# Responding to a couple of specific critique comments



## BWFoster78 (Jun 27, 2012)

I'm a huge supporter of getting a lot of eyes on my work for critiques.  Regardless of the source of the comments, however, I'm the ultimate decider of how the final draft looks.  Most of the time, I pretty easily decide whether to reject a comment or incorporate its suggestions.  One particular section, however, gave me two questions.  I'd like to get some additional thoughts.

MINOR QUESTION

No one preaches harder than a convert, and I've been convinced that "said" is the best speech tag.  My original goal was to use it solely in my work.  I made an exception, however, for "muttered."  Here's my reasoning:

Speech tags don't help develop characters, don't describe the setting, and don't do anything for the plot.  They're like punctuation, roadsigns to tell the audience how to read the work.  Thus, you should minimize speech tags as much as possible.  By using "he said" exclusively, it hides in the work.  There's nothing to call attention to it.  "He implored" or "he responded" becomes much more noticeable.

On the other hand, being concise is important.  Would I rather use "he said under his breath" or "he muttered."  Obviously, I don't want to overdo it with the muttering, but saving four words is more important than sticking to just "said."

So, now that I've allowed "muttered," it causes a crack in the dam.  

The question is: what about "yelled."

In the following case:

A. "Use only 'said' as your speech tag!" he said.
B. "Use only 'said' as your speech tag," he yelled.
C. "Use only 'said' as your speech tag!" he yelled.

I vastly prefer A.  C is my least favorite because I feel the "!" and "yelled" used together is redundant.  I can accept B, but it's not best, IMO.

The case in question, however, involves characters in a howling snow storm.  They're really close to each other and have to yell in order to be heard over the storm.  Exclamation points don't work and would have to be overused and "said" doesn't seem to work as its inaccurate.  Maybe you have to use "yelled" there.  What say you?

MAJOR QUESTION

The guy who made the comment has helped me out a lot.  My writing is much better, much more active, because of his influence.  However, he and I have a major stylistic difference.  He thinks everything has to be clearly spelled out for the reader while I prefer to leave some things up for interpretation.

Example:

The POV character raised his arms.

I'd prefer to leave the sentence above as it stands, leaving it to the reader to interpret from context why the character is raising his arms.  My commentor would prefer that I add "in frustration" to the end of the sentence in order to make things completely clear.  I'm okay with my viewpoint here and will continue to ignore those comments of his (maybe I'll change my mind in the future, but, for now, I'm happy with it.).

The comment in question involves a situation where he felt confusion over what I'd written.  Usually, when a commentor tells me he's confused, I try to clarify the sentence.  In this specific case, however, I'm having trouble determining if it's really unclear or if its a stylistic difference.  Help please?

Here's the section:

They stopped and dismounted, huddling so they could hear each other and for warmth.

“We need to find shelter,” Brant said.  “How about Big Mouth Cave?”

“You mean Big Bear Cave?” Dylan said.

“If you believe Will.”  Brant stomped his feet and rubbed his arms over his cloak.  “You got a better idea?”

Will is a minor character who has been introduced in a prior scene.  The blurb about Will has absolutely nothing to do with the plot; it's simply there to add flavor.  If I didn't put that it, I'd have to say something like: "People in town say there's a bear, but I don't believe them."  

So, my question.  Did you:

A. Easily get that the phrase "If you believe Will" meant that one of the random townspeople spread a suspect story about seeing a bear in or near the cave.
B. Find yourself wondering who Will is and why he has anything at all to do with the cave.
C. Parse out what the author meant in referring to Will but thought he could be much clearer.

BONUS QUESTION

I was writing yesterday and came up with the following exchange:

"I need a favor."

"What's that." (meaning, what favor do you require)

My mind automatically went to Airplane.  

"A hospital?  What is it"

"It's a big building with lots of patients, but that's not important right now."

I chuckled and revised it to read:

“Good.”  Xan tried to figure the best way to approach the subject.  He decided on the direct approach.  “I need a favor.”

Cocking his head, Dylan looked at Xan.  “What’s that?”  

Xan couldn’t resist.  “It’s when you do something for someone just out of friendship.”

Brant chuckled while Lainey groaned.  Dylan waited expectantly, his expression unchanged.

Do you think that:

A. It adds a little humor and shows character.  As long as you don't go overboard with the puns, you can keep it.
B. LOL!  Every paragraph needs something like that!  Fantastic!
C. Please, for the love of God, get rid of it!  In fact, edit this post and remove the reference.  I'm trying to purge it from my mind and am sickened by the thought of it poisoning others.

Thanks in advance for the help.


----------



## Devor (Jun 27, 2012)

D.  If it fits with the _tone_ of your story, it's good.  If it doesn't, I don't think it's strong enough to be an isolated source of wittiness.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Jun 27, 2012)

My rule is use said mostly. When you're alluding to something specific, use another word. "Muttered" is appropriate when someone is speaking under their breath--it's a more precise description of a form of speech, and when it's pertinent to the story, it should be used. For example:

"This is idiotic," he muttered.

"What's that?" his boss asked.

"Nothing," he said.

Works better than:

"This is idiotic," he said.

"What's that?" his boss asked.

"Nothing," he said.

Context is very important in those situations and you don't want to have him mutter or mumble or whatever all the time. But I'm not an advocate of *never* using something. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it works *better*.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 27, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:


> My rule is use said mostly. When you're alluding to something specific, use another word. "Muttered" is appropriate when someone is speaking under their breath--it's a more precise description of a form of speech, and when it's pertinent to the story, it should be used. For example:
> 
> "This is idiotic," he muttered.
> 
> ...



I understand your point.  In your example, however, I'd say not to use "asked" because it is redundant.  Same with something like: "Hey!" he exclaimed.  The exclamationg point and "exclaimed" say the same thing.  The question mark and "asked" say the same thing.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Jun 27, 2012)

I'd used asked because said paired with a question mark is awkward. Sometimes redundancy is OK.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 27, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:


> I'd used asked because said paired with a question mark is awkward. Sometimes redundancy is OK.



We'll have to agree to disagree.  IMO, "said" is much better in that situation.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 27, 2012)

Devor said:


> D.  If it fits with the _tone_ of your story, it's good.  If it doesn't, I don't think it's strong enough to be an isolated source of wittiness.



Good answer.  I'm just not sure whether it fits the tone or not.  I don't want the work to be dark at all, so breaking up tense scenes with a pun may be a good idea.


----------



## Ankari (Jun 27, 2012)

Hello Brian, 

I will speak from the point of view of an avid reader, as my technical writing isn't nearly as strong as I want it to be.

My eyes glaze over whenever I see the word "said."  How many people have you encountered that simply _say_ something?  I'm incorporating the style I'v seen with Steven Erickson, if the speaker only _says_ something and it's easy to deduce who the speaker is, don't add any speech tags.

BWfoster78 face twisted in confusion.  "What do you mean?"

"Look at the next quote.  It's obvious that you're the speaker," Ankari gestured downward to lead BWfoster78's eyes.

"Yeah, I get it."


Also, I think of the space after the quote as valuable real estate.  Why not use it to deepen your story or character?  Show him  do _something_ or describe the tone of the spoken words.  It makes me, as a reader, understand the character more.




> The guy who made the comment has helped me out a lot. My writing is much better, much more active, because of his influence. However, he and I have a major stylistic difference. He thinks everything has to be clearly spelled out for the reader while I prefer to leave some things up for interpretation.
> 
> Example:
> 
> The POV character raised his arms.



Why would you just leave it that vague? Also, is that all you would do when you're frustrated?

"The POV character threw his arms into the air and grunted."

It doesn't spell out everything for the reader, but it gives them enough context for them to understand what the "arms in the air" meant.



> They stopped and dismounted, huddling so they could hear each other and for warmth.
> 
> “We need to find shelter,” Brant said. “How about Big Mouth Cave?”
> 
> ...



I prefer it this way.  Since you already introduced Will in a previous scene, keep it.  If you haven't, then show Dylan "remembering" what Will said of the cave by having his eyes glaze over, or whatever.



> “Good.” Xan tried to figure the best way to approach the subject. He decided on the direct approach. “I need a favor.”
> 
> Cocking his head, Dylan looked at Xan. “What’s that?”
> 
> ...



Keep it.  From my exposure to these characters, I don't think it's out of place.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Jun 27, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree.  IMO, "said" is much better in that situation.



Agree to disagree? We never do that! ;-)


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 27, 2012)

First of all, thanks for the comments and for taking the time to try to answer my specific questions.



> My eyes glaze over whenever I see the word "said." How many people have you encountered that simply say something? I'm incorporating the style I'v seen with Steven Erickson, if the speaker only says something and it's easy to deduce who the speaker is, don't add any speech tags.
> 
> BWfoster78 face twisted in confusion. "What do you mean?"
> 
> ...



I agree, but this wasn't really the point of what I wrote.  It is absolutely better, IMO, to avoid speech tags where you can.  Unfortunately, it just isn't always possible.  My comments were in reference to that case.  Sorry for any confusion.



> Why would you just leave it that vague?



Two reasons: 1) The theory is that the reader gets more out of it if it is their interpretation rather than you imposing your interpretation on them.  You describe what happens.  The reader does the interpreting.  2) I think it allows you to make your work deeper.  The reader may not pick up on something the first time through, and it adds something to subsequent readings.  Note that reason 1 is much more important to me than 2.



> Also, is that all you would do when you're frustrated?



Not really the point.  Just trying to find a quick example to illustrate the principle.



> I prefer it this way. Since you already introduced Will in a previous scene, keep it. If you haven't, then show Dylan "remembering" what Will said of the cave by having his eyes glaze over, or whatever.



Why is having introduced Will earlier a factor?  Will could have said it or any random townsperson that I never introduce.  I'm trying to quickly convey with a little bit of flavor that there's doubt about whether there's a bear in the cave.  Am I accomplishing my goal or just adding confusion?



> Keep it. From my exposure to these characters, I don't think it's out of place.



Cool.  Thanks again for the input.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jun 27, 2012)

1) I'm with you on leaving some of the interpretation up to the reader. If the emotion your trying to convey with action is unclear to the reader then it just needs clarification & context. I hate it when authors tell me how a character feels or offers a redundancy in the passage to feed the information to me like a child.

2) "If you believe Will." - I had to read the sentence twice and look back at previous lines to try & establish context. I believe this can be written better and more clear.

3) Humor is great IF it has relevance to the story. For example, if the joking character is a wise ass but changes over the story because that character arc is integral to the tale then hell yes! However, if it's just thrown in there to attempt some levity, then no.


----------



## Devor (Jun 27, 2012)

Okay, here's an example I just pulled quickly from my writing.

_"You!  Out of our way," Kurzo barked at them as he and Zohten veered their dracobikes deliberately towards their quiet spot on the cliff._

Do you really think that would read better as said?

_"You!  Out of our way," Kurzo said to them as he and Zohten veered their dracobikes deliberately towards their quiet spot on the cliff._

You don't get anywhere near the right impression - the sense of bullying and mockery - with just "said."

I have to ask, BWFoster, how many lines of dialogue do you use on most pages?  Because I think the more dialogue you use, the more anything but said will stand out.  But if you're blending your dialogue with action especially, there's just no way "said" is always the best choice.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 27, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> 1) I'm with you on leaving some of the interpretation up to the reader. If the emotion your trying to convey with action is unclear to the reader then it just needs clarification & context. I hate it when authors tell me how a character feels or offers a redundancy in the passage to feed the information to me like a child.
> 
> 2) "If you believe Will." - I had to read the sentence twice and look back at previous lines to try & establish context. I believe this can be written better and more clear.
> 
> 3) Humor is great IF it has relevance to the story. For example, if the joking character is a wise ass but changes over the story because that character arc is integral to the tale then hell yes! However, if it's just thrown in there to attempt some levity, then no.



Thank you for these comments.  They are well thought out and helpful.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 27, 2012)

Devor said:


> Okay, here's an example I just pulled quickly from my writing.
> 
> _"You!  Out of our way," Kurzo barked at them as he and Zohten veered their dracobikes deliberately towards their quiet spot on the cliff._
> 
> ...



The concept is: if you can't convey what you wish using the words of the dialogue, it's weak to try to use the speech tag to make up for the lack.  If you feel you need to give the impression of bullying and mockery, use better words.  The speech tags purpose is to tell the reader who's speaking.  That's it.  (I'll admit that it's awfully tempting to try to make it do more, but there it is.)

I try to use action instead of tags whenever possible, and the quantity of lines of dialogue tends to vary depending on the scene.


----------



## Devor (Jun 27, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> The concept is: if you can't convey what you wish using the words of the dialogue, it's weak to try to use the speech tag to make up for the lack.



Please take another look at the example and respond to it directly.  The character is telling them to get out of the way, and then redirecting their path so that they _become_ in the way.  There's nothing wrong with the dialogue; "said" would always fall short.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 27, 2012)

Devor said:


> Please take another look at the example and respond to it directly.  The character is telling them to get out of the way, and then redirecting their path so that they _become_ in the way.  There's nothing wrong with the dialogue; "said" would always fall short.



I stand by my comment.  In your example, I like the second version better.


----------



## Penpilot (Jun 27, 2012)

Minor question answer - I think B is the best choice without seeing a sentence in context and knowing what exactly is trying to be conveyed. To me it's about using the right tool for the job. Sometimes it's 'said', sometimes it's 'muttered', 'whispered', 'grumbled'. The default is 'said' until I find reason not to used it.

Major question - it's fine to let the reader do some of the lifting and fill in he blanks, but you have to give them enough information to fill in the blanks. The blanks can't be too big. It's like algebra x+7=8, easy to fill in. X+Y = 99, too many possibilities. Taking your example of the POV character raising his hands but not mentioning it was in frustration, it has to make sense in context of how the scene is unfolding. The reader shouldn't stop and wonder why is he raising his hands. 

For example, if the context was this. -- He slammed the door and yanked at his hair. His body trembled as he threw his hands into the air. "Give me a break." -- In context it's pretty obvious --I hope-- that he threw his hands up in frustration.

But if the context was this. -- He stepped inside the house and threw his hands up in the air. He couldn't wait to take a shower and unwind.  -- From this, it's not evident why he's throwing his hands up. It could be from frustration. It could be from exhaustion and he's throwing his arms up in relief that his work day is over. In this case it would be appropriate to clarify by adding 'in frustration'.

The exchange with Big Mouth Cave, it's none of the above. My initial thought was the guy either got the name wrong or was making some joke that I wasn't quite understanding which this friend Will was the key to understanding. There's not enough verbal or non-verbal information that would lead me to conclude Big Bear Cave is referencing a story told by Will about a bear living in the cave. I didn't catch on at all until it was explained.

This is can be addressed if you tweak this sentence-- “You mean Big Bear Cave?” Dylan said.-- so it adds more info. “You mean Big Bear Cave?” Dylan raised his hands like claws and opened his maw like he was going to eat Brant. I think this would be enough to make that connection of Will telling a story about a bear living in the cave, but I'd add just a little more. Maybe have the follow up be "Will's full of it, there's no bear up there." making it absolutely clear.

Bonus question answer.

A would be the default. It's my type of humor, but whether it works or not depends on the set up, the scene, the characters, the story as a whole, and how it fits in with all of those things. If it sticks out like a sore thumb then it's not working. If it fits smooth, adding a little something off beat, then it works.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 27, 2012)

Penpilot,

Thanks for the comments.  I leaning in those directions for the most part.  Still struggling with the incomplete information.  I don't want to confuse the reader, but I want to allow for them to interpret on their own.  Not sure exactly how that jives with your answer.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 27, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> A. "Use only 'said' as your speech tag!" he said.
> B. "Use only 'said' as your speech tag," he yelled.
> C. "Use only 'said' as your speech tag!" he yelled.



I don't normally use a speech tag after an exclamation mark, but when I do, it's something like shouted, yelled, cried out, etc.



BWFoster78 said:


> I understand your point.  In your example, however, I'd say not to use "asked" because it is redundant.  Same with something like: "Hey!" he exclaimed.  The exclamationg point and "exclaimed" say the same thing.  The question mark and "asked" say the same thing.



I agree with you on using "exclaimed" after an exclamation mark, but not the rest. You may find using "asked" after a question mark or "yelled" after an exclamation mark redundant, but I find using "said" to be a little contradictory.

"Isn't he clever?" he asked.
"Isn't he clever?" he said.

I interepret those in different ways. The first is a genuine question. Maybe the asker doesn't know the person well, and he's asking for more information. In the second, the character isn't being genuine. He's not asking for someone's opinion. He might be sarcastic. He might anticipate the answer will be "Yes, he is clever!" because he's offering someone praise and trying to get others to compliment the person as well.



BWFoster78 said:


> The guy who made the comment has helped me out a lot.  My writing is much better, much more active, because of his influence.  However, he and I have a major stylistic difference.  He thinks everything has to be clearly spelled out for the reader while I prefer to leave some things up for interpretation.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...



Raising his arms is very general movement. I don't think it's clear enough either. Is he raising is arms to the side like he's pretending to fly? Is he raising them forward like a zombie? Is he raising them upward like a child waiting for a parent to remove his shirt? Is he raising them in a defensive way to prevent an attack? Even with context, I'm not sure I'd get it. When I come across something like that as a reader, I have to go back and reread to see if I missed a clue from the author.

It's stylistic. I prefer specific imagery that puts me in the scene rather than vague descriptions where I have to reread and guess what the author's intent was.



BWFoster78 said:


> They stopped and dismounted, huddling so they could hear each other and for warmth.
> 
> “We need to find shelter,” Brant said.  “How about Big Mouth Cave?”
> 
> ...



C. I think it could be clearer. I don't see why the name of the cave would change because someone saw a bear there? I'd think a change like that would take longer than the time frame between Will seeing the bear and the characters going to the cave. I'd prefer something like:

“We need to find shelter,” Brant said.  “How about Big Mouth Cave?”

“You mean the cave where the bear lives?” Dylan said.

“If you believe Will.”  Brant stomped his feet and rubbed his arms over his cloak.  “You got a better idea?”


----------



## JCFarnham (Jun 27, 2012)

I will try and reply more fully and specifically to the question when I have a proper internet connection, but for now I want to register my interest and throw in a word.

Context.

In every case here context is the key. 

If its obvious the guy is frustrated no need to say, and in fact your context definitely neeeds to indicate such. And its the same with said or other tags (though I always allow for narrative voice and author style first) sometimes more is needed and less adds confusion.

I realise I'm preaching to the convert here, but minimalism isn't always the best option. I prefer the flavour of interesting choices and pay as much attention as I can to rhythm... But STILL I'm a story teller. I'm just conscious that I'm not reporting an incident to the police but providing entertainment.

Just wanted to throw in my point of view, because I often find my way of doing things out of vogue (like stylism vs minimalism) and figure the alternative opinion is always good to consider depending on the specific context of the piece of writing in question.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jun 27, 2012)

Hmmm...

'They had to shout at each other to be heard above the storm.'

-=-=-

But then:

"Damn, that hurts!" screamed Ike as the knife entered his side, face contorted in pain.

Somehow, 'said' or even 'yelled' just doesn't seem to work there.  Guy is in a great deal of pain, afterall, anything coming out of his mouth is going carry some of that pain with it.

-=-=-=

Or...

"Wass slup?" slurred the drunk, just before he fell off the bar stool.

Might make a good argument for 'said', but a pretty good case could also be made for 'slurred'.

-=-=-=-=-

"But I don't want to," whined the little boy.

Maybe 

The little boy whined "But I don't want to."


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 27, 2012)

ThinkerX,

I hold no illusions that I'm going to convince everyone that my position is correct.  I've come to believe it and will continue to utilize it.  

The context and the words are supposed to convey the emotion, not the speech tag.  That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Given that viewpoint, it's okay to break the rules sometimes, and I'm trying to figure out where I think the exceptions are.  

I do not like slurred, whined, or screamed as speech tags.  They're good action verbs and should be used as such.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jun 28, 2012)

I think that anytime someone adopts an all-or-nothing sort of view, there is a cost, and for me, it isn't worth it.  For me, writing in one way throughout an entire novel would be like eating mac and cheese every night for dinner.  I love it, but after a time, it could become bland.  It sounds like a great idea, but theory and practice are two different things.  The problem with writing is that there are many theories to improve story telling, and I'm not sold on any theory having more merit than an equally solid contradictory theory.  

My writing could vary a lot depending on the scene I'm writing, so I'm not sure that for me there can ever be a one size fits all answer.  If for instance, I want a scene to flow quickly, I use tags like muttered, growled, hissed, whispered.  If however I am taking my time and developing an ambiance, I use a method more like Ankari posted (well done, by the way).  

So I have a new question.  I read once that you always should write like this:  

"Get my shoes," Tina said.  
"Get them yourself," Bob replied, angrily stomping out the door.

Rather than:

"Get my shoes," said Tina.
"Get them yourself," replied Bob before stomping out the door.

Any thoughts?

Also, I wondered about this:

"Water," the old man gasped in a raspy voice, crawling on the floor.

Is that well done or do we need to write:

The old man crawled forward on the floor, his eyes sunken from dehydration.  "Water," he gasped in a raspy voice.

Okay so I'm not sure which would be better, just wondering.  I tend to alternate these sorts of things depending on the speed I want to set for the scene, but I was just wondering in general which reads better for a reader (or agent).


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 28, 2012)

"Said" is the _best_ speech tag but the idea that it's the only one you should ever use is preposterous.

Remember, it's all about goals. Most writers want to please most readers, and the overwhelming majority of readers have absolutely no problem with other tags:



> "The countess will not be pleased," John murmured.



And rightly so. There is a _storytelling_ difference between using the words "said", "murmured", "laughed" or "shouted" there (if John shouts it, maybe the countess overhears him and gets angry--which is why he murmurs it). It turns out that most of the time, "said" is good enough, and it can be distracting to use other tags too often.

There are ways to convey the manner of someone's speech without using a dialogue tag. Describing their expression, or their movements, can inform how their dialogue is received; but it can only go so far. And all these things can be combined.



> John half-covered his mouth with one hand. "The countess will not be pleased."



Plus, you can look at professional, big-name writers. In a single page of _A Game of Thrones_, GRRM uses the following tags: snapped, said, commanded, replied, insisted, demanded. Maybe some people don't like this sort of thing, but look at most major writers and you'll see that they do this all the time.


----------



## JCFarnham (Jun 28, 2012)

Also I am a firm believer that verbs need to be properly utilised and in doing so agree with what happens in the clause. Therefore I would be wary writting "What's the problem?" said John. The inquisitive tone in the dialogue and the said conflict. 

Again though, that's my way of doing things. An exagerrated example could be "Be quiet," yelled John. Firstly because it breaks Brian's rule I would find myself wondering why? I trust the writer I'm reading to be clever and in full command of language so I know it can't be JUST a mistake. What in the context agrees with the mismatch of tags?

Most of the time either said, or action is fine, but some times it can be worth switching it up. I hope I've made my point clear enough there heh It might not be ... ah well. Life goes on


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 28, 2012)

> So I have a new question. I read once that you always should write like this:
> 
> "Get my shoes," Tina said.
> "Get them yourself," Bob replied, angrily stomping out the door.
> ...



I always have thoughts 

I vastly prefer the first.  Why, though?  I'm not sure.  Maybe because it's what I'm used to?

The only advice I've ever read regarding this issue, however, is that you need to be consistent.  If you start out with "said he" instead of "he said," carry that style throughout the piece.



> Also, I wondered about this:
> 
> "Water," the old man gasped in a raspy voice, crawling on the floor.



If it were me, I'd do it:

"Water."  The old man gasped in a raspy voice, crawling on the floor.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 28, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> The context and the words are supposed to convey the emotion, not the speech tag.  T



I think this is true in general. In some cases, you might want to express that a character is reacting differently than might be conveyed by the context and words themselves, and that it when other descriptors, in addition to the speech tag, can be most useful.


----------



## ShortHair (Jun 28, 2012)

I too became a convert to the Church of Said. Then I started to ask questions. If there are no rules but only guidelines in writing, why can we *never* use anything but "said"? How can I indicate that a character's voice has changed in a way that the speech itself can't possibly indicate, such as whispering? What if my style demands descriptive speech tags, and my readers like it that way?

I say, "said" is supposed to be invisible, so use it when the speech it's tagging can stand alone, but use something else when you feel it's necessary.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 28, 2012)

ShortHair said:


> I too became a convert to the Church of Said. Then I started to ask questions. If there are no rules but only guidelines in writing, why can we *never* use anything but "said"?



The words "never" and "always" don't work too well when giving writing advice. The advice concerning the use of "said" as a dialogue tag is generally sound, but should not be taken to mean an author can never use anything else. As with most such things, once an author understands why "said" is usually best (if a tag is needed at all), then she will better understand when to use something else.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 28, 2012)

Two basic thoughts on rules:

1. When referring to a rule, it's much easier to simply say "don't do this" or "never do this" than it is to give caveats every time.
2. It's always okay to break a rule as long as a) you know you're breaking the rule, b) you understand the consequence of breaking the rule, and c) you feel that the benefits you're gaining by breaking it outweigh the consequences.

Just for the record


----------



## Lawfire (Jun 29, 2012)

When reading for pleasure, I can honestly say that the word "said" becomes all but invisible. If another speech tag is used it tends to jump out. If other speech tags are used too frequently: it (in my opinion) becomes annoying, lowers the quality of the writing, and becomes less pleasurable to read.

Well written dialogue (especially between two characters) could often stand on its own, without tags.


----------



## Penpilot (Jun 29, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Penpilot,
> 
> Thanks for the comments.  I leaning in those directions for the most part.  Still struggling with the incomplete information.  I don't want to confuse the reader, but I want to allow for them to interpret on their own.  Not sure exactly how that jives with your answer.



Actually, could you define what you mean by interpret? Maybe I'm not understanding what's being asked.  Sometimes for effect you can leave things ambiguous. Like a girl laughing after being asked out. Is she laughing in a good or bad way toward the person asking? That works. But if you want the reader to interpret emotional states and dialogue in a specific way or direction like the frustration and big bear cave examples, there has to be enough cues to lead the reader down that path.  If there isn't then the reader is lost. Not a good thing.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jun 29, 2012)

Lawfire said:


> When reading for pleasure, I can honestly say that the word "said" becomes all but invisible. If another speech tag is used it tends to jump out. If other speech tags are used too frequently: it (in my opinion) becomes annoying, lowers the quality of the writing, and becomes less pleasurable to read.
> 
> Well written dialogue (especially between two characters) could often stand on its own, without tags.



Can you give an example of some well-known books that you like that only use "said", or at least use other tags infrequently enough that it doesn't bother you?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 29, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> Actually, could you define what you mean by interpret? Maybe I'm not understanding what's being asked.  Sometimes for effect you can leave things ambiguous. Like a girl laughing after being asked out. Is she laughing in a good or bad way toward the person asking? That works. But if you want the reader to interpret emotional states and dialogue in a specific way or direction like the frustration and big bear cave examples, there has to be enough cues to lead the reader down that path.  If there isn't then the reader is lost. Not a good thing.



I'll answer your specific question about how to define interpret, but, fair warning, I'm gonna ramble a bit first.

This discussion is good to help me define exactly what I mean (which started off as kinda nebulous for me).  Two principles of this "rule" for me:

1. When you're talking about what is happening, the reader needs a clear picture in their heads.  They need to see the guy climbing the mountain or swinging the sword.  When you're talking about why something happens, it's okay to leave the reader wondering somewhat (I agree that a lot of caveats are needed here.).

2. As to the question of why something is happening, you should try to lead the reader to the proper conclusion, but I'd rather leave it open to interpretation than overexplain.  I think its more distracting/annoying to tell too much than it is to risk confusion.

Finally, to answer the actual question (if you haven't fallen asleep yet...), I'm not sure I can do it in the abstract.  Another example:

"Get out of my way!"  The character performs an action meant to convey that he is in a hurry.

I think it's okay to do it this way:

"Get out of my way!"  Jimmy Joe Jim Bob shuffled his feet quickly.

Rather than needing to add this:

"Get out of my way!"  Jimmy Joe Jim Bob shuffled his feet quickly trying to get around the large woman in front of him.

I'd rather keep my writing concise and risk the reader not knowing exactly why JJJB is shuffling his feet.

Some specific examples from my book:

I describe the character acting furtively, pulling out this bottle of pills.  He looks all around the room.  He tips the bottle up.  Then, he puts it back down and heads to the door to look outside.  I leave the text there as "He peered outside."  My commentor wants me to add: to look for possible intruders who might catch him in the act.

In another place, I've described in some detail the effect of this drug and why he uses it.  I'd prefer to leave the text as "Some licuna seeds (what I called the drug) would sure help."  My commentor wants me to add: to clear the fog from my brain.

Again, this is an issue of style between me and him.  His background is technical writing, and he wants everything spelled out.  I think he goes to far.

Did that help clarify it?


----------



## Penpilot (Jun 29, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Did that help clarify it?



Definitely.

For the most part, I'm on board with you with the two principles of the "rule". The only difference is in the last part of principle two of where it says its more distracting/annoying to tell too much than it is to risk confusion. My philosophy is I'd rather err on the side of telling a little to much and as you've said you'd rather err on telling a shade too little.

Fair enough, I respect that.


----------



## Lawfire (Jul 5, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Can you give an example of some well-known books that you like that only use "said", or at least use other tags infrequently enough that it doesn't bother you?



I opened the book I just finished, "Buried Prey" by John Sandford (not fantasy), to a random page in the middle. The next five pages included 44 uses of "said" and 5 uses of "asked." There are 4 instances where action was used to indicate the speaker. There were 16 pieces of dialogue that flowed dynamically in response to other pieces and had no tag. There was one use of the tag, "agreed," and one use of the tag, "suggested."


----------



## JCFarnham (Jul 5, 2012)

In all honesty, it's a matter of how tolerent you are towards these things. If you've always had people telling you said is evil, you'll probably not think twice about reading a book which alternates between different tags. And vice versa of course.

I've seen advice pushing "only use said", I've seen a lot of "switch it up" from teachers and the like. Philip Athens (not only a writer but a respected editor and publisher of sorts himself) for example doesn't care for the "said only" advice. He'd rather you make it interesting. Then there's the Fowler's, minimalist, conservation of words, invisible author point of view that's really popular. 

So really, no way is better... as such. Just depends on your preferences and tolerences. Same as anything else in writing and reading. If you don't like mystery you don't write it, right?


----------

