I have been taking a writing course where the teacher criticizes the use of "he said" or "she said" and prefers the use of character action to tell who is talking. I find that at times adhering strictly to action (as my teacher demands) over an occasional "said" tag line can create a cumbersome experience for the reader. Do we really need to show the reader every body movement the character makes? Isn't it possible to tell you who is talking without weakening the story?
Dialog tags are used to remind the reader of who is speaking. Unless you have extremely individualized and unique character voices, you have to use something to differentiate speakers.
There are two types of tags:
The standard dialog tag, which attributes the dialog to a particular character using the "he said/she said" (or a variation thereof). The word "said" is nearly invisible to the reader and is therefore preferred over things like, "he shouted" or "she squeaked."
Examples:
- "Get out of my way before I knock you down," she said.
- John said, "I'd like to see you try." [a little less invisible when the tag comes before the dialog, but still okay when used sparingly.]
The action tag, which shows action by a character before, after or in the middle of speaking, allows the reader to assume that the acting character is the one speaking. This is a great way to add a beat, deepen characterization, and to disrupt the repetition of the bouncing he said/she said pattern.
Examples:
- LDS Publisher tossed her head and laughed. "That Anon is such a smarty pants!"
- "I just don't know what to think." Kara brushed her bangs out of her eyes. "Is it possible? Could he really like me?"
I find that action tags are often underused—and I personally like them. Many books would do well to use them more often. I do agree with you that if used exclusively, they can become annoying and cumbersome, but perhaps not as much as you think.
Pay attention to dialog tags as you read your favorite books. When do they use one over the other? Ask yourself if it adds to the story or detracts. But bottom line—do what your teacher (or agent, editor, publisher) tell you to do.
16 comments:
And for pete's sake, make sure that your action and dialogue tags are lined up with the correct dialogue! There is nothing worse for a reader than to read a paragraph and assume that "he" or "she" is speaking, when it's actually the complete opposite, and the matching dialogue or action tag is actually in the paragraph before or in the one after!
I recently attempted to read Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel, the winner of the Booker Prize, but because of misplaced dialogue tags, and the tendency of the author to only ever refer to the protangonist as "he," I spent so much time concentrating on figuring out who said what that I not only gave up before the end of the book, but I also can't remember much else about the book except that it was so blastingly frustrating! On the basis of this, I am now inclined to turn up my nose at all Booker Prize winners and nominees, and even look askance at any publication that is mentioned in the same paragraph as the word Booker!
Too often action tags are used as inappropriately as dialog tags. Windmilling arms and actions that have no bearing on the dialog taking place are a nuisance and lend confusion to the scene. I like to see either dialog or action tags used in a manner that furthers the story rather in some misguided attempt to follow some rule. If the tag draws attention to itself and away from the story it's out of place.
Smarty pants here just as LDSP ordered. I'm so flattered! You actually used ME in one of your creative, well-thought-out examples. Kudos.
Now a word from our sponsors about speaker attributions which is the technical name for dialogue tags. Speaker attributions. Some scenes are dialouge scenes. Only. Some scenes are action scenes or descriptive scenes or interior dialogue scenes. Only. Most scenes have portions that are dialogue scenes mixed in with portions that are action or descriptive or interior dialogue scenes. They are a run of dialogue within a larger scene. A scene within a scene. That's important to remember when you're preparing to write a run of dialgue. I'll tell you why later. But for now...
The first place to start is by counting how many characters you have in your scene. If you only have two then you can eliminate virtually all the "he saids" and "she saids". You simply get your characters into a back-and-forth run of dialogue using some form of stage direction and then when you read back over it make sure that there is no confusion about who is speaking. The rule of thumb is: If there's no confusion about who is speaking, then there's absotluetly NO REASON to use a speaker attribution. Something like this:
"Do you believe in ghosts?" Heather pointed the end of her whisk at Brent. "I mean dead people who are still alive."
"It doens't work that way." Brent handed her two eggs and the cake mix. "You can't be dead and alive."
"You never sat through my physcis professor's lecture."
"Why are you asking?"
"It isn't anything."
"When did you ever talk about wacked out insane asylum stuff?"
"They don't have those anymore."
"You know, super natural garbage."
"Then you don't believe in ghosts?"
"If you can't see it, weigh it, polk it or eat it, probably not. Have you been staying up watching late night TV?"
"Do you have any idea who used to live in this house?"
"You've been talking to Mrs. Cravitz again."
"She knows things."
"She knows how to scare the begeebies out of kids. Have you seen inside her house?"
"She keeps the blinds down."
"I'll bet there's a dead body in her front room."
"Brent, she's our neighbor."
"Why did we hire Steve as our real estate agent?"
"He's my brother."
"He's dimented. He sold us a house that...
"That's what?"
"Are you going to finish making that cake?"
We've established a nice back and forth between Heather and Brent and, at least when I go back and re-read through it, there seems to be no confusion about who is saying what.
Notice that once Heather called her husband by name which is a sneaky way to remind the reader who is speaking. You don't need it here since their is not confusion, but in situations where there may be a need to remind the reader you can get away with this. But notice how its used. Heather is slightly irritated with Brent so she calls him by name. It works in that situation. If you're characters are calling each other by name frequently and without any reason to do it, then your ploy will become an annoyance and destroy the voice of your writing.
If you use another dialogue technique like having a character answer her own question or a character who speaks, and then speaks again in response to the unspoken actions or expressions of the other character in the two-character scene you've broken the rhythm of the back-and-forth dialogue and now the dialogue scene calls for another stage direction (a bit of action) to re-establish who is speaking. Again, remember, the rule of thumb is IF THERE IS NOT CONFUSION ABOUT WHO IS SPEAKING YOU PROBABLY DON'T NEED ANY SPEAKER ATTRIBUTION. But if you do need to re-establish your back-and-forth you can do something like this:
"She knows how to scare the begeebies out of kids. Have you seen inside her house?"
"She keeps the blinds down."
"I'll bet there's a dead body in her front room."
"Honey, she's our neighbor."
Brent handed her two eggs and a box of cake mix.
"What is it you're not telling me?"
"We never should have hired Steve as our real estate agent."
"He's my brother."
"He's dimented. He sold us a house that...
"That's what?"
"Are you going to finish making that cake?"
If you have mutliple characters in your scene you can estalish runs of dialogue where two characters get into a rhythum and simply by the context of the dialogue and the back-and-forth, the reader understands that two of the five characterse are speaking. In that case you don't need any speaker attributions. However, when another character jumps in you need to use another stake direction OR YOU CAN USE A LINE OF INTERIOR DIALOGUE to establish the identity of the speaker. In those rare instances when you venture into group dialogue (and they will be rare once you see how potentially difficult they are to write and confusing they can be for the reader) you will likely choose to use the "he said" and the "she said" instead of using stage directions. That many stage directions one after the other ends up being more confusing and cumbersome than the simple, sleek, hardly noticed "he said" or "she said." And lucky for us authors, frequent paragraphing helps to at least let the reader know that a different speaker is speaking. Something like this:
“It’s him! It’s him!”
Nora opened the door for Hannah. The poor girl was out of breath. “It’s who?”
“The boy from from Central High School.” Hannah set keys on the counter. “The guy who asked me for the third-to-last dance and the second dance of the month just before the winter ball.”
“Oh, that boy from Central High.” Nora closed the door behind Hannah. "Number three."
“You’re simply impossible.” Hannah marched over to Abigail and Mary sitting around the kitchen table. “You remember him don’t you?”
“Dark hair?” Mary poured milk on her raisin bran.
Abigail said, "Tall. Works for Sanitation Plus?"
"He isn't a garbage man."
“He isn’t a garbage man. He is a grabage man. He loves me. He loves me not. Which is it?” Abigail leaned her head in. “Have you been sniffing your hair spray again?"
“How do I look?” Hannah pulled her hair back over her ears. “Of all the times for a surprise visit.”
Nora said, “What's his name?”
“He’s not a garbage man.”
“A name, sis. Number three has got a name.”
“I think he goes by...
“Think of one. Quickly. You were always good at make believe.”
“I was five years old and he was a pirate in never, never land.”
Mary dropped her spoon into the bowl. “How can you talk about a man for days and not know his name?”
"It was only one dance."
Nora said, "Two."
Abigial said, "I counted three."
"Mary, dear. Would you get the door?"
You're proabably asking, if "he said" and "She said" are such simple and sleek solutions why the heck can't I just use them instead of going to all this trouble. You can. But they have been so over-used the "said" attribution has become repetitive and cliche. And it marks your dialouge as the work of an amateur which is something you're trying desperately to avoid. You want your writing to be the work of a pro. So learn all you can about dialouge. There a number of other important speaker attribution techniques that can help your writing, but I'm out of time. Gotta get back to my own work in progress.
Good luck y'all!
.
I'll bet that the instructor was enforcing this not as a hard rule but as a writing exercise. Once you've written an entire story with nothing but action tags, they're gonna be part of your writerly vocabulary.
Very helpful information, and a skill that definitely takes some practice.
Oh, and Jennie. I don't think you can expect a dialogue tag to further the story. For crying out loud, one line of action or a snippet of interior dialogue can't shoulder so much of the burden of a novel.
It can, however, characterize the character or add to the setting, or even foreshadow something that is coming later in the scene. Isn't that what you meant when you said that the stage directions in a run of dialogue should further the story?
I may have already mentioned this, but your stage directions in a run of dialogue don't always have to be actions. Interior dialogue, if used sparingly (and I count sparingly as once, or on the outside twice, in a scene or in a run of dialogue) adds a nice change to the actions that most authors employ. Most writers, however, don't use the interior dialougue as a stage directions in their dialogue scenes because they haven't developed a strong voice for their point of view character OR, even more likely, they haven't even selected a point of view character.
Once you do select a point of view character and then develop a strong voice for that character you can use a run of dialogue.
In the opening lines of this example below notice that Nora employs interior dialogue to establish herslef as the point of view character in this scene when she notices that "the poor girl was out of breath." Once we've established her as the POV character, we can, later in the scene, use some interior dialogue in place of a stage direction used to indentify the speaker. In this example I used the line: "Was she really related to a ditz?" As the interior dialogue of choice to identify Nora as the speaker.
Was Nora really related to a ditz? “A name, sis. Number three has got a name.”
It works nicley here since Nora immediately calls Hannah "sis" which supports her interior dialogue where she wonders how she could be the sister to a ditzy character like Hannah. Here's the full example:
“It’s him! It’s him!”
Nora opened the door for Hannah. The poor girl was out of breath. “It’s who?”
“The boy from from Central High.” Hannah set keys on the counter. “The guy who asked me for the third-to-last dance and the second dance of the month just before the winter ball.”
“Oh, that boy from Central High.” Nora closed the door behind Hannah. "Number three."
“You’re simply impossible.” Hannah marched over to Abigail and Mary sitting around the kitchen table. “You remember him don’t you?”
“Dark hair?” Mary poured milk on her raisin bran.
Abigail said, "Tall. Works for Sanitation Plus?"
"He isn't a garbage man."
“He isn’t a garbage man. He is a grabage man. He loves me. He loves me not. Which is it?” Abigail leaned her head in. “Have you been sniffing your hair spray again?"
“How do I look?” Hannah pulled her hair back over her ears. “Of all the times for a surprise visit.”
Nora said, “What's his name?”
“He’s not a garbage man.”
Was Nora really related to a ditz? “A name, sis. Number three has got a name.”
“I think he goes by...
“Think of one. Quickly. You were always good at make believe.”
“I was five years old and he was a pirate in never, never land.”
Mary dropped her spoon into the bowl. “How can you talk about a man for days and not know his name?”
"It was only one dance."
Nora said, "Two."
Abigial said, "I counted three."
"Mary, dear. Would you get the door?"
I think the advice that Anon gave to "read back over it make sure that there is no confusion about who is speaking" needs to be expanded. If you are the one who wrote the dialog, it is less likely to be confusing to you. Have someone else go back and read through it. You might be surprised to find that it isn't as clear as you think. The occasional, judiciously applied speaker attribution is not only helpful for the reader, but is often absolutely necessary.
Dear LDSP:
Exactly where did you toss your head? Did it hurt? Did you get bruised? Did someone catch it? Is this the sequel to catcher in the Rye? Or Field of Dreams? Is there a better choice for a stage direction that is literally possible in place of tossing ones head?
Sincerely,
The snotty one
I think both speaker attributions and stage direction are wonderful tools for writers. Use what works--what gives your prose the rhythm and clarity that you seek. Sometimes I want stage direction; other times I want a simple speaker attribution.
One of my editors once told me that when writing dialogue it's best not to go more than four paragraphs without identifying at least one of the speakers. This helps keep the confusion to a minimum.
I was in meetings all day yesterday, so didn't see this conversation developing until this morning. I laughed so hard I snorted hot chocolate out my nose. My head is just fine now, thank you.
As to Anon's examples, sorry Anon. I did get lost in a few places, so as an editor, I would have added a couple of tags. But overall, your advice is sound. IMHAAARO.
Melanie illustrates very clearly what happens when you do it wrong. Been there, done that.
Also, Jennie, Sarah, Stephanie and Traci all make very good points. Thanks for commenting.
Actually, LDSP, after reading over the dialogue example (and having you do it as well--shesh, you'd think I'd follow my own advice), instead of adding some speaker attributions (!) I reccomend cutting about four lines of dialogue and reworking some of the other lines. The confusion would be better "fixed" by getting rid of some of the repetitive dialogue, letting one line do the work of two or three, and also reworking some of the dialogue so that it is more in character.
The easy fix is simply throwing in some "tags". The professional fix is to try and rework the dialogue first and saving the tags as a last resort to sort out any remaining confusion. I'd change the dialogue in my example to something like this (compare this to the unedited attempt above and see what you think):
"Do you believe in ghosts?" Heather pointed the end of her whisk at Brent. "I mean dead people who are still alive."
"Why the sudden interest in zombies?" Brent handed her two eggs and the Betty Crocker cake mix. "You can't be dead and alive."
"You never sat through my physcis professor's lecture."
"The supernatural is insane asylum stuff."
"Honey, they don't have those anymore."
"If you can't see it, weigh it, polk it or eat it, its not worth getting all worked up over. Have you been talking to Mrs. Cravitz again?"
"She knows things."
"She knows how to scare the begeebies out of kids. Have you seen inside her house?"
"She keeps the blinds down."
"I'll bet there's a dead body in her front room."
"Brent!" Heather sprayed cake batter across the cupboard door. "She's our neighbor."
"I never should have let you hire Steve as our real estate agent."
"What was I going to do? Go behind his back? He's my brother."
"He's dimented. He sold us a house in a neighboorhood that...
"That's what?"
"Are you going to clean up the batter?"
Post a Comment