TheNextBigWriter Premium → Writing dialogue
The New York Book Editors publish a useful blog with writing tips. Below is one on writing dialogue and the most common mistakes writers make. I thought it useful. Maybe you will too.
https://nybookeditors.com/2018/02/dont- … 79b740f759
Useful points, except I disagree with #4. People do use hesitating words like "uh" and "um" in conversation, so I don't see why they should be banished from written dialogue. And, in fact, the use of these words often in a character's dialogue can distinguish their speech pattern from that of other characters (#6).
Useful points, except I disagree with #4. People do use hesitating words like "uh" and "um" in conversation, so I don't see why they should be banished from written dialogue. And, in fact, the use of these words often in a character's dialogue can distinguish their speech pattern from that of other characters (#6).
Agree with Jack's comments. Authors do need to use something to help distinguish between characters and uh and um are natural.
I agree with both of you as long as the uh's and um's don't distract too much. I liked to have the essentials summed up in a short manner, and like always get reminded of what I need to pay more attention to or plain change.
Like all other "rules" it is just a guideline. Sure folks use "uhs" and "ums" and such in talking just the way they use "you know" which is distracting and annoying in person and would become more so in written dialogue. An occasional utterance is no big deal, but to make it standard practice is probably going to make it stand out to the point of distraction for the reader. Surely there are better ways to differentiate characters' speech patterns. Take care. Vern
Like all other "rules" it is just a guideline. Sure folks use "uhs" and "ums" and such in talking just the way they use "you know" which is distracting and annoying in person and would become more so in written dialogue. An occasional utterance is no big deal, but to make it standard practice is probably going to make it stand out to the point of distraction for the reader. Surely there are better ways to differentiate characters' speech patterns. Take care. Vern
Agree 100%. If differentiating a character’s speech is the excuse, then you need to apply more creativity. If you use a reputable editor, they’ll advise you to take such “uhs” and “ums” out (because they are useless filler). They show up a lot in self-pub and fiction by hacks. They rarely appear in literary fiction. I don’t think you could find an established writer with critical acclaim that would condone using them as a marker to differentiate a character’s speech. And no decent editor would condone it. And why on earth would you want to?
I think it best to pretend those particular syllables --"um" and "uh"-- don't even exist as readable copy. Better to qualify the dialogue with something like *he couldn't find the right words in the moment* than to tarnish the dialogue with ums and uhs. Having said that so imperiously, though... Let's face it, I probably do it too. 
Mistake #5 - Dialogue Tags: I get it. Using “he said” and “she said” is boring. However, dialogue tags are meant to be functional and not descriptive.
Gee, how about trying tags that are functional and descriptive? If your going to put a word on the page, making it serve more than one purpose seems like common sense.
Or how about the way those tags distract the user? When one of my admirals snapped at one of her subordinates, I didn't hear any feedback from distracted reviewers.
Sure, they can be overused, but having to read a fancy dialogue tag doesn't distract me in the least. Why should I write a sentence showing how my admiral is pissed off when I'm in the middle of a fast-moving battle and short choppy sentences are best suited for the scene?
Technically, I could have written "As you were, Ensign!" the admiral said, and let the exclamation mark serve in lieu of a snapping dialogue tag, but I find that I scan over punctuation marks since they're so small. I use said for regular conversation and other tags to give them added weight.
Mistake #5 - Dialogue Tags: I get it. Using “he said” and “she said” is boring. However, dialogue tags are meant to be functional and not descriptive.
Gee, how about trying tags that are functional and descriptive? If your going to put a word on the page, making it serve more than one purpose seems like common sense.Or how about the way those tags distract the user? When one of my admirals snapped at one of her subordinates, I didn't hear any feedback from distracted reviewers.
Sure, they can be overused, but having to read a fancy dialogue tag doesn't distract me in the least. Why should I write a sentence showing how my admiral is pissed off when I'm in the middle of a fast-moving battle and short choppy sentences are best suited for the scene?
Technically, I could have written "As you were, Ensign!" the admiral said, and let the exclamation mark serve in lieu of a snapping dialogue tag, but I find that I scan over punctuation marks since they're so small. I use said for regular conversation and other tags to give them added weight.
“Clever” dialogue tags are a crutch of beginning writers and those who haven’t developed their dialogue skills sufficiently. (Or those too lazy to bother.)
Once you learn how to write dialogue effectively, you need very few tags at all (context and action beats replace them), and most of the ones you do use can be “said” (without a clever -ly adjective weighing it down.) (That’s also the point where writers quit defending the use of silly tags.)
For example, in the above, there is a good chance that context would tell us it’s the admiral using that line. And the actions preceding it would likely indicate the tone (if not, then you have a bigger problem). So, the exclamation point and the tag are likely both unnecessary. If you think you need them, I suggest you challenge yourself to modify the scene where it’s obvious without them. That’s what writing is about, not finding clever dialogue tags.
Save your cleverness for great verbs and nouns and dialogue, not dialogue tags.
PS: Try reading The Road, by Cormac McCarthy, or download a sample. No quotation marks, almost no tags. (And no exclamation marks.) Yet he is still able to convey incredibly complex emotions. Now those are some serious dialogue chops.
I use it all with no regard for rules as long as what's hitting the page is believable. If my character decides he/she wants to use Uhm..it gets used. If they talk too formally, so be it. The key for me was teaching myself how to ignore my own voice in my head and start LISTENING to them. That and subtext, subtext, subtext. Without subtext, even the best dialogue just plain sucks.
Dirk B. wrote:Mistake #5 - Dialogue Tags: I get it. Using “he said” and “she said” is boring. However, dialogue tags are meant to be functional and not descriptive.
Gee, how about trying tags that are functional and descriptive? If your going to put a word on the page, making it serve more than one purpose seems like common sense.Or how about the way those tags distract the user? When one of my admirals snapped at one of her subordinates, I didn't hear any feedback from distracted reviewers.
Sure, they can be overused, but having to read a fancy dialogue tag doesn't distract me in the least. Why should I write a sentence showing how my admiral is pissed off when I'm in the middle of a fast-moving battle and short choppy sentences are best suited for the scene?
Technically, I could have written "As you were, Ensign!" the admiral said, and let the exclamation mark serve in lieu of a snapping dialogue tag, but I find that I scan over punctuation marks since they're so small. I use said for regular conversation and other tags to give them added weight.
“Clever” dialogue tags are a crutch of beginning writers and those who haven’t developed their dialogue skills sufficiently. (Or those too lazy to bother.)
Once you learn how to write dialogue effectively, you need very few tags at all (context and action beats replace them), and most of the ones you do use can be “said” (without a clever -ly adjective weighing it down.) (That’s also the point where writers quit defending the use of silly tags.)
For example, in the above, there is a good chance that context would tell us it’s the admiral using that line. And the actions preceding it would likely indicate the tone (if not, then you have a bigger problem). So, the exclamation point and the tag are likely both unnecessary. If you think you need them, I suggest you challenge yourself to modify the scene where it’s obvious without them. That’s what writing is about, not finding clever dialogue tags.
Save your cleverness for great verbs and nouns and dialogue, not dialogue tags.
PS: Try reading The Road, by Cormac McCarthy, or download a sample. No quotation marks, almost no tags. (And no exclamation marks.) Yet he is still able to convey incredibly complex emotions. Now those are some serious dialogue chops.
I agree abou thte -ly adjectives weighing down your tags, but that's not what Dirk was talking about. He was talking about using a different verb- instead of "said" use "snapped". It gets so much across to the reader in one word. I personally hate the use of "said" for everything- I'm told they are not noticable, but I notice them and they do bore me. I'm with Dirk on this one, and I don't consider it lazy writing. In the effort to be concise, using your tags to do more tha identify the speaker is helpful.
I agree with you about cutting them whenever possible though, and using action instead of the tag.
That said, sticking closely to too many rules can stunt creativity. Sometimes its better to break them.
I agree abou thte -ly adjectives weighing down your tags, but that's not what Dirk was talking about. He was talking about using a different verb- instead of "said" use "snapped".
-ly adjectives weren’t my point either, that’s why it was made as a parenthetical comment. Might reread it. I was addressing principally tags other than “said.” Also, I think you miss the point of dialogue tags. They are supposed to be boring. They are supposed to disappear. 99% of the time, their purpose should be to identify the speaker - period. If you are routinely using them for other purposes, you need to study up on effective dialogue. Your objective should be to make the tags as inconspicuous as possible. Clever tags draw attention to the tags, not the dialogue (and away from the story). When you embrace this, you will be one step closer to masterful dialogue. If you turn your back on it, your dialogue will sound amateurish. Just the way it is.
C J Driftwood wrote:I agree abou thte -ly adjectives weighing down your tags, but that's not what Dirk was talking about. He was talking about using a different verb- instead of "said" use "snapped".
-ly adjectives weren’t my point either, that’s why it was made as a parenthetical comment. Might reread it. I was addressing principally tags other than “said.” Also, I think you miss the point of dialogue tags. They are supposed to be boring. They are supposed to disappear. 99% of the time, their purpose should be to identify the speaker - period. If you are routinely using them for other purposes, you need to study up on effective dialogue. Your objective should be to make the tags as inconspicuous as possible. Clever tags draw attention to the tags, not the dialogue (and away from the story). When you embrace this, you will be one step closer to masterful dialogue. If you turn your back on it, your dialogue will sound amateurish. Just the way it is.
There is nothing wrong with using a tag to explain how something is said. The use of "said" doesn't disappear. It becomes a repeat to some readers ears (like mine).
Dallas Wright wrote:C J Driftwood wrote:I agree abou thte -ly adjectives weighing down your tags, but that's not what Dirk was talking about. He was talking about using a different verb- instead of "said" use "snapped".
-ly adjectives weren’t my point either, that’s why it was made as a parenthetical comment. Might reread it. I was addressing principally tags other than “said.” Also, I think you miss the point of dialogue tags. They are supposed to be boring. They are supposed to disappear. 99% of the time, their purpose should be to identify the speaker - period. If you are routinely using them for other purposes, you need to study up on effective dialogue. Your objective should be to make the tags as inconspicuous as possible. Clever tags draw attention to the tags, not the dialogue (and away from the story). When you embrace this, you will be one step closer to masterful dialogue. If you turn your back on it, your dialogue will sound amateurish. Just the way it is.
There is nothing wrong with using a tag to explain how something is said. The use of "said" doesn't disappear. It becomes a repeat to some readers ears (like mine).
I stand corrected. My sources are my colleagues in the field of professional editing. I should be reading more sources like blogs called “write at home.” Who knew? Thank you for enlightening me.
My mantra for speaker tags (feel free to borrow it): "Let the words (dialogue) and actions show the tone and/or state of mind of the speaker." Yes, there may be a few exceptions as with every rule, but there should not be many imnho. Take care. Vern
My mantra for speaker tags (feel free to borrow it): "Let the words (dialogue) and actions show the tone and/or state of mind of the speaker." Yes, there may be a few exceptions as with every rule, but there should not be many imnho. Take care. Vern
Exactly.
Or, as they say at the “write at home” blog:
“Exactly!” Dallas declared expressively.
LOL
There is nothing wrong with using a tag to explain how something is said.
The problem with explaining dialog, or explaining anything in fiction, is that it robs the narration of transparency. Because narrative transparency is considered a virtue among contemporary literary critics, the use of dialog tags and associated modifiers is frowned upon, while the style of a Cormac McCarthy is celebrated. This is a natural product of artistic evolution and, like it or not, if you want to operate in the world of literary fiction on a professional level, must be honored. It's worth noting, however, that the "rules" applied to literary fiction and those which influence genre fiction are somewhat different, and such is abundantly clear to anyone who reads much of both. That said, I'll agree with Dallas and say that, while the occasional dialog tag is acceptable, though best minimized, explaining dialog is amateurish in any work of fiction.
On that topic, I very highly recommend the following seminal work on the subject of contemporary literary style, as it details the evils of explaining in lucid perfection; every aspiring writer ought read this book:
C J Driftwood wrote:There is nothing wrong with using a tag to explain how something is said.
The problem with explaining dialog, or explaining anything in fiction, is that it robs the narration of transparency. Because narrative transparency is considered a virtue among contemporary literary critics, the use of dialog tags and associated modifiers is frowned upon, while the style of a Cormac McCarthy is celebrated. This is a natural product of artistic evolution and, like it or not, if you want to operate in the world of literary fiction on a professional level, must be honored. It's worth noting, however, that the "rules" applied to literary fiction and those which influence genre fiction are somewhat different, and such is abundantly clear to anyone who reads much of both. That said, I'll agree with Dallas and say that, while the occasional dialog tag is acceptable, though best minimized, explaining dialog is amateurish in any work of fiction.
On that topic, I very highly recommend the following seminal work on the subject of contemporary literary style, as it details the evils of explaining in lucid perfection; every aspiring writer ought read this book:
This is not my argument, I agree, you shouldn’t have to explain dialogue. But if someone is yelling, why would you use “said”. Use “yelled”. If they are whispering, say that the are whispering. If they are “demanding” let them demand. Or are you all saying the author should spend precious word count explaining their body language every time they are not simply “saying” something. I get that one should cut tags, ask anyone I review? But there are better words than just said, in some situations.
On that topic, I very highly recommend the following seminal work on the subject of contemporary literary style, as it details the evils of explaining in lucid perfection; every aspiring writer ought read this book:
Agree with the book recommendation. Excellent resource. Wore the cover off my first copy. Two exceptional editors authored that work, incidentally. Reinforces the importance of relying on editors for advice on such topics
(rather than blogs with Buzzfeed-like topics, such as “100 Ways to Say ‘Good’ “).
Oy vey...*face palm*
This is not my argument, I agree, you shouldn’t have to explain dialogue. But if someone is yelling, why would you use “said”. Use “yelled”. If they are whispering, say that the are whispering. If they are “demanding” let them demand. Or are you all saying the author should spend precious word count explaining their body language every time they are not simply “saying” something. I get that one should cut tags, ask anyone I review? But there are better words than just said, in some situations.
Again, one needs to examine the issue relative to genre and expectation. In literary fiction probably it's best now to avoid any dialog tags but "said" simply because that is what editors and critics expect: the use of tags such as "yelled," "grumbled," "shouted," etc. are to some degree pooh-poohed in the ivory tower. At the same time, a valid argument can be made that such terms are intrinsically weak because they rob the prose of some aesthetic quality; this is, of course, subjective, but I tend to agree.
On the other hand, in genre fiction, where NOT using "shouted" when a character did in fact shout is nearly absurd. I happen to write genre fiction, so I use for a dialog tag any verb which is a verb of speech. What I do NOT do is provide any explanation beyond that one verb: no adverbs, -ly or otherwise, no facial expressions, no "with anger," etc. This I would say is something the context alone should indicate; explaining such emotions really should be avoided.
C J Driftwood wrote:Dallas Wright wrote:-ly adjectives weren’t my point either, that’s why it was made as a parenthetical comment. Might reread it. I was addressing principally tags other than “said.” Also, I think you miss the point of dialogue tags. They are supposed to be boring. They are supposed to disappear. 99% of the time, their purpose should be to identify the speaker - period. If you are routinely using them for other purposes, you need to study up on effective dialogue. Your objective should be to make the tags as inconspicuous as possible. Clever tags draw attention to the tags, not the dialogue (and away from the story). When you embrace this, you will be one step closer to masterful dialogue. If you turn your back on it, your dialogue will sound amateurish. Just the way it is.
There is nothing wrong with using a tag to explain how something is said. The use of "said" doesn't disappear. It becomes a repeat to some readers ears (like mine).
I stand corrected. My sources are my colleagues in the field of professional editing. I should be reading more sources like blogs called “write at home.” Who knew? Thank you for enlightening me.
I’m not trying to impress your colleagues. Or even you. Sorry you found my link so disappointing and hilarious. I’d love to be enlightened by one of your own postings, but woe and behold nothing there. And only two reviews by you, that I can see. You like better to incite than inform.
I’m here to improve my writing, I’m not sure why you are.
I’m not trying to impress your colleagues. Or even you. Sorry you found my link so disappointing and hilarious. I’d love to be enlightened by one of your own postings, but woe and behold nothing there. And only two reviews by you, that I can see. You like better to incite than inform.
I’m here to improve my writing, I’m not sure why you are.
It was pretty funny.
There are more reviews than that. Those are regular reviews. I tend to do in-lines.
I enjoy editing. It’s my job.
I am a basic member here. I post on two other sites. If you are so eager to be enlightened, PM me and I’ll be happy to enlighten you.
I prefer informing to inciting - you may be skipping over the parts that inform.
Well, this became a bear of a forum post.
If I've learned anything in writing it's that hard and fast rules aren't always hard and fast. I still remember spending years learning to never start a sentence with "And", yet I often see it here and in published fiction.
The same can be said about dialogue tags. I've seen excellent use of expressive tags, descriptive tags, no tags, plain tags, what have you. If it works it works. I tend to agree with CJ in this thread from what I've read.
I've made plenty of dialogue mistakes, it's a hard thing to learn, but applying strict rules just limits you and doesn't inform if you don't understand the rule or why its important. Rules without substance are useless.
Deckland had a good point about genre and expectation. Literary fiction is wholly different than genre fiction and as such the rules are different. It's hard to have a coherent conversation, as this thread shows, when everyone is dabbling in different genres and applying their "expertise" with broad strokes.
I just looked at published books, national and international bestseller, in how they use dialogue tags. The books I examined are quite diverse: Natchez Burning by Greg Iles, The Time in Between by Maria Duenas, All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr. All three authors use dialogue tags sparingly, but do use words like whisper, ask and a few other descriptive words for dialogue here and there. I'll strive to provide a context to eliminate the need as much as possible, then just not worry about it.
I just looked at published books, national and international bestseller, in how they use dialogue tags. The books I examined are quite diverse: Natchez Burning by Greg Iles, The Time in Between by Maria Duenas, All the Light We Cannot See by Anthony Doerr. All three authors use dialogue tags sparingly, but do use words like whisper, ask and a few other descriptive words for dialogue here and there. I'll strive to provide a context to eliminate the need as much as possible, then just not worry about it.
I believe the key word is "sparingly" and if well established authors can get away with it only "sparingly" then those still looking to join the established club probably should use such tags a bit more sparingly. It goes without saying, hopefully, that if you intend to self-publish, then you can do anything you wish without concern for any norms within the traditional publishing industry. Regardless, there is nothing to prevent the author from writing any which way they wish, publishers be damned -- you pays your money and takes your chances. No one can force the author to abide by any rules if they choose not to and who knows, you might win the lottery. Unfortunately, few will. Still your choice. Take care. Vern
TheNextBigWriter Premium → Writing dialogue
