26 Reply by Rebecca Vaughn (edited by Rebecca Vaughn 2015-10-24 00:48:00)

Re: DELETE

vern wrote:

Perhaps no meaning is lost, but unless your writing is set in some other time and place where everyone talks like a drunk barb, what you have substituted is not all natural speech and it will surely sound out of place to the reader; at least to this one. There are no concrete rules for writing and if you impose such on yourself, well, then you're going to have pretty stiff dialogue imho. Take care. Vern .

Wow. My writing has been called a lot of things, but "drunk barb" must be at the top of the list. I suggest when insulting someone, you avoid closing with "Take care." It may be fine other places, but here, it comes off as condescending.

vern wrote:

Edited for PS: Just one other teensy tidbit: You can't "laugh" conversation. You can laugh at it or with it, and you can even try to laugh at the same time, but you can't (cannot if you prefer) laugh the dialogue itself. Of course that is not set in concrete as a rule either since you can write anything you wish and keep those commas instead of periods, technically correct or not. Just a thought.

People laugh conversations all the time. Writers often say you can't laugh a word, but I have listened to people laugh entire conversations.

I use the standard way of setting dialogue tags because I think the new way is choppy and stops the flow.

Quote Post 26

Re: DELETE

Rebecca Vaughn wrote:
vern wrote:

Perhaps no meaning is lost, but unless your writing is set in some other time and place where everyone talks like a drunk barb, what you have substituted is not all natural speech and it will surely sound out of place to the reader; at least to this one. There are no concrete rules for writing and if you impose such on yourself, well, then you're going to have pretty stiff dialogue imho. Take care. Vern .

Wow. My writing has been called a lot of things, but "drunk barb" must be at the top of the list. I suggest when insulting someone, you avoid closing with "Take care." It may be fine other places, but here, it comes off as condescending.

vern wrote:

Edited for PS: Just one other teensy tidbit: You can't "laugh" conversation. You can laugh at it or with it, and you can even try to laugh at the same time, but you can't (cannot if you prefer) laugh the dialogue itself. Of course that is not set in concrete as a rule either since you can write anything you wish and keep those commas instead of periods, technically correct or not. Just a thought.

People laugh conversations all the time. Writers often say you can't laugh a word, but I have listened to people laugh entire conversations.

I use the standard way of setting dialogue tags because I think the new way is choppy and stops the flow.

Well, to start with, I didn't realize it was an insult to point out that there just might not be concrete rules anymore than I assume you didn't think it an insult to "tell" other authors not to use "that" or any other word. You didn't mean it as an insult, right? Not sure exactly why a presumed insult would be "fine" somewhere else and not here on this site where one comes ostensibly to at least hear if not adhere to different opinions. Do you think you "telling" other authors not to do something is also condescending? Just curious.

Second, you might want to get those folks laughing entire conversations on tape because I'm pretty sure it would turn lots of heads and educate quite a few. And you might check out the "standard" use of a dialogue tag with such words as "laugh." You might be surprised how not so standard it could be.

Third and maybe fourth, I use "Take care" to end practically every post because I don't consider any of them to be insulting and it is hopefully a gentle way to end a conversation even if opinions differ. I mean I can just stop abruptly in any future exchange if you prefer. As far as "drunk barb" goes, it just so happens "Be not shy here" sounds like a tipsy Shakespeare to me (maybe I'm alone here, dunno) which I find a whole lot more amusing than insulting, but to each their own.

Take care. Vern

Quote Post 27

28 Reply by Rebecca Vaughn (edited by Rebecca Vaughn 2015-10-24 06:18:17)

Re: DELETE

vern wrote:
Rebecca Vaughn wrote:
vern wrote:

Perhaps no meaning is lost, but unless your writing is set in some other time and place where everyone talks like a drunk barb, what you have substituted is not all natural speech and it will surely sound out of place to the reader; at least to this one. There are no concrete rules for writing and if you impose such on yourself, well, then you're going to have pretty stiff dialogue imho. Take care. Vern .

Wow. My writing has been called a lot of things, but "drunk barb" must be at the top of the list. I suggest when insulting someone, you avoid closing with "Take care." It may be fine other places, but here, it comes off as condescending.

Well, to start with, I didn't realize it was an insult to point out that there just might not be concrete rules anymore than I assume you didn't think it an insult to "tell" other authors not to use "that" or any other word. You didn't mean it as an insult, right?


No, I didn't say that was an insult.

I said calling my dialogue “drunk barb” was insulting.


vern wrote:
Rebecca Vaughn wrote:
vern wrote:

Perhaps no meaning is lost, but unless your writing is set in some other time and place where everyone talks like a drunk barb, what you have substituted is not all natural speech and it will surely sound out of place to the reader; at least to this one. There are no concrete rules for writing and if you impose such on yourself, well, then you're going to have pretty stiff dialogue imho. Take care. Vern .

Wow. My writing has been called a lot of things, but "drunk barb" must be at the top of the list. I suggest when insulting someone, you avoid closing with "Take care." It may be fine other places, but here, it comes off as condescending.

Not sure exactly why a presumed insult would be "fine" somewhere else and not here on this site where one comes ostensibly to at least hear if not adhere to different opinions. Do you think you "telling" other authors not to do something is also condescending? Just curious.

I didn't say that an insult was fine. I said that saying “Take care” may be fine other times, but that here (after the insulting “drunk barb”) saying “Take care” comes off as condescending.



vern wrote:
Rebecca Vaughn wrote:
vern wrote:

Edited for PS: Just one other teensy tidbit: You can't "laugh" conversation. You can laugh at it or with it, and you can even try to laugh at the same time, but you can't (cannot if you prefer) laugh the dialogue itself.

People laugh conversations all the time. Writers often say you can't laugh a word, but I have listened to people laugh entire conversations.



Second, you might want to get those folks laughing entire conversations on tape because I'm pretty sure it would turn lots of heads and educate quite a few.

I don't think it would change anything. People decide what they like or dislike. I hate “quipped”. It looks and sounds terrible. I much prefer “joked” (or anything) over “quipped." Yet there are many writers who use “quipped” all the time.
One person will use "laughed” and another will insist it has to be “said with a laugh” which actually has a different meaning.



vern wrote:
Rebecca Vaughn wrote:
vern wrote:

Of course that is not set in concrete as a rule either since you can write anything you wish and keep those commas instead of periods, technically correct or not. Just a thought.

I use the standard way of setting dialogue tags because I think the new way is choppy and stops the flow.

And you might check out the "standard" use of a dialogue tag with such words as "laugh." You might be surprised how not so standard it could be.

I understood you to mean that the sentence

"Oh, do not think like that," she laughed.

Should be

"Oh, do not think like that." She laughed.

That is what I meant by I prefer the standard dialogue tag (the comma) to the new dialogue tag (the period). Nothing to do with the “laughed.”



vern wrote:

As far as "drunk barb" goes, it just so happens "Be not shy here" sounds like a tipsy Shakespeare to me (maybe I'm alone here, dunno) which I find a whole lot more amusing than insulting, but to each their own.

As you say, To each his own.

You find it funny.

I am offended.

Quote Post 28

29 Reply by vern (edited by vern 2015-10-24 12:35:21)

Re: DELETE

Rebecca Vaughn wrote:
vern wrote:
Rebecca Vaughn wrote:

Wow. My writing has been called a lot of things, but "drunk barb" must be at the top of the list. I suggest when insulting someone, you avoid closing with "Take care." It may be fine other places, but here, it comes off as condescending.

Well, to start with, I didn't realize it was an insult to point out that there just might not be concrete rules anymore than I assume you didn't think it an insult to "tell" other authors not to use "that" or any other word. You didn't mean it as an insult, right?


No, I didn't say that was an insult.

I said calling my dialogue “drunk barb” was insulting.


vern wrote:
Rebecca Vaughn wrote:

Wow. My writing has been called a lot of things, but "drunk barb" must be at the top of the list. I suggest when insulting someone, you avoid closing with "Take care." It may be fine other places, but here, it comes off as condescending.

Not sure exactly why a presumed insult would be "fine" somewhere else and not here on this site where one comes ostensibly to at least hear if not adhere to different opinions. Do you think you "telling" other authors not to do something is also condescending? Just curious.

I didn't say that an insult was fine. I said that saying “Take care” may be fine other times, but that here (after the insulting “drunk barb”) saying “Take care” comes off as condescending.



vern wrote:
Rebecca Vaughn wrote:

People laugh conversations all the time. Writers often say you can't laugh a word, but I have listened to people laugh entire conversations.



Second, you might want to get those folks laughing entire conversations on tape because I'm pretty sure it would turn lots of heads and educate quite a few.

I don't think it would change anything. People decide what they like or dislike. I hate “quipped”. It looks and sounds terrible. I much prefer “joked” (or anything) over “quipped." Yet there are many writers who use “quipped” all the time.
One person will use "laughed” and another will insist it has to be “said with a laugh” which actually has a different meaning.



vern wrote:
Rebecca Vaughn wrote:

I use the standard way of setting dialogue tags because I think the new way is choppy and stops the flow.

And you might check out the "standard" use of a dialogue tag with such words as "laugh." You might be surprised how not so standard it could be.

I understood you to mean that the sentence

"Oh, do not think like that," she laughed.

Should be

"Oh, do not think like that." She laughed.

That is what I meant by I prefer the standard dialogue tag (the comma) to the new dialogue tag (the period). Nothing to do with the “laughed.”



vern wrote:

As far as "drunk barb" goes, it just so happens "Be not shy here" sounds like a tipsy Shakespeare to me (maybe I'm alone here, dunno) which I find a whole lot more amusing than insulting, but to each their own.

As you say, To each his own.

You find it funny.

I am offended.

So, my choice of words is insulting and condescending and you "telling" other authors they cannot use certain words (your stated practice, not mine) is not insulting or condescending. Yes, I agree you are correct merely because those are the rules you go by. Oh, btw, the dialogue tag has everything to do with the "laugh" or similar words; and you can quip words, but you can't laugh them. Still, as stated, you can do however you wish even if you don't think other authors are capable of the same thing. Alas it's rather futile to discuss such things with someone so easily offended. Yep, to each their own. Take care -- uhh... no offense intended though I'm sure you will take it as such with my downright poor choice of words. Vern

Edited for PS:
***Verbs to never use as tags:

husked, hissed, breathed, interrupted, gasped, hoped, smiled, chortled, chuckled, laughed, cajoled, moaned, grunted, groaned, sighed

These verbs can be used around the dialogue, if they’re appropriate. Just don’t use them as dialogue tags.***

Not my words, but from an editor's blog. I'm sure you can find similar things to support your position on "laugh". Either way, it's not standard other than by your rules.

Quote Post 29

Re: DELETE

Dill Carver wrote:

No worse a writer than a fruity-breathed drunkard. It could turn out very badly, ending up in poetry.

lol

Quote Post 30

Re: DELETE

vern wrote:

So, my choice of words is insulting and condescending and you "telling" other authors they cannot use certain words (your stated practice, not mine) is not insulting or condescending.

Vern, have you gone down the rabbit hole? lol She didn't say anything above about telling other people to remove words from their writing. She said that she is leery of advising people to auto-delete words from their manuscripts, as this often changes the intended meaning. I can't say I disagree with her.

Quote Post 31

Re: DELETE

corra wrote:
vern wrote:

So, my choice of words is insulting and condescending and you "telling" other authors they cannot use certain words (your stated practice, not mine) is not insulting or condescending.

Vern, have you gone down the rabbit hole? lol She didn't say anything above about telling other people to remove words from their writing. She said that she is leery of advising people to auto-delete words from their manuscripts, as this often changes the intended meaning. I can't say I disagree with her.

Perhaps, but  she clearly states in post 16 of this thread: "I have had to tell authors to insert "that" in certain places in sentences in the narration because the meaning was obscured  by lack of the "extra" word. In many of these cases the author had originally included the missing "that" but then removed it on advice of another person who was hell bent on cutting "that"s."

So, while advising people to be leery of giving advice she is "telling" not suggesting that they following her advice instead of some one else "hell bent" on another approach. I'm not and have never said one is correct and the other is wrong, only the assumption that one can "tell" another author what to do and then become offended that someone disagrees with her. Rabbit hole? I don't know; you tell me. I certainly respect and most times follow your advice. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 32

Re: DELETE

corra wrote:
vern wrote:

So, my choice of words is insulting and condescending and you "telling" other authors they cannot use certain words (your stated practice, not mine) is not insulting or condescending.

Vern, have you gone down the rabbit hole? lol She didn't say anything above about telling other people to remove words from their writing. She said that she is leery of advising people to auto-delete words from their manuscripts, as this often changes the intended meaning. I can't say I disagree with her.


Thanks, Corra!

Quote Post 33

34 Reply by Rebecca Vaughn (edited by Rebecca Vaughn 2015-10-24 21:06:54)

Re: DELETE

vern wrote:

So, my choice of words is insulting and condescending

Yes. Exactly.



vern wrote:

and you "telling" other authors they cannot use certain words (your stated practice, not mine) is not insulting or condescending.

I didn't say I told anyone not to use a certain word. I said that we as reviews need to avoid given general advice to other writers without taking that writer's specific work under consideration. I gave three examples of this.

Here:

Rebecca Vaughn wrote:

However, we have to be careful about cutting words that are actually needed. Certain words change the meaning of a sentence, so if you take them out, you can confuse the readers and given an incorrect picture of the events. If a character says to another, "Sit." it is rude, as if he(she) is treating another person like a dog. We do not talk to other people that way. Even if it is prefaced with "Please". "Please sit," is still incorrect. The character speaking would be immediately categorized as a bully (for "sit") or a social ignoramus (for "please sit"). Probably not what we were after. We say "Sit down," to people, even if it is an order, and thus so should our characters.

Here:

Rebecca Vaughn wrote:

Also, one man's cures is another's blessing. He says to take out "then" and replace with "and", yet I have read a lot of novels that are filled to over capacity with "and"s. It would be a disservice to those writers to be advised to remove one of their few "then"s in place of an over used "and".

We have to be very careful about giving advice. sad


And here:

Rebecca Vaughn wrote:

I have had to tell authors to insert "that" in certain places in sentences in the narration because the meaning was obscured by lack of the "extra" word. In many of these cases the author had originally included the missing "that" but then removed it on advice of another person who was hell bent on cutting "that"s.

A review by definition must involve telling, but what you wrote was not review. It was mockery.


And when you said:

You can't "laugh" conversation.

This does nothing but put an extreme constraint on the human voice.

Had you said:

“laughed” doesn't work as a dialogue tag. Also editors tend to hate it. Take out and replace with something else.

That would be a review. And a very helpful one.


Or had you said:

Your word order is awkward. Rewrite the sentence for better flow.

That would also be a review. A very helpful one.

You would have told me something useful, helpful, with the improvement of my work in mind.

Instead, you call my dialogue “drunk barb”, and when I am offended, further the insult by calling it a “tipsy Shakespeare” and finding it “more amusing than insulting”.

The person mocking is generally amused, while the person being mocked is generally insulted.


vern wrote:

Alas it's rather futile to discuss such things with someone so easily offended.

Interesting how people who are making fun of others are often quick to label those they insult as being “easily offended”. My supposed sensitivity does not justify or excuse your rude words.


vern wrote:

Verbs to never use as tags:

husked, hissed, breathed, interrupted, gasped, hoped, smiled, chortled, chuckled, laughed, cajoled, moaned, grunted, groaned, sighed

These verbs can be used around the dialogue, if they’re appropriate. Just don’t use them as dialogue tags.***

Not my words, but from an editor's blog.

I have seen many of these lists by editors and critics, all of them slightly different, and most containing “laughed”.

Quote Post 34

Re: DELETE

Ceridwen wrote:

It's best to look at that list AFTER the first draft. The same thing was happening to me. So, rather than be paralyzed by fear, I wrote from the heart. It IS an excellent guideline while editing, however.

Absolutely. Write now; worry later.

Quote Post 35

36 Reply by Rebecca Vaughn (edited by Rebecca Vaughn 2015-10-24 21:38:23)

Re: DELETE

vern wrote:

I'm not and have never said one is correct and the other is wrong, only the assumption that one can "tell" another author what to do and then become offended that someone disagrees with her. Rabbit hole? I don't know; you tell me. I certainly respect and most times follow your advice.

I'm not offended that you disagree with me.

I am offended that you mocked my writing.

Quote Post 36

37 Reply by Janet Taylor-Perry (edited by Janet Taylor-Perry 2015-10-24 23:03:31)

Re: DELETE

Wow! I just found the article interesting. I would never auto delete any word. I might do a scan and see if I can use a better word, but there are times that the "words not to use" are the best choice. And what should not be done in narrative, works just fine in dialogue because it sounds natural and the way people talk. You might not want to describe someone as absolutely gorgeous in narrative, but a man might say of his significant other, "You are absolutely gorgeous in that outfit." Or he might  laugh, "You are absolutely ludicrous in that getup." Yes, the words might come out sounding a bit odd, but one CAN laugh words. One cannot smile words or smirk words because there is no SOUND associated with those. But IF there is a sound associated with the "different" dialogue tag, you can do it. I think overuse of "said" is a bigger issue and much more boring. Oh, by the way, there are also times to use the damnable adverb--just sparingly.

Quote Post 37

Re: DELETE

Rebecca Vaughn wrote:
vern wrote:

I'm not and have never said one is correct and the other is wrong, only the assumption that one can "tell" another author what to do and then become offended that someone disagrees with her. Rabbit hole? I don't know; you tell me. I certainly respect and most times follow your advice.

I'm not offended that you disagree with me.

I am offended that you mocked my writing.

You state earlier that my remarks weren't a review, they were mockery. And you also state that a review must involve "telling." I'm afraid I must disagree on all counts. My opening remarks on the subject stated that the opinions offered were from my perspective as a reader; only speaking for myself. My subsequent remarks clearly stated I did not perceive my remarks as an insult or mockery as you obviously do. Your choice of words sounded like a drunk barb to me as my opinion. My choice of words is offensive merely because I offered them as a different opinion on your choice of words to substitute for others which sounded more natural than what you replaced them with. In essence I was reviewing that portion of your story which was presented presumably for critique.  I offered my opinion of it just as I would for any of my reviews. They are not always glowing; far from it and I dare say could if an author were so inclined be deemed harsher than what has so offended you, but no one has called them insulting yet. Sounds a whole lot like you're offended by my disagreement despite your denial. You see that works both ways; you don’t believe my explanation, I don’t believe yours.

I expect you’re also offended by my different opinion on dialogue tags as you insist you prefer the “standard” use. Yet, when I offer an example of an editor who disagrees with your usage, you simply say you have seen many such lists. Somehow, that simply doesn’t equate to there being a “standard” you go by - not your rules so doesn’t apply just as “telling” an author what to do isn’t condescending, but my use of “Take care” is evidently.

We’ve probably bashed this around in circles long enough, so I’ll just accept that we disagree and will try not to offend you should we happen to meet on another subject thread. You’re welcome to the last word should you desire. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 38

Re: DELETE

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

, but one CAN laugh words. .

Hopefully, you're not offended, but I respectfully disagree. You can laugh at something or laugh during a conversation, but you can't laugh the words and the words of the speaker is what dialogue tags are for. Just making a sound does not make it a dialogue tag.  If you or anyone can point me in the direction of any sound track where anyone can actually laugh the words, then I will gladly change my opinion. Pick any stream of words within this post or any other and try to laugh them; laugh them, not laugh during them or before them or after them or at them; simply laugh the words audibly and let me know how it works out. Put it on utube and it'll probably go viral. I'd even put up with a commercial to hear it. I would say you'd probably sound like a drunk laughing hyena, but don't want to push my luck, lol. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 39

Re: DELETE

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Wow! I just found the article interesting. I would never auto delete any word. I might do a scan and see if I can use a better word, but there are times that the "words not to use" are the best choice. And what should not be done in narrative, works just fine in dialogue because it sounds natural and the way people talk. You might not want to describe someone as absolutely gorgeous in narrative, but a man might say of his significant other, "You are absolutely gorgeous in that outfit." Or he might  laugh, "You are absolutely ludicrous in that getup." Yes, the words might come out sounding a bit odd, but one CAN laugh words. One cannot smile words or smirk words because there is no SOUND associated with those. But IF there is a sound associated with the "different" dialogue tag, you can do it. I think overuse of "said" is a bigger issue and much more boring. Oh, by the way, there are also times to use the damnable adverb--just sparingly.

The article is interesting, Janet! Thanks for sharing!

I like the rule of sound verses no sound. I have always found the "smiled" dialogue tag odd. As if the character is a Cheshire Cat or something.

Quote Post 40

Re: DELETE

Excerpted from Writers Digest:
***First, dialogue cannot be smiled, laughed, giggled, or sighed. Therefore, this example is incorrect:


“Don’t tickle me!” she giggled.

You can’t giggle spoken words. You can’t laugh them or sigh them or smile them, either. (I dare you to try it. If it works for you, write me and let me know. We could be on to something.) ***

Sounds like something I might say; oh, I did. lol. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 41

Re: DELETE

vern wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

, but one CAN laugh words. .

Hopefully, you're not offended, but I respectfully disagree. You can laugh at something or laugh during a conversation, but you can't laugh the words and the words of the speaker is what dialogue tags are for. Just making a sound does not make it a dialogue tag.  If you or anyone can point me in the direction of any sound track where anyone can actually laugh the words, then I will gladly change my opinion. Pick any stream of words within this post or any other and try to laugh them; laugh them, not laugh during them or before them or after them or at them; simply laugh the words audibly and let me know how it works out. Put it on utube and it'll probably go viral. I'd even put up with a commercial to hear it. I would say you'd probably sound like a drunk laughing hyena, but don't want to push my luck, lol. Take care. Vern


Granted laughing words sort of comes out sounding like Woody Woodpecker (Pretty close to a drunk hyena). But it can be done. Try this one. Put your open fist to your mouth with the little opening where your thumb sort of overlaps your index finger and COUGH out as you say bullshit. I've witnessed this one on a number of movies. I guess one could say, "Joe coughed, 'Bullshit,' into his fist.

No, I'm not offended. We'll just have to agree to disagree. (Oh, I hate that phrase.) I think, though, the point of the article was the overuse of dialogue tags in general when using movement or facial expression or something would better move the story along.

Quote Post 42

Re: DELETE

vern wrote:

Excerpted from Writers Digest:
***First, dialogue cannot be smiled, laughed, giggled, or sighed. Therefore, this example is incorrect:


“Don’t tickle me!” she giggled.

You can’t giggle spoken words. You can’t laugh them or sigh them or smile them, either. (I dare you to try it. If it works for you, write me and let me know. We could be on to something.) ***

Sounds like something I might say; oh, I did. lol. Take care. Vern

I respectfully disagree with WD on this one too. "This whole conversation is exasperating," I sighed. If I say this in a long, drawn-out whisper, that is a sigh.

NO! You cannot smile words or anything that does not have sound attached. That is where I agree completely with you.

Quote Post 43

Re: DELETE

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
vern wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

, but one CAN laugh words. .

Hopefully, you're not offended, but I respectfully disagree. You can laugh at something or laugh during a conversation, but you can't laugh the words and the words of the speaker is what dialogue tags are for. Just making a sound does not make it a dialogue tag.  If you or anyone can point me in the direction of any sound track where anyone can actually laugh the words, then I will gladly change my opinion. Pick any stream of words within this post or any other and try to laugh them; laugh them, not laugh during them or before them or after them or at them; simply laugh the words audibly and let me know how it works out. Put it on utube and it'll probably go viral. I'd even put up with a commercial to hear it. I would say you'd probably sound like a drunk laughing hyena, but don't want to push my luck, lol. Take care. Vern


Granted laughing words sort of comes out sounding like Woody Woodpecker (Pretty close to a drunk hyena). But it can be done. Try this one. Put your open fist to your mouth with the little opening where your thumb sort of overlaps your index finger and COUGH out as you say bullshit. I've witnessed this one on a number of movies. I guess one could say, "Joe coughed, 'Bullshit,' into his fist.

No, I'm not offended. We'll just have to agree to disagree. (Oh, I hate that phrase.) I think, though, the point of the article was the overuse of dialogue tags in general when using movement or facial expression or something would better move the story along.

Yes, I did try as you say, and no the cough did not say bullshit. The cough was interrupted by me saying bullshit. But I suppose there might be more talented coughers than I. Glad someone is not offended anyway. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 44

Re: DELETE

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
vern wrote:

Excerpted from Writers Digest:
***First, dialogue cannot be smiled, laughed, giggled, or sighed. Therefore, this example is incorrect:


“Don’t tickle me!” she giggled.

You can’t giggle spoken words. You can’t laugh them or sigh them or smile them, either. (I dare you to try it. If it works for you, write me and let me know. We could be on to something.) ***

Sounds like something I might say; oh, I did. lol. Take care. Vern

I respectfully disagree with WD on this one too. "This whole conversation is exasperating," I sighed. If I say this in a long, drawn-out whisper, that is a sigh.

NO! You cannot smile words or anything that does not have sound attached. That is where I agree completely with you.

What? You haven't seen a ventriloquist smile words? lol. I have said many times, it is the author's ultimate decision on what to use. No one has the right to "tell" them what to do; we merely offer suggestions or opinions which might sway one way or the other or be thrown in the garbage bin, hopefully with no emotional baggage. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 45

Re: DELETE

vern wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
vern wrote:

Excerpted from Writers Digest:
***First, dialogue cannot be smiled, laughed, giggled, or sighed. Therefore, this example is incorrect:


“Don’t tickle me!” she giggled.

You can’t giggle spoken words. You can’t laugh them or sigh them or smile them, either. (I dare you to try it. If it works for you, write me and let me know. We could be on to something.) ***

Sounds like something I might say; oh, I did. lol. Take care. Vern

I respectfully disagree with WD on this one too. "This whole conversation is exasperating," I sighed. If I say this in a long, drawn-out whisper, that is a sigh.

NO! You cannot smile words or anything that does not have sound attached. That is where I agree completely with you.

What? You haven't seen a ventriloquist smile words? lol. I have said many times, it is the author's ultimate decision on what to use. No one has the right to "tell" them what to do; we merely offer suggestions or opinions which might sway one way or the other or be thrown in the garbage bin, hopefully with no emotional baggage. Take care. Vern

Wait! I use the emotional baggage for writing fodder. I have enough of that from life before writing to make for 100 novels. Artistic differences don't cause me grief, so long as they are offered without being rude. I happen to get really tickled reading some of the comments offered. Often I just read and let others battle it out. One of my favorite quotes, "It often shows a fine command of language to say nothing."

Quote Post 46

47 Reply by Dill Carver (edited by Dill Carver 2015-10-25 12:30:28)

Re: DELETE

vern wrote:

“Don’t tickle me!” she giggled.

You can’t giggle spoken words. You can’t laugh them or sigh them or smile them, either. (I dare you to try it. If it works for you, write me and let me know. We could be on to something.) ***

Sounds like something I might say; oh, I did. lol. Take care. Vern

Lateral thinking in literature? But surely this is creative writing and the formal, the factual step aside to allow the creation of a sensation.

We cannot always expect to find the literal within literary. When was the last time somebody actually jumped out of their skin due to sudden fright?

“Don’t tickle me!” she giggled.  Is a beautiful thing in my opinion because I actually feel it invoke the imagery of her laughing whilst being playfully teased. It transposes the words into a sensory experience within this readers mind. The mirth is there; the ‘ Brer rabbit don’t’ chase me’  reverse phycology is in there and for me she may well have said this with her eyes rather than her mouth. I don't care and I don't think of it as I read, because within my minds-eye those three words are the concept within a pictured scene rather than dialogue represented by text on a page. Syntax strictly correct, or not.

And that complex little miracle of the mind is condensed within a three word literary phase, the exacting literal explanation of which would burst the balloon and dumb down the prose because it credits the reader with no imagination. If you take the imagination out of prose, you also remove the enchantment.

I don’t like some of the modern works that I read because the enchantment of creative literary prose is lost in order to pander to the readers with lowest imagination in order to ensure that they ‘get it’. 

Political correctness-like control within literature, to turn prose into straight talking ‘nothing inferred’ syntax.  This is so that publishers can have a computer translate works into foreign languages without the lengthy and expensive process of a subjectively transposed interpretation translation that only an intelligent human mind is capable of.

Burning books, word by word for profit is what they doing.

Quote Post 47

Re: DELETE

vern wrote:

Rabbit hole? I don't know; you tell me. I certainly respect and most times follow your advice. Take care. Vern

You're down the rabbit hole, friend. wink

Quote Post 48

49 Reply by vern (edited by vern 2015-10-25 16:00:02)

Re: DELETE

Dill Carver wrote:
vern wrote:

“Don’t tickle me!” she giggled.

You can’t giggle spoken words. You can’t laugh them or sigh them or smile them, either. (I dare you to try it. If it works for you, write me and let me know. We could be on to something.) ***

Sounds like something I might say; oh, I did. lol. Take care. Vern

Lateral thinking in literature? But surely this is creative writing and the formal, the factual step aside to allow the creation of a sensation.

We cannot always expect to find the literal within literary. When was the last time somebody actually jumped out of their skin due to sudden fright?

“Don’t tickle me!” she giggled.  Is a beautiful thing in my opinion because I actually feel it invoke the imagery of her laughing whilst being playfully teased. It transposes the words into a sensory experience within this readers mind. The mirth is there; the ‘ Brer rabbit don’t’ chase me’  reverse phycology is in there and for me she may well have said this with her eyes rather than her mouth. I don't care and I don't think of it as I read, because within my minds-eye those three words are the concept within a pictured scene rather than dialogue represented by text on a page. Syntax strictly correct, or not.

And that complex little miracle of the mind is condensed within a three word literary phase, the exacting literal explanation of which would burst the balloon and dumb down the prose because it credits the reader with no imagination. If you take the imagination out of prose, you also remove the enchantment.

I don’t like some of the modern works that I read because the enchantment of creative literary prose is lost in order to pander to the readers with lowest imagination in order to ensure that they ‘get it’. 

Political correctness-like control within literature, to turn prose into straight talking ‘nothing inferred’ syntax.  This is so that publishers can have a computer translate works into foreign languages without the lengthy and expensive process of a subjectively transposed interpretation translation that only an intelligent human mind is capable of.

Burning books, word by word for profit is what they doing.

I think we're pretty much in agreement. I'm not saying you can't use them since I've stated many times that no one can "tell" another how to write anything. What I've said is that the act of laughing or giggling words per se can't be done and therefore are not technically a dialogue tag. We are of course free to use them creatively or otherwise; that has never been questioned. What I have questioned is the assertion that using such creative tags is "standard." We are all free to use anything we wish in our writing; I merely point out that in doing so, we aren't following "standard" procedure and the act which is portrayed such as laughing or giggling words is not something which has been shown to be possible. I am eager to be proven wrong on that count if anyone can point me in the direction of such a sound track. I seem to be having trouble stating my position clearly all of a sudden, so hopefully I have clarified it somewhat. Take care. Vern

PS: Forgot to say that merely capitalizing "she" - She giggled -- to change it to a speaker modifier rather than dialogue tag would not detract from the beauty of the moment imho.

Quote Post 49

Re: DELETE

corra wrote:
vern wrote:

Rabbit hole? I don't know; you tell me. I certainly respect and most times follow your advice. Take care. Vern

You're down the rabbit hole, friend. wink

If so, I will try not to dig it any deeper. Thanks for responding. Take care. Vern

Quote Post 50