Let's have a dialogue about, well, dialogue

[Steerpike]

Ankari:

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

 

[BWFoster78]

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

Okay.

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

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

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

The generally accepted form is:

dialogue -> speech tag -> end paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two points, though:

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

 

[Steerpike]

BWFoster:

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

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

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

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

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

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

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

 

[Steerpike]

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

Bingo.

/10char

 

[BWFoster78]

Steerpike,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BWFoster78]

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

I agree with this as well.

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

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

 

[Steerpike]

BWFoster:

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

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

 

[Butterfly]

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

So, why is the 'rule' in place?

 

[Steerpike]

So, why is the rule in place?

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

 

[BWFoster78]

BWFoster:

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

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

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

 

[Steerpike]

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

Heh.

Well played. And spoken like a true Engineer

 

[BWFoster78]

So, why is the rule in place?

The concept is:

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

 

[Butterfly]

Totally agree with the over-explaining bit...

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

 

[BWFoster78]

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

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

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

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

 

[BWFoster78]

Totally agree with the over-explaining bit...

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

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

 

[Ankari]

So, why is the 'rule' in place?

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

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

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

 

[BWFoster78]

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

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

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

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

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

Most of the time, it doesn't.

 

[Steerpike]

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

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

 

[Steerpike]

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

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

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