Replace dialogue tags (said, answered, replied, asked) with...?

Horserider said:

What are some suggestions of words that I can use in place of words like said, answered, replied or asked? I tend to use those four a lot and I need some different ideas.

Click to expand...

Try using action tags instead. Like this:

Instead of

"So, Joan, how are you today?" he asked

do this

"So, Joan, how are you today?" Roger placed a hand on Joan's desk and leaned in close.


>there was a recent thread on this very topic.
>For the most part, you DON'T want to be creative with tags. DO
>use said, replied, and asked; or no tag at all if it's clear who's
>speaking.

Oft repeated, exceptionally bad advice that's being parroted all over the internet. Advice first generated by a writer who isn't much of a reader. Part of the current Fad Editing set of bad advice.

Yes, you DO want to get creative with your tags. Yes, you DO want to use things other than said, replied and asked. Yes, you DO want to use exclamation points.

This
"The dog just ran off with my pants," the man said
vrs.
"The dog just ran off with my pants!" the man screamed

They paint very different pictures in the mind of the reader. The second one instantly gives a clear image of a man with some sort of emotional response. In the first you can't tell if he cares or not.

You're not writing for WRITERS, you're writing for READERS. The picture you're painting is important if you want them to see the same image that you see.

I am constantly having to go through submissions and delete multiple lines of text when I do line edits for the magazine or our books, because the writer refuses to use something other that said and won't use exclamation points. Which forces them to get wordy and descriptive when a single sentence like the above works perfectly well.

What are some suggestions of words that I can use in place of words like said, answered, replied or asked? I tend to use those four a lot and I need some different ideas.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that this has probably been hashed and re-hashed, but I figured that I'd add my $0.02.

First, find a thesaurus. An actual thesaurus, not an internet one. The internet is an evil distracting thing (so is the original Nintendo, but that's another story).

Second, I'm sure it's been said that 'said, asked, etc.' are not to be used. I think that (much like everything else in life) in moderation is okay. However, if there is an emotion that needs to be conveyed, then do so in the dialog tag.

Third, they really should be kept to a minimum. If there's two people in a room talking to each other, than I suggest a dialog tag or some other action every three or four lines, just to keep the reader up to speed. I.E.

"What are you doing?" Jack looked up to Jane, his eyes glistening with excitement.

"I'm dicing jalapenos for this recipe."

"Why jalapenos? You are making a cake, right?"

"Cake? I thought you wanted me to make steak!" Jane's eyes welled up with tears.

"It's okay, honey. We'll figure something out."

"You said steak, not cake."

"I did no such thing!" Jack replied.

(Something like that, but not exactly like that. I'm kind of tired, so it probably didn't come out as well as it should have).

Hope that helps.

Brindle Chase said:

it really depends on the character in question and the emotion that might be attached to what they are saying. Did the char whisper the reply? Did they growl, bark, snap, retorted, snip, yell, screamed, screeched, snarled, spat....?

There are alot of words that can turn a simple "he said" into "he snarled venomously"... the added description shouldnt be overdone, but it can convey greater depth of the character and the emotion tied to the dialogue... ?????

Click to expand...

When you use them, it shows that you're an amateur writer who thinks creative adverbs and dialogue tags make someone a good writer. They don't.

Read. Read authors who are considered "great writers." Study the masters -- they rarely need to do any of the growling, barking, snapping, restorting, snipping, yelling, screaming, screeching, snarling, or spitting. The dialogue and context speak louder than the tags.

adtabb said:

Of course, some people love guessing games.

Click to expand...

It's not about guessing. It's about being a writer and own up to your scenes, context, and characters. You don't need to tell the readers that the person growled his words (besides, how do you really growl a speech?). To do that, a) the writer is not confident that he can get the emotion across by the dialogue and context and actions alone, and b) the writer does not give the readers enough credit to "get it" without explicitly telling them the character growls, therefore he must be angry.

Seriously, listen to the seasoned writers here. They know what they're talking about. Once in a while, you can do a "scream" or "whisper" or "yell." But too many of those, you come off as an amateur, using those tags as crutches because you don't know how to write a scene where the dialogue and action are sharp enough to convey the emotions.

And using non-speaking tags such as hiss, screech, spit, laugh, shrug, giggle, etc. has "bad writing" written all over it. Why? Well just try to hiss, screech, spit, laugh, shrug, giggle your words. You can't, can you?

p.s. People growl, laugh, giggle, hiss, and spit. But they are descriptions, and really are not DIALOGUE tags. You can write "she spat abuse at her husband," but you wouldn't write, "'You idiot. You moron and you should just die," she spat in anger." That's just not very good writing.

This
"The dog just ran off with my pants," the man said
vrs.
"The dog just ran off with my pants!" the man screamed

They paint very different pictures in the mind of the reader. The second one instantly gives a clear image of a man with some sort of emotional response. In the first you can't tell if he cares or not.

Click to expand...

Yes but what sort of emotional response? That isn't at all clear, and if it's not clear, it's no better than not knowing whether he cares or not. All I know extra to the first one is he raised his voice. Why is he screaming? Laughter? Anger? Nervous breakdown?

'The dog just ran off with my pants!' Roger snorted tea out of his nose and choked on his laughter.

'The dog just ran off with my pants!' Roger's eyes threatened to pop from his head and I considered calling an ambulance for imminent apoplexy.

'The dog just ran off with my pants!' Roger fell to his knees and pounded at the floor. When he looked up at me his face was wet with tears.

The picture you're painting is important if you want them to see the same image that you see.

Click to expand...

So paint one. Just one brush stroke doesn't make a picture.

maestrowork said:

And using non-speaking tags such as hiss, screech, spit, laugh, shrug, giggle, etc. has "bad writing" written all over it. Why? Well just try to hiss, screech, spit, laugh, shrug, giggle your words. You can't, can you?

Click to expand...

it doesn't matter if you can actually shrug or giggle a word. What matters is that you are painting the image of a person talking and giggling at the same time, or shrugging while talking.

You can write:

"I really don't know." He said, and then giggled

Or you can write

"I really don't know," he giggled.

Both send the same image to the reader. That the person speaking is saying something and is also giggling

BUT

The second version is preferable. The first requires the reader to have to think just a bit harder than the second does in order to visualize the correct image

You are writing for READERS, not other writers. You are trying to paint a clear picture for them, not trying to impress some editor or some English professor.

Keep that in mind.

IdiotsRUs said:

So paint one. Just one brush stroke doesn't make a picture.

Click to expand...

True, and your examples are excellent. However, I was trying to make a point between a bland, boring sentence and one with more impact.

A scoop of vanilla ice cream is much more interesting with only one cherry on top than a plain scoop is, though not nearly as interesting as a scoop of vanilla ice cream with sprinkles, a dollop of whipped cream and a cherry on top.

crystalwizard said:

it doesn't matter if you can actually shrug or giggle a word. What matters is that you are painting the image of a person talking and giggling at the same time, or shrugging while talking.

You can write:

"I really don't know." He said, and then giggled

Or you can write

"I really don't know," he giggled.

Both send the same image to the reader. That the person speaking is saying something and is also giggling

BUT

The second version is preferable. The first requires the reader to have to think just a bit harder than the second does in order to visualize the correct image

You are writing for READERS, not other writers. You are trying to paint a clear picture for them, not trying to impress some editor or some English professor.

Keep that in mind.

Click to expand...

Sorry, crystalwizard, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. There are quite a few people here who have been through the editing cycle with publishers, and feel just the opposite. Personally, I think this could be a one-way ticket to the slush pile of many of the publishing houses that offer reasonable advances to their authors, or at the very least, a contributing factor in being handed that ticket.

However, I was trying to make a point between a bland, boring sentence and one with more impact.

Click to expand...

Well impact works best when specific. 'Screamed' isn't specific unless you show why the scream occurred, the emotional reason behind it. It's just a loud noise on its own. Or a three-year-old having a tantrum

The first requires the reader to have to think just a bit harder than the second does in order to visualize the correct image

Click to expand...

I like to credit readers with having at least a couple of braincells.

NeuroFizz said:

Sorry, crystalwizard, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. There are quite a few people here who have been through the editing cycle with publishers, and feel just the opposite. Personally, I think this could be a one-way ticket to the slush pile of many of the publishing houses that offer reasonable advances to their authors, or at the very least, a contributing factor in being handed that ticket.

Click to expand...

In that situation, you aren't writing for readers. You're writing for a specific publisher or editor that you want to have buy your work. In that case, yes, you do have to make sure you give that publisher or editor what they want or they won't buy. If they don't like adverbs, then don't use any. If they don't like adjectives, then don't use any. If they want all the characters in your book to be named Sam, then name them all Sam.

Actually, the works were already under contract and the editors in question were the ones who worked for the publishers. If these editors aren't working for the readers, I don't know who is.

And if there is anyone here at AW who has ever posted that "it's all about the readers," it's me. It's a personal chant that I have said in those exact words in threads here.

NeuroFizz said:

If these editors aren't working for the readers, I don't know who is.

Click to expand...

Quoted for truth. Publishers and editors make their money from readers, and everything they do focuses on what they think readers will buy.

"Asked" is better than "said" for questions, in my opinion. And in the opinion of the editors I've worked with at Random House, St. Martin's Press, The New Press, and elsewhere.

So take that for what it's worth.

crystalwizard said:

it doesn't matter if you can actually shrug or giggle a word. What matters is that you are painting the image of a person talking and giggling at the same time, or shrugging while talking.

You can write:

"I really don't know." He said, and then giggled

Or you can write

"I really don't know," he giggled.

Both send the same image to the reader. That the person speaking is saying something and is also giggling

BUT

The second version is preferable. The first requires the reader to have to think just a bit harder than the second does in order to visualize the correct image

You are writing for READERS, not other writers. You are trying to paint a clear picture for them, not trying to impress some editor or some English professor.

Keep that in mind.

Click to expand...

The second version implies that he giggled the sentence, which might be evocative if the he in question was a psychopath. Otherwise, not so great a sentence.

Said is pretty much invisible- in that the eye doesn't register it. Obviously it's best not to overuse any words, but if you have a bunch of people talking, it can be necessary.

Impossible tags hissing, howling, yodelling, growling annoy me and throw me out of the story. (impossible if it's an entire sentence, I suppose you could growl the word, go! or howl it or his it or yodel it).

Possible tags like murmur, whisper, asked, mutter, work for me if they are appropriate and not over used.

crystalwizard said:

The second version is preferable. The first requires the reader to have to think just a bit harder than the second does in order to visualize the correct image

You are writing for READERS, not other writers. You are trying to paint a clear picture for them, not trying to impress some editor or some English professor.

Keep that in mind.

Click to expand...

So the reader is a 2 yr old who has not yet learned to deduce emotion from action and instead of honing my craft to be as good as I can be, I should use giant flashing neon signs to point out emotion to the reader because according to your argument they are stupid and we shouldn't require them to think at all. At which point I wonder why readers don't just buy picture books and forget about reading great books like "Water for Elephants" or "DeNiro's Game" because god knows those books require the reader to think and deduce and come up with their own interpretations.

And before you say that "Water for Elephants" is "literature" and hardly anyone reads literature I will point out that book is a best seller.

But lets not talk about "literature" lets talk about good old-fashioned genre writing. Let us for example take "Hell's Belles". An Urban Fantasy by Jackie Kessler, a member of AW. Very well received, got great reviews, readers love her, I've been on several boards for other authors where people mentioned Jackie's books as one of their favourites of the year. So lets look at Jackie's writing.

"Okay, time for the mafia tactic. "You signed a contrat with one of my associates. "Im here to collect."

I heard her breath catch in her throat, and I thought I had her. Then the one eye staring at me narrowed. "If this were an official visit," she said, "you wouldn't have bothered rining the doorbell. You wouldh'te just materialized inside. Besides, since when does one of your kind do collections for the Hecate?"

Crap. "you want an answer, or what that rhetorical?"

"GOod-bye, Jesse." She shut the door.

"Wait!" Hating myself, I said the magic word, "Please."

Click to expand...

Two dialogue tags in that whole thing. Both said. One exclamation mark. Yet there is no doubt about the emotions or the way things were said. Now if I were to rewrite it so that I would follow your guidelines I would get something like this.

"Open the door" I menaced threatingly.
"Since when you do you collections" She whispered questioningly.
"You want an answer", I evaricated vaguely.
"Good bye Jesse" she hissed assertively.
"Wait," I yelled imploratively.

Click to expand...

There is no comparison. You may think your readers are stupid and need to be led by the hand to come to the right conclusions but I know, as do the many authors here who are published by big houses and who have extremely impressive sales and reviews to back it up, and the myriad of editors and agents who post here, what really is good writing.

crystalwizard said:

Yes, you DO want to get creative with your tags. Yes, you DO want to use things other than said, replied and asked. Yes, you DO want to use exclamation points.

This
"The dog just ran off with my pants," the man said
vrs.
"The dog just ran off with my pants!" the man screamed

They paint very different pictures in the mind of the reader. The second one instantly gives a clear image of a man with some sort of emotional response. In the first you can't tell if he cares or not.

Click to expand...

Crystal, I visited your website and see that you run an editing service and you're a ghostwriter. Is this the kind of advice you offer your clients?

You certainly have a right to your opinion, but it's concerning that you might foist some of this questionable advice onto paying clients. I couldn't disagree with you more. NeuroFizz is right on the money, as is ScarletPeaches.

I'm not an editor or a ghostwriter, but I am a published author. I write for readers, and I'm careful not to use adverbs and wonky speaker tags like giggled and growled, LOL! My agent would cut me loose if I butchered my dialogue like that. Fifteen years of writing has taught me much, and I could never buy what you're selling.

OP, there's been lots of great advice given to you on this thread. Take what works for you, and disregard the rest. Good luck with your writing.

FennelGiraffe said:

Please explain how you can hiss a word that contains no sibilants.

By the way, that's not how a dialog tag is punctuated. It should be

"Don't," she hissed in angered warning...
​

Click to expand...

Actually, I think the poster showed this correctly (inadvertently--I know it wasn't intended as separate sentences).

If I were to write this, I would have written it exactly like that (because inevitably, they are separate actions).

"Don't!" She hissed in angered warning.

Although, that last sentence is weak. Probably just "She hissed." The rest insults me as a reader.

You can't hiss words that don't have s, z, soft c, or th in them. You just can't.

"Don't!" she hissed might well wind up as one of those thingies at the bottom of New Yorker articles, or in Private Eye: "HISSES WE DOUBT WERE EVER HISSED."

Don't go there.

I have used "he hissed." and "he growled". as dialogue tags, but ONLY in the instance of a character who appeared human and wasn't. The "hissing" and "growling" when he spoke was to set him apart from people who "said" things like normal humans.

crystalwizard said:

it doesn't matter if you can actually shrug or giggle a word. What matters is that you are painting the image of a person talking and giggling at the same time, or shrugging while talking.

Click to expand...

It does matter. Sorry.


If you really want to write it that way, do this:


"I really don't know." He giggled.


One is a dialogue tag -- the way someone SPEAKS it. One is an action that accompanies or follows a dialogue. There is a difference. There is simply no way one can giggle out a sentence. If you want to paint an image, then paint a picture with real actions and settings and context. "He giggled" gives me nothing.

And if you write "I really don't know," he giggled, there will be a high possibility that your work will land in the slush pile, or your editor will bring out the giant red pencil.

You are writing for READERS, not other writers.

Click to expand...

No, you're writing for readers who are intelligent enough to deduce emotions and understand context, much as in real life, where no one is going to run a commentary and qualify every speech. So don't insult their intelligence. Don't treat them like 5-year-olds. And certainly don't force them to accept a character to giggle his words.

For those of you who don't like my words (or agree with my opinion), here is another view of the same, with appropriate citation:

From Self-Editing for Fiction Writers, by R. Browne and D. King (Harper Collins, 2nd Edition, 2004, pp.88-89.)

Beginning of quote (any mistakes are mine, italics and examples are from their original passages) I've clipped a few examples that weren't germane to the discussion for brevity, indicated in blue.

"Unless your dialogue consists entirely of one character talking to himself or herself, you will need to include speaker attributions so your readers know who is saying what. Bear in mind that the only reason you need them is so your readers know who is saying what. Don't use speaker attributions as a way of slipping in explanations of your dialogue ("he growled," "she snapped"). As with other types of explanations, either they're unnecessary or they are necessary but shouldn't be. (my clip)

Your best bet is to use the verb said almost without exception. (my clip) Some writers get a little nervous when they see a long string of said's spreading over the page. They hear the voices of their creative writing teachers telling them to strive for variety and originality in their verbs. So they write:

"Give it to me," she demanded.
"Here is it," he offered.
"Is it loaded?" she inquired.

Or even worse:

"I hate to admit that," he grimaced.
"Come closer," she smiled.
"So you've changed your mind," he chuckled.

To use verbs like these last three for speaker attributions is to brand yourself an amateur--and to stick your character with an action that is physically impossible. No one outside of hack fiction has ever been able to grimace or smile or chuckle a sentence."

End of quote.

They go on to explain how the word "said" is invisible to the readers, like others have mentioned.

I have found this book to be an extremely valuable resource for things like this, and one that doesn't pull any punches. Furthermore, the editors I've worked with share these views. The book also has something interesting to say about "John said" versus "said John" but I'll leave that to y'all to read since I don't want to steal all of their thunder, even though the passage above has been properly quoted and cited. This is one of those rare writing books I've found to be really useful.

Other books that are worth a read on this subject:

Stein on Writing by Sol Stein
Writing Dialogue by Tom Chiarella

I sometimes stick a character's name into a snipet of dialogue to clarify that the other one is speaking:

"Please turn the channel, Jane."
This isn't feasible in all contexts, of course.
(Probably some technical name for this sort of thing?)

As a reader I don't mind dialogue tags.
What I do mind very much is confusion that results when they are left out too often, making me wonder who is doing the speaking. So to some extent, dialogue tags are necessary evils that really aren't such eyesores.

Although I certainly agree with the prevailing opinion here, I would have to caution about following set rules for anything. "Never" do such and such is bound to run into problems.

"Careful," she whispered.

You'd have to to all sorts of contortions to avoid using "whispered" as a tag.

And dialogue, to be convincing, can't achieve that goal just by following strict rules or avoiding certain constructions. It has to be alive, to sparkle on the page and not lay there like a dead fish.

For me, much of it has to to with rhythm. If you have a long block of dialogue, interspersing a tag, (usually "said," I admit) at appropriate rhythmic intervals can help it flow and make it seem natural. The same is true for the occasional modifier.

There's nothing wrong with:

"I don't think so," he said thoughtfully.

Or, using action after a tag:

"Why not," he said, turning his back.

It's all about using such things when they add to the flow, and using them appropriately. If you overuse them, it's a disaster -- but that's true with almost any aspect of writing. How you do it is part of the creative process, and developing a good ear for dialogue is essential.

When I read over a block of dialogue I've written, I often insert extra tags. Then I read it again, and sometimes take them back out. Eventually I find a balance until it reads right to me.

And it's that critical ability to know when it sounds right that is so crucial, imo.

Again, I'd like to see where the word "never" has been used in this thread, including the quote I posted (which says to use "said" almost exclusively--not exclusively). Whispered is one that is useful on occasion. I think Browne and King do suggest that attributions that are physically impossible should fall under the "never" category, though (hack fiction they call it).