More to the point, i think the current issue with avoiding words other than "said" is a matter of laziness. Why bother having Bob shout and Linda mutter and Susan cry when they can all just say?
Are you kidding? It's a matter of avoiding bad writing. It's not a matter of laziness. Using terrible words like "he concluded" or "she proliferated" is laziness, because the writer is either too lazy or too incompetent (or both) to get across their point without resorting to flatly saying it in the dialogue tags. And just so you know, no one has any problem with things like "shouted" or "asked", assuming of course that the person is actually shouting or asking something.
So when my Mary is confronting the death of her father whatever she may choose to deliver as her line, its going to be followed with "she chocked out between the sobs" rather than "she said" particularly if, say, the line in question is demonstrating an extremely conflicted emotional state otherwise any subtext will be lost to the plain text of what words she is saying.
If you say "she choked out between the sobs" in a work you want to get published, whoever you submit it to will toss your manusrcipt in the garbage before they've finished that page. That's kinda the way the world works.
The idea seems to be the dialogue should tell the reader all they need to know about the manner something is said because everyone in real life always adds how angry or happy everything makes them. Of course, context clues can help some, but not everytime.
No, that's not the idea at all, You've missed the point. It's the context, it's the description, it's the setting, it's the perspective. It's all those words around the dialogue that give us a feeling of what's going on without you having the bluntly tell us. All of the below are equally bad writing:
-"What do you mean?" Bob seethed.
-"What do you mean?" Bob said indignantly.
-"What do you mean? I'm furious!" said Bob.
-"What do you mean?" said Bob. He was furious!
edited 28th May '12 1:52:15 PM by jackpollock