sekiharatae | Said-Bookisms and why I'll keep using them

Entry tags:

writing

Said-Bookisms and why I'll keep using them

I've read a lot recently on how 'Said-Bookisms' -- those other words we use in place of 'said' as dialogue tags -- are bad. 'Don't do it,' says everyone from TV Tropes to Stephen King. The word 'said' is described as virtually invisible and touted for getting the job done right. Use it and it alone.

Wikipedia, for instance, indicates that the tags in this little snippet get in the reader's way:

"Hello," he croaked nervously, "my name's Horace. What's yours?" he asked with as much aplomb as he could muster.

The second one bothers me (not for content, but because it makes the sentence unwieldy) but the first one is fine in all respects.  Those few words have allowed me to infer that Horace's voice breaks when he's nervous.    Replacing 'he croaked nervously' with 'he said' would detract from what the writer was trying to convey. How else would one indicate that the speaker was having such an issue? As a reader, I'd much rather be told that a word or phrase is stuttered or broken than have it typed that way! Especially since there's nothing about "'He-llo', he said" to indicate the speaker isn't breaking the word flirtatiously.

As such, I think this is at best a much oversimplified rule. (And at worst it's a crap one.) Which is made doubly apparent when every list of examples (of what not to do) includes things that are wrong for reasons other than the said-bookism. If the word used isn't a way in which something can be said, for instance, it's wrong because it's not physically possible. You can't smile a sentence or dance a sentence or blink a sentence; using these as dialogue tags isn't wrong because they're not the word 'said', they're wrong because they aren't forms of speech.

Of course, it's far easier to simply say don't than to explain when and how and why it would be acceptable. Or unacceptable. And when people do try to explain they give stupid examples -- seriously, one site stated that using 'he whispered' in a love/sex scene would jar the reader out of the mood. Really? Because -- for whatever reason -- most people seem to think that sex-talk is something that should be done at lowered volume.  Having the hero simply say things during sex paints an entirely different picture than having him whisper. It tells me he's probably more confident, for one thing; and there's probably no-one around to overhear, for another.

One site advised that the word 'snarled' should never be used for dialogue, as it conjures up alpha male jerks.  Obviously, it's ridiculous to think the speaker could just be furiously angry and conveying that with his tone. Similarly, 'hissed' is inappropriate if the words spoken don't have sibilant consonants. Because 'hissed' doesn't describe a venomous whisper at all.

Words. Have. Meaning.  Even the word 'said' has meaning. It's the lowest common denominator of dialogue tags, but that doesn't make it invisible. For it to be invisible, every word ever spoken would have to uttered in monotone. For anyone capable of imagining different levels of inflection, it's not invisible. It's merely... the default.

Consider a scene in which a father is telling a child to stop doing something. There are lots of ways he could go about it, each conveying something slightly different about how he feels. Such as:

"Stop," he said. -- A very mild rebuke.
"Stop!" he said. -- A little firmer, a little more demanding.
"Stop!" he barked. -- Very sharp and precise and abrupt.  Dad is giving an order, one he wants obeyed right now.
"Stop!" he yelled. -- Sharp, but strident. Dad is very possibly alarmed.

Depending on what the child is doing -- say, driving his matchbox car on the wall vice throwing it at the window -- a different tag may be more appropriate. Sure, you could be more explicit -- "Stop!" he said, jumping up in alarm. -- but how many of us really think Dad just said stop if he was actually moved to alarm?

Said-bookisms can also (as mentioned above) specify how something is said in terms of dialect and enunciation without having to sound it out. Such as: "I can't sleep!" the little girl wailed. (Instead of "I can't sleeeeeeep!" the little girl said.) To me, the first is far easier to read than the second.

So. My rule of thumb would be that all of your word choices are important, and that you should therefore only use those that say exactly what you mean, and that contribute something to the story that would be lost without them. If that requires using a said-bookism, so be it... but by the same token, don't use extraneous tags that add nothing.

I must admit that the entire concept is actually kind of mind-boggling to me. Especially since I'm apparently branding myself as an amateur with my approach. And yet... I can't help but think that -- perhaps -- this minimalistic approach is what has reading comprehension declining daily. If words aren't chosen because of what they convey but because they can be ignored... well, no wonder people don't understand what they're reading.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

And this is why you are one of my favorite writers.

Well, one reason of many. But a very good reason!!

*HUGS* I love you! <3

That's my line!! I love you too! *hugs*

I've had similar discussions with people. The authors at my publishing company have an author forum, and we talked about that at one point. One person said he prefers to avoid dialogue tags whenever possible and simply use actions. Some people talked about using said vs. using other dialogue tags. And I've heard that you should only use appropriate dialogue tags--that if someone can't speak that way, it shouldn't be used. (Can you sigh a whole sentence? Then you shouldn't write a whole long sentence and have "he sighed". There was a gigantic list (an actual list on a website) of words that are commonly used as dialogue tags but are not actually dialogue tags.

But I also found out that this is a fairly new concept and not everyone follows it. I, personally, have all sorts of dialogue tags I use. I can't stand just using "said." I need other words to express the severity or intensity or just the general idea of how I hear someone speaking in my head. Say I read:

"I can't!" he exclaimed.

Well, maybe I don't need the exclaimed, because the exclamation point tells me it was exclaimed, but I could also have an exclamation for many other forms of saying something.

"I can't!" he shouted.

"I can't!" he cried.

"I can't!" he shrieked.

Etc., etc.

Also, my editor/publisher with over two decades of editing experience (including NYT bestsellers) didn't tell me I was doing it wrong. ;)

(On a random note, I remember writing a story when I was in third grade and reading it to my mother, and she was the first person who told me that I did NOT have to use 'said' all the time, but that I could use other words. That stuck with me and if I read a story that has nothing BUT said, it would stick out to me. It would certainly not be invisible.)

If someone wants to write that way, of course, it's entirely up to them, but I'll stick with my characters snapping, yelling, grumbling, moaning, and replying to things.

I'm glad to know this isn't universal. Because it just seems so wrong! I hope it started out as something reasonable. Like a complaint about people using 'fancy' dialogue tags for no reason -- he elucidated -- or using words that can't describe dialogue -- he smiled -- and then it went overboard.

But my characters will continue to hiss and bark and mumble as needed. ;)

Also, I think sometimes people are far too pedantic about following rules, to the point that they misunderstand the context. It may be impossible to sigh more than a single word, but how does one write a line of dialogue where the speaker pauses halfway through the sentence to sigh? For example: "I'll speak to the bank about an extension, but then..." she sighed and shook her head, "then I just don't know." Here, 'she sighed' isn't precisely a dialogue tag. It identifies the speaker, but it doesn't describe how she said what she said, but what she did while she was saying it, and that's clear from the context.

If I'm making sense, anyway. ^^;

See, what I would do, is something like...

He balked, eyes bulging. "I can't!"

Not only do we get that he's exclaiming it, but I get a lot more out of the character and how he shows his emotions than that his voice is just loud. And it's so different from:

He frowned, crossing his arms over his chest. "I can't!"

They're both exclamations, but the actions give a much more specific, tangible picture.

Those are great, too. Painting a picture of the action that's happening says so much.

However, this approach denies that exclaiming doesn't directly correlate to a single volume, nor to a single emotion. One can exclaim in both joy or anger. One can exclaim in a whisper or a shout.

To use your example:

He balked, eyes bulging. "I can't!" came his near-horrified whisper.

He balked, eyes bulging. "I can't!" he insisted, voice loud and strident.

I don't really like those adaptations, personally.

1) They are too long, by the time I get to the end, I just want to know how the next person is going to respond.

2) The adapting tag comes after the speech, which means that I picture it in my head, and THEN I read "whisper" and I had to go back.

I think I might have naturally pictured a whisper if the scene called for it - if they are backstage and the director asks him to go on naked, for example. You would not need to tell me he was whispering. And if this is, for example, Barret speaking, then I will tend to assume he's loud and strident :P. As I said below, these tags are basically necessary when the reader would not likely picture what you are trying to convey. I think it comes again to: have you set up the scene? have you defined the characters well enough? are you considering the reader as capable of imagining your story?

But regardless, this is all style choices, and I think it's wonderful and necessary that writers approach writing a million different ways. I would not want us all to treat dialogue the same way. I was just explaining my thoughts behind constructing dialogue.

I am a bit... baffled. English Major here, so I was required to take the regiment of writing classes outside of just the standard English Comp. Three of those were specifically geared to creative writing in one format or an other and the concept of being 'said' all the time came up as something You Probably Didn't Want To Do.

That has the potential to be something that would drive me insane.

It's very baffling. And I'm so so tired of seeing it all over.

It seems like another dumbing down, and one that will bite us in the butt. X(

I had a knock-down, drag-out argument about using 'said' with my English 102 professor last year. He only ever used 'said,' because it blends well into the background and doesn't confuse your readers by making them figure out the mood your aiming for, or something. My Creative Writing professor was a big proponent of using whatever words you needed to express what you were trying to express, so we got along well.

I don't understand why we need to dumb down our writing. If you wanna read a mystery novel, but don't understand the words the author is using, get a dictionary and expand your freaking vocabulary.

God forbid anyone should have to actually process what they're reading!

Seriously, how can anyone say that about confusing the reader with a straight face? Are we assuming all readers are morons now?

ETA: The icon is for your professor's stupidity, not for you. Just clarifying. =) You are awesome; he pissed me off.

Edited 2011-02-15 01:05 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I'm not going to lie--I have no idea what that icon even means. But thanks for the reassurance anyway!

Oh, it's a Harry Potter reference. It's basically an 'instant death' key on the keyboard. ^^;

Oh, that could be pretty useful.

...oh man, it's probably a good thing I don't have one of those on my keyboard, I would get in so much trouble...

...with parents of zapped students, of course.

But the library would finally be quieter!

"But.... I've never even heard of anybody suggesting using only 'said,'" she exclaimed. "I mean, I spent years being told to eliminate boring, wishy-washy, bland verbs like "is" from my work-- and I'm not even in creative writing!"

(How are you supposed to enjoy writing-- or reading-- if you have to keep all the fun toys in a box?)

Maybe it's all a plot by King to make sure his novels stand out. ;P

And I agree completely!

you've made a excellent point

the quotation marks around a phrase or group of sentences is a sure indication that something is being 'said', but it's also important to understand the mood in which that message is being expressed and how it was delivered, what it sounded like in the delivery --punctuation only goes so far in clarifying that.

there more than a hundred alternate words listed in the thesaurus for the word 'said' --some even describing mood!

why would any self respecting person limit themselves with such a generic and bland word when the language offers so much more variety?!

I was thinking much along the same lines last night. Why do we have verbs like mumbled and stammered and screamed if we're not going to use them?!

I don't much like said-bookisms, and here is why...

Most of the books I read have good characterization, good dialogue, and good leadup, so when characters speak, I can tell by context and by the content of their speech how they are saying it. When really dramatic said-bookisms are inserted, I have to pause and re-imagine the character's dialogue. The said-bookism ends up standing out more than the actual words the character says. I think, ideally, speech is so in character that you don't even need tags to know who is saying what. You sometimes get that in intense arguments or exchanges, eventually the tags fall away and you can still tell who is speaking. At this point I'm so into the argument that I just want to know what is being expressed, and I can hear them shouting at each other in my head, and I don't want to pause and wait and read if the author thinks Cloud is grumbling or mumbling or whispering cranklily or whatever.

I think this is just another instance of having faith in your reader - have faith that they will picture the characters speaking the way you intend, or at least they way it suits them to interpret the scene. I do think that in writing less is more - writing is a two-player game. You write, and start the image, and the reader reads, and fills it in. This makes each reading experience unique, this makes reading more personal. When I read overly descriptive text or dialogue I feel like as I reader there is no space there for me, and I don't engage as much.

Also, even the most anti-said-bookisms peeps don't really say "NEVER" use them, just use them sparingly. I've read something like one per page is a good rule of thumb. I've certainly found said-bookisms to be distracting and really slow the pace down if used excessively. But if they are used infrequently, the strategic placement of a said-bookism can be effective.

The only one I can think of that said it was ok to do once in awhile described them as special occasion items. That's pretty darn rare! I've been married eight years now, and have yet to use my 'special occasion' china. ;)

Edited to remove the extra s from occasion, which I can't seem to stop myself from including. Every. Single. Time.

Edited 2011-02-16 05:52 (UTC)

If you have to pause and re-imagine the dialogue to fit with what the author intended, then how can you safely assume you know how the character should sound? Having to re-evaluate is a strong indicator that you didn't.

Or, to put it another way: if the author should trust that the reader will be in tune with the characters, shouldn't the author also be able to trust the reader will be in tune with their word choices?

It's interesting that you feel this way, as -- after checking a few stories -- I use said-bookisms most of the time. I think I very very rarely use 'said'. It's a nothing word. If it's the most accurate word for what I'm trying to say, then I leave it off altogether as long as things won't be confused. (I guess it's sort of the opposite view: if someone is speaking, and I don't need to describe it, then there's obviously just a flat remark.)

Usually when I have to reevaluate, it's what I would have guessed, so it just takes extra time.

When the tag is different than how I pictured it in my head, usually I get (very briefly) hung up, because in my head was how it naturally flowed with the dialogue, and the tag was something different. Usually this is because, frankly, I think people (not you) often use the wrong tags or don't really think their dialogue through, or ever read it out loud to see if it sounds reasonable or if their tags are appropriate. I think tags are most important when the tone is contrary to what you might expect - like if a character is being sarcastic or if Tifa suddenly decides to shout in the middle of a library.

I love your writing, and the tags are not my favorite part :P. There are a bajillion things you do so wonderfully, see any of my reviews for examples :). I'm not sure there's a single author on Earth whom I love EVERYTHING about, you know? Even Steinbeck, my literary God... I think to myself, "I worship you, but what was with that nursing scene at the end of Grapes, John? Why?!?"

I don't think you should change your style if YOU don't want to. Clearly I'm a huge fan of your work. I just chimed in because reading the comments it seems like everyone else loves said-bookisms, too, and I thought you might want to hear from the other camp.

I love your writing, and the tags are not my favorite part :P.

:P and also <3

I'm not sure there's a single author on Earth whom I love EVERYTHING about, you know?

That's definitely food for thought. I would have said I love everything about Eddings... and if he'd stopped with the Belgariad and the Malorean, that would have been true. =/

I know this was posted a while ago but I thought I should explain why you should not use said-bookisms. Sorry that the comments anonymous - I don't have Live Journal or anything. I study Creative Writing at University and this is one of the things that could lose us marks.

The main argument is that if you need one then your dialogue is NOT strong enough. The dialogue alone should be able to carry the emotion. It's not an example of dumbing down, it's the opposite. It's about trusting the reader's intelligence and letting their imagination do the work. Basically, it's showing, not telling.
For instance, instead of saying 'barked' you could say:
'Stop that. Now.'
It doesn't have to have said after it. You only really need dialogue tags to specify who's speaking. You barely need them at all in scenes with only two people.
If it is still ambiguous then I would recommend using action tags instead.

Another complaint is that it draws attention to the fact it is writing and so takes the reader out of the story. You want them to be living it.

Obviously, you don't have to listen to me but Elmore Leornard has a set of rules that I've found very useful. One of the main things that he points out is that there are exceptions.

www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/20/ten-rules-for-writing-fiction-part-one

I'm not certain if anyone will read this but I'd be happy to discuss it further or recommend other sites.

I think the best advice is to read good books and see how other authors handle it. Authors like Richard Ford, Douglas Coupland, Zadie Smith, David Foster Wallace, Amy Hemple, Toni Morrison, David Eggers, Mark Haddon, Joseph Heller, Johnathon Franzen, Don DeLillo...and I've gone off on a tangent.

Hello there. I don't know if you'll read this, as you won't be notified I've posted a response. On the off chance that you will, however, I thought I'd post it.

I thank you for your two cents, but I still disagree with you and your professor. Your example, if you'll excuse the pun, does not carry the same bite as saying the phrase was barked. As a reader, nothing throws me out of the writing faster than stumbling across the word 'said' to describe a phrase that -- given the surrounding action and emotions -- should have been yelled or screamed or some such. Was the speaker really a body of calm in the middle of the argument? Or was the writer slavishly adhereing to the rules against said bookisms? That the word 'said' is universally invisible is a huge lie; it's only invisible if it's appropriate to the surrounding text. Otherwise, it's every bit as disruptive as having someone yell in the middle of a unexciting low-key exchange.

Which underlines what I said before: word choices matter. Using a said bookism to show off that you know a fancy synonym for 'mumble' is not appropriate. Neither is using the word 'said' in the middle of a heated argument where voices are raised -- not unless you really mean that the character reigned himself in at that point. In short, what words you use in your language tags are just as important as the words you use to describe anything else, and they should be chosen carefully, because they mean exactly what you need them to mean. As such, I don't think said bookisms are evil, or should be singled out as the kiss of death for a story, but I also don't think they should be the only tool a writer has. Showing is certainly better than telling; but sometimes the only way to convey what you want to convey is to tell it.

Also, this tendancy not to use said bookisms is a recent thing; when I took creative writing in college twenty years ago it was a non-issue. Twenty years ago, however, I also didn't find books for sale -- critically acclaimed ones -- containing sentences like the one I posted a poll about recently. As such, I honestly, truly, think reading comprehension has evaporated. It's becoming a lost art. What sells is a lot of flash that dazzles the reader so the fact that it means nothing goes unnoticed; or a dumbed down, simplistic writing style that requires little thought to understand. On Amazon, indie authors argue that editing is worthless because most people don't notice errors in tense, sentence construction, spelling, etc. We need to fix that problem in readers (well, ideally in the authors, too; but if readers read better, the authors would have to step up), but it's far easier to castigate a writer for daring to make use of the language than to teach someone how to read well.

That also goes for Elmore Leonard's war against adverbs. Really? An entire word form should be avoided at all costs?

Must admit, I'm horrified that someone wouldn't bother with editing. It's all about drafts, work shopping and rewriting down here. The title for one of my modules is 'Writing, Rewriting and Showcasing Your Work'.

As for adverbs, why use one when there are verbs that sum it up in one word. I think you were talking in your original post about being precise? Well, a verb is more precise than an adverb because it shows what’s happening. Adverbs, however, are fairly vague (anything that's telling is bound to be vague so the same goes for said bookisms).

We're not told to avoid them (or anything else for that matter) completely. We just have to use them well and use them sparingly. If you look at Tyler's piece up there, you'll see he breaks a lot of rules. The same does go for said bookism and at exactly the right moment it could be beautiful. Since starting Uni, I've yet to see an example that hasn't made me wince. I'd love it if you showed me a piece where it really worked. A good, challenging piece of work always makes my day.

Sorry, I hope I don’t come across as annoying! I’m finding this a really interesting discussion. We had ones like it in the first year when everyone was settling in to the course. People are more accepting of it now. However, the quickest way to a First is to break rules so most of us do like to play around and challenge our lecturers.

Hi there again --

I don't think you're being annoying, I'm just not sure where you expect the discussion to go.

I agree that language tags aren't the end-all, be-all of writing. There are certainly other ways to convey what's going on and who the speaker is than stating it explicitly in a dialogue tag. However, that's not really the point. My point is that if one is going to use a language tag, one should use the tag that is appropriate to what one is writing. I don't believe the said bookism rule accounts for this, because it's based on a false belief that the word 'said' is invisible. I don't know who the first person to make that claim was, but I vehemently disagree.

Oh, tangent: I have no idea what you're trying to say about adverbs, and I promise I'm not being facetious. I just used one, and I certainly don't know a verb off the top of my head that means 'vehemently disagree'. I don't even know one for something simple like 'walked quickly'. That's not running or jogging; it's not striding or pacing; it's not trotting. It's walking quickly. As for not being told to avoid them completely, in the list you linked Elmore said, quote: "To use an adverb this way (or almost any way) is a mortal sin." i.e., There is almost no way to use an adverb that won't send you to hell; that's a pretty strong statement toward avoidance!

Anyway, back on target: the word 'said' is not invisible. It has meaning, and its meaning is different from 'yelled' or 'asked' or 'whimpered'. Regardless of whatever else is indicated in the text, when I read the word said that's what I think happened: someone said something.

Let me try it a different way... You stated that the idea behind the rule is that the dialogue itself should be strong enough to carry the emotion. That certainly sounds fair. However, surely the dialogue tag should not contradict the emotion, either? So let's say you've gone to all the trouble to create a scene in which it is obvious that three characters are arguing, and that the disagreement is heated. With three characters, sooner or later you'll probably have to use a dialogue tag. You reach the climax, and one of them slams his mug down on the table before leaning forward to deliver his final threat: "Shut your trap before I cut your throat, Skinner!"

If at that point you use the tag 'Jack said', I will take it to mean that the character did not deliver the ultimatum in a shout or a yell, which is what I would have expected. I will read it as the character somehow managing to make a simple yet emphatic statement, despite the theatrics that went before. You have contradicted the emotion you so painstakingly setup. Put another way, you said the importance of said was to sound realistic; does it sound realistic at that point for the character to simply 'say' that threat?

It's even more complicated, however, by the fact that I have to read it that way, because it's the way you would word it if that's what you meant. It's entirely possible that someone can be angry and trembling and pissed off, and instead of yelling they get very matter-of-fact about it. Certainly, there are characters who can deliver that sort of threat as a simple statement. Treating 'said' as an invisible word takes away it's meaning. I am curious as to how you (or your professor) reconciles that fact. By which I mean: not how you would avoid it by using a different approach, but how the reader is expected to know when 'said' means something and when it doesn't.

I have to admit to wondering how you even found this entry on my LJ, since I know I use said bookisms. I would think that you'd have been turned off by that and wandered off elsewhere. Mind you, I'm not saying I do it beautifully or anything, just that I know I do it. ^^; As for an example... I don't know. I don't actively notice said bookisms or adverbs; I actively notice their lack. Here's a book that I enjoyed that's more recent (i.e. it was published after 1995) than most of the books I'd usually recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Wizard-Hunters-Fall-Ile-Rien-Book/dp/038080798X

My Dad -- he's been reading books for 60 years -- liked it too. ;) You should be able to read several pages on Amazon.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Said-Bookisms and why I'll keep using them

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

More of me blathering

Re: More of me blathering