I for one will fight on the side of the Bookisms

Yes, I agree that it is about minimizing mistakes. I said "I understand that taking in some guidence is essential to improving your writing skills". You have to learn the fundamentals of writing like grammar and punctuation and things of that nature. I'm taking a writing class right now, I have a bunch of bookmarks on writing that I'm reading. I want to improve.

But, the point of my original post is that I feel some people are too strict when it comes to certian aspects of writing. Literature is art and, with art, it is not unreasonable that some people take liberties while still following the fundamentals. You took that as if I had an attitude that I was comfortable with the work that I put up about a year ago. I'm not. I hate it, but you're acting like I was using an example from that work to support my opinion.

edited 28th May '12 6:39:24 PM by PancakeMckennz

He makes sense to me: the fact that your work (allegedly, anyway; I can't see signatures so I can't check for myself) is badly written is reason to be wary of your advice on writing. It may have been written a while ago, but clearly your opinions on writing haven't changed that much, since you're currently advocating one of the things he lambasted it for.

Also, using 'seethed' (or 'smiled', et cetera) as a synonym for 'said' is, I think, actually wrong, not merely annoying. One does not 'seethe' words.

And I wouldn't see anything wrong with that. I might make a few changes if I were writing it - generally, I don't like completely name-free dialogue, so I probably might add in a "Tre shrugged" for that last paragraph - but it's hardly an example of Said Bookism. Like I said in my first post, there's a difference between objecting to the ridiculous sort of thing that King excerpt attacked and advocating the use of no dialogue tags besides 'said'.

edited 28th May '12 8:03:05 PM by nrjxll

I agree that 'said' is usually the best choice, but in some cases the occasional said bookism just conveys more with less. I mean, I don't know if there is ever a place for the more absurd ones like 'ejaculated' or 'elucidated', and some relatively normal words like 'screamed' or 'wailed' I find impossible to use without finding it incredibly narmy. But some are OK.

You can't always get across the manner of speaking using just the dialogue. Consider:

"I don't know," Alice said quietly. (Resignation)

"I don't know," Alice whispered. (Despair)

"I don't know," Alice groaned. (Exasperated)

If you can come up with a more elegant way to portray the emotion there, let's hear them.

While I can understand the temptation of using fancy said bookisms (setting mood, further describing the character's tone, looking clever...), I think, ultimately, it's a temptation that should be resisted if the story is to remain readable. It's difficult to get through a mountain of fancy dialog tags.

Also, a sidenote- it just bugs me when people use things as dialog tags that don't make sense. You can't 'seethe' words. You can't 'sigh' a sentence. You can say something 'with a sigh', but you need to make it a separate clause so that the reader doesn't sit there wondering how the character didn't run out of breath from sighing out an entire sentence.

Technically accurate. But you're missing another solution. Use dialogue and context. Take, for example, the body language of the speaker. Is Alice clenching her fists so tightly they tremble, or is she looking down at the floor as she speaks, too ashamed to meet anybody's eyes? Remove dialogue from a vacuum, and words other than "said" only need to be used very sparingly — simply describing the speaker's actions and appearance as he or she speaks is usually sufficient.

In prose this is extremely difficult to make happen and not get easily mistaken for something else. Hell it's extremely difficult to do that in visual media.

To be honest such subtle details are rarely noticed in reality so might I innocently ask why should we put such emphasis on that?

No, it's not, and it's noticed very frequently, we just don't think about it. Most communication is non verbal, that's why it's hard to tell mood or intent online.

We're not talking someone's fingers getting sweaty here. We're talking someone wiping their brow cause their nervous, their eyes narrowing because they're getting mad, or putting their hands in their head because they're upset. Those are more obvious signs, but you get the point. They show emotion, and give a deeper sense to the scene, instead of the writer just telling me someone is mad or sad. The latter gets old, and quickly.

As for getting mistaken for something else...that's not always a bad thing. As a reader, I like being able to draw my own conclusions, and as a writer, I might want to be vague. And with the right context (something that is essential here), I can get the point I want across just fine.

edited 28th May '12 8:46:44 PM by Nightmare24

@ Killer Clowns: You may be against Said Bookisms but your last post as Julia ends with: "It's too nice a night, " she muttered.

" There is no extra information in "choked out" that is not already contained within "between sobs". "

The difficulty she is having finding words. "Between sobs" indicates crying but not difficulty speaking.

And so far i havnt seen shit that makes me want to change my mind on my opinion. "bad writing" is highly subjective, as the popularity of various authors makes clear. Take note of the tropes very name: It is derived from the fact that using "said" every single time used to be something to avoid.

In addition, I only care about brevity in academic writing. If adding a word or words other than said isnt activly harmful it once more reverts to laziness on the authors part for not using them.

Lastly, all those hundreds of words we are suposedly forbidden from ever using that could replace said...where did they come from? If im wrong and there is some absolute perfect writing and "said" is the only word aloud (as the link in my OP seems to suggest) then why invent shouted, yelled, exclaimed, cried, fumed, interjected, postulated, decried, pontificated, and so forth? I dont know how other people THINK but when I analyze how someone is saying something, I tend to be able to sum it up (internally) with some words like this, so perhaps thats why I dont mind using them in my writing. It resembles my own thought processes.

Added in Edit: Overuse of said bookisms is something I think is bad, however. Stephany Meyer isnt a bad author but occasionaly she gets carried away (she most certainly isnt a great author either).

edited 28th May '12 9:07:25 PM by Stormthorn

Much more accomplished writers than you or I would disagree with this assessment. (I'd argue reality disagrees with the second portion as well; I've heard what it sounds like to sigh a sentence, though it's rare talent.)

As in most things, only terrible writers deal in absolutes. The use of said bookisms is no exception.

edited 28th May '12 9:12:33 PM by Night

As a test, i just tried to sigh a sentance. It wasnt even very difficult. It would need to be a fairly short sentance however, as even the longest natural sights use up air quickly.

Semi thread hop.

These indicate volume.

Can be replaced by shouted/ yelled.

Indicates distress.

Based on the definition of "to fume," I'm not sure if this should be used as a speech tag. It's probably best to write, "he said, fuming" to be sure.

You don't need a speech tag to let the reader know someone has just been interrupted. Compare

to

There's no point.

You can convey what these imply in the dialogue.

Just because words were invented doesn't mean it's a good idea to use them. But sometimes, you do need them. Nonfiction writing doesn't always have dialogue. If a history book says "The Pope decried Martin Luther's writings," at the beginning of a paragraph, it's probably setting the topic of the paragraph and will go on to talk about his writings being put on the Index of Forbidden Books or something.

Uncommonly used words such as these jab the reader in the eye when used as speech tags. They say, "I don't have enough confidence in the dialogue I write, so I'm going to tell you how you're supposed to interpret it!"

edited 28th May '12 9:50:13 PM by SnowyFoxes

As I have said maybe four times now in this thread, not every non-'said' dialogue tag is a Said Bookism. "Muttered", which conveys information that's difficult to convey through context, is not. I'd call this a good guide.

You're actually saying that something like: '"Grumble," Bob seethed' can be correct?

If so... I honestly don't know what to say.

(It is actually possible to 'sigh' a sentence; 'he sighed' is just almost always redundant).

You're actually saying that makes a good example? Because it's a terrible example and I kind of wonder if it's a terrible example intentionally.

The idea that there are some kind of established rules of structure for how to make dialogue relate to what comes after it frankly mystifies me. You seem to be positing some kind of grammatical rule I think you'd have an exceptionally difficult time proving. And even if you can, like my just having started a sentence with "and", there will be very accomplished writers who have ignored it and been better for it.

Only very poor writers deal in absolutes when it comes to a subject like this. There is a time and a place for everything. And, presented with the alternatives of "endless said bookisms" or "endless saids" I'll take the former every time.

Though I tend to omit dialogue tags and instead use brief descriptive sentences personally.

I took the example specifically from the post you were quoting. And it is a terrible example, because that's my point to begin with - the 'he emoted' type of said bookisms are outright wrong. I don't know whether they're explicitly grammatically incorrect, but they are definitely linguistically incorrect.

I'm aware of that. I'm simply questioning why you felt the need to repeat what is a (possibly intentionally) terrible example; it doesn't really lend weight to your argument unless you're trying to use it prove that a good example is impossible. In which case the terrible nature of the example would probably hurt the argument because, well, it's an obvious hatchet job.

The idea of linguistic wrongness...really needs further explanation. I simply don't get what you're trying to say here.

I'm trying to argue that, regardless of one's feelings on said bookisms in general, the '"Insert phrase here," Bob smiled' subtype are simply wrong and should not be used.

I don't know what the right term is, to be honest. It's wrong to use seethe/smile/laugh and so forth as synonyms for 'said', but I'm not sure in what way it's wrong.

edited 28th May '12 10:11:30 PM by nrjxll

The phrase "linguistically wrong" suggests a lot of misconceptions about what linguistics actually entails.

Personally I prefer unadorned dialogue- just because I, as the writer, can picture what the characters are doing doesn't mean I need to flood the reader with details, and "flood" can be a thin line if the dialogue needs to move quickly. Once you've identified whose talking then even a basic "said" can be superfluous.

Obviously not as feasible if you have 3+ characters or if the action occurring during the dialogue is important

edited 29th May '12 12:23:36 AM by CleverPun

"The idea that there are some kind of established rules of structure for how to make dialogue relate to what comes after it frankly mystifies me."

There are rules. It's just that most people don't know a lot of them. It's part of what editors are there for.

The rules can be broken, but it can be hard to break them effectively. A good writer could probably fill a book with Said Bookisms and have it work, but only if those Bookisms are an intentional stylistic choice designed to set a certain tone. Someone like, say, Brett Easton Ellis could probably pull it off. Someone like, say, almost anyone else, probably couldn't.

In general, people shouldn't notice dialogue tags. Their minds should just skip over them. Bookisms make that more difficult, and when there's a lot of them being used at once, it becomes a distraction. Anything that takes a reader out of the story is inherently a Bad Thing.

They're acceptable in moderation, but they need to be used sparingly. In fact, I would argue they may actually be slightly necessary in small numbers, because most readers do expect to see them. But they do need to be kept in small numbers.

Heh. Okay, fair enough. The point is, though, that you had to try to see if you could. It wasn't a natural action to you. That's the kind of distraction I'm talking about.

I find myself guilty of the omission of the the 'xe said'. But it is usually linked to staging. Sometimes it's fairly clear who is talking.

Examples:

“Say... If I’m not supposed to go that way. What way do you suggest?” Derrek eyed the old man carefully.

“So you just live here?” Derrek pressed his hands deep in his pockets and shivered; the overcast day brought a chill.

Are these examples of said Bookisms?

(Edit: Changed around the second example.)

edited 29th May '12 1:50:46 PM by Dimanagul

I would debate that. The second sentence is a bit wordy, yet both sentences have different contexts where they would work. For example, the first sentence is great if the fact that he stepped forward is especially important.

Be careful with making that strong of a statement.

No. I consider those "action tags", as supposed to regular "dialogue tags".

edited 29th May '12 11:41:36 AM by chihuahua0

I have to say it's pretty conclusive that the second sentence is inferior though. It looks like Mojojojo from the Power Puff Girls wrote it.

If there was signifigance regarding which foot was moved first... there are better ways to do it. The example sentence maybe should have been: He stepped forward with his right foot. No information is lost that way.

edited 29th May '12 12:16:58 PM by Dimanagul

And if there isn't any significance, then there's little use for the second sentence. "Omit needless words", as you say, jackpollock.

In many situations, combining "he stepped forward" with another sentence ("He stepped forward and brandished his revolver."), those three words can stand alone and be more impactful than the second sentence can ever be, as I pointed out in my last post.

Sidenote

EDIT: Thinking about it, it is wordy, and redundant, and therefore can be considered (subjectively), worse than the first sentence.

Still not the best, so I'd say "he stepped forward" is the "superior" sentence, and far from the "inferior".

EDIT 2: I think I might actually be confusing your point, and you're saying that "he stepped forward" is better than...you know. Your post is a little confusing.

edited 29th May '12 12:56:06 PM by chihuahua0