Welcome to the blog for writers from Barncat Publishing Inc. Here we intend to discuss ... sometimes heatedly ... the wisdom of writers.
We begin with Elmore Leonard:
Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
Never use an adverb to modify the verb “said” … he admonished gravely.*
Having spent the better (or worse) part of my life in daily journalism, I have to agree. Using any other type of attribution merely calls attention to itself, as in: "Looka me, I'm a writer!"
I dimly recall a misbegotten rule from English teachers past ... WAY past ... who insisted that we change up constantly, as if the use of "said" were an insult to thesauruses everywhere. That may explain a widespread tendency to attribute floridly and with abandon, using everything BUT "said" (averred, intoned, emphasized, articulated) while repeating neighboring words so often they begin to leap from the page like circle-a-word match-ups.
Agree? Disagree? Favorite examples?
Jami
* Excerpted from the New York Times, “Easy on the Adverbs, Exclamation Points and Especially Hooptedoodle”
13 comments:
Much as I love Elmore Leonard, I can't completely go along with this one. I agree that things have gotten out of hand out there (although my pet peeves run more to inappropriate use of apostrophes and misspelling the word "lose").
But I think there are some descriptors that can communicate so much about the pace of a conversation, a relationship between characters, or even just a character's...characteristics."Snapped" is a favorite of mine.
Dialogue overrun with flowery or run-on attributions becomes silly -- but too much he said/she said becomes boring. I enjoy a bit of "how" a character said something as well. I like being told by the author what is going on in the mind of the characters - not always having to figure it out for myself. If I mistake the tone of dialogue, I can really be "off" in a story.
Completely disagree. Open almost any novel from a major house on the shelves right now (and in years past) and you'll see that it's almost exactly contrary to what the wannabe writer blogs espouse--they're loaded with adverbs, dialog tags other than said, occassinal passive voice, plots about subject matter about which agents say "we get too many of those," etc., etc...
Following the "herd" rules is self-limiting.
I agree in some sense, but equally, I'm not so sure.
What sounds better to you?
"we're going to hell," he said. "No we're not. You're such a fool."
or:
we're going to hell, he moaned. "No we're not. You're such a fool."
Adaora, I much prefer the first example you gave:
"We're going to hell," he said.
"No we're not. You're such a fool."
We can guess that Character 1 is moaning or otherwise unhappy about his lot from the snappishness of the response, "You're such a fool."
"Said" is not always the right choice. And I don't always use it. (90% of the time, though!) But this is a perfect example of where less is more. Between the context ("uh-oh, hell!") and the response ("Don't be an idiot!"), we can read the mood pretty clearly. Why go for overkill?
What gets me is that there's so much effort expended on making the attribution "colorful," when it's not the attribution that's at stake. The dialogue itself should carry the meaning ... and in your example, it does. Not only can we guess that Character 1 is in a jam, but we know a bit about the relationship between the two. Character 2 is not the least bit in awe of the moaner:
"Don't be a fool, Your Excellency!"
I also like the first example better. "Moaned" is a not a choice dialog tag because "moan" literally means to make a wordless vocalization, such as in pain or sex (or painful sex). "Whined" is closer to your intent, I think, although I understand there is a colloquial meaning, as with "You're always bitchin' and moanin'."
And I should add that the most effective dialog tags are no tags at all. If only 2 characters are speaking, then after the exchange is established, tags shouldn't be necessary, for example:
"We're going to hell."
"No we're not. You're such a fool."
The terseness adds to the tension (if tension is what you're going for--this seems like a thriller or at least a moment of suspense), but my point is that if you set it up right, you shouldn't need to use tags when only 2 peope are speaking.
Another thing you can do to vary it a little when you absolutely need a tag, is to put the tag first:
It annoyed Sandra that Mohammed was able to hold her gaze for so long even though she was topless.
He said, "We're going to Hell."
"The Hell we are. Now roll the camera, you damned idiot."
When my brother was a kid, he and a friend found great hilarity in some Sherlock Holmes story where an excited utterance is "ejaculated."
I agree that flowery adverbs in refering to dialogue are often redundant and draw attention to the writer more so the word. That said (or explained, or described, or pointed out), I think there are some places where it adds insight into character without redundancy.
"I'll see YOU later," Hugo growled.
I think a distinction should be made between words that are essentially synonyms of said, but don't really add any understanding to context or mood, and words that do enhance mood or context.
Words like shouted, yelled, muttered, mumbled used in place of said in appropriate setting can completely alter how the dialog is understood.
I have one writer that I edit who always seems to be using some awkward verb in place of "said." I am supposed to be editing her right now, in fact (I suffer from both editor AND writer's avoidance - I am dual-diagnosed!). Her subjects rarely "say" anything - they "describe," "rave," "note" or some other such word that really reveals nothing new. I'm always switching her back to plain old "said."
That "said," I do think that if there is a word that will reveal something interesting to the narrative, or there's just plain too much "he said, she said" going on, then it's completely appropriate to put something else in there besides "said." But going overboard on this really draws attention to itself.
Interestingly, when I worked with Lemmy Kilmister on his autobiography, White Line Fever, he was really big on "said." More often than not, when I tried to use any other word, he'd ask me to switch it back to "said." Smart man.
This planet would be far more appealing if all those who state, write, or espouse "the ten rules for imitating Elmore Leonard," the seven habits of highly effective people," the eight things you must do to marry before you turn thirty," were all given passage on the next flight somewhere else. It's true that you must know the rules before you can break them, but I think the most noble objective in writing is to break (figuratively, of course) those who make the rules.
"Said," if anything. I try to avoid tags altogether when I can by combining dialogue with action.
John hurled his Bible into the woodstove. "We're going to hell."
"No we're not. You're such a fool."
When studying Spanish, the teacher pointed out that English, thanks to so many linguistic borrowings, has far more ways to express itself than almost any other language. That being the case, there is no reason to limit ourselves to the simplest versions of anything. "Said" is plain vanilla and, if a conversation is spicier than that, I hope to see a verb more appropriate to the emotion.
There are many other factors to consider. In a noir thriller, "said" may be the only tool needed, but a historical romance may require a bit more elegance.
And...don't cringe...I happen to love adverbs. Whether they are Tom Swifties or serious modifiers, they have a place, and I don't see a need to avoid that place as if it were haunted.
My opinion: use words thoughtfully, joyfully, and don't worry too much about The Rules. If something sounds good when read aloud, and looks good when read silently, it probably IS good. Trust your instincts!
Diane Bernard
Post a Comment