# Do you use the word 'said' too often?



## Sam Rivers (May 22, 2011)

The word 'said' is a easy word to use and you can't go wrong with it. However, it does make for dry reading if used constantly.










So I try to spice up my novels by using some of these words intstead.

http://www.spwickstrom.com/said/

Do you use the word 'said' too often?


----------



## Scott Daniel (Feb 1, 2011)

I hear you OP. I do think he said, she said is still the best. I drop attribution where I can, if I have two characters jawing at each other. My biggest fear of dressing up attribution is introducing adverbs or making it do the work of dialogue. Neither is a good style of writing, IMO.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

But the people who give terrible advice always said to NEVER use said bookisms!


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Write the way you like. Screw the rules. If people like it, they like it. If they don't, they don't.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Wild Rivers said:


> The word 'said' is a easy word to use and you can't go wrong with it. However, it does make for dry reading if used constantly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My suggestion is to strenuously avoid 90% of the words on that list, often referred to as 'bookisms'.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

'Said' is invisible to most readers. Using words to describe speech which cannot describe speech is distracting. I would rather see 'said' than wonder who is speaking. Action beats work too.

There, did I cover it all?


----------



## D-C (Jan 13, 2014)

Any word used too often makes for dry reading BUT 'said' used correctly is essentially invisible to the reader; or so I've been told.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Rykymus said:


> Write the way you like. Screw the rules. If people like it, they like it. If they don't, they don't.


I am forced to agree. My characters have said, replied, asked, hissed, spat, screamed, cried, chuckled, sighed, grumbled and any of a dozen other attributions. I have yet to hear of someone throwing one of my books against the wall for this reason.

Personally it irks me to read too many "said"s in a row, but if the story is any good I really don't notice after a few pages.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

If I want to spice up my novel, I won't do it by using fancy attribution tags. Maybe a bit more action might be a better choice.


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

Cherise Kelley said:


> 'Said' is invisible to most readers. Using words to describe speech which cannot describe speech is distracting. I would rather see 'said' than wonder who is speaking. Action beats work too.
> 
> There, did I cover it all?


That's why I stick with said the majority of the time. Although, I do like action as a way to show who's speaking. It makes things more interesting while allowing the reader to keep up with who's saying what.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

I also think "said" tends to be pretty invisible.

Desperately scraping up heavy-handed substitute words for it sticks out like an amateur's sore thumb, though. (She opined).


----------



## jalang (Dec 30, 2013)

Anyone know how you're meant to 'smile' a sentence?  Or for that matter, to 'yak' a phrase? 

Sounds like a rather painful procedure.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

jalang said:


> Anyone know how you're meant to 'smile' a sentence? Or for that matter, to 'yak' a phrase?
> 
> Sounds like a rather painful procedure.


Indeed.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

zoe tate said:


> Desperately scraping up heavy-handed substitute words for it sticks out like an amateur's sore thumb, though. (She opined).


No offense, but bulls*** I say. Personal preference is one thing, but in every such thread like this there's always an opinion of "doing XXXX is sure sign of being an amateur" which is utter nonsense as there are often plenty of examples of books which have sold in the tens of thousands doing just that.


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

I generally stick to "said," "asked," "whispered," or "shouted."  That covers the basic inflections.  I pushed back against the idea limiting myself to those instead of more descriptive words, but the argument that convinced me is this:  Tone should be apparent from context. Other attributions tend to be redundant.

Here's some examples:

"We should totally do that," Joe agreed.  Redundant.
"Officer Jenkins, I killed the victim," Joe confessed.  Redundant.
"I am severely disappointed in you," Joe spat.  Those aren't spitting words--I should revise the sentence until they are.  And then the word "spat" is redundant.

To me, these things fall under the general rule that you shouldn't tell your audience what to think.  Instead, make them think it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

To avoid "said" is not a good idea. But you can use action rather than tags. -  John did so and so. "Blah, blah blah." - This way you know who is speaking and it gives motion to the dialogue.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

BrianDAnderson said:


> To avoid "said" is not a good idea. But you can use action rather than tags. - John did so and so. "Blah, blah blah." - This way you know who is speaking and it gives motion to the dialogue.


While I agree, you also have to be careful using this technique. In my first novel (until my editor got hold of it) the characters shrugged, nodded and twitched so much you would have thought they had a nervous condition. Moderation in all things, including the use of 'said' and action tags, probably improves our writing.

I sometimes use an attribution other than said, not to avoid said which strikes me as silly, but because it seems appropriate.

'"Charge!" he shouted.' works for me better than 'he said'. But I certainly don't use it because of a reluctance to use said.

ETA: The point of an attribution tag is to show who is speaking. I really do not want it slapping my reader in the face and calling attention to itself.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

jalang said:


> Anyone know how you're meant to 'smile' a sentence?


Okay, here comes the rant. It's nothing personal, but this always sends me ballistic.

I hate this little piece of 'logic'. I hate it because it shows up every time said bookisms show up and I hate it because literally every human being knows how that bit of sentence construction works and still somehow people try and be smartasses about it.

'"blah," he smiled' means that he said 'blah' with a smile on his face. The only difference between that and '"blah,"he said with a smile on his face' is a bunch of unnecessary words.

Hell, depending on the language, we even know how a voice sounds when it's smiled or sobbed or coughed. It's a basic feature of the monkey screeches we call 'communication' and people that act like it's not are just being purposefully obtuse.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

Cherise Kelley said:


> 'Said' is invisible to most readers. Using words to describe speech which cannot describe speech is distracting. I would rather see 'said' than wonder who is speaking. Action beats work too.
> 
> There, did I cover it all?


Full agreement. I do use "sent" to distinguish between talking and telepathy (I also use italics). other than that I use "said" or "asked" most of the time, and action tags whenever I can (more and more lately).


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Okay, here comes the rant. It's nothing personal, but this always sends me ballistic.
> 
> I hate this little piece of 'logic'. I hate it because it shows up every time said bookisms show up and I hate it because literally every human being knows how that bit of sentence construction works and still somehow people try and be smartasses about it.
> 
> ...


Except that is not what it says. Putting it in the attribution tags says that the speech itself is a smile, which is simply impossible. If you want to say he had a smile on his face, why not say so instead of saying something else?

And however much it gets up some people's nose, in my opinion it does look amateurish.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> If you want to say he had a smile on his face, why not say so?


Because economy in words is always a worthy goal.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Because economy in words is always a worthy goal.


Only if through the economy of words I say what I mean to say instead of something else.

If I mean lightening bug but through economy of words I say lightening, I have not achieved any worthwhile goal. (apologies to Mark Twain) Economy of words is not an end in itself.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

But in the example given, there were two sentences that said the same thing but one used fewer words.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> But in the example given, there were two sentences that said the same thing but one used fewer words.


No, they do not say the same thing. One says the speech was a smile; the other says he had a smile on his face. Economy of words might leave 'his face' off the second. It would not attribute smiling to words.

ETA: It is reasonable to say that speech attribution should be confined to something that speech can do. It can be said, whispered, screamed, shouted. If it has an 's' in it, I might even think it could be hissed. To establish tone, there are many better ways to do it than trying to cram it into your attribution.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Rykymus said:


> Write the way you like. Screw the rules. If people like it, they like it. If they don't, they don't.


"Balderdash!" he pseudo-hyper-pervaricated.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

If your goal is to simply "spice up" the dialogue, then you are writing dialogue wrong.

Dialogue serves two central purposes in fiction: to help move along the plot and to help with character development. If you feel the need to "spice it up" then there is something else dragging down your story that needs to be addressed. Spicing up dialogue with unnecessary speech tags and bookisms is like putting a fresh coat of paint on a broken chair.

I did an experiment on my blog where I took a section of dialogue from one of my books and rewrote it twice. (warning: coarse language) The original has almost no dialogue tags. The second adds "said" to everything. The third replaces "said" with an assortment of bookisms. The dialogue should convey the emotion of the scene and support the plot organically, not distract from what is going on.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> No, they do not say the same thing. One says the speech was a smile; the other says he had a smile on his face. Economy of words might leave 'his face' off the second. It would not attribute smiling to words.


Youre being pedantic. In popular fiction this convention is used all the time and readers know exactly what the author means.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> It is reasonable to say that speech attribution should be confined to something that speech can do. It can be said, whispered, screamed, shouted. If it has an 's' in it, I might even think it could be hissed. To establish tone, there are many better ways to do it than trying to cram it into your attribution.


I agree with you here, but countless authors dont and have dont quite well ignoring this "rule."


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> I agree with you here, but countless authors dont and have dont quite well ignoring this "rule."


So we should aspire to do it poorly because someone else got away with it and still sold books? Really?

ETA: By the way, the 'laugh' thing is not 'done all the time' in the books I read. Even if it were, I would still say it is poorly done and would not care to copy it. Oddly enough, I prefer to emulate (or at least try to) the better and not the worst in writing.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> So we should aspire to do it poorly because someone else 'got away with it' and still sold books? Really?


I wouldnt go that far. I would weigh the economy of words vs the awkwardness of the dialogue tag and decide what flows best. Rather than sticking so rigidly to the textbook of supposed good writing.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I hardly think "He laughed." awkward (and it isn't longer as a sentence than it is as a tag).

ETA: And there are times when it would be a darn good idea to think about that 'textbook'. When advising the extensive use of bookisms is one of them.   

If an occasional one slips in it is probably no harm-no foul, but using them regularly is a slap in the face that drags you right out of the story.

Further ETA: Seriously, Adam, did you take a look at the list in the link in the original post? imitated? hypothesized? pondered? There are some in the list that I can imagine using, but in general it is terrible advice to look for hundreds of words to replace 'said'. That is exactly the kind of list that the term 'bookism' came from, the reason it became a cliche for bad writing, and is simply bad advice.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Further ETA: Seriously, Adam, did you take a look at the list in the link in the original post? imitated? hypothesized? pondered? There are some in the list that I can imagine using, but in general it is terrible advice to look for hundreds of words to replace 'said'. That is exactly the kind of list that the term 'bookism' came from and is simply bad advice.


I wouldn't use those. I think that's probably more acceptable in YA and some other genres. But it seems to work in certain types of fiction. For me personally, I would be very sparse with it and it would depend on the tone of what I was working on. The more serious the tone of the piece, the less likely these types of sentences would work. The lighter the fare, the more likely you could sneak in something like that and it wouldnt seem silly or out of place.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> Except that is not what it says. Putting it in the attribution tags says that the speech itself is a smile, which is simply impossible. If you want to say he had a smile on his face, why not say so instead of saying something else.


Because it's unnecessary and massively clunky.

No one who is not actively out to be pedantic is going to assume that the 'speech is smiling' or whatever. People understand what 'smiled' means as an attribution tag because people have been telling stories like that for centuries and only now in the modern age have people gotten enough free time on their hands to be awful about it.

While it's idiotic to replace every instance of said with a bookism, there is nothing wrong with using them to highlight certain lines and accompanying actions. And there is nothing wrong with using them as they have been traditionally employed since we started telling stories. This is one of the new 'never split infinitives' things that serves no purpose but to be annoying.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Because it's unnecessary and massively clunky.


"He smiled." is massively clunky. Interesting opinion and obviously one I don't share. (I can't imagine any reason to say the smile was on his face. That is, after all, where a smile usually is. I would call that being deliberately clunky and wordy in order to build a straw man argument)



Adam Pepper said:


> I wouldn't use those. I think that's probably more acceptable in YA and some other genres. But it seems to work in certain types of fiction. For me personally, I would be very sparse with it and it would depend on the tone of what I was working on. The more serious the tone of the piece, the less likely these types of sentences would work. The lighter the fare, the more likely you could sneak in something like that and it wouldnt seem silly or out of place.


I think YA is as deserving of good writing as any other genre, so let's just agree to disagree. We're not going to convince each other.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

This rule annoys me. It was the one thing that I read over and over and over on the Internet- always use the word "said" and nothing else. So, I decided to see if this really was a rule. I read The Great Gatsby, and looked to see if F. Scott Fitzgerald only used the word "said." And you know what - he didn't. He used the word "cried" in place of "said," a lot, as in "Daisy cried." Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" - the same thing. I paid special attention to see if these writers only used said, and they didn't. 

So, as for using words different from "said" is the hallmark of the amateur writer - not so much, unless one considers Fitzgerald and Wilde to be "amateurs."


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Here is a list I use.

http://ajbarnett.hubpages.com/hub/400-Alternative-words-for-said

One point that hasn't been noted yet, but I always want to point out in these "said-threads" is audio books.

I've listened to some classic titles done in audio, and "he said," "she said," just about drives you crazy. I'm not suggesting anyone write specifically for audio, but echoes of "said" are obnoxious in that format.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Here is a list I use.
> 
> http://ajbarnett.hubpages.com/hub/400-Alternative-words-for-said
> 
> ...


That list is even worse than the first one, Joe.

Circulate? Denote? Exposed? Interjected?

You are seriously advising writers to use those?

There are better solutions if you are concerned that you are over-using the word 'said'. Well, my opinion is rather obvious, so I'll say no more.


----------



## Ronn Munsterman (Jan 27, 2014)

The list reminds me of the infamous Swifties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Swifty

One of my FIRST READERS dinged me because I'd written: he laughed and said, "blah blah," rather than he laughed, _then _said, "blah blah."

Made me laugh and smile. Can you do that? . . .


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Joe_Nobody said:


> One point that hasn't been noted yet, but I always want to point out in these "said-threads" is audio books.
> 
> I've listened to some classic titles done in audio, and "he said," "she said," just about drives you crazy. I'm not suggesting anyone write specifically for audio, but echoes of "said" are obnoxious in that format.


This is a good argument for using action beats instead of attribution.

John smiled. "I hope you like the flowers."

Jane's mother smiled back at him. "She does."

Jane started crying. "Oh, John."

John dashed over to her across the room and held her in his arms. "What's wrong?"


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

"Said" is a fairly invisible tag, but I incorporate action tags when possible and where most effective.


----------



## STOHara (Feb 23, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Except that is not what it says. Putting it in the attribution tags says that the speech itself is a smile, which is simply impossible. If you want to say he had a smile on his face, why not say so instead of saying something else?


So use smile as a separate action from the dialogue:

Harry Callahan smiles. "Go ahead, punk. Make my day."


----------



## Shadow30597 (Jan 6, 2014)

I don't know, I think bookisms can be powerful and they can also be overused. "Said" used too many times is dry-read, while bookisms give life to statements and exclamations. I usually do a speech tag, but accompany the quotation with an action. I hate giving the impression someone is monotonous, or just standing there saying something. Exceptions to every rule, of course...


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> "He smiled." is massively clunky. Interesting opinion and obviously one I don't share. (I can't imagine any reason to say the smile was on his face. That is, after all, where a smile usually is. I would call that being deliberately clunky and wordy in order to build a straw man argument.


You're the one who asked why I wouldn't write 'with a smile on his face'. I said that the bookism _meant_ the same thing as 'with a smile on his face'. There was no strawman, but there was moving the goalposts.

Writing 'he smiled' is just... well literally the same thing as writing 'he smiled'.

Observe:

"I am happy and stating my emotions out loud." he smiled.

"I am happy and stating my emotions out loud." He smiled.

All you're doing--I suppose--is adding an unnatural pause for no reason other than to technically follow this stupid rule. If that.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> That list is even worse than the first one, Joe.
> 
> Circulate? Denote? Exposed? Interjected?
> 
> ...


Hey JR,

I would never be so presumptuous as to advise anyone on mechanics. I'm not that good.
I tell a story, and do so in the method that sounds the best to my ear... resonates with my inner voice. Other than that, my experience with the English language is there are few tried and true rules. We subscribe to the CMOS, and receive a constant stream of updates. Why? Because it is ever changing.

As far as my voice goes, this:

_"Okay," he sighed._

Sounds better to my ear than:

_He sighed. "Okay," he said._

or even:

_He sighed. "Okay."_

But that's just me. Everyone should write what they feel works best for them. 
I'm the last person any serious writer should give credence when it comes to language... just _*saying*_


----------



## Maggie Dana (Oct 26, 2011)

STOHara said:


> So use smile as a separate action from the dialogue:
> 
> Harry Callahan smiles. "Go ahead, punk. Make my day."


or . ..

"Go ahead, punk," Harry said with a smile. "Make my day."


----------



## zandermarks (May 20, 2013)

I generally try to keep the attribution in the background as much as possible, using "said" just often enough to ensure the reader doesn't lose track. If the characters' modes of speech are sufficiently distinct from each other, fewer "saids." If their modes of speech are more similar, heavier on the "saids." Sometimes a "continued." Some interspersed action.

I do think I have one character "smiling" in one or two spots, and a "yelled" or two. But as a general rule, I try to ensure that the content, word choice, and phrasing of what they're saying carries the weight of how it's expressed.

But that's just me. Not hating on anyone else's approach.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Okay, here comes the rant. It's nothing personal, but this always sends me ballistic.
> 
> I hate this little piece of 'logic'. I hate it because it shows up every time said bookisms show up and I hate it because literally every human being knows how that bit of sentence construction works and still somehow people try and be smartasses about it.
> 
> ...


THIS. I feel precisely the same way. Yes, I absolutely know that smiling or sighing a sentence is a stretch if you want to be insufferably pedantic about it, but it's a non-awkward phrasing that conveys precisely what it the author intends it to mean. I do avoid this most of the time, just as I also avoid "said bookisms" and adverbs _most_ of the time.

I tend to be a literalist, yet even I don't take things so far as to really see a problem with using an action verb as a speech tag, when the action is one that goes along with the speech and informs its emotion. The meaning is clear, and it's an efficient use of words. It only looks bad through overuse, just as any of those other things do. The only place I would say an action verb is utterly wrong as a bookism is when it can't possibly indicate how the dialogue was said. And as with any bookism, there's a farcicality scale in which you have to weigh how novel a word is against its usage; "he fumed" is nowhere near as appropriate a usage as "she laughed". The more novel the word in this usage, the more reluctant one should be to use it, as a general rule of thumb.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

DaCosta said:


> Any word used too often makes for dry reading BUT 'said' used correctly is essentially invisible to the reader; or so I've been told.


What she said. Get it? _Said_? I'm all funny today.  But seriously, I think the key when deviating from the normal "said" is moderation and the use of common words that don't drawn attention to themselves. "Replied" works for me but "pontificated" doesn't.

As for the other debate, I'm a weird mix. I like "laughed" and "sighed" in attribution tags but find "smiled" slightly jarring. Not enough to make a thing out of it, because the writers' intent is obvious enough not to confuse - just a personal preference. I think I feel this way because when people laugh, sigh, breathe, hiss, or grit, their mouths are more likely to be open. When smiling the mouth isn't necessarily open, making it harder to summon a mental image of the speaker talking through a smile. But I'm all for doing what works with the writer's voice. I expect different kinds of books to follow different rules. So long as the meaning is clear, I'm good.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

In my opinion, deviating from "said," "asked," and "told" often results in telling rather than showing.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> As far as my voice goes, this:
> 
> _"Okay," he sighed._
> 
> ...


I'd go so far as to say that, to me, those have two entirely different meanings.

The first has the word actually coming out as a sigh (and yes, you can sigh, gasp or spit a word) while the other two have the character sighing and _then_ saying stuff.


----------



## Mark Feggeler (Feb 7, 2011)

Too many "saids" and the text can become dull. Too many "barks," "spits," "hisses," "sighs," etc. and it sounds like you're trying to hard.


----------



## Greer (Sep 24, 2011)

Dara England said:


> As for the other debate, I'm a weird mix. I like "laughed" and "sighed" in attribution tags but find "smiled" slightly jarring.


Could that be because 'laughed' and 'sighed' are words that denote sounds, and 'smiled' isn't?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Hey JR,
> 
> I would never be so presumptuous as to advise anyone on mechanics. I'm not that good.
> I tell a story, and do so in the method that sounds the best to my ear... resonates with my inner voice. Other than that, my experience with the English language is there are few tried and true rules. We subscribe to the CMOS, and receive a constant stream of updates. Why? Because it is ever changing.
> ...


There is no reason for 'he said' after you've used an action tag. At least, 'sighed' is a sound and I suppose someone might make a sighing sound with their speech. (Trying, I find that more difficult than it sounds though) I have less objection to 'sighed' than 'smiled' as a dialogue tag. The dialogue tag needs to apply to the speech it is attached to, otherwise it simply makes no sense. Sound good or not, I want it to make sense.

And you are giving advice in spite of denying it. 

That's fine. You're as qualified as anyone else to give advice, more than some, which others may or may not accept just as they may or may not take mine. My dislike of speech tags that indicate something that isn't possibly speech is pretty strong but I'm not trying to force it onto anyone else. However, I must point out that it is pretty widespread. In fact, bookisms are treated as something of a joke, so... I would at least consider avoiding some of the more egregious ones.

ETA: Actually, I don't receive a 'stream of updates' from CMoS and the 16th edition has changed remarkably little from earlier versions.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

Yes, but I've begun using more tags.  "That can't be done," she cried.  "I ain't listening to you," he huffed.  Have another character reference the character being addressed, by name.  Said is probably the lesser evil.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Chase said:


> Reader opinion here that affects my writing and it's unpopular, but I despise the word said. Hate it. Not invisible at all, if that's the only tag used, it drives me _crazy_. If there are quotes, it's obviously been said. I want to know _how_ it was said. Whipser, snarl, snap, laugh, peep, growl, sob, shriek. I just enjoy these so much more and I hardly ever see them because of this antiquated rule which IMO should be thrown out with all the rules about writing. Show vs. tell has been downgraded to a guideline for me, but the whole said thing is out the window because of my personal hatred of the word.
> 
> And I think writers, not your average readers, would see this as amateur or telling or trying to hard because they know the "rules". If the story is good, I don't think readers pay attention to the little nuances nearly as much as we do.


As a reader, I've found overuse of novel tags to be rather jarring. "Said" does become invisible if it's allowed to be a baseline, but I think it stands out rather badly if you notice the author never uses any other words in its place at all. In the WIP I'm currently editing, I have a rather large number of characters frequently in conversation, bringing up the need for attribution more often than you'd get in other books. "Said" does start to get a little monotonous in tone after a while. This is why I reject the notion that tags and adverbs should be avoided altogether.

Bookisms are like spice. They can add a lot to a very bland said salad when used judiciously. Likewise I don't have a problem with adverbs in moderation. But it's very, very easy to get out of control with them. And the more unusual the word, the more judiciously it has to be used. One book I remember very well for using "deadpan" as a verb; the first time the character deadpanned a line, I thought that was a decent usage and moderately clever, especially given the character; the second and only other time, it was disconcerting because it jumped off the page. More than one grain of that particular spice just didn't work well, because it was so exotic. You could get away with "shrieked", "cried", "screamed", and other classics more frequently. I do have to throw in with the modern authors though to the extent that when tags are overused, the prose looks very, very purple.

I couldn't give you a good estimate of how often I use bookisms or adverbs in my dialogue, but I aim for something like 10%; it might be a little higher or lower. If said is working, I just go with it. Using said on a line that doesn't need anything else lets you really punch up a line that does. If I need to punch up a lot of lines very close to one another, that's when I have to look carefully at what I'm doing and be careful not to overdo anything.


----------



## Mark Feggeler (Feb 7, 2011)

Drew Gideon said:


> It *does* drive our family crazy. We listen to a lot of audio books, and constant "said" peppering can be more annoying than a narrator's lisp.
> But that's a limitation of the vehicle; where audiobooks aren't seen as a performance and *must* be spoken verbatim.
> 
> Actors don't run around on stage dropping "Joe said" every time they talk - but we can see who is speaking. Back during old radio shows where they'd do those cool little dramas with the sound effects, you still didn't have speech attributes - it was clear who was speaking from the voice.
> ...


All the more reason to use "said" sparingly and only when necessary to maintain clarity.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

I'm with JR in this debate, and as a reader too many bookisms makes the writing seem - I want to say "cheap," but that's not quite the right word, although what I'm thinking of is the old pulp fiction Mickey Spillane kind of stuff, and I'm not looking up one of those books to see if that's true or not. Just saying that's the feeling I get. My particular pet peeve is "screamed." A book that has a male character scream anything loses me. I'm sure it's an individual thing unique to me, but somehow in my mental image of masculinity, real men may scream in pain when shot or badly injured, but they don't scream dialog.

As to comparing to older writers like Fitzgerald, I wonder if we need to keep in mind how much styles change. On The Passive Voice recently, there was an article using an excerpt from Hemingway's _For Whom the Bell Tolls_ as an example of editing. It's one humongous sentence and so help me has a POV switch right in the middle. I think a lot of the POV purity advice and show don't tell (no matter what) advice is recent. That may not matter in some cases. I know of modern authors who sell fine who also switch POV mid-sentence and who go on and on with back story or setting.

One of the many ways we're indie is getting to decide for ourselves. My own experience says story trumps all.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2014)

JRTomlin said:


> While I agree, you also have to be careful using this technique. In my first novel (until my editor got hold of it) the characters shrugged, nodded and twitched so much you would have thought they had a nervous condition. Moderation in all things, including the use of 'said' and action tags, probably improves our writing.
> 
> I sometimes use an attribution other than said, not to avoid said which strikes me as silly, but because it seems appropriate.
> 
> ...


Not to say never use tags. But I find a balance makes for a smooth read and keeps dialogue dynamic. I find it useful to hear it aloud. If it's clunky I fix it.


----------



## antares (Feb 13, 2011)

'said' is no longer a word. It is punctuation.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

ellenoc said:


> As to comparing to older writers like Fitzgerald, I wonder if we need to keep in mind how much styles change.


I think it's less that styles have changed as people have become more desperate to codify writing.

That plus a culture of absolutism turning 'don't overuse this' to 'NEVER DO THIS OR YOU'LL LOOK LIKE A STUPID AMATEUR, GOD I LOVE SELF-SABOTAGE!!!1!'


----------



## meritaking (Jan 13, 2014)

I find using 'said' too often does get dry, so I pick from a selection of 'replied, whispered, smiled, yelled,' etc.  Whatever form of attribution you use, using the same one too often will just get annoying to read, so varying it seems best.  

On the other hand, I've read more than once that it is thought 'best' to use 'said' and no other form of attribution at all.  I just go with what sounds best when I read it back, and stuff the rules.


----------



## von19 (Feb 20, 2013)

Rykymus said:


> Write the way you like. Screw the rules. If people like it, they like it. If they don't, they don't.


Amen.

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Sometimes I cannot believe what I read in these threads. Honestly, the idea that failing to follow someone else's standards of what is good and what is bad writing marks you as amateurish seems amazingly elitist to me. Quite frankly, I don't much care what other writer's think of my writing. Only my readers. But it's really frustrating the hell out of me to think that so many people are laying down blankets of rules without taking genre and style into consideration. Is it possible for anyone to discuss the pros and cons of something WITHOUT saying "it's wrong" to do something? Couldn't you say "common thinking states that" or "I believe that".

Do I find too many "saids" in a row irritating? Sure. Do I find over or poorly used adverbs irritating? Sure. Guess what I find even more irritating. Writers who think that because you don't adhere to the same standards of style as they do that you are an amateur. How many famous authors throughout history have broken convention and then been emulated by others years later? (Seriously, how many? I have no clue, but there's got to be some.) Isn't that how language and art changes and grows over time? How boring would everything be if we all followed the exact rules set forth by professors and scholars and other self-appointed experts as to what is good and what is bad?

The argument that the dialog should convey the emotion just doesn't hold water. No way am I going to use 8 words to say what 2 could have said. Especially in the middle of an action sequence. I too have used, and will continue to use "he smiled" instead of "he said with a smile." If the reader is going to get all bent out of shape "because a sentence can't smile" then I certainly didn't do my job as a story teller. If I had, they wouldn't have even noticed.

To me, writing genre fiction is like lighting a stage play. If the audience noticed the lights, you did something wrong. Some of us are focused on the sentences, and some of us are focused on the story. Somewhere, each of us strikes a balance that suits us as individuals. THAT is what gives each of us a different voice.

For those of you just starting out who might be looking for guidance about style, take each commentor's style and genre into serious consideration before taking any advice from them. It makes a BIG difference, as is obvious from this thread.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> I think it's less that styles have changed as people have become more desperate to codify writing.
> 
> That plus a culture of absolutism turning 'don't overuse this' to 'NEVER DO THIS OR YOU'LL LOOK LIKE A STUPID AMATEUR, GOD I LOVE SELF-SABOTAGE!!!1!'


Agree. It's a problem when writers get stuck on this stuff, arguing that this writing is undercooked or that writing is overdone. It comes down to a matter of personal style and what works for which audience.
(And 'sides, if you just have two people talking, you can largely get away with no saids or dialogue tags at all. Let the dialogue itself convey character and emotion. )


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Rykymus said:


> The argument that the dialog should convey the emotion just doesn't hold water. No way am I going to use 8 words to say what 2 could have said. Especially in the middle of an action sequence. I too have used, and will continue to use "he smiled" instead of "he said with a smile." If the reader is going to get all bent out of shape "because a sentence can't smile" then I certainly didn't do my job as a story teller. If I had, they wouldn't have even noticed.


Quite. It's great when dialogue can convey emotion all on its own. It can't always do so, and inflection is so vital to good dialogue that I like to describe it when it clearly says something the dialogue alone can't.



ellenoc said:


> As to comparing to older writers like Fitzgerald, I wonder if we need to keep in mind how much styles change. On The Passive Voice recently, there was an article using an excerpt from Hemingway's _For Whom the Bell Tolls_ as an example of editing. It's one humongous sentence and so help me has a POV switch right in the middle. I think a lot of the POV purity advice and show don't tell (no matter what) advice is recent. That may not matter in some cases. I know of modern authors who sell fine who also switch POV mid-sentence and who go on and on with back story or setting.


Hemingway, I think, liked to screw with norms sometimes just to prove he could. Not sure he can be used in any way as an example on either side.


----------



## Lia Cooper (Jan 28, 2014)

Make your dialogue speak for itself, don't rely on dialogue tags especially when a simple "said" is ignored by most readers.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Rykymus said:


> *Sometimes I cannot believe what I read in these threads. Honestly, the idea that failing to follow someone else's standards of what is good and what is bad writing marks you as amateurish seems amazingly elitist to me. *Quite frankly, I don't much care what other writer's think of my writing. Only my readers. But it's really frustrating the hell out of me to think that so many people are laying down blankets of rules without taking genre and style into consideration. Is it possible for anyone to discuss the pros and cons of something WITHOUT saying "it's wrong" to do something? Couldn't you say "common thinking states that" or "I believe that".
> 
> Do I find too many "saids" in a row irritating? Sure. Do I find over or poorly used adverbs irritating? Sure. Guess what I find even more irritating. Writers who think that because you don't adhere to the same standards of style as they do that you are an amateur. How many famous authors throughout history have broken convention and then been emulated by others years later? (Seriously, how many? I have no clue, but there's got to be some.) Isn't that how language and art changes and grows over time? How boring would everything be if we all followed the exact rules set forth by professors and scholars and other self-appointed experts as to what is good and what is bad?
> 
> ...


There has been thread after thread complaining that we only discuss sales here, but as soon as we express an opinion, this is what we get: "How dare you express an opinion, you elitist. You are stifling our creativity!" *shakes head*


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

Rykymus said:


> Sometimes I cannot believe what I read in these threads. Honestly, the idea that failing to follow someone else's standards of what is good and what is bad writing marks you as amateurish seems amazingly elitist to me. Quite frankly, I don't much care what other writer's think of my writing. Only my readers. But it's really frustrating the hell out of me to think that so many people are laying down blankets of rules without taking genre and style into consideration. Is it possible for anyone to discuss the pros and cons of something WITHOUT saying "it's wrong" to do something? Couldn't you say "common thinking states that" or "I believe that".
> 
> Do I find too many "saids" in a row irritating? Sure. Do I find over or poorly used adverbs irritating? Sure. Guess what I find even more irritating. Writers who think that because you don't adhere to the same standards of style as they do that you are an amateur. How many famous authors throughout history have broken convention and then been emulated by others years later? (Seriously, how many? I have no clue, but there's got to be some.) Isn't that how language and art changes and grows over time? How boring would everything be if we all followed the exact rules set forth by professors and scholars and other self-appointed experts as to what is good and what is bad?
> 
> ...


Clearly you have readers who enjoy your style. But I don't think the point of the thread was to be overly harsh, but rather to offer up alternatives to what can be a repetitive word. I often find myself overusing certain words and phrases. It is then when I stop and read how another author handles it (or I contact my editor). I am always trying to pick up on new ways to express in the written word what is in my mind. As a result I grow as a writer, and am better able to entertain my fan-base.

There isn't a "right" way to tell a story. But there are better ways than others. If we are to take what we do seriously, it is important to continue to learn and grow. It isn't elitist to offer up suggestions, or to be critical. It's only elitist when a writer believes that there is only one way to go about it.


----------



## colegrove (Dec 6, 2012)

The market is big enough to support both sides of the dialogue-tag war. That being said, my personal opinion is to overwhelmingly prefer "said," but also to avoid all dialogue tags as much as possible, for the following reasons:

1) A reader should be able to tell who's talking without a tag. Not something I can always do, but a goal to aim for. Each character has a specific vocabulary.

2) Casual readers are not a reliable source of information, whatever opinion they may have. As long as they keep buying the books, what does it matter? It doesn't, in the galactic scheme of things. The majority of readers, however, do not have the tools to explain why they found particular style of writing or grammar off-putting, and it's up to us as the author to improve the prose.

Does it matter? How long is a piece of string?


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> There has been thread after thread complaining that we only discuss sales here, but as soon as we express an opinion, this is what we get: "How dare you express an opinion, you elitist. You are stifling our creativity!" *shakes head*


Now, now! There's a wrong way to sell books, but there isn't a wrong way to _write_ them. Anything goes! We are indies! Stop stifling us with demands for clear prose and adherence to standards!

...

Okay, sorry, that was maybe too much snark.

But seriously, people. Could we maybe start a conversation about how we could express differing points of view on certain subjects without:
-acting as if we've been personally attacked and viciously wounded?
-calling other people names who don't agree with us?
-denigrating others' views as ridiculous?

Could we?

I believe in us.

(Is it too soon for another group hug?)


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

You're missing the point! I'm not complaining about discussing opinions. I'm complaining about people espousing their opinion, be it personal or one based on long accepted dogma as the "correct" way of doing something, and that anyone NOT doing it that way is a "poor" or "amateurish" author. Both of those words are subjective, as are all forms of artistic expression, of which writing, in all it various forms and genres, is certainly included.

If I had followed every piece of advice I heard on these boards INSTEAD of following my wife's advice to "just write in a way that feels correct to you" I doubt very seriously I would have the modest success I've experienced, and I certainly wouldn't be enjoying it as much.

It's fine to express opinions. But not a single person on this board is such an expert on writing that they should be making statements as if they are inarguable fact. No such expert exists.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

And in my opinion, using said all the time, or any dialog tag is jarring. Most of time no tag at all is needed. Although I will admit I sometimes use them, and use the ones some of you hate. Most of the time I don't use any. I assume most readers can tell which of the characters are talking, especially when there are only two.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Rykymus said:


> You're missing the point! I'm not complaining about discussing opinions. I'm complaining about people espousing their opinion, be it personal or one based on long accepted dogma as the "correct" way of doing something, and that anyone NOT doing it that way is a "poor" or "amateurish" author. Both of those words are subjective, as are all forms of artistic expression, of which writing, in all it various forms and genres, is certainly included.
> 
> If I had followed every piece of advice I heard on these boards INSTEAD of following my wife's advice to "just write in a way that feels correct to you" I doubt very seriously I would have the modest success I've experienced, and I certainly wouldn't be enjoying it as much.
> 
> It's fine to express opinions. But not a single person on this board is such an expert on writing that they should be making statements as if they are inarguable fact. No such expert exists.


I totally got you, and I agree. It is very elitist to say "my way is the best way, and if you don't do it my way, you're an amateur." Personally, I find the word "said" to be ineffective in many cases to convey what I want to convey. In a heated discussion, saying "said" just doesn't work. And I agree that rules need to be broken so that our entire profession can grow. So, yeah, I agree totally with what you are saying.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

JRTomlin said:


> There has been thread after thread complaining that we only discuss sales here, but as soon as we express an opinion, this is what we get: "How dare you express an opinion, you elitist. You are stifling our creativity!" *shakes head*


It's one thing to express an opinion. It's quite another to, in essence, tell others, "My way is right, but your way is wrong."

Too much of that goes on at WC.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

anniejocoby said:


> I totally got you, and I agree. It is very elitist to say "my way is the best way, and if you don't do it my way, you're an amateur."


Okay, so see here, what started this mess is the word "amateur." I don't know who said it first, and that doesn't really matter, because there's two places we can stop this from turning into a slugfest during which we're defending our precious way of putting words down on a page INSTEAD of discussing the merits of different approaches.

One way is for the original person not to call people a denigrating word.

The other way is for people to not react defensively to the denigration, and instead ignore it and discuss the issue.

Look, I'm a very fragile person whose feelings get hurt just as easily as anyone else's. So, I know it feels nasty when someone says that the way that you write is bad. But if we turn the conversation into whether or not people are being elitist or whether or not people are being amateur, we're not discussing the, you know, _issue_. Then we're just calling each other names.

Personally, I think that appealing to an authority holds more weight in an argument than simply saying, "Well, I just like it that way." However, an entirely _better_ approach in general is to talk about what effect your choice of style has on the reader and why you think it's a better choice to tell your stories. But we don't do that. Instead, we all just pout because someone happened to imply that we aren't doing it right, or we puff up our chests and say, "Well, I write this way, and it's working for me," or we tell everyone else that we know THE answer and that everyone else is an idiot....

And that's how this goes.

But I'm just saying, we're better than this.

Okay. Well. I've said that. So...

There. *sniffs*


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

valeriec80 said:


> Could we maybe start a conversation about how we could express differing points of view on certain subjects without:
> -acting as if we've been personally attacked and viciously wounded?
> -calling other people names who don't agree with us?
> -denigrating others' views as ridiculous?
> ...


Could we, please?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I am, in many ways, very glad that I wrote seven books before I found this place. Otherwise, I'd have been paralyzed.

I just write it the way it sounds right to my ear, and I think I have a pretty good ear, and getting better. Still, I'm sure a "real" writer could go through and mark my stuff up with a red pen all over the place for all the rules I blithely break. (Not rules of grammar, but all these writing "rules" I never heard of.) But I still like the way it sounds (and the way it sounds in audiobook format even more.) And, as I seriously doubt anybody will be using my books to teach English Literature 101 in 2024, as long as most of my readers are happy with the way I write, I'm happy, too.


----------



## A. S. Warwick (Jan 14, 2011)

Sure I use said, but I try not to use it too often in a row as that tends to drag my attention away from what is actually being said.  (Was is another one that does that to me).

I try to mix the saids up with others words - asked, shouted, whispered etc and so.  Way back in grade 6 (and that is a long time ago), we wrote stories and as part of that we were given a list of words to use instead of said.  I may have the list around still, but ever since then I've always mixed it up.

I wonder if the use of other words for said is more prevalent in some genres than  others.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

This isn't about hurt feelings, at least not for me it isn't. It's about people making statements as if they are facts when they are not. People come here for advice, opinion. I had to slug through mountains of opinions when I first came here, 80% of which was presented as fact. I don't want to see others go through the same struggle when looking for advice. Just state your opinions, but make it clear that it is either your opinion, or a commonly accepted standard, and that's fine, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I mean, I'm the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to grammar and style!

Just state your opinions, and don't judge someone as incorrect or amateurish because they chose to do it differently.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Rykymus said:


> This isn't about hurt feelings, at least not for me it isn't. It's about people making statements as if they are facts when they are not. People come here for advice, opinion. I had to slug through mountains of opinions when I first came here, 80% of which was presented as fact. I don't want to see others go through the same struggle when looking for advice. Just state your opinions, but make it clear that it is either your opinion, or a commonly accepted standard, and that's fine, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I mean, I'm the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to grammar and style!
> 
> Just state your opinions, and don't judge someone as incorrect or amateurish becau
> se they chose to do it differently.


Word!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

One place where the overuse of 'said' is really apparent is in audio books.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

A.A said:


> (And 'sides, if you just have two people talking, you can largely get away with no saids or dialogue tags at all. Let the dialogue itself convey character and emotion. )


Very true. Of course, this can be overused as well. I put down a thriller not too long ago because the author went to such great lengths to make the heroine speak to only one other person at a time that it was starting to get contrived.

I'm probably biased because I write a lot of dialogue in groups and three-ways.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

I try to omit tagging dialogue as much as possible and tend to limit it to when there is a conversation between more than 2 characters or if the dialogue is long, and even then use it sparingly. I try to make it clear who's speaking by having that character do something while they talk. When I read "said" too often, it does tend to make the reading seem a bit drier, though I prefer "said" to most other dialogue tags.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

One thing I try to avoid is a solid wall of dialog. So instead of



> "I am saying stuff!" I said.
> "No you are not!" she said.
> "Yes, yes I am!" I said.
> "I can't hear you!" she said.
> ...


And so on. I try to break it up with action such such as:



> "I am saying stuff!" I said.
> 
> "No you are not!" she said.
> 
> ...


Feels more natural and easier to read to me.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

What I found early on was that how I thought something sounded while writing was not how it ended up sounding when reading. Even when *I* read it aloud and felt good about it, I would hear someone else read it and cringe. Now I convert it to a PDF and use the "read aloud" feature. It has helped my dialogue tremendously. Well, that and a good editor.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2014)

Rykymus said:


> This isn't about hurt feelings, at least not for me it isn't. It's about people making statements as if they are facts when they are not. People come here for advice, opinion. I had to slug through mountains of opinions when I first came here, 80% of which was presented as fact. I don't want to see others go through the same struggle when looking for advice. Just state your opinions, but make it clear that it is either your opinion, or a commonly accepted standard, and that's fine, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I mean, I'm the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to grammar and style!
> 
> Just state your opinions, and don't judge someone as incorrect or amateurish because they chose to do it differently.


^^^^THIS^^^^


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I've noticed that I use dialogue tags and "actions" more when the people tend to speak more slowly than in books where the people are highly verbal.

I've got a couple books where they're both very quick-witted. In those, the dialogue tends just to fly back and forth, no tags, no actions.
In my latest, the hero is slow to speak, very deliberate. I noticed I almost always used tags or actions, just to slow things down, because that's the pace at which it's happening.

Re audio: I've noticed that my narrator makes "said" almost disappear into the background, while she can't do that with the other words. I do use other words sometimes, because "said" ALL the time is a little distracting in itself, but I mostly use "said," no tags, or actions.


----------



## Matt Marshall (Feb 1, 2014)

I use "said" about 80% of the time. It's a safe option and often gets the job done. But sometimes you've just got to break free from it for dramatic effect.

In it's defense though I think it's more boring writing the word than it is reading it. I can't tell you when I last read a book and was upset by the number of times they ushered the word 'said'. It's just an instrument used to admit the dialogue, and I rarely notice it truthfully.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

As an additional thought here, regarding even avoiding attribution (even "said") whenever possible: I do think that's a good idea, but I've seen it overdone too. Typically, when I have two characters going back and forth, I try to break it up so if I'm not even using "said", I'm at least giving the characters some actions and body language here and there to clarify who's speaking. Characters do have their own styles, but there have been times, even from authors I really enjoy, when I've gotten lost as to who was saying what because about five to ten paragraphs went by without any indicators at all.

This is a good way to get lost ourselves, as well. On rare occasions I've caught myself with two characters in conversation, where my concept of who was saying what got flip-flopped. My rule of thumb is that if the chain of conversation is starting to get even the tiniest bit tenuous, readers will struggle with it.


----------



## MonaM (Jan 13, 2014)

valeriec80 said:


> However, an entirely _better_ approach in general is to talk about what effect your choice of style has on the reader and why you think it's a better choice to tell your stories.


This is a really good point. A High Fantasy Epic told in a High Fantasy Style has more room for book-isms than a fluffy contemporary romance. If you're writing humor, you might take a different tack. A good chunk of it is about the picture you're mentally painting.


----------



## AJHolm (Feb 18, 2014)

VydorScope said:


> One thing I try to avoid is a solid wall of dialog. So instead of
> 
> And so on. I try to break it up with action such such as:
> 
> Feels more natural and easier to read to me.


You could probably remove a few of those *said*s if it's clear who is speaking.


----------



## Calvin Locke (Mar 6, 2012)

Cherise Kelley said:


> 'Said' is invisible to most readers. Using words to describe speech which cannot describe speech is distracting. I would rather see 'said' than wonder who is speaking. Action beats work too.
> 
> There, did I cover it all?


Yes you did.


----------



## von19 (Feb 20, 2013)

Rykymus said:


> This isn't about hurt feelings, at least not for me it isn't. It's about people making statements as if they are facts when they are not. People come here for advice, opinion. I had to slug through mountains of opinions when I first came here, 80% of which was presented as fact. I don't want to see others go through the same struggle when looking for advice. Just state your opinions, but make it clear that it is either your opinion, or a commonly accepted standard, and that's fine, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I mean, I'm the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to grammar and style!
> 
> Just state your opinions, and don't judge someone as incorrect or amateurish because they chose to do it differently.


Here Here!!

Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Only as often as necessary, no more and no less.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> It's one thing to express an opinion. It's quite another to, in essence, tell others, "My way is right, but your way is wrong."
> 
> Too much of that goes on at WC.


That may be, but the reaction is a good way to be sure a lot of people, some of whom possibly actually know something, stay out of these discussions. Good luck to you.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2014)

Good Lord. It went from a discussion about an overused word and its alternatives to a fight about literary elitism. What the hell? Get a grip people. Calm it down an behave as if you were writers and not pundits.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

BrianDAnderson said:


> Good Lord. It went from a discussion about an overused word and its alternatives to a fight about literary elitism. What the hell? Get a grip people. Calm it down an behave as if you were writers and not pundits.


Ditto. I find, personally, that any vestige of shaming is a good way to shut a discussion down. I know I'm pretty easily shamed.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

BrianDAnderson said:


> Good Lord. It went from a discussion about an overused word and its alternatives to a fight about literary elitism. What the hell? Get a grip people. Calm it down an behave as if you were writers and not pundits.


We're artists. Elitism is pretty much all we're good for outside of actually producing.


----------



## SHARK BEACH (Jan 22, 2014)

It is always a bear when writing conversations...they all seem dry after awhile. It is always nice to have narration going on too! Compliments of Shark Beach-Pamela Westwood.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

Rykymus said:


> This isn't about hurt feelings, at least not for me it isn't. It's about people making statements as if they are facts when they are not. People come here for advice, opinion. I had to slug through mountains of opinions when I first came here, 80% of which was presented as fact. I don't want to see others go through the same struggle when looking for advice. Just state your opinions, but make it clear that it is either your opinion, or a commonly accepted standard, and that's fine, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I mean, I'm the last person anyone should listen to when it comes to grammar and style!
> 
> Just state your opinions, and don't judge someone as incorrect or amateurish because they chose to do it differently.


So do you have to qualify every statement made in a craft thread with, "in my opinion"? Can't we just accept that everything said in a craft thread is one person's opinion? There are no facts in craft threads. One person thinks it's wrong to use smiled as a dialogue tag, another person thinks it's clunky to avoid using it. They both state their opinion. And no one should feel either opinion is fact no matter how it is phrased. No one should get insulted if they disagree.

Otherwise, every craft thread should have a standard boilerplate as the first post saying "whichever way you do it is fine", then lock the thread.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

David J Normoyle said:


> So do you have to qualify every statement made in a craft thread with, "in my opinion"? Can't we just accept that everything said in a craft thread is one person's opinion? There are no facts in craft threads. One person thinks it's wrong to use smiled as a dialogue tag, another person thinks it's clunky to avoid using it. They both state their opinion. And no one should feel either opinion is fact no matter how it is phrased. No one should get insulted if they disagree.
> 
> Otherwise, every craft thread should have a standard boilerplate as the first post saying "whichever way you do it is fine", then lock the thread.


I think it's that word, "tone." Seems tone is like pornography: you may not be able to describe it, but you recognize it. Still and all, good discussion from my point of view, and I've thought about a lot of new things after reading it, so thanks.


----------



## Zjohnsmith (Apr 20, 2014)

In my opinion the words of your  dialogue need to do the heavy lifting. It's in those "spoken" words that the text comes to life. The dialogue tags are usually invisible. If you need funny tags to make your dialogue more interesting then, for most writers, I'd say you need to rework that dialogue.


----------



## sstroble (Dec 16, 2013)

Remember paperback novels in the 1960s in which there would be pages of dialog between 2
or more characters with only a few "saids" used. The dialog was mostly just this  format: 
"blah, blah, blah."
"oh, blah, blah, blah."
"and blah, blah, blah."
Back and forth with no attributions. The writers were skilled enough that the reader could tell who was saying what by using only a few attributions.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Zjohnsmith said:


> In my opinion the words of your dialogue need to do the heavy lifting. It's in those "spoken" words that the text comes to life. The dialogue tags are usually invisible. If you need funny tags to make your dialogue more interesting then, for most writers, I'd say you need to rework that dialogue.


The problem here is keeping it in the character's voice AND matching with the action. Some characters aren't going to sound like award winning novelists trying hard to make their dialog match their emotion.

Whenever people make this argument, I wonder if they've ever paid close attention to face to face conversation between two people. Humans do not convey everything with their word choice. We use gestures, expressions and yes our tone and inflection.

We say things through smiles, spit out words as if they were vile, let the words out in sighs, or in mighty screams. There are times, many times when were 'say' things in a neutral manner, but not always. Probably not even most of the time.

Using only dialog conjures up a whole new type of uncanny valley to me, where stonefaced characters pick and choose every word carefully in order to convey all their emotions because their creator god refuses to let them be expressive in any other way.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

I will admit that I have added a "said" here and there, even though it was perfectly clear who was speaking, because it improved the rhythm of the sentence.


----------



## Megan Duncan (Dec 28, 2010)

THANK YOU!!!! I was absolutely thinking this today while writing and you totally saved me!


----------



## SBJones (Jun 13, 2011)

Grabbing a recent book by one of my favorite authors, here are the following dialogue tags:

a cheery voice boomed
he replied
he said politely
NO TAG
name said
NO TAG
name said
NO TAG
name said
NO TAG
name repeated
name continued
he said
name said
NO TAG
name continued
NO TAG
NO TAG
name said cheerfully
NO TAG
name said
name continued
NO TAG
he ordered
NO TAG
he added

Most of the dialogue in the first chapter had no tag, but let the actions tell the reader who was speaking.  I expect that using "character name said" is drilling home who is who in the book over using "he said".  I expect the he/she said would increase once we are more familiar with the characters.  "Continued" seemed to be the go to tag to not drown the reader in "he/she saids".  There are also a few -ly words and a few "redundant" tags.  There were also a lot of companion sentences that set the tone for the dialogue sentence, but not what I would classify as action.

I conclude that most of us are trying to be perfectionists.  It's like baking a cake.  The main ingredients are flour (he/she said) and air (NO TAG).  But without some -ly words, redundancy, and other tags, your book will have no flavor.  Regardless someone will not like your cake.

This was the first 6 pages of Scoundrels by Timothy Zahn.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

I would never use any tag other than said or asked. Other words stick out, and using them can make your character seem like a distracting, animated clown.

The way to not overuse "said" is to not over use dialogue tags in general. Trust that your readers are smart enough to follow dialogue without the constant use of tags.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

I write the kind of stuff I want to read. And I know from my own experience as a reader that said is an invisible word to my eyes. They just gloss right over it. Never once have I thought, "this is redundant" or "this is so dry." The word said almost becomes like punctuation to me.

But when I see a lot of bookisms, those are definitely not invisible. My eyes don't gloss over them, they stop on them and I start thinking to myself, "wow, this writer REALLY hates the word said." An occasional bookism is fine, but when I see a lot of them, it brings me to a full stop and takes me right out of the story. If it's really bad, I will give up on the book altogether.


----------



## Christine Reyes (Mar 20, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> The problem here is keeping it in the character's voice AND matching with the action. Some characters aren't going to sound like award winning novelists trying hard to make their dialog match their emotion.
> 
> Whenever people make this argument, I wonder if they've ever paid close attention to face to face conversation between two people. Humans do not convey everything with their word choice. We use gestures, expressions and yes our tone and inflection.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## Kylo Ren (Mar 29, 2014)

I never, ever use anything but said.


----------



## Zjohnsmith (Apr 20, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> The problem here is keeping it in the character's voice AND matching with the action. Some characters aren't going to sound like award winning novelists trying hard to make their dialog match their emotion.
> 
> Whenever people make this argument, I wonder if they've ever paid close attention to face to face conversation between two people. Humans do not convey everything with their word choice. We use gestures, expressions and yes our tone and inflection.
> 
> ...


I'm not aware of anyone advocating for dialogue only. That would be so dull. This may be a definitional problem. There are dialogue tags and then there are beats. I'd recommend "How To Write Dialogue" by Marcy Kennedy, which is in the Kindle Store.


----------



## Zjohnsmith (Apr 20, 2014)

Perry Constantine said:


> I write the kind of stuff I want to read. And I know from my own experience as a reader that said is an invisible word to my eyes. They just gloss right over it. Never once have I thought, "this is redundant" or "this is so dry." The word said almost becomes like punctuation to me.
> 
> But when I see a lot of bookisms, those are definitely not invisible. My eyes don't gloss over them, they stop on them and I start thinking to myself, "wow, this writer REALLY hates the word said." An occasional bookism is fine, but when I see a lot of them, it brings me to a full stop and takes me right out of the story. If it's really bad, I will give up on the book altogether.


+1


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

The entire point of said bookisms is to not be invisible. It's highlighting the sentence and saying 'hey, hey, this isn't just being said in a neutral manner, this is being said in a specific way that humans say these types of lines with these types of emotions'.

And like all highlighting, you can't just highlight the entire page, you have to pick and choose exactly where it matters. But never highlighting anything at all is... meh.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> The entire point of said bookisms is to not be invisible. It's highlighting the sentence and saying 'hey, hey, this isn't just being said in a neutral manner, this is being said in a specific way that humans say these types of lines with these types of emotions'.


Like I said, I'm speaking from my perspective as a reader on this. And my feeling is that there are better ways to convey emotion than bookisms. Yes, they do highlight the sentence, but the point I'm making is that they highlight the sentence in a negative way that takes me out of the story. And that's bad. You want to draw the reader's attention without drawing them out of the story.



> And like all highlighting, you can't just highlight the entire page, you have to pick and choose exactly where it matters. But never highlighting anything at all is... meh.


The problem here is you seem to be implying that the only two options are highlighting with bookisms or never highlighting at all and just having neutral speech. I reject that notion entirely.

Plus, I also said that the occasional bookism is fine. But I'd much rather see a writer try and convey that emotion through the dialogue or action. When a writer uses bookisms, I get the feeling that they either hate the word said, or they're not confident enough in either their skill at writing dialogue to allow it to properly convey the notion. It's telling instead of showing. Or, worse yet, they feel the readers aren't smart enough to pick up on it.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> Like I said, I'm speaking from my perspective as a reader on this. And my feeling is that there are better ways to convey emotion than bookisms. Yes, they do highlight the sentence, but the point I'm making is that they highlight the sentence in a negative way that takes me out of the story. And that's bad. You want to draw the reader's attention without drawing them out of the story.


I'm coming from MY perspective as a reader when I say the conscious avoiding of them is just as bad because it creates a verbal uncanny valley where characters stop talking and acting like people.

And from my point of view as a reader, they don't draw me out of the story unless they're used poorly or create Swifties.



> The problem here is you seem to be implying that the only two options are highlighting with bookisms or never highlighting at all and just having neutral speech. I reject that notion entirely.


It's pretty clear that that's not what I'm saying. I was objecting to the idea that simply using the dialog alone works because it really, really doesn't in my experience because it flattens actions and puts a barrier between expression and dialog.

Dialog and action are not separate entities is the thing. That's what triggered the rant way back before this thread was necroed. Writers seem to put dialog in its own little box and when they do it, to me it kills the character's voice because they're trying to use dialog to do heavy lifting that it doesn't have to be when people are actually talking. Sometimes dialog and action are one in the same, is the thing I'm getting at.


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

Vaalingrade said:


> Okay, here comes the rant. It's nothing personal, but this always sends me ballistic.
> 
> I hate this little piece of 'logic'.


The "logic" behind it is based on grammar rules. If you want a character to smile, then write _"This rule drives me nuts." He smiled._ Or if he smiled while speaking: _"This rule drives me nuts," he said while smiling._ I think if you start picking at that rule, you can start picking at others, such as the fact maybe you can write dialogue like _"This rule drives me nuts." He said._ Or you can also okay comma splices or other grammar errors because people will get it. Now that I think on it further, the non-said-tag functioning grammatically as a said-tag is probably a comma splice.

Jodi


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

A LOT of grammar rules were codified by fussy Victorians that also thought you could cure hysteria by aiming a fire how between someone's legs. They should generally be taken with a comparable amount of suspicion and scorn.

It's way more important for me that my characters sound and behave naturally rather than appeasing dead idiots or people who take dead idiots way too seriously. Shakespeare didn't have to pretend to care about what those people thought and they had the power to _kill_ him.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

A lot of grammar "rules" we're stuck with today, like the malarkey about never ending a sentence with a preposition or never splitting infinitives, also came to us from twits who thought English should be just like Latin. What Latin can't do, they argued, English should never do, and now we're stuck with supposed experts (and teachers!) mindlessly repeating it. Instead we should be cautioned that ending on a preposition can be weak, and splitting an infinitive can be confusing, so they should be done sparingly and with caution.

Bookisms don't bother me unless they're overused. I have learned to dial it back, because the old practice of knowing and using every possible brother to "said" to avoid the word itself is now dated and does look kind of awful. I mostly use them only to convey tone or break monotony, which puts them in the minority compared to "said" or nothing at all. It seems to be a happy equilibrium. Likewise I have no problem with using non-dialogue verbs as dialogue tags, like laugh and smile. Yes, you _can_ smile a sentence, as any reader understands perfectly well. I refuse to bow to those who insist my character can't wince a reply or bow an apology, because frankly they're wrong, and they're limiting themselves. Any action that could be considered body language or tone is still a speech action. I only take issue when the action is clearly unrelated to speech, like revving an engine or firing a gun.

On the subject of comma splices, funnily enough I started doing those on purpose some time back--in moderation of course. One of my favorite authors uses them quite a lot, always to good effect. The comma splice, when used judiciously, kind of gear-shifts a sentence in a way I think the human brain finds familiar, breaking flow and facilitating it both at the same time. Knowing when to use this tool can make a sentence an order of magnitude punchier. Grammatically incorrect, yes, but perfectly clear and worth the trade-off of correctness for narrative power. Part of any good writer's voice is knowing when to break the rules, even when the rules really are rules.


----------



## Paul Kohler (Aug 14, 2013)

I tried to reduce the amount of the word SAID in my last WIP, by using some of the other suggestions, but my editor tossed 90% of them and went back to said. Strange...


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Paul Kohler said:


> I tried to reduce the amount of the word SAID in my last WIP, by using some of the other suggestions, but my editor tossed 90% of them and went back to said. Strange...


Just make sure you don't let an editor run roughshod over your voice. It looks perfectly fine to use bookisms judiciously. (I would submit that the above example from Timothy Zahn does not count as judicious use, but then I've heard that about Zahn.) Ultimately the story still has to sound like you.


----------



## Richardcrasta (Jul 29, 2010)

vrabinec said:


> "Balderdash!" he pseudo-hyper-pervaricated.


"Balderdash!" he smiled, laughing at the pseudo-author's prevarication.
Still laughing, he shot a lion in his pajamas.
"The lion had no business wearing my pajamas," hyper-prevaricated he. "And this pseudo-author's making me sound like an idiot."
[None of the above meant seriously; taking this discussion very lightly, though I am a fan of "said" overuse, and recommend it to the authors I edit.]


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> A lot of grammar "rules" we're stuck with today, like the malarkey about never ending a sentence with a preposition or never splitting infinitives, also came to us from twits who thought English should be just like Latin. What Latin can't do, they argued, English should never do, and now we're stuck with supposed experts (and teachers!) mindlessly repeating it. Instead we should be cautioned that ending on a preposition can be weak, and splitting an infinitive can be confusing, so they should be done sparingly and with caution.


A little off topic, but I finished reading a grammar book (which was well-written and funny at times) that said a lot of those rules are myths.

But there is something for using grammar rules. For instance, I've noticed a tendency in some newer fiction to forgo the comma between two independent clauses joined by a conjunction. I've also noticed the same error in essays I critique as my day job (at a college). Some might say that comma is just going away, that people understand what you mean, get with the times. But when you look deeper, in the case of the essays, many don't know what an independent clause or complete thought is. They aren't dropping that comma because they want to shake things up, to play with rules; they do it because they don't recognize where their thought ends, where subjects and verbs are. Going by feel will get you so far, but not far enough.

My feeling is the rules, the real rules, are there for a reason--the same reason why speed reading works and why we can see a word and not just letters when we look at a word. You break sentences down into patterns to increase comprehension and the speed of comprehension. Maybe the rules aren't needed in every case to be clear, but they make it so when you do need them, the reader can recognize the pattern and more easily and more quickly understand what you are saying.

That being said, I'm not against experimental styles--but if most of the novel isn't about that, then I think messing with one or two real grammar rules sticks out like a sore thumb.

Jodi


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Most of the rules that aren't simply stupid are just there to keep newbies from going hogwild with stuff. They're not meant to shackle and brain-box writers and certainly not to enable the 'u r a noob' elitism that's been running around here.


----------



## pauldude000 (May 22, 2013)

Usually, I just stay out of these types of conversations as they tend to reflect mere personal opinions. 

Using dialog tags, or not using them for that matter, has nothing whatsoever to do with grammar unless you use them improperly. The choice of using dialog tags, bookisms, etc., are style issues and are therefore a matter of preference. When it comes to writing, the preference that matters is that of the readers, and not the preference of the writers. I have experimented personally with several different type of dialog styles in story based forums where I could get automatic feedback on the story as it was being written, paying attention to the desires of those reading my work. What was the outcome?

In most cases, the readers do not care, in general. You will get complaints no matter which style of dialog you use. However, the most complaints come when using a style which does not use dialog tags. This includes "using action to determine who is speaking."

The least dialog based complaints are generated when using a careful mixture. If two people are talking, then you can drop dialog tags occasionally. If three or more people are talking in a group, then tags are essential. 

Otherwise, you will hear the complaint from readers similar to: "Just who in the heck is talking? Confusing as heck!" -- or -- "Half the time I could not tell who was speaking."

I have never seen one complaint over the use of "bookisms" except in two situations. 

1. The person complaining is a real or self-styled literary critic.
2. The bookisms are used with a heavy hand.

Here is my opinion, for what little it is worth.

Determine who you are writing for, and then tailor your writing style for them. If you are trying to write a literary masterpiece, then write for the critics. If you are trying to please the general populace, who are not interested in masterpiece theater, then write for them. I am personally a pragmatist in such matters.

Here is the cold, hard truth. People vary considerably in their personal preferences, and that is perfectly normal. However, that vast majority of people could care less about style unless the problem is glaring, though almost all people reading a book care considerably about spelling and basic grammar. 

My advice, again for what little it is worth in the grand scheme, is to simply use style like a spice in cooking. Too little leaves a dish bland and tasteless. Too much spice ruins the meal. Your use of spice will determine whether people like your cooking and will separate your dish from everyone else's. Finally, realize that it is impossible to distinguish one hospital cook from another.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Jodi said:


> I've noticed a tendency in some newer fiction to forgo the comma between two independent clauses joined by a conjunction.


Said comma has always been optional, but so many teachers prefer it that they teach it as mandatory.


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

Cherise Kelley said:


> Said comma has always been optional, but so many teachers prefer it that they teach it as mandatory.


Do you have a reference book that states that? Mine aren't handy, but I don't remember that fact from English textbooks and style manuals I have read (concerning American English, just in case there is a cultural difference). In fact, I remember the opposite, but again, no refs handy to confirm that fact. The closest rule I remember off hand involves variations of "if the independent clauses are short and closely related, you can omit the comma." The variations deal with the fact that sometimes the books state only one independent clause has to be short and also some do not mention the "closely related."

Jodi

ETA: Your statement, or rather the doubt it raised in my mind, bothered me so much I hunted down what I could of my refs, which so far is just two.

CMoS 16 states (pages 316-7), "When independent clauses are joined by _and, but, or, so, yet_, or any other conjunction, a comma usually precedes the conjunction. If the clauses are very short and closely connected, the comma may be omitted unless the clauses are part of a series. These recommendations apply equally to imperative sentences, in which the subject (you) is omitted but understood." One of its examples (which, though short, still had a comma): "The bus never came, so we took a taxi." Another (short, without comma): "Electra played the guitar and Tambora sang." I don't interpret "usually" to mean optional, but rather I see it as a way of setting up the next sentence, the exception (short and closely related ind. clauses).

APA 6 states (pages 88-9) as a bullet point: "Use a comma ... to separate two independent clauses joined by a conjunction." Its example: "Cedar shavings covered the floor, and paper was available for shredding and nest building."

My MLA is at work, so that's not handy. Neither are any of my other refs.

Jodi


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

The APA and MLA style guides are more academic than anything else though; they apply to a different style of writing. The fact that they don't make exceptions for cases that clearly don't benefit from the comma is iffy. The CMoS approach looks much better, or at least is a step in the right direction. And while I don't see the CMoS as the end-all, it's at least more applicable to fiction.

Given the variations in the different approaches, where some don't require both clauses to be short or even ask them to be all that connected, I think it's more instructive to look at it from the perspective as "pressure" against the comma. When you have two short clauses that are closely connected, that pressure is very high. When not as many conditions are met, it's lower, but I could see justifications for still omitting it. Of course I realize pressure isn't a very good rule of thumb, but I find a surprising number of things--not just in writing--tend to come down to fuzzy logic, in which a number of small factors can add up to cross a threshold.


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> The APA and MLA style guides are more academic than anything else though; they apply to a different style of writing. The fact that they don't make exceptions for cases that clearly don't benefit from the comma is iffy. The CMoS approach looks much better, or at least is a step in the right direction. And while I don't see the CMoS as the end-all, it's at least more applicable to fiction.
> 
> Given the variations in the different approaches, where some don't require both clauses to be short or even ask them to be all that connected, I think it's more instructive to look at it from the perspective as "pressure" against the comma. When you have two short clauses that are closely connected, that pressure is very high. When not as many conditions are met, it's lower, but I could see justifications for still omitting it. Of course I realize pressure isn't a very good rule of thumb, but I find a surprising number of things--not just in writing--tend to come down to fuzzy logic, in which a number of small factors can add up to cross a threshold.


Good points. Almost all my credible references are geared toward the classroom. Although I do have one book (not a text book) that is geared more toward non-fiction, though it mentions its info can apply to fiction. Anyway, it references other go-tos, such as Follett's. But it's not handy either.

But since the previous poster mentioned this comma has always been optional but teachers didn't teach it that way, I thought I'd look at what I could find of my academic books first--not only because they are at hand, but because that is what teachers usually teach from, text books and style guides.

Oh, and to clarify my original post, when I mentioned I saw a trend away from a comma between independent clauses joined by a conjunction, I wasn't referencing the ability to omit a comma between short ind. clauses. These were distinctively normal-length or long clauses.

As a side note, I also see a trend (which has been trending for a while now ) toward putting the comma before the "and" or "but" before the second verb in a compound verb situation. My best guess behind its placement is the desire for a dramatic pause. Instinctively, writers, even in the academic scene, are more likely to want to put a comma there (where it doesn't necessarily belong) than put it between the joined ind. clauses.

And it makes me wonder: Is it an error, meaning publishing houses no longer edit as much as they used to? Or are they trying to eliminate that ind. clause comma rule? (And if they eliminate it, then when do they want to use it? Do they have any consistency of method left concerning it?)

ETA: I guess my point is I believe in the "real" grammar rules (things like subject-verb agreement and comma usage), and I don't think they should be eliminated because of feelings or trends of the ignorant. People not knowing the rule and/or thinking the rule looks wrong shouldn't trump using the rule. Rather, I feel unless elimination of the rule results in a stronger benefit than keeping the original rule, the original rule should be kept.

Jodi


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Considering how many grammar rules are situational and fluid though, it's not surprising that there'd be flux. I mean, "short and closely related" are both highly subjective standards. Comma placement falls under these kinds of subjective uses more than sticklers like to admit; heck, consider the controversy over the Oxford comma. It's very different from rules like when to use the subjective vs. objective cases, which are entirely firm. Here, the rules are at best guidelines.


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> Considering how many grammar rules are situational and fluid though, it's not surprising that there'd be flux. I mean, "short and closely related" are both highly subjective standards. Comma placement falls under these kinds of subjective uses more than sticklers like to admit; heck, consider the controversy over the Oxford comma. It's very different from rules like when to use the subjective vs. objective cases, which are entirely firm. Here, the rules are at best guidelines.


I can understand flux, but I think the elimination of this rule will do more harm than good. Because I see a strong connection between ignorance of what an independent clause or complete thought is (and hence, what a subject and verb is) and this comma rule. If this comma rule is kept intact instead of eliminated entirely, at least it's another way to force the writer (of fiction or essays) to understand the basic building blocks of sentences. If they understand the basic building blocks, then the rest of the rules are so much easier to understand and use.

Jodi


----------



## Steve Voelker (Feb 27, 2014)

I am in the camp that feels like too many tags other than "said" take me out of the story and remind me I'm reading a book. Which is the last thing I want someone to do when reading something of mine!

This is not a hard and fast rule, though. The times I find it handy, are when a character says something in a way that is out of the ordinary. 

"I'm so happy," she beamed happily -or- "Look out!" he shouted - would be unnecessary. 

"I'm so happy," she sighed glumly -or- "Look out," he mumbled inaudibly - would be better. 

Another issue I've come across is that reading is different from hearing. I listened to the audiobook of John Scalzi's Redshirts, which is wonderful, but the constant repetition of "he said" after every bit of dialogue was not only noticeable, but a bit grating. 
"Said" might be invisible, but it is surely not inaudible!


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Jodi said:


> I can understand flux, but I think the elimination of this rule will do more harm than good. Because I see a strong connection between ignorance of what an independent clause or complete thought is (and hence, what a subject and verb is) and this comma rule. If this comma rule is kept intact instead of eliminated entirely, at least it's another way to force the writer (of fiction or essays) to understand the basic building blocks of sentences. If they understand the basic building blocks, then the rest of the rules are so much easier to understand and use.


I'm definitely all in favor of keeping people educated on what's an independent clause on what isn't. It's just that this comma rule isn't a rule; it's a guideline with exceptions. The applicability of those exceptions varies and is subjective. There are definite black and white areas in grammar, but this one is more of a charcoal. I think you're looking at it as a rule only because the academic style guides don't offer leeway on it--which they probably don't do precisely because of the judgment call involved.


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> I'm definitely all in favor of keeping people educated on what's an independent clause on what isn't. It's just that this comma rule isn't a rule; it's a guideline with exceptions. The applicability of those exceptions varies and is subjective. There are definite black and white areas in grammar, but this one is more of a charcoal. I think you're looking at it as a rule only because the academic style guides don't offer leeway on it--which they probably don't do precisely because of the judgment call involved.


To clarify, I look at it as a rule because I haven't run across a reference (for fiction or academia) that said it was optional*. I don't interpret an exception as making the whole rule optional, but rather I see it as a rule with an exception for a specific case. I don't think this rule because of its exception is the equivalent of the Oxford comma, which is optional.

* If you have some that do, please share them. I'm willing to revise my opinion if a credible source says the comma is optional in every case, not just this exception.

Jodi


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

zoe tate said:


> I also think "said" tends to be pretty invisible.


I used to think that. Then I listened to the audiobook of Scalzi's Red Shirts. "Said" absolutely is not invisible when every.single.line has said in it. There are several minute conversations like this:

"No," he said.
"Yes," she said.
"I'm serious, no," he said. 
"So am I," she said.
"I mean it," he said.
"So do I," she said.
"No," he said.
"Yes," she said.

Seriously. "said" stops being invisible after a while.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I used to think that. Then I listened to the audiobook of Scalzi's Red Shirts. "Said" absolutely is not invisible when every.single.line has said in it. There are several minute conversations like this:
> 
> "No," he said.
> "Yes," she said.
> ...


She said "yes" and he said "no"? That's just messed up.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Jodi said:


> To clarify, I look at it as a rule because I haven't run across a reference (for fiction or academia) that said it was optional. I don't interpret an exception as making the whole rule optional, but rather I see it as a rule with an exception for a specific case. I don't think this rule because of its exception is the equivalent of the Oxford comma, which is optional.


The Oxford comma isn't optional; it's either a rule to use it or it's a rule not to use it, depending on the style guide. The ones that favor not using it have convoluted exceptions though, which is another point in favor of the comma. Which style an author chooses to use is they're own business, even if they choose wrong, but then they should be consistent about it.

But as far as the independent clauses, I think you're making too much out of this notion of "optional". CMoS says it's _usually_ used, and notes a possible exception without saying it's the only one. It does not say "Always use it unless ____." Even if it did, whether that exception case applies is still a judgment call: Are the clauses short enough? Are they closely related enough? But as you said, some other style guides say it's okay to omit the comma if just one of the clauses is short, or even if they're not all that related, so while they all _prefer_ the comma they're not all in agreement on when to omit it. Where style guides disagree, there is freedom. Yet I think all guides would agree that two long independent clauses that have absolutely nothing to do with each other should always use the comma, because past a certain point an author can't justify the omission by any standard.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

What some people may call "rules in flux" other people may call ignorance.

Most people don't know where commas belong. They don't know the difference between independent clauses and dependent clauses, or the difference between restrictive (essential) phrases and nonrestrictive (nonessential) phrases, or what an appositive is.

Two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor) require a comma. Period. Skilled writers know this rule - unconsciously, at least - and they will break it if the clauses are so short the comma overwhelms the sentence or they want their sentence to have a breathless rhythm.

One rule that people break all the time now that drives me crazy is using a nominative pronoun (I, they, he, she) when an objective pronoun (me, them, him, her) is required: Betsy used the prod on V and I.

(It's supposed to be _Betsy used the prod on V and me._ ME, dammit. Drives me crazy.   )

Over time these errors may become correct, but they aren't correct yet.


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

Ehm...


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Sandra K. Williams said:


> Two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or, nor) require a comma. Period. Skilled writers know this rule - unconsciously, at least - and they will break it if the clauses are so short the comma overwhelms the sentence or they want their sentence to have a breathless rhythm.


But even the CMoS says there are exceptions to this. Those exceptions are based on subjective assessments of whether the two clauses are short and closely related. So it's not a rule that it should _always_ be there, rather that it belongs there unless there's significant justification not to have it. The text I saw clearly doesn't regard the exception cases as a broken rule.

Still, I'm perfectly cool with combating ignorance and making sure people know when all (or most) grammar standards agree to do or not do something. For long independent clauses that are not related, everyone agrees on the need for the comma. When the comma is omitted in those cases where it's beyond justification, then I think it's legit to say the writer has broken a rule--deliberately or not.



Sandra K. Williams said:


> One rule that people break all the time now that drives me crazy is using a nominative pronoun (I, they, he, she) when an objective pronoun (me, them, him, her) is required: Betsy used the prod on V and I.
> 
> (It's supposed to be _Betsy used the prod on V and me._ ME, dammit. Drives me crazy.   )


But that actually is a hard and fast rule with no exceptions, not something where there's wiggle room or subjectivity on when to deviate from the norm. The problem is that so many people get "V and I" drilled into them when they're young that they never learn the difference as to when "V and me" is actually correct. Kids are being corrected on usage before they understand the subjective vs. objective forms, and English is taught so poorly in schools (frankly at all levels) that many people never get it right. It wouldn't be so bad if the correction was taught properly, that you use whatever form you'd use if the other person wasn't involved, but it's not. Yet it's still a solid rule. It's not as if the MLA says sometimes you can use "I" in an objective case if there's such and such a reason, or AP insists "I" and "me" are interchangeable after a conjunction.


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> For long independent clauses that are not related, everyone agrees on the need for the comma. When the comma is omitted in those cases where it's beyond justification, then I think it's legit to say the writer has broken a rule--deliberately or not.


But then it falls down to soft rule of "they are related because I say they are related," so one never needs the comma there except for a few cases where the sentence may be misread. And perhaps that is the guideline those publishing houses are using now--everything is related and only use it in the case of confusion. If there is a movement to change the original rule to that, then I'd like to see their justification for it, why they think it is better that way. Personally, I think it useful rule for some of the same reasons we don't generally have one long paragraph of run ons (comma splices or fused sentences), ending when we feel our topic is done or ending only for dramatic reasons. Using end punctuation at the appropriate moments improves comprehension, and it breaks down information into easier to digest chunks.

Jodi


----------



## Weirdling (Jun 25, 2011)

AmsterdamAssassin said:


> Ehm...


Lol. Thanks for bringing it back on topic. I wonder if we need to have my subthread moved out from this thread so we don't hijack the original thread?

Jodi


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I used to think that. Then I listened to the audiobook of Scalzi's Red Shirts. "Said" absolutely is not invisible when every.single.line has said in it. There are several minute conversations like this:
> 
> "No," he said.
> "Yes," she said.
> ...


I had to go listen to some audio samples to test this out. Oh my... yes, the sound of 'said' becomes like listening to a children's book if it occurs frequently.
My new mantra. Less 'saids'.

Disclaimer: Personal opinion only. No further correspondence will be entered into.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

Lummox JR said:


> But even the CMoS says there are exceptions to this. Those exceptions are based on subjective assessments of whether the two clauses are short and closely related.


Chicago is a style manual, not a grammar book. The grammar chapter was added in the 15th edition, probably because so many editors and copyeditors now have no training in grammar. (And I don't claim to be particularly good at grammar myself.)

Garner may say the comma is optional. Other sources on my shelf say it is not.

Whether we agree on the rule doesn't matter because we agree on the practice _in most cases_. When I'm copyediting a formal work, I'm not going to let the comma slide because it will affect my client's credibility.



> The problem is that so many people get "V and I" drilled into them when they're young that they never learn the difference as to when "V and me" is actually correct. Kids are being corrected on usage before they understand the subjective vs. objective forms, and English is taught so poorly in schools (frankly at all levels) that many people never get it right.


Actually, I believe the cause is hypercorrection and not what's drilled into school kids. I hear people who used to know the difference or who used to say "me" constantly now say "I." In other words, people my age and older, not younger people excusively.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> She said "yes" and he said "no"? That's just messed up.


What's really messed up is when Americans call a serial comma an Oxford comma. Where's the patriotism?

Saying "Oxford comma" is worse than calling freedom fries after those foreigners. I use serial commas all the time and hardly ever eat fries. The Brits can keep their damn hands off my punctuation.


----------



## DavidMacinnisGill (Mar 4, 2011)

What Elmore Leonard said. http://www.writingclasses.com/InformationPages/index.php/PageID/304


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I used to read books to my kids when they were little and there was one book I had to stop reading because it had "said" in every flippin' sentence. It drove me batshit crazy.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

No. But I do use the word 'say' too much


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

DavidMacinnisGill said:


> What Elmore Leonard said. http://www.writingclasses.com/InformationPages/index.php/PageID/304


Yes, completely. Elmore Leonard is like a god to me.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

DavidMacinnisGill said:


> What Elmore Leonard said. http://www.writingclasses.com/InformationPages/index.php/PageID/304


So THAT's where all those "rules" came from.


----------



## ElizaDee (Nov 25, 2013)

Watch Lee Child refute Leonard's "rules" here:






I gotta go with Lee, here...


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

ElizaDee said:


> Watch Lee Child refute Leonard's "rules" here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


YouTube embed doesn't seem to work, here's the 



. He doesn't really refute it (with the exception of the one about the weather), he just says that writing rules are paper tigers. Doesn't mean a writer can't find value in those rules, though. There are writing rules, but what those rules are depends on the writer.


----------



## DavidMacinnisGill (Mar 4, 2011)

Cherise Kelley said:


> So THAT's where all those "rules" came from.


Elmore didn't invent the rules. He just practiced them extraordinarily well. If you don't like his advice, ignore it. Every writer makes stylistic choices.


----------

