Opinion on 'said'

[Anders Ämting]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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".
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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]

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?

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]

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]

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.