# "He said" ..."She said" over and over



## Miskatonic

If there is a dialog going on between two people, and the order in which they are is well defined, do you remove the ownership of the dialog by just writing the dialog and not adding "He said" etc. Obviously if the order changes that would be referenced.

It just gets annoying to have "insert character name" said, at the end of each line of dialog. It kind of ruins the flow.


----------



## Ban

I usually just remove the "he said""she said" from the dialog and instead use synonyms for "said"appropriate to the situation, e.g "he croaked" "she explained" "The old man read out loud", or i just don't write anything down and make sure the structure of the sentences are explanative enough to suggest that someone else is speaking. The last tactic works best if there are only two people talking.


----------



## Russ

Banten said:


> I usually just remove the "he said""she said" from the dialog and instead use synonyms for "said"appropriate to the situation, e.g "he croaked" "she explained" "The old man read out loud", or i just don't write anything down and make sure the structure of the sentences are explanative enough to suggest that someone else is speaking. The last tactic works best if there are only two people talking.



Personally I avoid all of those fancy dialogue tags like croaked, screamed, inquired, etc.  I go with just plain old said about 95% of the time.  

If I find that tiring I just drop the "said" and if I need some clarity add in an action to clarify the speaker.


----------



## FifthView

​You can also write action for a character in the same paragraph as the dialogue.  Opening my copy of GRRM's _A Feast For Crows _to a random page, I found this:

"No, Your Grace."  Qyburn gave her a reassuring smile.  "Your secrets are safe with me."​
And then, to another random page, this:

"Her rock."  Lord Nestor reddened.  "She said that?"
"Often.  And this"–Petyr gestured at the parchment–"is the proof of it."​
That's a very common approach.


----------



## Svrtnsse

I often use beats to identify who's talking when I write conversations. It's a way of mixing it up a little and get some variation.

That said, I still use "he/she said" now and and I also skip identifiers completely. 
When I do skip identifiers I don't do it for long though. I try to keep it to just two to three lines of conversation so that the reader doesn't lose track. I also try to keep those lines short.

I wrote a guide on planning conversations a while back and in the first section of that I gave some examples of different ways of identifying who's speaking - here: How to Plan and Write a Conversation
It's not a particularly exhaustive guide, but it'll give you the general idea.


----------



## BWFoster78

> instead use synonyms for "said"appropriate to the situation, e.g "he croaked" "she explained"



This is one of those things that makes me physically cringe when I read it, especially something like "explained."

"Why does the use of that speech tag annoy you so much?"
"Because it's redundant," Brian explained. (or answered or replied)


----------



## Ban

BWFoster78 said:


> This is one of those things that makes me physically cringe when I read it, especially something like "explained."
> 
> "Why does the use of that speech tag annoy you so much?"
> "Because it's redundant," Brian explained. (or answered or replied)



Could you elaborate please? With "explained" i can understand why you'd find it redundant but i think there is value in "croaked""sighed"or similar words because they give you an impression of the character and his/her mannerism, mood or personality. It is an easy and quick way to portray a character.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

There's lots of ways you can tackle this, but don't be afraid of the word 'said'. In most cases, it's an invisible word the reader doesn't notice.

However, if you want to move away from "said", you can use action tags. An action tag is where the paragraph combines the character's action and dialogue to attribute speech. A simple example:

Sybil slapped the palms of her hands on her thighs. “Why can’t we listen?”

Action tags can be as complex or as simple as you wish, but they offer a great variety in presentation. I use them quite a bit. They can begin a paragraph, end a paragraph, come in the middle, or split dialogue single or multiple times. Further, your action tags can enhance the effect of the dialogue. They can either reinforce the dialogue (like a character clapping while speaking happy thoughts), or they can run contrary, showing a disconnect between action and thought (like a character saying they're fine while the eyes well with tears and their lower lip trembles). The variety of action and though is why I believe action tags are so effective and rich. You can even use a character's thought as a type of action tag. 

Another method is the use of a character address within the dialogue. This is where one character uses the name of the other in speech. Like this:

"Stop being silly, Miskatonic. Of course, you can write well."

If you combine use of the word "said", character addresses, and action tags, you'll have all you need. 

A word of caution: Be careful using synonyms for "said". That can get gimmicky real quick. Sometimes they work fine, but too much and it can be jarring to the reader.


----------



## Russ

Banten said:


> Could you elaborate please? With "explained" i can understand why you'd find it redundant but i think there is value in "croaked""sighed"or similar words because they give you an impression of the character and his/her mannerism, mood or personality. It is an easy and quick way to portray a character.



Without typing a longer explanation, almost every modern text on writing I have ever read and every editor I have ever heard speak or spoken to has suggested that use of those more descriptive dialogue tags is considered weak or lazy writing.  The dialogue should speak for itself.  The same way they discourage exclamation points.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Russ said:


> [...] The dialogue should speak for itself.  The same way they discourage exclamation points.



I guess this is similar to the advice _Show, Don't Tell_, right?


----------



## BWFoster78

Banten said:


> Could you elaborate please? With "explained" i can understand why you'd find it redundant but i think there is value in "croaked""sighed"or similar words because they give you an impression of the character and his/her mannerism, mood or personality. It is an easy and quick way to portray a character.



Like Russ says, part of it is that it is considered weak writing.  There's also the concept of the image you're creating: how, exactly, does one "croak" or "sigh" a word?  Seriously, try it now.  Croak or sigh out a sentence.  Does anyone ever really do that?

The only time I break from "said" is when I need to explain how the words are delivered.  I prefer "he shouted" to "he said loudly."


----------



## Miskatonic

Great advice everyone! Maybe it just distracts me more than others.


----------



## BWFoster78

Miskatonic said:


> Great advice everyone! Maybe it just distracts me more than others.



I think of speech tags like this:

Speech tags are a necessary evil. The only purpose of the speech tag is to add clarity by informing the reader who is speaking.

I would much prefer to add "he said" than to have my reader stop, say "who the crap is speaking?", and have to go back to figure it out.  Action tags are great.  A lot of the time, no tag is needed at all because back-and-forth or context tells the reader who is speaking.

Sometimes, though, you simply have to add in a tag for clarity.  In those cases, I find the easiest thing is to simply throw in a "said" and be done with it.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> The only purpose of the speech tag is to add clarity by informing the reader who is speaking.


I disagree. Informing the reader who is speaking is A purpose, but not the ONLY purpose.

Good action tags can enhance dialogue, and the scene as a whole, by giving the reader an extra layer of insight concerning the characters and/or events.


----------



## BWFoster78

T.Allen,

My quote was in regards to speech tags, not action tags.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> T.Allen,  My quote was in regards to speech tags, not action tags.


Gotcha. A misunderstanding on my behalf.


----------



## Chessie

One great book on this is "He Sat, She Stood" written by Ginger Hanson. She provides a good way to set up your scene with props so that the characters are actually doing something while they're talking, thus giving more life to the scene.

I'll echo the other statements here about using _said_. Use it to your heart's content. From this website: | Dialogue Tags vs Descriptive Beats


_There are two common mistakes seen with dialogue tags. The first is being afraid to use said or asked or believing that said or asked becomes repetitive. As a result, characters are constantly shouting, murmuring, whispering, commanding, stating, and mumbling. Why is this considered weak writing? If you feel the need to explain how a characters says something then his or her dialogue likely isn’t strong enough. Or, on the other end of the spectrum, if your dialogue is strong enough, then your tag only repeats to the reader what you’ve just shown them.
I’m not saying there isn’t a time or place for non said or asked dialogue tags, only that excessive use is considered weak writing.
But doesn’t said or asked become repetitive and boring?
In short: no. The eye tends to pass over “said” or “asked.” We as writers are attuned to words. We pay attention to them. But if you’re doing you job right, the average reader is engrossed in the story and the characters. When said and asked stand out, usually it means the narrative isn’t being woven enough among the dialogue. This brings me to descriptive beats.
Another definition:
Descriptive beat: a sentence before, after, or breaking up dialogue that describes a character’s response or action.
Eg:
She fluffed her hair. “I’m ready for my close up.”
”Coffee?” He held out a mug._


----------



## Nimue

I agree with BW for the most part, but I think that some said-alternate words can be powerful sources of emotion in conversation.  Muttering, bellowing, croaking, moaning, etc.  But that's the thing--they're strong words, and they can be overpowering.  You have to _mean_ them when you use them--not just because you don't want to say "said" again.  Use them for the most important lines in a scene, use them when the nature of the speech changes the meaning or emotional value of the words. The character needs to be genuinely roaring or whispering in the scene and that needs to work in tandem with their dialogue.


----------



## Chessie

^ In addition to that, they can also be used before the dialogue itself.

_Crouching behind the sofa, Jennifer whispered, "I hope he doesn't find us here."_

Or something along those lines.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I agree with BW for the most part



I printed that, framed it, and hung it on my wall 

Actually, though, earlier in the thread I said much the same thing as you just did.  If it makes sense that a character is shouting, I use "shout."


----------



## Zara

I find using said it better. Because when you use things like 'he barked' 'he snapped' she said softly. You're starting to tell rather than show. And I just don't like using words to describe how a character spoke unless it's important because most of the time the dialogue says it for you. Like:
"I don't care!" he shouted. (do we really need to be told he spoke loudly when we already have an exclamation mark that says this all ready?

You don't always need to say anything about who said what if it's only two characters talking. Example:
"I hate cake," Mary said.
"Why?" asked Mike.
"Well, I don't hate it. I just prefer something less sweet."
"try a cheese cake"
So you don't have to keep putting said at the end of everything.

I did a writing exercise once where we have to tell a story and give sense of characters without using any 'said' tags. Like a screen play. You could play around with that?


----------



## Nimue

BWFoster78 said:


> I printed that, framed it, and hung it on my wall
> 
> Actually, though, earlier in the thread I said much the same thing as you just did.  If it makes sense that a character is shouting, I use "shout."



Heh, save that for "I agree with BW completely."  Will it happen??

Not sure if I saw that, and Chester kind of ninja'd me.  I think the point about emotional meaning matters to me, though.


----------



## FifthView

*Croaking, from GRRM*

Three examples from GRRM's _A Feast For Crows_.

“Begone,” she told the girls, in a croaking whisper.
“We came for a foretelling,” young Cersei told her.
“Begone,” croaked the old woman, a second time.
“We heard that you can see into the morrow,” said Melara. “We just want to know what men we’re going to marry.”
 “Begone,” croaked Maggy, a third time.
 Listen to her, the queen would have cried if she had her tongue. You still have time to flee. Run, you little fools!
 The girl with the golden curls put her hands upon her hips.
“Give us our foretelling, or I’ll go to my lord father and have you whipped for insolence.”
 “Please,” begged Melara. “Just tell us our futures, then we’ll go.”
 “Some are here who have no futures,” Maggy muttered in her terrible deep voice.​
*​
“Do you fear death?”
She bit her lip. “No.”
 “Let us see.” The priest lowered his cowl. Beneath he had no face; only a yellowed skull with a few scraps of skin still clinging to the cheeks, and a white worm wriggling from one empty eye socket. “Kiss me, child,” he croaked, in a voice as dry and husky as a death rattle.​
*​
There was a long silence.  Then Lady Stoneheart spoke again.  This time Brienne understood her words.  There were only two.  "_Hang them_," she croaked.​


----------



## BWFoster78

Nimue,

"I agree completely with BWFoster," said no MS forum member ever.  I'll take what I can get 

Back to the topic - four sentences: which works better?

1. "Stop that," he said.
2. "Stop that!" he said.
3. "Stop that," he shouted.
4. "Stop that!" he shouted.

My thoughts:

1. Very unemphatic statement.  Does the character really care one way or the other if the action is stopped?
2. More emphatic.  The character obviously does care.
3. The lack of an exclamation point combined with "shouted" seems incongruous to me.
4. Most emphatic of the examples.


----------



## Nimue

I agree completely with BW.  In the matter of interpreting those four examples.  Feel free to take out of context 

I'd add that the "shouting" provides a dramatic shift in volume.  Obviously. The '"Stop that!" he said' implies to me a moderate but emphasized tone, like scolding or objecting at a conversational level.  '"Stop that!" he shouted' is loud, confrontational, and probably angry.


----------



## Russ

Some writers, Steve Berry included, go a step further and even try to avoid terms like "shouted" and virtually all explanation marks as he sees them as a sign of failure.

His belief is that if you cannot tell from the context the volume and excited nature of the utterance (unless it comes as a complete surprise) that you have failed to set the table properly.

I don't know if I would go quite that far, but it is something to consider.


----------



## BWFoster78

Russ said:


> Some writers, Steve Berry included, go a step further and even try to avoid terms like "shouted" and virtually all explanation marks as he sees them as a sign of failure.
> 
> His belief is that if you cannot tell from the context the volume and excited nature of the utterance (unless it comes as a complete surprise) that you have failed to set the table properly.
> 
> I don't know if I would go quite that far, but it is something to consider.



I can see that point of view, but I'm just not there - maybe some day I will be.

Like my example above, "Stop that," is a perfectly valid response to a situation.  Should I spend hours trying to find a better phrase that will convey what I want without the addition of punctuation or a speech tag, or should I just throw an exclamation point in and move on?

It seems like it would be hard to make any headway in terms of a career if I spent all my time worrying about such things.


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> It seems like it would be hard to make any headway in terms of a career if I spent all my time worrying about such things.



It really is different strokes for different folks.

But by way of career, Steve does multiple edits at a very detailed level, including one full edit where he only reviews every verb in his manuscript to see if it is as good as it can be or can be upgraded in some way.  

His career is doing okay 

But to be fair, he is operating on a different model then you are.


----------



## Svrtnsse

I checked the last conversation I wrote.

There are 25 lines (stuff people have to say), and I use "said" to identify a speaker twice.
The remaining lines are all beats.
There is no line that doesn't have an identifier.
The full conversation, including beats, is just over 1,100 words (or about two pages in Word).

This is how I currently write. It works for me, but it may not necessarily be the same for anyone else.

---

Most of the story takes place during conversations between characters, which is why I'm putting in a lot of effort in using beats effectively. There has to be something going on beside the talking or it will eventually grow dull to just read the lines without seeing the character who says them.

Usually when I use "said" it's to mix things up a little and change the pace of the conversation for a line or two.

I occassionaly skip identifiers complete, and then usually for a quick snappy exchange between two characters.


----------



## Nimue

Russ said:


> Some writers, Steve Berry included, go a step further and even try to avoid terms like "shouted" and virtually all explanation marks as he sees them as a sign of failure.
> 
> His belief is that if you cannot tell from the context the volume and excited nature of the utterance (unless it comes as a complete surprise) that you have failed to set the table properly.
> 
> I don't know if I would go quite that far, but it is something to consider.


This confuses me because tone and volume add information to a conversation.  In writing and real life.  Does he simply use emphatic language and gestures and assume that tone and volume follow?  What's the harm of noting these things, in moderation?


----------



## Russ

Nimue said:


> This confuses me because tone and volume add information to a conversation.  In writing and real life.  Does he simply use emphatic language and gestures and assume that tone and volume follow?  What's the harm of noting these things, in moderation?



That is why I said I don't quite go as far as he is.

But an example he used in one discussion is that he if has two characters running down a path in a gunfight being chased by a helicopter the reader should know that they are excited and yelling.  I can ask him what the harm is next time I see him, or go back and listen to that CD again.  IIRC he thought it just distracts from the flow and takes away from the dialogue proper.


----------



## Heliotrope

I read a similar thing as what Chesterama noted earlier, but on GRRM. I can't remember now where I read it, but the article was speaking about how GRRM learned from screenwriting how much actors hate to have nothing in their hands, especially when giving dialogue. 

Actors need to be _doing_ something besides just talking, be it twirling their hair, spinning a pen, lifting a glass to their lips, fondling their sword etc. He used this strategy to great extent in his novels because he was so used to doing it as a screenwriter. It certainly does help to keep the motion going during a scene to have the characters be doing something, instead of just talking. I'm reading Dune right now and I'm finding there are pages and pages of dialogue with no speech tags and no action tags. I end up skimming most of it because I want to see someone _doing_ something.


----------



## Penpilot

Banten said:


> Could you elaborate please? With "explained" i can understand why you'd find it redundant but i think there is value in "croaked""sighed"or similar words because they give you an impression of the character and his/her mannerism, mood or personality. It is an easy and quick way to portray a character.



Those alternatives to said are often referred to as 'said-bookisms'. You can google lots of opinions on them. But generally speaking they're frowned upon, because often there are better ways to express those things. Now, never-say-never on anything in writing, but using 'said-bookisms' too often will grate on the reader. Dropping one in from time to time when deemed appropriate won't matter unless its totally absurd. 

Apparently this is a quote from a Harry Potter book. 

"We're not going to use magic?" Ron ejaculated loudly.

Personally, I like using action tags. If I find myself having to use 'said' or any of it's variations too much, I take it to be a sign that I might have designed my scene poorly, especially if it's only a two person scene. IMHO there could/should be enough for the character's to do in the scene or there should be enough going on around them to make it possible for me to write the whole scene without using one said.


----------



## glutton

Russ said:


> The same way they discourage exclamation points.



I disagree with this idea. "How dare you take God's name in vain. I should remove you from this plane so you can see if you can still do the same in hell." is useful in conveying a different character type than "How dare you take God's name in vain! I should remove you from this plane so you can see if you can still do the same in hell!"

Ie. the former is probably a cold stoic church knight while the latter is more likely a hotheaded zealot.


----------



## Russ

glutton said:


> I disagree with this idea. "How dare you take God's name in vain. I should remove you from this plane so you can see if you can still do the same in hell." is useful in conveying a different character type than "How dare you take God's name in vain! I should remove you from this plane so you can see if you can still do the same in hell!"
> 
> Ie. the former is probably a cold stoic church knight while the latter is more likely a hotheaded zealot.



Most professional writers and editors would disagree with you on the use of exclamation points.


----------



## glutton

Russ said:


> Most professional writers and editors would disagree with you on the use of exclamation points.



Who are these 'most' professional writers and editors? Maybe I don't read enough traditional novels but I know that exclamation points are common and accepted in many mediums with text such as manga, comics, video games, subtitled movies, and even in journalism when somebody says something emphatically, they will often be quoted with exclamation points.

I find the convention you champion, if it is indeed a convention, not suited to my bare bones style since it seems to rely on heavy amounts of narration and description to convey any change in a speaker's mood/tone in lieu of a simple exclamation point. Exclamation points are efficient, they convey a different feeling with the change of one character and a 'rule' against them seems to be sacrificing efficiency in many cases in favor of using more words to make the writing seem more artsy.

It definitely shows a clear difference in attitude if one character speaks in exclamation points while another speaks without them in a similar tense situation eg. being chased by a helicopter shooting at them.

I feel this (likely elitist) convention is stifling and overrated. It appears to go against common sense and only serve to make writing more complicated and/or distinguish 'literary' writing from 'lesser' forms of it.


----------



## Russ

> Who are these 'most' professional writers and editors? Maybe I don't read enough traditional novels but I know that exclamation points are common and accepted in many mediums with text such as manga, comics, video games, subtitled movies, and even in journalism when somebody says something emphatically, they will often be quoted with exclamation points.



I was not referring to comics, video games or manga.  I was referring to novels and short stories.  I have no idea of the conventions of those media.  Although I confess remembering seeing a lot of exclamation points in comics.

Which authors and editors?  Would you like a list of the ones of I have spoken to writing who have mentioned it, or should I include those who I have heard say it in courses or who wrote it in books on the subject of writing?  Is there some reason I should invest the time to make a list for you?  However in conversation within this calendar year I have heard it said to me directly by Steve Berry, Grant Blackwood and Jaime Levine, at least.  Good enough?



> I find the convention you champion, if it is indeed a convention, not suited to my bare bones style since it seems to rely on heavy amounts of narration and description to convey any change in a speaker's mood/tone in lieu of a simple exclamation point.



You need to read more broadly.  For instance both Grant and Steve are lean writers, their books do not rely on heavy narration or description, but they also avoid exclamation points.

I don't champion the convention, I have adopted it.  Many editors find the use of exclamation points amateurish, and find them over used.  Since I hope to sell to those people one day I listen to them.  You are perfectly free to ignore the convention that exclamation points are overused and should in general be avoided unless there is no better alternative.

Take a few minutes and search the internet.  See what authors, and editors have to say about exclamation points.  You will find that they suggest minimizing exclamation points and other artificial means of emphasis.  I agree with them.  You are free not to.




> I feel this convention is stifling and overrated.



I am sorry you feel stifled.  The good news, I suspect, is that there is no one standing behind you as you type forcing you not to use exclamation points. You are free to write as you chose.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I feel this (likely elitist) convention is stifling and overrated. It appears to go against common sense and only serve to make writing more complicated and/or distinguish 'literary' writing from 'lesser' forms of it.



There are a lot of conventions advocated by professional writers and editors that have the reasoning, "Because there is a better way to do it."

It's a lot easier to throw in an exclamation mark than to choose better words.  For my writing, I'm fine with that at the moment.  I'd rather concentrate on things that I consider more important than things like eliminating exclamation marks.

If you don't feel like taking the time and effort to write better, that's your choice (as I've chosen to do).  Railing against the convention in the manner you did above, however ...


----------



## glutton

Russ said:


> exclamation points and other artificial means of emphasis.



If the exclamation point exists in language, how is it actually more 'artificial' than any other means of emphasis?



Russ said:


> I agree with them.  You are free not to.
> 
> You are free to write as you chose.



Ok then.


----------



## Steerpike

All right, you guys, let's not make this personal. Surely the substantive discussion can move forward without that.


----------



## glutton

BWFoster78 said:


> There are a lot of conventions advocated by professional writers and editors that have the reasoning, "Because there is a better way to do it."
> 
> It's a lot easier to throw in an exclamation mark than to choose better words.  For my writing, I'm fine with that at the moment.  I'd rather concentrate on things that I consider more important than things like eliminating exclamation marks.
> 
> If you don't feel like taking the time and effort to write better, that's your choice (as I've chosen to do).  Railing against the convention in the manner you did above, however ...



'Better' is subjective, but eschewing exclamation marks for the sake of eschewing them seems counterintuitive and 'artificial' as Russ put it.


----------



## BWFoster78

glutton said:


> 'Better' is subjective, but eschewing exclamation marks for the sake of eschewing them seems counterintuitive and 'artificial' as Russ put it.



You're right - "better" is subjective.

In the case of writing, I lean toward people who are professional editors and writers to define "better."

Maybe you're more confident in your skills than I am in mine, but I don't think that I have any standing to say, "Those professional writers and editors have no idea what they're talking about. I've treated writing as my primary hobby for over four years now! Obviously, I know much more than them!"

I tend to respect the opinions of people who make their living doing something over the opinions of hobbyists.  Granted, there are different opinions on any given matter between professionals, but the advice that it's "better" to demonstrate emphasis with word choice than by "artificial" means is pretty consistent.

If I want to elevate my game to mastery of the craft, it's something I'll need to focus on.  At the moment, though, there are many other things that I need to improve that I think readers take more notice of.


----------



## Nimue

I'm not sold on the blanket advice of eliminating all exclamation points and descriptive speech tags.  I understand doing that to avoid false tension, and warning new writers away from sentences like this:



> "This is the secret map to the treasure!" Penny exclaimed.



Obviously bollocks.  But if you extend that advice to saying no denoted emphasis ever, how do you deal with something like this?



> Zach let out a sigh of relief. He'd made it.
> 
> "Halt!" a guard shouted, from behind him.



How do we get the reader to assume the guard is shouting in a surprise situation like this?  Is that really more efficient or meaningful than the exclamation point?  And '"Halt," a guard shouted' just looks odd.

I'm not a big believer in "never ever do this" writing rules.  I think a lot of them are "seriously rethink doing this" rules that got overexaggerated.


----------



## glutton

BWFoster78 said:


> You're right - "better" is subjective.
> 
> In the case of writing, I lean toward people who are professional editors and writers to define "better."
> 
> Maybe you're more confident in your skills than I am in mine, but I don't think that I have any standing to say, "Those professional writers and editors have no idea what they're talking about. I've treated writing as my primary hobby for over four years now! Obviously, I know much more than them!"
> 
> I tend to respect the opinions of people who make their living doing something over the opinions of hobbyists.  Granted, there are different opinions on any given matter between professionals, but the advice that it's "better" to demonstrate emphasis with word choice than by "artificial" means is pretty consistent.
> 
> If I want to elevate my game to mastery of the craft, it's something I'll need to focus on.  At the moment, though, there are many other things that I need to improve that I think readers take more notice of.



Fair enough if that is the way you approach your craft, but there is also no need to talk down to people who disagree with a convention. And yes, I have more confidence in what I am doing than many since I know exactly the style I am trying to write in. 

I also don't see why the exact same paragraph with an exclamation point instead of a period in a sentence dialogue would be automatically 'worse', if the reasoning is that using exclamation points tend to make the writer less careful in choosing words I can see it but it's not as if using an exclamation point precludes you from choosing your words carefully or not using them will necessarily make you choose better words.


----------



## Steerpike

I think it is largely a stylistic preference. Sure, for any given instance a use might be good or bad and such uses have to be judged on their own merits, but at least in fantasy I see plenty of traditionally-published works that use exclamation marks.

Another convention that editors will often tell you to follow is to eliminate the use of italics for internal monologue (i.e. character thoughts), and yet you see that a lot in genre fiction (S/SF/Horror). Less of it in general fiction. The same seems to be true of exclamation marks (i.e. they are used more frequently in genre works than in general fiction).

In any event, all of the various conventions that seem to be generally accepted by editors are worth knowing if you're going to try to sell to those editors. If you're self-publishing you can forge your own path, the only requirement is that you engage the reader.


----------



## glutton

Nimue said:


> How do we get the reader to assume the guard is shouting in a surprise situation like this?



Something like,

A guard's voice carried over the thumping in his ears, cutting from behind through the settling calm. 'Halt.'

That might sound better in an isolated case, but to do it every time in a book with potentially thousands of line of dialogue would seem pretty forced and not necessarily 'better' IMO.


----------



## Steerpike

glutton said:


> Something like,
> 
> A guard's voice carried over the thumping in his ears, cutting from behind through the settling calm. 'Halt.'
> 
> That might sound better in an isolated case, but to do it every time in a book with potentially thousands of line of dialogue would seem pretty forced and not necessarily 'better' IMO.



Even that example would look better with an exclamation mark, imo.


----------



## Nimue

I would like to add that there's obviously a hell of a lot of value to advice like this, and when professional writers or editors say "Please...don't do this" the instinct is to say "But not me! Not my writing! I don't have that problem!"  But yeah, they mean you, and me, and that sentence I'm writing with my finger hovering over the ! key.

But at the same time, I don't think it's productive to take this advice to its literal extreme, ignoring the spirit or intent behind it.  It doesn't make sense to tie yourself into knots avoiding an exclamation point when it's the simplest possible solution, any more than it makes sense to tie yourself into knots avoiding a single adverb or the word "said".  Therein lie strange synonyms and convoluted sentence structure.


----------



## FifthView

Nimue said:


> And '"Halt," a guard shouted' just looks odd.



Ah, but that's a true exclamation.  Halt!  Ouch! Damn! By Gorgolol's beard!

The problem is more in using the exclamation point as tool to make something that is not an exclamation into an exclamation; or, to _add to_ a given line the quality of exclamation, as if it can't stand on its own.  I mean, it's a somewhat lazy way to turn a line into something more, which basically points up the fact that the line and context don't do that well enough.

Incidentally, looking back at my examples above of GRRM's use of "croak," I see a similar thing.  In those cases, the word a) _fits_ the characters speaking, and b) is used specifically to draw out these aspects of the characters.  (Maggy is called "Maggy the Frog."  The skull death mask would be dry vocally, croaking.  Lady Stoneheart has difficulty speaking because of a certain throat condition....)   In other words, the use is _fitting_ for each case.   Similarly, in using the exclamation point for _Halt!_  or _By Gogolol's beard!_, the mark is quite fitting, doesn't add so much to the use of those phrases, i.e. doesn't turn them into something they wouldn't normally be, but rather matches them.


----------



## Steerpike

@Nimue

I get into this discussion a lot, particularly with non-genre writers, when it comes to using italics for character's thoughts. I've heard numerous professional editors and authors say never do it. I heard it again from an agent just last month who works with the big traditional publishers. She said using italics for thoughts immediately flags you as an amateur and not to do it. I've seen the same thing in books on writing by professionals in the field.

OK, so you might consider that advice, particularly if you're going to submit to that editor. But the fact remains that there is a fair amount of traditionally-published fiction that uses italics for thoughts, particularly when you're looking within the fantasy genre. So deference to "authority" has to be tempered by knowing the genre and having confidence in your own style of writing.


----------



## BWFoster78

Nimue said:


> I would like to add that there's obviously a hell of a lot of value to advice like this, and when professional writers or editors say "Please...don't do this" the instinct is to say "But not me! Not my writing! I don't have that problem!"  But yeah, they mean you, and me, and that sentence I'm writing with my finger hovering over the ! key.
> 
> But at the same time, I don't think it's productive to take this advice to its literal extreme, ignoring the spirit or intent behind it.  It doesn't make sense to tie yourself into knots avoiding an exclamation point when it's the simplest possible solution, any more than it makes sense to tie yourself into knots avoiding a single adverb or the word "said".  Therein lie strange synonyms and convoluted sentence structure.



I agree completely with Nimue 



> The problem is more in using the exclamation point as tool to make something that is not an exclamation into an exclamation; or, to add to a given line the quality of exclamation, as if it can't stand on its own. I mean, it's a somewhat lazy way to turn a line into something more, which basically points up the fact that the line and context don't do that well enough.



And FifthView!

It's always best to delve into the reason behind a convention than it is to blindly follow it.


----------



## glutton

FifthView said:


> Ah, but that's a true exclamation.  Halt!  Ouch! Damn! By Gorgolol's beard!
> 
> The problem is more in using the exclamation point as tool to make something that is not an exclamation into an exclamation; or, to _add to_ a given line the quality of exclamation, as if it can't stand on its own.  I mean, it's a somewhat lazy way to turn a line into something more, which basically points up the fact that the line and context don't do that well enough.
> 
> Incidentally, looking back at my examples above of GRRM's use of "croak," I see a similar thing.  In those cases, the word a) _fits_ the characters speaking, and b) is used specifically to draw out these aspects of the characters.  (Maggy is called "Maggy the Frog."  The skull death mask would be dry vocally, croaking.  Lady Stoneheart has difficulty speaking because of a certain throat condition....)   In other words, the use is _fitting_ for each case.   Similarly, in using the exclamation point for _Halt!_  or _By Gogolol's beard!_, the mark is quite fitting, doesn't add so much to the use of those phrases, i.e. doesn't turn them into something they wouldn't normally be, but rather matches them.



This is a good point, I would think that an exclamation point matches well with something like a furious warrior saying, 'Die! Die!' while running at the MC swinging his axe. If instead he says 'Die. Die.' to me it would actually imply a bit of a different feeling, like maybe he is saying it more with grim determination than in a wild rage.

For such a scenario ie. if the warrior is supposed to be a shouting berserker, it would seem like the exclamation point is the more natural ending to his line than just a period.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Fair enough if that is the way you approach your craft, but there is also no need to talk down to people who disagree with a convention. And yes, I have more confidence in what I am doing than many since I know exactly the style I am trying to write in.



Look, maybe you do know what is right for you.  Then again, maybe you have no idea what you're talking about.  I have no way to judge either way.

All I know is that I tend to hold in a bit of disdain amateurs who completely disregard advice given by professionals.

Questioning in order to understand the advice? Good idea. Putting the advice to the side so as not to be overwhelmed by all the possible advice that you could choose to follow? Fantastic.

It just seems a bit delusional to say, "Hey, I know all these smart, highly paid people with tons of experience say to do this, but I think they're wrong."

EDIT: On the other hand, I think it's just as stupid to blindly follow advice without gaining an understanding of the reason behind it.


----------



## Russ

Nimue said:


> I'm not sold on the blanket advice of eliminating all exclamation points and descriptive speech tags.  I understand doing that to avoid false tension, and warning new writers away from sentences like this:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously bollocks.  But if you extend that advice to saying no denoted emphasis ever, how do you deal with something like this?
> 
> 
> 
> How do we get the reader to assume the guard is shouting in a surprise situation like this?  Is that really more efficient or meaningful than the exclamation point?  And '"Halt," a guard shouted' just looks odd.
> 
> I'm not a big believer in "never ever do this" writing rules.  I think a lot of them are "seriously rethink doing this" rules that got overexaggerated.



Actually this example falls right into the Steve Berry approach, as I mentioned in post 26 above:



> His belief is that if you cannot tell from the context the volume and excited nature of the utterance (*unless it comes as a complete surprise*) that you have failed to set the table properly.



However I do have to chuckle at the suggestion that editor's and authors suggestions to minimize the use of exclamation marks is "elitist."  The advise doesn't tend to come from literary authors and most editors I know are very down to earth people.

I concur that there are very few real "never" rules, but overuse of exclamation points is a far bigger problem than under use.


----------



## Russ

glutton said:


> Fair enough if that is the way you approach your craft, but there is *also no need to talk down* to people who disagree with a convention. And yes, I have more confidence in what I am doing than many since I know exactly the style I am trying to write in.



Would you also say there is no reason to talk down to or doubt the credibility of the people who support the convention?


----------



## glutton

BWFoster78 said:


> Look, maybe you do know what is right for you.  Then again, maybe you have no idea what you're talking about.  I have no way to judge either way.
> 
> All I know is that I tend to hold in a bit of disdain amateurs who completely disregard advice given by professionals.
> 
> Questioning in order to understand the advice? Good idea. Putting the advice to the side so as not to be overwhelmed by all the possible advice that you could choose to follow? Fantastic.
> 
> It just seems a bit delusional to say, "Hey, I know all these smart, highly paid people with tons of experience say to do this, but I think they're wrong."
> 
> EDIT: On the other hand, I think it's just as stupid to blindly follow advice without gaining an understanding of the reason behind it.



Maybe you should chill a bit since you're getting a bit personal again lol.

Being seemingly offended by someone questioning a convention seems to hover on the border of your edit too.


----------



## glutton

Russ said:


> Would you also say there is no reason to talk down to or doubt the credibility of the people who support the convention?



There is no reason to talk down to or doubt the credibility of people who support the convention, but if somebody acts all offended that anyone suggests the convention does not need to be universally followed, they should not be surprised when met with a similar but opposite reaction.

Also you seem to be softening your stance with 'I concur that there are very few real "never" rules, but overuse of exclamation points is a far bigger problem than under use.' the way you initially presented this convention which I had never heard of before seemed to be implying that exclamation points should _always_ be shunned.

If your stance is more that writers should be wary of overusing exclamation points then I would actually agree with that, but there are many times also in dialogue where an exclamation point seems more *natural* to end a sentence than a period.

If you would rather see the barbarian say 'Die. Die.' instead of 'Die! Die!' while in a foaming rage, that is a point where following the convention would appear 'artificial' and detrimental to conveying the scene naturally.


----------



## BWFoster78

glutton said:


> Maybe you should chill a bit since you're getting a bit personal again lol.
> 
> Being seemingly offended by someone questioning a convention seems to hover on the border of your edit too.



I'm not offended by your view; I simply question its validity.


----------



## glutton

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm not offended by your view; I simply question its validity.



You question the validity of an opinion.

Chill dude.

I would like it if you could actually put forth an argument why for example 'Die! Die!' in the scenario I gave is less natural, more artificial or 'worse' than 'Die. Die.' instead of going 'because these other people said so.' To me the latter seems obviously less natural and to favor it over the former would likely qualify as 'blindly' following a convention.


----------



## Chessie

Something I've noticed around these parts lately is that advice given by professionals, that sounds unconventional, is disregarded as wadded paper for the 'nope, I won't do this' pile. I'm more willing to listen to what a professional has to say than someone who hasn't published any books. Especially given that everyone has different writing goals. A hobbyist may never care to publish at all or more than one book. Me? It's how I make my living, so I take advice from professionals seriously.

 No one is saying that we must take all the exclamation marks out of our books, or never place thoughts in italics (more on this later). These are just things to be aware of that will only make our writing stronger. I've limited exclamation marks to 1-2 per book, more on the 1 side. It's been hard, but at the same time, I've learned to come up with actions and dialogue that describe a scene's mood better and I don't need to use them. Currently trying to do the same thing about 'said'. 

My point is that we shouldn't discount advice in general. If it doesn't fit with our style, if it seems off, take time to marinate on it. I definitely believe that the 'elitist' advice given to writers has strengthened my writing. I love the challenge of needing to find better words, actions, descriptions, in order to give readers more clarity on what's happening. 

Now, about the italics, I thought that was a fad for some time. Is it going out of style? Because some crit partners have told me to leave them in, while others don't say anything, and I considered it a writing rule that sucked anyway.


----------



## glutton

Chesterama said:


> Something I've noticed around these parts lately is that advice given by professionals, that sounds unconventional, is disregarded as wadded paper for the 'nope, I won't do this' pile.



Well, it would probably help if the people bringing this advice up presented it better like specifying 'overuse' of exclamation marks or in your case how you never really properly defined what you meant by 'story goal' when saying that the protagonist and antagonist always have the same story goal.


----------



## Steerpike

It is important to remember that the main reason for these so-called rules seem to be that they identify things that amateurs tend to screw up. They're not absolutes, even among professionals, because for every rule you name you can show empirical evidence of traditionally-published books that don't follow it. What the 'rule' should really do is make you think about what you're doing. It's not meant to provide an absolute prescription for good writing.

Noah Lukeman sums up this fact about rules-based writing in his writing book _The First Five Pages_, where he basically says it is nonsense to pretend to set rules for great writing, and points out that great writers break every rule there is and that's part of what makes them great. But, Lukeman goes on to say, there are ways to avoid bad writing.

That's what writing rules are for - they are guides for amateurs to avoid common mistakes. They're not absolute dictates on what makes good writing and shouldn't be taken as such.


----------



## Chessie

glutton said:


> Well, it would probably help if the people bringing this advice up presented it better like specifying 'overuse' of exclamation marks or in your case how you never really properly defined what you meant by 'story goal' when saying that the protagonist and antagonist always have the same story goal.


I made that simple and clear: external goal. The problem was that it was the wrong thread to put up quotes in, just like now. But in that case, 3 professional authors (one being a Hollywood script writer) were the sources of that information.


----------



## glutton

Chesterama said:


> I made that simple and clear. The problem was that it was the wrong thread to put up quotes in, just like now. But in that case, 3 professional authors (one being a Hollywood script writer) were the sources of that information.



I was able to figure out that what you meant by 'story goal' was not necessarily the same as the end/main goal of a character and it could just be a necessary byproduct of the character's actual goal, but no it wasn't simple and clear. That's what people seemed to be having trouble with.


----------



## Russ

glutton said:


> Also you seem to be softening your stance with 'I concur that there are very few real "never" rules, but overuse of exclamation points is a far bigger problem than under use.' the way you initially presented this convention which I had never heard of before seemed to be implying that exclamation points should _always_ be shunned.



My stance has remained perfectly consistent starting in post 26.

Your opening statement was to disagree with the position taken by many professionals that the use of exclamation points should be discouraged.

We should at least be honest about what was said and suggested.


By the by, you also suggested that exclamation points in journalism are fairly common.  I guess that varies with what kind of journalism we are talking about (ie fashion journalism vs. hard news) but it is an old saw that they teach you in journalism school that you are only allowed to use two exclamation points over your career, and that you should make that choice carefully.


----------



## FifthView

Steerpike said:


> Another convention that editors will often tell you to follow is to eliminate the use of italics for internal monologue (i.e. character thoughts), and yet you see that a lot in genre fiction (S/SF/Horror). Less of it in general fiction.





Chesterama said:


> Now, about the italics, I thought that was a fad for some time. Is it going out of style? Because some crit partners have told me to leave them in, while others don't say anything, and I considered it a writing rule that sucked anyway.



I. _ Love_.  Italics.

Maybe it's because I first became enchanted with fantasy literature when many authors seemed to be doing it.  But there's also the more recent case of Robin Hobb's _Farseer_ trilogy, in which she uses italics for dialogue between the wolf and Fitz.  It works so well.

Now here's a question that might serve as a standalone thread, something I've encountered for my own WIP.  In the earlier stages of conceptualizing my WIP, I thought about including _two_ internal voices for my MC.  He is essentially a type of oracle, but one of the consequences is the constant threat of madness.  (Yeah, it sounds a little clichÃ© stripped down like that.)  Because I had so much enjoyed Fitz and his wolf, and because I also realized that having a constantly available conversation companion can be a major strength for the book, and because of this threat of madness....well, I thought it'd be great for my MC to have two other internal personalities/daemons that would often engage in conversation with each other and with my MC.

So, how do I do that?  Briefly I thought about using italics for one and bold italics for the other internal voice, as a quick method of distinguishing them _and_, incidentally, to signal or stress the oddness of his mental condition.  It would be unconventional, and it might work, even if I know that there are other ways I could distinguish the two internal voices.  But ultimately I decided that using italics and bold italics would be too quirky and odd.  (I rejected other ideas also, like using a different font for one of the internal voices.)

There is a slight disadvantage to having an incorporeal character, when doing dialogue, because action tags are going to be severely limited.  Essentially, those tags would probably be limited to the MC's observations about an internal daemon.  E.g., 


_I think you are being rash._ Darkeyes seemed to be hiding something. _We should wait to see what the girl does._​
That sort of thing works well for Fitz and his wolf.  But in that case, action tags (or observation tags?) aren't necessary for every instance, because the italics themselves distinguish an MC and other characters from such an internal speaker.

But if you had _two_ internal voices, you'd need to be able to distinguish which is speaking.  And I wonder whether an overuse of a limited supply of action/observation tags would seem too contrived, odd.  Speech tags are somewhat limited also, because "said" doesn't quite fit with the idea of internal dialogue, and something like "purred" and "hissed" would work occasionally but couldn't be used excessively.

Long story short:  I decided not to go with the double-daemons idea for my MC.


----------



## glutton

Russ said:


> My stance has remained perfectly consistent starting in post 26.
> 
> Your opening statement was to disagree with the position taken by many professionals that the use of exclamation points should be discouraged.
> 
> We should at least be honest about what was said and suggested.



Maybe I was mistaken in assuming you were wholeheartedly supporting never or almost never using exclamation points.

However, I am still waiting for someone to actually defend their position and argue against the points I made instead of throwing around words like 'at least be honest', 'have no idea what you're talking about', 'disdain', 'delusional', questioning the 'validity' of an opinion etc. while making repeated appeals to authority.

Since the former is typically considered more appropriate in debate.


----------



## Chessie

Glutton, this thread is about dialogue, so I'm not going to discuss story goal with you here and whether I was clear or not. We're all wrong about exclamation marks and everything else that doesn't fit right with you. That's fine. Your writing goals are different than some of ours, so maybe you're less likely to take writing rules into consideration. I don't know. But trying to argue about how everyone is wrong about everything is getting you nowhere. If the advice doesn't apply, then leave it be and move on.


----------



## glutton

Chesterama said:


> Glutton, this thread is about dialogue, so I'm not going to discuss story goal with you here and whether I was clear or not. We're all wrong about exclamation marks and everything else that doesn't fit right with you. That's fine. Your writing goals are different than some of ours, so maybe you're less likely to take writing rules into consideration. I don't know. But trying to argue about how everyone is wrong about everything is getting you nowhere. If the advice doesn't apply, then leave it be and move on.



Wow. I said people were having trouble understanding what you meant by story goal, which was clear in that thread, and this is what you respond with.

It's apparently impossible to debate or even express a different stance than some people without them getting very personal very fast.


----------



## BWFoster78

> You question the validity of an opinion.
> 
> Chill dude.



Doesn't questioning "the validity of an opinion" make up about 99.63% of all the posts on internet forums?


----------



## Nimue

Russ said:


> Actually this example falls right into the Steve Berry approach, as I mentioned in post 26 above


I think I missed this from your original post--rather distracted by the idea of exclamation marks being a sign of failure.  With those caveats I think we agree, although I like FifthView's analysis of the difference between a genuine exclamation versus a lazily emphasized sentence as an explanation for the rule:



FifthView said:


> Ah, but that's a true exclamation.  Halt!  Ouch! Damn! By Gorgolol's beard!
> 
> The problem is more in using the exclamation point as tool to make something that is not an exclamation into an exclamation; or, to _add to_ a given line the quality of exclamation, as if it can't stand on its own.  I mean, it's a somewhat lazy way to turn a line into something more, which basically points up the fact that the line and context don't do that well enough.


----------



## glutton

BWFoster78 said:


> Doesn't questioning "the validity of an opinion" make up about 99.63% of all the posts on internet forums?



I suppose it's more the way it's being done since as I said in my reply to Russ, I'm still waiting for someone to properly support their stance and debate the points I made instead of quickly resorting to throwing around words like 'have no idea what you're talking about', 'disdain', 'delusional', etc. while making repeated appeals to authority.

If nobody wants to actually debate it they should probably just drop it instead of getting more and more agitated as seen in Chesterama's last post.


----------



## Chessie

Glutton, I'm not agitated. However, I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to bait me into an argument. We disagree about a lot of things and that's okay.


----------



## glutton

Chesterama said:


> Glutton, I'm not agitated. *However, I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to bait me into an argument.* We disagree about a lot of things and that's okay.



Please stop twisting things around, I only pointed out that people had trouble understanding what you meant by story goal and you responded with a much, much more aggressive post.


----------



## BWFoster78

glutton,

Russ started the debate with this statement:



> His belief is that if you cannot tell from the context the volume and excited nature of the utterance (unless it comes as a complete surprise) that you have failed to set the table properly.



FifthView further offered an excellent clarification.

I'm not sure, at this point, exactly what you disagree with.  Perhaps you could clearly state exactly what your opposition is?

Truthfully, all I've got from you is, "I know what I'm doing and don't need no elitist experts telling me nothing!"


----------



## glutton

BWFoster78 said:


> glutton,
> 
> Russ started the debate with this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> FifthView further offered an excellent clarification.
> 
> I'm not sure, at this point, exactly what you disagree with.  Perhaps you could clearly state exactly what your opposition is?
> 
> Truthfully, all I've got from you is, "I know what I'm doing and don't need no elitist experts telling me nothing!"



That there is often no harm in using an exclamation point and it is sometimes more efficient than other means of conveying the same thing, and can also convey a different tone even in an otherwise exactly identical situation.

So even if something 'can' be done without using exclamation marks, doesn't mean it will necessarily be better that way. I find it an 'artificial' rule that can easily be counterproductive.

Regarding your last line either you didn't read my previous posts or you're purposely being condescending again.


----------



## BWFoster78

> That there is often no harm in using an exclamation point



As I stated earlier in the thread, it isn't that there is "harm" in using an exclamation mark as much as that not using one is better.

I remember a quote from Isaac Asimov's _Foundation_: Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.  What the convention is saying is that, if you have to resort to using an exclamation mark (in cases other than a complete surprise) instead of properly setting the table, you're an incompetent writer.

It's the same concept as not using italics to emphasize words.  If you feel that a word needs to be emphasized, choose a better word.



> it is sometimes more efficient than other means of conveying the same thing,



But using punctuation to convey tone is less immersive to the reader than putting them inside a situation where the tone is conveyed through context.



> can also convey a different tone even in an otherwise exactly identical situation.



Yes, it can.  That's why you should choose to set up the situation differently.


----------



## glutton

BWFoster78 said:


> As I stated earlier in the thread, it isn't that there is "harm" in using an exclamation mark as much as that not using one is better.
> 
> I remember a quote from Isaac Asimov's _Foundation_: Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.  What the convention is saying is that, if you have to resort to using an exclamation mark (in cases other than a complete surprise) instead of properly setting the table, you're an incompetent writer.
> 
> It's the same concept as not using italics to emphasize words.  If you feel that a word needs to be emphasized, choose a better word.
> 
> 
> 
> But using punctuation to convey tone is less immersive to the reader than putting them inside a situation where the tone is conveyed through context.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it can.  That's why you should choose to set up the situation differently.



That's a decent reply and a valid opinion, I just take issue with the idea that the style you suggest is universally 'better' for all styles/writers. Or all audiences of readers for that matter.


----------



## Steerpike

And it came to pass in those days that there was great disagreement over the use of exclamation marks, and such disagreement led to personal attacks despite warnings not to resort to the same. 

But then spaketh the Feline Overlord on high, saying "Takest thou a break from the thread, which shall be locked."

And there was much rejoicing.

-Book of the Feline Overlord, 3:5-7


----------



## Steerpike

And the thread is back!

_Please play nice._


----------



## Russ

I found an interesting comment on both these topics in a piece on using modern word processors  by Robert J. Sawyer:



> Also worth hunting down are exclamation marks. One can exclaim only short words or phrases, such as "Drat!" or "My God!" (Try to exclaim, "But it turned out that the alien planet they were on was really Earth!" It can't be done, and writing it that way just makes you seem histrionic.) And if you find two or more exclamation marks in a row — Holy cow!!! — eliminate all but one of them.
> 
> One thing you should not track down, though, is the word "said." Almost all of your speech tags should be of the form "he said" or "she said." Only beginners constantly look for alternatives to the serviceable, invisible "said." (For all his virtues, Stanley G. Weinbaum was a beginner when he wrote his classic 1934 story "A Martian Odyssey," which has a character named Putz ejaculating his lines . . .)


----------



## Miskatonic

I just wrote a couple chapters with a boatload of dialog so I had plenty of time to analyze and adjust.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I look at exclamation points in a similar manner to italics use. 

First, let me say that I will use an occasional exclamation point IF it fits the dialogue in a way where not using it makes the phrase read differently. 

I think both the examples, previously cited work well in this regard:

The barbarian screamed. "Die!" and "Halt!" yelled  the guard.

Most of the time though, I should be able to show heightened emotion in the context surrounding dialogue or in the words of the dialogue itself. That comes down to how a writer chooses to portray an event & word selection. 

Lastly (and this is where my thinking falls in line with the use of italics), if I use exclamation points even a moderate amount, the power of that punctuation is lessened overall. Limiting their use makes the usage more urgent. It stands out.

Likewise, with italics, I don't use them for thought. I prefer to provide internal thought as part of the general narrative, not set apart with italics. This techniques allows me to reserve italics use for another craft element that's more important to my writing...word emphasis. 

In a piece of dialogue, where I might wish to show an inflection in voice, I may write something like:

"No, silly. You can't take _that_ one."

However, if I write internal thought and other elements with italics, it may lessen the impact of the few italics I do use, or possibly even confuse the reader (consistency is key here). 

I know I can write internal thought in other ways besides using italics. I don't know of a simpler way to show enunciation or voice inflection in dialogue.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I don't know of a simpler way to show enunciation or voice inflection in dialogue.



I guess that I don't really understand the need/desire to show enunciation or voice inflection.

I cannot think of an example (and can't remember an example, including the one you gave) where I thought the word needed to be italicized.

The advantage you're gaining is that the reader is reading it, presumably, exactly the way you're hearing it in your head - with the inflection on that particular word.  The disadvantage is that you're pulling the reader outside of the story to do it.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> The disadvantage is that you're pulling the reader outside of the story to do it.



I wouldn't assume that. It certainly doesn't pull me out a story, and I can't think of a reason to assume it would pull most readers out of the story, absent some evidence that it does. A single word, or even a handful of them, in italics aren't even going to slow the average reader down, in my view. They'll hear those words as inflected in their heads and keep going.


----------



## BWFoster78

It pulls me out of the story.

Truthfully, I was really surprised that T.Allen took that position.  He and I are usually on the same page on these kinds of issues.

You and I ... not so much


----------



## FifthView

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Likewise, with italics, I don't use them for thought. I prefer to provide internal thought as part of the general narrative, not set apart with italics. This techniques allows me to reserve italics use for another craft element that's more important to my writing...word emphasis.
> 
> In a piece of dialogue, where I might wish to show an inflection in voice, I may write something like:
> 
> "No, silly. You can't take _that_ one."
> 
> However, if I write internal thought and other elements with italics, it may lessen the impact of the few italics I do use, or possibly even confuse the reader (consistency is key here).
> 
> I know I can write internal thought in other ways besides using italics. I don't know of a simpler way to show enunciation or voice inflection in dialogue.



I definitely don't think there would be confusion for a reader.  A single italicized word within quotation marks is rather distinct from whole lines of italicized thought not using quotation marks.  I think the distinction would be obvious, and I doubt anyone would trip over it.

As for impact...there _might_ be a lessening of impact, simply because italics for stress in a piece of dialogue naturally distinguishes it from the vast majority of the dialogue you would be using.  But then again, are those cases of inflection particularly impactful items, charged items or ideas, in the first place?  Or is the inflection merely a convenience to clear up ambiguity or vagueness in the speech, or for showing a character placing particular emphasis on some thing or idea, a quirk?

As for using italics for internal thoughts, I think there are two separate cases.  One would be choosing to show a character's internal thinking (i.e., monologue), and another would be for examples of telepathic communication between individuals (like Fitz and his wolf in the _Farseer_ books.)

Obviously, the latter would be a special use.  How many books deal with some form of telepathy?

The former, the internal monologue, is something that would not be appropriate for every book.  I also think that it shapes the tone of a book–and should only be used when used frequently within a book, for a specific purpose, rather than haphazardly.  I think Frank Herbert made great use of it for _Dune_, and I wonder if his use of the method is what inspired so many others to do it.


----------



## Steerpike

@FifthView

Which cases do you think italics for internal monologue would not be appropriate? I am curious about how people feel about it, because it has, over the years, probably been the single most issue I've argued over with people who have professional credentials, most of whom say never use italics for thoughts. To me, it seems more stylistic. I'm not sure why it might work in one case and not work in another.


----------



## Steerpike

As for reader confusion generally, I think writers forget how to read like readers. A reader is smart, and by sitting down with your book has already agreed to go along with the suspension of disbelief, immersion, &c you want with your story. They're looking for it.

Readers aren't as easily tripped up or pulled from a story as writers like to believe, in my view. The brain will interpret data, including variances in things like font (i.e. italics) without even missing a beat. Sure, if you're really clumsy you're going trip the reader up, but if you can't remember how to read like reader instead of a writer you're going to have a harder time figuring out what trips up a reader and want doesn't, and probably end up underestimating your readers.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Readers aren't as easily tripped up or pulled from a story as writers like to believe, in my view.



This happened to me as a reader not that long ago:

I was reading a book where the author used italics for internal thought.  I got to a paragraph where there was an italicized word.  It caused me to do a full stop and wonder why the crap the character's thought had occurred there.  Then I realized that the word was italicized to add emphasis.

This occurred while I was immersed in the story, and it pulled me out of the story.

I didn't throw the book away or stop reading or anything, but I don't think it's ever desirable to pull a reader out of the story.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> This happened to me as a reader not that long ago:
> 
> I was reading a book where the author used italics for internal thought.  I got to a paragraph where there was an italicized word.  It caused me to do a full stop and wonder why the crap the character's thought had occurred there.  Then I realized that the word was italicized to add emphasis.
> 
> This occurred while I was immersed in the story, and it pulled me out of the story.
> 
> I didn't throw the book away or stop reading or anything, but I don't think it's ever desirable to pull a reader out of the story.



Hmmm. Well, I've read books like that as well and wasn't pulled out of the story or even tripped up by it. I don't think most readers would be, either. Almost anything could pull a given reader out of a story - things like a character with the same name as one of their children, or a pet in the story being the same pet the reader has; basically anything that is a referent to the real world for that reader - but I think you've got to look at it in more broad terms and decide whether, on par, something is likely to pull a reader out of a story.


----------



## FifthView

Steerpike said:


> @FifthView
> 
> Which cases do you think italics for internal monologue would not be appropriate? I am curious about how people feel about it, because it has, over the years, probably been the single most issue I've argued over with people who have professional credentials, most of whom say never use italics for thoughts. To me, it seems more stylistic. I'm not sure why it might work in one case and not work in another.



Steerpike,  I am exceedingly uncomfortable setting inviolate, universal rules for anything.  But I think that, as with exclamation points and colorful speech tags, using italics for internal thoughts in a slapdash manner, as a mere convenience, is probably not putting the method to its best use.  I like looking at _Dune_ as an example.  Among other things, the book is about intrigue—in which case, characters having a vivid hidden inner life vs outward expression plays a role—and about distinct internal mental powers, precognition, latent madness, etc.

That said, I'm not opposed to using italics for all thought within a novel if someone chooses to go that route _stylistically_. I.e., a more stylistic than strategic utilization.  But I think I would still demand a vibrant, interesting internal thinking process for characters, i.e. internal thoughts which add richness to the novel rather than serve as a mere convenience for revealing aspects of the character.*

*Editing here to say I'm not sure that last bit is written clearly.  I'm only aiming at facile use of direct thoughts, in italics.


----------



## Steerpike

FifthView said:


> Steerpike,  I am exceedingly uncomfortable setting inviolate, universal rules for anything.  But I think that, as with exclamation points and colorful speech tags, using italics for internal thoughts in a slapdash manner, as a mere convenience, is probably not putting the method to its best use.  I like looking at _Dune_ as an example.  Among other things, the book is about intrigue—in which case, characters having a vivid hidden inner life vs outward expression plays a role—and about distinct internal mental powers, precognition, latent madness, etc.
> 
> That said, I'm not opposed to using italics for all thought within a novel if someone chooses to go that route _stylistically_. I.e., a more stylistic than strategic utilization.  But I think I would still demand a vibrant, interesting internal thinking process for characters, i.e. internal thoughts which add richness to the novel rather than serve as a mere convenience for revealing aspects of the character.*
> 
> *Editing here to say I'm not sure that last bit is written clearly.  I'm only aiming at facile use of direct thoughts, in italics.




Thanks. This makes sense to me. I tend not to use italics for internal monologue, though I'm not opposed to it. One author who does it a lot is Steven Erikson, but he meets your criterion of having some vibrant, interesting, internal thought processes.


----------



## FifthView

Steerpike said:


> Thanks. This makes sense to me. I tend not to use italics for internal monologue, though I'm not opposed to it. One author who does it a lot is Steven Erikson, but he meets your criterion of having some vibrant, interesting, internal thought processes.



Well I have a hard time explaining the negative uses, because I've not actually given the subject much thought.  The more strategic uses are the kind I remember most from my reading, and I'm not sure I've encountered any books in which bad use of italics for internal thought irritated me.  I'm guessing that italics, as italics, somewhat signals importance—that's our natural reaction to italicized print—and so if I encountered inane, babbling, or simply mediocre thoughts in italics throughout a book, I'd be irritated.  That's like a promise of significance that doesn't pan out.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> I guess that I don't really understand the need/desire to show enunciation or voice inflection.


There is no _need_ to show an enunciation or inflection. It can, however, add an extra layer of texture to dialogue.

Even then, my usage of italics in this manner is a rarity. Sometimes though, it feels and sounds right. That's enough for me.

I've never had a reader question me or stumble on a use of italics for this reason.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

FifthView said:


> I definitely don't think there would be confusion for a reader.  A single italicized word within quotation marks is rather distinct from whole lines of italicized thought not using quotation marks.  I think the distinction would be obvious, and I doubt anyone would trip over it.


For the most part, I agree with you. My comment applies mainly to submissions I've read in critique groups, not professional quality writing. 

In those cases, I've seen a lot of internal thought italicized _and_ used for a thought/action tag surrounding dialogue with an intended inflection. The close proximity of two differing uses of italics felt strange and tripped me up for a moment. As such, I thought it worth mentioning. 

Overall though, I think it's a much lesser issue than my choice to reserve italics for enunciation/inflection so the impact is more apparent. In this case, making the change noticeable can certainly be managed without jarring the reader. 

I want my dialogue to read like real, natural conversation. Real conversation includes inflection and enunciation for effect. If I speak my dialogue aloud and my natural inclination is to inflect or enunciate, I may add italics to portray this effect. It is rare, but it's a tool I'm comfortable using.

The propensity of authors to use italics like this in a myriad of well-received books, across all genres, speaks for itself.


----------



## glutton

The main issue in the overarching debate here seems to be clarity vs removing as many potentially distracting elements in hopes of increasing immersion.

Even if you choose words or set up a scenario 'perfectly' to convey the tone/volume you want, things will be probably clear*er* for some readers if that perfectly written scene also used an exclamation point or italics for emphasis - particularly if a reader has skimmed or rushed through some of your context/setup ('that won't happen if your writing is good enough' is also not a realistic response to this).

Maximum clarity vs more refined prose - clarity is king IMO. I disagree strongly with the notion of 'harder=better' that some of these conventions seem to support, especially if you're trying to make your stories easy to 'get' for the widest audience possible.


----------



## kennyc

Banten said:


> Could you elaborate please? With "explained" i can understand why you'd find it redundant but i think there is value in "croaked""sighed"or similar words because they give you an impression of the character and his/her mannerism, mood or personality. It is an easy and quick way to portray a character.










https://skysairyou.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/he-said-she-said-stephen-kings-advice-on-dialogue-tags/

"Stephen King, in his book On Writing, expresses his belief that said is the best identifier to use. King recommends reading a novel by Larry McMurtry, whom he claims has mastered the art of well-written dialogue.[2]

Substitutes are known as said-bookisms. For example, in the sentence "What do you mean?" he smiled., the word smiled is a said-bookism."
from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_in_writing


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I agree that "Clarity is king." I repeat that phrase all the time.

Further, I think it foolish to discard any tool of language. Some of us will use a tool more than others. That's an element of style and part of voice.

I'd say the better advice is a cautioning toward judicious use of tools like exclamation points and italics. Not allowing them to become a crutch of weak writing seems a wise course of action. However, if they're indispensable to a phrase in the writer's mind, or if they add a certain something the writer deems appropriate, or fitting, so be it.


----------



## Chessie

T.Allen.Smith said:


> _I'd say the better advice is a cautioning toward judicious use of tools like exclamation points and italics. Not allowing them to become a crutch of weak writing seems a wise course of action. _However, if they're indispensable to a phrase in the writer's mind, or if they add a certain something the writer deems appropriate, or fitting, so be it.


I totes agree. It's not like someone will throw your book across the room because you placed thoughts in italics or used too many exclamation marks. These are just guidelines to help strengthen our writing. Whether or not we apply it to our craft doesn't make much of a difference to anyone else. However, I like to err on the side of caution simply because I've seen evidence of my writing improving from listening to this type of advice.


----------



## Russ

Chesterama said:


> I totes agree. It's not like someone will throw your book across the room because you placed thoughts in italics or used too many exclamation marks. These are just guidelines to help strengthen our writing. Whether or not we apply it to our craft doesn't make much of a difference to anyone else. However, I like to err on the side of caution simply because I've seen evidence of my writing improving from listening to this type of advice.



I agree with general readership for indy folks, but I do think editors frown on those sorts of things.

And I have read reviews that complain about those things on Amazon, if they create the risk that someone may bitch about them, why take the risk when there is probably no reward?


----------



## glutton

Russ said:


> if they create the risk that someone may bitch about them, why take the risk when there is probably no reward?



The possible reward is more people getting into it since it was clearer for them/more engaging because the scenes were easier to imagine.

Also in the time some take to refine/'perfect' their prose for one book, you could write another book.


----------



## Russ

glutton said:


> The possible reward is more people getting into it since it was clearer for them/more engaging because the scenes were easier to imagine.
> 
> Also in the time some take to refine/'perfect' their prose for one book, you could write another book.



To your first point, based on the fact that the convention strongly leans away from those practices (whether or not we personally like them) there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the use of creative dialogue tags, exclamation points or italics for inner thought enhances reader enjoyment.  The general wisdom seems to run contrary to that.


The second point is more interesting.  There is no doubt that there is a trade off between time and building skill and craft.  Each person must make that choice on their own.  But the authors I know, read and respect all seem to lean towards making their books better, and with modern tech (as RJS pointed out in his article) you can weed out that stuff pretty fast with search and replace functions.  It really depends on  your philosophy of writing and publishing.  If a significant portion of your approach is "volume" then by all means neglect craft.  Personally I want to be intensely proud of everything I publish.  So far I am.


----------



## glutton

Russ said:


> To your first point, based on the fact that the convention strongly leans away from those practices (whether or not we personally like them) there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the use of creative dialogue tags, exclamation points or italics for inner thought enhances reader enjoyment.  The general wisdom seems to run contrary to that.
> 
> 
> The second point is more interesting.  There is no doubt that there is a trade off between time and building skill and craft.  Each person must make that choice on their own.  But the authors I know, read and respect all seem to lean towards making their books better, and with modern tech (as RJS pointed out in his article) you can weed out that stuff pretty fast with search and replace functions.  It really depends on  your philosophy of writing and publishing.  If a significant portion of your approach is "volume" then by all means neglect craft.  Personally I want to be intensely proud of everything I publish.  So far I am.



For the first point - intended audience. Some of us are probably not writing for the same readers whose enjoyment may suffer from the presence of 'extra' stuff and instead for an audience from whom additional clarity might be helpful. Also, conventions are constantly changing and I'm sure the evidence for extras in moderation significantly hurting general reader enjoyment would also be scant at best.

Second point - you can't really just 'remove' all those things and leave the rest of the prose as is unless it's already set up to convey the tone/volume etc. adequately without them, which goes back to the is harder necessarily better argument.


----------



## Chessie

Russ, I'm with you on the not-taking-chances route. That's how I feel about it, too. It's also about challenging myself to become a better writer, like you mentioned above. If taking out an exclamation mark or not italicizing a word allows me to come up with a different (and likely harder) way of telling my story, then I've learned something valuable and improved my craft in the process.


----------



## Steerpike

Chesterama said:


> If taking out an exclamation mark or not italicizing a word allows me to come up with a different (and likely harder) way of telling my story, then I've learned something valuable and improved my craft in the process.



Or else needlessly complicated it. All of this has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## Russ

glutton said:


> For the first point - intended audience. Some of us are probably not writing for the same readers whose enjoyment may suffer from the presence of 'extra' stuff and instead for an audience from whom additional clarity might be helpful. Also, conventions are constantly changing and I'm sure the evidence for extras in moderation significantly hurting general reader enjoyment would also be scant at best.



The people in publishing who suggest eschewing exclamation points and creative dialogue tags are trying to sell (and have been selling successfully for years) to anyone who buys books.  It must be a mighty unique audience you are writing for if normal publishers are not trying to get their money.

To me, since I don't have access to near complete data, it is a matter of who do I trust on such questions?  Do I trust seasoned professionals who make such recommendations and give such advise without malice or hope of  gain, or do I trust people who seem to have a chip on their shoulder about the issue, and as far as I can tell, have no real experience in the field?  That seems an easy call.


----------



## glutton

Russ said:


> The people in publishing who suggest eschewing exclamation points and creative dialogue tags are trying to sell (and have been selling successfully for years) to anyone who buys books.  It must be a mighty unique audience you are writing for if normal publishers are not trying to get their money.
> 
> To me, since I don't have access to near complete data, it is a matter of who do I trust on such questions?  Do I trust seasoned professionals who make such recommendations and give such advise without malice or hope of  gain, *or do I trust people who seem to have a chip on their shoulder about the issue, and as far as I can tell, have no real experience in the field?*  That seems an easy call.



Considering that there are many traditionally published books with exclamation marks and italics included in them, I would not particularly trust people who seem to biased in favor of certain writing styles...

Do you think that the average reader is particularly bothered by the occasional use of exclamation points or italics and furthermore, do you think a reader who is used to reading manga/comics/video game text/subtitled movies is likely to be bothered by them?

And I knew you would take the low road soon or later. I guess elitists can't debate anything without resorting to personal comments at the drop of a dime lol.

PS. I have a chip on my shoulder only because when I initially politely stated my disagreement with the favored convention, somebody responded to me with a lazy and condescending 'appeal to authority' post with no substantial argument against my position...


----------



## FifthView

I don't think I'm a fan of "less risky route = best route" truisms.  It's a cost/benefit analysis, really.  When I said earlier that not all books should utilize italics for inner dialogue, I also meant that not all books need it.  I, like others, have read many good books that didn't utilize those things.  If in doubt about whether some method–the way _you_ the author would use it or are capable of using it–might distract more than help, maybe avoid it.  Find what works.

It's interesting, doing a casual search of previews on Amazon, that _Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets_ has, in its very first chapter:


Liberal use of exclamation marks
Italics for internal thoughts
Italics for stressed words or inflection in normal dialogue
FULL CAPITALIZATION FOR SOME SHOUTING

No wonder it didn't sell very well.  That said, I've been wondering whether liberal use of exclamation marks might be fine for children's books or YA novels.  I've been told that YA books in particular allow for, some would even say require, a more upfront telling (as opposed to only showing) of what's going on inside a character.


----------



## glutton

FifthView said:


> That said, I've been wondering whether liberal use of exclamation marks might be fine for children's books or YA novels.  I've been told that YA books in particular allow for, some would even say require, a more upfront telling (as opposed to only showing) of what's going on inside a character.



Put more bluntly than I did. Some of us are trying to include a younger audience in our intended demographic...


----------



## Heliotrope

This is making me nervous. 

GRRM uses italics and thought tags

_The Sphinx looks slight, but there's strength in those slim arms_, he reflected. 

_If I hit him in the mouth with my tankard, I could knock out half his teeth, Pate thought. 

He has a mocking name for everyone, thought Pate. 

On and on and on it goes, multiple times per page… I thought this was what we were supposed to do? I looked it up and I couldn't find anything suggesting otherwise? Could someone point me to a resource where it says not to do this?_


----------



## Nimue

FifthView said:


> No wonder it didn't sell very well.  That said, I've been wondering whether liberal use of exclamation marks might be fine for children's books or YA novels.  I've been told that YA books in particular allow for, some would even say require, a more upfront telling (as opposed to only showing) of what's going on inside a character.


I think I agree with this--italicizations, font changes, capitalization, etc is more common for YA books or books with a casual/comedic tone.  High fantasy and serious lit, not so much.  This is based on what I've read.  I haven't seen a lot of dialogue stressed with italics in the adult trad-published fantasy realm.  However, I've seen a lot of thoughts in italics in fantasy, to the point where I thought that was the norm.  It's not a style I use myself, and maybe the editorial trend is away from it, but it's being used.



glutton said:


> And I knew you would take the low road soon or later. I guess elitists can't debate anything without resorting to personal comments at the drop of a dime lol.


Glutton, taking an attacking tone and then calling people "offended" when they match your tone is not only a poor debate tactic, but also pretty transparent.  Maybe back off it.


----------



## glutton

Heliotrope said:


> This is making me nervous.
> 
> GRRM uses italics and thought tags
> 
> _The Sphinx looks slight, but there's strength in those slim arms_, he reflected.
> 
> _If I hit him in the mouth with my tankard, I could knock out half his teeth, Pate thought.
> 
> He has a mocking name for everyone, thought Pate.
> 
> On and on and on it goes, multiple times per page… I thought this was what we were supposed to do? I looked it up and I couldn't find anything suggesting otherwise? Could someone point me to a resource where it says not to do this?_


_

We're debating stylistic preferences not actual rules.

If you have a clear POV that doesn't change in the scene and have established that italics are used to indicate thought too, having a thought tag too seems redundant._


----------



## Russ

glutton said:


> And I knew you would take the low road soon or later. I guess elitists can't debate anything without resorting to personal comments at the drop of a dime lol.



Ah so now I understand it.  Someone seeks out the advice and guidance of the experienced professionals is an "elitist" and those who who without experience or information come to conclusions are of course well meaning victims of the machine.  How could I have missed that?

It appears your ego knows few bounds.


----------



## glutton

Nimue said:


> Glutton, taking an attacking tone and then calling people "offended" when they match your tone is not only a poor debate tactic, but also pretty transparent.  Maybe back off it.



Why are you calling me out when he clearly made a personal comment directed at me in the post I quoted? My previous post before that wasn't aggressive at all. Unless you're claiming this is aggressive -

'For the first point - intended audience. Some of us are probably not writing for the same readers whose enjoyment may suffer from the presence of 'extra' stuff and instead for an audience from whom additional clarity might be helpful. Also, conventions are constantly changing and I'm sure the evidence for extras in moderation significantly hurting general reader enjoyment would also be scant at best.

Second point - you can't really just 'remove' all those things and leave the rest of the prose as is unless it's already set up to convey the tone/volume etc. adequately without them, which goes back to the is harder necessarily better argument.'


----------



## glutton

Russ said:


> Ah so now I understand it.  Someone seeks out the advice and guidance of the experienced professionals is an "elitist" and those who who without experience or information come to conclusions are of course well meaning victims of the machine.  How could I have missed that?



I call you an elitist because you're so quick to dismiss offhand and in rude tone those who disagree with you.


----------



## Nimue

Yes, I read Russ's comment.  What you seem to be blind to is your own tone.  He said you have a chip on your shoulder, you're calling people condescending elitists.  I think the point of closing the thread was to put and end to the back-and-forth.  Can we simply talk about the topic at hand?


----------



## glutton

Nimue said:


> Yes, I read Russ's comment.  *What you seem to be blind to is your own tone.*  He said you have a chip on your shoulder, you're calling people condescending elitists.  I think the point of closing the thread was to put and end to the back-and-forth.  Can we simply talk about the topic at hand?



No, I'm quite aware I changed my tone back to the aggressive one after he made a personal comment.

I'll back off it if he does.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Another warning- ALL personal attacks and snide remarks end now.

This is directed at all parties involved in this discussion. No exceptions.


----------



## Heliotrope

Also, A Feast For Crows pg 383

"The king is dead!" his drowned men shouted. 

And on page 1-2 

"Throw the apple," urged Allaras…

"You were born too late for dragons, lad," Armen the Acolyte told Roone. 

"The last dragons in _Westeros_," insisted Mollander. 

"are stories told by sailors," Armen interrupted. 

So… I just sort of feel that maybe we should be focussing on just writing good stories, instead of bickering about whatever so-called rules we read in Whoever's writing book. 

I'm reading a book called Writing Short Stories: A Routledge Writer's Guide by Ailsa Cox. 

This is taken directly from the book. She is referring to a short story about a narrator who is showing us the harsh reality of living on welfare benefits. 

"The irregular punctuation, removing the apostrophes from 'isn't' and 'doesn't', keep the flow of thought intact, while the repeated phrases suggest someone stuck in a rut. Yet, although the narrator seems rambling, the language is controlled and carefully pared down. Kelman writes in short, jagged sentences, interspersed with longer digressions like the final sentence in the paragraph above. Using natural speech patterns and selective repetition, he builds up poetic rhythm." Pg 47. 

Another passage that stuck out to me: 

" Most creative-writing handbooks insist that you should write every day. My concern here is that keeping the notebook may become a chore like brushing your teeth before you go to bed. If you can manage it, fine, but don't go through the motions. The idea is to liberate your creativity, not to restrict your own freedoms." 

So, I sort of feel that shouldn't we, as a community of writers, be encouraging each other to be creative? To find our own voices? Obviously no body told GRRM that he wasn't supposed to use italics or thought tags or exclamation points. 

He wrote a damn good story though, even with all those things.


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> No wonder it didn't sell very well.  That said, I've been wondering whether liberal use of exclamation marks might be fine for children's books or YA novels.  I've been told that YA books in particular allow for, some would even say require, a more upfront telling (as opposed to only showing) of what's going on inside a character.



For children's books I have no idea. 

What I have been told for YA writing is not to underestimate your audience and write down to them.  That apparently is a mistake.  I understand that the only difference for YA books is usually subject matter, and how adult language/issues are presented and even that second one is shrinking.


----------



## Chessie

I've never read Harry Potter so forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that capitalizing words was a major no-no in all published works. So I've learned something new: different age categories permit certain things. 

As Nimue said, I see enough italicized thoughts in adult fantasy to have thought it's just the way things are done. I've done this in a couple of my stories but have steered away from it in recent times because I don't much care for that style anyway. Does it pull me out of the story when I read it? Not really. I see it as a stylistic preference.


----------



## Steerpike

Chesterama said:


> I've never read Harry Potter so forgive my ignorance, but I was under the impression that capitalizing words was a major no-no in all published works. So I've learned something new: different age categories permit certain things.



I don't even know that it's limited to age groups. I'm sure I've seen that in adult novels as well, and I've also seen italicized words used to describe a sound like _woosh! _directly to a reader. In adult novels.

I think the idea that anything is a "no-no" in ALL published works is typically shown to be false. Someone inevitably comes up with an example of it.


----------



## FifthView

Russ said:


> What I have been told for YA writing is not to underestimate your audience and write down to them.  That apparently is a mistake.  I understand that the only difference for YA books is usually subject matter, and how adult language/issues are presented and even that second one is shrinking.



I don't think that use of italics for internal dialogue is a matter of "writing down" to an audience.  Liberal use of exclamation marks might fit that assessment however. Although I'm wondering if Nimue's observation about differences between casual/comedic vs serious novels also comes into play when deciding how to use exclamation marks.

The advice I have received about telling vs showing when it comes to revealing how characters are feeling, in YA novels, was more about using direct statements like, "She felt horrible," worrying less about only or mostly showing—not about what we've been discussing in this thread.  But it occurred to me that the problematic uses of those things mentioned in this thread are a lot like the more general argument of telling vs. showing.  For instance, the blunt exclamation mark at the end of a normal line of dialogue.


----------



## Russ

Heliotrope said:


> So, I sort of feel that shouldn't we, as a community of writers, be encouraging each other to be creative? To find our own voices? Obviously no body told GRRM that he wasn't supposed to use italics or thought tags or exclamation points.
> 
> He wrote a damn good story though, even with all those things.



Couple of points.

With respect to GRRM (and I enjoy and respect his work) he is a rather exceptional writer, with a long history, relationships with editors, an audience etc.  IIRC he was first nominated for the Hugo in the 70s.  His ability to publish and get access to the public is very different from everyone on this site.  Based on his  history and platform he really can get away with lots of things that the average writer, and certainly unpublished writer cannot.  The considerations he has when writing his books is very different than the considerations we have when we write ours.  If we ever get together for a few beers I can give you long lists of things writers like GRRM can, and do, do that don't seem to impair them at all, that would get a novice or even mid list writer's manuscript thrown in the trash bin.  For people who want to be successfully published the truth is that the "rules" are different for branded and non-branded writers.

As a community of writers we should be encouraging creativity and encouraging people to write.  But one also has to be realistic, and perhaps more importantly responsive. You also have to keep their goals in mind.  When someone says "How should I handle X", you can tell them to be creative and do as they please, or you can give them some advise, and they can take it or leave it.


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> I don't think that use of italics for internal dialogue is a matter of "writing down" to an audience.  Liberal use of exclamation marks might fit that assessment however. Although I'm wondering if Nimue's observation about differences between casual/comedic vs serious novels also comes into play when deciding how to use exclamation marks.
> 
> The advice I have received about telling vs showing when it comes to revealing how characters are feeling was more about using direct statements like, "She felt horrible," worrying less about only or mostly showing—not about what we've been discussing in this thread.  But it occurred to me that the problematic uses of those things mentioned in this thread are a lot like the more general argument of telling vs. showing.  For instance, the blunt exclamation mark at the end of a normal line of dialogue.



I apologize if I have been unclear.  I have been trying to avoid the italics issue because I don't feel well versed enough in it to comment.  I was trying to stick to dialogue tags and exclamation points and if I wandered into italics that was by mistake.


----------



## Steerpike

What I see in threads like these, often, are assertions that extend beyond the evidence used to bolster them.

When I mentioned above, for example, that most agents/editors I've heard talk on the subject of italics for a character's thoughts are against it. That's absolutely true. And I've read materials by editors and agents who say not to do it. But I have no idea what percentage of the editors/agents out there feel this way. My experience in speaking with, and reading comments by, editor and agents doesn't constitute a statistically-significant sampling of the total population of agents and editors.

I'm just relating my experience. What I can say with certainty is the idea that ALL editors are against italics are thought must be wrong, because there are a lot of books that use them.

It seems to me the same goes for the other topics addressed in this thread. Many of us have experience talking to authors, agents, and editors, and that shouldn't be discounted. But I don't think anyone here can say that most or all editors/agents want one thing versus another. At least, not based on the anecdotal evidence I've seen presented. We can only talk about our experience, and we can talk about the fact (as Heliotrope has highlighted) that there are very popular, published works that eschew these "rules." So, clearly you can find a readership and sell a lot of books even while doing these things some people are saying you can't do.

Because nobody here, to my knowledge, has any way to know what the majority of editors or agents think, or even any way to quantify how much more or less likely rule X is to make your book sell versus not sell, appeals along those lines don't end up persuading people.

It's much more interesting, in my view, to talk about the mechanics of what is going on, as T. Allen Smith and others did above. Talking about what you find more effective and why, and presenting substantive writing-based reasoning to adopt one path over the other (if in fact one needs to be adopted over the other). That makes for good discussion in a writing forum.


----------



## FifthView

Russ said:


> I apologize if I have been unclear.  I have been trying to avoid the italics issue because I don't feel well versed enough in it to comment.  I was trying to stick to dialogue tags and exclamation points and if I wandered into italics that was by mistake.



Not a problem.  You were responding to a paragraph I'd written in reference to a list of things, so I mentally folded them together.


----------



## Steerpike

Russ said:


> If we ever get together for a few beers I can give you long lists of things writers like GRRM can, and do, do that don't seem to impair them at all, that would get a novice or even mid list writer's manuscript thrown in the trash bin.



You could, but then I'd ask you to explain _House of Leaves_​.


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> You could, but then I'd ask you to explain _House of Leaves_​.



Thanks...now I have to buy it and read it...


----------



## Steerpike

Russ said:


> Thanks...now I have to buy it and read it...



First novel. Unknown author. Breaks just about every rule. The guy uses font colors (rarely) and lots of weird text tricks (boxes with backwards writing, etc). Breaks the fourth wall. There are two stories going on - one in the story proper, and one in the voluminous footnotes. And that's just getting started.

And not only did he sell it as a first-time author, the book did really well (and it's also a really cool book  ).

I think Random House was the publisher.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I haven't read House of Leaves, but as I understand it, it is considered hip reading amongst older adolescents and young adults.


----------



## Steerpike

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I haven't read House of Leaves, but as I understand it, it is considered hip reading amongst older adolescents and young adults.



Seems plausible, given the subject matter. Though the people I know who have read it are all 30s-40s in age. In any event, it's pretty good and worth checking just to see what can be done with the novel form.


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> First novel. Unknown author. Breaks just about every rule. The guy uses font colors (rarely) and lots of weird text tricks (boxes with backwards writing, etc). Breaks the fourth wall. There are two stories going on - one in the story proper, and one in the voluminous footnotes. And that's just getting started.
> 
> And not only did he sell it as a first-time author, the book did really well (and it's also a really cool book  ).
> 
> I think Random House was the publisher.



It would be interesting to talk to the acquiring editor and see how it came to pass.


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> It's much more interesting, in my view, to talk about the mechanics of what is going on, as T. Allen Smith and others did above. Talking about what you find more effective and why, and presenting substantive writing-based reasoning to adopt one path over the other (if in fact one needs to be adopted over the other). That makes for good discussion in a writing forum.



Thanks for opening up this broader and interesting issue about what makes for good conversation on a writing site.  While I think there is value in discussing mechanics and working your way up from first principles, I have to respectfully disagree with underestimating the value of receiving advice from successful and experienced professionals in the field.  Bear with me for a minute on this one.

Now, I really enjoy and have found value in critique groups.  But I was reading someone (can't remember who, it was an experienced writing pro and instructor) who made a comment along the lines of "Writing is the only profession where an amateur will get together with a group of other amateurs and ask for their thoughts in the hope of becoming more professional."  So while I think there is value in critique groups, I think you need to understand their practical limitations.

When I started writing fiction, the internet was not was it is today.  To get access to the advice of professional writers on craft you had to buy books, or go down to say UFT to study with working professionals, or go to cons, or perhaps study in the field at Seton Hill or elsewhere.  Access to the thoughts of writing professionals on writing was quite difficult and often expensive.  Now we have unprecedented access to the knowledge of experienced professionals through the internet, it seems intentionally self destructive to downgrade the value of that information or not take it seriously.

Now I fully realize that writing is more subjective than say medicine or auto mechanics, but if I am sitting around with a bunch of my buddies talking about how to reduce a tibia fracture, that is all well and good, and it may well be more interesting to hear their ideas, but if I really want to do it, then the advice of the experienced orthopod is more useful.  Same thing on say modifying my Audi engine.  It is all well and good to chat about it from first principles, but if I have access to an Audi master mechanic who says "our experience is that you will get the best result if you do X", which advice has more value for me?

Now I can completely understand the social/emotional reasons that many people choose not to follow advice from experienced professionals and sometimes it works out great for them.  But passion, in many circumstances, cannot overcome lack of experience, training and guidance.

I am all for free and creative discussion of writing issues, but to ignore or downgrade the wealth of knowledge we now have at our fingertips from top working professionals would seem to me foolish.


----------



## Devor

@Russ,

I'm joining the conversation late, and I haven't adequately caught up on the discussion.  So forgive me a little, but I wanted to respond to this:




Russ said:


> But I was reading someone (can't remember who, it was an experienced writing pro and instructor) who made a comment along the lines of "Writing is the only profession where an amateur will get together with a group of other amateurs and ask for their thoughts in the hope of becoming more professional."  So while I think there is value in critique groups, I think you need to understand their practical limitations.



I agree with you, by and large, that the advice of the experts shouldn't be ignored.  And that critique groups can't replace professional editing.

But e-publishing continues to fracture the industry.  The market is changing - the gap between Gen X and the millenials is tremendous.  Amazon reviews and recommendations - I would argue - have increased reader selectivity and lessened the reliance on impulse buys, as well as increasing the viability of niche markets.  Ereaders like the Kindle have changed the very experience of reading a book.  Things are changing very rapidly, and I'm not sure the advice blogs really keep up with it.

And advice has always followed fads to begin with.  For instance, before we were _only_ using said, authors would tell you _never_ to use said.  Isn't one just a reaction to the other?

So when is advice _real and lasting_, when is it _style_, and when is it _temporary or a fad?_  That's a real question that's not so easily answered.


----------



## glutton

Devor said:


> And advice has always followed fads to begin with.  For instance, before we were _only_ using said, authors would tell you _never_ to use said.
> 
> So when is advice _real and lasting_, when is it _style_, and when is it a _fad?_  That's a real question that's not so easily answered.



It was only a few years ago that common advice was to put thoughts in italics, now some are saying not to do it. If going the trad publishing route by the time your book comes out the advice that was prevalent when writing it has a good chance of being a bygone fad.


----------



## Russ

Devor said:


> @Russ,
> 
> I'm joining the conversation late, and I haven't adequately caught up on the discussion.  So forgive me a little, but I wanted to respond to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you, by and large, that the advice of the experts shouldn't be ignored.  And that critique groups can't replace professional editing.
> 
> But e-publishing continues to fracture the industry.  The market is changing - the gap between Gen X and the millenials is tremendous.  Amazon reviews and recommendations - I would argue - have increased reader selectivity and lessened the reliance on impulse buys, as well as increasing the viability of niche markets.  Ereaders like the Kindle have changed the very experience of reading a book.  Things are changing very rapidly.
> 
> And advice has always followed fads to begin with.  For instance, before we were _only_ using said, authors would tell you _never_ to use said.
> 
> So when is advice _real and lasting_, when is it _style_, and when is it a _fad?_  That's a real question that's not so easily answered.



Things are changing very rapidly indeed and you hit on some very important points.

The question of how readers make a buying choice today is a fascinating one.  Are there less gatekeepers or just different gatekeepers?  These are things that the modern writer must absolutely wrestle with...but it does not mean that we are in the dark about them, or that there are not working professionals who can give us good information to work with.  You just get that information from different people.  

In the e-pub world I have a friend who is running a company that publishes only e versions of erotic fiction that is based on a  model that I have never seen used in publishing before and it is doing really, really well.  A couple of days ago I had a meeting with a chap who is a social media marketer who we are working with at my law firm, who has a continuous track record of successful social media marketing campaigns that have worked nation wide.  If I have access to that quality of information why would I downgrade it or not seek it out?  What they say is not written on stone tablets, but does not the rational person have to assign it a high value?

And you do have to look at your sources and their strengths and weaknesses.  I might not ask an older but still  popular writer about how to maximize facebook for sales, but when say, David Morrell, talks about the craft of writing I still think it has high value.

Style and audience desires will change.  But that does not mean we do not need to make decisions about what we are doing now.  If I am looking at that broken leg that needs to be reduced I can't say..."well there will be a different way to reduce it in five years so I should ignore the current standards."


----------



## Nimue

I think it's really interesting that all of these stylistic questions have ended up in the same thread: using colorful synonyms instead of "said", exclamation points, italics, capitalization.  They seem to be members of a certain category of style usage--one that stands out against other writing. I might add to that category things like sesquipedalian vocab-words, ellipses, sentence fragments, or frequent adverbs and adjectives.

The issue with these things isn't that they are automatically _bad writing_  (And I think some of us took issue with that message, or implied message.) The examples from published authors argues against that. The issue is that they can be _symptoms of bad writing_ and most often _are_ when used by amateur writers, and that's what's these professional editors and authors are pointing out.

But writing is all about context and style, so without a professional diagnosing our writing specifically, all we have is self-diagnosis. These rules are pointers--they tell us to look hard at these patterns.  Consider whether these style tics are genuinely adding meaning in a way that stronger language or more careful phrasing could not.  Consider the fact that these are possible pitfalls.  If you come away completely confident in your stylistic choices, that's great, and that is a valid decision.  But it is something to think long and honestly about.


----------



## Chessie

Russ said:


> Now, I really enjoy and have found value in critique groups.  But I was reading someone (can't remember who, it was an experienced writing pro and instructor) who made a comment along the lines of "Writing is the only profession where an amateur will get together with a group of other amateurs and ask for their thoughts in the hope of becoming more professional."


This sounds like John Truby to me. Or it could be Dean Wesley Smith. Either way, this is a familiar read.

I think the important thing to remember about these discussions is that they can only help us by providing a new perspective, to continue growing in our craft. It's the same as any profession, really. Except that it's not...since writing is an artform and people get rather personal over how they create. That's understandable. Take what applies, leave the rest. Clarity above all things, though. If a writer's stylistic choice is getting in the way of readers immersing in his story, then there's a problem.


----------



## Steerpike

The other thing to remember is that writers are also readers, and a lot of amateur writers have read a hell of a lot of fiction. So it makes a lot more sense to ask an amateur writer, but avid reader, about your fiction story than it would to ask an amateur electronics buff to rewire your house.


----------



## Russ

Chesterama said:


> This sounds like John Truby to me. Or it could be Dean Wesley Smith. Either way, this is a familiar read.
> 
> I think the important thing to remember about these discussions is that they can only help us by providing a new perspective, to continue growing in our craft. It's the same as any profession, really. Except that it's not...since writing is an artform and people get rather personal over how they create. That's understandable. Take what applies, leave the rest. Clarity above all things, though. If a writer's stylistic choice is getting in the way of readers immersing in his story, then there's a problem.



I always thought that the rational counter argument to that critique of critique groups would be that "I don't have access to professionals to review and comment on my work, so a good critique group is better than no outside feedback at all."


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

> The issue is that they can be _symptoms of bad writing and most often are when used by amateur writers, and that's what's these professional editors and authors are pointing out._


Well put, Nimue.

I would also argue that if you don't like what you're reading, chances are the exclamation point had little or nothing to do with it.


----------



## Penpilot

Russ said:


> Now I can completely understand the social/emotional reasons that many people choose not to follow advice from experienced professionals and sometimes it works out great for them.  But passion, in many circumstances, cannot overcome lack of experience, training and guidance.
> 
> I am all for free and creative discussion of writing issues, but to ignore or downgrade the wealth of knowledge we now have at our fingertips from top working professionals would seem to me foolish.



Following this thread, I'm reminded of Writing Excuses episode. Writing Excuses 8.34: Survivorship Bias Â» Writing Excuses 

The episode is basically about just because someone 'made it' doing X does not mean that X will work for someone else.

For the most part, I agree that if someone with experience speaks or gives advice, their advice should be taken seriously. BUT at the same time, that advice should not be taken blindly. That advice should be backed up with good reasoning and should be able to stand on it's own without the authority label.

Good advice and sound reasoning is good advice and sound reasoning regardless of where it comes from. I mean if you received advice from <insert highly respected author with praise-worthy prose here> right before they sold their first book and became a success, is that advice worth less than advice given by <insert highly successful author but considered mediocre writer here> after they made it big?


----------



## Devor

Russ said:


> Things are changing very rapidly indeed and you hit on some very important points.
> 
> The question of how readers make a buying choice today is a fascinating one. Are there less gatekeepers or just different gatekeepers? These are things that the modern writer must absolutely wrestle with...but it does not mean that we are in the dark about them, or that there are not working professionals who can give us good information to work with. You just get that information from different people.
> 
> In the e-pub world I have a friend who is running a company that publishes only e versions of erotic fiction that is based on a model that I have never seen used in publishing before and it is doing really, really well. A couple of days ago I had a meeting with a chap who is a social media marketer who we are working with at my law firm, who has a continuous track record of successful social media marketing campaigns that have worked nation wide. If I have access to that quality of information why would I downgrade it or not seek it out? What they say is not written on stone tablets, but does not the rational person have to assign it a high value?
> 
> And you do have to look at your sources and their strengths and weaknesses. I might not ask an older but still popular writer about how to maximize facebook for sales, but when say, David Morrell, talks about the craft of writing I still think it has high value.
> 
> Style and audience desires will change. But that does not mean we do not need to make decisions about what we are doing now. If I am looking at that broken leg that needs to be reduced I can't say..."well there will be a different way to reduce it in five years so I should ignore the current standards."



Okay . . . . but when the question is, "Should we or should we not use italics when a character is thinking?" and the ultimate answer is (hypothetically) something like, "Well, Generation X and Baby Boomers finds the font change a little jarring, but Millenials spend all day on the internet and won't miss a beat," then you have to consider the relevance of an author who gives straight forward advice urging just one way or the other.

And you also have to consider the broader lens behind the advice being given.  I personally shuffle all these topics into the same category as publishing guidelines stating things like "we don't accept Zombie or Vampire novels (unless it's really good, but yours won't be)."  Again, if the question is, "Should I write with Italics?" the ultimate answer might be, "If you're _relying_ on the Italics for characterization, then stop because you're not developing the right skills.  If I see Italics on your page, I'll assume that's what you're doing, rookie."  That's not exactly the same thing as a no, but people will say no as shorthand, and some of us should recognize that.


----------



## Russ

Penpilot said:


> The episode is basically about just because someone 'made it' doing X does not mean that X will work for someone else.
> 
> For the most part, I agree that if someone with experience speaks or gives advice, their advice should be taken seriously. BUT at the same time, that advice should not be taken blindly. That advice should be backed up with good reasoning and should be able to stand on it's own without the authority label.
> 
> Good advice and sound reasoning is good advice and sound reasoning regardless of where it comes from. I mean if you received advice from <insert highly respected author with praise-worthy prose here> right before they sold their first book and became a success, is that advice worth less than advice given by <insert highly successful author but considered mediocre writer here> after they made it big?



No advice should be taken blindly, but sometimes the authority label, when properly applied has to carry a large amount of weight because the person has access to information that you don't.

For instance when you are talking to a person who spends a lot of time with acquiring editors in houses you are interested in publishing in and they say (hypothetically) "Italics for thoughts is a big no-no for these editors these days."  They have access to information you don't due to their position, and you can either believe them or not, but whichever way you cut it they are in a far better position to know.

IT can go even lower down.  If you a member of certain writers organizations you will have access to studies and data that are not published as a perk of membership.  So someone might say to you "Oh yeah, our group commissioned a big study on modern author marketing and it found that video trailers almost never influence buying decisions and are a waste of money."  You can believe them or not, but they have access to quality information that you might not.

I might also say that when professionals are explaining or commenting on how to do something well, or successfully, they don't always have the time or inclination to explain all of the reasoning behind a conclusion.  IT often takes too long.  I am often asked to speak on how to do effective trials.  When I do a talk about say...the five things to persuade a jury in a cat case, I don't take the time to explain the way I learned or developed all of those things, because I only have a limited time to speak or if doing an article a limited amount of time or space I can or will dedicate to it.  Sometimes you just have to look at the source(s) and say "that person knows what they are talking about" and I am going to trust them on it.  

The decision gets even easier when multiple quality sources confirm the same thing.  Such as with exclamation points or dialogue tags.

I was listening to Neale Degrasse Tyson and Dr. Kaku on the radio yesterday talking about how the nature of reality often does not accurate with our senses and common sense and giving examples.  They did not take the time to discuss all the evidence and equations that lead to their conclusions.  I didn't expect them to and accept their conclusions based on their experience, qualifications and expertise.


----------



## Russ

Devor said:


> Okay . . . . but when the question is, "Should we or should we not use italics when a character is thinking?" and the ultimate answer is (hypothetically) something like, "Well, Generation X and Baby Boomers finds the font change a little jarring, but Millenials spend all day on the internet and won't miss a beat," then you have to consider the relevance of an author who gives straight forward advice urging just one way or the other.
> 
> And you also have to consider the broader lens behind the advice being given.  I personally shuffle all these topics into the same category as publishing guidelines stating things like "we don't accept Zombie or Vampire novels (unless it's really good, but yours won't be)."  Again, if the question is, "Should I write with Italics?" the ultimate answer might be, "If you're _relying_ on the Italics for characterization, then stop because you're not developing the right skills.  If I see Italics on your page, I'll assume that's what you're doing, rookie."  That's not exactly the same thing as a no, but people will say no as shorthand, and some of us should recognize that.




Let's take that example and work through it.  I will tell you how I would handle it and let's see if you agree.

If the question is italics and you want to figure it out, the first thing you have to know is what you are planning to do with the work.

Let's say you are planning to submit it to an agent or an editor.  Firstly I would look at their submission guidelines and published comments to see if they, or an editor at their company had ever made a comment on that issue.  That is why the internet is wonderful.  You might hit say 10 current articles that comment on the issue and if 9 of them say one thing I might go with that.

If that didn't turn up anything I would do something really outlandish.  I would write them and ask them which they preferred.  

If that didn't work I would pick up five or six books I know they repped or edited and see how they handled it.  

If I was in touch with any writers, agents  or editors currently working I might ask them as well.

Then I would know what that editor or agent likely wants on that particular issue and I might even know if there was a consensus amongst people in the industry who talk about these things in public or in private if I have access to those people.

I would have a look at some recent manuals of style and books on writing and see if they had any guidance.

Now I might even go onto an internet site (filled with primarily amateurs) and ask what people thought.  But if some anonymous person on the internet told me that they thought it should be done a certain way, those folks I would really want to know why they thought that way.  And if they said "oh yeah I know that because I heard three editors on a panel a couple of weeks ago say that is what is acceptable these days" that would give their opinion a lot more weight to me than if they claim to have reasoned it through from first principles on their own.

If you were planning to self publish the work then the process would be similar but you might go with slightly different sources.  I would suggest looking at good internet sites on editing run by people you respect with relevant experience to see if there was a consensus. 

If you were seriously concerned about the italics question isn't that how you should more or less go about it?


----------



## glutton

I think some are approaching this debate from the standpoint of 'what is considered good/bad writing' while others are approaching it more from that of 'what is more likely to find success/be accepted for publication in the current market'.

It's quite obvious that the issues being discussed here are more ones of stylistic preference than actual 'rules' such as grammatical ones. If one style is currently more popular than another, why can it not be viewed in a similar way as if one subgenre of fantasy is currently popular and trendy? If grimdark fantasy happens to become exceedingly popular at a given time, does that mean every fantasy writer should then write grimdark to follow the trend? Probably not.


----------



## kennyc

glutton said:


> I think some are approaching this debate from the standpoint of 'what is considered good/bad writing' while others are approaching it more from that of 'what is more likely to find success/be accepted for publication in the current market'.
> 
> It's quite obvious that the issues being discussed here are more ones of stylistic preference than actual 'rules' such as grammatical ones. If one style is currently more popular than another, why can it not be viewed in a similar way as if one subgenre of fantasy is currently popular and trendy? If grimdark fantasy happens to become exceedingly popular at a given time, does that mean every fantasy writer should then write grimdark to follow the trend? Probably not.



As is the want of internet forums there are those who think they have to tell others what to do rather than discuss, suggest, offer support.


----------



## Russ

kennyc said:


> As is the want of internet forums there are those who think they have to tell others what to do rather than discuss, suggest, offer support.



I must have missed that in this thread kennyc.  Where did it take place?


----------



## BWFoster78

> It's much more interesting, in my view, to talk about the mechanics of what is going on, as T. Allen Smith and others did above. Talking about what you find more effective and why, and presenting substantive writing-based reasoning to adopt one path over the other (if in fact one needs to be adopted over the other). That makes for good discussion in a writing forum.



I have a bunch to thoughts here:

Thought 1 -

I've posted a lot on MS, and I know some of the older members tend to consider my entire history when evaluating my comments.  When I started, I was very focused on learning how to write.  Now, my perspective has changed, and I'm instead very focused on learning the business of self publishing.

That's not to say that I feel like I've learned how to write well; just that I think learning the latter is more important for me at the moment.

A year ago, I would have said that there is nothing more important to success as an indie author than writing quality.  Now, I don't think that's the case.  Take two authors:

Author 1 is a fantastic writer but only mediocre at the business of self publishing.
Author 2 is a mediocre writer but fantastic at the business of self publishing.

I really think that, long term, Author 2 is going to be much more successful.

Thought 2 -

I view "the mechanics of what is going on" kind of like I view integral calculus.  When I graduated college, I was a whiz at solving derivatives and integrals, even differential equations.  I even understood conceptually that an integral calculated the area under a curve by summing the areas of an infinite number of infinitesimally small rectangles.

Mechanically, though, I never ever grokked how an integral accomplished that feat.

Truthfully, at this point, I don't fully understand how all the guidelines established by professional editors and writers work from a mechanical standpoint, and I think most of the other posters here are probably in the same boat.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to discuss them; just that I think it makes sense to put that on the table before we begin the discussion.

In the end, though, I think that one of three possible scenarios is the absolute truth:

1. That the guidelines we're discussing represent some fundamental way to enhance our reader's experience and that, unless you fully understand that fundamental reasoning, you're risking making your writing be of a lesser quality by not following the guidelines.
2. That the guidelines are based on customs and usage only, meaning that they're not representative of a fundamental truth as much as simply the personal preference of some people.
3. Something that lies on the spectrum between 1 and 2.

Thought 3 —

I picture the sum total of all readers as a huge circle.  With every decision I make as a writer, I carve out a chunk from that circle.

For example, my first decision is to write in the fantasy genre.  By doing so, I’ve just eliminated a huge percentage of potential readers, and there’s nothing I can do about that fact.

Absolutely no book can appeal to all readers.

I believe that there exists a subset of readers who care greatly about the “quality” of the writing, and those readers define “quality” as adherence to the guidelines established by professional writers and editors.  I also think that this subset of readers consists of more than just writers who have forgotten how to read like readers and is larger than some of us on this thread tend to believe.

On the other hand, I think that that subset, though large, is of relatively little importance to an independent author. Why? Because that subset has already decided that they’re not willing to give indie authors a chance (except in the case of a recommendation from a trusted source).

Bottom Line for Me —

Putting all three thoughts together: I have a tendency to believe that the guidelines do represent some fundamental enhancement of reader experience. However, I also believe that the individual breaking of any particular guideline tends to have an infinitesimally small impact on the reader experience. As with integral calculus, the sum of those impacts can be enormous, but as a practical matter, an independent author who has gained some minimum level of proficiency with writing isn’t likely to commit enough errors to make a difference with the target audience.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Well put, BW. I totally agree with your bottom line, and yeah, author 2 will do much better than author 1.

On that, I had two similar thoughts today and yesterday…



Similar to BW's bottom line:

Today I was thinking about how perfection does not exist. You could find flaws in the Mona Lisa, but if she had the perfect smile on a symmetrical face, that wouldn't necessarily be better. Even with my own art (which does not deserve to be in the same paragraph as the Mona Lisa) suffers when I worry about flaws. I've had drawings that didn't look as good as the sketches, and the reason for that was because I was focused so much on mechanics, I had a crappy drawing with great line quality. I'm sure I've killed writing by focusing more on mechanics or editing a scene to death, but with art, I just need to look at something an hour after I drew it before I can admit, yeah, that one kinda sucked.

Point being, little imperfections don't make the overall work suffer. If you've poured your heart and soul into your work and are satisfied with the result, move onto the next piece.



Similar to why author 2 will succeed:

While drawing, I was listening to Will Terry's message to his illustration students. If you don't want to watch all three videos (~30 min total), the gist is that _you don't get successful by waiting for someone to pick you and tell you you can draw (or write—the message is applicable to authors). You pick yourself and just do it._ So if you want to draw, draw. If you want to write, write. Don't wait for someone else to tell you the work is good enough to sell. Just sell it.

Another important piece of advice he gave is not to look at your entire project (web comic, series of short stories, novel…) as a whole. Focus on the part you're on, love what you're doing, finish that step and go on to the next.

I'm not author #2 yet (or writer-artist #2), but I know I need to create content and have files at web resolution and print resolution before I can expect to make any money, so the part I'm on now is creating content one episode at a time—and of course trying to keep pace with (outpace, really) a sensible release schedule. Once I have enough content to go live (I think at least 3 months worth, plus at least 2 straight months of drawing at the essential pace), I'll study more about the business before going live.

I think if you're writing a novel or series of shorts, you can take a similar route of finishing content, studying on the business, publishing and moving onto the next story.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I like the phrase:

Perfection is subjective.


----------

