Said-Bookisms and why I'll keep using them

[sekiharatae]

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.

Comments

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

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

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

[laura-josephsen.livejournal.com]

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.

[quoth-the-ravyn.livejournal.com]

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.

[mukku-fan.livejournal.com]

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.

[http://users.livejournal.com/jane_drew_/]

"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?)

[kokoronagomu.livejournal.com]

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?!

[yuenmei.livejournal.com]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

More of me blathering

[(Anonymous)]

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.