Forum: Author Hangout

Ernest, I know you want to do it right, but don't believe what I'm saying is correct. Instead of agreeing to disagree, I asked the question in the club on wattpad where professional authors participate. With your latest example, you had me doubting myself. I trust the opinions of the two who responded so far, especially the second one. This is what I asked:

Is this grammatically correct?

She brings the phone over to Smoky, "Speak to this person to see if she knows your voice."

I purposely didn't use the example where "laughed" could be confused as a dialogue tag. So I used your latest example which couldn't be confused with a dialogue tag. These are the two responses so far:

I'd put a full stop (period) after "Smoky" or add "and said" or similar. Otherwise the verb in that sentence is "brings", which isn't a dialogue tag.

and

You are 100% correct: It is a comma splice. Action sentences are NOT dialogue tags and cannot be attached to dialogue with a comma.

Dialogue tags are a very special kind of sentence that identify the speaker and how the dialogue was spoken. Ideally, you don't use dialogue tags at all!

So it's not just me (and Crumbly).

Anyway, feel free to disagree.

Anyway, feel free to disagree.

Switch,

These quotes you have from Wattpad just re-emphasis the point I was making earlier (and all along) - I am not not have I been saying the action words prior to the dialogue are dialogue tags - they are clearly actions. The issue comes about because you, and they, seem to insist the word before a dialogue must be a dialogue tag no matter what else is going on. You also seem to have issues with dropping dialogue tags from the dialogue, despite it being a valid writing action, and seem to insist in splitting the rest of the sentence up into fragments because the dialogue tag has been dropped as not being needed due to the action identifying the speaking.

The whole purpose, and only purpose of a dialogue tag is to clearly identify the speaker. When the speaker is clearly identified within the sentence in another way then the dialogue tag is totally superfluous and can be dropped from the sentence. Dropping the dialogue tag doesn't alter what the rest of the sentence is any any way. It's a simple as that. But you seem to be fixated on the action prior to dialogue must be a dialogue tag and only a dialogue tag. And that is the core of where we disagree.

Going back to the last pair of example I gave. The first one is a set of actions, the last action being to say something (i.e. the dialogue), thus using commas to separate the actions is standard grammar rules and a perfectly valid sentence. In the second example a case could be made for the two actions being dialogue tags, if you wish to do so. However, putting in the standard say / said tags will only make the sentences very confusing, as will adding full stops. They're clear with who's speaking and flow well, and abide by the grammar rules.

Ernest, you're missing the point. It's not about dialogue tags. It never was. It's about the proper way to construct a sentence.

These quotes you have from Wattpad just re-emphasis the point I was making earlier (and all along) - I am not not have I been saying the action words prior to the dialogue are dialogue tags - they are clearly actions.

In the original example, it was not clearly an action. "Smiled" came across as a dialogue tag. In the last example, the action cannot be confused as a dialogue tag, but the sentence is not grammatically correct. The same way a run-on sentence is not grammatically correct. That's why you need a full stop between the action and dialogue (which has nothing to do with dialogue tags).

The issue comes about because you, and they, seem to insist the word before a dialogue must be a dialogue tag no matter what else is going on.

What we're saying is if you want use action to identify the speaker, it needs to be a separate sentence or the two need to be combined with a dialogue tag. The preference being not to have the dialogue tag, but to do that the action needs to be a separate sentence (the comma splice issue).

The only reason they bring up the action acting like a dialogue tag is simply because the way dialogue is constructed, the verb in the sentence is a dialogue tag and therefore, the action is acting like a dialogue tag. Not because you intend it to be that way, but because grammar rules for dialogue say so.

You also seem to have issues with dropping dialogue tags from the dialogue, despite it being a valid writing action

Why do you keep saying that? I leave the dialogue tag off as much as I can. My preference is never to use a dialogue tag (which, of course, can't be done but that's what I strive for).

The whole purpose, and only purpose of a dialogue tag is to clearly identify the speaker.

We all agree on that.

Actually, I agree more than most in this group because I don't want it so serve any other purpose, such as the tone of the voice (e.g., barked).

When the speaker is clearly identified within the sentence in another way then the dialogue tag is totally superfluous and can be dropped from the sentence.

It's the "within the sentence" that we're disagreeing with. You believe the comma separating the action from the dialogue does that. We're saying not according to the rules of grammar. The action needs to be a separate sentence.

Dropping the dialogue tag doesn't alter what the rest of the sentence is any any way. It's a simple as that. But you seem to be fixated on the action prior to dialogue must be a dialogue tag and only a dialogue tag.

No, the action prior to the dialogue does not have to be a dialogue tag. On the contrary, we're saying it's not. All it does is identify who the speaker will be (so you don't need the dialogue tag).

The problem is, the way you're constructing the sentence, makes one think the action is a dialogue tag. Why? Because the way dialogue is constructed, when you have a verb outside the quotes it's supposed to be a dialogue tag. When you leave that out, the reader looks for a substitute and finds your action tag.

So we're not insisting the action tag be a dialogue tag. We're saying, what you're doing is in violation with the rules of grammar (comma splice) and punctuating dialogue.

Going back to the last pair of example I gave. The first one is a set of actions, the last action being to say something (i.e. the dialogue), thus using commas to separate the actions is standard grammar rules and a perfectly valid sentence.

Not true. Using a comma to separate the two (action and dialogue) is not standard grammar rules. It's a grammar error -- a comma splice.

"Smiled" came across as a dialogue tag.

As I said earlier, for some reason you see it as a dialogue tag, when it isn't. It's a perception you have which then alters your perception of how the sentence is constructed. You insist that action must be a separate sentence, yet that isn't so and not a grammar rule, but it comes back to your perception of what constitutes a valid sentence when there's dialogue in it. A perception not support by the actual rules.

You say:

... the verb in the sentence is a dialogue tag ...

but that is not a grammar rule, it's a perception you have. You keep making these claims about grammar rules for the use dialogue tags, but fail to provide a valid reference source for this interpretation (bloggers giving personal opinion and sources for academic writing aren't valid for fiction writing).

I keep saying about the wanting to insist on the dialogue tag because that's what you seem to be saying in this thread. Dialogue tag added means valid sentence, dropped dialogue tag means comma splice, according to you. Adding or dropping the dialogue tag doesn't change what the rest of the sentence is in any way.

The rules of grammar allows you to use commas to separate two actions, dialogue is an action, thus the usage is perfectly correct in the way shown in the last set of examples (and most of the others). You seem to be hung up on dialogue being a totally different type of action requiring a different application of the grammar rules.

In short, it all comes down to a personal opinion on the way to apply the grammar rules, you claim comma splice and thus a different set of grammar rules because that's how you perceive it, but it's not a comma splice in the way you want to perceive it. And that is why we'll not reach an agreement on this. The examples flow well, meet standard grammar rules, but not your perceived dialogue grammar rules because you see the dropping the dialogue tag creating a comma splice.

I'll try one more time by simplifying it. Let's forget about dialogue tags since that's all you're focusing on.

There's a grammar error called a run-on sentence which Wikipedia defines as:

A run-on is a sentence in which two or more independent clauses (i.e., complete sentences) are joined without an appropriate punctuation or conjunction. For example:

It is nearly half past five we cannot reach town before dark.

A comma splice is like a run-on sentence in that it is two independent clauses incorrectly joined, in this case by a comma. This is Purdue University's definition:

Comma splices are similar to run-on sentences because they also incorrectly connect independent clauses. A comma splice occurs when two independent clauses are connected with only a comma. As with a run-on sentence, there are a few different ways to correct a comma splice. Consider the following sentence and the revised versions that follow it.

Comma Splice: My family bakes together nearly every night, we then get to enjoy everything we make together.

If you want to break a grammar rule and use run-on sentences and comma splices, that's your prerogative (just like I use fragmented sentences). But be aware they are not grammatically correct.

Now if you don't agree with the above definitions, we can drop this right now and don't bother reading further.

Let's dissect your two examples:

He smiled, "Go to hell."

There are two independent clauses

He smiled
&
"Go to hell."

that are separated by a comma (which is a comma splice and grammatically incorrect).

The simplest way to correct that problem is to use a full stop (period) between them (after "smiled").

She brings the phone over to Smoky, "Speak to this person to see if she knows your voice."

There are two independent clauses

She brings the phone over to Smoky
&
"Speak to this person to see if she knows your voice."

that are separated by a comma (which is a comma splice and grammatically incorrect).

The simplest way to correct that problem is to use a full stop (period) between them (after "Smoky").

That's all I'm saying. Both examples are a form of a run-on sentence called a comma splice and, therefore, grammatically incorrect. There are several ways to fix the grammar problem (if you wish to do so), the simplest being to make them two sentences. In most cases, that's how it's done in fiction to separate the action from the dialogue.

There are two other ways to correct a comma splice. You insist that those can't be used with dialog but won't properly explain why they can't.

I don't fucking INSIST anything. I've always said do as you like, just be aware of what you're doing.

When did I say you can't correct it with a conjunction? I left that out because to do that, you need to introduce a dialogue tag to the sentence. The discussion of a dialogue tag muddied the water so I said the simplest way to fix the problem, and the way it's done most of the time in fiction, is to make them two complete sentences.

So now just to be a pain-in-the-ass you'll say I said that you couldn't use the semicolon in dialogue. I forget what I originally said about that, but then I said I've never seen it used that way. That's not even worth discussing.

Again, why?

Because if you have the conjunction linking a dialogue to an action, a verb is required for the dialogue.

Why is the verb required with the conjunction, but not when the dialog stands on it's own?

When it stands by itself, the verb is assumed (if not present). That's the convention of punctuating dialogue.

John said, "Go to hell."

In the above, the verb (said) is explicitly stated.

"Go to hell."

In the above, it's assumed John said it. How does the reader know John is speaking without the "John said"? Something happened prior to that, such as an action by John, as in:

John smiled. "Go to hell."

Now if you want to combine the above two sentences (not that I'd know why you'd want to do that), you'd have to write:

John smiled, and said, "Go to hell."

Why can't you shorten it to:

John smiled, and "Go to hell."

When you have the conjunction in front of the dialogue, the "assumption rule" goes out the window. You need to explicitly have the verb (dialogue tag).

I can't tell you why. It's the way grammar is. For the same reason you can't drive through a red light. Why can't you do that? There's a traffic rule that says you can't. Don't like it? Ignore the rule or get it changed.

If you want to break a grammar rule and use run-on sentences and comma splices, that's your prerogative (just like I use fragmented sentences).

As I said before, Switch, you see a comma splice while see a simple action list. It's a personal perspective and opinion. Once you decide it's a comma splice you look at different rules that apply only if it's a comma splice.

A legitimate grammar rule is the list of noun, item, item, item, etc. Example:

Fred has a sedan, pick-up truck, motorcycle, push bike, and skateboard.

A valid variant of this is the action list of noun, action, action, action, etc. Example:

Fred went to the store, bought a baseball bat, went down the street, and smashed in the windscreen of Harry's car.

Dialogue is an action. In the examples given before we have a noun, action, dialogue action. It's a simple action list progression, which is why it's valid and proper grammar. It's not a run on sentence or a comma splice.

As I said before, Switch, you see a comma splice while see a simple action list.

Then I was wrong. You aren't looking for the right answer, only one that validates the way you want to do it, even if you have to make up your own rules.

The definitions of run-on sentence and comma splice are specific and easy to understand. You're electing to ignore them.

I give up.

Fred has a sedan, pick-up truck, motorcycle, push bike, and skateboard.

"Fred has a sedan" is an independent clause.
but...
"pick-up truck" is not
"motorcycle" is not
"push bike" is not
"skateboard" is not.

How does that relate to a comma slice?

Now if you wrote:
Fred has a sedan, Fred has a pick-up truck, Fred as a motorcycle, Fred has a push bike, and Fred has a skateboard.

That would be comparable to what you're doing.

But, as I said, I give up. I just wanted to show you why you're talking apples and oranges.

Dialogue is an action. In the examples given before we have a noun, action, dialogue action. It's a simple action list progression, which is why it's valid and proper grammar. It's not a run on sentence or a comma splice.

I can't believe I've allowed myself to get sucked back into this quagmire, but ...

NO. Dialogue is not a simple action. It's a separate type of sentence, and has a full set of accepted standards for it's use. You don't have to worry about matched quotes, or matching mixed-quotes for quotes within quotes. You don't have actions continuing from one paragraph to another, requiring separate punctuation to account for it, and you don't have special punctuation that only applies to verb (em-dashes and ellipses).

Dialogue has it's own set of established rules. One of which is that you, the writer, need to identify who said what. With a simple statement, the reader can infer the speaker, but with a compound or a comma splice, the reader jumps to the closest verb and uses that instead. That's not so much a "rule" carved in stone as it's human nature, but it still needs to be accounted for. Otherwise, there would be no need for any attributions at all!

Switch, I thought your summary was wonderfully concise and explained the situation nicely.

Ernest, dialogues are not actions, and neither are they lists! That's like saying "an orange is the same as a couch, so how can you say they behave differently?"

I'm sorry I revisited this thread. We stopped communicating a long time ago, and now we're simply insisting that everyone else agree with our own ignorance. If you don't want to use the tools we're suggested, then just have the nerve to admit that it's a personal choice. STOP insisting that we have to have an entire article (no blogs, Wikipedia entries or educational material need apply) laying our why your idea doesn't work. Hell, how many times have you seen lengthy articles on why sentences without nouns don't make full sentences (the only ones I know of you've already disqualified as being 'non-fiction based').

Personally, I considering asking Lazeez to flush this entire thread down the tubes by deleting it. It's getting no one any closer to a decision, and isn't educating anyone about anything. It's all been one colossal waste of time!

NO. Dialogue is not a simple action. It's a separate type of sentence, and has a full set of accepted standards for it's use.

I swore (to myself) that I would let it go as well. I had to bite my tongue to do that because the logic Ernest used made no sense. So thanks for pointing out the obvious.

A comma has many uses, one of which is to separate a series of things. But that doesn't mean whenever the comma is used it's a series of things.

Ernest, you applied the wrong rule to the wrong problem. The only reason I'm jumping back in (for the last time) is so that others aren't misled.

A comma has many uses, one of which is to separate a series of things. But that doesn't mean whenever the comma is used it's a series of things.

Ernest, you applied the wrong rule to the wrong problem. The only reason I'm jumping back in (for the last time) is so that others aren't misled.

Switch, CW, I never said a comma makes everything a list, just that it can be used in a list. And anything can be listed.

Speaking is an action. With dialogue we have a few additional rules on how to show the dialogue, but that doesn't mean we throw out the other grammar rules nor does it say they can't be applied.

The core of the issue is you keep calling a particular usage a comma splice and wanting to apply the rules for that when it isn't.

Nor do I insist everyone does it the same way as I do, but if you are going to insist what I'm doing is a misuse of grammar you need to back it up with something a lot more authoritative than a personal opinion or blog entries of other people's opinions.

Here's something I wrote this morning:

Quote

... He reaches coach, who takes the ball off the pitcher, while saying, "Jim, you've done well, but just don't have the steam to finish it all. Good job." He hands the ball to Mo, "Do what you can." Mo nods.

end quote

In it we have the coach walking over and taking the ball (an action), speaking to the pitcher (a dialogue action), he hands the ball to Mo (an action), and speaks to Mo (a dialogue action). Since we already know who's speaking due to the identification right at the start of this section (as well as at the start of the paragraph) there's no need for a tag saying who's speaking, thus it's straight into the dialogue. Because I've used the dialogue punctuation everyone knows it's dialogue so there's no need for the redundancy of the words to show that. That last sentence is an action by Mo and is a separate sentence to the two actions by the coach.

Now with that second last sentence I see that as two actions with the dialogue tag dropped from the dialogue that constitutes the second action. However, from what's been posted before I expect you two will see it as a comma splice. And that's where we disagree. You say comma splice I say action list. Because if that was written as:

... He reaches coach, who takes the ball off the pitcher, while saying, "Jim, you've done well, but just don't have the steam to finish it all. Good job." He hands the ball to Mo, saying, "Do what you can." Mo nods.

I doubt you'd have trouble with the redundant word saying being there, while I drop it.

Now we've all said we disagree on this, and I agree there's no point in taking it any further. I have no intention of saying any more on this, unless someone wants to attack me about it again. You see it one way, I see it another, I doubt either is going to change their position.

typo edit

You're missing either an article or a capitalization.

Which is why it's a still unedited work in progress - typical of things at this stage.

He hands the ball to Mo, "Do what you can."

- Is "he hands the ball to Mo" a complete sentence?
- Is "Do what you can" a complete dialogue sentence?

The answer is yes to both of the above, so you have two complete sentences or independent clauses. Connecting two independent clauses with a comma is called a comma splice and is grammatically incorrect.

That doesn't mean you can't do it. As I said, I write fragmented sentences all the time which are grammatically incorrect. But I know I'm doing it when I do it.

And just yesterday I wrote "than me" when "than I" would be grammatically correct. It happens to be written in 1st-person and there's no way the narrating character would have said "I", but even if it had been 3rd-person I might have elected to write "me" and be grammatically incorrect because it's less formal and sounds better.

So if you want to write that way, you should. Just be aware of the rule you're breaking. And be very careful if what precedes the comma can be construed as a dialogue tag when you don't want it to be.

The following are each a single sentence:

1. "Go to hell!"
2. He said, "Go to hell!"
3. He slammed his hand on the table and said, "Go to hell!"
4. He said, "Go to hell!" while slamming his hand on the table.

That's why in #4, the "while" is lower case even though it follows an exclamation point. It's a single sentence.

So you can't just look at what's inside the quotation marks. You have to look at the entire sentence.

Change what's inside the quotation marks to something that isn't a sentence itself, and all but #1 are still true.

Let's say #1 was changed to:

"Falling."

As dialogue, say in response to someone asking the character what his biggest fear is, that's still a complete sentence.

What's within the quotes is not, but it's a complete sentence because of the rules of punctuating dialogue.

Irrelevant to my point, which is that the sentence structure of what's inside the quotation marks is irrelevant to the structure of the sentence that contains the quotation.

I agree with that. I didn't realize that's what you said.

But what's that have to do with my example? You specifically called out #1 when what's between the quotes isn't a complete sentence.

In the "He brings the phone..." example that they are spliced sentences is clearer because "brings" is clearly not a dialogue tag.

We've been arguing about it for weeks, QED.

And that is precisely why there's an issue.

You're right in that brings is not a dialogue tag, it's not meant to be a dialogue tag or a replacement for it. The dialogue tag has been dropped, there is no dialogue tag in the sentence. We have the person identified at the start of the sentence and that is followed by two actions, one of which is dialogue - which is why it's not a spliced sentence. It's a list of actions.

For some reason certain people perceive any and every action before a dialogue as a dialogue tag, and that's why they have a confusion about the situation.

Now, I've already said, on a few times, we don't seem to be in agreement on the issue, so there's no point in going on about it any further. But someone keeps bringing it up again.

Crumbly, who ever said that those descriptive tags shouldn't be used? I object to that strenuously! Most of those tags display an emotion that is felt by the speaker. In a single word, they convey the turmoil going on inside the speaker.

Red, I think it's a more generational thing amongst writers. Old school authors used a ton of tags. Then some young thing noticed that, if you reduced the tags, the stories sold better, and ever since the 'writing authorities' (editors, publishing houses, publications (writing advice pubs)) insist you should strip virtually all of them for your work. My editor stripped out much of mine, but left enough to designate specific events, but I'm having trouble working this blanket approach into my writing. It just feels ... foreign.

I'm sure if you ask Switch's youngster writing connections, the feelings would be completely different.

The last is particularly disturbing. It comes across as if the questioner is more concerned with the mess/stench than either the disrespect to the victim or the contamination of the crime scene.

D.S., I'll admit, all three of my samples were purely invented to express my disapproval of the trend, and weren't taken from either my edited work or any other works of fiction, so it's not actually a fair representation.

That's what the ? is for, not the dialogue tag. Saying that, I use an occasional "asked" when it sounds right. I also use an occasional "whispered" and "shouted" too. But those are the only 4 I use, and probably more than 95% are "said."

As I suspected, Switch is more tied into this new tendency since he spends time with younger writers than most of us at SOL. So far, from what I've waded through, the one's she left are the more emotional "shouted", "screamed", "whispered". But most of the others were stripped.

So don't bother working it in. It's group think and going along with group think is a bad idea 90+% of the time.

Considering it, part of the issue is that I decreased my dialogue tags some time ago. Based on suggestions by Switch, I switched from the traditional "he said"/"she said" dialogue tags to action tags.

Example:

"That's an interesting proposal." Jackson poured a cup of coffee, staring into space as he breathed in the aroma.

That's a long example (not from a story), but there's no question who made the statement, but there's no empty "Jackson said" tag line, and it also gives more room to add additional showing how the characters respond to the dialogue.

As a result, my tag usage, in general, is way down from what it used to be. This editor, however, stripped much of those action tags. Some were justified, as I was using them a bit much, but I still prefer reading about characters rather then being told who said what.

But I'm moving more to Switch's position all the time. It's just taking me a long time to get there.

I am suggesting that you reconsider moving there at all. Unless or until someone can present a reasoned argument for why it is better that way

"Come here," John said.

"I don't want to," Sue answered.

"Do what your father said," Sue's mother interjected.

"But I don't want to," Sue cried.

If the above reads well to you, go for it. If it doesn't, maybe it's a reasonable argument to do it differently.

or:

"Come here!"

Sue crossed her arms over her chest. "I don't want to."

Sue's mother placed her fists against either hip. "Do what your father said!"

"But I don't want to," Sue cried, running from the room.

"Come here!"

Sue crossed her arms over her chest. "I don't want to."

Sue's mother placed her fists against either hip. "Do what your father said!"

"But I don't want to," Sue cried, running from the room.

That was actually the point of my example, not so much the substitutions for "said." I was trying to show how annoying/boring/awful having a bunch of dialogue tags were. Evidently, that's not a problem for some.

You have still offered no reason why your way is necessarily better that goes beyond your own personal taste/preference.

A long time ago I decided not to try to convince anyone here why one way is better than another. I took the heat in the "show don't tell" discussion and even worse in the adverb one. And there's no right or wrong like with punctuation.

This is what I'll say about it.

1. It's best to avoid the dialogue tags. Crumbly gave an example of doing that. Yes, "said" after "said" is boring and awful. I hoped my example showed that (I used words other than "said" simply to show it wasn't that word that made it awful but the constant use of dialogue tags itself).

2. You can't use dialogue tags like "pouted" because it's not a substitute for "said." You can't pout words. You can pout while speaking, but that's it. Same for "barked." Can you bark words? Yet "bark" is used a lot. Bark is "ruff ruff" or "woof woof."

3. You want the reader to be absorbed in the dialogue. Sometimes you want the character doing something to add to the scene so you add the action to the dialogue. But it's the dialogue that's important. Since it's not a screenplay, you can't have "John:" in front of the dialogue. So when you must, you need to tell the reader John said it. And by that, John spoke the words, even if the words form a question. That's why "said" can be substituted for "asked."

4. And then there's "show don't tell." By using certain dialogue tags, you're telling the reader. Not "asked" by the way. Even "shouted" (which I use) is telling.

"Said" as a dialogue tag should be invisible to the reader. Any other word is not invisible and draws the reader out of the dialogue.

If saying shouted is telling, how would you show shouting in text? I don't think you can without using shouted or yelled.

I wish I had the talent to show everything. As I previously said, it's hard.

You could show he's angry which would lead to him shouting. You could put two people in an argument where the reader would picture them shouting. You could have the other person hold their hands over their ears. You could even have the other person tell him to stop shouting. It all depends on the scene.

Sometimes it's simpler to say he shouted. As I said, I use shouted, whispered, and asked as dialogue tags.

I'm surely not an expert on showing.

Want a hard writing challenge? Write a story in cinematic POV (objective POV). It's the ultimate showing. All you can do is describe what the camera sees (action) or the microphone hears (dialogue).

Definitely no dialogue tag other than "said." But you also can't use words like felt, thought, wondered, saw, etc.

I disagree, the microphone can hear shouting

I sometimes talk loud when my wife says I'm shouting. What would the microphone hear?

Not everyone who is angry shouts and people sometimes shout when they aren't angry.

True. I was giving one example of showing shouting. Someone shouting after his team got a touchdown is not angry.

As I said, I use shouting as a dialogue tag sometimes. But I'm guilty of telling too. Sometimes I just don't trust the reader to "get it" or myself to show it so they will get it.

Again you have said nothing remotely convincing

I have no intention of trying to convince anyone here of anything. I present my view and people can take it or leave it.

I have no intention of trying to convince anyone here of anything. I present my view and people can take it or leave it.

Not to get into a pitched battle about this, but I also disagree about shouting being telling. Shouting is an action. You're simply describing what's happening, not telling what the characters are thinking. You're right, the reader wouldn't know why the character is shouting, that's the hard part. But shouting is like whispering or mumbling. They're all specific actions that are used continually in visual mediums.

"Stop!" she shouted, venting her frustration, "I can't take anymore."

That is an example of telling.

"Stop!" She paused. "This is difficult for me. We need to work something out." She approached, touching his lapel, her hand sliding along her chest. "Let's work out a compromise."

The initial shout has no effect on whether it's showing or telling.

but I also disagree about shouting being telling.

As I said, I also use shouted as a dialogue tag, and I use whispered and asked too.

not on authorial cues on how those words were spoken.

I didn't want to get into that aspect of it, but you're right. It's the author sticking his nose into the story by telling you the character shouted.

That's absurd how things are said is every bit as much a part of the story as the words that were said. And it's the authors story not the readers.

We'll never agree so we might as well drop it.

how things are said

90% of human communication is non-verbal. Qualities like volume, intonation, phrasing and accompanying gestures play a large part too and a skilful writer should show those to the reader.

AJ

Maybe you'll find this article interesting. It's about said-bookisms (melodramatic dialogue tags). Even if you don't read the article, you should find these examples amusing:

And of course, avoid the dialogue tag, "He ejaculated." At the very least, don't use that as a dialogue tag during a sex scene -- unless you want a laugh.

and

Do not let your hero say something "cockily" during a love scene.

http://www.writing-world.com/grammar/said.shtml

Maybe he spoke first than laughed. On the other hand, I have actually spoken while laughing.

You're still missing the point. You cannot laugh words (as you can say them or shout them). You can laugh while you're speaking, but that's not laughing the words.

As to readers, that's why we'll never agree. You want the author to tell you a story. I want to live the story.

This is a false dichotomy. You can not live a story that an author hasn't told.

You cannot live a story an author hasn't written.

A meaningless distinction.

That's why we won't agree. It's a significant distinction.

You're still missing the point. You cannot laugh words (as you can say them or shout them). You can laugh while you're speaking, but that's not laughing the words.

No, but you can ejaculate them, as long as they're short words and your penmanship is excellent. 'D

No, it's not exactly easy, but if your laughing that hard and really want to say something, it is doable.

Backing up a bit, to the use of "barking", I'd like to argue for it's continued use. People don't "bark like dogs". Instead, they bark like drill sergeants. Used in this way, the words are immaterial, like when you say someone "mumbled". Describing someone mumbling can be incredibly effective, but in different contexts, "barking" and "mumbling" infer that the words don't matter. They're passive-aggressive actions, designed to invoke a reaction, rather than to convey information. You can try to build such a scene from the ground up, but since most people are familiar with the concepts, it's an easy to invoke meme that conveys a given scene with a minimum of build up.

But it's also not telling. It's merely describing the situation and allowing the reader to fill in the necessary details. Telling is revealing prematurely, before it's deserved. If the reader jumps ahead because they expect what's unfolding, that's a different matter.

You can all dump on me now, as I doubt many will agree with me in this regard.

Backing up a bit, to the use of "barking",

I tend to use the word barking for the way a person says words as part of the narrative because it makes more sense that way. Example:

The Sergeant turned away from me, and walked to the truck while barking orders to the troops.

In that context it's perfect, but I'd be hesitant to use it as a dialogue tag - doesn't mean I won't if I felt it the best option, but I'd work hard not to.

In that context it's perfect, but I'd be hesitant to use it as a dialogue tag - doesn't mean I won't if I felt it the best option, but I'd work hard not to.

Ernest, I think you hit that one on the head. These 'rules' aren't strictly enforced, but we should all be aware just how silly and/or distracting they can be. It's best to use them very cautiously, but if they fit the circumstance, and you understand what you're doing, they'll fit. However, much of the time, tags are are unnecessary distraction which actually pulls the reader away from the dialogue as they try to piece together what's happening.

much of the time, tags are are unnecessary distraction which actually pulls the reader away from the dialogue as they try to piece together what's happening.

Which is why I do away with them when I can safely do so and still maintain the story flow and have the reader know who's speaking. If the paragraph opens up with and action by a character, then the reader knows the dialogue in that paragraph is by that character. It's very much like after the first exchange of dialogue you can drop the ID tags and just alternate the speakers until you have to make a change in the order. I much prefer action related tags where appropriate. One thing is you can often rewrite something to do away with the tag while still implying it.

Which is why I do away with them when I can safely do so and still maintain the story flow and have the reader know who's speaking. If the paragraph opens up with and action by a character, then the reader knows the dialogue in that paragraph is by that character. It's very much like after the first exchange of dialogue you can drop the ID tags and just alternate the speakers until you have to make a change in the order. I much prefer action related tags where appropriate. One thing is you can often rewrite something to do away with the tag while still implying it.

Instead of jumping on Switch for his perspective, I think it's healthier to focus on techniques, which is what we're interested in anyway. Most of those here are interested in the reasons why you wouldn't use dialogue tags. Examples end up counting more (even if crudely drawn) than the arguments projected in their defense.

Seeing how different people handle the same situation, and getting feedback on the examples presented, gives us each a better idea of how to use the various techniques.

By the way, just after this latest debate began unfolding, I wrote a new chapter that had four different people speaking in turn. As you can guess, I ran smack into what Switch was describing: "John said", "Debbie said", "Frank said," and "Mary said".

After writing 1,500 words, I'm tossing the entire thing and starting again.

I have to disagree with this A/B examples mean little to nothing beyond a statement or personal taste with out a reason for why one is better than the other.

The examples provide samples for different alternatives. While one writer may not use it often, if they see it in use, they'll be more likely to adopt it in a particular circumstance.

I just think it's more productive moving away from a "No, you're wrong" argument, and focus on "this is my technique, use it if you find it helpful."

My current philosophy developing out of this conversation over several threads is to avoid "said" where possible but to use cadence/tone/volume tags where a given speaker departs from normal conversational cadence/tone/volume.

That was something my editor took me to task for, and I agree with her. If an aside doesn't add anything to the plot, or the character, then it doesn't belong. Action tags are useful, but when set off by themselves, especially when they occur before anything is said, they're often pointless.

I had oodles of "He shrugged" and "he laughed" actions which didn't advance the plot a whit. However, describing who's speaking by showing how they respond is productive.

Most of those here are interested in the reasons why you wouldn't use dialogue tags. Examples end up counting more (even if crudely drawn) than the arguments projected in their defense.

OK. One of the reason you drop the dialogue tags when you have two people in an extended conversation is is speeds up the pace of the story, and the same holds true for anywhere you can do something similar. If you can replace the dialogue tag with an identifying action tag it helps with the story pace while still getting the content and context across. For example, you can have two people talking and a third interrupts the conversation. One way of having this is to have Fred and Mary talking when Bob says something:

"I disagree."

Bob says, "I think he has a point, Mary."

or you can do it with an action tag.

"I disagree."

Bob interrupts with, "I think he has a point, Mary."

In the later version you make it clearer Bob is joining the conversation without being invited to be in it. You can even have something like:

Bob walks up and interrupts with, ....

How you do it will depend on what you're trying for.

If you have a fast paced dialogue bouncing back and forth with short sentences, as in a disagreement, having a few more words in the action tag of the third party arriving can slow the pace a bit as well.

edit to add: You can even drop some dialogue for actions.

George tells Fred, "Come here right now." Fred simply shakes his head no while giving him the two finger salute. "You're dead, Fred."

Mary giggles, and says, "Well, that went well."

This allows you to cut out the dialogue of Fred saying No.

How would you handle a larger group conversation with many parties present from the beginning, say something like a corporate board meeting?

Depending upon the type of meeting you need a natural way to introduce everyone to the readers, and have someone take charge of the meeting. How to handle it will depend on the content and context of the situation. I can't think of an example off hand. I do have some I wrote some years back and I'm looking to revise because my writing has improved since I wrote them.

edit to add: you can have the main speaker inviting others to speak or have others take an action like opening a file or hitting the table etc.

How would you handle a larger group conversation with many parties present from the beginning, say something like a corporate board meeting?

I usually don't have stories like that -- with many characters. But there are numerous ways without tagging each dialogue.

As was stated, you can precede the dialogue with action.

You can also end it with action to represent the next speaker. For example.

The boss leaned forward. "We'll do it my way." He glared at John.

"But, boss--"

"I said my way!"

Sally smirked. That will help her get the promotion. "I'm with you."

[no dialogue tag was needed for John's words even though there were three of them]

Or you could do it by directing the conversation to someone using their name, as in:

"Which one of you did it?" the mother said. "Was it you, Bobby?"

"No."

"Not me either."

[3 people; 1 dialogue tag]

How would you handle a larger group conversation with many parties present from the beginning, say something like a corporate board meeting?

I've been doing this a lot recently. In "Stranded in a Foreign Land" and "Poking the Devil in the Eye", I have National Security Council meetings, with various generals and other committee members. In my new "Singularity", I have a full Congressional Investigation with the congressional panel, the defense team and the onlookers (though the press provides handy distractions for action).

Obviously, I've been wrestling with these concepts for a while now.

Sally smirked. That will help her get the promotion. "I'm with you."

[no dialogue tag was needed for John's words even though there were three of them]

Since Sally was the last person named, I would naturally assume she was the speaker.

AJ

Sally smirked. That will help her get the promotion. "I'm with you."

[no dialogue tag was needed for John's words even though there were three of them]

Since Sally was the last person named, I would naturally assume she was the speaker.

Yes, Sally's action was in lieu of a "Sally said." The example was to show that there was no tag needed for John because of the previous sentence about his boss glaring at John. Now if Sally would have jumped in and spoken first and then John, you'd need a tag for John because that link was broken. I was showing one way to eliminate the tag (I guess I showed 2 ways, both for John and Sally).

How would you handle a larger group conversation with many parties present from the beginning, say something like a corporate board meeting?

Typically, in a larger group, you'll only have two active participants, possibly with someone sprinkling in comments. But each new person speaking requires a tag (unless they're unimportant enough to not acknowledge). Very often, in that situation, I won't even use names, simply using positions instead.

I believe I covered that.

You did. I was moving down the list of responses chronologically.

Taking a break from my 'zombies in space' saga, I'm writing a shorter teenage coming-of-age-on-an-ice planet story. Two of the group have just dug themselves out after an avalanche and they do a lot of shouting while trying to locate where their friends are buried. Not a situation where 'said' would work :)

AJ

Not a situation where 'said' would work :)

I, too, use "shouted" when it works.

Without ever giving even a fraction of a reason why.

I'm not going to reread the article, but I think it did say why. Like you can't laugh words (laugh is not a synonym of said). You can't hiss something that doesn't end with an "s". And then there were the animal sounds people don't talk in.

To take the other side, I once read an article favoring these dialogue tags. He said verbs bring a story to life, which I agree wholeheartedly. Well, "said" is a verb, so wouldn't a more descriptive verb, like "bark," bring the story to life? That was his argument.

But aside from all these strange dialogue tags, I still contend "said" is the way to go (most of the time). It truly is invisible. It's only purpose is to name the speaker. The reader recognizes who's talking and ignores the word "said." So it's the dialogue they "hear," not the tag.

Might be able to hiss words with z s.

This was the example:

"Get out," he Hissed: Dialogue Tags That Look Silly

Fairgrounds used to have, and might still have, barkers. I don't believe they attracted customers by going, "woof woof." :)

AJ

As to laughing words, I disagree that it can't be done. I've been there, done that. It's not easy and it doesn't happen often, but under the right circumstances it can be done.

More realistically, the laughter and the words aren't simultaneous. Rather, they'll laugh and say something. Rather than say "He laughed, then said ... before chuckling again", they simply write "he laughed". Anyone who's human realizes what's happening, as it's not a foreign concept. Rather, trying to describe what's physically happening while you're painting a humorous scene it yanking the reader out of the story.

I'm not saying "he laughed" is always OK to use, just that I don't see it as being so foreign (though I tend to use an action tag of "he chuckled" to describe the mood instead).

That might be more common, but I do not accept that it is more realistic. I have had to speak while laughing uncontrollably in real life. Laughing and speaking at the same time is 100% realistic. I know this because I've done it.

Another way of interpreting "he laughed" as a dialog tag is that the speaker spoke with the tone and cadence of laughter.

I agree, but in few instances is there any indication the speaker had trouble forming the words, thus I assume it describes the mood, rather than the specific words uttered.

Saying the speaker laughed conveys his attitude better than many alternatives. If the character laughs in the face of danger, it speaks volumes about his state of mind and how he'll respond if the situation escalates. He doesn't need to guffaw or trip over his own tongue for the message about his intent to come across clearly. Again, painting the full scene can often be more distracting than simply conveying the information in a straightforward manner.

Saying the speaker laughed conveys his attitude better than many alternatives.

I think instead of saying something like : Fred laughed, "Did he really do that?" You should write: While laughing Fred asked, "Did he really do that?"

Thus you show the laughter as an action and not a dialogue tag. You can do similar things with most of the tags that don't make sense as a dialogue tag.

I think instead of saying something like : Fred laughed, "Did he really do that?" You should write: While laughing Fred asked, "Did he really do that?"

Thus you show the laughter as an action and not a dialogue tag. You can do similar things with most of the tags that don't make sense as a dialogue tag.

That's why I preferred "chuckled", or less generic terms for laughing, as readers have grown used to "he laughed" as a dialogue tag.

Jack chuckled. "He didn't really say that, did he?"

That gets the message across more effectively. I think "laughed" is overused, and is often used imprecisely.

That's why I preferred "chuckled", or less generic terms for laughing

To me, there's a difference between chuckling and laughing. Laughing is more boisterous. I use giggling a lot too. It's more feminine, like higher pitched.

For me the examples flow better when written as:

"Come Here!" ordered John.
"I don't want to," answered Sue.
"Do what your father said," snapped Sue's mother.

To be fair, "ordered" works but isn't as easily read as "said". However, the "snapped" stops me cold. It makes sense, cut it takes time to parse mentally.

I think the verbs should go after the names. BTW what did Mr. Here order John to do, and what was Ms. To's answer, and how many pieces did Fr. Said snap Sue's mother into.

"John ordered", "Sue answered" and "Stephan said". That's the other 'new standard', you switch the verb and noun (it's supposed to sound more natural and effortless). I actually prefer it myself, but it takes a bit to get used to.

"John ordered", "Sue answered" and "Stephan said". That's the other 'new standard',

I never heard of that being a standard.

But if it is the "new standard," it makes sense since it's the person that's the important part. You don't even have to read the "said," but if you put the verb before the name you have to.

That's the other 'new standard', you switch the verb and noun (it's supposed to sound more natural and effortless).

I know writing 'experts' have to think of 'new standards' to justify their existence but that's actually bad science.

You'll find on the internet lots of reading tests where the first and last letter of each word are correct but the middle letters are all jumbled, and yet the text is still easily readable. That's because humans look at the start and the end but skim the bits in the middle. Putting 'John said' rather than 'said John' puts 'said' in a position that gets more attention than 'John', and the whole point of using 'said' is that it's supposed to be as close to invisible as possible.

This is one 'new standard' that has no future.

AJ

I read a decent explanation of it, but of course, can't remember the details. I'll have to try digging it up again.

That's because humans look at the start and the end but skim the bits in the middle.

Not me. I wish I could do that. It would make me a faster reader. But I guess that's why I catch my typos.

Putting 'John said' rather than 'said John' puts 'said' in a position that gets more attention than 'John', and the whole point of using 'said' is that it's supposed to be as close to invisible as possible.

I don't understand your logic. Putting "said" at the end gives it more attention?

The reader sees the quotation mark so they know it's dialogue. The mind sees the name after the closing quote to let them know who said it. The reader's mind might not even see the "said." That would make it invisible, because they will jump to the next paragraph after learning who said it.

I don't understand your logic. Putting "said" at the end gives it more attention?

Not my logic but science. It's why people can read sentences of jumbled up words easily provided the first and last letters are correct. We pay attention to the start and the end but skim the rest.

AJ

As I suspected, Switch is more tied into this new tendency since he spends time with younger writers than most of us at SOL.

The young writers on wattpad mostly agree with you, not me. They want all kinds of replacements for "said." I can't tell you how many threads were created with people asking for alternatives.

It's not a sign of a young writer. It's a sign of an amateur writer.

because it's this group who insist there's only one way to write and it's the way they write (past tense, 3rd person omni) and nothing else is a valid way to write a story.

Think different!

If everybody writes following the same how-to books, everybody's writings will read the same.
"Boring," I yawned.

And then there are the tags that tell rather than show. Like "affirmed." Don't use a dialogue tag to let the reader know the character agreed. Show it through his words. Yeah, that's harder. But that makes for better writing.

Tone of voice is every bit as important in conveying meaning as the words spoken. The same words said with different tones of voice can significantly alter the meaning of what was said. You can't properly convey tone of voice strictly with the dialog itself because it is necessarily in a real face to face conversation separate from the actual words spoken.

That's what the ? is for, not the dialogue tag.

For those who say never use a dialogue tag other than "said," what they mean is the reader doesn't see the "said."

That's what they're teaching in creative writing classes nowadays, and it's almost the opposite of what they were teaching 30-40 years ago.

I'm with CW on this one, I usually use the 'asked' tag for questions. But writing isn't an exact science - I think story flow is the be all and end all, and if the reader has to stop and think about what you've written, you're failing as a storyteller. So write the way you like to see stories written.

AJ

Yeah. What he said.

I'm very much in the "mix um up" camp when it comes to tags. If readers skip over "said" why not just leave it out too?

It's the "who said it" that they see.

In a screenplay, you'd have:
John: Come here.
Sue: I don't want to.

In a novel, you'd have:
"Come here," John said.
"I don't want to," Sue said.

It's the "who said it" that they see.

In a screenplay, you'd have:
John: Come here.
Sue: I don't want to.

In a novel, you'd have:
"Come here," John said.
"I don't want to," Sue said.

Even with my action tags, it's very much a pacing question. The action tags are useful when you're trying to paint a scene, but it takes time, which the reader has to wade through. If you have a fast-paced action scene (lots of yelling, perhaps), then you don't want to bog the story down with "ordered", "answered", "snapped". Instead, using "said" for all three allows the dialogue to stand on it's own and keeps the dynamic interplay in the forefront, rather than the author trying to direct the scene as it's unfolding.

This seems to be a guest article by Sal Glynn - Grammar Girl's articles are usually objective but this is rather subjective.

I agree with much of it, but current trends in creative writing teaching are to avoid using characters' names in dialogue where possible on the basis that it doesn't happen in real life so it comes across as false.

AJ

"The writer's job is to put the dialogue into the mind of the reader."

I'm not sure how one would go about letting the reader "hear" the character without some means of identifying the speaker and the speaker's mood at the time.

When you put the mood in, the reader hears the author, not the character. It's the author telling the reader the character shouted, barked, etc. At least that's what the proponents of only "said" say.

It's the author telling the reader the character shouted, barked, etc. At least that's what the proponents of only "said" say.

That's about the best way I've heard this stated, thanks Switch.

The biggest problem with using only the word said is it totally ignores the realities of life. For example, take scene where you have a drill instructor with a group of troops on the parade ground - he will never just say anything, he'll shout, yell, or bark commands but never say them. In a unexpected noisy situation or on the scene of an emergency, everything is shouted or yelled and not said. Also, there are real life situations where people whisper things. The proponents of only said don't think through what they're saying.

All of this doesn't even touch on the fact I never use the word said in a present tense story because it's bad grammar.

I don't particularly like "he said/she said". If only two characters are speaking in a normal voice, I often let the use of quotation marks define the point of change from one speaker to another. I also find it convenient and not distracting to use verbal clues such as "he turned" or "she touched his arm" before the dialogue. Verbal cues can paint the picture I want the reader to see as well as define the speaker.

Using quote marks to delineate a new speaker assumes you never have dialogue than spans more than a single paragraph. If you have complicated dialogue, arguing points, you're more likely to cross that line, though others have different techniques to avoid dropping the closing quote.

Those same group think nit wits who think "When you put the mood in, the reader hears the author, not the character" also say that you should only write in the past tense.

Sorry, DS, but you've got that backwards. The current trend in writing is to use current tense. Past tense harkens back multiple decades. All my writing aids keep yelling at me for using "was" and "had" when I write past tense stories. (To be fair, they also complain when I use "have", but they go apoplectic when I use past perfect tense!)

All my writing aids keep yelling at me for using "was" and "had" when I write past tense stories

I don't understand that. The majority of novels today are still written in past tense.

It seems to reflect certain 'writing trends' (i.e. writing advice, rather than actual usage in books). There are certain schools of thought that all books should be written in present tense to capture the action and put the reader in the pilot seat, whereas past tense is an 'old-fashioned' concept which distances the reader from the story.

I doubt many writers pay it much heed, but there are plenty of scolds who berate anyone who varies from these trends. My favorite writing tool, Autocrat, being among them.

Worse, a sentence might end halfway across the line and who spoke the next line?

if the unfinished sentence doesn't have a set of dots (like ...) or closing quotes, it's likely caused by a glitch in the SoL Posting Wizard and not by the author - that doesn't happen from time to time.

They have a name. Ellipsis.

I know, but I always mis-spell that word, so I skipped it while typing in a hurry.

They have a name. Ellipsis.

No, it has a name, which is ellipsis. They (combined) have a different names, ellipses.

I might misspell "they're" and "their", but I use (and talk about) ellipses enough, I remember how to spell them. Now, about those em-dashes ...

Now, about those em-dashes ...

Poor Em never could run fast, so no dashes for her. Her sister El was a good short course runner.

Then, in Skyfall they killed M off.

Poor Em never could run fast, so no dashes for her. Her sister El was a good short course runner.

Then, in Skyfall they killed M off.

You laugh, but I've one story (the one I sent to the editor) who's main character is named "Em".

main character is named "Em".

Is that the one with the sisters Dee and Kay?

Is that the one with the sisters Dee and Kay?

Sorry, but I missed the reference. It went right over my head. Em is short for Emma, but since her family calls her Emma, she reacts badly when people call her by her birth name. (By the way, her niece calls her "Auntie Em, Auntie Em!", as I couldn't resist.) The family dynamic around the name really seemed to add a lot to the story with minimal effort. After all, a name is just a name, unless there's a story behind it. And the more involved the story is ...

Sorry, but I missed the reference. It went right over my head.

I think it was Kay = K and Dee = D like Em = M

Sorry, but I missed the reference. It went right over my head. Em is short for Emma,

CW, It was a joke on the idea of a family whose kids all have names that sound like letters. An extension of the old system of naming the first kid with a name beginning with A and the next starts with B etc, but take it to the point where the name sounds like it's only the letter. Examples being: Bea, Dee, Jay, Kay, El, Em, etc.

They have a name. Ellipsis.

Sadly, for many authors (possibly including Ernest, though I'm not sure), it doesn't apply, as they continue typing a series of periods (or periods surrounded by spaces) rather than typing actual ellipses.

rather than typing actual ellipses.

properly typed an ellipses has spaces between the dots, however they do not always display the same way in all the available display systems, while typing a short series of dots one after the other does always display in the same way. This is due to different systems having different code for how to display them. I prefer to go for uniformity. Another thing is when you have an ellipses with punctuation after it many systems won't recognise it as an ellipses like that, they want a blank space after it.

Properly typed an ellipsis is …

Depends on the style guide you follow.

xxx...xxx = AP Style Guide
xxx . . . xxx = Chicago Manual of Style

Depends on the style guide you follow.

which just make the situation more confusing for everyone.

You seem to have missed my point, an ellipsis is a single character.

I know it's a single character. The Chicago Manual of Style one is also, even if it doesn't look like it. The spaces are non-breaking spaces.

Although I follow the CMS, that's one time I don't. I use the font's ellipsis, which is what I believe you are referring to. My Word automatically converts the 3 dots typed to the font's ellipsis. When I convert my Word doc to HTML, I globally change that character to HTML's equivalent.

properly typed an ellipses has spaces between the dots, however they do not always display the same way in all the available display systems, while typing a short series of dots one after the other does always display in the same way. This is due to different systems having different code for how to display them. I prefer to go for uniformity. Another thing is when you have an ellipses with punctuation after it many systems won't recognise it as an ellipses like that, they want a blank space after it.

Ernest, you mean "properly types [on a typewriter from the 1950s]". With the advent of html and desktop publishing, each system/font is responsible for handling the proper spacing for publishing marks. That's why you're no longer required to type two spaces after every period. The fonts do it for you. What you see as a limitation of the twentieth century, the rest see as the advancement of technology. But, I'm sure we'll disagree on this.

However, you are right that typing it out in plain ASCII eliminates errors. The only caveat is that few systems are unable to handle publishing marks in this day and age. It's build into most Operating Systems.

There aren't a lot of short forms for women's names that are pronounced the same as a single letter.

DS, what about "Val" for "Valerie" (my sister's name), or "Betts" for "Betty" (not a common pet name, but not unknown either).

CW, It was a joke on the idea of a family whose kids all have names that sound like letters.

Sorry, Ernest. While it's plain now, I completely missed it on the first pass, seeing only the unfamiliar names "Kay" and "Dee". I thought I was missing a story reference.

Would her niece's name be Dorothy (not necessarily Gale) by any chance?

Tppm, I was poking fun at my character Em, being an Aunt. I wasn't trying to recreate the cast of "The Wiz". 'D

Properly typed an ellipsis is … or (Alt+0133), but I'm generally too lazy to bring up the character map every time I want to type one and I don't have it memorized, so I generally just type ... (three periods).

Ernest, tppm, maybe that's our problem. For those of us using WORD, it automates the creation of publishing marks, while those of you using other systems are stuck with creating them manually (and thus don't work at including them).

you mean "properly types

CW,

What I mean is that some fonts display the ellipses one way and others do it another way. Also, depending on the software being used on the mobile device or computer you can have them displayed in different ways because the programmers have set them for different presentations due to following different style manuals. Thus, if you use the ellipses code it is very subject to display variation based on the device and software in use. Whereas, if you simply place 3 dots one after the other the presentation is the same. That's the point I was making.

In Libre Office I have the option of having it use the Autoreplace option to replace things with various publishing marks and the like, I choose to turn it off and then use the insert function to put in the ones I do want. I also use that for insert accents and graves for some words too. By having the auto system off I don't have to worry about it doing it's own thing as soon as I look at the next word.

Ernest

What I mean is that some fonts display the ellipses one way and others do it another way. Also, depending on the software being used on the mobile device or computer you can have them displayed in different ways because the programmers have set them for different presentations due to following different style manuals.

Ernest, that (the difference in how ellipses are displayed) are largely because some fonts are used for generic displays (coding displays) while others focus on high-quality publication quality displays. The key is, it's up to the user/system to decide which font to use, rather than up to the author to decide how to format the individual characters each time. Insisting that publication marks are display identically is working to undermine a working system to make all fonts function as badly as the worst one.

Insisting that publication marks are display identically is working to undermine a working system to make all fonts function as badly as the worst one.

CW, to me, a large part of the issue is having the story present very close to the same regardless of the font. I don't know why they did it that way, but some font present the ellipses in different ways similar to the differences in the style manuals Switch mentioned. One font will use 3 character spaces for the ellipses while another will use 6 characters, yet both will present 3 consecutive dots as 3 characters. The extra space taken pushes the lines about and the wrapping changes the line lengths, but worse than that is the actual display for the ellipses looks very different. And to make matters worse you sometimes get devices that are supposedly using the same font give different presentations for the ellipses, while the 3 dots still come out the same. The basic premise behind the use of publication marks is to have them come out the same in all publications so the printers and everyone knows what they mean, when they don't come out exactly the same there's something very wrong.

I don't know why they did it that way, but some font present the ellipses in different ways similar to the differences in the style manuals Switch mentioned.

Ernest, you're getting to wrapped up in minutia. You'll notice, the ellipses display correctly in all the fonts supported by most epub readers (though I'm not sure about Amazon readers, since I don't use them often). If they don't display in fonts meant to display program coding, or for older systems, then who really cares? Most ebook readers will display publications correctly.

If readers want to use older systems, then either let them download the html versions, or provide them plain ASCII text versions (something I've never done, because my story's won't display correctly).

In what universe Do Val and Betts share a pronunciation with a single letter of the Alphabet?

There aren't a lot of short forms for women's names that are pronounced the same as a single letter.

Sorry, I misread the text above, thinking you were suggested most pet names consisted of single letter variants. Never mind!

Personally I do some saidbooking when I write, but I don't let it get out of hand. I think that's probably the best approach.

If you use 'said' about half the time, you'll be permanently out of favour with the fashion police. Works for me!

AJ

I apologise in advance if I missed this, but where is this "new standard" coming from? Is this coming from authors, editors, or publishers, is it being taught, and if so, at what level? I'm also wondering if this might be regional, but that's harder to answer since you're apparently in a region where it is happening.

Dicrostonyx, it's been floating around for some time (in books on writing, in the various writer forums), but it was brought to my attention most recently by the pro editor I hired. Here's a decent summary which Switch reported earlier (it was a long ways back, so you probably missed it).

I was searching for what Crumbly said about "John said" being the new standard (vs "said John".) I didn't find that, but stumbled upon my favorite grammar girl. Now Grammar Girl is not an author, she's an editor, but she's really good at what she does. By the way, she calls dialogue tags attributives. These snippets are from her site http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/he-said-she-said?page=all (I didn't bother putting them in quotes):

An attributive, also known as identifier or signifier, is the "he said, she said" that show the reader who is saying what. Writers who try to get around them will find themselves more confused than their anticipated readership.

Simplicity is the rule in attributives. Many writers try to think for the reader by replacing "said" with words like grunted, growled, demanded, bellowed, cooed, roared, squalled, and simpered. If the tone of the dialogue is not immediately apparent, rewrite the dialogue and not the attributive.

This goes double for adding adverbs like belligerently, arrogantly, haughtily, angrily, coquettishly, happily, slavishly, and jokingly. Before using any of these or others, ask yourself how someone would sound if they spoke in that manner. When the answer comes back, "I don't know," rewrite the dialogue until you do.

Many writers rebel at the idea of "he said, she said." They complain of the blandness and they are right. "He said, she said," is transparent on purpose. The writer's job is to put the dialogue into the mind of the reader. With too much information, readers have no room to make the story their own. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote in comparing films to novels, "There are tens of thousands of A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, since each reader has to cast, costume, direct, and design the show in his head." The simple attributive makes for a livelier scene.

No matter how far back you go people never spoke in the way that the using only "x said" for dialog tags implies.

Again, I don't think the proponents of this idea say you can't use tags which describe the speech, only that they use "said" as a way of eliminating the clutter and keeping the focus on the dialogue. Each time you use an alternate tag, readers slow down and have to parse what it means. That takes them out of the action (of the dialogue) and you've then got to get their interest all over. Simply using said, whenever possible, makes for a smoother read.

However, I'm not good enough of a writer to get away with it, and I still use a variety of tags in my writing. I'm now up to using "said" more often than other tags, but the ration is about 5 "said", 2 or 3 "asked" and about twenty other single use descriptive tags ("barked", "shouted", "argued", "insisted" or "whispered") per chapter.

Yet, I'm finding myself defending a system I don't really use, and don't fully understand. I originally raised the question in an attempt to wrap my head around the concept, not to lecture other authors in how they should write their stories. Most of this is still way over my head.

To me that says the whole thing is nothing but a steaming pile of group-thing based crap.

I cannot agree with that statement. Advocates explain why.

The simple answer is the "said" is invisible and it's the dialogue you want the reader to "hear." That's also why it's best not to have a dialogue tag.

Another reason is you can't hiss words (especially if they don't end with an "s") or snarl them, or laugh them (you can laugh while speaking, but you aren't laughing the words), etc.

The final reason isn't as black and white. Proponents claim using words other than "said" are coming from the author. The author is telling the reader something rather than the reader coming to the conclusion themselves (it's the "show don't tell" argument). I have a harder time defending this argument.

The simple answer is the "said" is invisible

Except for the fact the word said is only invisible to those who push that line. I see every single instance of it being used in a story, and so does everyone else I talk to about stories.

There's nothing worse than frequently seeing things in stories with excessive wordage because they have something like:

He was very angry and yelling when he said, "Up yours!"

It's a lot easier to read and understand as:

He gave an angry shout of, "Up yours!"

The proponents of the always use said process would insist on the first, while the second makes for a better story flow and paints a clearer image.

The problem some people see with using certain words is they insist on always having a dialogue tag, when it's not always needed. These people would have a he said and she said before every damn piece of dialogue, and will never approve the process of dropping the tags when you get into dialogue ping pong between two people. More confusion comes in when you drop the dialogue identifier tag from a piece that also uses an action. An example would be:

(Full variant) Fred laughed, and said, "I agree."

(dropped dialogue tag) Fred laughed, "I agree."

edit to add: the comma between the action and the words shows it's not the words being laughed - well, to me it is.

People have an issue with the above claiming he can't laugh words, but will accept it if all you write is:

(no action or dialogue tag)"I agree."

Part of the issue is to say the dropped dialogue tag version is faulty is also to say the reader can't tell the difference between a dialogue tag and an action.

The best option would be to move the action to after the dialogue and and add a few words to get:

(best way)"I agree," and Fred laughed.

However, I never liked this option because it can be a bit ambiguous about who is speaking and who is laughing.

I've been through every stage of writing in this discussion at some point, and now tend to write things like:

(me, now)Fred laughed, and replied, "I agree."

because too many said make you puke.

typo edit, again

He was very angry and yelling when he said, "Up yours!"

It's a lot easier to read and understand as:

He gave an angry shout of, "Up yours!"

The proponents of the always use said process would insist on the first, while the second makes for a better story flow and paints a clearer image.

On the contrary, the proponents would never say the first one was right. They would say "was angry" is telling (rather than showing his anger).

You're missing the point. Dialogue tags should ONLY be used when needed and avoided whenever you can. But when you do need one, they say to simply say "said" or "asked." It only becomes an eyesore when it's overused, meaning when you use them when they shouldn't be used.

And, as I said, I use "whispered" and "shouted" sometimes.

In my opinion, using "said" in a situation where a real person would shout or whisper is worse and more distracting

As I said, I use "whispered" and "shouted."

Do what you think is best. I have no intention of trying to sway anyone to change. I'm offering my beliefs and ideas. And that's all!

EDITED TO ADD
But you know what? When I see something other than said, such as hissed or barked, it draws my attention to it and I hesitate. I never stop reading when there is a said.

Speak only for yourself in that regard, don't try to claim all readers are like that.

I never have.

Personally, I think this is bad advice, which is unusual for GG.

People just don't speak (any more) in ways that always allow simple 'attributives'. Realistic speech requires descriptive 'attributives', in the same way texting requires emoticons.

I agree (to a point), but instead of using the dialogue tags, using action tags, or describing the scene ("he clenched his fists, scowling") can fill in the difference better than using descriptive (telling) tags.

Not all descriptive tags are telling. I will agree that tags that directly state a specific emotional state are telling and should be avoided. However, descriptive tags for tone/volume/cadence are not telling.

My point, is that it's easier to creating a 'showing' example of what's happening if you avoid tags as much as possible. You can use them to show what someone does, but you need to show what they think. You can best do that in the story description, or in action tags.

"No, forget it!" he shouted. He turned, biting his lip, and considered his meager stock.

"Perhaps we can come to some other arrangement in this case?" the buyer asked.

This example (made up on the spot), doesn't use simple tags, but it also doesn't rely on tags to identify how the characters are feeling, only how they physically respond. The tags should be similar.

The idea isn't that you shouldn't use any tags, but that simpler is better in most circumstances. If the tag does nothing but identify who's speaking, then use "said". If it tells the reader what everyone's thinking, then eliminate it entirely. There are better ways of showing than tacking on -ly adjectives. Sometimes you need them, but tags should serve a single purpose, not acting as your main descriptive tool.

By the way, I agree with each of your examples. Those are all valid uses (though "drawled" might be a bit weak).

It was the best I could come up with for speaking slowly.

That's why I prefer ellipses to highlight the actual pauses. Alternately, you can break the sentence up. Example:

"It was a," he gasped, "disturbing sight. One I'd rather," he removed his glasses, polishing them as he spoke, "avoid in the future."

There are other ways to denote 'speaking slowly' than stating it explicitly.

To me, that is too awkward to read.

I agree. I was suggested a limited-use alternative for paused, now for slowly-enunciated speech. I guess "drawled" might be your best choice, though that brings up images of people living in the south or the old wild west, spitting tobacco and cursing up a blue streak. I'd say, that's enough of a special circumstance, that's it's OK to explicitly state "he enunciated slowly" in order to properly set the scene. If anyone has any better suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.

If anyone has any better suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.

As much as I'm against adverbs, I still use them when it's the best choice. I would say the person said it slowly or spoke slowly.

As much as I'm against adverbs, I still use them when it's the best choice. I would say the person said it slowly or spoke slowly.

I've cut back my -ly adverb use substantially, relying on programs which highlight them for me, like autcrit, but I still have a fair amount. I write what I want, then go through and examine each one, deciding whether it's actually necessary or not. Often, they're just qualifiers that the author isn't sure what he's doing, or that the characters don't, but all that does is promote weak writing. It's best to cut those off at the knees.

Now (based on my last edit, not based on my most recent writings, which haven't been reviewed yet), I'll use 2 or 3 adverbs two, maybe thee times, then I'll follow with about twenty single use ones. That's down substantially from where I was before.

He was very angry and yelling when he said, "Up yours!"

The proponents of the always use said process would insist on the first, while the second makes for a better story flow and paints a clearer image.

Wrong. The first example is all tell. The author is telling the reader the character is angry, rather than referencing his flared nostrils, his clenched fists or his rapid pacing. Heck, even saying he raised his voice would be better.

I agree with Switch's point, that many (but not all, by any means) tags are telling the readers how the speaker feels, rather than properly painting the scene for the readers. In such cases, it's best to simply strip any such 'tells' from the story, allowing the story to stand alone. But ... showing takes more explanatory text, not less. That's why I like my action tags.

He leapt to his feet, his nostrils flaring, his hands in constant motion. "Up Yours!" he shouted, storming out of the room.

I still used "shouted" to demonstrate the sound of the characters' words, rather than explicitly stating how they feel, but in just a couple short sentences (action based) I managed to convey the character's mood indirectly. That's why I prefer my action tags. But, as Switch points out, the extra text pulls readers from the dialogue, which is the focus of most angry scenes. As such, they yank the reader from his active engagement, forcing them to figure out what's happening.

It's a bit of six-of-one vs. a half-dozen of the other. "He said" gets the story across faster, relying on the spoken dialogue, while action verbs help to better paint the scene at the risk of subverting the very action it describes. But I again agree with Switch, you can't speak something which is impossible. While I'll argue that "barked", "whined" and "whispered" are valid uses because they describe commonly understood responses, they're veering into dangerous territory. It's OK to use them, but you'll want to review them afterwards to ensure they don't mislead, disturb or distract.

By the way, my editor stripped both many of my dialogue tags and action tags, arguing they were unnecessary and distracting. For most of them, I agree, but I'm not quite ready to give them up yet (which is why it's better to have an editor point them out to you after the fact, so you can review what impact it has on the finished story, rather than arguing over which to use in the passion of writing).

@Switch

Whispering, he explained why he had to whisper, and proceeded to describe the shooting of the train master.

Using "Whispering, he explained" is an action tag, which is why I prefer them to dialogue tags. They still distract, but they also allow you to add to the story, rather than merely tacking on additional words.

Whispering, he explained why he had to whisper, and proceeded to describe the shooting of the train master.

I would probably change this to:

I didn't like the sentence, but I think the author was playing with the word "whisper." It was humorous, like someone punching you while telling you why they're punching you.

It was humorous, like someone punching you while telling you why they're punching you.

Kind of like how most bullies behave, huh.

However, when I saw this line, the first thing that went through me mind was two guys talking about a short fight at the factory time clock, and one says, "Did you see Joe when he punched out Fred while he was punching out?" - now just got to find a way to work it into a story.

Is he a relative of Frank N. Stein?

Ben Stein is an interesting comedian frequently seen on the Comedy channel and "The Daily Show" (formerly with John Steward). He talks in a rambling, non-stop monologue.

His speech is also notoriously monotone. No inflections, no emphasis, no emotion. No matter what he says, he sounds like a text to speech program reading Gray's Anatomy.

And you think a couple "he gasped" or "he quailed" would make it any easier to listen to?

And you think a couple "he gasped"

Nothing wrong with him gasping. That's a strong verb. Just not a dialogue tag.

Tone is a non-verbal cue. As a matter of definition, it can Never immediately apparent from the text of the dialog alone.

Again, these admonitions are absolutes (and Switch and I aren't strict adherents to them anyway). Switch's point was that newbie writers tend to use a bunch of tags, while the more experienced writers tended to go for simplicity (using fewer). However, in either case, using tags to show volume is fine, just be careful when telling the reader what's happening in a tag, rather than showing them by how the character responds (or in this case, speaks).

My editor left in plenty of "whispered", "yelled" and "screamed" tags, as they fit, but she reduced the rest to simple saids. And yes, it makes the entire story flow much more smoothly, though I'm still not ready to adopt the style wholeheartedly yet. I'm getting there, but it's a slow progress for me.

DS, I was teasing when I suggested adding tags to Ben Stein's speech. But again, if all that separates his monotone, rapid-fire delivery is a lack of tags, then maybe you are using too many tags? There's nothing suggesting you can't include actions tags, or other people's responses to capture the scene. Those are both superior to using straightforward dialogue tags anyway.

Anyone who uses much of any kind of dialog tag or action tag for Ben Stein is misrepresenting the way he speaks.

Not to mention, you wouldn't need any tags, as he never gives anyone else a chance to respond, which is why all his acts are so short. He can't maintain that pace (or the humor) for long.

When I try to imagine what the character sounds like without the 'descriptive tags' I keep hearing Ben Stein.

The other surprising thing my editor did, was to remove most of the "he", "she", "it", "them" and "there" references in the story. My editing websites (autocrat) have long complained about my overuse of "it" and "there", which I never understood, as they refer to occurrences in previous sentences/paragraphs, but when I got the edited story back, the editor referenced everyone by name, regardless of how recently they'd been referenced so there'd be no doubt who was being referred to (of course, she also stripped out much of the other text in the story).

the editor referenced everyone by name, regardless of how recently they'd been referenced

That's weird.

the editor referenced everyone by name, regardless of how recently they'd been referenced so there'd be no doubt who was being referred to

Are you talking about a pronoun attached to a dialogue tag (e.g., "he said") or universally throughout the story (i.e., in the narrative as well)?

Initially, I thought you only meant with the dialogue tag so I asked about that in the wattpad club where the professionals hang out, asking if it was a new trend in publishing (to not have pronouns attached to a dialogue tag, but instead use the character's name).

The consensus was there is no trend like that and one author even said "I would NOT be impressed by that." Some did say that if the dialogue wasn't clear who was speaking it might have been necessary.

Are you talking about a pronoun attached to a dialogue tag (e.g., "he said") or universally throughout the story (i.e., in the narrative as well)?

I was talking in general (dialogue and narrative. In other words, there's a deemphasis on using third-party pronouns (if that's the correct term), instead naming each entity directly.

I'd include examples, but I don't have the story in front of me at the moment. But it would be like saying: "The council said" instead of "he said", or "the peasants did" as opposed to "they did". Instead of referencing previously defined items, you reference them directly, regardless of whether you just stated the names (i.e. there's a tendency to repeat words and names frequently).

I'll find some better examples later.

I'll find some better examples later.

Unless it wasn't clear who the pronoun referred to, that must be a personal choice of your editor. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with pronouns.

Try porn nouns.

Better to try porn nuns, one letter different, but much more fun.

As I read that passage the only part that was whispered was the explanation for why whispering was needed and the description of the shooting of the trainmaster.

It's not used as a dialog tag because the actual whispered dialog was left out.

Exactly. In fact, that is a "telling" paragraph.

Then it makes the opposite point of what you meant it for.

Nope. Instead of using "whispered" as a dialogue tag (which I do, btw), he put in in the narrative that the character was whispering.

That a bunch of authors wrote that way, says nothing about whether it is the one right way or the best way.

I'm sorry, but the professionals in the publishing industry know more about it than you or me.

I'm sure there are best seller books that do it other ways, but don't you think it's saying something that the samples I chose, from different types of authors, all do it the same?

They think that they do, but that doesn't mean that they do. Unless you can find one that explains why from base principles without imposing viewpoints on/assuming things about readers that they have no way of knowing it will continue to smell like group-think to me.

I'm sorry, but most of your arguments in this regard are simple belligerence. While you demand statistic 'proof' of every statement, you likewise offer none of your own, simply refuting everything said with "everyone" does this or that.

If you disagree with the practice, then don't bother using it. But bellyaching about it's use by others is pointless. We abandoned the 'what's the practice and can I apply it to my own writing' stage a long time ago. Now it's time to write or get off the can!

Please cite even one case where I have said "everyone" does anything.

I don't have the chapter and verse, but I remember a "no one I know does that" in the course of this discussion. Basing decisions of what none of your friends do is as faulty as doing what all the 'experts' say to do (i.e. if everyone jumps off a bridge, would you do it too?).

I just scanned another book: The Catcher in the Rye.

Again, the dialogue tag was left off most of the time (which is, in my opinion, the best way)

I agree with you here, but ... that presupposes a dialogue involving only two people, where the reader can easily identify who's saying what. Instead of reminding them who's speaking with tags, I'll sprinkle in a couple action tags, describing what's happening. However, when you have four or more people, like I often do, it gets complicated quick (which is why most authors avoid big crowd scenes. I choose them because I like complicated, problematic scenes).

I agree with you here, but ... that presupposes a dialogue involving only two people, where the reader can easily identify who's saying what.

I dislike writing dialogue involving more than two people for that reason.

I dislike writing dialogue involving more than two people for that reason.

I'll agree, it's more problematic, but I seem driven to write that kind of stories. Generally, I have one 'unusual leader' figure and a variety of support people. The leader tends to direct the conversation, while others bounce ideas off of him.

The leader tends to direct the conversation, while others bounce ideas off of him.

If it's not important whose idea it was, you don't need to identify the speaker. I do that with crowd scenes when people shout out, like maybe reporters shouting out questions.

If it's not important whose idea it was, you don't need to identify the speaker. I do that with crowd scenes when people shout out, like maybe reporters shouting out questions.

If you don't need to name the character, then you don't really need to attribute them. However, if they're secondary characters, then generally you do. But if they're generic comments (i.e. it doesn't matter who said it) then you leave off the attribution entirely.

There is an ideal in classical French that no word should be repeated on the same page; I think that this is part of what a lot of you have been trying to express

I've been using that principal in my writing for some time, though instead of 'on the same page' (which is meaningless with ebooks anyway), I say 'within several paragraphs'. But, if we assume that "said" is largely invisible, then we're still arguing the same thing.

There is an ideal in classical French that no word should be repeated on the same page; I think that this is part of what a lot of you have been trying to express

I assume you don't mean words like "the" and "and," etc. "Said," as a dialogue tag, falls into the category of a "the" or "and." They're there, but you don't focus on them.

I assume you don't mean words like "the" and "and," etc. "Said," as a dialogue tag, falls into the category of a "the" or "and." They're there, but you don't focus on them.

The general rule of thumb is, connecting words and generic pronouns ("he", "she", "it", "I" and "they") don't really matter, but you don't repeat words within several paragraphs, and you don't use uncommon words on the same page. That includes names (instead you use "he" or "his partner"). If you have repeated words, you reach for your thesaurus. You can't always find them, as some words you just can't find suitable replacements for, but generally, it improves the writing, so the few sections with repeats aren't as noticeable, since they don't happen that frequently.

That's one of the major things I use autocrat.com for, finding duplicate words, excess adverbs, overuse of certain words (it, there, see, feel, etc.), and alerts whenever I use run-on sentences (over 25 words).

but you don't repeat words within several paragraphs

Not always true. Maybe as a general rule, but sometimes you do it for emphasis. For example, this is what I just wrote as the beginning of a chapter:

----------------------------------------------
Guilty!

The word rang through my brain like a freight train storming through a tunnel. Guilty! My father was guilty. No! He was found guilty. He was innocent. He had to be.
-----------------------------------------------

"guilty" is used 4 times in the first two sentences of the chapter. And "through" twice.

A well known debating and public speaking trick to repeat something three times in order to persuade the listener

That's basically why I did it. The father being found guilty is what drives the plot's conflict. I wanted to use the word multiple times in a row to get the point across and to make the reader feel the son's anguish. Also, to show that the son still believes his father is innocent even though everyone else thinks he's guilty.

My point with the example is that when an "expert" (whether it be a person or software) warns you about something, like using the same word more than once in close proximity, it's simply a red flag to analyze if it's wrong or what you intended. In my case, the software Crumbly uses would have slapped my face, but I would have stuck my tongue out at it.

As to the repetition of the word "through" in my example, it was done for parallelism -- through his mind and through the tunnel. Using a synonym for "through" for one of them would have ruined the parallelism.

As to the repetition of the word "through" in my example, it was done for parallelism -- through his mind and through the tunnel. Using a synonym for "through" for one of them would have ruined the parallelism.

The other thing I find is that I'll have one person reference what someone else said, such as:

"That's cheating!" she said.

"Cheating? How can you accuse me of cheating?"

However, by rephrasing it, you can eliminate the duplicates and make the story easier to read.

"That's cheating!" she said.

"Pardon me? How can you accuse me of such things?"

As for the software, I've mentioned before (on the old forum) that the program is incredibly annoying because it flags everything. It's up to you, the author, to decide what to do. Most of the time, you can't improve the story, however, by getting you to examine it, you focus on what works in your writing, and what can be improved. It's a way of getting you to focus on typical problem areas in writing.

However, the biggest problem with it is that it adds so much time to the editing process (typically a full 8-hour day for each chapter).

A well known debating and public speaking trick to repeat something three times in order to persuade the listener about something and then enforce the "teaching".

Over the years I've done a number of training courses on how to teach or train people, and the one major core aspect of them all was the idiom:

- Tell them what you're going to teach them, then;
- Tell them what you're teaching them, then;
- Tell them what you've taught them, and then;
- Hope that they remember today's lesson.

That was the Army way of training.

It may well have been, but they didn't start it. The triple tell teaching method has been around for centuries. It's also been shown to be the best way. A few universities have done studies on it over the years.

Not always true. Maybe as a general rule, but sometimes you do it for emphasis.

As always, these aren't 'rules', merely guidelines to reduce repetition in stories, so if something works, keep doing it. But, I find that many times, it produces better results to rephrase things rather than repeating the same word. For example:

Guilty!

The word rang inside my head like a freight train storming through a tunnel. No, my father was innocent. He had to be.

You get the same results, but you only use the term "guilty" a single time.

However, there are certain words which are difficult to avoid. I ran across this in my story "Catalyst", where I'd repeat the same terms over and over because there weren't any decent alternatives. In a recent story, I keep using "energy" because I'm describing energy beings, and the humans don't understand what the energy they use is composed of. In cases like that, I'll often use the same word three or four times in a single paragraph. I try to avoid it, but I'm not always able to. In that case, I try to minimize my uses of it. Again, it's a matter of making a story easier to read, rather than following a specific set of rules.

@richardshagrin

However I am not certain "proceeded to describe" is the best choice.

That's because "proceed to" is considered 'weak' or 'passive' writing. Instead of describing action, it dances around things, referencing what's happening without describing it directly.

There are times when repetition of a word creates a great impact; rephrasing it will dilute the message.

Yes, that was my thinking.

I definitely do not agree with you about "Smile, laugh, giggle, consider, babble, demand, bark, snarl, whimper, sneer, shriek and so on." I had rather use the word "sneer" as a tag than write a couple of hundred words explaining why that word would have been appropriate. Of course, if I were being paid by the word, I would have a different opinion. But I class that as one of my objections to show, not tell.

Okay, I guess that is why my stories are rarely recommended or rarely draw high scores. But then, I write as I talk, not as I think that a great literary society would have me write.

On the other hand, I do get thousands of downloads with every chapter I post, so I surely am not doing something too egregious.

Purpose: Dialogue tags are used to let readers know who is speaking. That is their primary purpose, and that purpose should guide their use.

Switch,

I think this blogger, like a lot of people do, are confusing action tags with dialogue tags when the situation is such the author has dropped the dialogue tag as not being needed at that point. Most people accept when you have two people talking back and forth and do the proper change of speaker with change of paragraph you don't need the dialogue identifier tags to let readers know who's speaking. The problem comes in when the author is also using an action tag with the dialogue but drops the dialogue tag, then many think the action tag is the dialogue tag simply because it precedes the dialogue, when it isn't the dialogue tag at all because the dialogue tags has been dropped.

What isn't helping this discussion is it's crossing over from that situation to the one about using alternative dialogue tags that are a bit more descriptive, and then the two are getting mixed in together.

The trick in all this is to be very selective and careful about how you use both action tags and dialogue tags (including alternative wordings).

edit to add the bit in italics. later edit for typo

I think this blogger, like a lot of people do, are confusing action tags with dialogue tags

Ernest, you misunderstood her.

She said "sneer" is an action, but people use it as a dialogue tag (e.g., "Go to hell," he sneered.).

She also said that when you use action, you don't need the dialogue tag, which is what you're referring to (e.g., He sneered. "Go to hell.").

(e.g., He sneered. "Go to hell.")

I do hope you meant: He sneered, "Go to hell."

In the sentence I typed above there is an action tag, no dialogue tag (because it's dropped), and some dialogue. (NB: In the above example I'm accepting your use of sneered as not being a dialogue tag).

Using this format you can get variations with other action tags like:

He smiled, "Go to hell."

He laughed, "Go to hell."

He walked off, "Go to hell."

In these examples some people scream that smiled, laughed, and walked off aren't proper dialogue tags and shouldn't be used. When the truth is they aren't dialogue tags but action tags with a dropped dialogue tag.

But then you can move into areas where adverbs on how they use their voice can be used as a dialogue tag. Words like barked, spat, shouted, yelled, screamed, and snarled etc provide a lot more information on how the person produced the words and are valid dialogue tag; yet some people say they shouldn't be.

Slight shift of thread
Since this thread started I've been thinking on this a lot, and now think authors need to consider the image being presented in this short-cut method. Some actions can start and continue through words being said, while others can't. In the first case a comma makes a lot of sense, and in the second a full stop makes more sense. For example:

He smiled, "Go to hell." - to me this implies he smiled and then spoke while he continued to smile. Whereas:

He smiled. "Go to hell." - implies, to me, he smiled, then the smile left his face and he spoke.

I think some authors don't give this usage variation enough thought or practice.

I do hope you meant: He sneered, "Go to hell."

No, it should be: He sneered. "Go to hell."

Like:

He slapped his hand on the table. "Go to hell."

The way you have it is using "sneered" as a dialogue tag, as in:

He said, "Go to hell."

No, it should be: He sneered. "Go to hell."

Switch, to me, that shows and action before he even spoke. So, please tell me, how do you sneer without saying something or expanding it to something like The expression on his face was like a sneer.

The full stop means that. Stop the this sentence and start a new one. Thus is makes a significant separation between the action and the words.

edit to add: More often than not, the way to tell the person is sneering is the tone of the voice while they speak than their facial expression.

So, please tell me, how do you sneer without saying something

The side of your lip curls up. That's a sneer.

The action is before he spoke. It's the action that eliminates the need for a dialogue tag because when the dialogue follows the action it's the person doing the action who's speaking.

In the article she says some people misuse a dialogue tag as the action. I used the action of sneering as an example (it didn't come from the article). That's not the purpose of the dialogue tag. According to her and others, the only purpose of the dialogue tag is to identify the speaker.

The side of your lip curls up. That's a sneer.

Most of the time when I see someone with the side of their lips curled up it's what's called a wry grin which isn't a sneer. Often a wry grin is accompanied by a shrug - a common usage is when someone screws up and knows they did and it's a non-vebal way of apologising.

I suspect the issue is the article writer, like some others, is calling the action tag a dialogue tag simply because the is no dialogue tag there due to it being dropped. In which case, the fault lies with the person making that faulty attribution of what they're reading.

Most of the time when I see someone with the side of their lips curled up it's what's called a wry grin which isn't a sneer.

The sneer was my example, not hers. This is from dictionary.com
"to smile, laugh, or contort the face in a manner that shows scorn or contempt"
So that's how you sneer without speaking.

What's an action tag? I haven't heard that term. Are you suggesting it's action used as a dialogue tag? That's what she specifically warned against doing.