But there IS something real in leaning on “said”: It's not just that the eye is trained to ignore it; it steps so far into the background that it becomes a function word, like pronouns and auxiliary verbs, stimulating Broca's Area in the brain that controls syntax, rather than the visual processing centers that are involved in generating imagination. Because of that, "said" is literally invisible to the mind in the way that all function words are invisible. If you want to tag speech in a way that's invisible, said is the only option, as the other variants are processed like adjectives. Of course there's a time and place for both, and every writer should have the biggest possible tool kit. But that's the reason, and it's a valid reason. Read neuroscientist James Pennebaker's book, The Secret Life of Words, for more on this, if interested—he doesn't address "said" itself, but it fascinating and worthwhile to understand how words are actually processed.
Like many things in writing, I think this is a matter of taste and style. I don't need a lot of dialogue attribution in general if the writer has done their job well, but I am absolutely allergic to things like "growled" and "murmured." If someone has murmured something, can the other character even really hear them? And growled? Are we feral dogs now? Someone's voice being low and tense is so much more human and accurate. But again, some other reader (and writer) might LOVE growled and murmured and be thrilled to read them (and write them). We can say there are rules and conventions, but then each of us can find so many stories and books we love that break all of them. It is one of the most lovely (and infuriating) things about our craft.
I don't particularly care one way or the other, either, but I admire any writer who would rather refuse to be published than indulge an editor's meaningless whims
I'll agree that a writer should be able to leave out tags entirely with much of the dialog. ("Sue nodded. 'Exactly what I thought.'" Etc). But when one is needed, I'd much rather have said than guffawed or murmured or groaned or a billion other overused explainers that feel like they're leading the witness because we won't understand the tone otherwise. And I do not have an MFA, though I don't feel like I need to be anti-snobbery about them. I DO live on the East Coast, but c'mon, it's Jersey--no pretensions here!
When all is said and done, this preoccupation with such trivia is what is killing literature. Is it a great story? Yes. Then get out of the way and publish it.
I'm more in the (sans-MFA) school that has one let the dialogue pull the boat as much as possible, without redundant speaker identifiers and with accompanying actions that enhance the conversation. And it's from a decidedly non-MFA writer... Elmore Leonard... where a good number of us "learned" about not using anything beyond "said"... adverbs used not-at-all as well... in his 10 Tips of Writing Advice (or whatever he called it) many years ago, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, mostly not.
I'm on the side of those that say trying to find creative ways to say other than "said" is distracting, drawing attention to the other phrase, while using "he said," language becomes invisible as a designator of the speaker. "he exclaimed" for instance makes the reader stop and contemplate what the writer would prefer the reader not to stop and contemplate. It makes sense to stick to "he said," "she said" for that reason, as an invisible designator of the speaker.
How interesting! But this is not anything new! I've been writing for YEARS, got my MFA in 2001 and have ALWAYS been told to stick to "said" if tagging dialogue (and best to drop tags completely if possible). I think the idea that "said" disappears is right -- and although the occasional "murmured," "guffawed" or "snapped" might be just the necessary thing, all too-often, especially in newer writers, those types of tags call attention to the writing and take attention away from the action and the actual dialogue. Worse, perhaps, might be the "tonal tags" -- i.e. "said haughtily."
I think forming such a solidified opinion about dialogue tags (one way or the other) is as equally embarrassing as getting so worked up about it.
Clearly, it’s useful to use said/says. This does not mean it’s the end all be all of tagging.
Would’ve liked to see an argument made with more emphasis on truer examples/historical trends. Not just low-hanging fruit. You know, giving evidence to prove your argument rather than repeating the same thought over and over.
Come on now. I don't care one way or the other, but could we finally get this damn thing nailed down? I'm in the middle of an important story with acres of dialogue and can hardly proceed until somebody in charge says says and said or says not says and said. I'm just saying.
I've never had a problem (or noticed, really) writers using "said" too often in stories we've published.
That said, I looked at two random pages from a novel I'm re-reading, Wuthering Heights, to see how hyper-talented Emily Bronte handled the question:
--"cried she" "I retorted" "interposed Linton" "she repeated" "I said to myself" "demanded Catherine" "she exclaimed" "he replied" "asked Linton" "he continued" "he said" "I called out"--.
I have to wonder if the dramatic phrases Bronte uses add to the drama of the work. Too many authors today are afraid to be dramatic. Or melodramatic. Which takes some of the fun out of the reading experience.
The only question about any style of writing, though, is this one: "Does it work?"
I'm in the same boat as Jon Fain. I write crime fiction and I stick to Elmore Leonard's advice. He made me aware of adverbs overuse! So yes, I'm in the "said" camp with a few mutters and mumbles allowed depending on the circumstances. I also read my stuff aloud and a lot of these "said" fall on the chopping block. They can get annoying. Too many and it's all you see/hear. But the variations on the S word are even more irksome. Like the writer is trying way too hard to avoid the simple answer. It can make the prose feel ponderous or precious. And I neither have an MFA nor live on the East Coast - unless Texas by way of Europe counts. That's East after all.
So, I’m old school. I was taught that by restricting ourselves to “said” and “says” allows the word to disappear on the page—all the reader needs do is focus on what’s between the quotes, placing the emphasis on what is said, rather than HOW it is said. And to that second point—HOW the dialog is said—it should be conveyed through the language of the dialog. The reader can infer HOW by the carefully crafted dialog language itself. ("You are the son and heir of a mongrel bitch," he said. No need to tell the reader that a line of dialog was said with heat.)
Also, there’s an illogic to telling the reader HOW someone says something AFTER she has read the dialog, in essence sending the reader back to the dialog to apply the new information rather than allowing her to continue forward with the narrative progression.
If the qualifying verb appears BEFORE the dialog, I think it can work: She whispered, “There’s someone watching us.”
And, as with all rules of writing--they are meant to be disregarded in rare and significant passages when the breaking of the rule highlights what is on the page.
"That's my two cents. Or, rather, my Indian Head Buffalo nickel,” she said.
I rather like what the British writer Stanley Middleton sometimes does, namely, simply to put the name of the speaker *after* what he or she said. Example:
Overuse of ‘said’ shows that you are a lazy writer. I find it very annoying and have cancelled magazine subscriptions due to the abundance of such poorly written work.
But there IS something real in leaning on “said”: It's not just that the eye is trained to ignore it; it steps so far into the background that it becomes a function word, like pronouns and auxiliary verbs, stimulating Broca's Area in the brain that controls syntax, rather than the visual processing centers that are involved in generating imagination. Because of that, "said" is literally invisible to the mind in the way that all function words are invisible. If you want to tag speech in a way that's invisible, said is the only option, as the other variants are processed like adjectives. Of course there's a time and place for both, and every writer should have the biggest possible tool kit. But that's the reason, and it's a valid reason. Read neuroscientist James Pennebaker's book, The Secret Life of Words, for more on this, if interested—he doesn't address "said" itself, but it fascinating and worthwhile to understand how words are actually processed.
Like many things in writing, I think this is a matter of taste and style. I don't need a lot of dialogue attribution in general if the writer has done their job well, but I am absolutely allergic to things like "growled" and "murmured." If someone has murmured something, can the other character even really hear them? And growled? Are we feral dogs now? Someone's voice being low and tense is so much more human and accurate. But again, some other reader (and writer) might LOVE growled and murmured and be thrilled to read them (and write them). We can say there are rules and conventions, but then each of us can find so many stories and books we love that break all of them. It is one of the most lovely (and infuriating) things about our craft.
I don't particularly care one way or the other, either, but I admire any writer who would rather refuse to be published than indulge an editor's meaningless whims
I'll agree that a writer should be able to leave out tags entirely with much of the dialog. ("Sue nodded. 'Exactly what I thought.'" Etc). But when one is needed, I'd much rather have said than guffawed or murmured or groaned or a billion other overused explainers that feel like they're leading the witness because we won't understand the tone otherwise. And I do not have an MFA, though I don't feel like I need to be anti-snobbery about them. I DO live on the East Coast, but c'mon, it's Jersey--no pretensions here!
When all is said and done, this preoccupation with such trivia is what is killing literature. Is it a great story? Yes. Then get out of the way and publish it.
I'm more in the (sans-MFA) school that has one let the dialogue pull the boat as much as possible, without redundant speaker identifiers and with accompanying actions that enhance the conversation. And it's from a decidedly non-MFA writer... Elmore Leonard... where a good number of us "learned" about not using anything beyond "said"... adverbs used not-at-all as well... in his 10 Tips of Writing Advice (or whatever he called it) many years ago, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, mostly not.
I'm on the side of those that say trying to find creative ways to say other than "said" is distracting, drawing attention to the other phrase, while using "he said," language becomes invisible as a designator of the speaker. "he exclaimed" for instance makes the reader stop and contemplate what the writer would prefer the reader not to stop and contemplate. It makes sense to stick to "he said," "she said" for that reason, as an invisible designator of the speaker.
How interesting! But this is not anything new! I've been writing for YEARS, got my MFA in 2001 and have ALWAYS been told to stick to "said" if tagging dialogue (and best to drop tags completely if possible). I think the idea that "said" disappears is right -- and although the occasional "murmured," "guffawed" or "snapped" might be just the necessary thing, all too-often, especially in newer writers, those types of tags call attention to the writing and take attention away from the action and the actual dialogue. Worse, perhaps, might be the "tonal tags" -- i.e. "said haughtily."
In the opening chapter of The Golden Bowl (1904), James's characters
"gaily inquire,"
"object,"
"wonder,"
"smilingly ask,"
etc.
Using such speech tags today
would strike a lot of us
as fussy and obtrusive, but
if you immerse yourself in Henry James's world,
they go with the territory.
Aesthetic preferences are shaped (or warped) by, say,
editors,
famous, highly regarded writers,
and, I suppose,
MFA instructors.
And, as Matthew Salesses points out
in Craft in the Real World,
some other styles,
some other voices
might feel dismissed or marginalized as a result.
But styles change.
Aesthetic preferences change.
Even if the "say/said" crowd seems to have the upper hand now,
("seems")
surely there are plenty of places
where people who DO want to pepper their dialogue with
"guffawed,"
"chortled,"
"sang out,"
"queried," etc.
will find themselves right at home.
But--
and I say this as a writer without an MFA--
I am weary
of the caricature of MFA programs.
Surely they don't impose some monolithic house style
on the students there.
I am also, frankly, bored
with the stereotype of the East Coast
as a hotbed of elitism.
Write the way you want to write,
read what pleases you.
There is a lot of wonderful stuff to read out there.
It seems that there is room for everybody.
I think forming such a solidified opinion about dialogue tags (one way or the other) is as equally embarrassing as getting so worked up about it.
Clearly, it’s useful to use said/says. This does not mean it’s the end all be all of tagging.
Would’ve liked to see an argument made with more emphasis on truer examples/historical trends. Not just low-hanging fruit. You know, giving evidence to prove your argument rather than repeating the same thought over and over.
Still a fun read though!
Come on now. I don't care one way or the other, but could we finally get this damn thing nailed down? I'm in the middle of an important story with acres of dialogue and can hardly proceed until somebody in charge says says and said or says not says and said. I'm just saying.
I've never had a problem (or noticed, really) writers using "said" too often in stories we've published.
That said, I looked at two random pages from a novel I'm re-reading, Wuthering Heights, to see how hyper-talented Emily Bronte handled the question:
--"cried she" "I retorted" "interposed Linton" "she repeated" "I said to myself" "demanded Catherine" "she exclaimed" "he replied" "asked Linton" "he continued" "he said" "I called out"--.
I have to wonder if the dramatic phrases Bronte uses add to the drama of the work. Too many authors today are afraid to be dramatic. Or melodramatic. Which takes some of the fun out of the reading experience.
The only question about any style of writing, though, is this one: "Does it work?"
I'm in the same boat as Jon Fain. I write crime fiction and I stick to Elmore Leonard's advice. He made me aware of adverbs overuse! So yes, I'm in the "said" camp with a few mutters and mumbles allowed depending on the circumstances. I also read my stuff aloud and a lot of these "said" fall on the chopping block. They can get annoying. Too many and it's all you see/hear. But the variations on the S word are even more irksome. Like the writer is trying way too hard to avoid the simple answer. It can make the prose feel ponderous or precious. And I neither have an MFA nor live on the East Coast - unless Texas by way of Europe counts. That's East after all.
So, I’m old school. I was taught that by restricting ourselves to “said” and “says” allows the word to disappear on the page—all the reader needs do is focus on what’s between the quotes, placing the emphasis on what is said, rather than HOW it is said. And to that second point—HOW the dialog is said—it should be conveyed through the language of the dialog. The reader can infer HOW by the carefully crafted dialog language itself. ("You are the son and heir of a mongrel bitch," he said. No need to tell the reader that a line of dialog was said with heat.)
Also, there’s an illogic to telling the reader HOW someone says something AFTER she has read the dialog, in essence sending the reader back to the dialog to apply the new information rather than allowing her to continue forward with the narrative progression.
If the qualifying verb appears BEFORE the dialog, I think it can work: She whispered, “There’s someone watching us.”
And, as with all rules of writing--they are meant to be disregarded in rare and significant passages when the breaking of the rule highlights what is on the page.
"That's my two cents. Or, rather, my Indian Head Buffalo nickel,” she said.
I rather like what the British writer Stanley Middleton sometimes does, namely, simply to put the name of the speaker *after* what he or she said. Example:
"It's a bad idea." Robert.
No "said" or alternative to "said" at all!
Overuse of ‘said’ shows that you are a lazy writer. I find it very annoying and have cancelled magazine subscriptions due to the abundance of such poorly written work.