Dialogue tags to be avoided (Page 2 of 3)

lol.

I just read a book last night in which the tag 'barked' was used so many times and applied to the speech of so many different characters, it became a distraction all by itself. I thought maybe the writer was a new author self-publishing, until I saw the complete list of her works. Looks like we all make mistakes.

Maybe it's okay to use dialog tags (although I think it's  preferable to use action to indicate who's speaking). But you have to admit, when the tag itself becomes more notable than the words said, it's a problem.

Pity. It was a good story.

Again I say, the story's the thing.  JP

You're safe.

Those aren't dialog tags. By separating them with a period, you kept them as actions. They would be dialog tags if you'd written:
I smiled, "That should keep you for a while." OR  My eyebrows rose, "You're what?"

See what I mean? I suppose I have seen the former, but I guaran-damn-tee you the latter just won't fly. Never in the history of the world has raising the eyebrows produced sound, much less speech.

You're fine, Bill.  JP

I tend to just say "he said" or "she told him" when I'm relaying a story verbally, because the important part of the story is what was said, not finding a verb to express how the said was said. I might say "he balled" rather than "he said while balling." The prior might be more succinct or a better punch line. I can't imagine I'd ever say "he proclaimed" unless I was standing around in the 1600s reading a decree. My advice is to imagine someone is sitting there listening to you as you tell your story. If they raise a brow when you said "he acquiesced" and say "REALLY, DEAR WRITER? HE ACQUIESCED?" that part probably doesn't work. If it works, it just might be your voice. Experiment!

I think "fashion" or "expectation" is a better way to look at the current writing conventions than "rules." The literary fashion back in the 1800s (in England, at least, which is what I've read, hello Victorian novels) was a long, sprawling opening before the action begins. The fashion now seems to be (with a nod to Gacela's point about cinema) something more sudden and visual.

I think when a publisher lists things like "make all your dialogue tags the same," they are listing a rule for their company based on what is fashionable or conventional -- meaning what they've found will sell. They are thinking monetarily (fairly enough), while I believe, for the most part, we writers are thinking more creatively. The word "rule" will throw off any independent thinker. "Writing rule" implies there is a certain law about writing that one must master, no questions asked, if one is to succeed. Immediately the independent thinker wants to know where the rule came from, and why.  Not necessarily to break the rule -- but to understand it.

There ARE rules (accepted conventions) within language (depending on what one is communicating -- example a legal document, we must try to understand one another), but ART questions the rules and challenges the fashion and transforms thinking.

A publisher's rules are not writing rules. They're that publisher's set of guidelines, likely based on what they have found sells well.

Literature has no definitive rules. If it did, James Joyce would have self-combusted, and English-speakers would still be saying "thou" rather than "you" in long epic poetry written on scrolls. Literature is no more a rule than music, & yet one can break music into its notes and find structure, & that structure describes the music's essence. When people put out "rules," they're trying to describe this essence within successful literature. They're saying, "Look, I can't stand a story peppered with lots of ridiculous dialogue tags that distract me from the story. Successful books tend to have dialogue with substance. Clever dialogue tags aren't necessary when you have good dialogue with substance. Dialogue tags beyond said are a red flag that the story lacks substance. The cure isn't to bandage the bad writing with a thesaurus full of dialogue tags: it's to make a better story." But instead of explaining this dissection process, they do the human thing: they make a decree and announce that all books with clunky dialogue tags have it wrong. And that is translated into a "writing rule" and passed through the grapevine. THINK IT THROUGH. 

"Said" tends to hide itself within a manuscript because of the monotony of repetition. So when you use a different tag for emphasis within the same manuscript, that moment will stand out because you're breaking the established pattern. New writers tend to think using a creative dialogue tag for the sake of the word itself makes a manuscript original. My advice would be to think about each occasion when you change it up and ask yourself what the change accomplishes. Not because "YOU MUST USE SAID AND ONLY SAID" is a legitimate rule, but because it's an expectation. You can play with expectation. If it's worth it, change it. You should always be thinking as you write -- always asking what this or that technique might do for the reader. The reader (in America at least) expects "said." Does challenging that expectation do anything for the story?

I had a professor last year who insisted every case of the verb "to be" must be (ha!) deleted from essays submitted to him on pain of red pen. He lectured us about "to be" almost every day. One day he brought it up again and said, "I know you're all tired of me harping on 'to be.' I was recently told by a student that I should relax about it. It's a real verb, and it's silly to outlaw it from papers altogether. To that I say, 'Yes, it is a real verb. I don't like it. I don't like that students rely upon it rather than exercising their brains enough to think of a more active verb. I want you to think. I am grading your paper. Whether you like it or not, I'm going to mark your paper with my red pen if I see any form of "to be" anywhere in your paper. Even if your paper is otherwise brilliant.'"

If Moonshine Cove Publishing doesn't like dialogue tags beyond "said," it's probably good form not to submit a manuscript filled with dialogue tags beyond "said" to Moonshine Cove Publishing.

When I noticed how often Dorothy Sawyers (a fairly decent writer) broke rules like these, I began, for amusement, noticing rules violation as I read popular or famous authors.  Everyone broke every one.  Rules are for teaching, as Gacela said, and for winnowing.  It provides a quick and easy way to reject a manuscript without doing the dirty work of actually reading the story.  How do you know what to do?  Have beta readers, see if they like it.

Dorthy wrote a long time ago. Maybe there wasn’t so many rules back then. Ah, I envy her.....

The list of words provided which started this thread has created responses from some who tend to think that posting this list means they must never be used period when in fact it has been stated more than once within this same thread that there are exceptions. I quoted a line from MJ to that effect in replying to another author.

If you ignore statements which allow for exceptions to the so-called rule and argue against the so-called rule as though it were presented as being set in concrete, then you are by default saying  that the original post is saying the so-called rule is set in concrete and you can't break the rules. And NO ONE has said or implied you can't legitimately break those so-called rules. I have instead stated that no rule is set in concrete. We have free will, we can do as we choose. That being the case, we still continue to get examples of "great" writers who have broken the "rules" as though anyone has said the rules can't be broken. Perhaps a bit lengthy and wandering -- probably breaking a rule somewhere -- but hopefully it will clarify my statement and  position on the subject. If not, I suppose it is beyond my capacity and probably should just quit trying to explain -- it could be debated if that is set in concrete or not. Take care. Vern

Possibly! They're well within their rights, of course, to nail down a script, but they may miss out on an excellent work that way. I imagine they also quickly screen out bad manuscripts filled with remarkably clunky dialogue tags. The one doesn't naturally default to the other, however.

Marilyn,
It was helpful to me. And validation, too. Sometimes when agonizing over what to cut and what to keep, it's helpful to know I can just get by with 'so and so said.'

THANKS!

PS I am listening to Pulitzer prize winner John Stanford's new novel, Deep Freeze, and he adheres to the 'rule' of just letting people say and ask. 

Definition of "rule" from Merriam:
**
Definition of rule
1 a :a prescribed guide for conduct or action

b :the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members

c :an accepted procedure, custom, or habit

d (1) :a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties  (2) :a legal precept or doctrine 

e :a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct
**
It might be noted that the first thing listed is "guide". No one forces you to use it under threat of bodily harm; you are free to follow it or ignore it. Perhaps Merriam can show it better than moi. Or you can discuss the merits with the dictionary; it's not set in concrete either. Take care. Vern

I'm a rule breaker--so get over it.

An interesting discussion. Speaking of rules and rules breakers, I'd like to drop Cormac McCarthy's name into the mix. I love reading the man's stuff, but he drives me absolutely mad with his refusal to use quotation marks. He follows only three rules:

1. No quotation marks.
2. No semicolons. Colons are okay for lists.
3. Simplicity. Too much punctuation acts as an obstacle to the story. “I believe in periods, in capitals, in the occasional comma, and that’s it.”

If I recall correctly he doesn't use dialogue tags of any kind. Not even the word "said".

I enjoy his work but find it confusing at times. He's not great at identifying which character is speaking. Following longer bits of dialogue can be tedious. In "The Road", he doesn't give his two primary characters names. He uses only the terms "father", and "son" to identify them.

Joe

I've read how disturbing that one is. I love McCarthy, but I don't want those types of images in my head. "No Country for Old Men" is my favorite. "The Road" is also a good read, but horrifyingly grim. It's a book you read once then never pick up again.

Joe.