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

Re: More of me blathering

[sekiharatae.livejournal.com]

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.