# "Hi, there," he grinned VERSUS "Hi, there," he said with a grin



## TheYellowMustang (May 24, 2013)

I frequently come across stories where writers use this trick:

"As if you'll manage that," she snickered.
"I hate you," he scowled.
"Hello!" she grinned.
"Pleasure to meet you," she smiled and nodded. 

Then I read somewhere that you CANNOT smile or scowl a word or sentence, and that replacing such words with "said" is wrong.

Is it a rule against it, or...?
It's such a neat little trick to use in dialogue when you feel like the word "said" is showing up every other line.


----------



## JamesOliv (May 24, 2013)

In the whole "freedom of speech" sense there are no real rules. You can write whatever you want without regard for how it is received. If you want people to read your work without having to renounce their allegience to the English language, please consider the following:

Go up to a mirror and grin the word "hello." Go ahead, I'll wait.

Back yet? Awesome. Now go back and snicker a complete sentence. I'll be here when you finish.

All set? Cool. Now run back there and "chortle" the opening lines of a poem. 

You get the idea. These words are inappropriate for that usage because they are incorrect. You cannot "grin" a word any more than two fixed objects can collide. 

As to using the word "said" every other line, that is also wrong. You don't need to end every sentence of dialogue with "he/she said." As long as it is clear to the reader who is speaking, you can just write what was said. If you have two people talking it shouldn't be difficult to figure out. If the conversation starts to veer off course, jump back in and help me as a reader understand who is saying what. 

But don't use an improper word because you think the correct word is being overused. That is a mortal sin along the lines of using the (non)word "irregardless."


----------



## TheYellowMustang (May 24, 2013)

Thank you! Glad to have that cleared up. I never think much about it when I read it in other stories, but I agree with your points. 

I also read somewhere that most of the time, if the dialogue is well-written, the reader will understand what tone it is said in, and that it's often unnecessary to keep describing their facial expressions. If the reader doesn't understand if the character is smiling or scowling, maybe it's the dialogue that needs to be changed, not the descriptions.


----------



## JamesOliv (May 24, 2013)

I think the biggest offense I see is when a character says something in a "low growl." If an MC says something in "an annoyed tone" or "a low, angry tone" I can buy it. But I have never heard anyone speak in a "low growl," and I've been present at talks given by Harvey Fierstein. 

I think some of the other issues you brought up are valid, but the discussion there will likely go on endlessly as folks debate the nature of dialogue and such.


----------



## TheYellowMustang (May 24, 2013)

Haha, yes, I often catch myself and others suddenly describing voices like the people talking are animals. I think I've even read "she barked".


----------



## Topper88 (May 24, 2013)

Said Bookism - Television Tropes & Idioms

Sorry for linking to TV Tropes, but this is pretty relevant.


----------



## Kyle R (May 24, 2013)

I use "bark" sometimes, because I believe a person _can_ bark their words. It's like an explosive, sudden shout. But even then I try to use it sparingly.

I think_ said bookisms _are convenient, though they also can diminish the power of the writing. You're essentially _telling_ the reader how the dialogue is to be interpreted, instead of _showing_ it through descriptions and character actions.

Ultimately I believe you can accomplish more by avoiding them, if possible, and using the rest of your writing, the context, and the scene itself to convey the dialogue correctly.

Part of the thrill of being a reader is the activation of your imagination, to see the scenes play out in your mind. If the author is always telling you, in shorthand, how the characters are behaving, it almost leaves your imagination feeling cheated.. there isn't much left to imagine if it's all told to you without you having to see it and interpret it in your own way. (That's how I like to think of it, anyway.)

Here's an interesting link from a published author's view on it! Writing Tips: Said-Bookisms, the Obscure Sin that Can Doom a Manuscript | D.B. Jackson


----------



## TheYellowMustang (May 24, 2013)

THANK YOU! That article was very helpful. Sorry for being such a fish, it's just that I did the classic mistake of "write first, learnt he rules after"..

This paragraph cleared everything up for me:

"..... we lose nothing by removing the said-bookisms and, I would argue, actually gain clarity and emotional power.  One might think that using “said” and “asked” all the time, instead of mixing in synonyms (“explained,” “demanded,” etc.) would make the passage too repetitive.  But actually what happens is that the “saids” and “askeds” become practically invisible, allowing the reader to focus on the more important matters of action, emotion, context, plot, character, etc."


----------



## movieman (May 24, 2013)

TheYellowMustang said:


> Haha, yes, I often catch myself and others suddenly describing voices like the people talking are animals. I think I've even read "she barked".



Some of my SF characters are human-animal hybrids, so that's quite reasonable .

I've been going through an old novel I wrote about 2005/2006 to revise it to self-publish, and these kind of things are one of the biggest problems I've been fixing. Most of them are either superfluous ("Can I ask a question?" he asked) or easily rearranged (He grinned. "Hi there."). I've also been removing a lot of 'saids' because, as mentioned above, the character speaking is often obvious without any specific indication.

At least I'm glad to see my writing has improved over those years.


----------



## Rustgold (May 25, 2013)

The question is, is there actually anything gained in your writing by using these terms?



> "As if you'll manage that," she snickered.


I can see this working; depending on context.



> "Hello!" she grinned.
> "Pleasure to meet you," she smiled and nodded.


These tend to sound more marginal.  Particularly with smile & nodded, I wonder whether it's incomplete; is there something else going on to be mentioned in the next line?  Maybe first person and the featured character reacts to her 'smile & nod' by thinking something specific about the character?
But it all depends on context.  If there's an actual point in the use of these words, then fine; otherwise no.


Finally, anybody can showcase horrible examples regardless of which prospective is used.  There's horrible examples of overly expressive dialogue tags, horrible examples of just using said, and horrible examples of nothing at all.  The only question is, does it add something of value to your piece.  Anything else is pointless.


----------



## relarrison1964 (Dec 18, 2015)

Okay. I am not a published author and probably the last to give writing advice but  (you knew that was coming right?) it seems if I read "Hello." He grinned. I seem him saying hello with a grin on his face. I see the grin as his action not as how he's actually communicating. So if it's just physically impossible doesn't seem like the best reason. If it disrupts the story flow or moves focus where you don't want it, that would be reason not to do it.


----------



## dale (Dec 18, 2015)

well...this is a blast from the past.


----------



## popsprocket (Dec 18, 2015)

relarrison1964 said:


> Okay. I am not a published author and probably the last to give writing advice but  (you knew that was coming right?) it seems if I read "Hello." He grinned. I seem him saying hello with a grin on his face. I see the grin as his action not as how he's actually communicating. So if it's just physically impossible doesn't seem like the best reason. If it disrupts the story flow or moves focus where you don't want it, that would be reason not to do it.



I agree with this. I don't read 'he snickered' as someone snickering as they speak, more like they speak and then snicker. 

While I would caution you against using these terms too frequently (because it looks like you're trying to hard to avoid using the word 'said' which is perfectly adequate in a lot of cases), I don't actually have a problem with them when they do occur.


----------



## Jeko (Dec 18, 2015)

> I did the classic mistake of "write first, learnt he rules after"



That's not a mistake. You only learn 'the rules' once you start writing. Keep going and you learn they're just tools/conventions to adhere to or subvert as you wish.

'He grinned' is a fine way of expressing imagery and tone in one word as long as it works with the pacing of the prose.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Dec 18, 2015)

relarrison1964 said:


> Okay. I am not a published author and probably the last to give writing advice but  (you knew that was coming right?) it seems if I read "Hello." He grinned. I seem him saying hello with a grin on his face. I see the grin as his action not as how he's actually communicating. So if it's just physically impossible doesn't seem like the best reason. If it disrupts the story flow or moves focus where you don't want it, that would be reason not to do it.



I find the same thing -- words that aren't perfect, but they still do a job. But in the original example, perhaps use implicit dialogue tags for the last three.

He scowled. "I hate you." 
She grinned. "Hello!"
"Pleasure to meet you." She smiled and nodded.


----------



## TheWonderingNovice (Dec 18, 2015)

TheYellowMustang said:


> I frequently come across stories where writers use this trick:
> 
> "As if you'll manage that," she snickered.
> "I hate you," he scowled.
> ...



Im sure that there is more to the conversation, but it is a bit confusing. I cant tell if the girl is introducing herself to the male character or if she is turning away from the conversation to introduce herself to someone else, like when a employee turns to talk to a customer. If it is the second one, _I_ think it should be indicated. I think you can also combine the last two tags.

"Hello," she said with a grin. "Pleasure to meet you."

But that's just me. 

I try to avoid 'said' as much as I can but sometimes it comes up and that is perfectly fine. I was taught to avoid using 'said' but it should be up to you to decide.


----------



## bookmasta (Dec 19, 2015)

TheYellowMustang said:


> I frequently come across stories where writers use this trick:
> 
> "As if you'll manage that," she snickered.
> "I hate you," he scowled.
> ...




This is perfectly normal with dialogue tags. It's simply substituting said with another verb in place. I use it all the time myself.


----------



## Bishop (Dec 20, 2015)

Generally, unless it's a direct dialogue tag, I use a period.

"Hey," he said.
vs
"Hey." He smiled wide.

That's my method, and I feel it's very readable. But I wouldn't be put off by aforementioned methods. As long as it never became grating through repetition or by stretching the concept to an extreme.


----------



## Sam (Dec 20, 2015)

"Hi there," he said*, *with a grin. 

Otherwise, you're saying that he said "with a grin" as well as "hi there". 

There's always a comma before that 'with', whether it's "with a grin", "with a smile", or or any other 'with' you can think of.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Dec 20, 2015)

I am a believer in using the simplest tags possible.
Say, Tell, Ask, Answer.  Get funky and throw in a reply from time to time.  
I agree that you cannot grin dialogue.  Or weep or cry dialogue.  
I also like breaking up dialogue into small parts instead of putting extra info into the tags.  
[h=2]"Hi, there," he said with a grin
vs.
"Hi, there,"  Bill said.  He grinned when he saw Mary's reaction to his appearance.  "It's been a long time."  

Or
[/h][h=2]"Hi, there."   Bill grinned when he saw Mary's reaction to his appearance.  "It's been a long time."  

Also cool is to skip the dialogue tag whenever it is obvious who is talking.  

One of the easiest ways to stand out from the crowd is to get the dialogue smooth.  All the extra attributes just throw a wrench into the works.
Some writers never use anything other than 'Said.'  Robert B. Parker comes to mind.  
It begs the question, if some writers can get everything across with just said, isn't all that other stuff just useless, extra fluff?  
Sometimes?
Often?
Always?  

David Gordon Burke[/h]


----------



## Jeko (Dec 20, 2015)

> I agree that you cannot grin dialogue. Or weep or cry dialogue.



It's just an act of metaphor - it's not literally possible, but it communicates the meaning specifically and succinctly. 

In your reply you suggest you could 'throw in a reply from time to time'. But you can't literally 'throw' a word - it's a signifier, a line of symbols, not something you can toss. But we get your meaning immediately - in fact, we get it more vividly than if you were strict and said things like 'insert', 'choose to use'.

Likewise with 'grinned' as a dialogue tag. They don't actually grin their words, but we get the impression we're supposed to get immediately and enjoyably.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Dec 20, 2015)

Cadence said:


> but it communicates the meaning specifically and succinctly.



That is much in the eye of the beholder.  If getting the meaning is the only goal, then by all means, go hog wild.  But I'd think that presenting something enjoyable to read would be a higher goal.  Or just avoiding the cringe worthy.  
The point isn't whether it will be or can be understood.  It's that tons of really dull, lying there on the page doing / meaning nothing prose is full of that kind of vocabulary.  
While I'm not one to often follow trends and have a preference for much older, classic styles of writing, I must say that the current philosophy of staying away from those kinds of dialogue tags is a great improvement in readability.  IMHO those dialogue tags are the gateway drug to all kinds of other faux pas like adverbs and long bits of action built into the dialogue tag.  Say, tell, ask, answer, reply.  Keep it simple.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Arrakis (Dec 20, 2015)

TheYellowMustang said:


> I frequently come across stories where writers use this trick:
> 
> *"As if you'll manage that," she snickered.
> "I hate you," he scowled.
> ...



Though not grammatically correct, these lines nevertheless succeed in conveying the speaker's mood and tone of voice. In that sense, these lines are perfectly fine. Although, the context _surrounding_ lines like these can potentially cause confusion--so it's best to be careful.

It's exactly like someone writing, "Leave. Me. Alone," or "Did you. Just. Insult me?" Again, though not grammatically correct, the periods between each word or phrase convey a deliberate pause, giving the overall dialogue power. In fiction writing, mine advice is not to be too anal-retentive about following the "rules". Rather, you want to _bend_ the "rules"--and in some cases, break them.

As I read once in an Inspector Lynley novel: "Never mistake flexibility for weakness".


----------



## Jeko (Dec 21, 2015)

> If getting the meaning is the only goal, then by all means, go hog wild. But I'd think that presenting something enjoyable to read would be a higher goal.



What you enjoy from reading is based on the meanings you get from the signifiers on the page. I have no idea how you're separating the two.

And I like how you think 'getting something enjoyable to read' is less 'in the eye of the beholder' than the transmission of meaning, which language by its nature aims to minimise down to the most objective and clear communications of semantics. 



> It's that tons of really dull, lying there on the page doing / meaning nothing prose is full of that kind of vocabulary... those dialogue tags are the gateway drug to all kinds of other faux pas like adverbs and long bits of action built into the dialogue tag



No-one cares about that when they read your work. They care about what you're communicating in the moment they are reading it. Tonnes of writers are using mechanics like these inefficiently but many are using them to great effect. We shouldn't discourage people from approaching tools of language and storytelling because of how many people are screwing-up their usage. That's lexical scaremongering, and pathetic. We should encourage people in how to use them effectively in order to improve their usage on the whole. Else we're being dumb cowards and failing as guardians of the language we're supposed to love.

If the 'general philosophy' agrees with you, I'm happy I don't follow it. Whatever most writers agree on as iron prejudices probably accounts for why most of them never get published. The writer must approach language for themselves, discover what works and what doesn't for them through practice, and not simply accept these rough and often terrible definitions of what constitutes appropriate usage that often come from people who don't 'enjoy' reading these variations on communication because they are obsessed with the signifier and not the signified, and are thus failing as readers in the first place, as you are in this case.

Your approach to creativity is boring, and hypocritical. You advocate metaphorical dialogue tags as a 'gateway drug' for other writers, but do so with metaphor yourself. You're like a parent smoking a cigarette, telling your child that they mustn't smoke it themselves. Or a better parallel, since adverbs and metaphors don't clog up your lungs: you're like a bully hogging the Playstation telling his little brother he can't play it because "he'll break it".

Terrible advice.


----------



## joshybo (Dec 21, 2015)

I agree with much of Cadence's previous comment.  While I am definitely a stickler for grammar, there's a lot of conventional writing "rules" that just feel needlessly pedantic.  I get it--Stephen King has an inordinate hatred of adverbs, and so must we all.  Well, I actually like adverbs and while I try to avoid using them in every sentence, I don't sit down to write and think, "Okay.  I've got a story to tell, but first, let me pick out all of the adverbs."  I have a tendency to overuse dialogue tags, sure, but I don't tell myself to just avoid them straight out and I definitely don't like reading "said" at the end of each piece of dialogue.  As I'm writing, I try to listen to the rhythm and tone of what I'm saying and let the story grow from there.  That doesn't mean I don't proofread and clean up any errors that I find, but it does mean that I don't obsessively filter my writing through some sieve of convention.  If I feel like my story says what it's supposed to say, how it's supposed to say it, then I'd say that I'm off to a good start.  Please note, this is _not_ my way of saying, "Oh, just write for yourself.  Who cares what anybody else thinks?"  I care greatly what other people will think of my writing as a whole (I mean, that is kind of the entire point, isn't it?), but I also realize the importance of maintaining my own voice and style in my stories.  Perhaps I'm not conveying my point well, but I've just seen far too many lists of things to avoid when writing and I feel like setting up so many restrictions before one even begins telling their story is a detriment to the craft altogether.


----------

