Let's have a dialogue about, well, dialogue

[BWFoster78]

Over-applying the scientific approach in editing will render a piece more generic, and step the reader back emotionally.

I think that this is assuming facts not in evidence.

It's your theory that applying rules takes out emotion.

My theory is that applying rules makes writing clearer, allowing the emotion to come through better.

 

[BWFoster78]

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.

The emotion is part of the story. How does establishing rules for technique eliminate emotion?

 

[Steerpike]

I think that this is assuming facts not in evidence.

It's your theory that applying rules takes out emotion.

Yes, I'm just basing it on personal observation. I've seen people edit a piece in just such a manner and end up with a very flat story. In most cases, the original piece needed some editing, but they overdid it. They got a piece that was very nice, technically, and not very good as a story.

 

[Ankari]

A good editor can strike that balance well.

Yes, I feel that a good editor will not suggest something because "The rule states avoid this, so remove that." I feel that a good editor will simply state why that didn't work in that situation.

 

[Steerpike]

How does establishing rules for technique eliminate emotion?

Because your creative/emotion sides work differently, in my view, than your analytical side. You need both of them. During your initial writing, you're letting it all flow onto the paper, and technicalities be damned (at least, that's how I do it). When you go back to edit, you are in analytic mode. Your logical mind is taking over, looking for problems, and your creative/emotional side is turned off or at least pushed aside. But because your logical mind works differently from your creative/emotional mind, it doesn't do a great job of recognizing what brings the emotional vitality to the story. The fact that you are thinking about things differently makes it easy to harm the output of the creative mind without realizing exactly why on an intuitive or emotional level. You think you're making the writing lean, fixing every possible issue, and so on, and when you're done you have (without meaning to) eliminated some element that your logical mind couldn't see, and it turns out it was important to the emotion of the story and to connecting with the reader.

That's my theory. Like I said, I've seen this happen on a number of occasions and those are my thoughts as to why it happens to people. It may be that there is something else at work, but when I see a first draft that has problems but is fully engaging with the reader on a emotional level, and then an edit where all of the problems are eliminated but the writing is generic and flat, it isn't hard to see that the editing process harmed the story in some way.

 

[Steerpike]

Yes, I feel that a good editor will not suggest something because "The rule states avoid this, so remove that." I feel that a good editor will simply state why that didn't work in that situation.

Yes. You have to look at it in context. No blanket statement of a "rule" (or guideline), without consideration of context, is going to be worth a lot in my view.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

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."

I don't think the guideline against non-said tags is reasonable to apply universally to all tags. I've come to believe that certain dialogue tags are worse than others. "Replied" and "answered" are usually 100% redundant because it's obvious that that's what they're doing, and whenever I see that I've used one, I remove it.

"Where's the money?" Bob said.
"I don't know!" Jim replied.

That "replied" is redundant because it's self-evident that what Jim says is a reply to Bob. There's a lot of such tags that virtually never help by being used.

But then there are others that do actually provide information that the words themselves cannot. These examples give very different impressions to the reader:

"Where's the money?" Bob shouted.
"Where's the money?" Bob whispered.
"Where's the money?" Bob said.
"Where's the money?" Bob growled.
"Where's the money?" Bob smiled.
"Where's the money?" Bob wondered.

Yes, each of these can be written in ways that convey a similar feeling without using the dialogue tag, but the overwhelming majority of readers have no negative reaction to occasional dialogue tags, meaning that the only reason to do so is not to piss off editors or the small minority of readers who automatically think dialogue tags are amateurish.

Sometimes the dialogue itself will imply a mood, or you can use adjacent motions/expressions to convey the mood of the speech. Sometimes the overall tone of the passage can cover it. If Bob starts the paragraph by storming into the room, readers are going to assume that everything he says is said angrily.

 

[BWFoster78]

Yes, I'm just basing it on personal observation. I've seen people edit a piece in just such a manner and end up with a very flat story. In most cases, the original piece needed some editing, but they overdid it. They got a piece that was very nice, technically, and not very good as a story.

I understand that you saw a case of this happening, but I do not believe this to be an inherent problem. I value emotion in my work and strive to incorporate it to an appropriate degree. Anyone who edits and doesn't consider emotion is doing their writing a disservice.

 

[BWFoster78]

Because your creative/emotion sides work differently, in my view, than your analytical side.

I would say that producing a story that contains emotion is a creative endeavor. Figuring out how to convey effectively that emotion, however, is an analytical problem. I don't need to be creative to convey emotion.

 

[Steerpike]

I understand that you saw a case of this happening, but I do not believe this to be an inherent problem. I value emotion in my work and strive to incorporate it to an appropriate degree. Anyone who edits and doesn't consider emotion is doing their writing a disservice.

On the contrary, I've seen numerous instances of it and I think it is an inherent issue. I disagree with your assessment.

 

[BWFoster78]

Yes, I feel that a good editor will not suggest something because "The rule states avoid this, so remove that." I feel that a good editor will simply state why that didn't work in that situation.

I wouldn't think that any editor has the time to fully explain all their reasoning.

When I'm looking over someone's work and I see "John replied," I simply tell them that "said" is better. I don't take the time, in most instances, to tell them that a) "replied" makes you seem like a complete amateur, b) "said" will hide better in the text, and c) "replied" is redundant to the text.

If that's the only comment I have, sure, I can go into that much detail. Most of the time, I have comments on every single sentence.

 

[BWFoster78]

On the contrary, I've seen numerous instances of it and I think it is an inherent issue. I disagree with your assessment.

I can see that from your perspective. I seriously doubt that I would have agreed with you that the original text was fine and just needed a few edits. I'd be willing to bet that I would enjoy the "ruined" text better than the original. We have different tastes.

 

[BWFoster78]

"Where's the money?" Bob growled.
"Where's the money?" Bob smiled.

There are those who would say that these are pretty horrible because "growling" and "smiling" are not forms of speech. I would have a tendency to agree with those people.

 

[Ankari]

"Where's the money?" Bob growled.

Let's take this a step further. What if the above was written:

"Where's the money?" Bob growled out his words.

There is a problem in that "out his words." is a redundancy and thus unnecessary.

While stating Bob growled is not a form of speech. Do we favor one guideline over another?

If it were suggested to simply state:

"Where's the money?" Bob said.

You lose the emotional impact of "growled." You could write a sentence or two showing Bob's anger, but now we head back into the economy of words issue.

 

[BWFoster78]

"Where's the money?" Bob growled out his words.

To me, this is the same thing with more words. How do you growl out words exactly?

You lose the emotional impact of "growled." You could write a sentence or two showing Bob's anger, but now we head back into the economy of words issue.

This is why the rule is needed. You can find a much better way to impart Bob's emotional state than to say he "growled out his words."

Bob slammed his fist onto the table. "Where's the money?"

is much better than "Where's the money?" Bob growled (with or without out his words.).

 

[Ankari]

Bob slammed his fist onto the table. "Where's the money?"

It is a great sentence, except now Bob is slamming his fists on a table. The scene has changed. And that is the problem I have with strict adherence to guidelines. You write to fit a guideline instead of writing to tell a story.

 

[BWFoster78]

It is a great sentence, except now Bob is slamming his fists on a table. The scene has changed. And that is the problem I have with strict adherence to guidelines.

Your original question wasn't a scene. Bob growling "where's the money" doesn't have any context. Context is what gives a scene emotion and tension. A raised eyebrow can be a vicious insult or a laughter inducing incident depending on context.

It's kind of disingenuous to complain about "changing the scene" when you offered a line with no context.

You write to fit a guideline instead of writing to tell a story.

I don't know if the "you" was specifically in reference to me or not. Personally, I follow the guidelines to make my writing better because I understand the reason behind the guideline - to produce clear, well crafted stories.

 

[Ankari]

I don't know if the "you" was specifically in reference to me or not.

Nope. I thought about using "one" but then I would feel like a pompous (what's another word I could use here withing cursing?)

Personally, I follow the guidelines to make my writing better because I understand the reason behind the guideline - to produce clear, well crafted stories.

Well crafted stories don't mean they are good stories. If that were the case, the snippets I've used from the three author wouldn't exist. They broke the guidelines, quite often actually, because conveying the intent conflicted with the guidelines.

 

[Steerpike]

Well crafted stories don't mean they are good stories.

This is true. Further, stories that aren't crafted as well can be very good stories. Personally, I feel that the drive toward making everyone's stories "sound" the same is bad for the craft. I think we're starting to trend away from that a bit, as compared to perhaps the last 10 to 15 years, and I'm glad to see it.

 

[The Din]

Steerpike has the right of it, far as I'm concerned. F**k the rules! (or take them with a grain of salt, either way.) Limiting yourself to one word when there are dosens for the taking seems like a step backwards to me. Sure, they must be used conservatively, but so must all words. Including 'said'.

I do draw the line at 'smiling' words, however.

'Growling' is trickier. Granted, you can't actually growl words, but an author's allowed a certain amount of hyperbole. Not every word in literature is meant literally. Long as the reader understands the author's meaning and isn't left WTFing all over the place, imo. Now let's see if I'm just talking out my a**...

-'Where's my money?' Growled the man, as only the most dedicated of drunks may growl. 'I know you took it.'
Bob watched the little urchin squirm in the big fellow's grip, like she actually had a chance off getting away. Save your strength, girl, you'll need it to crawl away afterwards.
'Didn't take nothing,' the girl replied, surreptitiously dropping one coin after another into the mud. 'Wasn't looking where I was going is all.'
'Hold on there, mate,' Bob shouted across the busy street and chuckled his way over to the pair. 'You're doing it wrong, got to twist her arm like so...' Together, he and his new friend set about delivering justice, one kick at a time.-