# Question about using the word "said"



## cinderblock (May 3, 2015)

When you quote a character, is it preferred that you mention the word "said" after the person speaking it?

For example...

"I'm going home," he said. 
"I'm going home," Bob said.
"Can I go home?" Bob asked.

as opposed to the newspaper way of quoting, where subject comes afterward... 

"I'm going home," said Bob.
"Can I go home?" asked Bob.

Is it okay to mix and match as you write? Or is it preferred that you stick to one way of saying it?


----------



## Greimour (May 3, 2015)

Depends on factors such as context, length of dialogue, preferences, style, voice, etc. There is nothing wrong with mixing it up. I wouldn't stick with 'said Bob,' 'replied Bob', asked Bob' ... for a full story. Not unless you are aiming for a kids book:

"I do not want green eggs and ham," said Sam I am.

That doesn't mean it's a strict rule or anything. Wuthering Heights mixed it up plenty:

~I exclaimed
~She said
~He replied
~Said Heathcliff

Pride and Pejudice mixed it up a bit too.


I tend to go with mixing it up but I can't think of a time I have used; 'said x' instead of 'x said'


----------



## InstituteMan (May 3, 2015)

I used to try to mix up my dialogue tags to get away from all the 'x said' and 'y said' phrasing, but the more I write and even more the more I read the more I think that's a bad idea. There are authors who are good at mixing up their dialogue tags, but I find it's maximal effort on my part just to create something clunky when I try it.


----------



## Phil Istine (May 4, 2015)

I did mix up my dialogue tags initially but I'm gradually moving in the direction of being being quite minimalist with tags.  Currently my preference is to use <x's action>,"..." or, in short dialogues, just allow logic to show who is speaking
e.g.
Dave arched his eyebrows, "But you can't do _that_ Fred"
"Just you watch me, watch and learn"
"But that's crazy"

This seems to work in shorter dialogues where the reader is less likely to lose track of who says what - particularly if there are only two participants.  In longer dialogue I might add a tag every few lines or describe another action of the speaker.
I suppose it depends what seems to flow better in an particular piece - and I sometimes find that tricky to decide.


----------



## Riis Marshall (May 4, 2015)

Hello Cinders

I try - mostly - to eliminate the 'said' altogether:

He slammed the book down on the table: 'I'm going home.'

She looked at him with tears in her eyes: 'Oh, please. No!'

Just my choice. Not all agree but I think it eliminates loads of problems and allows me to add some non-verbal actions to the dialogue.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Sam (May 4, 2015)

Riis Marshall said:


> Hello Cinders
> 
> I try - mostly - to eliminate the 'said' altogether:
> 
> ...



While this is a good way of eliminating the need for a dialogue tag, you can't do it like that every single time. It'll start to grate your reader. 

"He said," or "said he" -- either is perfectly fine. The reader won't care or even notice them.


----------



## Jeko (May 4, 2015)

I still wonder how writers get to worrying about whether something is 'ok' to write.

Generally speaking, if the universe does not collapse when you write something or use a certain method/style/technique, it is 'ok' to do that. From then on it's simply a matter of _how _​you use it.


----------



## Riis Marshall (May 4, 2015)

Hello Cadence

Some of it has to do with what readers expect.

If I write: 'The cat sat on the mat,' no doubt everybody will be happy with this because it 'looks okay'.

If I write: 'On the mat sat the cat,' likely most people will be fine with it because it still 'looks okay'.

If I write: Sat the cat on the mat,' most prose readers would question the way it is written and probably comment it 'looks awkward', although nobody would question it in a poem.

But if I write: 'Cat mat sat the the on,' my guess is all English readers would describe it as complete nonsense, mostly because this structure is not something they expect in standard English - although somewhere in the world there might be a language where this is standard.

While we say 'the white dove', somebody from Spain says 'the dove white.'

I've forgotten most of the German they tried to teach me at university but I think there are some verb forms where part of the verb is - let's say - the sixth word in a sentence of 65 words and the rest of the verb is at the very end.

What we want to do as writers - what we _must_ do if we're to be successful, is to create stuff that 'looks okay' - is what our reader expects to see - yet tailor it, within this 'okay' framework, so it looks like our unique creation.

Interesting stuff - language.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Jeko (May 4, 2015)

> What we want to do as writers - what we _must do if we're to be successful, is to create stuff that 'looks okay' - is what our reader expects to see - yet tailor it, within this 'okay' framework, so it looks like our unique creation._



You're forgetting about catachresis; we can make something not look okay if it fits our artistic purpose. Once again, it comes down to _how _you use or misuse something with artistic purpose, either as you draft or edit, not what you use in the first place.

There is no _must _when it comes to writing, as every 'must' has been successfully an effectively neglected by one writer at one point in the history of literature. You learn rules and expectations so that you know how to successfully manipulate and break them. Rules operate within your style - your style does not operate within rules.

'Looking okay' is only a must if you want something to 'look okay'. Wanting something to 'look okay' is not a must; it's merely situational depending on purpose and preference for both the author and recipient of the work.


----------



## Glenn_Beckett (May 4, 2015)

Either phrasing is fine. To be honest, I'm just glad you're using "said." The reader scans right past it, and the replacements people often feel they have to use are so distracting. "Ejaculated" is easily the worst offender, though.


----------



## CerebralAssasin (May 4, 2015)

I would stick with "x said".It's simple and gets the point across. "said x" I suppose is ok to use ,but not all the time, as the prose might start sounding too gimmicky.And there are a million other ways to mix it up...

x said
x replied
x relented
x whispered
x retorted


----------



## Jeko (May 4, 2015)

> "said x" I suppose is ok to use ,but not all the time, as the prose might start sounding too gimmicky



How is that syntax 'gimmicky'? There's nothing noticeable about it. 

'x relented', on the other hand, is a dialogue tag I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.


----------



## Glenn_Beckett (May 4, 2015)

Cadence said:


> 'x relented', on the other hand, is a dialogue tag I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.



Same, typically. Pretty stilted.


----------



## cinderblock (May 5, 2015)

Riis Marshall said:


> Hello Cinders
> 
> I try - mostly - to eliminate the 'said' altogether:
> 
> ...



If there's action, yes, but in my world, the characters are all sort of jaded and cold and distant. Very minimal physical emoting. 

If it works for you, great, but I find some authors really force it, and the characters start coming off as over-animated.


----------



## cinderblock (May 5, 2015)

Thanks guys, it appears most prefer simplicity - "x said." 

But there's still some disagreement. This is kind of why I asked. I personally haven't read enough books to have much of an opinion on it, myself. 

From my point of view, why not take advantage of every possible option available at your disposal? 

But I know there may be another point of view... a point of view that I haven't quite grasped, the elitist point of view, where anything but "x said" may come off as "gimmicky" or "intended for a younger audience," etc.

So in a nutshell, I'm still very much hopeless on this subject. I guess I'll just mix it up and maybe I'll regret that decision in the future, once I mature a little more and find out all of my favorite books just stuck to "x said," haha.


----------



## cinderblock (May 5, 2015)

Cadence said:


> How is that syntax 'gimmicky'? There's nothing noticeable about it.
> 
> 'x relented', on the other hand, is a dialogue tag I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.



Why is that? 

Are you against anything besides "said?" 

Is this preference, or has this been covered in writing memoirs by legendary authors I have't read? What's the logic that dictates what is appropriate and what is untouchable, lest it discredits your work.


----------



## cinderblock (May 5, 2015)

Glenn_Beckett said:


> Either phrasing is fine. To be honest, I'm just glad you're using "said." The reader scans right past it, and the replacements people often feel they have to use are so distracting. "Ejaculated" is easily the worst offender, though.



Why is it distracting? You're describing the intention. Isn't that essentially what a book is?


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 5, 2015)

Hey cinderblock. First, I liked your question. I had never realized there was that option. I picked up Hemingway, and he did _X said_ one sentence and _said X_ on the next. So I gave up. Then I looked again last night and still people just seemed to do one or the other with no pattern.

For myself, I want _X said_ if the dialogue tag is before the dialogue. (_Said the man who walked into a bar..._? Nah.)

There's a lot of diversity in how authors use dialogue tags. That doesn't mean that anything you do is right; it does mean that if it seems right to you, there's probably some famous author doing the same thing well and no one noticing. For example, this is from _Carrie_:



> "Billy!" the voice was yelling.
> "What the Christ?" he said thickly.
> "Who is it?" Chris whispered.
> "Jackie Talbot," he said absently, then raised his voice. "What?"
> "Chamberlain's burning up," he said.



This of course is selected. King seems happy to use said, but he also seems happy to put in another word if it does better.


----------



## Jeko (May 5, 2015)

> Why is that?
> 
> Are you against anything besides "said?"
> 
> Is this preference, or has this been covered in writing memoirs by legendary authors I have't read? What's the logic that dictates what is appropriate and what is untouchable, lest it discredits your work.



Every word is appropriate. Situational use of those words, however, varies.

'Said' is invisible. It's already expected by the reader as dialogue tags have been used, so there's nothing for them to think twice about. 'Relented', on the other hand, attributes the previous dialogue with a description that the reader may not have read it with. If they did read it in that way - as good dialogue should imply its own tag - then the word will often be extraneous. If they didn't, the word either operates as an echo of an impression that was not immediately found, or it is anachronous and distracting for the reader as they are taken out of the flow of the scene to rethink a piece of dialogue. 

Complex dialogue tags draw attention to the story as an artifact. They can remind the reader that these words were written, and that takes away from the immersive nature of storytelling that dialogue operates as the strongest part of. Unless faulting immersion is part of your authorial purpose, it's advisable to be wary of how writerly your writing may appear. Unless a word other than 'said' adds anything to the story or the reader's experience, think twice about using it.


----------



## ppsage (May 5, 2015)

> Unless faulting immersion is part of your authorial purpose, it's advisable to be wary of how writerly your writing may appear.


The great divide. Currently, having readers puzzle gleefully over the writing is très passé. The proper idea is to put them in a somnambulist trance where imagination is indistinguishable from reality. It's said said does that.


----------



## cinderblock (May 5, 2015)

Cadence said:


> Every word is appropriate. Situation use of those words, however, varies.
> 
> 'Said' is invisible. It's already expected by the reader as dialogue tags have been used, so there's nothing for them to think twice about. 'Relented', on the other hand, attributes the previous dialogue with a description that the reader may not have read it with. If they did read it in that way - as good dialogue should imply its own tag - then the word will often be extraneous. If they didn't, the word either operates as an echo of an impression that was not immediately found, or it is anachronous and distracting for the reader as they are taken out of the flow of the scene to rethink a piece of dialogue.
> 
> Complex dialogue tags draw attention to the story as an artifact. They can remind the reader that these words were written, and that takes away from the immersive nature of storytelling that dialogue operates as the strongest part of. Unless faulting immersion is part of your authorial purpose, it's advisable to be wary of how writerly your writing may appear. Unless a word other than 'said' adds anything to the story or the reader's experience, think twice about using it.



Geez, I did not know complex dialogue could draw attention away from the story. Hmm, that's something I'll definitely have in mind when I read in the future and write. 

That's definitely more of a "craft" perspective. I think experienced writers like yourself, may have that perspective, and that's great. That said, I highly doubt any casual reader will be "taken out" of the storytelling experience by complex dialogue. Heck, if anything, what takes me out, is when there's a word I need to look up... especially those latin references. Or a boring story, gah. 

I brought this topic up, because Chuck Palahniuk's one of my favorite authors, and he's also very vocal about what flies and what doesn't with writing. He's somewhat of an authority figure. Obviously, I don't agree with everything he does and says, but one of the things I noticed in his books, is he never uses anything besides "said." Even with questions. I figured there had to be a reason for that, and I'm pretty sure he would answer it like the way you just did.

Geez, it makes me wonder. What else am I doing that's "taking the reader out of it?"

PS: This is why I never read any books on writing before I started writing, and I plan not to for a while. I'm over-analytical as is. It would've made me way too self-conscious to ever write.


----------



## Terry D (May 5, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> There's a lot of diversity in how authors use dialogue tags. That doesn't mean that anything you do is right; it does mean that if it seems right to you, there's probably some famous author doing the same thing well and no one noticing. For example, this is from _Carrie_:
> 
> 
> 
> This of course is selected. King seems happy to use said, but he also seems happy to put in another word if it does better.



This is a good place to point out that _Carrie_ was King's first published novel, and by no means a masterpiece of writing. If you read his current work you'll see far fewer over written dialogue tags. I recently re-read _The Shining_ (his 3rd published book) and was amused by how over-written some of it was.


----------



## Helena (May 5, 2015)

I’ll throw in my 2 penneth’s worth (that be 50 cents worth to those across the pond) and that is that... 

said blends in and is not loud in that we read it over and over again so it’s there but not in ya’ face sort of thing. 
Where as, demanded, bellowed, trumped, snorted, growled, screeched, yelled, all stand out to a degree. Though cried seems to get away quite nicely most of the time.

Examples.

"I think we should get a move on," said Janet.
"I think we should get a move on," said Janet,her eyes held a knowing smile.

"I think we should get a move on!" demanded Janet.
"I think we should get a move on," snapped Janet with a real sour purse on her lips.

Or...

"You're wrong," said Jim. 

"You're wrong," Jim said.  


All can be used as it is totally your choice though I seem to recall that there is a ‘Rule’ that... if using pronouns, you put the person first as in... John said. He said. Rather than... said John or.. said he.   

Now that’s waaaay too complicated for me (hence why I can just about recall being taught it) so like Greimour, I pick & mix as to my taste and if it don’t sound right to me, I change it. Well; it’s my book after all!

Just my 2 pence worth.

Take care out there.

Helena:cat:


----------



## Kyle R (May 5, 2015)

cinderblock said:
			
		

> I brought this topic up, because Chuck Palahniuk's one of my favorite authors, and he's also very vocal about what flies and what doesn't with writing. He's somewhat of an authority figure. Obviously, I don't agree with everything he does and says, but one of the things I noticed in his books, is he never uses anything besides "said." Even with questions. I figured there had to be a reason for that, and I'm pretty sure he would answer it like the way you just did.


Chuck uses other words, such as "he tells me", "the guy whispers", "he yells", et cetera. It's not so much the word "say" or "said" that he clings to—it's that he strives to avoid the reliance on adverbs. 

*"Unpack those adverbs!" he would tell us.*

(There, for example, I broke the law and used "tell" instead of "say," yet I don't hear any police sirens approaching. )

I consider "said" to be a verb just like any other. Sometimes it's the best verb to use. Sometimes another verb works better.

To tell writers to only use "said" and to never use a dialogue tag other than it is, to me, just another one of those dogmatic maxims that can, and _should_, be ignored when the writing calls for it. 

Use "said" when it works best. Use another verb when it works better.

And in regards to the original post: I prefer "*She said,*" over "*Said she,*" simply because I find the first arrangement more natural.

But, again, it all depends on the author's discretion and what works best in each given situation. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 5, 2015)

Cadence said:


> 'Said' is invisible.



It's not invisible, obviously, and the reader has to read it and understand it.

There are several ways to avoid dialogue tags. Using them is considered to be good writing. Why? Because most people don't like them.


----------



## cinderblock (May 6, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> It's not invisible, obviously, and the reader has to read it and understand it.
> 
> There are several ways to avoid dialogue tags. Using them is considered to be good writing. Why? Because most people don't like them.



So you're saying avoidance of dialogue tags, is considered good writing?

The problem with avoiding dialogue tags, is the author is forced to fill the space with fluff. They'll be in a crazy setting, with silliness going on, so the author could describe the environment between dialogue. 

I much prefer a natural setting with just two people, standing around or sitting at a cafe, just having a chat like normal people. No physical emoting, overanimation of facial features, moving and talking at the same time (nobody does this unless they're walking partners) etc. Even when I watch movies, the one thing I can't stand is overacting.


----------



## cinderblock (May 6, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Chuck uses other words, such as "he tells me", "the guy whispers", "he yells", et cetera. It's not so much the word "say" or "said" that he clings to—it's that he strives to avoid the reliance on adverbs.
> 
> *"Unpack those adverbs!" he would tell us.*
> 
> ...



Maybe when he's recounting something. I don't know, I haven't read any of his newer stuff, but his old stuff like Fight Club, Survivor, etc stick religiously to "said." 

Perhaps I'll be able to see what the elitists are seeing more clearly. As an amateur, I can't help but feel limiting yourself to "said" when there are a million ways of explaining how one "said" something, is not exactly great writing. Sure, maybe there's a way to write a great story just using "said." I've seen a few times. But they're extremely rare. Sometimes someone is being laconic and sardonic, without changing their voice or expression. I'd rather simply say they were being "laconic" because that's the vibe I got from someone, than resort to cliches like, "They crossed their arms" or "rolled their eyes," smirked, etc. every single time. I get more annoyed by overanimated faces in books. Sure, if they're kids, they're easy to read. Most intellectual grownups have poker faces half the time, and the other half, their gestures/facial features contradict their words.


----------



## Greimour (May 6, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> It's not invisible, obviously, and the reader has to read it and understand it.
> 
> There are several ways to avoid dialogue tags. Using them is considered to be good writing. Why? Because most people don't like them.



**Confused**

Considered good because people *DON'T* like them? Wouldn't it bad to use what is disliked? You want people to like your work, right?

I disagree anyway. Dialogue tags are excellent. Writing has a million tools to be used and a million and one people telling you which ones are necessary and/or allowed.

All tools are there to be used. Why limit yourself?



cinderblock said:


> The problem with avoiding dialogue tags, is the author is forced to fill  the space with fluff. They'll be in a crazy setting, with silliness  going on, so the author could describe the environment between dialogue.



Agreed. 

"I will not." = how was it said and by who.

"I will not." Billy said.

"I will not." Billy argued.

[... list goes on...]

It creates setting, scene, mood, tone and shows characteristics. Dialogue tags are important tools to invoke a readers imagination.

Take it further:

"I will not!" Billy fumed. He'd never tattled on anyone in his life. That was eight full years of never breaking the unspoken code followed by all kids. No way he was going to break it now just because Michael was a poopy-head.

~~~

Can be reworked, obviously. But so much better than:

"I will not." Billy said.

Michael didn't believe him. Billy had hated him since they were four so he had every reason to tattle on him to Miss Teabottom.

~~~

Tags are fun. Dust off the tools in your garage and use them all.


----------



## Kyle R (May 6, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> Maybe when he's recounting something. I don't know, I haven't read any of his newer stuff, but his old stuff like Fight Club, Survivor, etc stick religiously to "said."


I worship Sir Palahniuk. He's one of the writing deities to whom I sacrifice innocent animals and small, lost children. 

Though, he actually does use tags other than "said", though usually you have to keep an eye out to spot them. (Those examples I gave were from _Survivor_, too!) In _Fight Club_, Tyler *whispers*, Marla *screams*, the narrator *yells*, Bob *cries*, et cetera.

I think the reason those kinds of tags can go unnoticed is, like "said", they also can work naturally and seamlessly with the story, slipping under the radar like wolves in wool coats. anda:



			
				cinderblock said:
			
		

> I can't help but feel limiting yourself to "said" when there are a million ways of explaining how one "said" something, is not exactly great writing.


I feel the same way! :encouragement:


----------



## Jeko (May 6, 2015)

> It's not invisible, obviously, and the reader has to read it and understand it.



You missed my explanation.

The micro-structure of a narrative is a wonderfully complex thing, but it works on understandable principles. The reader, while reading, draws sensations, meanings and questions from what they read. When they come across dialogue, they get speech marks to tell them that something is being said. 'said' therefore only follows dialogue to attribute the dialogue to who 'said' it. The word itself carries no new information, as the name of the speaker is what's registered. The word is therefore, for lack of a better word, invisible to the reader. It doesn't register with significance. 

'Remonstrated', on the other hand...

The point is not to 'not' use other words; it's to be aware that by using another word, you're replacing something that doesn't draw attention with something that is more likely to. 'shouted', 'cried' and 'whispered' work better because they belong to the mode of _action_, while 'ejaculated', 'remonstrated', 'articulated' etc. belong to the mode of _comment _and thus draw more attention to the fact that a story is being narrated. Sometimes that is the author's intention. The self-conscious style is, however, frequently misused by learners of the craft. While they think they're saying more, they're taking the reader away from being immersed in the scene and end up weakening the impact of their dramatic dialogue.

*What many writers forget is that good dialogue - between the quotation marks - promotes the way it was spoken in addition to what was spoken.* Shakespeare was the master of this, I believe. He gives no directions to the actors or directors, and yet countless performances will capture the drama and excitement of his most famous lines. Is there any storyteller who has excited more imaginations than he has?



> No physical emoting, overanimation of facial features, moving and talking at the same time (nobody does this unless they're walking partners)



55% of communication is nonverbal. You're only communicating 45% of your characters' potential for drama if that's your approach.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 6, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> As an amateur, I can't help but feel limiting yourself to "said" when there are a million ways of explaining how one "said" something, is not exactly great writing. Sure, maybe there's a way to write a great story just using "said." I've seen a few times. But they're extremely rare.



In my opinion, you need a reason to say how something is said -- it has to somehow be relevant to your story.

That said, here are the dialogue tags from a section of First Affair (by McLaughlin & Kraus, who wrote Nanny Diaries): I asked again; Mom said too forcefully; Erica said with annoyance; I said defensively; she said in a way that made me embarrassed for the word choice; she said it as if I'd tried to throw her a scorpion; I asked her, my voice thickening; I asked; She asked; I asked; he said softly; I leveled at him; she said stiffly; he instructed.

They do use "X said", just not very often. They avoid it by having a lot of untagged dialogue.


----------



## cinderblock (May 14, 2015)

Cadence said:


> 55% of communication is nonverbal. You're only communicating 45% of your characters' potential for drama if that's your approach.



Yeah, this is one of the things I've struggled with. 

I'm schizoid, so I'm just a disillusioned robot, and that's how I see the world. I wanted to make a world with just bleak characters, but still instilling something in them that makes the reader interested in them a la Fight Club, Survivor. No overemoting, not too many facial contractions, cliches to the absolute minimum. Body language can also be a crutch, the way I look at it, and it's a crutch that is too often confused with good writing. 

I would rather imagine how a character is being "laconic," than have the author tell me she "gave him the cold shoulders," "roller her eyes," "crossed her arms," or any other variants of this. It's just cheesy to me.


----------



## Greimour (May 14, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> I would rather imagine how a character is being "laconic," than have the author tell me she "gave him the cold shoulders," "roller her eyes," "crossed her arms," or any other variants of this. It's just cheesy to me.



I use things like "Nodded" and "Shrugged" too much 

Selene shrugged, "How should I know?"

Nodding to show he understood, Tobi....

could do variations of nodding and shrugging all day


----------



## cinderblock (May 14, 2015)

Greimour said:


> I use things like "Nodded" and "Shrugged" too much
> 
> Selene shrugged, "How should I know?"
> 
> ...



It's all subjective, based on what you're trying to accomplish. We all see the world differently. The point is to convey it as best as possible.

Also, shrugging, rolling eyes, etc are perfectly fine for YA books and below. Last year's NY Times Book of the year Eleanor and Park has lots of cliched gestures. Most readers want something easy. That's why YA is doing so well. Many adults are purchasing YA books. 

That said, my current story is geared towards an age range that's 25+, so shrugging and eye-rolling would ruin the atmosphere.


----------



## Jenwales (May 14, 2015)

If you put it like this: said Bob, it sounds like a children's book. I'd go with putting said first, that's how they do it in most novels


----------



## John Oberon (May 14, 2015)

I often see overuse of dialog tags, particularly when there's just two people in a room talking. If ever there’s a scenario to cut down on tags, that’s it. It's okay to just put words in quotes and nothing more. Tags can get annoying in a hurry. If I really feel I need to enhance the quote in some way, I often do it with action rather than a tag:

_"I'm waiting," I said impatiently.
"I'm waiting." I drummed my fingers as I stared a hole through him._

I use just plain "said" as my primary tag. If I want to use a tag other than "said", I lean more toward tags that describe HOW the words are said, not WHY. I don’t use tags like "mocked", "contended", and "relented" very often. I feel those kind of tags treat the reader like an idiot who needs to be informed about the emotions in play. I use tags like "spat", "growled", "whispered", and "murmured" and let the reader glean the emotion from content and context.

In general, I use tags as sparingly as possible.

As a point of interest for “x said/said x”…if using proper names, I think in general, there’s virtually no difference to the reader. But if my ear wants to emphasize the identity of the speaker, it’s “x said” every time. If my ear wants to emphasize the quote, it's "said x" every time.

If using pronouns, I use “x said” 99% of the time. I use “said x” only (but not always) with statements that are either startling or imperious. Like this:

Startling
_I needed to find that figurine. It was the key to the whole mystery and worth millions besides.
“Brian, there was a little green figurine on the table. Have you seen it?”
“I threw it away,” said he.
“WHAT!?”
“Yeah. I don’t like girly things in my space.”_

Imperious
_Jake quivered with emotion. “I love her, mom. I love her.”
“I forbid you to see her anymore,” said she.

_That's my two cents.


----------



## cinderblock (May 15, 2015)

John Oberon said:


> I often see overuse of dialog tags, particularly when there's just two people in a room talking. If ever there’s a scenario to cut down on tags, that’s it. It's okay to just put words in quotes and nothing more. Tags can get annoying in a hurry. If I really feel I need to enhance the quote in some way, I often do it with action rather than a tag:
> 
> _"I'm waiting," I said impatiently.
> "I'm waiting." I drummed my fingers as I stared a hole through him._
> ...



Very technical, thoughtful advice. Appreciate it very much. 

Does any author use that tag? "Said he?" "Said she?" I love it how you applied it.

As far as spoonfeeding the audience by using words like "contended" and "relented", I think there are a lot of ways to do that, not just through dialogue tags. That's where things get really murky. 

Also, while I agree the dialogue tags seem kinda redundant when two people are speaking, it could actually get distracting when there aren't any dialogue tags. Some authors just have quotes for long moments, and it actually makes me stop to wonder about it, simply because it's so barren and unusual. Also, I personally prefer dialogue tags at least once per four, five quotes, because I lose track easily of who's who, and I often have to trace the quotes one at a time from my confusion. It's fine if the quotes are one sentence long and simply replies, but if they're making real points, I prefer the tag as a reader. 

I realize tags are an extremely divided issue at an artistic level. From the perspective of the reader, I doubt they really give it much thought, let alone a second one ironically enough. Just something taken for granted.


----------



## aj47 (May 16, 2015)

The ONLY time said is wrong is when it's said adverbially.  And not every time, but often.  If she said it loudly, have her shout it.  If she said it quietly, she can whisper.  Like that.  Bonus in flash fiction is you gain a word by losing said.


----------



## voltigeur (May 16, 2015)

I think a blend of techniques is a good way to go. If one method sounds too monotonous then use another. Read it out loud see how it sounds. 

If it is a two way conversation I put a tag in every 4 to 6 lines just so that some part of the reader’s brain can say “yep still with you”. 

My first priority is that there is no reader confusion. 

Very close second priority is that it reads smooth and is not monotonous.  

 Whatever accomplishes those two goals is what is correct.


----------



## John Oberon (May 17, 2015)

cinderblock said:


> Very technical, thoughtful advice. Appreciate it very much.
> 
> Does any author use that tag? "Said he?" "Said she?" I love it how you applied it.
> 
> ...



Yeah, every four or five quotes doesn't sound too bad, but many beginners will stick a tag to every quote or close to every other quote, and sheesh...just a bit much.


----------



## Mesafalcon (May 21, 2015)

I think this question can fall into the category of echoes for the most part.

The OP wants to mix up dialogue tags and not overuse "said" I take it?

As long as "said" doesn't line up like 20 times in a row and there is a fair amount of space between "saids," I have been told it is one of those words that is invisible to the readers eye - or to be more specific, it is a word you can get away with using alot without the risk of breaking reader immersion like the word "was" can if even used a few times in a row.


----------

