using 'said'

BethS said:

Well, fwiw, I am reading Bernard Cornwell's latest novel (The Empty Throne), and he never uses em-dashes when he interrupts the dialogue for an action. He uses commas.

Click to expand...

I have found another reason to love Cornwell.

My copyeditors want me to use these damn em-dashes. They correct me. It's House Style, I imagine.

Sometimes I have a little hissyfit and fight them on this. And they don't think it's worth fighting over.

Sometimes the editors have a little hissyfit and fight me on this and I don't think it's worth fighting over.

So there's a crazyquilt of usage in my books and I should decide how to do this and stick to it.
Which is what I think Cornwell is doing.
Good for him.

There's a lot of stylistic stuff where I disagree with CMOS. This is one set. And I bet a decade from now, CMOS will have different guidance, because CMOS is WRONG.
(grump grump grump)

*****
All that said ... when I'm talking to other folks about grammar, I should go by the book.

morngnstar said:

I don't see any reason to put an action in the middle of a quotation unless the speaker pauses.

Click to expand...

It's a way of showing that the speaker doing something while she's talking, or of showing that she started doing something in the middle of talking. Writers do this all the time.

PandaMan said:

I have a file on my computer called Jo's Words of Wisdom. It just grew bigger. I can't thank you enough for all the advice you provide here on this forum, from your blog, and other footprints you leave in the sand scattered around the Internet.

You are a real treasure.

Click to expand...

I'll second that.

job said:

I have found another reason to love Cornwell.

Click to expand...

As if we needed more.

*****
All that said ... when I'm talking to other folks about grammar, I should go by the book.

Click to expand...

But the book will change, as you said.

I say, find a style you like. Use it to your heart's content. Then decide whether it's worth the fight when it conflicts with the publisher's house style.

BethS said:

Well, fwiw, I am reading Bernard Cornwell's latest novel (The Empty Throne), and he never uses em-dashes when he interrupts the dialogue for an action. He uses commas.

Click to expand...

I use commas when the interrupting action is more or less integrated with the dialog, and m-dashes when it's more separate or at odds with the dialog.

As to where the dividing line lies, "I know it when I see it." It's akin to the difference in visual pacing in a series of actions -- a separating comma is not very noticeable, while an m-dash makes for a harder break.

So long as I understand what I'm reading I don't care whether it's dashes or dots or....

But once you realise there's a difference, it damages the rhythm when you find someone inappropriately uses dots instead of dashes.

"Help! I'm fall--"
"Help! I'm fall..."

Quite messes up their SOS.

If one is correct and the other is not - yes, I prefer the correct one. But arguing over trivia is a waste of time.

Reziac said:

But once you realise there's a difference, it damages the rhythm when you find someone inappropriately uses dots instead of dashes.

"Help! I'm fall--"
"Help! I'm fall..."

Quite messes up their SOS.

Click to expand...

But 'trivia' are exactly what distinguishes excellent writing from adequate writing: using the precise word or punctuation instead of the good-enough word or punctuation. A trivial difference that makes a difference.

I use said exclusively. Unless it is a question. Then I use "asked." Never anything else. If I can, I make any action a separate sentence. Or leave out said altogether when I can get away with it.

And Ford Madox Ford made great use of dots.

stormowl7 said:

Thanks!

So, in your own opinions though, is it better to use 'said' or just go to the action? (I know this is subjective, but I'd still like to know )

Example:


“Fine,” she said, leaning against the counter in the kitchen area.

VS

“Fine.” She leaned against the counter in the kitchen area.

Click to expand...

To my eye and ear, neither of this is inherently better than the other.

To me, the first one says she was already leaning against the counter when she spoke. The second one says she spoke, then leaned.

YMMV.

As for me, when I use dialogue tags, it's almost exclusively "said." I do replace a lot of my tags with action, which I usually place before the dialogue.

Penny drew her gun and sighted down the barrel at Joshua. "I can shoot the wings off a fly at 40 paces. You think I can't hit you hiding behind a little girl?"

Reziac said:

But 'trivia' are exactly what distinguishes excellent writing from adequate writing: using the precise word or punctuation instead of the good-enough word or punctuation. A trivial difference that makes a difference.

Click to expand...

I've never heard a classic writer praised for their excellent punctuation.

Re: the original tangent: I prefer to use the punctuation that best fits the amount of pause I intend in the flow of time. I think a comma is a shorter pause than a dash or an ellipsis. Sometimes I'd like to use commas to offset action in the middle of a sentence of dialogue, but I want to avoid this if people will assume because of standard usage that he's spitting his dialogue, instead of just spitting his tobacco.

I was watching my tags with this thread in mind as I wrote the other day. My inclination is to use tags infrequently (about every four or five paragraphs), but when I do tag, I use non-said tags almost exclusively. If I would have said said, I tend to leave it out. It's the occasions when I have reason to use an alternative tag that are an opportunity to keep the reader on track with who's speaking.

morngnstar said:

I've never heard a classic writer praised for their excellent punctuation.

Click to expand...

Of course not. When it's right, it's invisible, but guides your eye nonetheless.

And I too distinguish length and type of pause or gap by comma, ellipsis, or m-dash -- in crude terms, slight, fading, and sharp respectively.

stormowl7 said:

I was recently told to try removing most of the 'he/she said' and put in action instead.

Also, I saw on a few writing websites that it's better to replace 'said' by other words such as 'replied', 'asked', 'shouted', etc.

Just wondering about peoples' opinions on this!
Thank you!

Click to expand...

When I started out writing I was always writing 'said' in my dialogue. I got very tired of writing that word, not only is it tiresome to write/read that word over and over again but it also acts as a "bringer-downer" to a piece. Switching it up, using words such as replied, asked, shouted, exclaimed, screamed etc etc and also just adding a short sentence between dialogue helps in making dialogue more exciting or interesting.

Just ran across commas (and not m-dashes) offsetting interrupting action in the book I'm reading right now.

It was very much along the lines of:

So if we're going here," he tapped the map with his finger, "it had better be soon."
The author is British, so maybe it's one of those cross-pond differences?

Punk28 said:

When I started out writing I was always writing 'said' in my dialogue. I got very tired of writing that word, not only is it tiresome to write/read that word over and over again but it also acts as a "bringer-downer" to a piece. Switching it up, using words such as replied, asked, shouted, exclaimed, screamed etc etc and also just adding a short sentence between dialogue helps in making dialogue more exciting or interesting.

Click to expand...

Okay, but this is the exact opposite of the advice given by most craft books and editors, who state that said is invisible and that beginner writers often overuse the "colorful" tags. There are some writers who have managed to get away with making heavy use of them, but they often write with a rather wry or humorous style. Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett,a nd Joe Abercrombie come to mind.

Come to think of it, they're all British too. So maybe there's a voice some British writers have mastered that lets them get away with it?

Roxxsmom said:

It was very much along the lines of:

So if we're going here," he tapped the map with his finger, "it had better be soon."
The author is British, so maybe it's one of those cross-pond differences?

Click to expand...

I regularly use that same structure, which I may or may not have caught from a Brit. To my ear it makes the dialog and the interrupting phrase more of a single action than do its cousins:

"So if we're going here," he said, and tapped the map with his finger, "it had better be soon.""
or
"So if we're going here," he said, tapping the map with his finger, "it had better be soon."

Either of which might be appropriate if slightly different pacing is desired.

Bufty said:

If one is correct and the other is not - yes, I prefer the correct one. But arguing over trivia is a waste of time.

Click to expand...

Knowing the difference between Winsor Yellow and Cadmium Yellow will not make you a better painter, but I can almost promise you professional artists know this small difference at a glance.

Maybe part of craft is a fascination with the details.

job said:

There's a lot of stylistic stuff where I disagree with CMOS. This is one set. And I bet a decade from now, CMOS will have different guidance, because CMOS is WRONG.
(grump grump grump)

Click to expand...

You are in good company!

C.J. Cherryh on CMOS, excerpted from
http://www.cherryh.com/www/panel_room.htm

I detest the Chicago manual as a national disgrace, not only because it creates ugly combinations like ss's, but because I remember why it was created, and by whom it was created. It was a teaching device accompanying the New Math, and it was designed to dumb-down the rules of English to make it easier for see-it, say-it methods...later discredited and no longer used by enlightened school systems who now insist on higher standards, and phonics. But in that day, teachers voted on the changes,hoping to establish 'easier' English.

Click to expand...

Punk28 said:

When I started out writing I was always writing 'said' in my dialogue. I got very tired of writing that word, not only is it tiresome to write/read that word over and over again but it also acts as a "bringer-downer" to a piece. Switching it up, using words such as replied, asked, shouted, exclaimed, screamed etc etc and also just adding a short sentence between dialogue helps in making dialogue more exciting or interesting.

Click to expand...

It makes it more irritating.

I have a book sitting not two feet from me that I'm like halfway through, enjoy the story in, and have wanted to finish, but every time I pick it up, I end up putting it down a couple of pages later.

The tags are all about exclaiming, shouting, groaning, whining, etc. It makes the thing unreadable, it's so distracting.

Use said; let readers pay attention to the dialogue, not the tags.

Punk28 said:

When I started out writing I was always writing 'said' in my dialogue. I got very tired of writing that word, not only is it tiresome to write/read that word over and over again but it also acts as a "bringer-downer" to a piece. Switching it up, using words such as replied, asked, shouted, exclaimed, screamed etc etc and also just adding a short sentence between dialogue helps in making dialogue more exciting or interesting.

Click to expand...

"But how often were you using any dialogue tag? I suspect that a lot of the objection to most forms of dialogue tag comes because too many are used, unnecessarily. Most writers I know who write good effective dialogue use direct attribution, in any form, sparingly. Most inexperienced writers whose manuscripts I've seen overuse dialogue tags, sometimes to the point of making my hair hurt," he pontificated.

caw

I have a massive problem with "said". I'm glad this is here, lol.

It may just be me, but I really notice when I use "said", and it kind of drives me up the wall. I keep telling myself to do something more interesting than just repeat "he said, she said" through the text. So I've gotten really good at giving my characters stuff to do, or showing their reactions, etc.

"I don't know," he said.

vs

"I don't know." He was frowning unhappily.

(Maybe a clumsy example, but you catch my drift.)

To me it adds more depth, and creates a natural flow to the story.

If it's an answer to a question- as your example appears to be- you don't require any tag at all. The purpose of a tag is to identify the speaker and if the speaker is known a tag is not needed.

Adding actions such as you have should serve a purpose, really add something to the interpretation of the dialogue and not simply be ways of avoiding 'said', otherwise they add nothing to flow.

Euphoric Mania said:

I have a massive problem with "said". I'm glad this is here, lol.

It may just be me, but I really notice when I use "said", and it kind of drives me up the wall. I keep telling myself to do something more interesting than just repeat "he said, she said" through the text. So I've gotten really good at giving my characters stuff to do, or showing their reactions, etc.

"I don't know," he said.

vs

"I don't know." He was frowning unhappily.

(Maybe a clumsy example, but you catch my drift.)

To me it adds more depth, and creates a natural flow to the story.

Click to expand...

Bufty said:

If one is correct and the other is not - yes, I prefer the correct one. But arguing over trivia is a waste of time.

Click to expand...

But we all do it anyway

Okay. Thirty years of writing, reading, arguing and editing, has brought me round to believe that one should use all dialogue tags very sparingly. But when there may be need to reestablish just who is talking at a particular point then, use one (just “he/she said” is best) and get on with the story telling—for that is what it’s all about anyway.

Right?


*Course, slipping in a few actions--like: she said, dropping her nightie to the floor—can be most advantageous upon occasion. ;-P