# I'm giving away copies of both volumes of The Writer's Lexicon



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

I found KBoards when I noticed this thread in my server logs: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,242655.0.html. I fluttered around, liked what I saw, and joined the site.

My post for today covers over 300 alternatives for "said."

Before everyone goes all Stephen King on me, fiercely and authoritatively, and exclaims vociferously that an author should only say "said," unobstrusively,  have a look and then say what you want to say. I say you shouldn't judge until you've seen.

http://kathysteinemann.com/Musings/over-300-ways-to-say-said-a-word-list-for-writers/

*Bird flaps off and perches on a nearby light standard.*


----------



## Guest (Oct 17, 2016)

I normally don't read posts about craft on Kboards because I come here for marketing and technical advice, but I couldn't pass up yours.

I did read your blog to be fair, and though your intentions are good, remember the road to hell was paved with those.

Everyone, go read a good book on self-editing before using this list of said-substitutes and toss adverbs into the mix.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Out_there said:


> I normally don't read posts about craft on Kboards because I come here for marketing and technical advice, but I couldn't pass up yours.
> 
> I did read your blog to be fair, and though your intentions are good, remember the road to hell was paved with those.
> 
> Everyone, go read a good book on self-editing before using this list of said-substitutes and toss adverbs into the mix.


Or you could go read _Pride and Prejudice_ or _Rebecca_ or _King Solomon's Mines_ or _Wuthering Heights_ or _Treasure Island_ or _Barry Lyndon_ or pretty much anything written before the current trend of dumbing down the English language to the lowest common denominator (like when American publishers adopted _Writing for Dummies_ _The Chicago Manual of Style_ for their editors instead of Webster's). You'd learn a good deal more, and perhaps remember that most of the creative writing and literature PhDs who come up with these ridiculous fads and fashions don't write saleable fiction. When you compare prose written today with that written even 50 or 60 years ago, the modern texts are often ugly and quite lacking in the depth and richness of expression that was prevalent in even "common" works of the time, much less the literary fiction.

This is not a one-size-fits-all field. The kind of writing that works for one person (like Stephen King, since someone will undoubtedly toss his advice in) isn't necessarily going to work well for another. The English language is exquisitely nuanced and powerful and rich, and silly rules like this do nothing but cut writers off from tools that they can use to produce more powerful and beautiful prose. You should be taking advantage of every single bit of the language that suits your needs - and learning all of those bits and the proper ways to use them is our job. That does not mean blindly following silly stylistic rules that some editor came up with because she got sick of novices overusing certain devices in the manuscripts piled on her desk.

This isn't tradpub. You're not at the mercy of corporate copyeditors intent on dumbing down your work for the lowest common denominator readers. We can do better than that.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

KelliWolfe said:


> Or you could go read _Pride and Prejudice_ or _Rebecca_ or _King Solomon's Mines_ or _Wuthering Heights_ or _Treasure Island_ or _Barry Lyndon_ or pretty much anything written before the current trend of dumbing down the English language to the lowest common denominator (like when American publishers adopted _Writing for Dummies_ _The Chicago Manual of Style_ for their editors instead of Webster's). You'd learn a good deal more, and perhaps remember that most of the creative writing and literature PhDs who come up with these ridiculous fads and fashions don't write saleable fiction. When you compare prose written today with that written even 50 or 60 years ago, the modern texts are often ugly and quite lacking in the depth and richness of expression that was prevalent in even "common" works of the time, much less the literary fiction.
> 
> This is not a one-size-fits-all field. The kind of writing that works for one person (like Stephen King, since someone will undoubtedly toss his advice in) isn't necessarily going to work well for another. The English language is exquisitely nuanced and powerful and rich, and silly rules like this do nothing but cut writers off from tools that they can use to produce more powerful and beautiful prose. You should be taking advantage of every single bit of the language that suits your needs - and learning all of those bits and the proper ways to use them is our job. That does not mean blindly following silly stylistic rules that some editor came up with because she got sick of novices overusing certain devices in the manuscripts piled on her desk.
> 
> This isn't tradpub. You're not at the mercy of corporate copyeditors intent on dumbing down your work for the lowest common denominator readers. We can do better than that.


Hurrah! 

It is frightening how quickly "indie" publishing has succumbed to tiresome and often poorly-understood orthodoxy, to become a tremulous carbon copy of the traditional publishing industry it affects to disdain, only with lower production values (yes, we can all find a typo in a best-selling paperback. Nevertheless). I shall continue to wear my purple prose elegiacally!


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

KelliWolfe said:


> This isn't tradpub. You're not at the mercy of corporate copyeditors intent on dumbing down your work for the lowest common denominator readers. We can do better than that.


Next, someone is going to advocate the use of three and even four syllable words, and who knows where that could lead ...

I remember reading some advice from John D. McDonald along the lines of only use 'said', but he followed it by saying that the best-written dialogue required no tags at all. If you showed the scene with all of its action, then the reader should never be in doubt about who is speaking.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

alawston said:


> Hurrah!
> 
> It is frightening how quickly "indie" publishing has succumbed to tiresome and often poorly-understood orthodoxy, to become a tremulous carbon copy of the traditional publishing industry it affects to disdain, only with lower production values (yes, we can all find a typo in a best-selling paperback. Nevertheless). I shall continue to wear my purple prose elegiacally!


I think some of the trad pub rules are good advice, but indies don't have to follow them and plenty of books written by authors who don't do sell. The whole point of being an indie is not having a trad pub editor telling us to do it their way. I often try to show, not tell, but I don't freak out if I use an adverb and neither do my readers


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

Nice list!


----------



## Jean E (Aug 29, 2011)

Loved the list, thank you.  I often try for an alternative to 'said'.  For myself as much as the reader.  I find repetition boring to write and boring to read.  It's a good mental exercise too, makes me really think about the emotion involved in the exchange.

I do use a lot of actions as well, this brings the scene alive in my mind's eye and helps me to focus on how to get what I am seeing across to the reader.


----------



## WPipp (Dec 9, 2014)

Out_there said:


> I normally don't read posts about craft on Kboards because I come here for marketing and technical advice, but I couldn't pass up yours.
> 
> I did read your blog to be fair, and though your intentions are good, remember the road to hell was paved with those.
> 
> Everyone, go read a good book on self-editing before using this list of said-substitutes and toss adverbs into the mix.


I too visit here only for the marketing advice, and I did pass up on the link.

The reason why you only need to use "said" is that it is inconspicuous to the reader, while using something other is a crutch to help poor dialogue. Same with adverbs as a crutch to finding a better verb, but I suppose one could bring up the evil traditional publishers as overlords who make writers tow-the-line as a reason to do otherwise.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

KelliWolfe said:


> Or you could go read _Pride and Prejudice_ or _Rebecca_ or _King Solomon's Mines_ or _Wuthering Heights_ or _Treasure Island_ or _Barry Lyndon_ or pretty much anything written before the current trend of dumbing down the English language to the lowest common denominator (like when American publishers adopted _Writing for Dummies_ _The Chicago Manual of Style_ for their editors instead of Webster's). You'd learn a good deal more, and perhaps remember that most of the creative writing and literature PhDs who come up with these ridiculous fads and fashions don't write saleable fiction. When you compare prose written today with that written even 50 or 60 years ago, the modern texts are often ugly and quite lacking in the depth and richness of expression that was prevalent in even "common" works of the time, much less the literary fiction.
> 
> This is not a one-size-fits-all field. The kind of writing that works for one person (like Stephen King, since someone will undoubtedly toss his advice in) isn't necessarily going to work well for another. The English language is exquisitely nuanced and powerful and rich, and silly rules like this do nothing but cut writers off from tools that they can use to produce more powerful and beautiful prose. You should be taking advantage of every single bit of the language that suits your needs - and learning all of those bits and the proper ways to use them is our job. That does not mean blindly following silly stylistic rules that some editor came up with because she got sick of novices overusing certain devices in the manuscripts piled on her desk.
> 
> This isn't tradpub. You're not at the mercy of corporate copyeditors intent on dumbing down your work for the lowest common denominator readers. We can do better than that.


THANK YOU!


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

WPipp said:


> I too visit here only for the marketing advice, and I did pass up on the link.


If you don't read it, you won't know what it "says."  In fact, the post presents an example of micro fiction that goes from repetitive and boring to something you might want to include in a WIP.


----------



## Jean E (Aug 29, 2011)

WPipp said:


> I too visit here only for the marketing advice, and I did pass up on the link.
> 
> The reason why you only need to use "said" is that it is inconspicuous to the reader, while using something other is a crutch to help poor dialogue. Same with adverbs as a crutch to finding a better verb, but I suppose one could bring up the evil traditional publishers as overlords who make writers tow-the-line as a reason to do otherwise.


Ah, now, maybe this is a tad strong. I did a did a quick round up of opinions in the room I am in and, granted, my research base of one may not be enough to come to an unassailable conclusion but she was emphatic.

"As a reader," she assured," I disagree." (with the opinion quoted above). By way of example she added _"Why?" She said,_ is not the same as _"Why?" She screamed_, which is not the same as _"Why?" She spat_.

That, folks, is the opinion here in the tiny hamlet of Knockadoona.


----------



## Cactus Lady (Jun 4, 2014)

Jean E said:


> Ah, now, maybe this is a tad strong. I did a did a quick round up of opinions in the room I am in and, granted, my research base of one may not be enough to come to an unassailable conclusion but she was emphatic.
> 
> "As a reader," she assured," I disagree." (with the opinion quoted above). By way of example she added _"Why?" She said,_ is not the same as _"Why?" She screamed_, which is not the same as _"Why?" She spat_.
> 
> That, folks, is the opinion here in the tiny hamlet of Knockadoona.


You can add me to your research base as saying the same thing.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

WPipp said:


> The reason why you only need to use "said" is that it is inconspicuous to the reader, while using something other is a crutch to help poor dialogue. Same with adverbs as a crutch to finding a better verb, but I suppose one could bring up the evil traditional publishers as overlords who make writers tow-the-line as a reason to do otherwise.


^this^


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

WPipp said:


> The reason why you only need to use "said" is that it is inconspicuous to the reader, while using something other is a crutch to help poor dialogue. Same with adverbs as a crutch to finding a better verb, but I suppose one could bring up the evil traditional publishers as overlords who make writers tow-the-line as a reason to do otherwise.


So, what you're saying is that all of those other dialog tags that Jane Austen, H. Rider Haggard, Charlotte Bronte, Daphne du Maurier, Robert Louis Stevenson, and W. M. Thackeray (the first half dozen I had handy on my Kindle) used jolted their readers right out of the story and spoiled all the immersion for them? Or are you saying that they had poor dialog in their novels? (Oh, you'd better stay far, far away from the Austen fans, dear.) They made regular use of adverbs as crutches because they couldn't come up with better verbs? Really? Is that what you're trying to tell us?

Perhaps if your prose is bland and vapid enough then using those extra tags and adverbs might have your readers clutching their pearls in shock. But it certainly didn't seem to hurt any of the writers who came along before the publishers started this little crusade a few decades ago. Other modern writers, like Robert Ludlum, are able to write well enough to get away with it. He hardly uses 'said' at all in favor of other tags. I suppose it's a crutch for his poor dialog as well?

Or perhaps some editor-in-chief at a big publishing house made a purely arbitrary decision based on her personal tastes that percolated down through the years until now writers simply accept it on the same level as the Ten Commandments?

It's the silliest damned thing I ever heard. It's just like saying, "You must only use the verb 'walk' when your characters move about. Using other verbs draws too much attention to their form of movement and will jar the reader out of the scene. You don't want to attract too much attention to _how_ they move, because it's _where_ they're going that's important and what you want your reader to focus on. In fact, it's best if you don't describe their movements at all. Simply stating that they are _there_ is enough to get the point across."


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

I'd like to jump in here and recommend Cassell's Dictionary of Appropriate Adjectives. https://www.amazon.com/Cassell-Dictionary-Appropriate-Adjectives/dp/030434298X

I should also like to mention that two writer friends and I got together in 1989 to explore writing such a dictionary. We titled it Say it Another Way - Dictionary of Alternatives. The idea came about after many years of tutoring writers. We sent samples to various publishers who declined to publish. I still have one rejection letter. In 1994 Cassell's Dictionary of Appropriate Adjectives was published. Did they pinch our idea?  No way to tell for sure.

OK, back to 'said'.


----------



## boxer44 (Aug 6, 2016)

KelliWolfe said:


> Or you could go read _Pride and Prejudice_ or _Rebecca_ or _King Solomon's Mines_ or _Wuthering Heights_ or _Treasure Island_ or _Barry Lyndon_ or pretty much anything written before the current trend of dumbing down the English language to the lowest common denominator (like when American publishers adopted _Writing for Dummies_ _The Chicago Manual of Style_ for their editors instead of Webster's). You'd learn a good deal more, and perhaps remember that most of the creative writing and literature PhDs who come up with these ridiculous fads and fashions don't write saleable fiction. When you compare prose written today with that written even 50 or 60 years ago, the modern texts are often ugly and quite lacking in the depth and richness of expression that was prevalent in even "common" works of the time, much less the literary fiction.
> 
> This is not a one-size-fits-all field. The kind of writing that works for one person (like Stephen King, since someone will undoubtedly toss his advice in) isn't necessarily going to work well for another. The English language is exquisitely nuanced and powerful and rich, and silly rules like this do nothing but cut writers off from tools that they can use to produce more powerful and beautiful prose. You should be taking advantage of every single bit of the language that suits your needs - and learning all of those bits and the proper ways to use them is our job. That does not mean blindly following silly stylistic rules that some editor came up with because she got sick of novices overusing certain devices in the manuscripts piled on her desk.
> 
> This isn't tradpub. You're not at the mercy of corporate copyeditors intent on dumbing down your work for the lowest common denominator readers. We can do better than that.


^^^^ This one KelliWolfe  Bulls Eye !!


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

KelliWolfe said:


> So, what you're saying is that all of those other dialog tags that Jane Austen, H. Rider Haggard, Charlotte Bronte, Daphne du Maurier, Robert Louis Stevenson, and W. M. Thackeray (the first half dozen I had handy on my Kindle) used jolted their readers right out of the story and spoiled all the immersion for them? Or are you saying that they had poor dialog in their novels? (Oh, you'd better stay far, far away from the Austen fans, dear.) They made regular use of adverbs as crutches because they couldn't come up with better verbs? Really? Is that what you're trying to tell us?


Chapter two of Sense and Sensibility is largely dialogue. It is always clear who is speaking. It contains:

replied her husband
she added
said her husband, very gravelly
he replied
said the lady
said she
replied Mr Dashwood
said Mr Dashwood
returned Mrs John Dashwood


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Is there anyone outside of middle school who puts a dialogue tag, whether it is said or not, with every piece of dialogue?

I don't care whether you used said or any other, that would read badly. A deliberately bad example doesn't prove anything, certainly not that that is how anyone actually writes. It is _certainly_ not any advice that Stephen King ever gave.

The purpose of a dialogue tag is to show the reader who is speaking. That's it. If you don't need to show that, don't put one in. If your reader can't figure that out without a dialogue tag with every sentence, you have more serious problems than whether or not to use said.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

So I've skimmed through to Chapter 11 of Sense and Sensibility. All I've found are 'said', 'replied', a 'replied her mother laughing' and a few 'cried'.


----------



## MarilynVix (Jun 19, 2013)

Helpful post for craft. Don't see a lot of craft suggestions sometimes on the board. Good to have. Bookmarked.


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

MarilynVix said:


> Helpful post for craft. Don't see a lot of craft suggestions sometimes on the board. Good to have. Bookmarked.


Thanks, Marilyn.

It generated a bit of a firestorm. Interesting that the critics are the ones who didn't bother to read it.


----------



## hopecartercan (Jun 19, 2015)

Thank you, OP. It's always good to have helpful info. I appreciate it.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

The ultimate point (at least in my opinion) is to not lean on dialogue tags. I never try to "not" use them, but I work on my dialogue to use as few as possible. I also don't try to "not" use tags other than "he/she said", but I work to express my emotional states with the actions of the characters so that I don't need them. And sometimes I will slip them in just to emphasize the point.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Thank you, OP! This list is fantastic! (I also prefer actions over dialogue tags, and replied instead of said, but that's just me)


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Greg Banks said:


> The ultimate point (at least in my opinion) is to not lean on dialogue tags. I never try to "not" use them, but I work on my dialogue to use as few as possible. I also don't try to "not" use tags other than "he/she said", but I work to express my emotional states with the actions of the characters so that I don't need them. And sometimes I will slip them in just to emphasize the point.


Bingo.


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

KelliWolfe said:


> It's the silliest damned thing I ever heard. It's just like saying, "You must only use the verb 'walk' when your characters move about. Using other verbs draws too much attention to their form of movement and will jar the reader out of the scene. You don't want to attract too much attention to _how_ they move, because it's _where_ they're going that's important and what you want your reader to focus on. In fact, it's best if you don't describe their movements at all. Simply stating that they are _there_ is enough to get the point across."


Totally agree, Kelli!

The funny thing is, even the hamfisted craft advice contradicts itself. Authors are encouraged not to use adverbs and instead use strong verbs. Well, guess what? "Said" is a pretty weak verb, and for some reason the same people look down on using stronger dialog verbs.


----------



## WPipp (Dec 9, 2014)

JRTomlin said:


> The purpose of a dialogue tag is to show the reader who is speaking. That's it. If you don't need to show that, don't put one in. If your reader can't figure that out without a dialogue tag with every sentence, you have more serious problems than whether or not to use said.


"Yes, that's it!" I shouted. 



KelliWolfe said:


> So, what you're saying is that all of those other dialog tags that Jane Austen, H. Rider Haggard, Charlotte Bronte, Daphne du Maurier, Robert Louis Stevenson, and W. M. Thackeray (the first half dozen I had handy on my Kindle) used jolted their readers right out of the story and spoiled all the immersion for them? Or are you saying that they had poor dialog in their novels? (Oh, you'd better stay far, far away from the Austen fans, dear.) They made regular use of adverbs as crutches because they couldn't come up with better verbs? Really? Is that what you're trying to tell us?


Well, Jan's sampling of "replied", "added", etc. found in the text was certainly more refreshing than "said." However, the notion of losing Austen fans will give me many a restless night. 



KelliWolfe said:


> Perhaps if your prose is bland and vapid enough then using those extra tags and adverbs might have your readers clutching their pearls in shock. But it certainly didn't seem to hurt any of the writers who came along before the publishers started this little crusade a few decades ago. Other modern writers, like Robert Ludlum, are able to write well enough to get away with it. He hardly uses 'said' at all in favor of other tags. I suppose it's a crutch for his poor dialog as well?


"clutching their pearls" is a better visual than simply saying "shockingly". Isn't "He wrote well enough to get away with it" is on Ludlum's headstone? 



KelliWolfe said:


> It's the silliest damned thing I ever heard. It's just like saying, "You must only use the verb 'walk' when your characters move about. Using other verbs draws too much attention to their form of movement and will jar the reader out of the scene. You don't want to attract too much attention to _how_ they move, because it's _where_ they're going that's important and what you want your reader to focus on. In fact, it's best if you don't describe their movements at all. Simply stating that they are _there_ is enough to get the point across."


If the OP came up with 300 hundred ways to say walk, I might've taken a gander. This is a false equivalency. The dialogue tag purpose is show whose talking. Hanging emotional phasing to a tag shows the author is not confident enough to convey the tone in the dialogue or narrative. This also robs the reader of greater texture in the character and the scene.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

GrandmaBirdie said:


> Thanks, Marilyn.
> 
> It generated a bit of a firestorm. Interesting that the critics are the ones who didn't bother to read it.


On the contrary, if you read my comments, I very clearly read it. While you made some valid enough points. no one (and I mean NO ONE) writes like your sample. It is a strawman that largely negates what you have to say as does any claim that authors such as Stephen King said to write like that.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)




----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Domino Finn said:


> Authors are encouraged not to use adverbs and instead use strong verbs. Well, guess what? "Said" is a pretty weak verb, and for some reason the same people look down on using stronger dialog verbs.


Bingo! Oops. The same people who give so much incontrovertible advice also say exclamation marks are taboo. Take away my peanuts and put me in a corner.


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

WPipp said:


> If the OP came up with 300 hundred ways to say walk, I might've taken a gander. This is a false equivalency. The dialogue tag purpose is show whose talking. Hanging emotional phasing to a tag shows the author is not confident enough to convey the tone in the dialogue or narrative. This also robs the reader of greater texture in the character and the scene.


Here you go: http://kathysteinemann.com/Musings/ways-to-say-went/


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

I'm in the "all you need is said" camp. Mostly.

I don't think using other words once in a while kills everything, but I think stretching for alternatives EVERY time someone speaks definitely does!

I tend to use alternatives when the way something is said is contrary to what the reader might be expecting. Like: "Shut up!" she whispered, mindful of the guards in the next room. Or: "Everything is so calm," he shouted over the roar of the boat's engine. 

It also depends on your audience. Every genre has its own little quirks. It's best to read heavily in the genre you write, so you have a good handle on reader expectations. 

It's ll fine and well to say you're an indie, and you don't have to answer to anyone. But it's not exactly true. If you want to actually sell books, you will always have to answer to your readers!


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Steve Voelker said:


> I'm in the "all you need is said" camp. Mostly.
> 
> I don't think using other words once in a while kills everything, but I think stretching for alternatives EVERY time someone speaks definitely does!
> 
> ...


Yeah, but using something other than said is not very likely to bother a reader. Sure if you tell more than you show your book might not be as interesting, but I don't know any average reader who is going to get bored or upset because you used shouted instead of said.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

I won't enter the debate on said. Each of us has our own style and standard.

What I will add, however, is that when you take a book to audio, any word repeated over and over again sours the reading in my opinion.

Since my first audio book, I have made it a point to avoid any echo, including the word "said."


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Joe_Nobody said:


> What I will add, however, is that when you take a book to audio, any word repeated over and over again sours the reading in my opinion.
> 
> Since my first audio book, I have made it a point to avoid any echo, including the word "said."


Agreed. Like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and "cried" in _The Lost World_. I listened to the audio book, and every time I heard "cried" I cried a little inside.


----------



## WPipp (Dec 9, 2014)

GrandmaBirdie said:


> Here you go: http://kathysteinemann.com/Musings/ways-to-say-went/


Thanks, Kathy. I took a gander. However, what I was looking for was something to the effect:

stomp -- suggests an angry, frustrated gate.
sashay -- quicker with more hip movement.
stroll -- easy, laid-back 
etc.


----------



## WPipp (Dec 9, 2014)

Joe_Nobody said:


> I won't enter the debate on said. Each of us has our own style and standard.
> 
> What I will add, however, is that when you take a book to audio, any word repeated over and over again sours the reading in my opinion.
> 
> Since my first audio book, I have made it a point to avoid any echo, including the word "said."


I remembering listening to a audio sample covering a scene with four people speaking in short sentences and the tags became annoying very quickly, although I'm sure it would've much better if the author used something other than said. I like to use something I'll call narrative tags. For example:

Bill shuffled his feet. "You think we should move?"
Jill picked at her sweater. "I don't know if I can tell him."


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

I'm definitely in the less is more camp when it comes to dialogue tags. I use said, whispered, and replied. I avoid all adverbs like the plague. Those three verbs are about as far as I will go with dialogue tags. To me, anything else is excessive. We actually whisper and when someone replies to a question or statement, it's actually a reply. We don't growl, bark, or howl. Those are dogs -- or werewolves. 

I don't think it's a simple matter of differences in style. I see the over-use of dialogue tags and adverbs as weak writing and as an attempt to fix a non-existent problem. There is no problem with using said. Better yet, avoid dialogue tags as much as possible. The problem is weak verbs, lack of description and action to convey the scene, and too much telling. Telling can be useful at times, but showing is better.

Contrast and compare:

"Go!" Grace shouted forcefully, pointing angrily to the door.

Grace frowned and pointed to the door.. "Get your ass the hell out of the house, _now_."

No exclamation mark. No adverb. No dialogue tag. No tell.

The first sentence relies on tells and adverbs to convey emotion whereas the second uses the dialogue itself and the action. It's a simple example but it reads better, IMO. The first reads as juvenile and excessive while the second relies on the reader's own faculties to understand the emotions.


----------



## sgroyle (Aug 21, 2010)

I thought it was Elmore Leonard, who proclaimed )), do not use anything other than said....


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

sgroyle said:


> I thought it was Elmore Leonard, who proclaimed )), do not use anything other than said....


"Elmore Leonard's Ten Rules of Writing

1. Never open a book with weather.
2. Avoid prologues.
3. Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said"&#8230;he admonished gravely.
5. Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. 
6. Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose."
7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.
9. Don't go into great detail describing places and things.
10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

My most important rule is one that sums up the 10.

If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it."


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

sgroyle said:


> I thought it was Elmore Leonard, who proclaimed )), do not use anything other than said....


*Stephen King:* "The best form of dialogue attribution is said, as in he said, she said, Bill said, Monica said."

_On Writing: A Memoir Of The Craft_

However, he does provide the following examples in another part of the book: "Put it down!" she shouted. "Give it back," he pleaded, "it's mine."

*Elmore Leonard:* "Never use a verb other than 'said' to carry dialogue."

_10 Rules of Writing_

IMHO, writing is not a set of rules based on mathematical precision; it is emotions, senses, and conflict. Whatever moves readers should be the rule. If readers are turned off because they see "said" so many times, the so-called rule hinders rather than helps.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2016)

It's not using "said" that stands out. It's when a writer goes out of their way to avoid using it. Usually it's do to inexperience. They think "said" is too common and overused. Surely a talented writer can come up with better. But no. Most of the time the character just "said" something. 
If you find yourself really, really not wanting to use it, you can simply write action and no dialogue tag.

Ex:Bob leaned back in his chair, his hands steepled beneath his chin as he watched the two silhouettes creeping toward the door.. "So you're going to the party anyway, I see." 

No tag needed and it is clear who is speaking. You can even add a reaction without a new paragraph. 

Ex:Bob leaned back in his chair, his hands steepled beneath his chin as he watched the two silhouettes creeping toward the door. "So you're going to the party anyway, I see." - the girls halted instantly - "Do you think I'm stupid?"

That's only one way to go about it, of course.


----------



## LeonardDHilleyII (May 23, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> ^this^





WPipp said:


> I too visit here only for the marketing advice, and I did pass up on the link.
> 
> The reason why you only need to use "said" is that it is inconspicuous to the reader, while using something other is a crutch to help poor dialogue. Same with adverbs as a crutch to finding a better verb, but I suppose one could bring up the evil traditional publishers as overlords who make writers tow-the-line as a reason to do otherwise.


^^^Agreed.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

The only rule of writing is that there are no rules of writing.  

However, I like a riff on Leonard's rule #10 - leave out the boring bits. That translates to "Kill your darlings." When your prose starts to sound too "writerly" with far flung metaphors, excessive use of adverbs and three adjectives in a row for every noun, it's time to take the scalpel and cut. Less is more. Only use the telling detail -- the details that convey as much of the scene as possible with as little verbiage.

Of course any given author can point to a successful book that breaks writing conventions, but I would argue that they succeed in spite of those broken conventions, not because of them. They most likely succeed because of a compelling story and characters told well enough to keep the pages turning.


----------



## Nancy_G (Jun 22, 2015)

Sela said:


> I'm definitely in the less is more camp when it comes to dialogue tags. I use said, whispered, and replied. I avoid all adverbs like the plague. Those three verbs are about as far as I will go with dialogue tags. To me, anything else is excessive. We actually whisper and when someone replies to a question or statement, it's actually a reply. We don't growl, bark, or howl. Those are dogs -- or werewolves.
> 
> I don't think it's a simple matter of differences in style. I see the over-use of dialogue tags and adverbs as weak writing and as an attempt to fix a non-existent problem. There is no problem with using said. Better yet, avoid dialogue tags as much as possible. The problem is weak verbs, lack of description and action to convey the scene, and too much telling. Telling can be useful at times, but showing is better.
> 
> ...


this. This. THIS! I'm also in the less is more camp, but do use said and whisper if needed, mostly action to convey. All the writing/editing books I've read beg the writer to not use adverbs and use said. It screams writer behind the words. We want it to be invisible.



Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> "Elmore Leonard's Ten Rules of Writing
> 
> 1. Never open a book with weather.
> 2. Avoid prologues.
> ...


I love this and have it in my Pinterest writing tips board. I abide by these rules in my writing.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> "Elmore Leonard's Ten Rules of Writing
> 
> 1. Never open a book with weather.
> 2. Avoid prologues.
> ...


1. Never open a book with weather.

And yet he opened "Get Shorty" with weather


----------



## Nancy_G (Jun 22, 2015)

Alan Petersen said:


> 1. Never open a book with weather.
> 
> And yet he opened "Get Shorty" with weather


Ha! Maybe he was reflecting on the mistake he made and didn't want others to repeat it?


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

Nancy G said:


> Ha! Maybe he was reflecting on the mistake he made and didn't want others to repeat it?


More likely he understood that real writers don't follow rules! 
(Just tongue in cheek, people. No offense intended!)



Sela said:


> I'm definitely in the less is more camp when it comes to dialogue tags. I use said, whispered, and replied. I avoid all adverbs like the plague. Those three verbs are about as far as I will go with dialogue tags. To me, anything else is excessive. We actually whisper and when someone replies to a question or statement, it's actually a reply. We don't growl, bark, or howl. Those are dogs -- or werewolves.
> 
> I don't think it's a simple matter of differences in style.


Sela, the example you give is a great example between bad and better writing, but your argument that it's NOT a matter of style is completely indefensible.

As is your argument that you're allowed to use "whispered" because "we actually whisper." I mean, do we not actually yell? To say that it's okay to use whispered but not yelled is so obviously a matter of style, especially since I'm sure many authors would lambast you for using whispered.

As far as your dog argument, I've posted this before, but I tend to think it's okay for authors to follow dictionary definitions.

_*Merriam Webster*_

*Growl*
- to say (something) in an angry way
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/growl

*Bark*
- to speak in a curt loud and usually angry tone
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bark

*Howl*
- to cry out loudly in pain, anger, amusement, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/howl

I mean, if you're going to champion a _non-style, objective_ argument, I think the dictionary is a good benchmark.

_As always, I maintain that any "Official Writing Rules"(TM) are simply general guidelines to help young authors practicing their craft. Once you get a handle on what you're doing, you can feel free to break them._


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

I've got kids. I guarantee you that there is growling, barking, snarling, grunting, and all sorts of other shifter-associated tags happening in their dialog every day - especially in the mornings before school.


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Domino Finn said:


> As is your argument that you're allowed to use "whispered" because "we actually whisper." I mean, do we not actually yell? To say that it's okay to use whispered but not yelled is so obviously a matter of style, especially since I'm sure many authors would lambast you for using whispered.
> 
> As far as your dog argument, I've posted this before, but I tend to think it's okay for authors to follow dictionary definitions.


Excellent points, Domino.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

Domino Finn said:


> Sela, the example you give is a great example between bad and better writing, but your argument that it's NOT a matter of style is completely indefensible.
> 
> As is your argument that you're allowed to use "whispered" because "we actually whisper." I mean, do we not actually yell? To say that it's okay to use whispered but not yelled is so obviously a matter of style, especially since I'm sure many authors would lambast you for using whispered.
> 
> ...


I have lived my entire life without ever hearing anyone howl, growl or bark. Except my dogs.  Especially, no human has barked, growled or howled a line of dialogue.

I think there's a difference between using verbs like howled or barked to describe someone's action vs. using these verbs as dialogue tags.

For example, it's one thing to write:

When they removed the ice pick from John's eye, he howled in pain.

Or:

When Master Sergeant Vickers saw Private Lyons stumbling on the parade field, he barked out a command. "Lyons, you're supposed to march not dance."

Because, you know, John might actually go "Ooowwwwwooo!" and I know personally know that Master Sergeant Vickers sounds and looks like a bulldog. 

It's another thing to write:

"I can't stand it anymore!" John howled.

Or:

Master Sergeant Vickers glowered at the private with two left feet. "Lyons, you're supposed to march not _dance_," he barked.

Nope. You will never convince me that is good writing. It's impossible to howl that line of dialogue. It's excessive and unrealistic unless you are writing a werewolf or dog shifter as a main character.  Then, I can accept them howling out something whilst in the process of shifting. 

So, you can and should definitely use those verbs to describe actions in the narrative, but I would argue you should avoid using them in dialogue tags.

This is my opinion. YMMV


----------



## Nancy_G (Jun 22, 2015)

Sela said:


> I have lived my entire life without ever hearing anyone howl, growl or bark. Except my dogs.  Especially, no human has barked, growled or howled a line of dialogue.
> 
> I think there's a difference between using verbs like howled or barked to describe someone's action vs. using these verbs as dialogue tags.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flay Otters (Jul 29, 2014)

Dang, what an opinionated bunch of people.
This is why I stay away from style questions (in life in general, not just writing). t's a zero sum game out there.
And, for the record, I checked chapter one of 'Raylan', and it was _said_ all the way.
Elmore was not a _for me but not for thee_ kind of guy (except for the beginning of Get Shorty).
Even a question was _said_, he just added a question mark at the end, in case you wondered in your head which way to stress it.
Once I noticed it, the repetition was like a hammer hitting a nail echoing way across the holler.
But come on, it was about Raylan Givens and the Crowes, so how could I hate him for his lack of interest in alternatives, he had stories to write.
And that's my point.
I don't care what other people think, and I don't read much because decent writing pretty much ended in the late sixties.
But if it works then write it, if it doesn't work then don't write it.
And if you have to ask you'll never know.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

It's a free country. Anyone can write any way they want and publish their book loaded with adverbs and alternatives to said. A few adverbs now and then, and a few non-said verbs in dialogue tags are not going to make the difference between success and failure, especially if your characters are compelling and your story is page-turning.

If people want to talk about craft, said bookisms and Tom Swiftys are two that have been discussed among writers for years.

Many new writers believe they must avoid "said" like the plague. So, they use alternatives or adverbs. It can become comedic.

A very good resource on writerisms and what to avoid is the Science Fiction Writers of America's _Turkey City Lexicon_:

http://www.sfwa.org/2009/06/turkey-city-lexicon-a-primer-for-sf-workshops/

From the SFWA:



> "Said" Bookism
> An artificial verb used to avoid the word "said." "Said" is one of the few invisible words in the English language and is almost impossible to overuse. It is much less distracting than "he retorted," "she inquired," "he ejaculated," and other oddities. The term "said-book" comes from certain pamphlets, containing hundreds of purple-prose synonyms for the word "said," which were sold to aspiring authors from tiny ads in American magazines of the pre-WWII era.
> 
> Tom Swifty
> An unseemly compulsion to follow the word "said" with a colorful adverb, as in "'We'd better hurry,' Tom said swiftly." This was a standard mannerism of the old Tom Swift adventure dime-novels. Good dialogue can stand on its own without a clutter of adverbial props.


Here's a list of notable examples of said bookisms and Tom Swiftys from Tom Swifty - TV Tropes:

"This hot dog's awful," she said frankly.
"She's a real dog," he said cattily.
"You're only average," he said meanly.
"I have to go to the hardware store," he said wrenchingly.
"Would you like a soda," he asked spritely.
"That butcher!" said Tom [Paris] cuttingly.
"Stay sharp!" he said pointedly.
"I've got to stop the engine!" he choked.
"Looks like a modern work of art," said Tom abstractly.

Look, the reality is that many very successful works use adverbs in dialogue tags, and said bookisms. Unless you're Stephen King or JK Rowling, it's probably a good idea to try not to use either too often. You can load your writing with both if you really want and feel it is your style, but be aware that there are many in the writer world who think doing so is evidence of poor writing.

What really matters in the end is what you personally want out of this gig. If you want accolades about your writing, your prose, then paying attention to the issues raised in the Turkey City Lexicon can make your writing better. If you want to sell books, it probably matters less than great characters, compelling storyline, and page turning plots. But it won't hurt to avoid these "writerisms".


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Sela said:


> I have lived my entire life without ever hearing anyone howl, growl or bark. Except my dogs.  Especially, no human has barked, growled or howled a line of dialogue.
> 
> I think there's a difference between using verbs like howled or barked to describe someone's action vs. using these verbs as dialogue tags.
> 
> ...


I was taught that you can't 'laugh' a sentence. e.g. "That hat's too big," laughed Fran. But you can say "That hat's too big," said Fran laughing.
You also can't hiss a sentence that doesn't contain a word with an 's'.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Sela said:


> Many new writers believe they must avoid "said" like the plague. So, they use alternatives or adverbs. It can become comedic.


I think this stems from school days when teachers were trying to get students to use their imagination. I don't think many writing tutors advocate not using said.


----------



## cherrylane (May 10, 2014)

KelliWolfe said:


> So, what you're saying is that all of those other dialog tags that Jane Austen, H. Rider Haggard, Charlotte Bronte, Daphne du Maurier, Robert Louis Stevenson, and W. M. Thackeray (the first half dozen I had handy on my Kindle) used jolted their readers right out of the story and spoiled all the immersion for them? Or are you saying that they had poor dialog in their novels? (Oh, you'd better stay far, far away from the Austen fans, dear.) They made regular use of adverbs as crutches because they couldn't come up with better verbs? Really? Is that what you're trying to tell us?
> 
> Perhaps if your prose is bland and vapid enough then using those extra tags and adverbs might have your readers clutching their pearls in shock. But it certainly didn't seem to hurt any of the writers who came along before the publishers started this little crusade a few decades ago. Other modern writers, like Robert Ludlum, are able to write well enough to get away with it. He hardly uses 'said' at all in favor of other tags. I suppose it's a crutch for his poor dialog as well?
> 
> ...


You couldn't have said explained it any better. I love the example with the word "walk".



Jean E said:


> Loved the list, thank you. I often try for an alternative to 'said'. For myself as much as the reader. I find repetition boring to write and boring to read. It's a good mental exercise too, makes me really think about the emotion involved in the exchange.
> 
> I do use a lot of actions as well, this brings the scene alive in my mind's eye and helps me to focus on how to get what I am seeing across to the reader.


I totally second you. I find repetitions boring to write and to read. Not being and English mother tongue, my books are heavily edited, at least more than the average book written by a native speaker, even though some editors told me that they had seen worse grammar mistakes by natives. I spend a long time looking for synonyms and I'm always upset when an editor, correcting my grammar, change the words (because of the different sentence construction) to something which has been used only few lines before. I would like them not to add any repetition but most of them seems not to care. In fact, I started believing that the English language doesn't gives much attention to rhythm and musicality...


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> I think this stems from school days when teachers were trying to get students to use their imagination. I don't think many writing tutors advocate not using said.


In fact, some creative writing tutors _insist_ that their students use alternatives.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

GrandmaBirdie said:


> In fact, some creative writing tutors _insist_ that their students use alternatives.


I would question their credentials if so...


----------



## WPipp (Dec 9, 2014)

Some of the objections to only using "said":

1) Boring.

The reader doesn't notice "said", so it's not an issue. However, if you're using too many dialogue tags, then that is an issue. If you're depending on your dialogue tags to liven-up your prose, then that's an issue.

2) Style.

Sure, we all have our own styles and thank God for that, but this is more in-line with best practices. Dialogue tags are used to let the reader know who is talking, and by using something other than "said", you're giving the reader something else to think about besides who is talking.

3) Expressive.

Isn't "he barked" or "he pleaded" more expressive than just saying "he said"? If text suggests the character is "barking orders" or "pleading his case" then the tag is redundant. However, if your hanging the emotional tenor of the character on the tag, then you're robbing the reader of the richness of the character and the impact of the scene.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

If and when I use tags, I only use 'said'.

Yes, it's generic, it's meant to be. It's ubiquity causes it to float away into the readers subconscious so that it disappears and does not call attention to itself outside of it's primary function, i.e. to keep the reader anchored on who's speaking.


----------



## Anna Drake (Sep 22, 2014)

This has been an interesting if sometimes contentious discussion. It's also proved enlightening. Thanks for posting.


----------



## notjohn (Sep 9, 2016)

IMHO, 300 ways to say "said" is 299 more than a writer needs.

Sort of the reciprocal of the joke about the Frenchman who boasted he knew of 61 ways to make love, whereupon the baffled American confessed he knew only the one, and he described the missionary position. "Sacre bleu!" cried the Frenchman. "Sixty-two!"


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

In my experience, as a critter on various writers workshops, and when reading books where authors are asking for help with why their books aren't selling, I have found evidence of novice writer mistakes. Chief among them, besides a slow opening, talking heads, info dumps, white room syndrome, POV jumps via head hopping, there is the dread "said bookisms" and adverbial dialogue tags.

As an example, here is an excerpt from the #1 bestselling book in the Kindle store to illustrate the difference between a seasoned bestseller and a writer trying too hard to avoid said and using weak verbs and adverbial dialogue tags.

With excuses to John Sanford, _Escape Clause_:

I've used weak verbs paired with adverbs and dialogue tags to avoid said and repetition of words.



> Peck quickly put a Xanax in his mouth, put the cap back on the pill tube, looked carefully over the top of the bush and through the chain-link fence. "You see the other one?" he whispered hoarsely.
> 
> "Right by that tree, above the first one. She's looking down at him," murmured the big man with the rifle.
> 
> ...


Here's the original. See which one you think is better.



> Peck popped a Xanax, screwed the cap back on the pill tube, peered over the top of the bush and through the chain-link fence, and in a horse whisper, asked, "You see the other one?"
> 
> The big man with the rifle whispered, "Right by that tree, above the first one. She's looking down at him."
> 
> ...


I think it's clear that the original, using only said, asked and whispered, is better. All those adverbial dialogue tags are unnecessary, "countersinking" the emotion and action that should be conveyed in the narrative via action and in the dialogue itself, rather than the dialogue tags.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

I try to use whatever is appropriate for the interaction, the scene or mood, character(s) and pacing, so as few tags as I can get away with - which is typically still too many. I don't see anything wrong with using "said" as a primary go to, it's simple and effective, but occasionally characters don't just "speak" - they have emotions and stuff. I think those tags have their place, too...occasionally, kind of like exclamation points.

I think the goal should be authenticity (of voice and character). As was noted up thread: if the language sounds "writery", that might be kind of bad, like maybe the writer is trying too hard? I'd recommend either using "said" or reworking the lines to eliminate the tags altogether. If the book is in first person present, be very careful of "writery" language or purple prose or thesauruses in general..._"Blah, blah, blah blah-blah," he queried beneficently_...because unless you MC is James Lipton, people don't talk like that, much less think like that. The prose is character.

Another example of how a thesaurus can screw with narrative: "Sashay" carries an emotional component in addition to the physical characteristics of the action: confidence bordering on arrogance or the opposite, pretense. Terms like this must be given context, imo, otherwise they make no sense, they are not plug and play.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

Sela said:


> talking heads, info dumps, white room syndrome


Oh no! I think I'm guilty of these specifically that are quoted above. Sela, any suggestions for learning to avoid these? Any good craft groups you'd recommend that could fix these? Thank you, and sorry all for the threadjack, just feeling guilty over here.


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

I put together a reference list of adjectives, nouns, and verbs to describe hair.

Anything you'd like to add? Maybe a color or cut I've missed?

Over 400 Words to Describe Hair: A List for Writers


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Are redundancies bloating your word count or making your writing difficult to digest? Unfortunately, we hear them so often they sound normal. Check this list of superfluous words.

*Over 400 Redundant Words to Avoid in Writing*


----------



## ImaWriter (Aug 12, 2015)

Wow. I'm really surprised that there is a specific word that hasn't been added to that list. When I first began writing, it was an editor that pointed that word out to me, and the numerous times that I used it, and how redundant that word is. 

Now that I've been writing for 10 years, I've found that I really need to work at over using that word, as not over using it has become second nature.  

PS.  You'll be happy to know that I've never used that word to the extent that I've used it here.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

I hear a lot of voicemail messages in the course of my day job, and the number of times I hear variations on the sentence "I'm currently away from my desk at the moment, but leave me a message and I'll revert back to you" is terrifying.


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

No. I eschew obfuscation at every opportunity.


----------



## SerenityEditing (May 3, 2016)

ImaWriter said:


> Wow. I'm really surprised that there is a specific word that hasn't been added to that list. When I first began writing, it was an editor that pointed that word out to me, and the numerous times that I used it, and how redundant that word is.
> 
> Now that I've been writing for 10 years, I've found that I really need to work at over using that word, as not over using it has become second nature.
> 
> PS. You'll be happy to know that I've never used that word to the extent that I've used it here.


I once worked on a MS that benefited greatly (IMO) from the fact that I removed over 300 instances of the word that I think you are referencing in that comment. The funny thing was that, in a few places in that same MS, I had to add one in. I felt that I had to apologize & explain every time I did that. (c:

Enjoyed the post, Birdie!


----------



## Ariel Eaves (Oct 24, 2016)

A lot of these miss the point when it comes to fiction writing. 'Pizza pie' is much more rhythmically pleasant in many contexts, and 'ripe old age' isn't redundancy, but rather an idiom. Language is full of redundancy, and it isn't always necessarily a bad thing!


----------



## BrentNichols (Mar 18, 2011)

Are redundancies--pleonasms--bloating your word count?

I fixed that for you.


----------



## Debbie Bennett (Mar 25, 2011)

Lynn is a pseud--uh said:


> That there thing that you just did? That's mind-boggling.


  <giggle> I do that a lot, too!


----------



## Harvey Click (Oct 28, 2013)

ImaWriter said:


> Wow. I'm really surprised that there is a specific word that hasn't been added to that list. When I first began writing, it was an editor that pointed that word out to me, and the numerous times that I used it, and how redundant that word is.
> 
> Now that I've been writing for 10 years, I've found that I really need to work at over using that word, as not over using it has become second nature.
> 
> PS. You'll be happy to know that I've never used that word to the extent that I've used it here.


Sometimes THAT word is necessary!


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

alawston said:


> I hear a lot of voicemail messages in the course of my day job, and the number of times I hear variations on the sentence "I'm currently away from my desk at the moment, but leave me a message and I'll revert back to you" is terrifying.


Good suggestions. I'll listen to future voice mail responses with a discerning ear, and include more like this when the book is released late next year.


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

ImaWriter said:


> Wow. I'm really surprised that there is a specific word that hasn't been added to that list.


_That_ would require a complete post _that_ includes multiple examples of _that_ and _that_ includes strategies to avoid _that_.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Ariel Eaves said:


> A lot of these miss the point when it comes to fiction writing. 'Pizza pie' is much more rhythmically pleasant in many contexts, and 'ripe old age' isn't redundancy, but rather an idiom. Language is full of redundancy, and it isn't always necessarily a bad thing!


Yeah, I'm with you. This misses the point of writing fiction. Most of those words/phrases make dialog richer, more natural, and more appealing. And if you're writing first person then your book is a whole lot of internal monologue/internal dialog. Also, there is a rhythm in text. Fiction is no different than poetry in that respect. Most people don't know why they think a book is "easy to read" but it has a lot to do with how you combine words to make it musical. I add extra words (or take them out) all the time if the sentence doesn't roll off the tongue properly. It's not about the meaning of the words, it more about the image in the mind as someone reads your words.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

The article made some good points.  However, I think wholesale repetition on the sentence/paragraph level is more of an issue when it comes to weakening the message.  Especially with newer writers, I see a lot of passages like this that make the prose flabby:

:::::
He paused to gaze at the landscape through the dusty window.  He was shocked at the lack of foliage despite the time of year.  The view from there should have been lush and green.

"I'm shocked at the lack of foliage for this time of year," he told Fred.  "Usually it's green and lush out there."
:::::

And then there are the times when something that happened is explained starting from the big bang every time it comes up...


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

alawston said:


> "I'll revert back to you"...


That kind of phrasing makes me want to revert back to being a neanderthal and bash stuff with a big club.


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

William Shakespeare's Hamlet said, "To be or not to be, that is the question." Centuries later, writers face the same dilemma.

*100 Ways to Avoid "To Be" Verbs in Writing*.


----------



## Annette_g (Nov 27, 2012)

Sometimes you need that verb. The man sat down in the chair is a different sentence to The Man was sitting in the chair. Words have meaning and you need to use the one that is most appropriate, even if it shock-horror! includes the word was. "The man was sitting in the chair" is not passive, it describes something.

I don't get the hate for the verb to be, I really don't.


----------



## Lady Runa (May 27, 2012)

I absolutely loved it, thank you!


----------



## Rachel E. Rice (Jan 4, 2014)

Thanks for the article. It's a great reminder of how to use and not to use these verbs, and the article list words that carry a greater impact than using some of the to be verbs. A useful list of verbs, always appreciated.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Annette_g said:


> Sometimes you need that verb. The man sat down in the chair is a different sentence to The Man was sitting in the chair. Words have meaning and you need to use the one that is most appropriate, even if it shock-horror! includes the word was. "The man was sitting in the chair" is not passive, it describes something.


That's not an accurate comparison though. The former describes the man in the act of sitting down whereas the latter describes the man as already being seated. You're right that those are two different sentences, but eliminating "was" from the latter doesn't mean you change the sentence to the former.

"The man was sitting in the chair" is passive. Countless non-passive alternatives exist. The man remained seated in the chair. The man squirmed in the chair. The man sat still in the chair. The man sat frozen in the chair as motionless as a statue. Perhaps, the man reclined in the chair. Maybe, the man huddled in the chair. Possibly, the man leaned back in the chair, crossed his legs and folded his hands as he reflected upon some other character's speech. Maybe the man relaxed in the chair. Perhaps, bored out of his mind, the man leaned forward in the chair, released an audible sigh and placed his face in his palms. Maybe, the man sat motionless in the chair, staring at the ceiling. One can conceive of countless ways of rewriting "the man was sitting in the chair" in an active voice.

That's not to say you cannot use a passive verb intentionally, but you shouldn't settle for a passive verb when you actually want an active verb.


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> That's not an accurate comparison though. The former describes the man in the act of sitting down whereas the latter describes the man as already being seated. You're right that those are two different sentences, but eliminating "was" from the latter doesn't mean you change the sentence to the former.
> 
> "The man was sitting in the chair" is passive. Countless non-passive alternatives exist. The man remained seated in the chair. The man squirmed in the chair. The man sat still in the chair. The man sat frozen in the chair as motionless as a statue. Perhaps, the man reclined in the chair. Maybe, the man huddled in the chair. Possibly, the man leaned back in the chair, crossed his legs and folded his hands as he reflected upon some other character's speech. Maybe the man relaxed in the chair. Perhaps, bored out of his mind, the man leaned forward in the chair, released an audible sigh and placed his face in his palms. Maybe, the man sat motionless in the chair, staring at the ceiling. One can conceive of countless ways of rewriting "the man was sitting in the chair" in an active voice.
> 
> That's not to say you cannot use a passive verb intentionally, but you shouldn't settle for a passive verb when you actually want an active verb.


Excellent. Couldn't have phrased it better.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> That's not an accurate comparison though. The former describes the man in the act of sitting down whereas the latter describes the man as already being seated. You're right that those are two different sentences, but eliminating "was" from the latter doesn't mean you change the sentence to the former.
> 
> "The man was sitting in the chair" is passive. Countless non-passive alternatives exist. The man remained seated in the chair. The man squirmed in the chair. The man sat still in the chair. The man sat frozen in the chair as motionless as a statue. Perhaps, the man reclined in the chair. Maybe, the man huddled in the chair. Possibly, the man leaned back in the chair, crossed his legs and folded his hands as he reflected upon some other character's speech. Maybe the man relaxed in the chair. Perhaps, bored out of his mind, the man leaned forward in the chair, released an audible sigh and placed his face in his palms. Maybe, the man sat motionless in the chair, staring at the ceiling. One can conceive of countless ways of rewriting "the man was sitting in the chair" in an active voice.
> 
> That's not to say you cannot use a passive verb intentionally, but you shouldn't settle for a passive verb when you actually want an active verb.


That construction is not passive.

Here is a definition of the passive voice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_passive_voice

I use "to be" verbs a bunch. Contorting one's writing so it doesn't sound like the way people talk in order to satisfy an imagined writerly "rule" might impress other writers, but it could actually result in a less satisfying book for readers. Making every sentence fancier can slow down the story.

I don't use things like "there was," as they say. That also slows down the story. But if a "to be" verb is the right word for the sentence, I go ahead and use it.


----------



## HStokes (Feb 12, 2013)

I don't believe anything can be ruled out.  All words and phrases can be the right words and phrases for your work.  The only rule is write what works for the audience.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Of course, to-be verbs can't always be avoided. But I agree that whenever they're replaced with something stronger, more graphic, the action is generally more . . . visceral. As someone once said, "Verbs are the engine of fiction."

Good post and thanks for the list. A good Monday reminder.


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Rosalind J said:


> That construction is not passive.


I suspect Dan meant _passive_ as in _inactive_, not as in _passive voice_.

Compare a few examples from the article, and decide which says more without the need for extra sentences or paragraphs of _show_ to explain:

There is no method that is guaranteed to succeed.
No method guarantees success.

There are many voters who are sick of the candidates' attacks.
Many voters find the candidates' attacks disgusting.

The lion was behind the tree.
The lion hid behind the tree.

The toddler was in the bathtub.
The toddler cowered in the bathtub.

He is a mechanic.
He repairs Fords.

He is a teacher.
He teaches physics.

She is a writer.
She writes horror fiction.

Fifty guests were in the room.
Fifty guests wedged into the room.

There were ants on the sandwich.
Ants swarmed the sandwich.

There were leaves in the gutters.
Leaves choked the gutters.

_To be_ has its place, especially in dialogue. Dialogue breaks all the rules and must sound realistic. However, _to be_ is often overused, and strong verbs tell a more active (as opposed to passive) story in fewer words.


----------



## Cactus Lady (Jun 4, 2014)

"The man sat in the chair" can describe the man already sitting there or the action of the man sitting down on the chair.

"The man was sitting in the chair" describes what you see when you come into the room and the man is already sitting down.

Different things, each with their own distinct meaning.

My only rule of writing is, Use the words and constructions that most accurately express what you want to say in the way you want to say it.


----------



## TromboneAl (Mar 20, 2015)

I use the Zombies Rule for detecting passive voice. Who knows that one?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Joseph Malik (Jul 12, 2016)

_Be _has its place. Particularly in dialogue, or narrative, when you're capturing idiosyncrasies of voice. It's also critical in developing flow and resonance in your writing. Sometimes, you need it. Sometimes the readers don't even see it; "to be" is like "said" in that regard. If the impact of the sentence is someplace else, go ahead and use "to be." Hell, go ahead and use "said" all you like. (I will throw your book across the room if I can tell that you went down a thesaurus trying to replace every instance of "said.")

The problem with "to be" isn't that it's boring; it's that it's wildly inaccurate. It's lazy, which is why we love it especially in America, and why it belongs in dialogue. We speak a lazy language.

Linguistically, our verbs are not "action" words. It's important to understand this. Your high school English teacher lied to you. Well, to be fair, he probably didn't want your brain to explode. Verbs are not "action" words. They are "function" words. English verbs are morpho-syntactically asymmetric. (EDIT: It's a question of valence, which is the number of arguments comprising a verb's structure; consider the difference between _I ran down the street_ and _I have down the street_.) "To be" is an outlier; it's perfectly (and, I believe, singularly) symmetrical, which it has to be in order to function as our copular verb. (Not that kind of copular verb.) Because of this, and because of its utility as an auxiliary verb (employed in passive voice or present participle), it can be substituted almost anywhere -- and vice versa, as the example of the "100 Ways to (Totally Unnecessarily) Avoid 'To Be.'"

Overuse, however, leads to ambiguity in syntax. There are entire languages that get by without it, BTW.

When I built my Faerie conlang, I underpinned the syntax shell with E' and just skipped it altogether. The idea being that a relative immortal would have a view of the world in which things were always changing. To a Faerie, nothing ever "is," or even "was"; it's all a matter of perspective and everything's always in flux. Anyway, linguistics lesson at the link above: primer on language in fantasy worldbuilding: E' and Aeolic verse.

You don't need to take it out. Use it all you want. Just realize that every word matters.


----------



## TromboneAl (Mar 20, 2015)

Back at my real computer now ...

The Zombie Rule

If you can add "by zombies" and have it make sense, it's passive voice.

"The fruit was on the table by zombies." Doesn't make sense, isn't passive voice.
"The fruit was placed on the table by zombies." Makes sense, is passive voice.

Of course, I'm not saying it's okay as long as it isn't passive voice.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

There is only one thing worse than a piece of fiction in which the word "was" is used three times in a sentence: one in which it's not used at all.

From a teacher of a course in writing clearer prose who taught a one-day seminar in the scientific facility where I worked:

"English has a great number of strong, clear, powerful three-letter verbs. Use them!"

Not "utilise them".

Sure, you can "was" a piece of fiction to death, but if you think you have this problem, get rid of half of them, and you'll be just fine.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

WHERE 2B NOT 2B
THEN avoid
ELSE 2B = part of the English language

"I think therefore I avoid." Rene Descartes


----------



## Joseph Malik (Jul 12, 2016)

Patty Jansen said:


> "English has a great number of strong, clear, powerful three-letter verbs. Use them!"
> 
> Not "utilise them".


This year I hope to utilize synergy to leverage maximal stakeholder buy-in, empowering the end-user while I ideate on core-concept agility.

Going forward, I'll cross-pollinate my content organically; i.e., synthesize my horizontal management and gamify multiplatform transformation of my bleeding-edge media into sustainable traction. Then I'll be able to silo on value-added ROI.

"Mission Statement" block officially checked for 2017.

I'll just show myself out.

(EDIT: Aaaand, there are literary agents swarming on my house like commandos, screaming, "SIGN THIS GUY NOW!!!")


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Joseph Malik said:


> I'll just show myself out.


  Please do. I almost choked on a peanut when I read your post.

Excellent example of _utilizing complex locutions_ just because they exist.


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Absolute adjectives, also called non-gradable adjectives, embody a quality that is 100 percent in degree. Can a person be more than 100 percent alive? Less? More than 100 percent pregnant?

By definition, absolutes shouldn't be modified by qualifiers. That includes adverbs _very, really, approximately, rather, quite, almost,_ and their cousins.

*Over 300 Absolute Adjectives: A Word List for Writers*


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I didn't know there was a term for these words! Thanks! I'm always trying to explain to students why you can't be "totally unique." Now I can make it sound more official.


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Becca Mills said:


> I didn't know there was a term for these words! Thanks! I'm always trying to explain to students why you can't be "totally unique." Now I can make it sound more official.


Ha! You're welcome, Becca. Nothing like sounding official when you work with students--and you just gave me a redundancy to add to the book I'm writing. It will contain this list and several more.

This post might interest you as well: *Over 400 Redundant Words to Avoid in Writing*.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Ooo, I like it! And that one will be personally useful to me as well. I have a shameful addiction to "really."


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Welcome to KBoards, Or Welcome Back  OR Hi, glad you're still here.  Congratulations on your blog! 
*
This is a bit belated because we didn't realize you had a blog you were promoting.  I've merged and moved all your posts to the Book Bazaar which is the appropriate place to promote your blog. You may edit the title of the first post to reflect new topics added; the usual rules apply. Sorry for any confusion.*

Much of what follows you should already be aware of, as it was included in the information you agreed to when you signed up. So please consider this to be just a friendly reminder.  (The posting of this 'welcome letter' doesn't mean you've done anything wrong; we just want you to have a ready reference, so we post this note in every thread in the Bazaar.  )

KBoards is a fan forum for Readers, Writers and Kindle Lovers. Authors are always welcome to post anywhere but, as you browse the 'boards, please keep in mind that self-promotion, of any sort, is ONLY allowed here in the Book Bazaar.

A brief recap of our rules follows:

--*Please bookmark this thread (using your browser's bookmark/favorite function or the Kboards bookmark tool available on each thread) so you can update it as we ask that authors have only one thread per book and add to it when there is more information.* You may start a separate thread for each book (or you may have one thread per series of books, or one thread for all of your books, it's your choice).

--We invite you to use your book cover as your avatar and have links to your book and website in your signature. Instructions are posted here

--While you may respond to member posts to your thread at any time, *you may only bump your thread (back-to-back posts by you) once every seven days.* Once you've responded to a member, that resets the clock to zero and you must wait seven days to post, unless another member posts before then.

--We ask that Amazon reviews not be repeated here as they are easy to find at your book link. Also, full reviews from other sites should not be posted here, but you may post a short blurb and a link to the full review instead.

--Although *self-promotion is limited to the Book Bazaar*, our most successful authors have found the best way to promote their books is to be as active throughout KBoards as time allows. This is your target audience--book lovers with Kindles! Please note that putting link information in the body of your posts outside the Book Bazaar constitutes self promotion; please leave your links for your profile signature that will automatically appear on each post. For information on more ways to promote here on KBoards, be sure to check out this thread:
Authors: KBoards Tips & FAQ.

All this, and more, is included in our  Forum Decorum. Be sure to check it from time to time for the current guidelines and rules.

Thanks for being part of KBoards! Feel free to send us a PM if you have any questions.

Betsy & Ann
Book Bazaar Moderators


----------



## GrandmaBirdie (Oct 12, 2016)

Please introduce yourself or your book. FREE publicity, and you might win two autographed books.

Submit your bio.
Press the "Post Comment" button.
Voila, you're done.

If you don't have a bio, why not? Even if you think of yourself as an "aspiring author," consider this an opportunity to write one.

https://kathysteinemann.com/Musings/win-win/


----------

