# Is Harry Potter Literature?



## Truth-Teller

Harry Potter is _not _literature.

Stop daydreaming, folks. [-o<


----------



## valeca

According to the definition of literature, it is.

Whether or not you like it is a different matter entirely.


----------



## Raging_Hopeful

My daydreams are usually composed of your dismemberment TT. :-D But I mean that in the sweetest way possible... kinda.


----------



## JoannaMac

I think what you want to say is that Harry Potter doesn't qualify as good literature, and that people should stop making such a big hoo ha about it because it's completely unworthy. How's that?


----------



## ClancyBoy

Do we really need _another_ Harry Potter thread?


----------



## meldy

ClancyBoy said:


> Do we really need _another_ Harry Potter thread?


 

LOL.  Funny.....and sadly probably true.

I have read the HP books and I never viewed them as literature.


----------



## Mira

> I have read the HP books and I never viewed them as literature.


Uhm, then I'm really confused about the definition of the word literature... I mean, it is a book, that follows a story line. How is it not literature?


----------



## meldy

I think I still associate the word "literature" with "classic literature".

Its a bit of a vague definition really.

By that definition Dr.Suess is literature.......comic books are literature.


----------



## Mira

Well, I personally think that anything you can read is literature. Well, anything that comes in book-form really. I mean, not labels on food. But books, comics, maybe even magazines....


----------



## JoannaMac

ClancyBoy said:


> Do we really need _another_ Harry Potter thread?



Good point. That's it, I refuse to post on any more threads concerning Harry Potter.


----------



## raven hope

ClancyBoy said:


> Do we really need _another_ Harry Potter thread?


Yeah.

It's time to move on to other better literatures.


----------



## Mike C

valeca said:


> According to the definition of literature, it is.
> 
> Whether or not you like it is a different matter entirely.



Depends on your definition. I prefer this one:

_Written works of fiction and nonfiction in which compositional excellence and advancement in the art of writing are higher priorities than are considerations of profit or commercial appeal._

Although take that to its logical conclusion and one would have to assume that success of the writer is in inverse proportion to the excellence of the writing; and from there, that the less publishable a book is, the more literate it must therefore be. Some truth in the first half...


----------



## Dawnstorm

Mike C said:


> Depends on your definition. I prefer this one:
> 
> _Written works of fiction and nonfiction in which compositional excellence and advancement in the art of writing are higher priorities than are considerations of profit or commercial appeal._
> 
> Although take that to its logical conclusion and one would have to assume that success of the writer is in inverse proportion to the excellence of the writing; and from there, that the less publishable a book is, the more literate it must therefore be. Some truth in the first half...



I don't much like this definition, as it's quite hard to apply.

First, who gets their word in? Is this about author's intention? Publisher's intention? Reader's perception?

Take the Potter-books. I doubt Rowling puts marketability over what she considers important. I also doubt she's out to advance the art of writing or to achieve compositional excellence (although she does appear to be willing to learn; the first chapter of book 7 is a well written as the next-to last is atrocious - statement of taste involved). From both books and interview I'd argue that the priority, for Rowling, is story telling.

She's not making Bloom's Canon and I can see why not (though he's overshooting his mark and  missing the point, I feel).

Will Harry Potter still be around in, say, sixty years? Ask me again in sixty years.


----------



## galt

If it isn't, I want nothing to do with literature.



Harry Potter is the greatest book ever written.


----------



## Hodge

Mike C said:


> Depends on your definition. I prefer this one:
> 
> _Written works of fiction and nonfiction in which compositional excellence and advancement in the art of writing are higher priorities than are considerations of profit or commercial appeal._
> 
> Although take that to its logical conclusion and one would have to assume that success of the writer is in inverse proportion to the excellence of the writing; and from there, that the less publishable a book is, the more literate it must therefore be. Some truth in the first half...



This must mean Shakespeare isn't literature. Or a lot of the classics, really.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Maybe Shakespeare became literature when it got unpopular with the masses.


----------



## mandax

It is literature.  Just because people hate it and think it's poorly written and over-praised doesn't mean it's not literature, whether you think it's bad literature or not.  It's obviously made an impact, anyway.  Look at all of the threads about it, for Christ's sake!  So much arguing over nothing.  It is what it is, and everyone needs to just accept that.


----------



## raven hope

I think we might as well forget about the Harry Potter arguement - I mean, 1 month had passed since the book was released to the public, and by now the arguement is pointless. If you think it's good, then it will be good; if you think is bad, then it will be bad.


----------



## Mike C

Dawnstorm said:


> I doubt Rowling puts marketability over what she considers important.




I guess the point is moot: After the first book she was in a position where the publisher would have printed her shopping list, and kids would have bought it. It may be that she considers marketability important; it may also be that she believes she's writing for the sake of the story, and marketing isn't what she's about. Either way, she's made a lot of money, made a lot of money for others, injected money into the publishing industry and got a lot of kids (and adults) reading who might not have ever done so otherwise. Effectively, she's created extra paying customers for the rest of us and made it possible for her publishers to take more risks on new writers.

Whichever way you look at it, and however you want to classify what Rowling does, her books have done a lot of good. If you don't like them, don't read them.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Mike C said:


> I guess the point is moot: After the first book she was in a position where the publisher would have printed her shopping list, and kids would have bought it. It may be that she considers marketability important; it may also be that she believes she's writing for the sake of the story, and marketing isn't what she's about. Either way, she's made a lot of money, made a lot of money for others, injected money into the publishing industry and got a lot of kids (and adults) reading who might not have ever done so otherwise. Effectively, she's created extra paying customers for the rest of us and made it possible for her publishers to take more risks on new writers.
> 
> Whichever way you look at it, and however you want to classify what Rowling does, her books have done a lot of good. If you don't like them, don't read them.



Some people say Star Wars ruined movies forever.  Studios look so hard for that summer blockbuster that they pay little attention anymore to movies that might have a more limited appeal (and fewer explosions.)

This despite the fact that it encouraged more people to go to the movies.


----------



## Mike C

ClancyBoy said:


> Some people say Star Wars ruined movies forever.  Studios look so hard for that summer blockbuster that they pay little attention anymore to movies that might have a more limited appeal (and fewer explosions.)
> 
> This despite the fact that it encouraged more people to go to the movies.




Star Wars ruined American movies. We still do some good stuff in Europe.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Mike C said:


> Star Wars ruined American movies. We still do some good stuff in Europe.



Ah, mayhap Harry Potter will only ruin British literature.


----------



## raven hope

Mike C said:


> Whichever way you look at it, and however you want to classify what Rowling does, her books have done a lot of good. *If you don't like them, don't read them*.


Um, you can't force ppl not to read the book even if they don't like it. And I'm not sure that her books have done a lot of good - rumors says that she wrote the book in the way that ppl like it so that more of her books can be sold and yeah, she can earn more $$$. There's even a rumor that she changed the ending of the last book because many fans said that they don't want Harry to die. Whatever it is, it's just rumors.

And Clancy, Harry Potter doesn't really ruin the British Literature - there are stories that are even worse than HP.

Whether you like the book or not, it's just a book - read it and that's it. If it's good, re-read it; if it's bad, forget it.


----------



## Mike C

raven hope said:


> Um, you can't force ppl not to read the book even if they don't like it.



No, but I'm struck by the idiocy of people who read the whole series, and still knock it. I decided half-way through the first chapter of the first book it wasn't for me.

As for rumours... they're just fluff, meaningless. You shouldn't judge a book by the speculations as to the writer's motivation, but by the results.


----------



## Dawnstorm

Mike C said:


> Whichever way you look at it, and however you want to classify what Rowling does, her books have done a lot of good. If you don't like them, don't read them.



'tis so.

(Aside: I read them; I liked them (except quidditch).)


----------



## Gilwing

Is Harry Potter literature?  Yes, of course it is.  My copy of Dark Knight Returns is a 'kind' of literature.  The question is like asking 'Is Harry Potter a book?' or 'Is Harry Potter made from trees?'  

I think what we're trying to address is whether or not it is powerful writing that will be spreading its own truth on through the ages?  Probably not.

Harry Potter is 'the chosen one' in another telling of the Hero of a Thousand Faces and his journey.  He's Luke Skywalker, Peter Parker, and a thousand other heroes you could name.  And there isn't anything wrong with that.  
Just understand that while we often need this hero (whatever he looks like today) we also need to keep him fresh and change the window dressing from time to time.  Thus light-sabers become magic wands  and the force becomes spider senses and Uncle Ben becomes Dumbledore who becomes Obi Wan.  

If you want to know WHY Harry became so popular go and read the "Why is Harry Potter so popular?" thread.  I gave my two cents there along with a lot of others.

I'm mostly interested in what will become the next big thing.  What is the  heart and setting and window dressing and such that will spark the next fire in the minds of people out there as well as the one writing it?  Will it be as big as Harry?  Unlikely.  

Will IT be literature?  Could very well be.


----------



## Edgewise

I am suprised nobody brought this point up...

How many people will be reading Harry Potter in one hundred years?

My guess...

Very few.


----------



## Patrick

raven hope said:


> And Clancy, Harry Potter doesn't really ruin the British Literature - there are stories that are even worse than HP.




Haha, the way you state that is so funny. Of course there are worse books than "Harry Potter"; there are few which are as good. I read a very wide range of "literature" and I am not somebody who thinks that "Harry Potter" is better than any other story. But what I would say is this, people just say the same crap over and over again. Oh it's not classical literature, oh it's not as beautifully written as many of the other top books written by top authors, blah blah buggery bollocking blah.

At the end of the day, all seven books are brilliant for what they are: A totally convincing fantasy where young students learn how to become wizards and witches. The characters are well drawn and so is Hogwarts. I sometimes wonder whether people have an eye for what literature actually is. It's not the words on the page but the images they conjure, pun most definitely intended.


----------



## Patrick

Edgewise said:


> I am suprised nobody brought this point up...
> 
> How many people will be reading Harry Potter in one hundred years?
> 
> My guess...
> 
> Very few.



How many people do you know who still read Shakespeare - outside of education. The point you've just made is the same for any other book and for any writer. Classical literature, I hate to break it to you guys, doesn't get published anymore. The times change.


----------



## Edgewise

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> How many people do you know who still read Shakespeare - outside of education. The point you've just made is the same for any other book and for any writer. Classical literature, I hate to break it to you guys, doesn't get published anymore. The times change.


 

Ummmmmmmm.......Don Quixote?


----------



## SinnPlayer

*"Take the Potter-books. I doubt Rowling puts marketability over what she considers important. I also doubt she's out to advance the art of writing or to achieve compositional excellence (although she does appear to be willing to learn; the first chapter of book 7 is a well written as the next-to last is atrocious - statement of taste involved). From both books and interview I'd argue that the priority, for Rowling, is story telling."*

Basically, I agree with that.  Actually, I was planning on saying that.



Mike C said:


> Star Wars ruined American movies. We still do some good stuff in Europe.


 
That is a complete, false and ignorant generalization and I would be very much mad at you if that sentence wasn't successful at being a rather amusing joke.


----------



## lilacstarflower

Harry Potter will not stand the test of time - fortunately/unfortunately we live in societies that are always looking for "the next big thing"


----------



## Faustling

lilacstarflower said:


> Harry Potter will not stand the test of time - fortunately/unfortunately we live in societies that are always looking for "the next big thing"



While it's possible that you're correct, it's far to early to tell. After all, some popular things _do_ last, otherwise we wouldn't remember folks like Elvis or Beatles or for that matter books like Lord of the Rings or anything by Shakespeare. As much as I dislike clichés, only time will tell.


----------



## lilacstarflower

yeah i agree its probably too early to tell but i just think that today the people who run these businesses are out for the big bucks rather than hyping up true quality - compared with earlier decades like the fifties and such.


----------



## Faustling

lilacstarflower said:


> yeah i agree its probably too early to tell but i just think that today the people who run these businesses are out for the big bucks rather than hyping up true quality - compared with earlier decades like the fifties and such.



You're right, but I don't think that's something new. People running businesses have always been in it to make money, otherwise they wouldn't succeed. I doubt the people paying Shakespeare to write plays did it because they thought he wrote awesome plays, they did it because they knew people were willing to pay money to go to the theater.
Of course, there are some exceptions to this where rich people have spent money on artists without expecting more money in return (they did to increase their reputation) but the last hundred years or so those have been very rare.


----------



## JosephB

> At the end of the day, all seven books are brilliant for what they are: A totally convincing fantasy where young students learn how to become wizards and witches.


Exactly. 

My kids love reading Harry Potter and I enjoy reading it to them. But if you're over 15 or 16 and still obsessing over Harry Potter, that's just weird. They are _children's_ books.

If you are a writer interested in that particular genre and audience, and you want to discuss why the books have been such a spectacular success, then I thinks it's a worthwhile topic. Otherwise, who cares?


----------



## Faustling

JosephB said:


> Exactly.
> 
> My kids love reading Harry Potter and I enjoy reading it to them. But if you're over 15 or 16 and still obsessing over Harry Potter, that's just weird. They are children's books.



I hate being the guy citing history over and over but Harry Potter wouldn't exactly be the first case of something created for kids appealing to all ages? Personally, I'm not that big of a Potter fan (the books are good but not incredible) but I don't find it particularly odd when people over sixteen obsesses with them. It's not like it's the first time people are obsessing over a book series either.


----------



## Linton Robinson

Agree completely.   People get really messed up on stuff like this.

Is Peter Pan a children's book?    Oh, yeah?   Have you read it?  Not the books based on Disney movies, I mean the original book.   With all the psychological stuff about Hook and how he admires/resents Smee from their association at public school?   Etc.

Drawing lines like that just hems in your world.


----------



## Linton Robinson

So does drawing the line of "this is literature and all those books aren't"   or "this is art and all that other painting and sculpture and music isn't".   It's bullshit and doomed to be restrictive and ridiculous.


----------



## Faustling

lin said:


> So does drawing the line of "this is literature and all those books aren't" or "this is art and all that other painting and sculpture and music isn't". It's bullshit and doomed to be restrictive and ridiculous.



Indeed. I actually don't really understand the initial question in this thread, why wouldn't it be literature? To me, everything published is literature, even if it really, really sucks. Also, a year ago I studied Literature Science (is there something like that in English? I might have translated it wrong) and Harry Potter and the Prisoner from Azkaban was one of the books we studied, so according to my university Harry Potter is very much literature.


----------



## Truth-Teller

So we can conclude Eragon is also literature.

Any book that is published is literature.

Thank God.


----------



## JosephB

> I hate being the guy citing history over and over but Harry Potter wouldn't exactly be the first case of something created for kids appealing to all ages?


It does appeal to everyone. My son is 6 and our foster child is 11, and like I said, I enjoy them too. But I'm not obsessed by it, nor would I give it a second thought if I didn't have kids. 

Peter Pan is a great example, and kids may well be reading Harry Potter in a hundred years. 

But arguing over whether or not it's literature is pretty silly. Dickens wrote for periodicals and even changed story lines according to public reaction -- how crass and commercial!


----------



## Faustling

Truth-Teller said:


> So we can conclude Eragon is also literature.
> 
> Any book that is published is literature.
> 
> Thank God.



Well, yeah. Now, if we're talking great literature it's another matter, but we're just talking literature.

But perhaps you have a different defination of the word?


----------



## Linton Robinson

Of course, the definitition of "great" is also slippery.

Literature and art are best described by the old saw,  "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."

BTW:

Here's the type of lines I used to hear around the workplaces a lot:

Did we print up the literature for that ice ax yet?

Did you get the art for the GoreTex brochure?


----------



## Wallmaker

It's just hard to take my anger out on Harry Potter or Eragon all the time. 

But can't we do a book hate of the month club?  We can all read something by Grisham next month, and then a Clancy, or a Ludlum and find new things to complain about...

::interlocks fingers::
 together.

::gets choked up::
It'll be beautiful.


----------



## lilacstarflower

I'm up for Grisham bashing :thumbl: 

I agree with what was said above also - adults reading kids fiction is good reference material if you are aiming for that market. I often browse amazon for cheap kids best-sellers for pointers. They may be rubbish in some peoples opinions but the authors are obviously doing something right to get published...and once i figure out their formulas i will be too 

*Wa- Ha- Haa* :-$


----------



## Peejaydee

Truth-Teller said:


> Harry Potter is _not _literature.
> 
> Stop daydreaming, folks. [-o<


 
Sorry, disagree.  HP is as much literature as any other work, from Charles Dickens to Tom Clancy.  To deny that it is, is a form of literary snobbery that would force you to be able to then define what you believe literature to be - something that the majority of people on this forum would then proceed to vehemently disagree with.

Let's face it, there are plenty of the so-called 'literary classics' that are absolute tosh (in my opinion - and that's what it boils down to: opinion).


----------



## dwellerofthedeep

JosephB said:


> But if you're over 15 or 16 and still obsessing over Harry Potter, that's just weird. They are _children's_ books.


 
I've seen people obsess about it far too much over time, and I do mean people over 15 or 16. That strikes me as silly. I'm not sure how wierd it is though, at least among young adults.  I went through a stage where I hated Harry Potter but I got back into in book 6 and 7 enough to forgive some of it's flaws.  Harry Potter's setting, however, is something I'm uncomfortable giving praise.  It just isn't consistent enough to merit the praise it has gotten.  I praising the way the setting is delivered would be better than praising the setting itself.


----------



## Mike C

Peejaydee said:


> HP is as much literature as any other work, from Charles Dickens to Tom Clancy.  To deny that it is, is a form of literary snobbery...



I tend to agree. Anything populist tends to get written off as inferior, and writers (or more to the point wannabe writers) are usually the loudest critics. Dan Brown and JK Rowling are two good examples. I've not read anything of either, so I'm not judging the writing, but millions of people enjoyed both enough to make them seriously rich people - something most writers would give a kidney for. Had they both only sold a handful of copies, it probably would have been cool to like them.


----------



## strangedaze

Harry Potter is literature. Agree with previous few statement.


----------



## Linton Robinson

If it isn't,  who draws the line?    

Is it a better book than Black Beauty?  Robin Hood?   Frankenstein?    Lord of the Flies?  I'd say so.  If they are literature, why not this.

I don't understand Rowling baiting.  She did a great job of a wonderful idea and blew kids minds off the Gameboys and into the libraries.

It might fit into a special category of "Hyperliterature", books that actually increase the reach and power of reading.   Kind of like Elvis and the Beatles are actually responsible for selling more classical records than any long-haired symphony guy.


----------



## ClancyBoy

lin said:


> It might fit into a special category of "Hyperliterature", books that actually increase the reach and power of reading.   Kind of like Elvis and the Beatles are actually responsible for selling more classical records than any long-haired symphony guy.



I've been thinking about this.

I think the popularity of Harry Potter has more to do with the culture of the kids who read it than it does with any virtue of the book itself.

Kids and younger adults today seem to have no problem being "joiners."  In fact, they seem to prefer it.  That is to say, they won't eschew something just because it's popular.

People my age, however, (gen-Xer's) naturally avoid identifying with very large groups or audiences.  Anything that is extremely popular automatically makes me uncomfortable because it seems "culty," and seems to represent a loss of individuality.  I'm realizing that's just a personal bias though.

I believe the Harry Potter phenomenon could have happened with just about any book.  Ms. Rowling just happened to come along at just the right time to take advantage of a rising youth culture that is by nature extremely homogeneous.  Not that I'm criticizing that.


----------



## Linton Robinson

I dunno, they are pretty neat books.

You could say the same for the Rolling Stones or anybody I guess.

I tend to the think the talent makes the times rather than vice versa.


----------



## Shawn

I've never been impressed with Rowling's writing. Rather, it was the themes that she put into her books that got me. I think she touched something on a fundamental thematic level that is much, much deeper than any contemporary piece that I've read.

I think it's kind of funny that some people blast Rowling for writing a "popular" book, when the main theme in all seven books is doing what one thinks is right, rather than what is easy. And especially in the last book, when she touched on the subject of sacrifice and the frustration of not knowing how to make it to point B, I think she touched a lot of people right in the heart. Especially those who have been in a position to feel love so deep that one's own life pales in comparison, or have been in a tough spot living from paycheck to paycheck. Or, even worse, no paycheck at all.

Then again, her own experience is probably why she captured that emotion so perfectly.


----------



## Dr. Malone

> Especially those who have been in a position to feel love so deep that one's own life pales in comparison, or have been in a tough spot living from paycheck to paycheck. Or, even worse, no paycheck at all.



You never should have told anyone you are still in high school.  It devalues statements like these when you make them.


----------



## Shawn

Malone said:


> You never should have told anyone you are still in high school.  It devalues statements like these when you make them.



It's on other people to take value in what I say, not me.


----------



## mythologicalrealities

...


----------



## Eli Cash

mythologicalrealities said:


> Any book that uses the word 'said' as much as Harry Potter does, is not literature.


 
Couldn't disagree more. "Said" is often the best word to use in dialogue tags. Writers who use other words come off as trying to communicate too much in an inappropriate place or grandstanding for the sake of it.


----------



## mythologicalrealities

...


----------



## Mike C

mythologicalrealities said:


> Any book that uses the word 'said' as much as Harry Potter does, is not literature.



Well, that establishes your credentials as a complete and utter fucking idiot...


----------



## Mike C

mythologicalrealities said:


> No, I can't think of anything I dislike more than 400 pages of characters 'saying' things.




And that confirmed it.

Just in case I was imagining things, I checked out my bookshelves. They're all the same. Hemingway, McEwan, Austen, Trollope, Hardy... Page after bloody page of characters saying things. 

Actually, I'm impressed, mythologicalrealities - or can I call you myth? Many writers struggle for many years to convey ideas and concepts concisely. You've managed to convey, in just two sentences, the sheer depth and scale of your immense ignorance in a way that few others could. 

Well done. You should be proud.


----------



## ClancyBoy

mythologicalrealities said:


> Any book that uses the word 'said' as much as Harry Potter does, is not literature.



Stay away from Faulkner then.  Actually, stay away from books.


----------



## mythologicalrealities

....


----------



## mythologicalrealities

> Just in case I was imagining things, I checked out my bookshelves. They're all the same. Hemingway, McEwan, Austen, Trollope, Hardy... Page after bloody page of characters saying things.


 
These authors never _once_ say _anything_ besides said?

I find that very hard to believe.


----------



## Faustling

I'm sure there's the occasional "shouted" and similar. Although I haven't read all of them (or all of their works) what I remember seems to agree with Clancy and Mike.


----------



## ClancyBoy

mythologicalrealities said:


> In my mind 'said' is a 'sometimes word'.
> (and it's ok if there's something after it, like "I'm tired," said Billy, yawning.)



I'm gonna have to agree with Mike, though I'll try to do so in a less confrontational way 

Varying your dialogue tags the way you've described and sprinkling them with unnecessary adverbs is typically a feature of:
1) Fanfiction.
2) Young Adult fiction
3) Amateur fiction
4) 50's Noir

The writers who are considered great never ever do this.   If you write well, your readers will know how you intend something to sound without you telling them.

To illustrate, here's a dialogue excerpt from _To Kill a Mockingbird_:



> “Do all lawyers defend n-Negroes, Atticus?”
> 
> “Of course they do, Scout.”
> 
> “Then why did Cecil say you defended niggers? He made it
> sound like you were runnin’ a still.”
> 
> Atticus sighed. “I’m simply defending a Negro – his name’s Tom
> Robinson. He lives in that little settlement beyond the town
> dump. He’s a member of Calpurnia’s church, and Cal knows his
> family well. She says they’re clean-living folks. Scout,
> you aren’t old enough to understand yet, but there’s been
> to the effect that I some things shouldn’t do much about
> some high talk around town defending this man. It’s a peculiar
> case – it won’t come to trial until summer session. John
> Taylor was kind enough to give us a postponement…”
> 
> “If you shouldn’t be defendin’ him, then why are you doin’ it?”
> 
> “For a number of reasons,” *said* Atticus. “The main one is, if I
> didn’t I couldn’t hold my head up in town, I couldn’t represent
> this county in the legislature, I couldn’t even tell you or
> Jem not to do something again.”
> 
> “You mean if you didn’t defend that man, Jem and me wouldn’t
> have to mind you anymore?”
> 
> “That’s about right.”
> 
> “Why?”
> 
> “Because I could never ask you to mind me again. Scout, simply
> by the nature of the work, every lawyer gets at least one
> case in his lifetimethat affects him personally. This one’s
> mine, I guess. You might hear some ugly talk about it at
> school, but do one thing for me if you will: you just hold
> your head high and keep those fists down. No matter what
> anybody says to you, don’t let ‘em get your goat. Try
> fighting with your head for a change…it’s a good one,
> even if it does resist learning.”


As you can see, there is only one dialogue tag in the whole conversation, and it's "said."  The rest of the time they aren't needed.  Also note the lack of adverbs.

Now look at Faulkner.  This is from _The Sound and the Fury_:




> "It's too cold out there." Versh *said*. "You dont want to go out doors."
> 
> "What is it now." Mother *said*.
> 
> "He want to go out doors." Versh* said*.
> 
> "Let him go." Uncle Maury *said*.
> 
> "It's too cold." Mother *said*. "He'd better stay in. Benjamin. Stop that, now."
> 
> "It wont hurt him." Uncle Maury *said*.
> 
> "You, Benjamin." Mother *said*. "If you don't be good, you'll have to go to the kitchen."
> 
> "Mammy say keep him out the kitchen today." Versh *said*. "She say she got all that cooking to get done."
> 
> "Let him go, Caroline." Uncle Maury *said*. "You'll worry yourself sick over him."
> 
> "I know it." Mother *said*. "It's a judgment on me. I sometimes wonder."
> 
> "I know, I know." Uncle Maury *said*. "You must keep your strength up. I'll make you a toddy."
> 
> "It just upsets me that much more." Mother *said*. "Dont you know it does."
> 
> "You'll feel better." Uncle Maury *said*. "Wrap him up good, boy, and take him out for a while."
> 
> Uncle Maury went away. Versh went away.
> 
> "Please hush." Mother *said*. "We're trying to get you out as fast as we can. I dont want you to get sick."
> 
> Versh put my overshoes and overcoat on and we took my cap and went out. Uncle Maury was putting the bottle away in the sideboard in the diningroom.
> 
> "Keep him out about half an hour, boy." Uncle Maury *said*. "Keep him in the yard, now."
> 
> "Yes, sir." Versh *said*. "We dont never let him get off the place."
> 
> We went out doors. The sun was cold and bright.


Enough *said*.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Actually, know what?  I looked up some 50's noir to provide some counterexamples and boy was I surprised what I found.

Here's _Vengeance is Mine_ by Mike Hammer:



> [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif]          I palmed that short nosed .32 and laid it across his cheek with a crack that split the flesh open. He rocked back into his chair with his mouth hanging, drooling blood and saliva over his chin. I sat there smiling, but nothing was funny.
> 
> I *said*, "Rainey, you've forgotten something. You've forgotten that I'm not a guy that takes any crap. Not from anybody. You've forgotten I've been in business because I stayed alive longer than some guys who didn't want me that way. You've forgotten that I've had some punks tougher than you'll ever be on the end of a gun and I pulled the trigger just to watch their expressions change."
> 
> He was scared, but he tried to bluff it out anyway. He *said*, "Why don'tcha try it now, Hammer? Maybe it's different when ya don't have a license to use a rod. Go ahead, why don'tcha try it?"
> 
> He started to laugh at me when I pulled the trigger of the .32 and shot him in the thigh. He *said*, "My God!" under his breath and grabbed his leg. I raised the muzzle of the gun until he was looking right into the little round hole that was his ticket to hell.
> 
> "Dare me some more, Rainey."[/FONT]


----------



## Truth-Teller

Not as bad as Faulkner's.

In fact, I prefer Mike Hammer's story over the boring Mocking Bird.


----------



## Truth-Teller

Btw, Clancyboy, you were actually agreeing with Myth, not Mike.

Rofl.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Truth-Teller said:


> Btw, Clancyboy, you were actually agreeing with Myth, not Mike.
> 
> Rofl.



Uh no I wasn't.


----------



## Mike C

Mockingbird's a great example of how you can use dialogue with 'said' or nothing. You never lose track of who's speaking. Great novel, too.

The Myth-alternative could have read something like:



> “Do all lawyers defend n-Negroes, Atticus?” Scout queried.
> 
> “Of course they do, Scout.” replied Atticus.
> 
> “Then why did Cecil say you defended niggers? He made it
> sound like you were runnin’ a still.” interrupted Scout.
> 
> Atticus sighed. “I’m simply defending a Negro – his name’s Tom
> Robinson. He lives in that little settlement beyond the town
> dump. He’s a member of Calpurnia’s church, and Cal knows his
> family well. She says they’re clean-living folks. Scout,
> you aren’t old enough to understand yet, but there’s been
> to the effect that I some things shouldn’t do much about
> some high talk around town defending this man. It’s a peculiar
> case – it won’t come to trial until summer session. John
> Taylor was kind enough to give us a postponement…” Atticus explained wearily.
> 
> “If you shouldn’t be defendin’ him, then why are you doin’ it?” demanded scout.
> 
> “For a number of reasons, the main one is, if I
> didn’t I couldn’t hold my head up in town, I couldn’t represent
> this county in the legislature, I couldn’t even tell you or
> Jem not to do something again.” reassured Atticus.
> 
> “You mean if you didn’t defend that man, Jem and me wouldn’t
> have to mind you anymore?” asked scout confusedly
> 
> “That’s about right.” agreed atticus.
> 
> “Why?” demanded scout petulantly.
> 
> “Because I could never ask you to mind me again. Scout, simply
> by the nature of the work, every lawyer gets at least one
> case in his lifetimethat affects him personally. This one’s
> mine, I guess. You might hear some ugly talk about it at
> school, but do one thing for me if you will: you just hold
> your head high and keep those fists down. No matter what
> anybody says to you, don’t let ‘em get your goat. Try
> fighting with your head for a change…it’s a good one,
> even if it does resist learning.” etc.



Horrible, isn't it? I feel like I've just committed a blasphemous act. I feel dirty.


----------



## Damian_Rucci

Shawn said:


> I've never been impressed with Rowling's writing. Rather, it was the themes that she put into her books that got me. I think she touched something on a fundamental thematic level that is much, much deeper than any contemporary piece that I've read.
> 
> I think it's kind of funny that some people blast Rowling for writing a "popular" book, when the main theme in all seven books is doing what one thinks is right, rather than what is easy. And especially in the last book, when she touched on the subject of sacrifice and the frustration of not knowing how to make it to point B, I think she touched a lot of people right in the heart. Especially those who have been in a position to feel love so deep that one's own life pales in comparison, or have been in a tough spot living from paycheck to paycheck. Or, even worse, no paycheck at all.
> 
> Then again, her own experience is probably why she captured that emotion so perfectly.


Exactly, the 7th book was really deep about sacrifice and Harry's feelings about it. 


Mike C said:


> Well, that establishes your credentials as a complete and utter fucking idiot...


:cheers: lmao


----------



## Truth-Teller

ClancyBoy said:


> Uh no I wasn't.


 
Yes, you were. Do you know how to read or are you blind?



mythologicalrealities said:


> Probably. I'm talented in that regard.
> Just to clarify:
> 
> I only mind if the author uses _*no variation*_ and characters JUST say things.
> 
> In my mind 'said' is a _*'sometimes word'*._
> 
> (and it's ok if there's something after it, like "I'm tired," said Billy, yawning.)


 


Mike C said:


> Mockingbird's a great example of how you can use dialogue with 'said' or nothing. You never lose track of who's speaking. Great novel, too.


 
When there is three or more people talking, then "said" begans to creep in--otherwise, you don't know who's talking to whom. Oh, I've tried it myself; it was one of my dirty sin... truly horrible. 

Again, I prefer variation--the speakers action--as well as the dialogue. If you need examples, I will provide you illustrations from any Stephen King novel.

(Stephen King writes better than Harper Lee, you should know)


----------



## Truth-Teller

I don't have a problem with active verbs, such as: muttered, shout, plead, beg, moan, wail. If you just write _said_, _said_, _said_, imagine how boring it would get. What I have a problem with are the dangling modifiers--the dreaded adverbs. Please read the holy text, Stephen King's On Writing, and learn from him.


----------



## A-L

Harry potter has got my vote as literature, but maybe it is because i love the series so much. Oh and Stephen King is a really good author, though his books tend to be a little wordy and drag, drag, drag, but once you get past, or adapt to it they are really great novels.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Truth-Teller said:


> Yes, you were. Do you know how to read or are you blind?



In Lee, Faulkner and Hammer there is no variation [in dialogue tagging] and characters "just say things."  That makes Myth unhappy.

Hope this helps.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Mike C said:


> Horrible, isn't it? I feel like I've just committed a blasphemous act. I feel dirty.



You've made the rest of us feel dirty too.


----------



## Truth-Teller

ClancyBoy said:


> In Lee, Faulkner and Hammer there is no variation [in dialogue tagging] and characters "just say things." That makes Myth unhappy.
> 
> Hope this helps.


 
Well, I guess I agree with Myth then.

****. Ain't that a b*tch?


----------



## Truth-Teller

I think we're all on the same page, though.

Dialogue should not just be he said, she said, but have a wide range of variety--but not so wide it begans to fall into overexaggeration, such as: "he grated," "she jerked out," or "he said abjectedly," "she said contemptiously," "he replied, exaggerating the words." Keep dialogue simple, colorful, and we should know who is talking to whom, especially when there are three party conversations or more. 

Try to avoid adverbs as realisticaly as possible. Also, the active verbs need to suit the content of the speech:

For example, 

"Give it back," he pleaded, "It's mine!"

Not, 

"Give it back," he proclaimed, "It's mine!"


"Fuck you!" she screamed.

Not,

"Fuck you!" she declared.


----------



## Linton Robinson

"Fuck you,"  he commiserated.


----------



## Hodge

"Saids" are pretty much invisible. A reader doesn't really notice a battery of he said/she saids. If your dialogue doesn't convey the emotion or meaning you intend without the use of other vocal verbs, then you aren't doing your job as a writer.


----------



## Truth-Teller

lin said:


> "Fuck you," he commiserated.


 
You failed, sir, you've failed.

Go eat your damn tortilla.


----------



## mythologicalrealities

...


----------



## ClancyBoy

mythologicalrealities said:


> But yeah, I agree. Variation is what we need.



No, it isn't.  I thought I demonstrated that...?

Do you really think _To Kill a Mockingbird_ would be improved by the dialogue tags Mike_C added to them?

Please don't make me call you an impenetrable dumbass in public.  That wouldn't help either of us.


----------



## mythologicalrealities

...


----------



## Hodge

Ah. I think I understand. You like fantasy to use all the different words because if they used "said" most of the time it would look out of place next to all the other shitty, clichéd writing.


----------



## mythologicalrealities

...


----------



## ClancyBoy

I want to go on record saying that I believe it's possible to write fantasy that isn't shitty.
If it works for the classics, it will work in fantasy too.


----------



## ClancyBoy

mythologicalrealities said:


> I read a lot of fantasy, I guess that's where this view comes from. I can't bear to think of someone dying on the battlefield, gasping their last breath and 'saying' to their closest friend that they're actually in love with them. Bad example. Oh well.
> I read action books where characters actually don't 'say' things.



Go back and read the Mike Hammer excerpt again.  Can you honestly say that isn't incredibly dramatic?


----------



## Hodge

ClancyBoy said:


> I want to go on record saying that I believe it's possible to write fantasy that isn't shitty.
> If it works for the classics, it will work in fantasy too.



There's a little bit of good fantasy out there. George R. R. Martin is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, though. And Tolkien, though his dialogue is pretty weak.


----------



## Mike C

mythologicalrealities said:


> Well, no, not in To Kill a Mockingbird.
> 
> But that is a classic.



Oh dear. So it's fine to use dialogue correctly in 'classics', but you can get a way with any old shit in everything else.

I give up.I don't know why we ever discuss this anyway. From now on I'll encourage you and everyone else to make your dialogue tags as flowery and descriptive as possible. It's to my advantage; the less publishable your work is, the better my chances.

Truth-teller, I think if you refer back to your bible (On Writing by King, possibly the best thing he ever wrote, and possibly the best book an aspiring writer can buy) you'll find that his views on dialogue and mine are the same. And... do you ever read _anything_ other than King? 


Clancy, best pull out and let this thread die. There are others that know far better than us present. And Truth-teller, who can't even figure out which side of the discussion you're on!


----------



## Mishki

It's not my intention to argue, but I'm genuinely interested in this issue and I've been puzzling over it for a while, because most of the books I enjoy, including classics, tend to have adverbs and dialogue verbs besides "said."  I looked through a few classics on my shelf, flipped to random pages with dialogue, and found the following:

Eudora Welty almost always uses "said."  But this is in _The Robber Bridegroom_, and anything else would seem totally out of place (as the story is a folk tale with very simple prose).  I don't know about her other novels.

Chinua Achebe uses "said" most of the time, but breaks them up with "vowed," "continued," "concluded," etc.  

Tess of the D'Ubervilles "says touchily," "says impetuously," "asks suddenly," "declares proudly."  She often just plain "says" too.

Mr. and Mrs. K of the second story ("Ylla") in Ray Bradbury's _The Martian Chronicles_, in order: "cry," "murmur," "cry," "reply coldly," "cry," "remember," "reply, lying back," "object," "explain softly," "continue," "call quietly," "state patiently," "snap," "inquire," and "hesitate wildly."  

Joseph Conrad (_Lord Jim_ and _Nostromo_, respectively) uses words that are not "said" (and adverbs!) all the bleeding time.



> "'I had jumped...' He checked himself, averted his gaze.... "It seems," he *added*.
> 
> "His clear blue eyes turned to me with a piteous stare, and looking at him standing before me, dumbfounded and hurt, I was oppressed by a sad sense of resigned wisdom, mingled with the amused and profound pity of an old man helpless before a childish disaster.
> 
> "'Looks like it," I *muttered*.
> 
> "'I knew nothing about it till I looked up,' he *explained hastily*.  And that's possible too.  You had to listen to him as you would to a small boy in trouble.  He didn't know.... He felt as though all his ribs on his left side must be broken; then he rolled over, and saw vaguely the ship he had deserted rising above him, with the red side-light glowing large in the rain like a fire on the brow of a hill seen through a mist.  'She seemed higher than a wall; she loomed like a cliff over the boat... I wished I could die,' he *cried*.  'There was no going back.  It was if I had jumped into a well - into an everlasting deep hole....'"



Earlier in the novel, Marlow "remarks cheerfully" and "says" once, while Jim "says" once, then "directly adds," then "murmurs," then "blazes out"--all on the same page.



> "The young patricians," Decoud *began suddenly* in his precise English, "have indeed been dancing before they started off to the war with Great Pompey."
> 
> Young Scarfe stared, astounded.  "You haven't met before," Mrs. Gould *intervened*.  "Mr. Decoud - Mr. Scarfe."
> 
> "Ah! But we are not going to Pharsalia," *protested* Don Jose, with nervous haste, also in English.  "You should not jest like this, Martin."
> 
> Antonia's breast rose and fell with a deeper breath.  The young engineer was utterly in the dark.  "Guess what?" he *muttered, vaguely*.
> 
> "Luckily, Montero is not a Caesar," Decoud *continued*....



So... I don't know.  It doesn't make sense to me that use of adverbs or dialogue attributors other than "say" make bad writing, because all but one of the classics I picked off my shelf at random had both.    

I like the Victorian/early modern writing style, and it tends to have more adverbs and decorative prose in general, if I remember correctly.  A good portion of my contemporary reading is historical fiction, and the trend in that genre seems to be more of an early modern style than the pared-down approach of most contemporary novels.  

To conclude, I just can't buy that the writers quoted above are _bad writers_.  Is it possible that most writers simply do not know how to use the adverb and dialogue attributor well?  (I tend to think that most fiction writing with badly utilized adverbs is a failed attempt to add cadence.)  Or these rules of writing are based on contemporary preference and style rather than innate qualities of fiction writing?


----------



## ClancyBoy

Mishki said:


> It's not my intention to argue, but I'm genuinely interested in this issue and I've been puzzling over it for a while, because most of the books I enjoy, including classics, tend to have adverbs and dialogue verbs besides "said."



You make a very good point, and I can't argue with your examples.  So let me refine my position 

Not even Faulkner uses said _all_ the time.  When someone asks a question I can't think of anyone (besides me maybe) who wouldn't use "asked."

Still, I think most of the examples you posted (continued, concluded, added, etc.) are still just as neutral as "said" is.  That is to say, they don't have any descriptive quality by themselves.

I guess the point is, and what I think Mike is trying to say, is that the texture of the dialogue should come from the story and from the dialogue itself, not from an adverb or a colorful dialogue tag.  If you have to do that to make the intended meaning understood, you just haven't written it very well.  (That, or you don't trust the reader to understand what it is you mean.)



> Tess of the D'Ubervilles "says touchily," "says impetuously," "asks suddenly," "declares proudly." She often just plain "says" too.


Is Tess of the D'Ubervilles considered good?  Because I can't imagine a universe where "declares proudly" wouldn't just suck the paint right off the side of a house.


----------



## FantasyWitch

Truth-Teller said:


> Harry Potter is _not _literature.
> 
> Stop daydreaming, folks. [-o<


 

Umm... Being honest it is so *stops foot childishly*
if you think of the amount of critisism (god am I spelling that right??) Terry Pratchett recieved for not writing in chapters in most of his books. Critics are evil people.

It has to do with the uppity attitude of being correct ALL THE TIME. I'm sorry but not all novels are politically correct, not all novels are fabulous pieces of art and not all novels are perfectly grammatic or believable. 

It's taste. I couldn't live without Terry Pratchett and David Eddings. I liked Harry Potter, wasn't fabulous but it wasn't terrible. I'd say it was literature.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Mike C said:


> It's to my advantage; the less publishable your work is, the better my chances.



Interesting, that's very similar to my stance on marijuana legalization.

The more stoned everyone else is, etc.


----------



## ClancyBoy

FantasyWitch said:


> Umm... Being honest it is so *stops foot childishly*



*winces heartbrokenly*



> if you think of the amount of critisism (god am I spelling that right??)



No.



> Terry Pratchett recieved for not writing in chapters in most of his books. Critics are evil people.
> 
> It has to do with the uppity attitude of being correct ALL THE TIME. I'm sorry but not all novels are politically correct, not all novels are fabulous pieces of art and not all novels are perfectly grammatic or believable.
> 
> It's taste.



I agree.  Just like there's no such thing as good kung fu and bad kung fu.  It's all up to individual interpretation.  If I fought Jet Li in a cage match and he kicked my ass all up and down the wall that doesn't mean he's better or he studied harder or he trained more or anything.  Getting one's ass kicked is a legitimate kung fu style and should be recognized as such.


----------



## FantasyWitch

ClancyBoy said:


> I agree. Just like there's no such thing as good kung fu and bad kung fu. It's all up to individual interpretation. If I fought Jet Li in a cage match and he kicked my ass all up and down the wall that doesn't mean he's better or he studied harder or he trained more or anything. Getting one's ass kicked is a legitimate kung fu style and should be recognized as such.


 
*pouts*
That wasn't what i meant. I sense some sarcasm.
And i feel like Im annoying people after 4 posts or so \\/ Not what i mean to do but hay!

Writing and kung fu? Thats a stupid comparison really. I don't think after her success you can doubt JK Rowling for studying and trying hard to become a good auhor. You just can't say that. 
That is like saying George Bush is a smart guy because he became president! Doesn't always follow through!


----------



## Faustling

FantasyWitch said:


> if you think of the amount of critisism (god am I spelling that right??) Terry Pratchett recieved for not writing in chapters in most of his books. Critics are evil people.



Wait... what? Critics actually complained about the lack of chapters?

...

That is... stupid beyond words...

I once again use my amazing superpowers to take a thread further off topic. Don't care, so... meh.


----------



## Linton Robinson

> "Saids" are pretty much invisible. A reader doesn't really notice



Pretty much true.  Think of it as the "default".   An exception would be to repetitive a rhythm of them.

And the thing about using other verbs instead,  if they aren't almost as transparent they cause problems.   So stretching to far or clashing with the speech makes things bumpy and contrived.


----------



## czarkastik

I realize this is somewhat OT, but it doesn't seem like anyone minds much so...yeah...

Do you think using words other than "said" really makes a big difference? Personally, I always felt it was a question of the authors style. Just because an author chooses more descriptive language doesn't mean their piece is written poorly.

Plus, I think everyone has their peeves. Maybe some people really do hate when people use other "less conventional" (for lack of a better term) language when writing dialogue. I squirm everytime I read/write the words, "that,," "there," "it," and "this." Still, although we may not personally enjoy the craft of some authors, that doesn't mean they're necesarily poor authors or that their work isn't literature.

Just my opinion, anyway.


----------



## ClancyBoy

I'm sorry.  I just can't buy this theory of artistic relativism.  By God there ARE such things as better and worse.  

Why do people practice?  Why do they study?  Why do they work hard to refine their art over the course of their whole lives?  If every style has equal value and it just comes down to personal taste, then there can be no such thing as improvement.

And if that's true, why would anyone use a forum like this?  Who cares about peer review?  Just squeeze out any bowel movement of a novel you like, slap a cover on it, and publish that mother.

I'll tell you why WF and other writing communities exist.  Because for all the preadolescent whining and the "you can't say this isn't good, what gives you the right to say anything?", at some level people understand that good and bad _do_ in fact exist and they want to _improve_ themselves.

I'll tell you why flowery dialogue tags are bad writing.  They're telling rather than showing.  If you have to _tell _the reader that someone is being impatient, angry, subtle or vague, then you just haven't crafted either your scene or your dialogue well enough.  If you choose your words carefully those modifiers will be completely superfluous.

For example, rather than writing "Jack said angrily," tell us about the throbbing vein in his forehead or the way his left hand is twitching.  Instead of "Mary replied vaguely," have her _say something vague_.  If you really want to compound the vaguery, have her bite her top lip and stare unfocused at the far wall.  

Etc., et al, ad infinitum.


----------



## Shawn

ClancyBoy said:


> I'm sorry.  I just can't buy this theory of artistic relativism.  By God there ARE such things as better and worse.



Absolutely, I agree.

The use of modifiers in dialogue is unnecessary because a successful writer (using dialogue) conveys their message without the use of exposition through description.

I read an interesting book called _The Road_. In it, the author didn't use quotation marks at all, but the dialogue in it read beautifully. I skipped right over where the author said, "the boy said" because nothing in it was unnecessary. Wonderfully minimalist, and I actually felt sorry for the characters.

I can't say that I feel sorry for fantasy writers that don't have the good sense to pick up a few tips on successful communication, which practically condemns adverbs.


----------



## Mishki

ClancyBoy said:


> You make a very good point, and I can't argue with your examples.  So let me refine my position



Thankya.  



> Still, I think most of the examples you posted (continued, concluded, added, etc.) are still just as neutral as "said" is.  That is to say, they don't have any descriptive quality by themselves.



True.  In my own writing, I tend to throw in "continueds" and "replieds" much more often than colorful dialogue tags.  I'm not a big fan of most dialogue attributors in and of themselves, but sometimes they just seem apt.  Take "mutter," for instance.  Is there any other good way to say it?  Is it necessary to construct a whole sentence of description in order to convey outside of the dialogue tag that the speaker is muttering?  I just cannot find it offensive, no matter how much I try.

"Muttered under his breath," however, sucks.  It's redundant. 



> I guess the point is, and what I think Mike is trying to say, is that the texture of the dialogue should come from the story and from the dialogue itself, not from an adverb or a colorful dialogue tag.  If you have to do that to make the intended meaning understood, you just haven't written it very well.  (That, or you don't trust the reader to understand what it is you mean.)



Yeah, I tend to agree.  But I can't deny that many damn good books I've read, both classic and contemporary, _do_ use them.  Some very often, in the case of Joseph Conrad, Ray Bradbury, and Philippa Gregory.  What I want to know is _why their books are good_ and why other books that do the same thing suck.  Are they good in spite of their "error"?  Or are they adding something to the prose, and they just happen to be in a tiny minority that can use an adverb or dialogue attributor in a way which does not blow goats?

At the same time, I've read writers who try so hard never to use an adverb that thousands of unnecessary sentences and clauses are added to the text.  And that sucks too.  The writing is labored and clunky.

I know the prevailing attitude of the day is to use "said" and as few adverbs as possible (and I do agree with you, by the way, that there are definite "good" and "bad" books).  I know that in order to be published, one had best follow these rules.  But part of these same rules for publishing indicate using as many simple sentences as possible, and never a compound-complex sentence.  How can this rule possibly indicate quality writing?  



> Is Tess of the D'Ubervilles considered good?  Because I can't imagine a universe where "declares proudly" wouldn't just suck the paint right off the side of a house.



Yeah, _Tess_ is a classic, by Thomas Hardy.  It's on a lot of required reading lists.  And I happen to like it very much.


----------



## Shawn

Mishki said:


> How can this rule possibly indicate quality writing?



Because writing that sells is writing that's quality.


----------



## Truth-Teller

People, people--let's not worry about superfluous shit like this.

The content of the dialogue is more important than any dialogue modifiers or adverbs.

There are writers who can't even write realistic dialogue, so I think we should learn to improve that area instead of nitpicking about minimalist techniques.


----------



## Mishki

Shawn said:


> Because writing that sells is writing that's quality.



Then I suppose that Danielle Steele is among the literary giants of our age.  And quality writing is the exact opposite of what it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when Ann Radcliffe and Charles Dickens were bestsellers.


----------



## Shawn

Mishki said:


> Then I suppose that Danielle Steele is among the literary giants of our age.  And quality writing is the exact opposite of what it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when Ann Radcliffe and Charles Dickens were bestsellers.



I wouldn't construe _great_ writing with quality prose. There's a big gap there.

Quality writing sells, that's the point. Not all quality writing is published, but most writing that is published is quality.


----------



## czarkastik

Rawr. I wasn't saying there isn't a difference between good and bad writing, I'm just saying just because a person uses certain terms, words, etc. doesn't mean they're a bad writer. Some people can vary the way they write their dialogue, and it doesn't come off as unnatural or anything of the sort. That's all.


----------



## Shawn

czarkastik said:


> Rawr. I wasn't saying there isn't a difference between good and bad writing, I'm just saying just because a person uses certain terms, words, etc. doesn't mean they're a bad writer. Some people can vary the way they write their dialogue, and it doesn't come off as unnatural or anything of the sort. That's all.



It does come off as unnatural. If I wrote:

"You are not my best best friend anymore!" John yelled.

Instead of:

"You are not my best best friend anymore!"

There's not a difference? (Not excluding my rather hilarious use of the title of a children's book.)

It's just unnatural to put "John yelled" after an exclamatory piece of dialogue. It's self justified.

Not that it's always that simple, but context plays a big role... adverbs should not.


----------



## Truth-Teller

Again, I'm going to repeat what I said.



Truth-Teller said:


> People, people--let's not worry about superfluous shit like this.
> 
> The content of the dialogue is more important than any dialogue modifiers or adverbs.
> 
> There are writers who can't even write realistic dialogue, so I think we should learn to improve that area instead of nitpicking about minimalist techniques.


----------



## Truth-Teller

Shawn said:


> It does come off as unnatural. If I wrote:
> 
> "You are not my best best friend anymore!" John yelled.
> 
> Instead of:
> 
> "You are not my best best friend anymore!"


 
If you don't put "John yelled," how do you know who's talking?

Also, your example is the most atrocious dialogue I've ever read. No one talks like that.


----------



## czarkastik

I guess I think it doesn't matter how you write dialogue as long as it sounds smooth in the end. Some people can use terms like "yelled" or "retorted" and it sounds just as good as if someone uses "said." In the end I still think it's a matter of taste - and the authors style and skill as well.

Eh, whatever. I guess I side with Truth-Teller, as long as the actual content of the dialogue is good the description of the dialogue doesn't really matter.

Call me inept if you will, I don't really care.


----------



## Shawn

> If you don't put "John yelled," how do you know who's talking?



Context... of course. I wasn't trying to write the next great American novel, so you can get over it. I was trying to make a point.



Truth-Teller said:


> Also, your example is the most atrocious dialogue I've ever read. No one talks like that.



Do you really think that I think people talk like that?

Give me _some_ credit.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Truth-Teller said:


> There are writers who can't even write realistic dialogue, so I think we should learn to improve that area instead of nitpicking about minimalist techniques.



I'm not advocating minimalism at all.  You can overload your prose with imagery if you like.  The images should be woven throughout the entire scene though, not expressed in a perfunctory way through dialogue tags and adverbs.

I think it really comes down to show vs. tell.


----------



## czarkastik

So, another question....

If you do a perfectly good job of describing the situation and then still use more descriptive terms instead of the basic "said" is that still bad? Perhaps it's too repetitive? 

If so, do you believe there are exceptions to that rule? I just can't shrug off the feeling that some authors are better at "concealing" their somewhat (as I would assume you'd argue) "forced" dialogue.

I'm asking because I really am wondering. I'm not trying to be annoying about this.


----------



## ClancyBoy

czarkastik said:


> I guess I think it doesn't matter how you write dialogue as long as it sounds smooth in the end. Some people can use terms like "yelled" or "retorted" and it sounds just as good as if someone uses "said." In the end I still think it's a matter of taste - and the authors style and skill as well.



Ugh, no.  "Retorted" especially is just an ugly, clunky word, even all by itself.  Ree_TOUWR_ted.  Yuck yuck yuck.  I can't imagine it fitting anywhere unless you were trying to sound horribly stilted.

"Well then, allow me to retort," said the Earl of Fancy-Prince Poof-Bottom to Napoleon IV.


----------



## czarkastik

So, you don't like the word retorted. That's a matter of TASTE.


----------



## Shawn

It's more a matter of flow. There's even instances where the descriptor has more syllables than the dialogue.

*Attention Truthteller, I am writing sample dialogue! whoop! whoop! whoop!*

"Well, yes," Billy retorted.


----------



## czarkastik

Alright, then. So, as I said before, it doesn't matter what words an author uses as long as it's smooth in the end - as you said, "a matter of flow."

I agree there are some circumstances when dialogue seems forced by such descriptions, however, there are also plenty of times when the author can use the terms just as well as the simplified "said."


----------



## ClancyBoy

czarkastik said:


> So, another question....
> 
> If you do a perfectly good job of describing the situation and then still use more descriptive terms instead of the basic "said" is that still bad? Perhaps it's too repetitive?



It would be completely unnecessary.  If you do a decent job conveying that a character is, say, perturbed, then why would you need to tell the reader he "grumbled perturbedly?" 



> If so, do you believe there are exceptions to that rule? I just can't shrug off the feeling that some authors are better at "concealing" their somewhat (as I would assume you'd argue) "forced" dialogue.



Oh sure.  Douglas Adams is just fantastic with his dialogue tags sometimes.  

From _Life the Universe and Everything_:



> "'... then i decided i was a lemon for a couple of weeks. I kept myself amused all that time jumping in and out of a gin and tonic.'
> Arthur cleared his throat, and then did it again. 'where', he said, 'did you... ?'
> 'find a gin and tonic?' Ford said brightly. 'I found a small lake that thought it was a gin and tonic, and jumped in and out of that. At least, I think it thought it was gin and tonic.'
> 'I may', he added with a grin that would have sent sane men scampering for the trees, 'have been imagining it.'



The underlined part is an extended adverbial phrase, and serves the same function as one of those dreaded dialogue-attribution adverbs.  It's so ridiculously forced and unnecessarily complicated though that it works brilliantly.


----------



## Truth-Teller

czarkastik said:


> Alright, then. So, as I said before, it doesn't matter what words an author uses as long as it's smooth in the end - as you said, "a matter of flow."
> 
> I agree there are some circumstances when dialogue seems forced by such descriptions, however, there are also plenty of times when the author can use the terms just as well as the simplified "said."


 
Like Stephen King.


----------



## ClancyBoy

czarkastik said:


> So, you don't like the word retorted. That's a matter of TASTE.



It's a matter of aesthetics.  Some people have an ear for language, some don't :albino:

I'm not trying to set myself up as the sole arbitrator of who has taste and who doesn't, but how could anyone possibly think that a word like "retorted" could fit seamlessly into ordinary dialogue?  It's the literary equivalent of a big wet snotty loogie.


----------



## Truth-Teller

ClancyBoy said:


> The underlined part is an extended adverbial phrase, and serves the same function as one of those dreaded dialogue-attribution adverbs. It's so ridiculously forced and unnecessarily complicated that it works brilliantly.


 
WTF are you talking about? 

That's horrendous. [-X


----------



## Truth-Teller

What you just posted ClancyBoy is worse than the "dreaded dialogue attribution adverbs."

Not only is it contrived, but it uses a clunky cliche simile that chucks the readers out of the story. You ever heard the expression: _less is more?_

Let it just be a simple: "_he said with a grin."_


----------



## Truth-Teller

_"'... then i decided i was a lemon for a couple of weeks. I kept myself amused all that time jumping in and out of a gin and tonic.' 
Arthur cleared his throat, and then did it again. 'where', he said, 'did you... ?'
'find a gin and tonic?' Ford said brightly. 'I found a small lake that thought it was a gin and tonic, and jumped in and out of that. At least, I think it thought it was gin and tonic.'
'I may', he added with a grin that would have sent sane men scampering for the trees, 'have been imagining it.' _

*This is just horrible dialogue.* Malone writes better than this shit.


----------



## czarkastik

No, I think you're wrong, ClancyBoy. I think some people are arrogant, while others are not.

Already I can see some people on this forum are trapped in their own superiority complex, and to be perfectly honest I don't feel comfortable posting my work up here. I think some of you are so trapped in your styles and peeves that in the end it's just going to get you stuck in a creative rut. If you can't appreciate the various styles of authors, you can't build upon your own. If you can't accept that taste does in fact play a role in literature, you could potentially handicap your creativity with these senseless "rules" about "cliches" and what not. That's not to say cliches don't exist, but it is to say worrying too much over the wording of a work can make the whole entire piece collapse in upon itself. Maybe some of you should work on writing more original plots before you become consumed with wording. Sure, your diction can be learned, but sheer talent and imagination cannot.

I'm not afraid of being judged. In fact, I'm looking for people to read my writing and give me feedback about what needs to be changed. However, I'm not about to have my work judged by a fool. You can go on discrediting published authors and avoiding these literary no-nos. There are plenty of other more professional forums where creativity and originality are accepted, not ridiculed because of someone's self-proclaimed "ear for language."

Anyway, thanks for enlightening me before I wasted too much time here.


----------



## Shawn

czarkastik said:


> There are plenty of other more professional forums where creativity and originality are accepted, not ridiculed because of someone's self-proclaimed "ear for language."



Those forums are for coddling and not telling the truth. The truth is, adverbs appended to dialogue are atrocious. Nobody ridiculed anybody, but I suppose that's yours to take from it.

You can either take the advice or not, but I'd suggest not judging others because of it.


----------



## mythologicalrealities

...


----------



## Mishki

Shawn said:


> The truth is, adverbs appended to dialogue are atrocious.



Then the writing of Henry James, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, William Thackeray, and Nathaniel Hawthorne is atrocious.  Because they all share the habit.

Here's the real truth.  Ezra Pound condemned adverbs that modify dialogue verbs (as well as dialogue attributors other than "said").  Several other middle/late modernists--namely T.S. Eliot and Ford Madox Ford--agreed with him publicly.  Theirs was a reaction against the romanticism of the nineteenth century.  This wasn't a rule of good writing until Pound said it was.  

It's not a better standard--it's the contemporary standard.  And it will change again just as it did before.


----------



## Mike C

Oh dear, and the thread lumbers on and on...

czarkastik, face it. retorted is a pretty horrible word. Live with it. I've been around a lot longer than you, and you're going to have to trust me on this one.

Truth-Teller... that thing about empty vessels and noise. You're doing a lot of shouting in here, as usual, and offering no sound advice or alternatives or examples. Do you have any intelligent input? Or do you just like the sound of your own voice?



mythologicalrealities said:


> Well, I don't like too much 'said'.



No. dialogue tags should be kept to a minimum, so you don't need too many.



mythologicalrealities said:


> Btw, what if you don't use tags, or 'said' or anything like that. What if you put a 'flowery' description after your dialogue?



Bottom line? The great likelihood is that you'll never get published. In the unlikely event that the rest of your writing is so great that a publisher can overlook the flowery bits, a professional editor will rewrite your dialogue. If you're really, really lucky.

And if it were a short story, I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that the editor wouldn't even read to the end before rejecting it. 

Try to remember - the publishing industry does not exist for your benefit. There are more manuscripts and stories out there than can ever be published (I think final reckoning at NFG was around *ten thousand* submissions to fill 90 slots).

Agents and editors can afford to be real choosy. When they read, they're looking for the best of the best, and they're looking for reasons to reject. Use of ridiculous dialogue tags gives that excuse.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Truth-Teller said:


> What you just posted ClancyBoy is worse than the "dreaded dialogue attribution adverbs."
> 
> Not only is it contrived, but it uses a clunky cliche simile that chucks the readers out of the story. You ever heard the expression: _less is more?_
> 
> Let it just be a simple: "_he said with a grin."_



I think you may have missed both my comments on the passage, and also the point.


----------



## ClancyBoy

czarkastik said:


> Maybe some of you should work on writing more original plots before you become consumed with wording. Sure, your diction can be learned, but sheer talent and imagination cannot.



You've seen my plots?



> I'm not afraid of being judged. In fact, I'm looking for people to read my writing and give me feedback about what needs to be changed. However, I'm not about to have my work judged by a fool. You can go on discrediting published authors and avoiding these literary no-nos. There are plenty of other more professional forums where creativity and originality are accepted, not ridiculed because of someone's self-proclaimed "ear for language."
> 
> Anyway, thanks for enlightening me before I wasted too much time here.



It's a rough world out there, kid.  I hope you find the emotionally supportive environment you seek.

Also did you just call me a fool?


----------



## ClancyBoy

mythologicalrealities said:


> Btw, what if you don't use tags, or 'said' or anything like that. What if you put a 'flowery' description after your dialogue?



That sounds pretty good to me.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Mishki said:


> Then the writing of Henry James, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, William Thackeray, and Nathaniel Hawthorne is atrocious.  Because they all share the habit.



Examples please.  I haven't read all of them, but I'm pretty sure Dickens and Twain at least never did what you're talking about.



> Here's the real truth.  Ezra Pound condemned adverbs that modify dialogue verbs (as well as dialogue attributors other than "said").  Several other middle/late modernists--namely T.S. Eliot and Ford Madox Ford--agreed with him publicly.  Theirs was a reaction against the romanticism of the nineteenth century.  This wasn't a rule of good writing until Pound said it was.
> 
> It's not a better standard--it's the contemporary standard.  And it will change again just as it did before.


I'm not parroting Pound or Eliot, I arrived at this conclusion independently.  It's like the way I know open sewers stink.  No one had to help me with that, I figured it out myself.

Maybe you're right though and it's all relative.  Maybe the smell of feces will come back into fashion, and in 2063 people will walk around with vials of their own excrement so they can sniff it at their convenience.  

Maybe, but I doubt it.  I personally think shit will always stink.


----------



## Mishki

ClancyBoy said:


> Examples please.  I haven't read all of them, but I'm pretty sure Dickens and Twain at least never did what you're talking about.



From _David Copperfield_, the chapter entitled "Somebody Turns Up":



> "Would you like to be taught Latin?" I *said briskly*. "I will teach it to you with pleasure, as I learn it."





> "I have discovered my friend Copperfield," said Mr. Micawber *genteelly*, and without addressing himself particularly to any one....





> "Oh dear, no, sir!" I replied, *most decisively*.  I was ingenuous and young, and I thought so.



And, LOL, I have to include:



> "Thank you, sir," *retorted* Mrs. Heep. "We know our station, and are thankful in it."





> "To be sure he has," *retorted* Mr. Dick, nodding his head gravely.



Dickens more commonly uses prepositional phrases that modify dialogue attributors.  Characters "say with emotion," "say with an air of mystery," "say with a gleam of hope," "add with a writhe," "say with an air of self-denial," "reply with great confidence."  (These are in same chapter as the above quotations.)


From _Life on the Mississippi_, random examples because the book contains little dialogue:



> *Presently* someone asked: "Any boat gone up?"





> In the morning I took him aside when he was off duty; and when we were out of sight and hearing of witnesses, I said, *impressively*: "A part of your fortune is so grave, that I thought it would be better for you if I did not tell it in public...."





> Then imagine the horror which came into this pinched face when I put the cordials behind me, and said *mockingly*: "Speak up, Franz Adler--call upon these dead.  Doubtless they will listen and have pity; but here there is none else that will."





> "Yes, that's it," interrupted Rogers, *fervently*, "I've seen it a hundred times--yes, more than a hundred..."





> "_Why_ put upon ourselves this crime, gentlemen?" interrupted the poet *earnestly* and *appealingly*. "He is happy where he is, and _as_ he is."







> I'm not parroting Pound or Eliot, I arrived at this conclusion independently.  It's like the way I know open sewers stink.  No one had to help me with that, I figured it out myself.



LOL. Nice imagery, that. 

I'm not saying that you're parroting what those writers said. I'm saying that this is steeped into the literary consciousness because they said it. I'm saying that before the modernists, there was no such thing as prose without colorful dialogue attributors or adverbs. And if there were, I doubt the reading public would have liked it. It would be like taking Picasso and Georgia O'Keefe to the Italian Renaissance. 



> Maybe you're right though and it's all relative.



Do you think that art exists outside of the culture and time period that creates it, and is not influenced by it, and does not influence it in turn?  Do you think that it doesn't evolve over time, and stylistic preferences of the general public and of art (or in this case literary) critics never change?


----------



## ClancyBoy

Dammit Mishki, it's really hard to make my point when you keep bringing up so many valid counterexamples.



Mishki said:


> Dickens more commonly uses prepositional phrases that modify dialogue attributors.  Characters "say with emotion," "say with an air of mystery," "say with a gleam of hope," "add with a writhe," "say with an air of self-denial," "reply with great confidence."  (These are in same chapter as the above quotations.)



That sounds more like Dickens to me.

Also, confess.  You chopped up that chapter to only include the few tags with adverbs, didn't you.

I'm not opposed to creative dialogue tagging in all circumstances, but I'm still dead set against simply mixing them up for the sake of variety or using them as the primary way of indicating how your characters are speaking.

Actually I wrote this line just yesterday:

"maybe we don't want to kill _all_ of them," he corrected himself.

So I do it sometimes too.  Just sometimes though.



> I'm not saying that you're parroting what those writers said. I'm saying that this is steeped into the literary consciousness because they said it. I'm saying that before the modernists, there was no such thing as prose without colorful dialogue attributors or adverbs. And if there were, I doubt the reading public would have liked it. It would be like taking Picasso and Georgia O'Keefe to the Italian Renaissance.


Are you sure you don't mean they were popular in the latter half of the 19th century?  Because that's where your examples come from.  I bet you a coke Virgil never did that.  
Even so, Dickens never penned a line like:



> "Says you, Bob," Susan exploded angrily.


He wrote things like:



> "Swine," pursued Mr. Wopsle, in his deepest voice, and pointing his fork at my blushes, as if he were mentioning my Christian name; "Swine were the companions of the prodigal.  The gluttony of Swine is put before us, as an example to the young."  (I thought this pretty well in him who had been praising up the pork for being so plump and juicy.)  "What is detestable in a pig, is more detestable in a boy."


If you're writing dialogue that lush I don't think the choice of dialogue attributer matters that much.  

"Retorted" still blows though, I don't care if Shakespeare used it.  It's almost as bad as "jerked out."



> Do you think that art exists outside of the culture and time period that creates it, and is not influenced by it, and does not influence it in turn?  Do you think that it doesn't evolve over time, and stylistic preferences of the general public and of art (or in this case literary) critics never change?


No no, you're right.  Art _is_ culture, and everything changes over time.

Wow, this got off on a tangent, didn't it?


----------



## FantasyWitch

Faustling said:


> Wait... what? Critics actually complained about the lack of chapters?
> 
> ...
> 
> That is... stupid beyond words...
> 
> I once again use my amazing superpowers to take a thread further off topic. Don't care, so... meh.


 
LOL! I have decided I like you :salut:


----------



## FantasyWitch

ClancyBoy said:


> I'm sorry. I just can't buy this theory of artistic relativism. By God there ARE such things as better and worse.
> 
> I'll tell you why flowery dialogue tags are bad writing. They're telling rather than showing. If you have to _tell _the reader that someone is being impatient, angry, subtle or vague, then you just haven't crafted either your scene or your dialogue well enough. If you choose your words carefully those modifiers will be completely superfluous.
> 
> For example, rather than writing "Jack said angrily," tell us about the throbbing vein in his forehead or the way his left hand is twitching. Instead of "Mary replied vaguely," have her _say something vague_. If you really want to compound the vaguery, have her bite her top lip and stare unfocused at the far wall.
> 
> Etc., et al, ad infinitum.


 
Ok point made!
But there is also a thing called OPINIONS. To me Harry potter was good. Not art but good. You can't fault her on her first novel really, thats just mean!

I am my own worst critic. When i write I tend to te-write and re-write. God i have been working on a novel since i was twelve and I have only happily completed three chapters because I get so wound up with it. People say it is good but if I don't like it I will 'fix' it. 

See what i did there ^ OPINIONS. 
Everyone elses opinion (and  i don't mean my mates and parents) is that I will be a great author some day. My opinion is I suck... mostly.


----------



## Faustling

FantasyWitch said:


> Ok point made!
> But there is also a thing called OPINIONS. To me Harry potter was good. Not art but good. You can't fault her on her first novel really, thats just mean!



Was Clancy actually complaining about Harry Potter though? Didn't someone complained earlier that Rowling _didn't_ use a whole lot other then "said" in her writing? Thus, she didn't fall into the tell-not-show trap Clancy speaks of.


----------



## FantasyWitch

Faustling said:


> Was Clancy actually complaining about Harry Potter though? Didn't someone complained earlier that Rowling _didn't_ use a whole lot other then "said" in her writing? Thus, she didn't fall into the tell-not-show trap Clancy speaks of.


 
Opps... I didn't read the whole thread! 
If i had then i would have noticed that.


----------



## Mike C

ClancyBoy said:


> I'm not opposed to creative dialogue tagging in all circumstances, but I'm still dead set against simply mixing them up for the sake of variety or using them as the primary way of indicating how your characters are speaking.



Which, I think, cuts to the chase. Of course there is no way anyone will ever advocate putting 'he said, she said' at the end of every line of dialogue. There are times when

*"Its not like that, its like this," he explained briskly*

might work better than 'he said'. But use some brain, it might work even better if you say

*He slammed the work down in front of me and pointed at the obvious error in my hypothesis. "Its not like that, its like this."

Before I could reply he was off, tearing a strip off the next student.*

The first example works OK, but it's telling. It's waving a big flag with "He's in a hurry" written on it in big red letters. The second example, though not artfully written, shows us that he's in a hurry. And, as a bonus, no dialogue tags at all. 

If you write your dialogue well, and the surrounding prose, descriptive dialogue tags become redundant because the reader will know what's happening, why it's happening and how. You don't need to write "he said angrily", for example, because the reader should know that your character is angry. 

And, from my own back catalogue, may I present possibly the worst tag of all time. A tag so stupidly redundant that it should highlight why they should not be written that way, and an indication that even I, in my dim and distant youth, once thought that fancy tags made me look more like a 'real' writer.

*...he said eloquently.*

And if you don't know why that stinks like the corpse of a dead dog's arse (no shouting from the back, Clancy) you have no business pretending to be a writer.


----------



## Mishki

ClancyBoy said:


> Also, confess.  You chopped up that chapter to only include the few tags with adverbs, didn't you.



LOL, I did.  Dickens doesn't lay it on as thick as some.



> I'm not opposed to creative dialogue tagging in all circumstances, but I'm still dead set against simply mixing them up for the sake of variety or using them as the primary way of indicating how your characters are speaking.



Word.  Other than the inoffensive "reply" and "continue," I think creative dialogue tagging should be kept to a ratio of 10% or less.  But Ray Bradbury still rocks my socks, and he uses them with great frequency.

I feel the same way about adverbs in general.  They're best used sparingly, but a novel without a single adverb is a novel with many convoluted and unnecessary clauses in lieu of the occasional needed adverb.  

IMO, when people bitch about writers using adjectives and adverbs, the problem is not that they've used them--it's that they've used them in such a way that they add no meaning to the text.  It's farting words.



> Are you sure you don't mean they were popular in the latter half of the 19th century?  Because that's where your examples come from.  I bet you a coke Virgil never did that.



ROFL.  Yeah, I was referring to the novel form exclusively.  Epic poems don't count.  

What I found interesting, though, is that the classics by female authors have almost no dialogue attributors or adverbs.  (The ones on my shelf, anyway--_Jane Eyre_ and _Emma_.)  And this in a time when florid prose was popular.  The reason I find it interesting is that contemporary female authors, in my experience, tend to be more descriptive, and thus use more of those dreaded adjectives and adverbs, than male authors.  And they seem to write longer sentences, too, which is another big "no-no" in modern publishing.  Female audiences also seem to dig novels with more imagery and descriptive elements.  I'm by no means an authority, but I think there may be a gender divide on this issue.

Since these female authors are published, I wonder if the rules for publishing vary depending on the perceived market for a given book.  Philippa Gregory's sold a zillion books and she is a huge fan of the adverb.



> If you're writing dialogue that lush I don't think the choice of dialogue attributer matters that much.



Tell me that's a real Dickens quote.  That'll make my freaking day.



> "Retorted" still blows though, I don't care if Shakespeare used it.  It's almost as bad as "jerked out."



It does.  It really, really does.



> Wow, this got off on a tangent, didn't it?



I feel sorta bad, like I should have created a new thread for it.  I didn't know this topic would create three pages' worth of debate.  

So, about Harry Potter...


----------



## Truth-Teller

Mishki said:


> What I found interesting, though, is that the classics by female authors have almost no dialogue attributors or adverbs. (The ones on my shelf, anyway--_Jane Eyre_ and _Emma_.) And this in a time when florid prose was popular. The reason I find it interesting is that contemporary female authors, in my experience, tend to be more descriptive, and thus use more of those dreaded adjectives and adverbs, than male authors. And they seem to write longer sentences, too...


 
This is why (the majority of) females cannot write. They're terrible compared to men. They go on and on with this flowery prose and never get to the point. You've just proved my case, and there's no denying it.


----------



## Truth-Teller

*He slammed the work down in front of me and pointed at the obvious error in my hypothesis. "Its not like that, its like this."*

*Before I could reply he was off, tearing a strip off the next student.*

This is a jarring sentence, clumsy and lifeless. It would read smoother if it was written like this: 

_"Do you ever check your work?" he asked, handing back a paper full of red marks._

Why are you using the word, slammed? Do you know how awkward and choppy it reads under the given circumstance? It reads just like the word _retorted_. Why use this flowery prose, when you (yourself) said not to use it? Slammed, wtf, is that? 

That's just horrible. *"Its not like that, its like this." *What in god's name kind of dialogue is this? The shit-stainer?


----------



## Truth-Teller

Now what about the word, _ask. _Can you ever use that word or is it not allowed? Is it simiar to the word, "said" in your eyes?


----------



## Mishki

Truth-Teller said:


> This is why (the majority of) females cannot write. They're terrible compared to men.



I'll just go ahead and disregard the fact that you ignored the entire point of my post.  The point was that men and women may be different audiences, and that their tastes for both writing _and reading_ might differ.  Either your intention is an inflammatory one, or your implication is that what men like to read is superior, and what women like to read is inferior.  Maybe women are "terrible" at voting, too.  /sarcasm

Regardless, I think the NYT best seller list may disagree with you.  Half of its authors are women.



> They go on and on with this flowery prose and never get to the point. You've just proved my case, and there's no denying it.



I wasn't aware that "description" is the same thing as "flowery prose."  James Joyce might have had something to say about that.


----------



## cowpops

Truth-Teller said:


> Harry Potter is _not _literature.
> 
> Stop daydreaming, folks. [-o<


 

Literature is based on a clear, personal theme.

Harry Potter is Fastasy, not literature.


----------



## Hodge

That's because literacy is the ability to read and write.


----------



## Mike C

Truth-Teller said:


> That's just horrible. *"Its not like that, its like this." *What in god's name kind of dialogue is this?



TT, I wonder about your mental health sometimes, I really do. And your ability to read - but then, according to you, SK is god. Go figure.

Firstly, I gave a specifically meaningless example of dialogue. Then I presented it in two different ways as examples, showing how my preferred option did the job while offering more information and giving it meaning through context. Not, granted, artfully written, as I already said in that post. That was hardly the point.

You have obviously not understood. The point must have gone completely over your head because the example you suggested as an alternative bore no relation to the original in content or meaning. 

I've yet to see you contribute anything to this - or any other - discussion here. Except recently an unwelcome taint of mysogeny.



Truth-Teller said:


> This is why (the majority of) females cannot write. They're terrible compared to men.



Comments of this nature are inaccurate, ignorant and unwelcome.

Seriously, TT, I suggest that unless you can come up with an intelligent, articulate and relevant point that will progress the discussion, you butt out. You're just making yourself look more and more ridiculous.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Mishki said:


> Word. Other than the inoffensive "reply" and "continue," I think creative dialogue tagging should be kept to a ratio of 10% or less. But Ray Bradbury still rocks my socks, and he uses them with great frequency.



Yes well...
Bradbury's strength is imagery, not dialogue.



> Tell me that's a real Dickens quote.  That'll make my freaking day.



It is, its from _Great Expectations_.

I wish to God I could get away with writing like a Victorian, with my sentences full of asides, parenthetics and diversions.  Did you also notice the whole paragraph is only two sentences?  If were by Lewis Carroll it would have been one sentence.

A modern editor would hack that to bits.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Truth-Teller said:


> *He slammed the work down in front of me and pointed at the obvious error in my hypothesis. "Its not like that, its like this."*
> 
> *Before I could reply he was off, tearing a strip off the next student.*
> 
> This is a jarring sentence, clumsy and lifeless. It would read smoother if it was written like this:
> 
> _"Do you ever check your work?" he asked, handing back a paper full of red marks._



Know what would be smoother?  An empty page.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Mishki said:


> I wasn't aware that "description" is the same thing as "flowery prose."  James Joyce might have had something to say about that.



So would Lovecraft and Eliot.  And Yeats.

Ignore Truth-Teller, he's retarded.


----------



## ClancyBoy

lin said:


> Agree completely.   People get really messed up on stuff like this.
> 
> Is Peter Pan a children's book?    Oh, yeah?   Have you read it?  Not the books based on Disney movies, I mean the original book.   With all the psychological stuff about Hook and how he admires/resents Smee from their association at public school?   Etc.
> 
> Drawing lines like that just hems in your world.



I finally read Peter Pan.  Holy crap you're right, that's heavy.


----------



## caelum

Aside from the fact that yeah, whoever made this thread is foetid sausage, why resurrect a thread that's last post was more than a year ago?  Why even do that?  Just why?  Why you gotta be like that?  Why you gotta player-hate on me?  Don't hate the player, hate the game.

:-({|= let me play you a diddy, for in the wee hours of the morning, my brain goes to shiddy


----------



## The Wrong Writer

> why resurrect a thread that's last post was more than a year ago?



Why NOT?   It's either still a valid topic (and of possible interest to new members) or it will fade away again.
So why get your lace undies in a twist over it, is the real question


----------



## caelum

Maybe because I like the way it feels when my lace undies get in a twist.


----------



## The Wrong Writer

Any fetid sausage around here, you brung it, pal.


----------



## caelum

Well now that we've officially reached the "pal" stage in our relationship, I think some brutal honesty that only a friend can give is in order.  You suck.  heh just jokin man, i'm not the most serious of people


----------



## The Wrong Writer

It's okay to suck.  Just not swallow.


----------



## skyye

Harry Potter is a fricking classic. Its universal. Its relevant to both young and old. I love them, they actually helped me through a lot. They tackle complex, emotional issues without being sappy and un-original. They are chock a block with ideas and myths, legends and things JK has come up with herself. Shes a genius! 
Long live the queen. 
And dont be so condescending and high and mighty. When the classics first came out (Shakespeare,hello?) people scoffed at them, burned them....and most importantly, popular. Dont tell me something that has struck a chord with millions of diverse people isnt literature. Dont even tell me its not CLASSIC. It is!!!! 

TOLD.


----------



## ThatWierdGuy

No more than Britney Spears is music.

Before I get flamed by Potter fans, I want to say that I have no problem with Harry Potter.  In fact, it can be entertaining, has its moments of greatness, and is perfect for its target audience.  

But to call it literature, putting it on the same league as Hemingway, Poe, etc., is a little ridiculous.


----------



## Jones

I found the books entertaining.  In fact, I found a few of them more entertaining than most of what Hemingway wrote (Just my own personal opinion; Don't be offended by it).  Poe is pretty fascinating, though.  As for what constitutes literature...the story was good enough to keep me reading, so I'll do JK a solid and just say that it's literature haha.


----------



## GraysonMoran

Actually, Britney Spears IS music.  That's what she does, sings, makes music.  She just make music of the kind, apparently, that you like.

If there is a line between fiction and literature, I would *love* to see somebody describe it.


----------



## mandax

Why define literature?  It only limits it.  Now trying to decipher good literature from bad literature -- that's a different story, and unfortunately, heavily based on opinion.


----------



## Dr. Malone

> But to call it literature, putting it on the same league as Hemingway, Poe, etc., is a little ridiculous.



That's just the nature of any art/media form.  It's insulting to list the Spice Girls' Movie with Gone with the Wind, but they're both films.  Beethoven and Hannah Montana are both music.  Perfect Strangers and Six Feet Under are both TV.


----------



## ThatWierdGuy

The Britney Spears reference was  a bit of an intentional exaggeration.

Depending on one's personal perception, I didn't use the word literature out of context.  : p  There are many different meanings of the word depending on who is saying it: 

_"People may perceive a difference between "literature" and some popular forms of written work. The terms "literary fiction" and "literary merit" often serve to distinguish between individual works. For example, almost all literate people perceive the works of Charles Dickens as "literature," whereas some critics[citation needed] look down on the works of Jeffrey Archer as unworthy of inclusion under the general heading of "English literature." " _

Literature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## GraysonMoran

mandax said:


> Why define literature? It only limits it.


 

It would if it were possible to do.     My point was, you can't say something is not in a category if you can't define the category.


----------



## caelum

I get a crack out of those would-be motivational posters, so I finally made one, and it seems to have to do with the op.  Thanks be to 4chan, vilest nest of scum on the internet, for hosting it.

edit: oh, pic must have been too racy, cause it's gone now.


----------

