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

[glutton]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 cliché 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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.