# Opinion on 'said'



## Flemming Hansen (Oct 22, 2012)

Hello again

I know most of us swear to the use of said when writing dialogue.
For instance: 
"Oh what a fine day!" Peter said.
or
"I feel terrible. My dog died last night." Lucy said.

In these two cases, I agree that the use of said is in order. There's no reason to overstate the fact that Peter is in a great mood and Lucy is not.

But what about this example?
“By the Gods! What do we do!” Larry said.

I'm tempted to use the word 'cried', simply because it sounds better. Of course the use of 'cried' is overstating because of the exclamation marks. However, the exclamation marks do not state the sense of panic and despair that Larry is feeling. But what's your thoughts on this? Should we be allowed to sin using other dialogue attributions?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 22, 2012)

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a sin. If it works for the writing, it works. Readers will have differing opinions on if they like or notice that writing choice.

For my money, if I want to draw attention to an exclamation, I'd prefer the use of an action tag. Some description of movement or internal reaction (if a POV) that emphasizes the spoken words.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 22, 2012)

Personally, I'd prefer that you used a beat that showed us how he felt.

Larry sank to his knees.  "By the gods!  What do we do?"

The concept that I try to follow to the greatest extent possible is that the speech tag is there only to inform the reader of who is talking.  If you can use a beat to convey emotion and action, that's far superior to a tag.

Obviously, sometimes using a tag is the right call, and I think "said" is your best bet in most cases.

For your example above, if you want to keep the tag, I think "cried" in addition to the exclamation points is overexplaining.  Trust your writing to convey the depth of the emotion.


----------



## Flemming Hansen (Oct 22, 2012)

Interesting points, and good workarounds. I definitely keep that in mind.
Thank you


----------



## yachtcaptcolby (Oct 22, 2012)

Also, don't hesitate to skip the "said" in a scene when you've established a consistent back and forth conversation between two characters, or when a paragraph has all ready established the speaker. Both situations are also dependent on consistent "saying;" if someone's tone changes, the speaking word should reflect that. Like any other word, "said" is fine in moderation but becomes annoying when it's repeated too often.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Oct 22, 2012)

I usually just go on gut feeling. "Said" works most of the time, though I may sometimes alter the order to change the rythm: 

"By the way, Lucy," Peter said, "your dog died last night."
"Well, at least it's a fine day," said Lucy.

On the other hand, if the character actually cries something out, then _of course _you use the word "cried." Saying something isn't the same thing as crying it. That's the point of having different words. 

Even with something like “By the Gods! What do we do!”*, those exclamation points do not necessarily mean Larry is yelling. He might just be saying it with a lot of emotional emphasis. Heck, he might be whispering for all we know.

*You forgot the question mark, by the way.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 22, 2012)

> "By the way, Lucy," Peter said, "your dog died last night."
> "Well, at least it's a fine day," said Lucy.



This is generally considered to be a bad idea.  Most things I've read tell you to keep the order of the tag consistent.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Oct 22, 2012)

There's a time and a place for 'said', as well as its many replacements. 

For instance, if Peter was across a field, you wouldn't write: _"Peter, what are you doing?", his mother said_. Given the circumstance of Peter being far away from his mother, she would logically be shouting or calling loud enough for Peter to hear. Using 'said' in that situation would make no sense. 

I never had a problem with 'cried', 'yelled', etc. in place of 'said' as long as the context of the situation calls for it. I'm of the belief that you use whatever word best fits the context and most accurately describes what is going on. Most of the time, that word is 'said', but it doesn't always have to be.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Oct 22, 2012)

"Said" is generally considered an "invisible word," meaning that when readers see "said" on the page they slide over it without so much as thinking about it. Use of other words in place of said do stick out, so the conventional advice is to use them sparingly.

In my experience I've found that "said" generally is invisible, and that in most cases the conventional advice is true. The more you deviate from "said" the more you start writing Tom Swifties (Google it--they're fun). BUT... using other words like "cried" (in the example above) can work very well if you choose them deliberately and use them sparingly. It gives them extra punch.

Also, I have come to believe that the POV and tense you write in affects exactly how invisible "said" is. In first person past, "said" is so invisible that you have to be veeeeerrry careful about using anything else. Generally in 1st person you're conveying subtext in other ways, and sticking to "said" and "asked," using other words very sparingly, seems to be a good tactic. Third person past is similar, but you have more play for experimentation.

Third person present, you don't use "said," you use "says" -- and "says" is a lot less invisible. It could just be because 3rd/present isn't as common (it's actually becoming semi-common in a lot of YA books, but I don't read a lot of YA). This can make it a lot more challenging to figure out how to represent dialog.

These are just my own experiences, and you shouldn't take them as gospel.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 22, 2012)

I don't know about "cried" for your word choice, but I generally stick to the advice that advice is boring. 

The "conventional" rules are more guidelines than anything. Style trumps every rule pretty much. Go your own way.


----------



## Chime85 (Oct 22, 2012)

Sometimes a more expressive word is more effective, or, sometimes it's more appropriate. Imagine, your MC is chasing the villain of the day in an epic battle, fires are blazing, shields come crashing down (but it is not this day!) Your MC finds his mark on the battle field, 'stop! Your evil ends here!' said John.

Using said in that instance takes some of the impact from the moment. You can show, instead of tell, that is more than acceptable. You can use another word, shouted, cried, roared etc. Again, this is also acceptable.

The question you should ask when considering replacing "said" is, 'does this fit with my voice?' Are you writing in the way you see fit, or are you writing to fit to the rules which don't return the courtesy? Like Zero said, it's better to view the rules as guidelines, rather than the ten commandments.

x


----------



## Leif Notae (Oct 22, 2012)

Yes, 'said' is an invisible word. However, 'said' is becoming the ditch word when word count needs to be bumped up and action needs to be applied. 'Said' is turning out to be the pepper word to give your work spice nowadays.

Nothing else is acceptable. Actions will always trump 'shout', 'cried', 'whispered' when done well because as a reader, I already know this is what they are doing when they are far apart, frustrated with tears dripping from their cheeks, or lips close to the ear (unless your character is a d*ck, then that's messed up).


----------



## Christopher Wright (Oct 22, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> Go your own way.



Call it another lonely day!

...

... I'm... I'm so sorry...


----------



## wordwalker (Oct 22, 2012)

Or to sum it all up:

_“Of course the best way to tag dialog is with ‘said,’” said Mr. Said.

“But it doesn’t tell you anything!” yelled the Shouter. “There are more exciting tags than that!”

Mr. Said said “Isn’t the dialog itself supposed to do that? Besides, ‘said’ never tries to upstage anything, when the other tags are a lot easier to overuse. After all, the whole shape of dialog paragraphs draws the eye to how many times overdone tags are in there.”

“But–” the Shouter spluttered.

“That ‘said’ is so boring…” he moaned sadly.

“How could real tags ever be too much…” he whined. And at last: “Okay, I guess after using a couple you could look like you’re putting more work into the tags than the dialog. After all, we want to Show, Not Tell.”

“Exactly,” said Mr. Said.

“Unless… unless the speech isn’t giving the whole picture of how it’s said. Got you!” whispered the Shouter.

“Oh,” said Mr. Said.

Just then Visitor spoke up. “But how long do you keep using tags at all? Each time a couple of people settle in to talking, everyone assumes just those two will keep going for a while. If nobody else speaks up to break that pattern, all tags start looking redundant–whether they’re ‘said’ or not.”

The others looked at the floor, embarrassed.

“But remember, Visitor: a paragraph with no dialog breaks patterns too. After that, you have to start tagging again or nobody will know who’s speaking.”

“Why use tags at all?” And Active grinned from ear to ear. “People don’t stop doing things when they talk; besides, those Walk-And-Talk combinations are half the fun. Putting in an ‘extra action’ is more natural than making the tag do the work, and a lot more powerful too, without having to keep using the same Said all day.” He looked at each of the others, waiting to see who blinked.

“But writing all that would be WORK!” the Shouter burst out.

“And sometimes it’s too much emphasis,” said Mr. Said. “Not every statement needs it.”

Active sighed, and was silent.

“Oh, one more thing. No matter how interesting a paragraph is, or especially if it’s a really exciting thing, take a look at how the paragraphs are alternating. And unless it’s obvious from the start who’s saying what, don’t let that paragraph go over a line or two without a tag or an Extra Action. You want to keep the reader enjoyin each word as they come to it, not going crazy waiting to see who’s actually saying it,” put in the armadillo._

(From my Toolbox collection, May 2012)


----------



## Clarence Matthews (Oct 23, 2012)

Most of the time I will simply gloss over the word 'said'. After awhile if it is used regularly it will become pretty much invisible to me.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 23, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:


> Call it another lonely day!
> 
> ...
> 
> ... I'm... I'm so sorry...



It's OK! It put Fleetwood Mac in my head as well.


----------



## Shockley (Oct 23, 2012)

Stick with said unless it's impossible to do otherwise and for the love of all that's holy don't use adverbs.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Oct 23, 2012)

"Let's go check out the basement," Tom said condescendingly.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 23, 2012)

I always liked the use of the word "ejaculated" for _real_ impact. 

In fact, Google even has this example in their definition: 
“Indeed?” ejaculated the stranger​


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 23, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> I always liked the use of the word "ejaculated" for _real_ impact.
> 
> In fact, Google even has this example in their definition:
> “Indeed?” ejaculated the stranger​



Yeah, I think the rule should be default to 'said,' and if you have to use something else use either ejaculated, expostulated, or approbated.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Oct 23, 2012)

"Don't go there--it's all quicksand," Tom said firmly.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 23, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, I think the rule should be default to 'said,' and if you have to use something else use either ejaculated, expostulated, or approbated.


Nice ones! ...he ejaculatorily approbated. 

By the way, Webster's says "ejaculatorily" is "virtually never used". I'll chalk that up as a WIN!

Do yins wanna' expostulate with me? 

(sorry, sometimes these urges overcome me and I must give in to the silliness). 

But seriously, I like most speech tags.


----------



## Ireth (Oct 23, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, I think the rule should be default to 'said,' and if you have to use something else use either ejaculated, expostulated, or approbated.



I've only ever seen one writer use "ejaculated" as a dialogue tag, and that was JK Rowling in one of the later HP books. It was hilarious, and probably unintentionally so.



> "Snape!" ejaculated Slughorn.



...sounds kinda bad if you take it out of context... XD


----------



## Saigonnus (Oct 23, 2012)

Flemming Hansen said:


> But what about this example? “By the Gods! What do we do!” Larry said.



"By the Gods! What do we do?" Larry *exclaimed*, fear painted on his face upon seeing the tail of the dragon disappearing around the corner, not in the mood for a bargain.


----------



## dangit (Oct 24, 2012)

I don't think it matters over much but I think that Christopher is right about said being invisible.


----------



## J. S. Elliot (Oct 24, 2012)

I dunno. Personally, "said" seems a bit ... flat, when there are more descriptive words that could also eliminate the need for further description and thus word-count padding. "Hissed" conveys quite a bit of body language and tone, in one word, compared to the fluff that "said" and the same thing would need. I personally prefer to mix things up (while not ignoring "said"), but that's just me.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 24, 2012)

Saigonnus said:


> "By the Gods! What do we do?" Larry *exclaimed*, fear painted on his face upon seeing the tail of the dragon disappearing around the corner, not in the mood for a bargain.



"By The Gods! What do we do?" Fear painted Larry's face upon seeing the tail of the dragon disappearing around the corner, not in the mood for a bargain.


----------



## Graylorne (Oct 24, 2012)

"By The Gods! What do we do?" Fear painted Larry's face upon seeing the pointed tail  disappearing around the corner. The dragon was not in the mood for a bargain.


Sorry, couldn't resist, but tails have no moods.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 24, 2012)

Graylorne said:


> "By The Gods! What do we do?" Fear painted Larry's face upon seeing the pointed tail  disappearing around the corner. The dragon was not in the mood for a bargain.
> 
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist, but tails have no moods.



Actually, since this is fantasy and we have no other context, it could be assumed that the tail is a separate sentient entity that does indeed have its own moods.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 24, 2012)

Graylorne said:


> "By The Gods! What do we do?" Fear painted Larry's face upon seeing the pointed tail  disappearing around the corner. The dragon was not in the mood for a bargain.
> 
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist, but tails have no moods.



Yes, I thought about changing it, but I wanted to retain as much of the original construction as possible, focusing on the dialogue tag issue.


----------



## Graylorne (Oct 24, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Actually, since this is fantasy and we have no other context, it could be assumed that the tail is a separate sentient entity that does indeed have its own moods.



I hate tail bites dragon stories.


----------



## Ankari (Oct 24, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, I thought about changing it, but I wanted to retain as much of the original construction as possible, focusing on the dialogue tag issue.



Actually, why can't a POV character project his feelings on his surroundings?  If Larry feels the dragon "is in no mood to bargain" why can't that be written exactly that way.  Isn't this the case of filtering a scene through the character's senses *AND* emotions?  Isn't this a technique that pulls the reader closer to the POV?


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 24, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Actually, why can't a POV character project his feelings on his surroundings?  If Larry feels the dragon "is in no mood to bargain" why can't that be written exactly that way.  Isn't this the case of filtering a scene through the character's senses *AND* emotions?  Isn't this a technique that pulls the reader closer to the POV?



It can, no doubt. I think the point he was making was that the tail rather than the dragon was the subject.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 24, 2012)

Ankari,

I think you may have misunderstood the conversation.

Steerpike appears to have made the first correction to remove the speech tag entirely and replace it with a beat.  Subsequently, Graylorne corrected a misplaced modifier or, perhaps, punctuation problem (I can't tell exactly what the original author's intent was).

I didn't get that anyone made any comments on filtering.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Oct 25, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> This is generally considered to be a bad idea.  Most things I've read tell you to keep the order of the tag consistent.



Indeed? Can you actually tell me why, though?

I mean, I'll gladly listen to any advice but it's not like I'm going to stop doing something just because some people at some point said you shouldn't.



Shockley said:


> Stick with said unless it's impossible to do otherwise and for the love of all that's holy don't use adverbs.



Eh. I don't see what's so bad about adverbs. They serve a purpose in language just like all other words. I mean, you don't want to overuse them, but then you don't want to overuse _anything_. I don't get why adverbs in particular has become this kind of unbearable stigma with so many writers.


----------



## Flemming Hansen (Oct 25, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:


> "Said" is generally considered an "invisible word," meaning that when readers see "said" on the page they slide over it without so much as thinking about it. Use of other words in place of said do stick out, so the conventional advice is to use them sparingly...


I agree, and I try to make my writing disappear, unless it's something I want to bring focus on. Less is more in most cases. 



Zero Angel said:


> I don't know about "cried" for your word choice, but I generally stick to the advice that advice is boring.
> 
> The "conventional" rules are more guidelines than anything. Style trumps every rule pretty much. Go your own way.


Hehe true 



wordwalker said:


> Or to sum it all up:
> 
> _“Of course the best way to tag dialog is with ‘said,’” said Mr. Said.
> 
> ...


_
LOL, a great way to sum it all up !



Shockley said:



			Stick with said unless it's impossible to do otherwise and for the love of all that's holy don't use adverbs.
		
Click to expand...

I sense someone's been reading "On Writing" too. I'm currently in the midst of mass-murdering adverbs in my draft. 



Zero Angel said:



			Nice ones! ...he ejaculatorily approbated. 

By the way, Webster's says "ejaculatorily" is "virtually never used". I'll chalk that up as a WIN!
Do yins wanna' expostulate with me? 
But seriously, I like most speech tags.
		
Click to expand...

Only that ejaculate reminds me of some really nasty adult movies I wish I've never seen. Oh youth, why must thou be so shameful. Sorry, I'm rambling - I'm just a visual thinker. _


----------



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

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Indeed? Can you actually tell me why, though?
> 
> I mean, I'll gladly listen to any advice but it's not like I'm going to stop doing something just because some people at some point said you shouldn't.
> 
> Eh. I don't see what's so bad about adverbs. They serve a purpose in language just like all other words. I mean, you don't want to overuse them, but then you don't want to overuse anything. I don't get why adverbs in particular has become this kind of unbearable stigma with so many writers.



Because they are weak modifiers. There are usually stronger words that can be used. Also, adverbs tend to involve more telling in places where showing may be more appropriate. (Yes, yes. I know... Telling vs Showing).

It's not that you can't use adverbs. There are plenty of really good authors who use adverbs (Gaiman for one). It's just that they should be used sparingly and when other, stronger words will not have the same desired effect. Choice vs. habit...

Just my opinion... Your writing... Your style.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 25, 2012)

> Indeed? Can you actually tell me why, though?
> 
> I mean, I'll gladly listen to any advice but it's not like I'm going to stop doing something just because some people at some point said you shouldn't.



I wish I could remember the source because it explained the concept better.  My quite spotty recollection is that:

1. You want speech tags to be invisible.
2. Regardless of whether you use "Joe said" or "said Joe," the reader will get used to the construct.
3. Alternating draws attention to the construct.

On a personal note, I read Danny and the Dinosaur to my two year old last night.  The author switched from "the dinosaur said" to "said the dinosaur" a few times, and I found it jarring.  However, I don't know if I would have noticed if I hadn't read that the practice is "wrong."

EDIT: Meant to make clear - I don't think this rule is necessarily a big deal.  The vast, vast majority of readers are not going to notice.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 25, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Because they are weak modifiers. There are usually stronger words that can be used. Also, adverbs tend to involve more telling in places where showing may be more appropriate. (Yes, yes. I know... Telling vs Showing).
> 
> It's not that you can't use adverbs. There are plenty of really good authors who use adverbs (Gaiman for one). It's just that they should be used sparingly and when other, stronger words will not have the same desired effect. Choice vs. habit...
> 
> Just my opinion... Your writing... Your style.



I've noticed that they usually actually do absolutely nothing to change the meaning of your sentence.

I've noticed they do nothing to change the meaning of your sentence.

Any word with such a characteristic is a candidate for deletion.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 25, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I wish I could remember the source because it explained the concept better.  My quite spotty recollection is that:
> 
> 1. You want speech tags to be invisible.
> 2. Regardless of whether you use "Joe said" or "said Joe," the reader will get used to the construct.
> ...



That's about right. So if you want them to be noticed, then by all means be aware of what you're using. If you want them to be not noticed on the other hand, then be aware of that as well.

Edit: To be clear, only agreeing with #3. I think it is obvious from my sentence that I think #1 is a personal choice. As far as #2, I guess I agree with that as well, depending on the reader. 



BWFoster78 said:


> I've noticed that they usually actually do absolutely nothing to change the meaning of your sentence.
> 
> I've noticed they do nothing to change the meaning of your sentence.
> 
> Any word with such a characteristic is a candidate for deletion.



Ehh, I really strongly disagree with your seemingly casual assessment 

Just teasing. Yeah, they are candidates for deletion, but sometimes you want them. Gotta' analyze what you're trying to achieve and if your word choice helps.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Oct 25, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Because they are weak modifiers. There are usually stronger words that can be used.



I'm not sure I see why "stronger" is the same thing as "better." We're not talking about armwrestling here.  

This is the problem I have with people trying to tell me what not to do. Half the time the only reason seems to be "because that's how it is."



> Also, adverbs tend to involve more telling in places where showing may be more appropriate. (Yes, yes. I know... Telling vs Showing).



Yeah, that's another issue people tend to take _way _too seriously.



> It's not that you can't use adverbs.



Shockley sure seemed to think we shouldn't, which is the sort of inflexible attitude I was actually reacting to.



> There are plenty of really good authors who use adverbs (Gaiman for one). It's just that they should be used sparingly and when other, stronger words will not have the same desired effect.



If you look back, you may notice this is pretty much exactly the point I was trying to make.



BWFoster78 said:


> I wish I could remember the source because it explained the concept better.  My quite spotty recollection is that:
> 
> 1. You want speech tags to be invisible.



What, all the time? Why?



> 2. Regardless of whether you use "Joe said" or "said Joe," the reader will get used to the construct.
> 3. Alternating draws attention to the construct.



Not if I do it often enough that the reader gets used to it.

If you read ten books that goes "Joe said" and then pick up a book that goes "said Joe", of course you're going to notice that but as you say, it is acceptable with enough consistency. The same should apply to a mixed approach, I think.



> On a personal note, I read Danny and the Dinosaur to my two year old last night.  The author switched from "the dinosaur said" to "said the dinosaur" a few times, and I found it jarring.  However, I don't know if I would have noticed if I hadn't read that the practice is "wrong."



And that is why you shouldn't take writing advice as gospel unless the person giving it can back it up with solid reasoning, or if you can see clearly why it makes sense to you.



> EDIT: Meant to make clear - I don't think this rule is necessarily a big deal.  The vast, vast majority of readers are not going to notice.



Which is a good indicator that it may not be quite as important as we writers like to make it out to be.



BWFoster78 said:


> I've noticed that they usually actually do absolutely nothing to change the meaning of your sentence.
> 
> I've noticed they do nothing to change the meaning of your sentence.



Balderdash. The upper sentence is a lot more specific than the lower one. "Usually" tells me that it doesn't happen all the time, while "absolutely" tells me that when it does happen, it always fails at its purpose. (In other words, you are trying to emphasize that adverbs really are useless except on the rare occasions when they aren't.)

The lower sentence simply tells me that adverbs never have any effect, 100% of the time.

(I admit "actually" is a bit uneccessary here, though.)


----------



## Weaver (Oct 25, 2012)

On the issue of adverbs, since the thread seems to have drifted in that direction...

I want to either laugh or throw something whenever someone says "Never use adverbs!"  _Never_ IS an adverb.

A few other adverbs:

not
however
then
next (when indicating sequence rather than location)

Notice that none of the words on that short list end in _-ly_.  That could be where some of the confusion comes in, because many of us were taught as school children that the _-ly _ending is how to identify adverbs.  If you consider just how many words in the English language are adverbs, though, it is clear that attempting to write without ever ('nother adverb, BTW) using them is more trouble than it's worth, and would result in weird, clunky sentences.

I think the "rule" of not using adverbs originated with someone being lazy:  It's easier to say "Never use adverbs!" than it is to teach people how to determine for themselves when an adverb works and when it doesn't.  It's funny, though, that they cannot express their rule without breaking it.    Ought to be enough to make a point of some kind.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 25, 2012)

> What, all the time? Why?



It is my view, one which you may not share, that the only purpose for a speech tag is to inform the reader who is speaking.  As such, the less visible they are, the better.  

If you do not ascribe to the same school of thought, you'll probably not agree with this rule.



> If you read ten books that goes "Joe said" and then pick up a book that goes "said Joe", of course you're going to notice that but as you say, it is acceptable with enough consistency. The same should apply to a mixed approach, I think.



I think the point was that you'll get used to "said Joe" over the course of the book even if "Joe said" normally feels better to you, but, if you alternate, it draws attention to the speech tag.  



> And that is why you shouldn't take writing advice as gospel unless the person giving it can back it up with solid reasoning, or if you can see clearly why it makes sense to you.



I agree completely; though I'm not sure how this comment relates directly from my comment.



> Which is a good indicator that it may not be quite as important as we writers like to make it out to be.



I tend to think that a lot of little things can add up to an overall distraction.  Anyway, the comment was just something for you to be aware of.  I don't take as gospel everything I read either.

Personally, the "said Joe" approach sounds awkward to my ear, so I can't see myself ever using it at all.



> Balderdash. The upper sentence is a lot more specific than the lower one. "Usually" tells me that it doesn't happen all the time, while "absolutely" tells me that when it does happen, it always fails at its purpose. (In other words, you are trying to emphasize that adverbs really are useless except on the rare occasions when they aren't.)



On this point, we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 25, 2012)

Weaver said:


> On the issue of adverbs, since the thread seems to have drifted in that direction...
> 
> I want to either laugh or throw something whenever someone says "Never use adverbs!"  _Never_ IS an adverb.
> 
> ...



I'm a bit confused.  Is your point mainly:

A) Adverbs are fantastically terrific, and you should use them liberally at every opportunity!

OR

B) Never say never when stating a rule.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Oct 25, 2012)

At one point in time, I shared the same opinion as both Weaver and Anders about adverbs.  The more I've worked on my writing, the more I came to believe the rule that adverb use should be limited.  Those adverbs that express degree are the foremost candidates for deletion.

Of course, a valid question is: how do you know your "realization" about adverbs is based on imperical data versus being exposed to the "rule" so many times that you internalized it?  Truthfully, I don't.  All I can say is that every book about becoming a professional writer I read tells me to eliminate adverbs and that the rule now makes sense to me.

I think it's pretty clear: adverb use is indicative, in a lot of cases, of lazy writing and/or introduces needless words.  If an adverb expresses something in an efficient manner that you need to convey, use it.  Just be wary. 

Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about the following:

1. Joe was running versus Joe ran.
2. Raindrops started to fall versus Randrops fell.
3. Eliminate all of the unnecessary words versus Eliminate unnecessary words.


----------



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

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I'm not sure I see why "stronger" is the same thing as "better." We're not talking about armwrestling here.



Stronger word choices offer greater clarity for the reader and therefore express what the author wishes in an accurate fashion.

For example:

Jane leaned lazily against the bannister.

To me, that is lazy writing because there are many ways Jane could be leaning that look different. Many types of body posture (involving her leaning) could show the reader that she is feeling lazy without just coming out and saying so. Clear & direct description draw me into the story as a reader so that is how I choose to write.

If the sentence is unimportant, or the sentiment of the sentence unnecessary, then maybe there isn't a need for the word lazily or even the entire sentence. 

There are places for adverbs in my work. I'm just guarded against their overuse. When I find one, I examine it's use, asking myself if I've missed an opportunity to involve the reader with stronger description. There are times when I choose to use an adverb (albeit rarely). These are cases where I decide that is the best word for the situation. That is what I meant by habit vs. choice.


----------



## Graylorne (Oct 26, 2012)

I've an example, a first draft piece from my Scarfar work. It contains several adjectives,1x said and 1x yelled. Any objections?

----

‘Getting out is easy.’ Hraab put a finger on the door. ‘This lock is dumb. I could get it open with me eyes shut.’
‘Well, what are you waiting for?’ Kjelle stepped forward. ‘We must get away.’ 
‘Not so fast,’ Muus had been silent for a while and now his words halted the Thegnling.
‘What?’
‘Getting past that door is one thing, but how do we get out of the castle and over those damned bridges?’
Kjelle turned. A feeling of complete hopelessness came over him. ‘You’re right.’
‘I can spy around.’ Hraab looked eager as always, his eyes glinting. ‘I can get past that jailor, I bet he spents his days boozing. And once outside, I’m only a kid. Not a big ‘un like you. Nobody’ll notice me.’
‘It’s too dangerous,’ said Muus. 
‘No more dangerous than waiting for Rannar.’ Ajkell looked at the little boy. ‘I say let him try.’
‘Woohee,’ the boy yelled, but softly. From the folds of his tunic he drew a thin knife. Humming an unfamiliar song, he started picking the lock. His hands, normally fluttering like angry bees, were rock-still, controlled. Then, a click sounded, and he sat back on his knees, looking around. Apparently satisfied that he’d everyone’s attention, he pushed the door slightly open and peered into the corridor. Then, with a cheery smile and a wave, he slipped out.    
Kjelle let out his breath. Strange kid, he thought. His eyes met Ajkell’s, who gave a slight nod, and then shrugged.


----------



## Zero Angel (Oct 26, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about the following:
> 
> 1. Joe was running versus Joe ran.
> 2. Raindrops started to fall versus Randrops fell.
> 3. Eliminate all of the unnecessary words versus Eliminate unnecessary words.


It would depend on the context for the first one. What feel are we going for? For the second one, the first option is better because it lets us know that it wasn't raining a second ago. The second option would be better if it had been raining for a bit. For #3, it would depend again on whether you want to sound like you are providing an ultimatum (the first option) versus a suggestion (the second option). Although also, what voice you are going for matters here too. If the person saying this is always direct and to the point, then the second option is better. On the other hand, if the person saying this likes to work their way around to the point, then the first option is better. And the narrator counts as a person in my estimation as well. 



T.Allen.Smith said:


> Stronger word choices offer greater clarity for the reader and therefore express what the author wishes in an accurate fashion.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...


Well there's the rub. Do you want the reader to interpret it or do you want to tell them? And I mean this from both directions. If you say that Jane leaned lazily, then the reader gets to decide how that leaning is done. What does lazily leaning look like to them? If, on the other hand, you want to force the reader to have the exact same image as you do, then go ahead and tell them what the leaning specifically looks like, but be aware that you are taking away some of their interpretation of the scene. Now their interpretation will be, well, if they are leaning that way, then is that a lazy lean or a bored lean or an X type of lean? Both options remove interpretation from the reader. One removes the interpretation from the reader (what I feel is boring information) on the arrangement of the person's body. The other removes the interpretation of the mood of the character. Both have their purposes, so you have to decide which one you want.

For instance, in action scenes, I try to make it perfectly clear how things and bodies are arranged, but I also allow some wiggle room for the reader's interpretation of these bodies. Here we zoom out on how the characters are reacting however. For emotional scenes, I don't really care how the bodies are arranged as much, and I care more about what the characters are feeling again, so I am more likely to express that. Finally, sometimes I want to create some distance between the reader and the characters, so I will describe the effect of their emotions, but not the actual emotions they are feeling (although I tend to cheat here also).

If my characters go to a dinner party, unless for some reason I care about the arrangement of the silverware, I am just going to say that it's fancy or formal. I'm not going to go into detail about the specific arrangement.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Oct 26, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> Well there's the rub. Do you want the reader to interpret it or do you want to tell them? And I mean this from both directions. If you say that Jane leaned lazily, then the reader gets to decide how that leaning is done. What does lazily leaning look like to them? If, on the other hand, you want to force the reader to have the exact same image as you do, then go ahead and tell them what the leaning specifically looks like, but be aware that you are taking away some of their interpretation of the scene. Now their interpretation will be, well, if they are leaning that way, then is that a lazy lean or a bored lean or an X type of lean? Both options remove interpretation from the reader. One removes the interpretation from the reader (what I feel is boring information) on the arrangement of the person's body. The other removes the interpretation of the mood of the character. Both have their purposes, so you have to decide which one you want.
> 
> For instance, in action scenes, I try to make it perfectly clear how things and bodies are arranged, but I also allow some wiggle room for the reader's interpretation of these bodies. Here we zoom out on how the characters are reacting however. For emotional scenes, I don't really care how the bodies are arranged as much, and I care more about what the characters are feeling again, so I am more likely to express that. Finally, sometimes I want to create some distance between the reader and the characters, so I will describe the effect of their emotions, but not the actual emotions they are feeling (although I tend to cheat here also).
> 
> If my characters go to a dinner party, unless for some reason I care about the arrangement of the silverware, I am just going to say that it's fancy or formal. I'm not going to go into detail about the specific arrangement.



I think we're saying the same thing.

If what I'm describing is vitally important to the story then I probably don't want to leave it up to reader interpretation. This is where I feel adverbs fail more often than not.  I'd prefer to strive for clarity using strong words that convey exactly what I'm trying to impart. 

Otherwise, what's the point of even mentioning how Jane leaned? If it's not worth description then I'd consider these wasted words of little value. Cut... Cut... Cut.

I hear what you're saying about giving the reader some room to add their own impressions though. I like to do this with character descriptions (attire, hair, etc).


----------



## The Din (Oct 27, 2012)

Zero Angel makes a good point, there are times showing just clutters things up. 

Far as adverbs go. Most 'pros' through the centuries use them, so why not us wannabes. We are nothing if not conformists, putting our own colorful spins on an older fellow's ideas, so to pretend we suddenly saw the light rings false. Adverb-hating is just another fad, like the insistent prevalence of 'said' over all else, and vampires.   

As for speech tags being singularly there to inform the reader who is talking, I disagree. They are a chance to in-stow the words with greater clarity and meaning, be them a sniveling whimper or the Bloody-Nine's own mutter. Far as I'm concerned, every word should add to the greater work, not hide behind banal invisibility.


----------



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

The Din said:


> Zero Angel makes a good point, there are times showing just clutters things up.
> 
> Far as adverbs go. Most 'pros' through the centuries use them, so why not us wannabes. We are nothing if not conformists, putting our own colorful spins on an older fellow's ideas, so to pretend we suddenly saw the light rings false. Adverb-hating is just another fad, like the insistent prevalence of 'said' over all else, and vampires.
> 
> As for speech tags being singularly there to inform the reader who is talking, I disagree. They are a chance to in-stow the words with greater clarity and meaning, be them a sniveling whimper or the Bloody-Nine's own mutter. Far as I'm concerned, every word should add to the greater work, not hide behind banal invisibility.



I wouldn't agree that adverb hating is "just another fad". A school of thought maybe, one that all writers may not subscribe to. I accept that.

"... I am dead to adverbs; they cannot excite me. To misplace an adverb is a thing which I am able to do with frozen indifference; it can never give me a pang. . . . There are subtleties which I cannot master at all--they confuse me, they mean absolutely nothing to me--and this adverb plague is one of them. - Mark Twain (June 1880)

He was pretty good....


"Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs. The adjective hasn't been built that can pull a weak or inaccurate noun out of a tight place. -  William Strunk Jr., E.B. White ( Co-authors of "The Elements of Style")


----------



## arroncook (Oct 27, 2012)

Ultimately, the aim is to write your dialogue with believability. You want people to interact with the dialogue, not by way of complex individual exegesis of words or phrases, but an almost poetic appreciation of the entire idea being conveys by the words. If you put the nuts and bolts together in a way that encourages that, I don't think the particular adverbs will stand out - they will flow with the overall structure of the paragraph, phrase, etc.

Just a newbie's two penn'orth!


----------



## Leonardo Pisano (Aug 27, 2020)

Sorry to come so late to the party. I read this thread and it's full of opinions. Please allow me to add my take on the matter, and the reasoning behind.

The first thing to realize is that ANY speech tag is the writer sticking his/her nose into the story. It's a potential fictional-dream disturber. 
The dilemma is, however, that if the reader is confused who is speaking he is lost/confused and this is a stronger guarantee that he will be put out of the story. In these cases a tag is warranted.
The tag;s sole function is about _who _is talking _not how _the speech is delivered. The speech tag is by default out of the story. The text within the quotes is what matters, as this happens in the scene. Any elaboration on the how is the writer sticking his nose in, increasing the chance the reader is knocked out of the fictional dream. Don't add ~ly words for this reason. Also avoid animal noises (growl, howl, bark, squeak, etc). And definitely avoid the more exotic words, like "she exclaimed", OR an implicit explanation, such as "he confessed", "she lied", "he admitted". 
From the above it follows that the more elaborate the speech tag is, the more intrusive it is and the more likely it is the reader is disturbed. Hence the advice to stick to say/ask/answer. This will work 99% of the cases.
Exceptions to s/he said are acceptable if the reader expects that speech tag. This id often the case where volume is driving the speech (e.g., "Sytop the thief!" the shop owner shouted, If you use "said" here the reader will be even confused, I think). Same as with whispering in certain contexts.
Avoid at all costs tags that don't express a sound, such as: "Please sit down," he pointed to the couch. "She is a pretty girl," he winked to his father. Likewise, sound that do not deliver a speech should also be avoided as a dialogue tag, like "she laughed", "he coughed".
Best of all is to use no speech tags at all (unless conflicting with @1). If it is clear who is speaking, you don't need a dialogue tag. This is a challenge if more than two people are involved in the conversation. Beats are a good alternative. for speech tags. I use the rule of "five": I weave something (an action beat for instance) to remind the reader who is speaking (if the pacing of the dialogue allows that) every five times (or six/seven/eight - it's no hard rule) the speaker has changed.

These are the guidelines I use. That's not to say you have to agree with me. But I thought sharing them may help the community here, especially because many "advice" goes without making clear why. Would love to hear your comments.


----------



## Carl Brothers (Aug 27, 2020)

Flemming Hansen said:


> Hello again
> 
> I know most of us swear to the use of said when writing dialogue.
> For instance:
> ...



Too many schools of thought. In the end, I think you won't be able to please everybody so I think whatever best expresses what you mean to convey, is the way to go.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Aug 31, 2020)

Holy necro, Batman. I think this thread has been here longer than I have.

And said isn't dead. It's a tool in your toolbox and it has its place. There are simply normally stronger ways to say it.


----------



## Toby Johnson (Feb 9, 2021)

you can use it, some poeple have been raised to never use the word, so they will look out for other words to use, but in some surcemstances the word 'said' can be used.


----------

