Jay Aitch
Basic
I wish someone had edited her use of the colour Gold. Everything was fracking GOLD! * Gold-fever, she's the one, the one with the fix-a-tion. And it's no fun.* (Sung to the tune of Goldfinger)
Welcome To The Oldest & Best Colony For Writers On The Net.
-
Café Life is the Colony's main hangout, watering hole and meeting point.
This is a place where you'll meet and make writing friends, and indulge in stratospherically-elevated wit or barometrically low humour.
Some Colonists pop in religiously every day before or after work. Others we see here less regularly, but all are equally welcome. Two important grounds rules…
- Don't give offence
- Don't take offence
We now allow political discussion, but strongly suggest it takes place in the Steam Room, which is a private sub-forum within Café Life. It’s only accessible to Full Members.
You can dismiss this notice by clicking the "x" box
Craft Chat 43 Words To Cut From Your Writing
- Thread starter Carol Rose
- Start date
- Status
I wish someone had edited her use of the colour Gold. Everything was fracking GOLD! * Gold-fever, she's the one, the one with the fix-a-tion. And it's no fun.* (Sung to the tune of Goldfinger)
Paul Whybrow
Full Member
Noah Lukeman's The Plot Thickens is worth a look too, and his A Dash of Style: The Art and Mastery of Punctuation is the best punctuation guide I've read.
KG Christopher
Basic
Noah Lukeman seems to be the goto source for getting a good handle on how to write, the first 5 pages was a great resource for me.
H
Harlan
Guest
Nodding all the way through…
http://dianaurban.com/words-you-should-cut-from-your-writing-immediately
Shaking my head all the way through...
H
Harlan
Guest
Couldn't agree more with you, Nicole. Reading a page of dialogue with no or few dialogue tags is like trying to translate a foreign language when the speaker is gabbling at breakneck speed instead of enunciating each word properly.
Also, my last editorial consultant's first piece of advice was to ditch all adverbs and try using stronger verbs, instead; which I did. But later, she deleted all my more imaginative, descriptive, 'stronger' dialogue tags, replacing each one with the stultifyingly turgid and vanilla: 'said'. Now, can anyone explain to me why verbs in general ought to be 'stronger' (to avoid needing adverbs) yet dialogue tags (which, the last time I checked, also happen to be just another class of verbs) ought to be restricted to just the single word: 'said', which is about the 'weakest' dialogue tag possible, since it gives the reader absolutely no information about *how* the character is speaking?
I couldn't believe my editor's claim that 'readers get distracted from the story by dialogue tags, so use one that they won't even register'. Excuse me, but if any word isn't meant to register (at least, on some level) in the reader's mind, then why would any writer use it? If it's supposed to make writing better to use stronger verbs in general (and drop any adverbs) then why should it be any different for dialogue tags?
Example 1: 'Jason shut the door forcefully,' can be improved by saying: 'Jason slammed the door.' Okay so far.
Example 2: ' "Get the hell out and don't come back!" Jason said, aggressively,' can be improved by saying: ' "Get the hell out and don't come back!" Jason seethed (screeched, spat, bellowed, etc.).' Now what's so wrong with that?
And there's more: To check on the veracity of my editor's claim, that we should only use 'said' as a dialogue tag, I did a little survey of modern best-selling novels in my local library. Picking one book at random from each letter of the alphabet by author's surname, I listed the dialogue tags from the first five pages of each, and the result was extremely illuminating. Of the 26 authors sampled, only one (Martin Amis) stuck rigidly to the "only use 'said' as a dialogue tag" 'writing rule'. All the others employed a wide and healthy variety of dialogue tags (including 'said') such as: ordered, demanded, snorted, growled, moaned, retorted, begged, whimpered, pleaded, agreed, giggled etc. etc. etc. All of which sound more natural, expressive ways of speaking, and give the reader more information about the mood of the speaker. Which - I used to think - is the whole point of creative writing...?
But then, maybe someone on here knows better...?
Carol Rose
Basic
- Thread starter
- #37
Because when you use adverbs as dialogue tags, you're telling not showing. You're telling the reader how the character feels instead of letting them experience the emotion and figure that out for themselves while they read. You distance them from the character in that way as well.
Writing a novel isn't an exercise in creative writing. You need to put your extensive vocabulary aside and simply write the story. You want your readers to get into the head of your POV characters and live there until you change POV in the story. You want them to see what that character sees, hear what that character hears, touch what that character touches, taste what that character tastes, smell what that character smells, and feel what that character feels.
The point is not to tell them what they're supposed to be seeing, touching, tasting, hearing smelling, and feeling, or to impress them with how many ways you can use an adverb to describe speech sounds. It's to write in a way that allows them to experience emotions and sensations along with the character. You do that, and you have a reader who will not put down that book until they finish, and will be sad to leave the world you've created. They will buy everything you publish.
You give the reader clues about the mood of the speaker through dialogue and the actions surrounding it. Using adverbs as dialogue tags is lazy writing, and it makes for awkward sentences. Adverbs that describe facial expressions but are used in dialogue tags makes them read as though they are describing the sounds, not the expressions.
EXAMPLE:
Carol could feel her blood pressure rising as she listened to his words. Damn infuriating man. Why did she even bother? "So I suppose now you'll tell me I'm not here so you can blackmail me. There's another reason."
His sneer made her want to slap the expression off his face. "No, I still intend to blackmail you. But we'll have some fun first."
AS OPPOSED TO:
"So I suppose now you'll tell me I'm not here so you can blackmail me," Carol snapped angrily. "There's another reason."
"No, I still intend to blackmail you. But we'll have some fun first," he said sneeringly.
Which interaction gives you more of a visceral reaction?
In the second, all you get is confirmation that Carol is angry, which we already got from her words. It gives you nothing about her internal monologue or the conflict she's feeling even as she says the words. All you have is "snapped" and "angrily" to go on. It's flat and boring.
As for the man, again you get nothing except that he's sneering, which you have to work out from the adverb. It's an awkward sentence because people can't really say anything sneeringly. You can sneer while you say words, but that adverb does not describe speech sounds- it describes facial expressions. Yet I see this type of thing all the time and it pulls me right out of the story as I try to work out what the author meant. When I see this, I have to wonder if the author actually understands the meaning of the words they're using in the dialogue tags.
Now let's examine the first interaction. We know exactly how angry Carol is but we know more than that. This man infuriates her. He makes her blood boil. And the addition of "Why did she even bother?" gives us something to wonder about. Who is this guy? Why is she conflicted about him?
We know the man is sneering but we get even more than that. She wants to slap him. Why? What's going to come next? How will she react to what he said?
Not a dialogue tag in sight in the first example, yet you know exactly who is speaking each time because of the internal monologue and action around the speech, and you know what the POV character - Carol - is thinking. You're feeling her anger and conflict right along with her, instead of having the author simply tell you she's angry.
I agree that it's good to toss in a tag or some action or something if you have a lot of dialogue back and forth, even with two characters. I try not to do more than three lines each back and forth before I put in some action or internal thought, not so much to remind my readers who is speaking, but instead to let them feel what's going on as the characters are talking.
IMHO, if you've done a good enough job with the characters' distinct personalities, you don't need to give readers clues who is speaking. They will know because of the words and the different speech patterns. None of us speak the exact same way. We each have different pet phrases, unique ways we string words together, etc. Give your characters those same qualities and it will be obvious to your readers who is speaking.
Hope this all helps.
Writing a novel isn't an exercise in creative writing. You need to put your extensive vocabulary aside and simply write the story. You want your readers to get into the head of your POV characters and live there until you change POV in the story. You want them to see what that character sees, hear what that character hears, touch what that character touches, taste what that character tastes, smell what that character smells, and feel what that character feels.
The point is not to tell them what they're supposed to be seeing, touching, tasting, hearing smelling, and feeling, or to impress them with how many ways you can use an adverb to describe speech sounds. It's to write in a way that allows them to experience emotions and sensations along with the character. You do that, and you have a reader who will not put down that book until they finish, and will be sad to leave the world you've created. They will buy everything you publish.
You give the reader clues about the mood of the speaker through dialogue and the actions surrounding it. Using adverbs as dialogue tags is lazy writing, and it makes for awkward sentences. Adverbs that describe facial expressions but are used in dialogue tags makes them read as though they are describing the sounds, not the expressions.
EXAMPLE:
Carol could feel her blood pressure rising as she listened to his words. Damn infuriating man. Why did she even bother? "So I suppose now you'll tell me I'm not here so you can blackmail me. There's another reason."
His sneer made her want to slap the expression off his face. "No, I still intend to blackmail you. But we'll have some fun first."
AS OPPOSED TO:
"So I suppose now you'll tell me I'm not here so you can blackmail me," Carol snapped angrily. "There's another reason."
"No, I still intend to blackmail you. But we'll have some fun first," he said sneeringly.
Which interaction gives you more of a visceral reaction?
In the second, all you get is confirmation that Carol is angry, which we already got from her words. It gives you nothing about her internal monologue or the conflict she's feeling even as she says the words. All you have is "snapped" and "angrily" to go on. It's flat and boring.
As for the man, again you get nothing except that he's sneering, which you have to work out from the adverb. It's an awkward sentence because people can't really say anything sneeringly. You can sneer while you say words, but that adverb does not describe speech sounds- it describes facial expressions. Yet I see this type of thing all the time and it pulls me right out of the story as I try to work out what the author meant. When I see this, I have to wonder if the author actually understands the meaning of the words they're using in the dialogue tags.
Now let's examine the first interaction. We know exactly how angry Carol is but we know more than that. This man infuriates her. He makes her blood boil. And the addition of "Why did she even bother?" gives us something to wonder about. Who is this guy? Why is she conflicted about him?
We know the man is sneering but we get even more than that. She wants to slap him. Why? What's going to come next? How will she react to what he said?
Not a dialogue tag in sight in the first example, yet you know exactly who is speaking each time because of the internal monologue and action around the speech, and you know what the POV character - Carol - is thinking. You're feeling her anger and conflict right along with her, instead of having the author simply tell you she's angry.
I agree that it's good to toss in a tag or some action or something if you have a lot of dialogue back and forth, even with two characters. I try not to do more than three lines each back and forth before I put in some action or internal thought, not so much to remind my readers who is speaking, but instead to let them feel what's going on as the characters are talking.
IMHO, if you've done a good enough job with the characters' distinct personalities, you don't need to give readers clues who is speaking. They will know because of the words and the different speech patterns. None of us speak the exact same way. We each have different pet phrases, unique ways we string words together, etc. Give your characters those same qualities and it will be obvious to your readers who is speaking.
Hope this all helps.
Last edited:
A
Alistair Roberts
Guest
What Carol said!! I've been told this, and I've seen others say it frequently. In place of said you could, where appropriate, use replied. Basically keep that simple, or it becomes distracting to the flow of the story. It is a fact that you are telling the story and not showing it to the reader and any good website on writing will say the same thing.
KG Christopher
Basic
When I write dialogue, I always try and leave the reader with the understanding of who is saying what. It is a challenge, but I think it's a knack / art that makes your writing a bit more pleasing on the eye and ear.
The waiter looked at him.
'coffee?'
'yes thank you'
He sat at the counter and.....
Of course as ever, the brilliant @Carol Rose sums it up perfectly.
The waiter looked at him.
'coffee?'
'yes thank you'
He sat at the counter and.....
Of course as ever, the brilliant @Carol Rose sums it up perfectly.
A
Alistair Roberts
Guest
Plus dialogue also helps. I have only one character who says "boss" so you always know who that is 
Carol Rose
Basic
- Thread starter
- #41
Carol Rose
Basic
- Thread starter
- #42
Yes! Exactly.Plus dialogue also helps. I have only one character who says "boss" so you always know who that is
Little quirks like that are what make our characters three dimensional.
Carol Rose
Basic
- Thread starter
- #44
Carol Rose
Basic
- Thread starter
- #45
More articles on using dialogue tags:
http://www.writersdigest.com/editor...-it-simple-keys-to-realistic-dialogue-part-ii
Scroll down to the bonus section for this editor's take on using dialogue tags. This link is posted in a thread of its own as well because it contains the top ten reasons for rejection:
http://www.girlyengine.com/#!Top-10-Reasons-to-Reject-an-ERom/c1q8z/56b29e0f0cf2dc1600e1de61
http://www.scribophile.com/academy/he-said-she-said-dialog-tags-and-using-them-effectively
http://www.thecreativepenn.com/2014/01/09/writing-fiction-dialogue/
http://thewritepractice.com/dialogue-tags/
http://www.writing-world.com/grammar/said.shtml
http://www.writersdigest.com/editor...-it-simple-keys-to-realistic-dialogue-part-ii
Scroll down to the bonus section for this editor's take on using dialogue tags. This link is posted in a thread of its own as well because it contains the top ten reasons for rejection:
http://www.girlyengine.com/#!Top-10-Reasons-to-Reject-an-ERom/c1q8z/56b29e0f0cf2dc1600e1de61
http://www.scribophile.com/academy/he-said-she-said-dialog-tags-and-using-them-effectively
http://www.thecreativepenn.com/2014/01/09/writing-fiction-dialogue/
http://thewritepractice.com/dialogue-tags/
http://www.writing-world.com/grammar/said.shtml
H
Harlan
Guest
Because when you use adverbs as dialogue tags, you're telling not showing. You're telling the reader how the character feels instead of letting them experience the emotion and figure that out for themselves while they read. You distance them from the character in that way as well.
Writing a novel isn't an exercise in creative writing. You need to put your extensive vocabulary aside and simply write the story. You want your readers to get into the head of your POV characters and live there until you change POV in the story. You want them to see what that character sees, hear what that character hears, touch what that character touches, taste what that character tastes, smell what that character smells, and feel what that character feels.
The point is not to tell them what they're supposed to be seeing, touching, tasting, hearing smelling, and feeling, or to impress them with how many ways you can use an adverb to describe speech sounds. It's to write in a way that allows them to experience emotions and sensations along with the character. You do that, and you have a reader who will not put down that book until they finish, and will be sad to leave the world you've created. They will buy everything you publish.
You give the reader clues about the mood of the speaker through dialogue and the actions surrounding it. Using adverbs as dialogue tags is lazy writing, and it makes for awkward sentences. Adverbs that describe facial expressions but are used in dialogue tags makes them read as though they are describing the sounds, not the expressions. Hope this all helps.
Hmmm. Well no, I'm afraid it doesn't. In fact I've had to go away and read my favourite lines from Kipling's: 'If' to help calm me down.
For a start I'm not sure if you understood the fundamental points I was making in my post, or are trying to put your own words into my mouth, but I thought it was clear that nobody - least of all, me - was suggesting using 'adverbs as dialogue tags', as you say, above. The examples of dialogue which I gave previously were precisely to show how a choice of more expressive dialogue tags than the stultifyingly boring and inexpressive tag 'said' obviate the need for adding any adverbs. Because you've neatly got a description of *how* the dialogue is being spoken all in one word; which gives you an insight into the mood of the speaker. So I honestly don't know why you seemed to be forming some kind of a 'straw-man' argument against using 'adverbs as dialogue tags', since, a.) That's not what I was arguing for and b.) It would probably be impossible to accomplish, since you need a verb first, before you can modify it with an adverb anyway...
Also, you manage to inveigle that hoary old chestnut of 'show v. tell' into your argument in a quite unnecessary way. Since, by doing this, you are assuming that the person speaking the dialogue must necessarily be the main POV character. Yet that is un unwarranted assumption. What if the character speaking the dialogue is not the main POV character, but someone who is speaking *to* them. In this case, you cannot possibly 'let the reader experience the emotion' of a non-POV character, since your reader is meant to be viewing that character *from the outside* alongside your POV character. Thus, in this case (which was actually the example I was using) you cannot possibly inform the reader what the non-POV character is thinking/feeling by 'getting inside the head of those characters', can you. The only tool you can possibly use to describe the way they are speaking - and thus, get a window into their 'thoughts/feelings' - is to use a more descriptive dialogue tag than 'said', such as, 'growled', 'yelled', 'whimpered' etc. etc. etc.. (N.B. none of these - and there are hundreds to choose from - are 'adverbs', as you seem to be arguing - they are verbs in their own right, just as much as 'said'.) Doing this, then, informs the main POV character (and, by extension, the reader) what all those other characters sound like (and possibly, something of what they feel) by the *way* they are speaking.
You go on to say that: 'You give the reader clues about the mood of the speaker through dialogue and the actions surrounding it,' as if there's any debate or surprise about that, when it's a given, surely, and not really pertinent to the points I'd made previously. And surely, one of the best and simplest ways to 'give the reader a clue about the mood of the speaker through dialogue' is to use the appropriate dialogue-tag to 'show' how it is they are speaking... Which was precisely the point I was *trying* to make previously!
You further level the criticism (at whom, precisely, I have no idea, since - as I've had to point out already, above - nobody I know on this list was ever proposing doing such a ridiculous thing) that: 'Using adverbs as dialogue tags is lazy writing'. Which, as far as I can see, is something of a non-sequitur as far as this discussion is concerned. But to come back to the points I was making in my original post: If anything in novel-writing these days really *is* lazy, then it's the repeated use of 'said' as a dialogue tag when the author lacks the imagination/cannot be bothered to find one of the many alternatives available which actually also give the reader some extra information about the mood/character of the speaker - or even worse, they cannot be bothered to use any dialogue-tags at all in a ream of dialogue which causes readers like myself and Alison (above) to have to go back and re-read the page several times to work out what's being said to whom! Editorial consultants always bang on about not 'taking the reader out of the story', but what the hell could be more distracting - and take them out of the story - than having to go back and re-read a page of dialogue that is an utter mess due to lack/improper use of such simple things as dialogue tags...
Finally, you say that: 'Adverbs that describe facial expressions but are used in dialogue tags makes them read as though they are describing the sounds, not the expression.' It's unclear from this if you are saying you think that's a good or a bad idea.
You've given me a heck of a lot more to reply to, but I couldn't do it all in a single post/sitting, so expect more to follow...
A very disheartened Harlan
KG Christopher
Basic
Hmmm. Well no, I'm afraid it doesn't. In fact I've had to go away and read my favourite lines from Kipling's: 'If' to help calm me down.
For a start I'm not sure if you understood the fundamental points I was making in my post, or are trying to put your own words into my mouth, but I thought it was clear that nobody - least of all, me - was suggesting using 'adverbs as dialogue tags', as you say, above. The examples of dialogue which I gave previously were precisely to show how a choice of more expressive dialogue tags than the stultifyingly boring and inexpressive tag 'said' obviate the need for adding any adverbs. Because you've neatly got a description of *how* the dialogue is being spoken all in one word; which gives you an insight into the mood of the speaker. So I honestly don't know why you seemed to be forming some kind of a 'straw-man' argument against using 'adverbs as dialogue tags', since, a.) That's not what I was arguing for and b.) It would probably be impossible to accomplish, since you need a verb first, before you can modify it with an adverb anyway...
Also, you manage to inveigle that hoary old chestnut of 'show v. tell' into your argument in a quite unnecessary way. Since, by doing this, you are assuming that the person speaking the dialogue must necessarily be the main POV character. Yet that is un unwarranted assumption. What if the character speaking the dialogue is not the main POV character, but someone who is speaking *to* them. In this case, you cannot possibly 'let the reader experience the emotion' of a non-POV character, since your reader is meant to be viewing that character *from the outside* alongside your POV character. Thus, in this case (which was actually the example I was using) you cannot possibly inform the reader what the non-POV character is thinking/feeling by 'getting inside the head of those characters', can you. The only tool you can possibly use to describe the way they are speaking - and thus, get a window into their 'thoughts/feelings' - is to use a more descriptive dialogue tag than 'said', such as, 'growled', 'yelled', 'whimpered' etc. etc. etc.. (N.B. none of these - and there are hundreds to choose from - are 'adverbs', as you seem to be arguing - they are verbs in their own right, just as much as 'said'.) Doing this, then, informs the main POV character (and, by extension, the reader) what all those other characters sound like (and possibly, something of what they feel) by the *way* they are speaking.
You go on to say that: 'You give the reader clues about the mood of the speaker through dialogue and the actions surrounding it,' as if there's any debate or surprise about that, when it's a given, surely, and not really pertinent to the points I'd made previously. And surely, one of the best and simplest ways to 'give the reader a clue about the mood of the speaker through dialogue' is to use the appropriate dialogue-tag to 'show' how it is they are speaking... Which was precisely the point I was *trying* to make previously!
You further level the criticism (at whom, precisely, I have no idea, since - as I've had to point out already, above - nobody I know on this list was ever proposing doing such a ridiculous thing) that: 'Using adverbs as dialogue tags is lazy writing'. Which, as far as I can see, is something of a non-sequitur as far as this discussion is concerned. But to come back to the points I was making in my original post: If anything in novel-writing these days really *is* lazy, then it's the repeated use of 'said' as a dialogue tag when the author lacks the imagination/cannot be bothered to find one of the many alternatives available which actually also give the reader some extra information about the mood/character of the speaker - or even worse, they cannot be bothered to use any dialogue-tags at all in a ream of dialogue which causes readers like myself and Alison (above) to have to go back and re-read the page several times to work out what's being said to whom! Editorial consultants always bang on about not 'taking the reader out of the story', but what the hell could be more distracting - and take them out of the story - than having to go back and re-read a page of dialogue that is an utter mess due to lack/improper use of such simple things as dialogue tags...
Finally, you say that: 'Adverbs that describe facial expressions but are used in dialogue tags makes them read as though they are describing the sounds, not the expression.' It's unclear from this if you are saying you think that's a good or a bad idea.
You've given me a heck of a lot more to reply to, but I couldn't do it all in a single post/sitting, so expect more to follow...
A very disheartened Harlan
I wouldn't get too disheartened if I where you, as long as you are enjoying your art... Don't get too caught up in the technicalities... @Carol Rose is a pretty accomplished writer in my humble opinion and she has given a lot of people on this site encouragement and advice.
H
Harlan
Guest
EXAMPLE:
Carol could feel her blood pressure rising as she listened to his words. Damn infuriating man. Why did she even bother? "So I suppose now you'll tell me I'm not here so you can blackmail me. There's another reason."
His sneer made her want to slap the expression off his face. "No, I still intend to blackmail you. But we'll have some fun first."
AS OPPOSED TO:
"So I suppose now you'll tell me I'm not here so you can blackmail me," Carol snapped angrily. "There's another reason."
"No, I still intend to blackmail you. But we'll have some fun first," he said sneeringly.
Which interaction gives you more of a visceral reaction?
In the second, all you get is confirmation that Carol is angry, which we already got from her words. It gives you nothing about her internal monologue or the conflict she's feeling even as she says the words. All you have is "snapped" and "angrily" to go on. It's flat and boring.
As for the man, again you get nothing except that he's sneering, which you have to work out from the adverb. It's an awkward sentence because people can't really say anything sneeringly. You can sneer while you say words, but that adverb does not describe speech sounds- it describes facial expressions. Yet I see this type of thing all the time and it pulls me right out of the story as I try to work out what the author meant. When I see this, I have to wonder if the author actually understands the meaning of the words they're using in the dialogue tags.
Now let's examine the first interaction. We know exactly how angry Carol is but we know more than that. This man infuriates her. He makes her blood boil. And the addition of "Why did she even bother?" gives us something to wonder about. Who is this guy? Why is she conflicted about him?
We know the man is sneering but we get even more than that. She wants to slap him. Why? What's going to come next? How will she react to what he said?
Not a dialogue tag in sight in the first example, yet you know exactly who is speaking each time because of the internal monologue and action around the speech, and you know what the POV character - Carol - is thinking. You're feeling her anger and conflict right along with her, instead of having the author simply tell you she's angry.
I agree that it's good to toss in a tag or some action or something if you have a lot of dialogue back and forth, even with two characters. I try not to do more than three lines each back and forth before I put in some action or internal thought, not so much to remind my readers who is speaking, but instead to let them feel what's going on as the characters are talking.
IMHO, if you've done a good enough job with the characters' distinct personalities, you don't need to give readers clues who is speaking. They will know because of the words and the different speech patterns. None of us speak the exact same way. We each have different pet phrases, unique ways we string words together, etc. Give your characters those same qualities and it will be obvious to your readers who is speaking.
Hope this all helps.
If you want my honest opinion (and I doubt you'll enjoy hearing it) I actually prefer your second example, above; although, of course, you could delete Carol's superfluous adverb 'angrily', since it's a tautology to add that to the dialogue-tag 'snapped', which already describes her emotion. Also, it would - of course - sound much better to delete her interlocutor's 'said' and reduce 'sneeringly' from an adverb to a verb in its own right as the dialogue-tag 'sneered' (which is actually similar to the example that *I* tried making in the post to which you replied).
As for your first example (if you'd genuinely like a constructive critique) the first sentence is fine - very descriptive. Although I've actually had editorial consultants delete the verb 'feel' in identical contexts from my own writing, complaining that it amounts to 'telling' the reader what the character is feeling. Personally, I think they were talking bullshit - and told them so - (which is why we parted ways) and I have no problem with the way you've used it. Though, there again, I've also seen advice on writing forums to avoid using the verb 'to feel' (and it's synonyms) in novel-writing altogether... The proponent went on to say something like: 'In five minutes, you'll hate me, but in six months, you'll be a better writer.' Personally, I think they were talking out of their hat.
However, your second sentence isn't strictly grammatical, is it, and could be made better by adding something like: The damned infuriating man!/What a damned infuriating man! (she thought).
And your third sentence is asking a question which nobody but Carol can answer, since it sounds rhetorical. Or were you actually seeking the reader's opinion on the matter? (I'm only asking, but you see the ambiguity of such a wording?)
And on your final point, above, 'doing a good job with a character's distinct personalities' can only get the writer so far - as each character's mood may change depending on context, and so you can't simply rely on any character to be *always* cheerful/morose/excitable/depressive in each and every scene in order to distinguish between speakers. I mean, am I stating the obvious here or what?
And I know that's only *my* opinion, but then, you did ask for it...
I really couldn't care about whether a 'visceral reaction' is generated or not if the wording is so vague that I'm not clear about who's saying what to whom or doing what to whom or what's being asked of whom. In that case, the only kind of visceral reaction that's likely to be generated is that I put the book down and try another... I actually don't buy many 'modern' novels - putting them down after the first page - precisely *because* so many are written I such annoying ways.And on a general point, personally, I think that the modern publishing industry has a bloody nerve to try brow-beating aspiring authors into believing that we aren't allowed to write like Austen or Dickens did 150-200 years ago: 'because that's a rather unfashionable style that isn't used much anymore'. Hogwash, sir; utter hogwash!
Do Austen & Dickens still sell? Does a year go by without some new TV/movie adaptation of their work? Don't modern authors get invited to write 'sequels' to the works of Austen/Dickens & their more modern counterparts Agatha Christie/Ian Fleming? Besides, creative writing *ought* to be (and is) a very broad church, with as many different 'writing styles' as there are published authors. So don't anybody even think about telling us that: 'there is only one way to write a novel', because it won't wash! An extremely angry Harlan!
KG Christopher
Basic
One generally talks out of ones arse, unless one is standing in ones hat.
H
Harlan
Guest
I was delighted that you chose to cite the Writers' Digest. It's actually the source of the greatest inspiration to me so far, courtesy of the best-sellingest author in the world, today. Like to know why? Go to the site and search for: 'Lee Child', then click on the second result down: 'Lee Child debunks the biggest writing myths.' It includes the paraphrase: 'Tell, don't show: Why writing rules are mostly wrong'. When I first read that, I punched the air (it might be telling to say which several people I was imagining at the time). So there *is* hope for us mere mortals, after all!
But the question all the rest of you cow-pokes out there now have to ask yourselves is: On the subject of advice about how to write a (series of) best selling novel(s) should you believe the majority of the modern publishing establishment... or the one man who's actually written more of them than anyone else? Somehow, I think we maybe already know the answer, but are afraid to admit it...
A feeling somewhat vindicated Harlan
Nicole Wilson
Basic
Couple things:Hmmm. Well no, I'm afraid it doesn't. In fact I've had to go away and read my favourite lines from Kipling's: 'If' to help calm me down.
For a start I'm not sure if you understood the fundamental points I was making in my post, or are trying to put your own words into my mouth, but I thought it was clear that nobody - least of all, me - was suggesting using 'adverbs as dialogue tags', as you say, above. The examples of dialogue which I gave previously were precisely to show how a choice of more expressive dialogue tags than the stultifyingly boring and inexpressive tag 'said' obviate the need for adding any adverbs. Because you've neatly got a description of *how* the dialogue is being spoken all in one word; which gives you an insight into the mood of the speaker. So I honestly don't know why you seemed to be forming some kind of a 'straw-man' argument against using 'adverbs as dialogue tags', since, a.) That's not what I was arguing for and b.) It would probably be impossible to accomplish, since you need a verb first, before you can modify it with an adverb anyway...
Also, you manage to inveigle that hoary old chestnut of 'show v. tell' into your argument in a quite unnecessary way. Since, by doing this, you are assuming that the person speaking the dialogue must necessarily be the main POV character. Yet that is un unwarranted assumption. What if the character speaking the dialogue is not the main POV character, but someone who is speaking *to* them. In this case, you cannot possibly 'let the reader experience the emotion' of a non-POV character, since your reader is meant to be viewing that character *from the outside* alongside your POV character. Thus, in this case (which was actually the example I was using) you cannot possibly inform the reader what the non-POV character is thinking/feeling by 'getting inside the head of those characters', can you. The only tool you can possibly use to describe the way they are speaking - and thus, get a window into their 'thoughts/feelings' - is to use a more descriptive dialogue tag than 'said', such as, 'growled', 'yelled', 'whimpered' etc. etc. etc.. (N.B. none of these - and there are hundreds to choose from - are 'adverbs', as you seem to be arguing - they are verbs in their own right, just as much as 'said'.) Doing this, then, informs the main POV character (and, by extension, the reader) what all those other characters sound like (and possibly, something of what they feel) by the *way* they are speaking.
You go on to say that: 'You give the reader clues about the mood of the speaker through dialogue and the actions surrounding it,' as if there's any debate or surprise about that, when it's a given, surely, and not really pertinent to the points I'd made previously. And surely, one of the best and simplest ways to 'give the reader a clue about the mood of the speaker through dialogue' is to use the appropriate dialogue-tag to 'show' how it is they are speaking... Which was precisely the point I was *trying* to make previously!
You further level the criticism (at whom, precisely, I have no idea, since - as I've had to point out already, above - nobody I know on this list was ever proposing doing such a ridiculous thing) that: 'Using adverbs as dialogue tags is lazy writing'. Which, as far as I can see, is something of a non-sequitur as far as this discussion is concerned. But to come back to the points I was making in my original post: If anything in novel-writing these days really *is* lazy, then it's the repeated use of 'said' as a dialogue tag when the author lacks the imagination/cannot be bothered to find one of the many alternatives available which actually also give the reader some extra information about the mood/character of the speaker - or even worse, they cannot be bothered to use any dialogue-tags at all in a ream of dialogue which causes readers like myself and Alison (above) to have to go back and re-read the page several times to work out what's being said to whom! Editorial consultants always bang on about not 'taking the reader out of the story', but what the hell could be more distracting - and take them out of the story - than having to go back and re-read a page of dialogue that is an utter mess due to lack/improper use of such simple things as dialogue tags...
Finally, you say that: 'Adverbs that describe facial expressions but are used in dialogue tags makes them read as though they are describing the sounds, not the expression.' It's unclear from this if you are saying you think that's a good or a bad idea.
You've given me a heck of a lot more to reply to, but I couldn't do it all in a single post/sitting, so expect more to follow...
A very disheartened Harlan
1) I think the main point she was trying to make is that the reason you don't use "growled" or "hissed" as dialogue tags rather than said is because the point of dialogue tags is to let the reader know who is speaking. Readers are *supposed* to skim over these tags because all it would do is slow the pace of the dialogue down. Granted, there are appropriate times when you can use different tags, but for the most part, stick to "said" or "asked". Also if you rely on these to get your point across, one of two things will happen. Either the reader will have to slow down to read and interpret them, which you definitely don't want, or they will skip over them completely, rendering the whole thing moot.
2) Per the non-POV character speaking. I also write in limited third person, so you're only in one head per scene. But you're limiting the use of imagery by saying there's no possible way to show their emotion without "growled". There are plenty of ways. You can make the dialogue itself more punchy. You can show the character cross her arms or huff and puff. You can even have the POV character think "crap, what did I do to piss her off?" You said that a tag is the "simplest way", which is right, but if you overuse it and don't accompany it with appropriate actions, it can come across as lazy writing, as Carol said. It's not about the repetition of "said"--that has it's purpose, to be as non-intrusive while providing the reader with a clue as to who's talking. It's about not searching for better dialogue or description to emphasize the point.
EDIT: obviously, no rule is followed 100% of the time. There are some cases where you can use "snapped" or "cried". It's just generally not the practice.
Last edited:
Nicole Wilson
Basic
While Lee Child is my all-time favorite writer, he is also **Lee Child**. He can do whatever he wants to because he's made a huge name for himself. You have to know the rules before you can break them, and the only reason to break them is if you have an explicit purpose for doing so, not because you don't want to follow the rules.I was delighted that you chose to cite the Writers' Digest. It's actually the source of the greatest inspiration to me so far, courtesy of the best-sellingest author in the world, today. Like to know why? Go to the site and search for: 'Lee Child', then click on the second result down: 'Lee Child debunks the biggest writing myths.' It includes the paraphrase: 'Tell, don't show: Why writing rules are mostly wrong'. When I first read that, I punched the air (it might be telling to say which several people I was imagining at the time). So there *is* hope for us mere mortals, after all!
But the question all the rest of you cow-pokes out there now have to ask yourselves is: On the subject of advice about how to write a (series of) best selling novel(s) should you believe the majority of the modern publishing establishment... or the one man who's actually written more of them than anyone else? Somehow, I think we maybe already know the answer, but are afraid to admit it...
A feeling somewhat vindicated Harlan
Harlan –
First of all, can you please follow the rules here and introduce yourself with a new thread? You’ll find people will be very keen to get to know you if you give us the opportunity.
Also, take the time to post a profile picture please.
The tone of this thread is getting slightly too heated, unnecessarily so. I’ve seen too many people join, flame out, and leave disappointed... simply because they didn’t make a great start. I want you to have a happy and extremely beneficial time here, help us to make it happen for you, ok?
And in other news...
I totally crashed and burned a few hours after the last seminar. I thought it was full-on flu, but it seems to have been a really nasty dose of bronchitis. Disappointing. Still hacking like a trooper, but starting to catch up with things, and i *am* aware that there are several issues here that need my attention. Soon!
First of all, can you please follow the rules here and introduce yourself with a new thread? You’ll find people will be very keen to get to know you if you give us the opportunity.
Also, take the time to post a profile picture please.
The tone of this thread is getting slightly too heated, unnecessarily so. I’ve seen too many people join, flame out, and leave disappointed... simply because they didn’t make a great start. I want you to have a happy and extremely beneficial time here, help us to make it happen for you, ok?
And in other news...
I totally crashed and burned a few hours after the last seminar. I thought it was full-on flu, but it seems to have been a really nasty dose of bronchitis. Disappointing. Still hacking like a trooper, but starting to catch up with things, and i *am* aware that there are several issues here that need my attention. Soon!
Carol Rose
Basic
- Thread starter
- #54
Sorry you haven't been feeling well, @AgentPete! I hope you're taking care of yourself.
Carol Rose
Basic
- Thread starter
- #56
My husband and I both had pneumonia and bronchitis last spring at the same time. UGH. We coughed for months. It was horrible. My sympathies to you!!
A
Alistair Roberts
Guest
Well I've woken up to this, and I am very disappoint Harlan - I'm afraid I have to agree you should calm down. This is not a great start by you, literally hammering at a published author who was trying to help. Regardless of whether you agree with her thoughts or not, which most of us do, there was absolutely no excuse for the way you responded. It was unfair and frankly wrong in my opinion. If you ask for opinions don't bite the messenger if you don't like the reply.
Richard Sutton
Flash Club Supremo
I suppose I agree when it comes to narrative writing, but speech is full of these words, so if dialog is going to sound honest, then it's gotta have some of these modifiers, delayers, etc., etc. Doncha think?Nodding all the way through…
http://dianaurban.com/words-you-should-cut-from-your-writing-immediately
Wow. Look at all the intense disagreement I missed. Lucky I guess...
Last edited:
Carol Rose
Basic
- Thread starter
- #59
I would think so, yes. I sure as heck don't want to read dialogue that sounds so stiff and formal, I assume the author forgot to tell us about that giant pole up the character's butt.
A
Alistair Roberts
Guest
Ouch lol
lol- Status
Café Life Tag Cloud
agent
author
authors
blog
book
books
cafe
calls for submissions
christmas
competition
conferences
contest
contests
creative writing
creativity
editing
fantasy
fear
fiction
greetings
huddle
inspiration
life
literature
litopia
motivation
new
new member
novel
novels
philosophy
poetry
publishing
reading
romance
science fiction
self-publishing
shakespeare
short story
stories
story
submissions
time
winners
words
world
writer
writers
writing
writing contests
Similar threads
