Dialogue tags

I couldn't find the thread where this has been discussed before, because I'm sure it has come up before.

I've read numerous times it's alot better to use "said" as much as often and cut out flavory (not sure what the term is) tags such as cried out, wondered, exclaimed etc.

The arguement for this is because readers will skim over these words without retention so putting in different words slows down dialogue or interrupts the flow. I remember Brandon Sanderson saying this as though it is fact. And I've also had this echoed numerous times.

Before I knew this I much prefered using a mix of tags throughout, because to me it adds a voice to the dialogue, but since reading these articles or listening to the advice I've stopped using it....

Then I picked up one of my favourite fantasy books Name of the Wind, and just noticed there are pages of dialogue full of different tags just like the way I have written before.


So should I just go back to what my natural form was, or continue the way I am currently?

Depends on whom you ask. And what day it is.

I get annoyed by authors who eschew all but "said", when they use "said" even when they really mean "asked". I hate when a book says, "'What are you doing?' he said." Ok, sure, he said it, in terms of words coming out of his mouth, but it's a question, so he really asked it. On the other hand, it may not be necessary to have any tag at all there. If we are differentiating that Bob asked it, and not Jane, yes. If it's an actual "he asked", not so much, because it's probably discernible from context.

Your other examples above are fairly questionable as well. Cried out is something that might happen without any quote, as in "the rock hit him in the head and he cried out." It's not as good as a tag, such as "'ouch!' he cried out." Just a plain "Ouch!" would do the same thing. Exclaimed is the same. It has an exclamation point, most likely, so no need for the tag. These are best used with an action if necessary to show who is doing the exclaiming or crying out. "'Don't do that!' Bob grabbed his arm."

In general, said and asked are invisible markers, and the flowery tags should be used more sparingly. Think of them as a pungent spice, which adds flavor when it isn't specifically noticed but gets overpowering in a hurry if used too heavily.

Never follow any advice that starts with "never".

I can add much more to what TDZ has already put.

I do disagree with using nothing but said. For me they aren't invisible words, I might not take as much notice of them as others, but they are still there, and adding, I think, extra emphasis/emotion or whatever else to the dialogue.

And I understand the reasons people say you shouldn't use them, that you shouldalready know how somone is speaking from the context... But even in the context of a fight for example, ' "you should have told me," he said ' could imply a resignation, a sigh, a giving in, whereas ' "you should have told me," he screamed ' implies anything but resignation. Sometimes showing this anger just isnt as effective as telling.

For my part, in reading dialogue, after a couple of exchanges of speech I need some grounding as to who is speaking. Whether it is x said, or x shrugged and said, but a reminder of who is speaking scattered through any extended dialogue. I also like having some feel/description of reactions in there.

Dialogue tags are tricky. Sometimes you can get away without having any at all. In my opinion and experience using the invisible tags (said, asked etc) are good to use if you need to attrivute but there is nothing interesting about the way the dialogue is said. However if the dialogue is said in an interesting way that you can't get from the dialogue itself - whispered for example - then use a more descriptive tag.

The problem arises when nearly every tag has a descriptor, so that each bit of dialogue is pulled out as being said in a special way - that can become very distracting, and also backfires. However, having all as said/asked can have the same effect and can dull otherwise special dialogue. So descriptor tagging is good, but not all the time, much as you don't have to tag everything, but doing that continuously can be incredibly disorienting!

Said is considering an invisible word that readers will tend not to notice. It's nothing more than an attribution, to confirm who's speaking, rather than conveying any specific information in itself.

So the argument goes that it's better to use "said" where possible. However, it is possible to over-use it - sometimes there really is no need for a dialogue attribution at all.

BUT sometimes it's better to use an action tag instead of any attribution:

"Don't move," Jim exclaimed. "That's a good girl."
"Don't move," Jim said. "That's a good girl."
"Don't move." Jim shot her. "That's a good girl."

There's a lot of technically weak writing out there - don't presume that just because a published author got away with it, that's it's something to try to emulate.

Make no mistake, using said is the standard. And like most things, deviation from the norm in writing is like a spice in cooking. But, there really can be too much of a good thing. A dash of salt seasons the dish, a mount of salt spoils it. If you think you need to emphasize a particular bit of dialogue with a non-standard tag, go for it. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But like salt, you can quite easily use too much without realizing it. That's why the typical starting writer admonition is to simply avoid, and you'll learn how to use them well later. Learn to cook the chicken thoroughly and not over-cook it, then you can worry about the spices. Some rather high percentage of your dialogue should be tagged with said instead of anything else, or not tagged, or tagged with action. Exclaimed, shouted, yelled, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of the rest should either be obvious from the context, or as a writer you should do more to make the context obvious rather than relying on non-standard tags.

It's the same argument with adverbs, really. Some people say never, but that's rubbish. It's a spice. Use it with intention and restraint and you'll be fine. It's when you come to rely heavily on adverbs that you notice your verbs are weaker. Cut the adverb and pick a better verb. It's when you come to rely heavily on non-said dialogue tags that you notice your dialogue is weaker. Cut the odd tags and write better dialogue.

(It can also lead to physically impossible tasks like smiling or laughing through a paragraph of dialogue. Don't do that.)

But, sometimes the best way to set up your context is non-said tags.

'F*ck you!'
'F*ck you,' he said.
'F*ck you,' she whispered.

Are all very different things, imply different meanings, and work in very different ways.

Just pick the right one. That's what matters.

And most times, the right one will be your standard tags.

I agree about emulate authors, as I believe its best to have your own voice if you want to "make it". And I'd hate to be compared to anyone but myself.

But am I wrong to think Patrick Rothfuss has great prose. I am by no means a prose expert, but his writing was probably the only reason why I love his books, as I think the plot is quite weak and forgetful which is something I would never normally dismiss.

I get a sense he avoids "said" whenever possible, mostly expressions or action but there are many instances of (he replaced with name or I)
he added
he shrieked
he admitted
he agreed
he demanded

And those were just from opening three random points in the book, I'm guessing there were many more than that..

So does these bits make his prose weaker or better? I didn't notice it at all when I first read it, but this was before I started writing.

TheDustyZebra said:

I get annoyed by authors who eschew all but "said", when they use "said" even when they really mean "asked".

Click to expand...

My name is Ursa and sometimes I use said when what is said ends with a question mark.

I suppose I do** it almost in the same sort of spirit as the "wondered", "exclaimed" etc., but I think it is a valid form, because sometimes what is said using the words, and word-order, of a question is not a question at all. For instance, someone saying "What are you doing?" can be saying this knowing full well what is being done and saying it in a way that makes this clear to those s/he is (not) asking (for instance, as an admonishment***).

Now it may be that the way to record this is to write

rather than:

but I find the latter form more jarring (although others may not), because I'd expect to see a question mark. (By the way, I'm sure we've had at least one thread about whether rhetorical questions should use question marks.)


** - When I do it deliberately: I'm sure there are occasions when it's simply an error.

*** - The exclamation mark might be of help here, I suppose, but that punctuation mark has its own critics....

I love a good adverb In my most recent pointless workshop someone circled the two adverbs I had used spread across three paragraphs and written "too many adverbs". Considering the fact there were only two and they were spread out and they actually added to the sentence I was a little miffed. Very obviously someone who was told "don't use adverbs". My style includes more adverbs than some people use, but this particular piece was very adverb light!

I think the best way to check if your tag is necessary or not is to read it out loud and see if your "he exclaimed" "he said" no tag stands out. Is there confusion over who speaks with no tag? Does the dialogue shout out that it would be exclaimed? If so, adding the exclaimed to the tag is unnecessary. You'll notice them standing out or not, and if they do you'll need to rework your tag.

Zebra Wizard said:

So does these bits make his prose weaker or better?

Click to expand...

Readers are very forgiving, and I assume most find his story engaging enough to make the issue of dialogue tags irrelevant.

On a related note, some saidisms are nothing more than repetitions of the dialogue. An exclamation mark shows that something was exclaimed; a question mark shows that something was asked.

Said is an invisible word, true, but like anything else, if it is used too much, it ceases to be. Personally, I think using 'said' for questions looks odd and draws attention to it.

These days, I try to be economically-minded, so tagging in the first place might need to be sparser than I did in the past. And then using a bit of colour besides 'said', maybe 'asked', possibly 'shouted', should be even more sparing, to make the usage more unique and impactful. Ultimately, it does depend on tone, but for a bog-standard seriously-written story, I'd probably recommend that approach.

There are, of course, occasions when you'll want to be a bit more colourful... As long as you feel it reads well and makes sense, then go for it.

There are two reasons for dialog tags.

1. It identifies the speaker
2. It identifies the tone of speech

The trick is to not overuse either. Number two is often redundant. If the reader can readily infer what the tone of speech is, don't use it.

Seems like a marmite issue. Those who hate it and think it is wrong. And those who enjoy it and think it is good.

Brian Turner said:

Readers are very forgiving, and I assume most find his story engaging enough to make the issue of dialogue tags irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you think it's a makes the writing weaker rather than stronger.

Kylara said:

In my most recent pointless workshop someone circled the two adverbs I had used spread across three paragraphs and written "too many adverbs".

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that when I'm ready to submit, I'm going to get editors and agents who think like this

I'm goign to revert a bit back to my former ways, but now I keep telling myself. Am I making a big mistake?

Both JK rowling and Pat Rothfuss use adverbs to a dizzying amount. Many people say it is a bad thing, yet people eat those books up like candy. I'm not saying just because they did it, then its okay. But I do wonder is it really just because of the story or does this style contribute to the books success and acceptance and why it makes them so enjoyable to the general public? They do after all seem like a conscious design choice.

Zebra Wizard said:

Seems like a marmite issue. Those who hate it and think it is wrong. And those who enjoy it and think it is good.



I'm going to assume you think it's a makes the writing weaker rather than stronger.



I'm afraid that when I'm ready to submit, I'm going to get editors and agents who think like this

I'm goign to revert a bit back to my former ways, but now I keep telling myself. Am I making a big mistake?

Both JK rowling and Pat Rothfuss use adverbs to a dizzying amount. Many people say it is a bad thing, yet people eat those books up like candy. I'm not saying just because they did it, then its okay. But I do wonder is it really just because of the story or does this style contribute to the books success and acceptance and why it makes them so enjoyable to the general public? They do after all seem like a conscious design choice.

Click to expand...

You just don't want it to read like a child's book.

As with most things, less is better.

My very favourite book is full of adverbial speech tags. And I could not care less. In fact a recent edit of it took some of them out and the same author wrote later more modern books, and I don't like them nearly so well.

I tend not to use tags at all which means that when I use said it is so rare that it does stick out. When the word first usage of the word was chapter six every single writer objected to it. I've found in those circumstances other tags are more invisible than said.

Generally if someone says too many adverbs, I think that it means that the adverbs have not been chosen wisely or placed skillfully and so they stand out more than the driving proposition set out in the sentence instead of helping drive that proposition forward they get in the way.

This can happen with dialogue tags so they should be used sparingly and that goes for he said and she said because if they show up in all your dialogue they won't be invisible and they tend to cause the reader to bleed from the nose, eyes and ears.

Do you really want to be responsible for your readers untimely death?

Zebra Wizard said:

Seems like a marmite issue. Those who hate it and think it is wrong. And those who enjoy it and think it is good.



I'm going to assume you think it's a makes the writing weaker rather than stronger.



I'm afraid that when I'm ready to submit, I'm going to get editors and agents who think like this

I'm goign to revert a bit back to my former ways, but now I keep telling myself. Am I making a big mistake?

Both JK rowling and Pat Rothfuss use adverbs to a dizzying amount. Many people say it is a bad thing, yet people eat those books up like candy. I'm not saying just because they did it, then its okay. But I do wonder is it really just because of the story or does this style contribute to the books success and acceptance and why it makes them so enjoyable to the general public? They do after all seem like a conscious design choice.

Click to expand...

It's one of those things that you can never be sure about, whether or not it's contributing to your rejection. I've been rejected dozens of times, I even sent different drafts of the same manuscript to the same agencies in the hope that maybe, maybe this time they'd like it enough to support me. I had nothing to lose, so why not?

Ultimately, it's down to what you believe enriches your story the most, whether through your own unconscious writing style or a conscious tone or anything in between. If worse comes to worst, it's fairly straightforward to self-publish these days. It's the bit after that which is the truly hard part, but if you believe in your story and yourself, you at least have something driving you to greater things, even if those great things don't happen with that particular project. Live and learn.

Brian Turner said:

There's a lot of technically weak writing out there - don't presume that just because a published author got away with it, that's it's something to try to emulate.

Click to expand...

I tossed away the first volume of a very popular fantasy series when I reached the ninth usage of "he scowled" in the first two hundred pages of the book. It's clumsy, distracting writing, no matter who is doing it.

Zebra Wizard said:

But am I wrong to think Patrick Rothfuss has great prose.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Loren said:

There are two reasons for dialog tags.

1. It identifies the speaker
2. It identifies the tone of speech

The trick is to not overuse either. Number two is often redundant. If the reader can readily infer what the tone of speech is, don't use it.

Click to expand...

This.