part is developing characters and story.  The writing should allow you to tell the story without getting in the way.  Admittedly, I do sometime fall in love with a particular bit of "purple prose" and keep it in, but, for the most part, I want the story to be the thing, not the writing.



I think that is probably more in line with modern fiction, and I like plenty of books written that way. I like stylistic novels like _Lolita_ and the Gormenghast books as well, and my hope is we won't lose those. I have noticed a few more novels the past few years where the style calls attention to itself, but I don't know if that is new trend or just a couple of books I happened across. It seems to me that in the era of self-publishing electronically, we'll have room for all sorts of writing.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 24, 2012)

> One thing you can do is note, outside of dialogue, that they are speaking in a country dialogue or what have you. That can be enough to establish it in the reader's ear. If you want to actually write the dialogue so that it reflects the country-style speech patterns, my view is that a little bit goes a long way.



+1 to this.

Hey, look at that, Steerpike and I actually agreed.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> +1 to this.
> 
> Hey, look at that, Steerpike and I actually agreed.



Does this mean the world really does end in 2012!?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 24, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think that is probably more in line with modern fiction, and I like plenty of books written that way. I like stylistic novels like _Lolita_ and the Gormenghast books as well, and my hope is we won't lose those. I have noticed a few more novels the past few years where the style calls attention to itself, but I don't know if that is new trend or just a couple of books I happened across. It seems to me that in the era of self-publishing electronically, we'll have room for all sorts of writing.



I would hope so.  The barrier to publishing is so much lower, though getting noticed would seem to be proportiately increased.

I so much prefer modern writing.  Every time I had to read a "classic" for school, I pretty much hated it.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 24, 2012)

Weighing in on rule #1 & #14...... 


1. Everyone knows my detailed disdain for adverbs. However, in dialogue, as long as it's not overblown usage of adverbs, I'm fine with them. I think this concept applies to other writerly "rules" as well. As long as the dialogue isn't chock full of bad grammar, bad sentence structure, and repetition then it's fine. Moderation is the key. Overuse, even in dialogue, can be a distraction that reduces reader immersion.

14. Characterization through dialogue is an effective tool. Often it is either overlooked or simply avoided due to difficulty or the belief that a dialect in the written form is a bad choice. To this I'd say that most cases of bad dialect writing comes down to over-writing. Now, there are exceptions but for the most part, when a reader sees a sentence like Butterfly's:

" I neva cannae wurk oot woot e's sayin." - a case of intentional overwriting.

It reads with confusion. I feel the trick lies with choosing a word or two that carries the same effect & use those words in that specific character's dialogue often.

"I neva can work out what he's sayin." - easier to understand, same basic effect.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 24, 2012)

> 1. Everyone knows my detailed disdain for adverbs. However, in dialogue, as long as it's not overblown usage of adverbs,



This boils down to: why is it bad to use adverbs?

1) It's indicative of telling.
2) A lot of times, they don't add anything to the sentence.  

Usually, adverbs don't actually detract all that much from the work (assuming reason 2); they just violate the edict against unnecessary words.  In dialogue, however, they're an easy way to add character.  Since the negatives are low, it's not as big a deal.



> I think this concept applies to other writerly "rules" as well.



Depends on the rule.  Redundancy = bad regardless.  Unnecessary words can get bad fast.  Bad grammar can be used to indicate voice, but you have to be extra careful.  Grammar is there for a reason.  It provides clear rules for writing in an understandable manner.  When you break them, you increase your chances of introducing confusion, and dialogue must be clear.



> Moderation is the key. Overuse, even in dialogue, can be a distraction that reduces reader immersion.



Amen, brother.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:
			
		

> Depends on the rule.  Redundancy = bad regardless.



Not always the case.... People repeat themselves when speaking or use redundant phrasings all the time. This is especially true in heightened emotional states. A clever author, with a firm grasp on emotional cues like these can use repetition & redundancies to accentuate a character's emotional state.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 25, 2012)

I've had a bit of an epiphany.

This is going to sound stupid, as in "I can't believe you didn't already know this."  I struggle with adding action to dialogue.  I picture my characters and shout at them "Do something!"  They raise their eyebrows, smirk, nod or shake their heads, roll their eyes, but that's about it.  It gets repititious after a while.

Anyway, I'm editing a scene today, and a thought occurred to me: have them act according to the task they're performing!  I know.  Not exactly a revolutionary idea, but, seriously, it hadn't really hit me before.

Since the characters in question were packing up for the road, I'm showing them folding shirts and stuffing bags in between talking to each other.  It worked great.  

I don't know if anyone else out there is as dense as me on this, but maybe this advice will help someone.

Thanks.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 25, 2012)

I actually use this technique a lot.... if they are sitting at a table talking, i'll have them sip wine,shift in their chair, or break off a chunk of bread, etc... working outside, they might wipe sweat off their forehead, cough, or wipe their dirty hands on their trousers...

It was actually something I figured out early in my writing experience, before I figured out a lot of other "basic" things... everyone is different. Like anything else, don't overdo it. But it will help you keep the action "moving" during long dialog exchanges.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 25, 2012)

Hey, it's better than rolling eyes all the time.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 25, 2012)

Yes, giving your characters activities to perform is crucial in my opinion. Otherwise, you often have dry dialogue because they're just standing there talking. Normally I try to keep characters busy during the conversation. 

However, if you want to really focus on what's being said, sometimes just two people locked onto each other, doing nothing but talking, works well. The absence of action, in cases like these, can magnify the drama... It's too important to the characters... They stop everything else just to talk (or threaten, coerce, beg, etc.)


----------



## Ireth (Jul 25, 2012)

I have the opposite problem, BW. Much of the time my characters act and act, and I have to scream at them to "Say something!" This gets especially hard when they're in awkward situations and are unwilling to speak in-character at all. They'll snark at ME about it, but not say a word to each other.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 25, 2012)

Agreed, Ireth.  Definitely the opposite.  I have no problem coming up with conversation.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 25, 2012)

Observe their body language. It is important in communication.

Where they look, how they keep eye contact, their posture, how they fiddle with things, how muscles twitch, the things that distract them, how willing they are to listen, folded arms, folded legs, scratches, how they hold their hands. Things like that.

Do it right and you can show a lot outside of dialogue and action on how someone is feeling.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 25, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> Observe their body language. It is important in communication.
> 
> Where they look, how they keep eye contact, their posture, how they fiddle with things, how muscles twitch, the things that distract them, how willing they are to listen, folded arms, folded legs, scratches, how they hold their hands. Things like that.
> 
> Do it right and you can show a lot outside of dialogue and action on how someone is feeling.



I find that there are only so many ways that I know of to express their body language, though.  I end up overusing expressions and words.

It is good, though.  I needed to find other techniques to add action to supplement.


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 25, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Anyway, I'm editing a scene today, and a thought occurred to me: have them act according to the task they're performing!  I know.  Not exactly a revolutionary idea, but, seriously, it hadn't really hit me before.



Just to add to this. You can also use the tasks preformed to relate and reflect the emotion of the dialogue in a bit of show-not-tell. If a person is being teased while they're washing dishes, the way they wash dishes will be effected. They may clank glasses and plates more or wring out that dish towel really really tight, conveying emotion and maybe some character. 

The task can also parallel conversation and play off each other. Two people fencing while one is trying to finesse information from the other as an example. Each thrust and parry of fencing can work in conjunction with the thrust and parry of conversation.


----------



## Ghost (Jul 30, 2012)

I see instances where your rules would compete with characterization, at least in my case. There are long-winded characters, characters who don't know or care about rules of grammar, characters who repeat themselves. The idea is for new writers to learn the difference between intentional and sloppy. After that, we can learn the difference between effective and ineffective.

If people say "there are no rules in dialogue" and use that as an excuse for poor writing... well, they're missing the point on why there is leeway in speech. It doesn't turn into a free-for-all just because you put quotation marks around it. "Your a bad person!" doesn't work whether it's in dialogue or not. (Maybe when it's for comedy or when we're reading what a character wrote?) It's distracting, and there should be a better reason than laziness for doing something like that.

My only rule or standard for dialogue is that it has to make sense for this character who's talking to this person in this situation. People enter conversations with their own desires and assumptions, so for me, each line should be written with that particular speaker in mind. I know what the speaker meant to say, what she really said, and what the listener heard—and it's possible for each to be a different thing.



Butterfly said:


> 13. Dialogue should always move the plot forward, avoid meaningless background.



Dialogue can set the tone: adding or diffusing tension, providing a dose of humor, etc. It can reveal the speaker's nature and show how they interact with others. It can speed up the pacing. It can show aspects of the characters' culture and their standing, thereby adding to the setting. I don't think each line of dialogue has to move the plot forward or risk being chucked. Dialogue can be so much more than a conveyance for plot points.



T.Allen.Smith said:


> Yes, giving your characters activities to perform is crucial in my opinion. Otherwise, you often have dry dialogue because they're just standing there talking. [...] However, if you want to really focus on what's being said, sometimes just two people locked onto each other, doing nothing but talking, works well. The absence of action, in cases like these, can magnify the drama...



I agree with this. The actions orient the reader within the scene. I look at actions as a tool to punctuate dialogue or a way to frame the whole conversation. It's also a great way to multitask.



Penpilot said:


> The task can also parallel conversation and play off each other. Two people fencing while one is trying to finesse information from the other as an example. Each thrust and parry of fencing can work in conjunction with the thrust and parry of conversation.



I'd use this technique sparingly. Some writers are good at it, but it's easy for some to go overboard and make all the actions mirror or contrast with the dialogue. It becomes unrealistic and transparent, like a poorly written play. But I'd still recommend experimenting with this technique. It shows undercurrents in a conversation that the speech may only suggest.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 31, 2012)

Ghost,

My only problem with this statement:



> My only rule or standard for dialogue is that it has to make sense for this character who's talking to this person in this situation.



is when it is used to justify putting something in the book that will annoy or turnoff the reader.  Yes, your character may talk with a southern accent.  Yes, you can give more "life" to the character by writing phonetically to describe how he sounds.  No, I'm not going to continue reading more than a few lines before tossing the book across the room unless you're darn good at the dialect.


----------



## Ghost (Aug 2, 2012)

My personal "rule" is strictly about characterization. Why does the villain waste time telling the hero how to disarm the bomb instead of killing him right away? How does the wizard tell the farm boy useless trivia but neglect to tell the boy vital information? If two characters loathe each other, why would they exchange pleasantries for two pages without any tension? That's what I mean. What Character A says to Character B should sense for them and the situation. I try to keep this in mind.

Let's say I have a party of adventurers who've been traveling at a hard pace. They stop to rest at a historic battlefield. They recite stories of the battle and wax poetic about the follies of war. I've never hinted that the characters are aficionados of history, war, storytelling or philosophy, and they're presumably exhausted. So why are they having this conversation now and with each other? To show off the world-building?

There are times when it seems the author didn't bother thinking from each perspective. Characters infodump in dialogue for the benefit of the MC (and the reader) whether it's in character or not. Two characters, who are described as straight-forward and honest, refuse to discuss a problem and a misunderstanding escalates until the truth is revealed just in time for the characters to forgive each other and get married. That's the kind of thing I want to avoid.

RE: Dialect
I totally agree with you there. A character may not know or care about rules of grammar, but the author knows what the character meant. The thing about dialect is that you have to balance what the speaker says, what the listener hears, and what the reader sees. I once read a novel where the author used "heah" in dialogue. It took me chapters to figure out she meant "here" and I'm a rhotic speaker. (This was back when I felt obligated to finish a book, so nowadays the author doesn't get more than a page to win me over with "quirky" spelling.)

I should give examples of what I'm talking about:

I can't get any satisfaction.
I can't get no satisfaction.
Ah ain't gittin no satisfaction.

Those all come across differently to me. I'm okay with the first two, but the last one could just as easily be "I ain't gettin' no satisfaction" or something along those lines. Doing that is overkill because now the reader has to decode misspelled words. Plus, it can veer off into caricature very quickly.

I think there's wiggle room for characters to use fragments, double negatives, etc.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 2, 2012)

Ghost,

I think we're pretty much in agreement.

How to present exposition is a totally different conversation, one that I'm certainly no expert regarding.  There are plot points you have to get across to the reader, and how best to do that without sounding like "as you know, Bob" is a constant struggle.


----------



## Helen (Aug 2, 2012)

Just because characters say something, doesn't make it dialogue.

Dialogue helps move the plot forward..or _something_ forward.


----------



## Ireth (Aug 2, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> How to present exposition is a totally different conversation, one that I'm certainly no expert regarding.  There are plot points you have to get across to the reader, and how best to do that without sounding like "as you know, Bob" is a constant struggle.



How do you define exposition as opposed to infodump? I know the two can and do overlap at times, but I've seen them used interchangeably, and that kind of annoyed me. In my view, exposition is getting across information that one or more characters already know, whether it's ancient history or summarizing events that the reader just read for the sake of another character who wasn't present. Infodumping is any type of information that comes in huge walls of dialogue, whether or not the other characters know about it already. The Council of Elrond chapter in LOTR comes to mind. It's fascinating history and info about the rest of Middle-earth, but there's just so MUCH of it. At least it is filtered through the characters' POVs, so that makes it more interesting than it could have been.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 2, 2012)

Ireth said:


> How do you define exposition as opposed to infodump? I know the two can and do overlap at times, but I've seen them used interchangeably, and that kind of annoyed me. In my view, exposition is getting across information that one or more characters already know, whether it's ancient history or summarizing events that the reader just read for the sake of another character who wasn't present. Infodumping is any type of information that comes in huge walls of dialogue, whether or not the other characters know about it already. The Council of Elrond chapter in LOTR comes to mind. It's fascinating history and info about the rest of Middle-earth, but there's just so MUCH of it. At least it is filtered through the characters' POVs, so that makes it more interesting than it could have been.



This is one of the definitions from Dictionary.com: 

Exposition - n - Writing or speech primarily intended to convey information or to explain.

or converted to the terminology of writing:

Exposition - n - The act of the author conveying information to the reader.

As a writer, we have to get information to the reader about the plot.  In my terminology, exposition is the completion of this task.  Poorly executed exposition is typically referred to as an infodump.  Ideally, you convey the information to the reader without him ever realizing that's what you're doing.

In my mind, how the information is communicated, whether through dialogue or other means, is irrelevant to the definition of the term.


----------



## Addison (Aug 2, 2012)

Two traps in dialogue I've come across are the following:
1. Adding 'he/she asked' or 'he/she shouted' after a dialogue with an exclamation or question mark at the end. We already know he shouted or asked, saying so at the end is redundant is shakes the readers grip on the reality you've presented. 
2. Giving a dialogue after a heated battle or indication by body language that the character(s) is angry and saying, after the dialogue, that they spoke angrily. Heck sometimes, if no prior indication, the writer puts "he said angrily" is just....blah. There's several words that can take the place of angrily "snapped, spat, vehemently, hissed etc" True you want to keep these words at a minimum but still.


----------



## Ireth (Aug 2, 2012)

Addison said:


> Two traps in dialogue I've come across are the following:
> 1. Adding 'he/she asked' or 'he/she shouted' after a dialogue with an exclamation or question mark at the end. We already know he shouted or asked, saying so at the end is redundant is shakes the readers grip on the reality you've presented.



Well, sometimes a description is necessary even with such obvious things. Anger can temper one's voice in a variety of ways -- something like "I hate you!" can be uttered in a lot of different tones. Is it a roar of fury, a shrill shriek, a barely-audible growl? All of those and more paint a clearer picture of how the words sound rather than just what they mean.


----------



## Addison (Aug 2, 2012)

Good point.  But with dialogue you don't want to keep doing "he said" "she said" "he said" "she said" all the way through. Nor do you want "he snipped" "she quipped" "he said snidely" "she whispered gently" all the way through. There must be a balance. Sort of like doing research, it's either underdone or overdone. It has to be balanced.


----------



## Ireth (Aug 2, 2012)

Addison said:


> Good point.  But with dialogue you don't want to keep doing "he said" "she said" "he said" "she said" all the way through. Nor do you want "he snipped" "she quipped" "he said snidely" "she whispered gently" all the way through. There must be a balance. Sort of like doing research, it's either underdone or overdone. It has to be balanced.



Yes, exactly.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 2, 2012)

Addison said:
			
		

> Good point.  But with dialogue you don't want to keep doing "he said" "she said" "he said" "she said" all the way through. Nor do you want "he snipped" "she quipped" "he said snidely" "she whispered gently" all the way through. There must be a balance. Sort of like doing research, it's either underdone or overdone. It has to be balanced.



If written properly and spaced with action tags & tag-less dialogue, "he said/she said" can be relied upon because of its ability to disappear into the reading. Readers don't notice their use.


----------



## Addison (Aug 2, 2012)

That is also true. Just like after a long paragraph, or long line of them, readers need shorter paragraphs.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 2, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> If written properly and spaced with action tags & tag-less dialogue, "he said/she said" can be relied upon because of its ability to disappear into the reading. Readers don't notice their use.



Yes. In general, I favor using 'said' whenever there is a tag, and eliminating tags when possible.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 2, 2012)

R.U.E.

Resist the urge to explain...

(Edit: I mean in regards of writing)


----------



## OnumVeritae (Aug 2, 2012)

What about simply keeping in mind what each character wants and how they feel when they enter each scene? I mean you can focus on word form but that should just be reflected in who the characters are and where they're at emotionally. These all seem like tips to mimic dialogue that sounds real and that can be important but it shouldn't be the driving force. Even if you're not dealing in world where characters talk like people normally do, they still have motivations and that should drive how they speak. Even if the dialogue doesn't pop, the character arch would support it if each character's motivations drives the scene.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 2, 2012)

OnumVeritae said:


> What about simply keeping in mind what each character wants and how they feel when they enter each scene? I mean you can focus on word form but that should just be reflected in who the characters are and where they're at emotionally. These all seem like tips to mimic dialogue that sounds real and that can be important but it shouldn't be the driving force. Even if you're not dealing in world where characters talk like people normally do, they still have motivations and that should drive how they speak. Even if the dialogue doesn't pop, the character arch would support it if each character's motivations drives the scene.



This is a good point.  Add: Consider viewpoint and motivation for each character to the list.


----------



## Addison (Aug 2, 2012)

The most important thing about writing dialogue is keeping the dialogue real. Real to character interaction, time in history and background. Would two drunk cowboys be talking about stocks or how the old lady in the old ranch is doing? No. Would people in a Victorinan era use words like 'cool' or 'awesome'? I don't think so. Would someone born and raised in the rural part of Minnesota who moves to Louisiana know any of the slang, lingo or local terms of the area? Highly doubt it. Keep it real.


----------



## The Din (Aug 3, 2012)

Addison said:


> Two traps in dialogue I've come across are the following:
> 1. Adding 'he/she asked' or 'he/she shouted' after a dialogue with an exclamation or question mark at the end. We already know he shouted or asked, saying so at the end is redundant is shakes the readers grip on the reality you've presented.


"Is it really any less redundant to say 'he said' after a question mark?" he asked, eyebrow somewhere near his hair-line. "Asked takes up much the same space, yet offers greater clarity...' A question mark can mean 'ask', 'demand', 'begged', etc. Sometimes ? needs clarification, same goes for old !. 

I personally use very little tags whatsoever, though I'm not afraid to mix them up when I do. 
"But 'said' is invisible," insisted the impertinent mythic scribes. "'Said' is--" 
"Big deal," cut in The Din, "who wants to read an invisible f**king book?"


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 3, 2012)

With respect to modern dialogue and slang, just keep in mind that a fantasy world is a made up world. Your characters can speak modern English even if the setting is reflective of a medieval one.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 25, 2012)

I have a need to address this topic again.  I've been reading some successful traditionally published authors and I've noticed something about he usage of *speech tags.*  Specifically, whether or not to stick to using *said* vs other forms of expressing dialogue.  Below you'll find a few excerpts:



> "If I told you, it wouldn t be mysterious," Kelsier said with a smile.
> Dockson rolled his eyes. "The vial is filled with an alcohol solution and some flakes of metal, Vin."
> "Metal?" *she asked with a frown.*
> "Two of the eight basic Allomantic metals," Kelsier said. "We need to do some tests."
> ...



Brandon Sanderson seems to stick to the usage of "said" whenever possible.  Yet, as you can see by the bold text, he steps away from the rule.  Specifically, he used the word "ask" when the question mark is right there.  



> "Nemed…” I hesitated. “If I do fail… I understand, a little, what will befall me. My gifts will fade, and I’ll no longer feel         welcome among us. What of this place?” I gestured around. “Will it be forbidden to me?”
> 
> “Ah, child,” *she murmured*. “No. You will forget it.”
> 
> ...



If you ever want a great example of FPOV, read Jacqueline Carey.  But notice that she breaks the "said" rule twice in less than a page of dialogue!  



> ‘He may not have to,’ Faint said, following Aranict’s gaze. ‘I don’t know much about battles, but I can’t see us winning this one.’‘
> 
> We’re not here to win,’ *Aranict replied.* ‘We’re just here to take a long time to die.’
> 
> ...



It's not secret that I'm a huge Steven Erikson fan.  Note the two rule breaks in what amounts to a quarter of a page.  

So the question is: Is  the "said rule" truly the industry standard?  Consider that all of these are traditionally published authors with an editorial staff.


----------



## ThinkerX (Aug 25, 2012)

> So the question is: Is the "said rule" truly the industry standard? Consider that all of these are traditionally published authors with an editorial staff.



Here we go again!

More and more, I am inclined to see the overuse of 'said' along with minimal description and maybe even a despising of adverbs as being not so much 'rules', but hallmarks of what might be termed one specific brand of modern 'style'.  It is a large style, yes, and prefered by many...hmmm...errr...'less sophisticated' readers, but not the only one.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 25, 2012)

> “Show her,” my mother said softly. *The old woman grumbled.* My mother came over to my side and took my right hand in hers. “Here’s a good one to choose.” She turned my palm upward and stroked a tiny scar in the webbing of my thumb. “Remember how you got this?”



Also, I want to point out the bold phrase.  Another character does an action within another character's dialogue/action block.  How can this be?  I thought this was a big no-no.  No?


----------



## Jared (Aug 25, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Brandon Sanderson seems to stick to the usage of "said" whenever possible.  Yet, as you can see by the bold text, he steps away from the rule.  Specifically, he used the word "ask" when the question mark is right there.



For those that haven't seen it, Brandson Sanderson's writing class lectures are here. He discusses writing dialogue in this lecture.


----------



## Helen (Aug 25, 2012)

My favorite quote about this, from somewhere I don't know is,

"Just because they're talking, doesn't make it dialogue."


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

> So the question is: Is the "said rule" truly the industry standard? Consider that all of these are traditionally published authors with an editorial staff.



Two points:

1. Published writers can get by with just about anything they want.  Read The Omen Machine by Terry Goodkind and try to find anything in that book worthy of emulating.  

2. For literally a decade, I read books about how to write.  In that time, I encountered multiple books that addressed this issue.  Not one of them advised using any tag other than said.  The most recent book that I've read that addressed the subject was Self Editing for Fiction Writers.  The purpose of the book is to help writers get their work to a level that is worthy of being published.  The author's view on speech tags: the use of any tag other than "said" marks you as an amateur.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 27, 2012)

> 2. For literally a decade, I read books about how to write. In that time, I encountered multiple books that addressed this issue. Not one of them advised using any tag other than said. The most recent book that I've read that addressed the subject was Self Editing for Fiction Writers. The purpose of the book is to help writers get their work to a level that is worthy of being published. The author's view on speech tags: the use of any tag other than "said" marks you as an amateur.



But I just gave 3 examples of _awesome_ authors.  You won't find one publisher who wouldn't dream of having these three authors under their umbrella.

I think there is a conflict going on between authors and editors.  Even if you watch Brandon Sanderson's videos, as Jared linked, he talked about "Said Bookisms" and the contention he has with his editor.  His editor doesn't want a single use of "reply" or "murmured" yet he, admittedly, wants to use them.  He does by a rule of 1 in 5 to break "Said Bookisms."

I understand the usage of *said* and how it should be the dominant choice, but I don't think it should be the only speech tag used in a book.

To me, it feels like its a conflict between *Those Who Do* and *Those Who Haven't But Teach.*  Like what is said about professors in a university; "Those who can't, teach."

BWFoster78, I'm particularly interested in your opinion concerning Jacqueline Carey and her not breaking up a paragraph when another character does an actin.

Thanks!


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

Ankari:

Those are good authors, and what I've seen of their writing works just fine. None of these so-called rules are absolutes. I do think an author should use "said" predominantly, but that doesn't mean it is impossible to ever use another tag. As for not breaking every character's action into a new paragraph, I've seen all sorts of examples of that. I've even seen a POV shift within a paragraph (no break). None of these things are inherently wrong. The only question that matters in any given instance is this: does it work?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

> BWFoster78, I'm particularly interested in your opinion concerning Jacqueline Carey and her not breaking up a paragraph when another character does an actin.



Okay.



> “Show her,” my mother said softly. The old woman grumbled. My mother came over to my side and took my right hand in hers. “Here’s a good one to choose.” She turned my palm upward and stroked a tiny scar in the webbing of my thumb. “Remember how you got this?”



This is pretty jumbled up.  I don't think that you'll find any grammar guides out there that advocate the following:

Character dialogue -> speech tag -> action by another speaker -> continue paragraph

The generally accepted form is:

dialogue -> speech tag -> end paragraph

I guarantee you that you can find examples for breaking any rule that you want.  This does not make it okay or right.  



> I understand the usage of said and how it should be the dominant choice, but I don't think it should be the only speech tag used in a book.



I agree.  I prefer "whispered" to "said quietly."  It's more compact.  However, I think that "replied" and "answered" are both beyond dreadful.  Complete dreckitude.  

Character A speaks.
Character B speaks in response.  Using "replied" or "answered" is completely redundant.  The text tells us that the second character speaking is in response to the first.  

Basically, if a speech tag other than said can be used to shorten the text or add clarity, it's fine.  Otherwise, use said.



> But I just gave 3 examples of awesome authors. You won't find one publisher who wouldn't dream of having these three authors under their umbrella.



Which is why they can get by with whatever they want.  Are you going to stop reading a good book because the author made a technical mistake?  No.  Can enough technical mistakes make the book unreadable?  Yes.  Again reference The Omen Machine.  

Two points, though: 

1. You're not considered to be an "awesome" writer.  You need to be better than those guys to stand out.
2. I'm trying to be the best writer that I can be.  Why would I do something that I know is wrong because I saw some other guy doing it.  In my opinion, using tags other than "said" (except for exceptions as stated above) is horrible.  Am I going to not read the next Mistborn because Sanderson likes using them?  No.  Will I continue to point out in others writing that "said" is the better choice?  Yes.  I'd do the same for Sanderson if he asked me to read his work.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

BWFoster:

I think you are being overly-analytical in your application of "rules" (which aren't really rules). If authors really followed each of the discussed "rules" of writing without fail, what you result in large part is a bunch of generic, emotionally-dead writing. The body of literature, fantasy or otherwise, would be much the worse for it.

I don't think over-analyzing writing to point of removing any style, feeling, or emotion from it, so that it can be reduced to some rigorous set of rules, is a laudable goal, and I for one am glad that the number of authors who do such a thing is few.

As noted, you can find plenty of examples among published authors of people breaking the rules. How many examples can you find from good authors who follow, without fail, all of the rules that get bandied around a writing forum. Not a lot. Maybe there's a reason for that - it doesn't make for good writing, and is therefore counterproductive to your goal of being the best writer you can be.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 27, 2012)

Factually speaking, loads of published authors use non-said tags. GRRM uses them constantly in all his writing. I once counted five on a single page of _A Game of Thrones_.

As a non-published nobody, if you use them too much you'll get pushback from professionals; but I doubt there are many professional agents/editors/publishers who will see a single non-said tag and say "Nope! This book sucks." Whether your book is publishable has to do with a lot more than whether or not you use "whispered" or "shouted" occasionally.

The goal of the "never use non-said tags" advice isn't to convince writers to _never_ use them; it's to convince them to use them _less_, mainly because amateur authors tend to overuse them. Aim for the stars if your real goal is the moon.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> The goal of the "never use non-said tags" advice isn't to convince writers to _never_ use them; it's to convince them to use them _less_, mainly because amateur authors tend to overuse them.



Bingo.

/10char


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

Steerpike,



> I think you are being overly-analytical in your application of "rules"



I don't think so in this case.  As always, my point is that you should

1. fully understand a rule before breaking it
2. consider the consequences
3. and break the rule only if the benefits outweigh the advantages.

From Ankari's comments, I don't feel that he meets the criteria of number 1 above.  

I feel he should research the issue until he has a clearer understanding of why the rule (and I do believe that rules both exist and have merit) is in place.



> I don't think over-analyzing writing to point of removing any style, feeling, or emotion from it, so that it can be reduced to some rigorous set of rules, is a laudable goal, and I for one am glad that the number of authors who do such a thing is few.



I'm not even going to try to defend my POV.  You and I have a well-documented difference of opinion on the subject.  I'm perfectly fine with you not agreeing with me on this matter.



> As noted, you can find plenty of examples among published authors of people breaking the rules. How many examples can you find from good authors who follow, without fail, all of the rules that get bandied around a writing forum. Not a lot. Maybe there's a reason for that - it doesn't make for good writing, and is therefore counterproductive to your goal of being the best writer you can be.



Here's my question: why don't they follow rules without fail?  I think there are a bunch of reasons.

1. Sometimes, they make a considered decision to break the rules.  Good for them.
2. Sometimes, they disagree with the rule.  I don't follow every rule that anyone has ever told me.
3. Sometimes, it's not worth the effort to them.  If you're a professional author, you get paid a whole lot more to create new books than you do to make what you just wrote perfect.  Is it really worth the time to edit out every mistake?  How much better, however, would their work be if they did?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

> The goal of the "never use non-said tags" advice isn't to convince writers to never use them; it's to convince them to use them less, mainly because amateur authors tend to overuse them. Aim for the stars if your real goal is the moon.



I agree with this as well.

I use murmurred and whispered in my WIP.  However, most of the time, you're much better off with just "said."  

I've gotten to the point where I literally cringe when I read a "replied" or "answered."


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

BWFoster:

4. The writer realizes that the process of writing and projecting the vision in their head onto the paper is more important than getting caught up in all of these technical asides. Your creative and analytical sides work differently, and while you need the latter if you give it too much control you're going to destroy the former.

My view is that your approach, taken to its natural conclusion, is going to leave an emotional distance between the work and the reader and make it harder for the writer to connect with the story. At the very least, your approach runs the risk of that and it would have to be guarded against. When it comes to a technically-flawless piece of writing that fails to draw the reader in or create an emotional connection between the reader and story, versus a piece of writing that a heavily rules-oriented person might consider to be flawed but which engages a reader fully (including emotionally), you'll be better off with the latter.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 27, 2012)

> I feel he should research the issue until he has a clearer understanding of why the rule (and I do believe that rules both exist and have merit) is in place.



So, why is the 'rule' in place?


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> So, why is the rule in place?



The word "rule" is a misnomer. As Benjamin said, these are guidelines meant to address common problems in new writers, where aspects of writing are misused, overused, or what have you. There is no "rule."


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> BWFoster:
> 
> 4. The writer realizes that the process of writing and projecting the vision in their head onto the paper is more important than getting caught up in all of these technical asides. Your creative and analytical sides work differently, and while you need the latter if you give it too much control you're going to destroy the former.
> 
> My view is that your approach, taken to its natural conclusion, is going to leave an emotional distance between the work and the reader and make it harder for the writer to connect with the story. At the very least, your approach runs the risk of that and it would have to be guarded against. When it comes to a technically-flawless piece of writing that fails to draw the reader in or create an emotional connection between the reader and story, versus a piece of writing that a heavily rules-oriented person might consider to be flawed but which engages a reader fully (including emotionally), you'll be better off with the latter.



That's why I need rules on how to work emotion in


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> That's why I need rules on how to work emotion in



Heh.

Well played. And spoken like a true Engineer


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> So, why is the rule in place?



The concept is:

1. Speech tags exist only for one purpose - to tell the reader who is talking.  As such, it's better if you don't call attention to them by using adverbs or a bunch of different versions.
2. New authors tend to not think that their writing can stand on its own and try to add too much explanation.  Speech tags, when used by the inexperienced writer, tend to overexplain and become redundant.  It's "Drop dead!" he said.  vs.  "Drop dead!" he shouted.  The "shouted" is already emphasized by both the exclamation point and by the words.  Hence, it's overexplaining to use it.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 27, 2012)

Totally agree with the over-explaining bit... 

But, I tend to think it's more along the lines of setting up the scene well to start off with. Set the scene, the mood, the conflict, the body-language, the emotion and you won't need to use the extra tags. The raw emotion should then show itself without the need for an explanation.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> The word "rule" is a misnomer. As Benjamin said, these are guidelines meant to address common problems in new writers, where aspects of writing are misused, overused, or what have you. There is no "rule."



Again, I've read a lot of books on the subject of writing.  They're consistent in pointing out some common mistakes of new writers, one of them being the overuse of varied speech tags.  

I don't think it's a stretch to call this a "rule," with the caveat being that you can break the rules as long as you understand them.

Now, is breaking this particular rule so egregious that it's likely to lose you readers if the rest of your work is good?  Probably not.  If you write an active piece that engages my emotion, I'll forgive a few "replied's."


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> Totally agree with the over-explaining bit...
> 
> But, I tend to think it's more along the lines of setting up the scene well to start off with. Set the scene, the mood, the conflict, the body-language, the emotion and you won't need to use the extra tags. The raw emotion should then show itself without the need for an explanation.



I agree.  Most newer writers, however, don't seem to get that.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 27, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> So, why is the 'rule' in place?



I have a theory about the opposing desires of authors and editors.  Editing _is_ becoming a science.  You can go to a university or college and get a degree in editing.  You'll read guidelines and get taught what _is wrong and right._  Creative writing, although there is a degree for it, cannot get taught.  Why?  You cannot _teach_ creativity.  You can practice applying the imagination to paper, but you can't teach someone how to imagine.

I think editors _need_ a scientific approach to their job.  The problem with scientific application to an art, it reduces the emotion behind the intent.  Emotion isn't scientific.  You can't say "If X does this, Y will react in this manner."   

Editors do a goob job at cleaning up an author's work, but I get wary when they try to edit out emotion.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

Ankari said:


> I have a theory about the opposing desires of authors and editors.  Editing _is_ becoming a science.  You can go to a university or college and get a degree in editing.  You'll read guidelines and get taught what _is wrong and right._  Creative writing, although there is a degree for it, cannot get taught.  Why?  You cannot _teach_ creativity.  You can practice applying the imagination to paper, but you can't teach someone how to imagine.
> 
> I think editors _need_ a scientific approach to their job.  The problem with scientific application to an art, it reduces the emotion behind the intent.  Emotion isn't scientific.  You can't say "If X does this, Y will react in this manner."
> 
> Editors do a goob job at cleaning up an author's work, but I get wary when they try to edit out emotion.



To me, the creative part is coming up with the characters and the world and the plot.  After that, I want my writing to get out of the way so that my story can be understood.  

I don't think that writing will ever be a true science.  There are too many variables and too many subjective elements.  Guidelines, though, are there to help you.  Why would you take a great bit of advice like "try to use said whenever possible" and think to yourself "reply" looks great there?

Most of the time, it doesn't.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Editors do a goob job at cleaning up an author's work, but I get wary when they try to edit out emotion.



It's a balance. Over-applying the scientific approach in editing will render a piece more generic, and step the reader back emotionally. That can be a huge problem. Obviously, you want the writing to be of good quality. A good editor can strike that balance well.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> To me, the creative part is coming up with the characters and the world and the plot.  After that, I want my writing to get out of the way so that my story can be understood.



I don't know - seems to me if this were the case you could simply input the character, world, and plot variables into a computer and have it churn out a story. Only, you can't do that because the computer doesn't experience the emotion, empathy, connection to characters, pathos, or such things that a human is going to experience. The closer your writing gets to something that could have been produced by a machine, the further you get from those unique qualities of the human existence. 

I think it is true the guidelines are there to help you, but they only help if you understand why there are there and that they _are_ guidelines, and not rules.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Over-applying the scientific approach in editing will render a piece more generic, and step the reader back emotionally.



I think that this is assuming facts not in evidence.  

It's your theory that applying rules takes out emotion.

My theory is that applying rules makes writing clearer, allowing the emotion to come through better.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't know - seems to me if this were the case you could simply input the character, world, and plot variables into a computer and have it churn out a story. Only, you can't do that because the computer doesn't experience the emotion, empathy, connection to characters, pathos, or such things that a human is going to experience. The closer your writing gets to something that could have been produced by a machine, the further you get from those unique qualities of the human existence.
> 
> I think it is true the guidelines are there to help you, but they only help if you understand why there are there and that they _are_ guidelines, and not rules.



The emotion is part of the story.  How does establishing rules for technique eliminate emotion?


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think that this is assuming facts not in evidence.
> 
> It's your theory that applying rules takes out emotion.



Yes, I'm just basing it on personal observation. I've seen people edit a piece in just such a manner and end up with a very flat story. In most cases, the original piece needed some editing, but they overdid it. They got a piece that was very nice, technically, and not very good as a story.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 27, 2012)

> A good editor can strike that balance well.



Yes, I feel that a good editor will not suggest something because "The rule states avoid this, so remove that."  I feel that a good editor will simply state why _that_ didn't work in that situation.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> How does establishing rules for technique eliminate emotion?



Because your creative/emotion sides work differently, in my view, than your analytical side. You need both of them. During your initial writing, you're letting it all flow onto the paper, and technicalities be damned (at least, that's how I do it). When you go back to edit, you are in analytic mode. Your logical mind is taking over, looking for problems, and your creative/emotional side is turned off or at least pushed aside. But because your logical mind works differently from your creative/emotional mind, it doesn't do a great job of recognizing what brings the emotional vitality to the story. The fact that you are thinking about things differently makes it easy to harm the output of the creative mind without realizing exactly why on an intuitive or emotional level. You think you're making the writing lean, fixing every possible issue, and so on, and when you're done you have (without meaning to) eliminated some element that your logical mind couldn't see, and it turns out it was important to the emotion of the story and to connecting with the reader.

That's my theory. Like I said, I've seen this happen on a number of occasions and those are my thoughts as to why it happens to people. It may be that there is something else at work, but when I see a first draft that has problems but is fully engaging with the reader on a emotional level, and then an edit where all of the problems are eliminated but the writing is generic and flat, it isn't hard to see that the editing process harmed the story in some way.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Yes, I feel that a good editor will not suggest something because "The rule states avoid this, so remove that."  I feel that a good editor will simply state why _that_ didn't work in that situation.



Yes. You have to look at it in context. No blanket statement of a "rule" (or guideline), without consideration of context, is going to be worth a lot in my view.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Aug 27, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I agree with this as well.
> 
> I use murmurred and whispered in my WIP.  However, most of the time, you're much better off with just "said."
> 
> I've gotten to the point where I literally cringe when I read a "replied" or "answered."



I don't think the guideline against non-said tags is reasonable to apply universally to all tags. I've come to believe that certain dialogue tags are worse than others. "Replied" and "answered" are usually 100% redundant because it's obvious that that's what they're doing, and whenever I see that I've used one, I remove it.

*"Where's the money?" Bob said.*
*"I don't know!" Jim replied.*

That "replied" is redundant because it's self-evident that what Jim says is a reply to Bob. There's a lot of such tags that virtually never help by being used.

But then there are others that do actually provide information that the words themselves cannot. These examples give very different impressions to the reader:

*"Where's the money?" Bob shouted.*
*"Where's the money?" Bob whispered.*
*"Where's the money?" Bob said.*
*"Where's the money?" Bob growled.*
*"Where's the money?" Bob smiled.*
*"Where's the money?" Bob wondered.*

Yes, each of these can be written in ways that convey a similar feeling without using the dialogue tag, but the overwhelming majority of readers have no negative reaction to occasional dialogue tags, meaning that the only reason to do so is not to piss off editors or the small minority of readers who automatically think dialogue tags are amateurish.

Sometimes the dialogue itself will imply a mood, or you can use adjacent motions/expressions to convey the mood of the speech. Sometimes the overall tone of the passage can cover it. If Bob starts the paragraph by _storming into the room_, readers are going to assume that everything he says is said angrily.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, I'm just basing it on personal observation. I've seen people edit a piece in just such a manner and end up with a very flat story. In most cases, the original piece needed some editing, but they overdid it. They got a piece that was very nice, technically, and not very good as a story.



I understand that you saw a case of this happening, but I do not believe this to be an inherent problem.  I value emotion in my work and strive to incorporate it to an appropriate degree.  Anyone who edits and doesn't consider emotion is doing their writing a disservice.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

> Because your creative/emotion sides work differently, in my view, than your analytical side.



I would say that producing a story that contains emotion is a creative endeavor.  Figuring out how to convey effectively that emotion, however, is an analytical problem.  I don't need to be creative to convey emotion.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I understand that you saw a case of this happening, but I do not believe this to be an inherent problem.  I value emotion in my work and strive to incorporate it to an appropriate degree.  Anyone who edits and doesn't consider emotion is doing their writing a disservice.



On the contrary, I've seen numerous instances of it and I think it is an inherent issue.  I disagree with your assessment.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

> Yes, I feel that a good editor will not suggest something because "The rule states avoid this, so remove that." I feel that a good editor will simply state why that didn't work in that situation.



I wouldn't think that any editor has the time to fully explain all their reasoning.

When I'm looking over someone's work and I see "John replied," I simply tell them that "said" is better.  I don't take the time, in most instances, to tell them that a) "replied" makes you seem like a complete amateur, b) "said" will hide better in the text, and c) "replied" is redundant to the text.  

If that's the only comment I have, sure, I can go into that much detail.  Most of the time, I have comments on every single sentence.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> On the contrary, I've seen numerous instances of it and I think it is an inherent issue.  I disagree with your assessment.



I can see that from your perspective.  I seriously doubt that I would have agreed with you that the original text was fine and just needed a few edits.  I'd be willing to bet that I would enjoy the "ruined" text better than the original.  We have different tastes.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

> "Where's the money?" Bob growled.
> "Where's the money?" Bob smiled.



There are those who would say that these are pretty horrible because "growling" and "smiling" are not forms of speech.  I would have a tendency to agree with those people.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 27, 2012)

> "Where's the money?" Bob growled.



Let's take this a step further.  What if the above was written:

"Where's the money?" Bob growled out his words.

There is a problem in that "out his words." is a redundancy and thus unnecessary.

While stating Bob growled is not a form of speech.  Do we favor one guideline over another?  

If it were suggested to simply state:

"Where's the money?" Bob said. 

You lose the emotional impact of "growled."  You could write a sentence or two showing Bob's anger, but now we head back into the economy of words issue.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

> "Where's the money?" Bob growled out his words.



To me, this is the same thing with more words.  How do you growl out words exactly?



> You lose the emotional impact of "growled." You could write a sentence or two showing Bob's anger, but now we head back into the economy of words issue.



This is why the rule is needed.  You can find a much better way to impart Bob's emotional state than to say he "growled out his words."  

Bob slammed his fist onto the table.  "Where's the money?"

is much better than "Where's the money?" Bob growled (with or without out his words.).


----------



## Ankari (Aug 27, 2012)

> Bob slammed his fist onto the table. "Where's the money?"



It is a great sentence, except now Bob is slamming his fists on a table.  The scene has changed.  And that is the problem I have with strict adherence to guidelines.  You write to fit a guideline instead of writing to tell a story.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 27, 2012)

Ankari said:


> It is a great sentence, except now Bob is slamming his fists on a table.  The scene has changed.  And that is the problem I have with strict adherence to guidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ankari (Aug 27, 2012)

> I don't know if the "you" was specifically in reference to me or not.



Nope.  I thought about using "one" but then I would feel like a pompous (what's another word I could use here withing cursing?)



> Personally, I follow the guidelines to make my writing better because I understand the reason behind the guideline - to produce clear, well crafted stories.



Well crafted stories don't mean they are good stories.  If that were the case, the snippets I've used from the three author wouldn't exist.  They broke the guidelines, quite often actually, because conveying the intent conflicted with the guidelines.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 27, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Well crafted stories don't mean they are good stories.



This is true. Further, stories that aren't crafted as well can be very good stories. Personally, I feel that the drive toward making everyone's stories "sound" the same is bad for the craft. I think we're starting to trend away from that a bit, as compared to perhaps the last 10 to 15 years, and I'm glad to see it.


----------



## The Din (Aug 28, 2012)

Steerpike has the right of it, far as I'm concerned. F**k the rules! (or take them with a grain of salt, either way.) Limiting yourself to one word when there are dosens for the taking seems like a step backwards to me. Sure, they must be used conservatively, but so must all words. Including 'said'. 

I do draw the line at 'smiling' words, however. 

'Growling' is trickier. Granted, you can't actually growl words, but an author's allowed a certain amount of hyperbole. Not every word in literature is meant literally. Long as the reader understands the author's meaning and isn't left WTFing all over the place, imo. Now let's see if I'm just talking out my a**...

-'Where's my money?' Growled the man, as only the most dedicated of drunks may growl. 'I know you took it.'
Bob watched the little urchin squirm in the big fellow's grip, like she actually had a chance off getting away._ Save your strength, girl, you'll need it to crawl away afterwards. _
'Didn't take nothing,' the girl replied, surreptitiously dropping one coin after another into the mud. 'Wasn't looking where I was going is all.'
'Hold on there, mate,' Bob shouted across the busy street and chuckled his way over to the pair. 'You're doing it wrong, got to twist her arm like so...' Together, he and his new friend set about delivering justice, one kick at a time.-


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 28, 2012)

I'm not sure what good this is doing as I have my opinion and the rest of you have yours, but I can't seem to resist.  I'm reminded of the cartoon showing a woman at the top of the stairs yelling down to her husband:

"Honey, come to bed."
"I can't."
"Why not?"
"Because someone on the internet is wrong!"

I think that there absolutely do exist good rules that help you produce clear, concise writing.  I further believe that clear, concise writing is the best way to get your story across to the reader, including the emotional aspects.

I fully understand that not everyone agrees with the style of writing that I like.  Maybe it's possible to fly by the seat of your pants and create good writing.  That approach is not the right one for me, and I think that most people on this site would be better off fully understanding the rules first before trying to do their own thing.



> They broke the guidelines, quite often actually, because conveying the intent conflicted with the guidelines.



I think you'll find that Sanderson (I'm not familiar with the other author you brought up), at least, actually follows a lot of the guidelines.  Is the use of "said" the most important implement in your toolbox?  No.  Can you overcome the deficiency if your writing is strong otherwise?  Yes.  

Frankly, (and this is directed solely at Ankari), I believe that your writing would greatly benefit from paying more attention to the rules.  



> Further, stories that aren't crafted as well can be very good stories.



No argument there, but we're getting into what can be taught versus finding some kind of natural voice that works.

Let's be honest.  Most people who take up writing aren't going to be able to create masterpieces no matter how much time and effort that they put into it.  If there exists out there a method of teaching writers to find a unique voice that will help them produce truly outstanding material while not adhering to any rules, I haven't found it or heard about it.

I've read a lot of stuff on this site.  I can't think of a single instance where I've read something that broke all the rules and I thought that it worked.  There was one instance at my writing group.  An older gentleman brought in a piece that was very passive in the use of was and broke a lot of the rules.  However, the piece did work.  It had a unique "voice" and was funny.  If you want to struggle for years to try to create that really awesome voice, more power to you.  I think you're probably going to create a bunch of complete crap in the interim.

As far as Ankari goes (not trying to pick on him; he's just the one who revived the thread with his question), I think that he is focused on creating something that has the possibility of being commercially viable.  In my completely honest opinion, he is not going to do that without following the rules.  Again, if he struggles and writes for the next ten years, maybe he can develop those abilities and find that voice.  I don't feel that that is his goal, however.  He can chime in if I'm wrong.

What the "rules" allow is for writing to be taught.  Come up with characters and story and setting, and the rules tell you how to present that story so that it's fit for human consumption.  That's all I want - to be able to tell my story.  If you want to create art, I certainly can't help you, and I don't think anyone here really can either.


----------



## Butterfly (Aug 28, 2012)

I'm going to link to a useful relevant post at this point, before we go any further with this. Hope you all read it, just so you know where we're heading.

This Itch of Writing: Messes, clones, and plots like a W


----------



## Ankari (Aug 28, 2012)

Read it.  Liked it.  Thanked.

The point she raised is something that I'm finding myself aligned with.  Know what the rules are, but don't stick to them solely because they _are_ rules.  I know the counter argument: you have to completely know the rules before breaking it.  And to that, I'll simply state that I am trying to do just that.  If I make a mistake while doing so, then it's more helpful to know why the rule break didn't work instead of knowing that it is a rule break.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 28, 2012)

BWFoster:

It isn't very likely given your view, howeer, that you are going to find an instance of breaking the rules that you feel works, though, is it?  That's like me saying I don't like fish,  and furthermore fish is bad,  my proof being I've never eaten one that I personally liked.  Given your starting point, the end result is hard to escape. 

I think you will admit that your own writing tends to leave a bit of emotional distance between the reader and story (or maybe you don't think it does). You might at least be open to the idea that your approach isn'telping in that regard.  Everyone operates differently, but I would not be at all surprised that such an approach is reflected in the work. It would have to be. Any approach is. There has to be balance. You can't go to  either extreme, and you seem to me to be at one.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 28, 2012)

> It isn't very likely given your view, howeer, that you are going to find an instance of breaking the rules that you feel works, though, is it?



I actually mentioned one case in my preface.  I think that it takes a lot of experience and talent to do it.



> I think you will admit that your own writing tends to leave a bit of emotional distance between the reader and story (or maybe you don't think it does). You might at least be open to the idea that your approach isn'telping in that regard.



I think that figuring out when and how to incorporate emotion is my toughest challenge.  I think I've done well in some of the later chapters of my book, and I think that the beginning and middle chapters still need a lot of work.  I disagree that my "approach" isn't helping.  



> You can't go to either extreme, and you seem to me to be at one.



You seem to be at the other extreme.

I think that my last post brought up an interesting point that I'm not sure can really be answered: can writing be taught?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 28, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Read it.  Liked it.  Thanked.
> 
> The point she raised is something that I'm finding myself aligned with.  Know what the rules are, but don't stick to them solely because they _are_ rules.  I know the counter argument: you have to completely know the rules before breaking it.  And to that, I'll simply state that I am trying to do just that.  If I make a mistake while doing so, then it's more helpful to know why the rule break didn't work instead of knowing that it is a rule break.



Unless you have readers a lot more experienced than me, I'm not sure you're going to get your question answered.  I can tell you THAT something didn't work, and I can tell you that you breaking a rule likely led to the problem.  I cannot, however, explain to you, in most instances, why your breaking the rule didn't work.


----------



## SeverinR (Aug 29, 2012)

#14; I think some characters just need to speak with an unusual dialect that may be difficult to read.
Basically, like all rules it should be limited, but not an unbreakable rule.


----------



## ShortHair (Aug 29, 2012)

Here's my two cents on dialog.

You will do yourself a great favor by studying drama. Some plays are practically nothing but dialog. Where we use _said_ and a character's name, the playwright just uses the name.

It helps to think of a scene in terms of stage direction. Where is this character standing, what is that character doing during the speech, who's entering, who's exiting, here's a sword ready for someone to use.

If you've given the reader a good sketch of a character, you don't need to explain how that character reacts to something because the reader will already know.


----------



## Bernadette PL (Sep 2, 2012)

Interesting. Does it distract from the read?


----------



## wordwalker (Sep 12, 2012)

ShortHair said:


> Here's my two cents on dialog.
> 
> You will do yourself a great favor by studying drama. Some plays are practically nothing but dialog. Where we use _said_ and a character's name, the playwright just uses the name.
> 
> ...



I don't agree about not needing reactions. At least, although a well-established character is someone the reader can fill in a lot of moments for, you still want to find the right balance between showing every reaction and showing none.

But stage direction, or observing plays and films, is a great way to look at scenes and see which parts are dialog and which are the necessary or emphasis points twined around the dialog. I especially like the example of a good radio play: it's all sound, so you can hear how it's a sequence of:

*Creak*
"Who's there?"
*Bang!*
(I'd never ducked so fast in my life...)

You can really see dialog, description, and other things all get laced together.


----------

