I read a couple of books in December where the authors didn’t use attributes or quotation marks. In one, the dialogue was italicized and embedded within paragraphs, and in the other, the dialogue was set out with dashes and paragraphed.
It worked really well for both books. Like you say, the characters were so well done, it was no problem figuring out who was speaking or their tone.
I’m afraid you read me exactly backward.
Adverbs are not taboo in this usage. Who ever said this?
Good authors can devise any format they wish, as long as it corresponds to the feel of the story. Beginning writers don’t have this mastery and are much better off concentrating on the words rather than the apparatus. First learn how to write good, realistic dialog. Then worry about whether to use something other than “said”.
I wouldn’t go that far. There are times when it’s appropriate to describe the tone using sentences or phrases. “His voice dripped with sarcasm,” for example, does a better job of conveying the depths of the tone.
Having said that, such descriptions should be used sparingly. Very sparingly indeed.
I second this. His section on why he said/she said is superior to steroid-enhanced verbs of attribution is one of the best parts of the book.
This kind of thing can be okay if done sparingly, but if your entire work looks like a hunt for “said” alternatives, it gets distracting and silly. Better you learn to write without them … develop basic writing skills first and then figure out how to break the rules.
“Oh,” she said, “look who’s giving advice on sarcasm. Mr. JThunder. Quite the expert there.”
You see? No need to describe how it’s said. The speaker’s words do the work.
One key to good writing is to make the reader think what you want him to think without telling him what to think. Ideally, the reader should be able to read a sentence and think “the speaker is being sarcastic” without the author telling him, “He said sarcastically.”
You should be able to get the emotions across by the wording of the spoken words, plus a description of what the speaker is doing:
“I love you, honey. I would never neglect you,” he said, not looking away from the football game. “Could you pass the chips? Honey? Honey? Where did you go?”
Note how that gives you a good indication of the speaker’s state of mind and the relationship with the other person, without telling how he says the words.
Now, there are certainly times when you need to describe how the words are said, but it’s best to give the tone without description whenever possible.
There’s a term for overuse of synonyms, it’s called said-bookism, and should be avoided.
My memory is failing me rapidly, but I’m petty sure the term “said-bookism” is usually attributed to science fiction writer and critic James Blish in his pioneering 1950s works of criticism collected in The Issue at Hand. He certainly spent a lot of time complaining about writers who used an infinite number of substitutes for said.
If it wasn’t him who put that particular term into the sf vocabulary, then it was Damon Knight, writing about the same time, collected in In Search of Wonder.
This would probably not be the place for Tom Swifties, would it?
“I’m a member of Mensa!” said Tom, smartly.
“I’m using birth control,” she said, inconceivably.
and so on.
My apologies.
Oh, Nancy Drew, oh, oh, oh, oh!" Tom ejaculated.
No, definitely not the place. Unh-uh. no way.
Your last sentence is precisely what I said before… that one should generally avoid describing the tone. Remember, I merely objected to the statement that “If you have to use an adjective or phrase to describe how something is said, you’re doing it wrong.” That’s just an overly broad claim, as evidenced by your own latter statement.
I will heartily agree that the phrasing you gave above is an improvement over mine, but I disagree with the unconditional claim that describing someone’s tone is automatically wrong.
“What time is it?” dripped from her lips like a cascade of old promises and the dust of dead and broken hearts.
I doubt there’s anything to add at this point, but as far as “stronger verbs” go… there’s not much you can write in the place of “said” that makes the sentence much stronger. The words in the quote will do the heavy lifting anyway, and even the secondary lifting will be done by the words that describe what was happening while the person spoke. So you might as well get out of their way by writing “said” or just letting the sentence end with the quote, which I do as often as I can.
“Shut up,” I explained.
What she said.
Well, what they said.
True, but I often deal with beginning writers, and it’s usually best to make strong claims to get them to think more about the writing involved. A beginning writer should avoid describing tone in 99% of the cases, and needs to always try to get the point across without description before having to throw in the towel and use it. Generally, beginners do the opposite – use the description of speech to explain the tone, and if they avoid it at all costs, they’ll end up as better writers on the rare occasions when it is a good choice.
I will say that in my own work, I can’t think of a time where I described the tone of a statement. It always obvious by the wording and the description of action and characters.
In short, don’t tell, show.
I’ve been recently helping a young writer who had to be completely retrained away from her teachers’ ideas that instead of “said,” dialog should *always *be tagged with more exciting verbs or with adverbs. Fortunately, she’s determined to learn, so I’ve seen improvements in her book.
“Who farted?” she said, while waving her hand in front of her face.
I blame J. K. Rowling. She uses way too many adverbs in dialogue – if she has a “style”, that’s what it is. It’s understandable that a young writer might look at Rowling and think that her success must mean that she’s a good writer. Another reason to feel sorry for English teachers these days.