Forum: Author Hangout

I'd say if it adds something to the narrative, do it. If he's just doing to follow some archaic language rules no one agrees on, take it out.

Rather than his 'following some archaic language rules', it's more likely that he's simply not confident in his own writing to assume that readers can follow his dialogue.

A better approach, especially editor, is to assure the author that the excessive use of attributes is unnecessarily and cross them out with a bright red pen! 'D

There are very specific rules on this, which aren't really debated (until you get into the nitty-gritty details, like the use of dropped quotes).

Every time I haven't been wholly diligent with the dialogue tagging I've gotten complaints that my dialogue is hard to follow. I do a lot of scenes with many characters but this is even true if there are only two characters.

That's why it's best to either read the dialogue aloud to yourself (painfully slow!) or use a text-reader (MS Word finally supports this, and there are multiple third-party apps which do.

On the Mac, the easiest approach is to save the chapter/story as a pdf (which the Mac does in EVERY program) and then open it in the Mac Books app, where you can elect to read either the entire document or short selected passages aloud (the Mac also uses better voices than PCs typically offer).

When read aloud, you'll quickly spot ANYTHING that slows down the story's natural flow.

Dialogue tags slow your pacing and distract readers from the conversation.

1) Ignore everything recommended on Wattpad.

2) Other experts say the opposite - dialogue tags take up little space and readers skim over them so they don't slow the pacing or distract the reader. Obviously there are exceptions if you use something not vanilla:

"Soon you shall be mine," she susurrated.

'Experts' who don't back up their claims with evidence are best ignored.

AJ

1) Ignore everything recommended on Wattpad.

I didn't quote someone on wattpad. I quoted from an article someone on wattpad linked to. I quoted that section because I believe in it 100%.

I quoted that section because I believe in it 100%.

If that's what you believe and it suits your writing style, go for it.

Alternatively, if someone wants to use dialogue tags for each line/paragraph of dialogue, then that should be acceptable unless someone can prove it's wrong. But then I try to adopt a scientific approach to writing.

AJ

If that's what you believe and it suits your writing style, go for it.

Alternatively, if someone wants to use dialogue tags for each line/paragraph of dialogue, then that should be acceptable unless someone can prove it's wrong.

If you're looking for proof, then try reading passages aloud, or speed up a speech-reader slightly, and you'll quickly identify where each paragraph bogs down with unnecessary verbiage.

That's not a fair test. Reading aloud, every word has to be articulated. But when reading for oneself, dialogue tags like 'said' are glossed over.

AJ

That's not a fair test. Reading aloud, every word has to be articulated. But when reading for oneself, dialogue tags like 'said' are glossed over.

That was an example, I use online readers, while many get their significant other to read or to read passages to, to gauge their reactions.

All authors (and editors too) tend to read what they expect to see, rather than what's actually on the page—which is why having it read aloud helps.

2) Other experts say the opposite - dialogue tags take up little space and readers skim over them so they don't slow the pacing or distract the reader.

That's clearly incorrect. Rather, the general consensus is that "said" is the preferred term, but the use of other tags tends to distract more than they enlighten. No one suggests cutting tags wholeheartedly, but newbie authors typically overuse them when they're generally not needed.

Even coughed, in rare occasions. You can cough a single word, wouldn't work for sentences.

Hell, most schoolboys can burb out entire sentences! 'D Coughing, though, tends to lead to coughing fits, which ends the conversation pretty quickly.

For ping-pong dialogue, my preference when writing is to name the initial speakers then mostly omit dialogue tags, although I make a point of renewing them every few exchanges. I've read too many SOL stories in which the authors themselves have lost track of who's speaking, which results in characters saying things out-of-character. Backtracking to look for dropped quotes is rarely successful.

If there are more than two speakers, it's probably best to attribute every paragraph of dialogue. I was mightily confused by a passage in a recent story until I realised that a third character, named at the start of the chapter but hitherto mute, had entered the conversation unannounced.

AJ

"Said" becomes invisible and doesn't bog the reader down between statements. Also, "asked," "shouted," and a few very simple words.

As a humorous aside, an example of when the use of 'said' looks absolutely horrible:

"I was pleased with my performance today," said Said Benrahma.

(Said Benrahma is a forward for Championship side Brentford. He didn't score against Barnsley yesterday.)

AJ

"I was pleased with my performance today," said Said Benrahma.

When you've just lost the big game, then it's OK to use "whined Benrahma"!

The 'Action Quote' is a handy way of breaking up long-form examples of dialogue, by interjecting descriptions of someone's actions,

It's also a way to avoid using the missing ending quote when the same speaker goes to a new paragraph. Put the ending quote in and then precede the next paragraph's dialogue with an action.

Over-using action quotes

Overusing anything is bad.

Over-using action quotes to end each phrase is one of those deadly sins.

Don't worry, that wasn't what I was suggesting, merely suggesting it helps to break up the normal back and forth between two speakers. So you'd only use it every 5th or 8th paragraph to remind readers who's speaking.

Still, as you observe, it is a powerful tool, though one that's easily overused.

In my case, I more often overuse punctuation like em-dashes and ellipses.

I use "Dad" when it is the POV character's father; "John's dad," when it is not.

Or just 'Dickface' when it's our father, and he's not listening!

So I would lump A's dialogue and actions together, and B's dialogue and actions together.

That's what you're supposed to do.

Let's imagine A asked B to do something and B does it.
After a few minutes B tells A there is no change and A does react immediately. After some more minutes A tells B to try again and B complies.

"Try it now," A said.

B tried bringing the application up. With a forlorn expression, he looked at A. "Sorry, but it's the same."

A pushed B from the chair and sat down. His fingers flew on the keyboard as B looked on in wonder. After ten minutes, A jumped out of the chair.

"Try again," A said.

B sat down and hesitated only a moment before doing so.

That looks fine to me. Perhaps @helmut_meukel would like to elaborate with a counter example.

AJ

There is a tiny difference between what I wrote and your example.

I don't understand your situation, but I know in fiction anything can work if done well.

I remember reading a Lee Child Jack Reacher novel and hated the way he used dialogue tags and action. I thought he bundled them incorrectly and it was hard to understand who was speaking (especially since his use of pronouns was also confusing).

This is from someone with a classical education and a team of professional editors. I would have done it differently, but he's the one making gazillions.

A says some dialogue then B carries out an action.

...

Although I don't follow my own rule all the time, I try to limit paragraphs to one actor. So I would lump A's dialogue and actions together, and B's dialogue and actions together.

In General I would agree with your statement, however, there are times when what the person you mention does with the mix of actions and dialogue is appropriate because the focus of the paragraph is on the matching context of the dialogue and action instead of the individual action or dialogue. An example from my own works is:

Betty arrives and immediately takes over. She sticks notes with room numbers on the furniture in the hall as she tells the work crew, "Take that gear to the rooms on the notes. The items these are replacing have notes on them and are to be put on the ground floor against the wall beside the elevator." The workers glance at Lyn, and he simply nods yes. So the six scurry off to deal with that lot while Betty tags the rest of the gear to go.

In this the focus of the paragraph is what's happening with the furniture. Thus Betty's dialogue is instructions on what to do with it and Lyn's action is to approve his work team to follow Betty's dialogue. Then the team's actions in carrying out the instructions. Since the focus of all three activities is the furniture it makes sense to have them together in one paragraph.

This type of mixing dialogue and action is not common, but the key point in doing it is to first identify what the focus of the paragraph is, and if both have the same focus then they can be put together. The most common used of this will be where A tells B to do something and then B does it - thus they can be in the one paragraph to move the focus onto the instructed action and not the dialogue itself.

While I don't disagree with your premise of focusing on 1 topic in a paragraph to include mixing the narrative and dialog of multiple speakers and doers, it has to be done in a way that makes it clear as to who is speaking and performing the actions. One problem with this approach is, it can lead to long paragraphs that are difficult to read and follow.

I have recently read several stories in which it wasn't done properly. The first speaker or doer was identified, but the second speaker or doer wasn't. I had to stop and reread the paragraph before I realized the author had switched speakers or doers. Since the scene had about 4 characters mentioned in the prior paragraph, it was confusing. You had to guess who the second speaker/doer was.

I personally prefer to not mix the actions and dialogue of multiple speakers. Although I have done it and when I did, I made sure the I identified who was speaking and who was doing the actions.

While I don't disagree with your premise of focusing on 1 topic in a paragraph to include mixing the narrative and dialog of multiple speakers and doers, it has to be done in a way that makes it clear as to who is speaking and performing the actions. One problem with this approach is, it can lead to long paragraphs that are difficult to read and follow.

I agree and work to make it clear like that whenever I do that.

Betty arrives and immediately takes over. She sticks notes with room numbers on the furniture in the hall as she tells the work crew, "Take that gear to the rooms on the notes. The items these are replacing have notes on them and are to be put on the ground floor against the wall beside the elevator." The workers glance at Lyn, and he simply nods yes. So the six scurry off to deal with that lot while Betty tags the rest of the gear to go.

I would end the paragraph where the dialogue ends and start a new paragraph with "The workers glance at Lyn, and he…"

The first paragraph is Betty doing her thing and then giving orders. The second (for me) is the worker's reaction and then them doing their thing.

To me the focus of the paragraph is Betty having the furniture moved to where it's needed, thus they are a coherent whole and one paragraph. If there had been a second person speaking then it would have to have been split, but since it's only one speaker then it's appropriate to keep it as a single paragraph.

However, both your method and mine are valid styles and the correct use of English, so it comes down to a personal preference in the way you handle them.

so it comes down to a personal preference in the way you handle them.

I agree.

Like my Lee Child example. I would have done it differently than the way he/his editors did.

Pet peeve time. I hate when a writer has a character ask a question and then adds '?" he said.' He ASKED. That breaks my flow of thought.

Some say that "said" is the only dialogue tag to use. When you ask a question, you are saying it. I go back and forth on that one.

I'm definitely on the side of asked. In fact I try to make all dialogue tags reflect the punctuation used to avoid any contradictions - 'exclaimed' for example.

Just as a side observation, I've noticed in a few stories recently dialogue has been punctuated by a question mark when there's no evidence of a question. Sometimes there's even 'asked' in the dialogue tag. That really jerks me out of a story.

AJ

So, basically it causes you to suffer premature jerkulation...? :)

And since I was reading the stories in electronic format, you could even say 'premature e-jerkulation ...'

AJ

e.g. "How long will you stay," she asked?

That's incorrect punctuation

"Whatever?" He said.

If he wasn't asking a question, it wouldn't have the question mark.

Yeah, in some of my stories I use "ask" and in others I do not. As I said, I go back and forth.

But I never use "exclaimed." That's what the punctuation is for. (Which now that I think about is, is what the question mark is for so you don't need the "asked.")

but all one needs is more than one person routinely referred as "dad"

I don't disagree. However, I was addressing seanski1969's comment about the repetitive use of 'My Dad' being redundant. I agreed that redundant was one possibility. I also said that it could be a method used to show the character has a tendency toward possessiveness.