Starting a novel with dialogue

[Rhade]

My writing group took a look at my first chapter this week. Almost all of them said I major mistake starting it with dialogue. One even went so far as to say I broke a well known rule. Another said some editors feel that starting a work with dialogue as the opening hook can be viewed as weak. When I got home I looked at many of the books I have read, and out of my top ten favorites, seven of them start with dialogue.

Now I understand that each and everyone was written by a well known author, and I have not been published (maybe they can get away with it and I can't).

Is there such a rule? And if so what is the logic behind it?

[KTC]

Rules are made to be broken. I've read novels that begin in dialogue. Others will probably disagree, but I say do it your way.

[emeraldcite]

There is only one rule in writing: does it work?

If the answer is "yes," then very little else matters...

Of course, you have to interpret this advice. What "works?" Well, look at your favorite novels: most of them probably use conventions that most writers would be advised to avoid.

Most writers should avoid second person, but Jay McInerney's Bright Lights, Big City works even though it breaks this "rule." Why? That's the magic potion we're all trying to discover.

Maybe you should ask them specifically why you should avoid starting with dialogue. Perhaps their answers might clue you in to the real trouble they're having with your beginning.

[katiemac]

I don't find anything wrong with starting a novel with dialogue, as long as it works. Like you said, seven out of your ten started the book that way. I would never consider this a rule, nor have I even heard of it before.

However, I agree with Matt (emeraldcite) to ask your group why they disliked the dialogue at the beginning. Was it unclear who was speaking? Did they have trouble grasping the story based on the initial conversation? Did they need more context?

[Celia Cyanide]

I have heard from some published authors that editors do feel that starting with dialog is weak. I haven't sent my novel to an editor yet, mainly because I haven't finished it, but some people do say that.

I have heard that it is a well known rule, but in writing, there are exceptions to every rule. So you can break it, but you just have to do it right.

My personal view is that it depends on 1) how long the first piece of dialog is 2) how much dialog between characters we hear before we get an image or an idea and 3) how interesting the dialog is.

As an example, a woman in a class I'm taking right now shared the first page of a novel she was writing. She began with about three sentences of dialog that were a big mouthful each. What came after it was a fascinating description of a dead body that immediately made me wonder what had happened.

I suggested she should start with that image and have the dialog come afterward. Regardless of how good that dialog was, I didn't really know what it was in reference to yet, and it seemed very abstract, while the description of the corpse was concrete. Also, if a lot of dialog is the first thing I read, I don't know anything about the character, their age, or if they are male or female. That means I can't imagine how their voice would sound, and that makes it more abstract than concrete. Something concrete is usually going to be a better hook than something abstract.

I think that if your opening dialog is relatively short, you give it context right away, and it's a line of dialog that makes people interested in the story, there's no reason why you can't use it.

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

the logic behind it is normally that, for the reader, its completely abstract.

setting is gone. we don't know who is talking to who, where the power is, who is our protagonist etc etc.

but therein lies the brilliance of starting with dialogue too. it depends what you start with. a conversation that allows the reader to almost immediately know the two voices can really work well.

just don't let it be something like this:

he did did he?

yeah he did

no, did he really

yeah, amazing i know

he couldn't

i'm telling you, he really really did

go for something which reveals the characters ASAP. eg - some insight into social phenomena most people don't think about could work well etc

[sandoz]

Bright lights big city... every time I read about how second-person just isn't done I remember that story. And talk about a start:

"You're not the kind of guy who'd be at a place like this at this time of the morning. But here you are..."

Had me saying 'please sir, I want some more.'

[maestrowork]

There's absolutely no such rules. As long as you do it well -- present interesting characters in interesting situations with interesting problems. Plenty of novels (classics even) start with dialogue. First person narration is basically dialogue...

If your writing group keeps saying you shouldn't start with dialogue, the problem might be something different. Perhaps you didn't go on and show your readers why they should care about the characters... or tell them where they are and why they're there... etc. When the readers feel disoriented because they read a page of opening dialogue and they have no idea who those people are...

[Bufty]

As long as the content of the dialogue gives me a sense of who's talking about what and where etc., I see no problem opening with dialogue.

[Jamesaritchie]

Like pretty much anything else, "Never open with dialogue" is simply a cautionary guideline. Opening with dialogue can be weak, and often is.

But it all depends on the dialogue. "Ender's Game" is certainly Orson Scott Card's most popular and famous story. It opens with "Whatever your gravity is when you get to the door, remember -- the enemy's gate is down. If you step through your own door like you're out for a stroll, you're a big target and you deserve to get hit. With more than a flasher."

Opening with dialogue can work well, but it must be the right dialogue that sets up the story.

[HConn]

It sounds like your writing group needs a rule against rules.

[Grey Malkin]

Time to leave your writing group. You've outgrown them.

[Nateskate]

"Why are they shooting at me?" - I'd be curious to see what the next line said.

"You want a divorce?" - I'd read the next line.

I guess it depends on the flow of the thought that follows.

Gulliver's Travels is a monologue. Go figure.

[jules]

OK, a few questions for you.

First, how long is the dialogue in question? If it's just one or two lines of dialogue before we get some descriptive text, then ignore them. Nobody's going to stop reading that quickly, and that's what you're trying to avoid. If it goes on for long enough to start the next page[1] then look more carefully at it.

If it does, there are two questions: in the text on the first page, do we get enough information to start to form an idea about who the characters are? And do we get enough information to understand what kind of lives they have? (An extension of this: can we easily tell what genre your story is in?)

[1]: that's 12 lines, half of the 25 you'd normally have per page, because you need space for your title and contact info and for the editor to make notes

[maestrowork]

Personally if I open my story with dialogue, I wouldn't go for too long. Even if the dialogue is riveting, I still want to know what are talking and where they are. If you go half or a whole page with dialogue but no description, I'd get disoriented.

One of my chapters opens with dialogue (but it's not connected to the previous chapter) between two characters that have already been introduced. Still, my readers told me they got disoriented because they were not sure where these people were and why they were there. However, once I added a brief description in the first few lines, all became clear and my readers had no problem with it anymore.

[blacbird]

Bright lights big city... every time I read about how second-person just isn't done I remember that story. And talk about a start:

"You're not the kind of guy who'd be at a place like this at this time of the morning. But here you are..."

Had me saying 'please sir, I want some more.'

And, conversely, made me gag and put the book down, more for the second-person POV than for the dialog. Which is exactly the point. Some writers (and readers) prefer certain approaches, some prefer others, and as has been pointed out, there is no "rule."

bird

[Celia Cyanide]

Time to leave your writing group. You've outgrown them.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. All people in a writing group are readers, which is what you need. If something doesn't make sense to people, it doesn't do you any good to just say, "you don't get it," and move on. You might as well just write for yourself.

Sometimes, people get a little caught up in pointing out when people "break rules," without an understanding of why they shouldn't. If there is something in writing that you're "not supposed to do," it's because when you do it, it usually becomes detrimental to the story. If you do it, and it works, then you can. The people in Rhade's writing group are entitled to their opinion. Rhade just needs to evaluate their reasoning.

[veinglory]

I've never heard that rule before. I suggest not worrying about the rule per se. If they just said you can't do it--ignore that. If they said what about it they didn't like specifically--that you need to know.

[Vomaxx]

"Eh bien, mon prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now no more than private estates of the Bonaparte family...."

"And--and--what comes next?"

I guess Tolstoy (War & Peace) and Thomas Mann (Buddenbrooks) didn't know that rule. :)

[Jamesaritchie]

All people in a writing group are readers, which is what you need. .

Why?

[September skies]

I was always taught not to start with dialogue, then when I started at the paper, I found out that sometimes, not only is it OK, but it works better.

So, if it works, forget the rules. I have read plenty of books that start with dialogue -- a sentence or two.

[Celia Cyanide]

Why?

If you want to do something with your story, and not just keep it to yourself, (which some people do, and that's okay) you need readers. If readers don't think it works, they won't keep reading.

[reph]

Celia, for information: Jamesaritchie is one of the seasoned professionals around here. At his stage, he doesn't need a group of test readers to tell him whether a story works. Some writers have a rare combination of abilities that enables them to do without a group even when they start out.

[Jamesaritchie]

If you want to do something with your story, and not just keep it to yourself, (which some people do, and that's okay) you need readers. If readers don't think it works, they won't keep reading.

Editors and agents are readers, too. If they think it works, it usually works. But from my experience, "readers" in writing groups just confuse things, and generally haven't a clue.

[Celia Cyanide]

Celia, for information: Jamesaritchie is one of the seasoned professionals around here. At his stage, he doesn't need a group of test readers to tell him whether a story works.

I know that. The person who started this thread has a writing group, however.

[RubyRoo]

I generally dont as I find it harder to link the begginning and the end.

[henriette]

opening with dialogue is weak only when the dialogue itself is weak, in my opinion. this writing group sounds like they prefer following guidelines written for beginning writers to critical analysis.

for example, i reread my favourite book this weekend from beginning to end for inspiration, "little women" by l.m. alcott. here are the first few lines of the book:


"Christmas won't be Christmas without any presents," grumbled Jo, lying on the rug.

"It's so dreadful to be poor!" signed Meg, looking down at her old dress.

"I don't think it's fair for some girls to have plenty of pretty things, and other girls nothing at all," added little Amy with an injured sniff.

"We have father and mother and each other," said Beth contentedly, from her corner.


a wonderful opening because it tells us about the personalities of the characters, the time of year, the financial state of the family, Meg's love for clothing, Jo's odd demeanour, Amy's jealously of the girls at school and Beth's warm, loving manner.

what i learned from reading this lovely book again is that dialogue is more important than long descriptions of character or setting and will tell the reader plenty about the personalities of the characters.

[Steve 211]

Good advice here - it's not obey the rule, but understand why it's there and then go your own way.

Ender's Game, the novel, also starts with dialogue: "I've watched through his eyes. I've listened through his ears, and I tell you he's the one."

One of my favorite beginnings is Brian Daley's Han Solo at Star's End: "It's a warship, alright. Damn!"

Reading groups can be very helpful if you got people who are at your level or above and know their craft. Their support is invaluable to many. But for many of us, it's get it as good as you can, show it to a trusted friend to catch the things you missed, and send it off. Melville had Hawthorne for just such a role.

[Jamesaritchie]

Let's also not forget the "rule" against opening with description. Or the one against opening without a character. Or the one against opening with the weather.

[Sage]

Let's also not forget the "rule" against opening with description. Or the one against opening without a character. Or the one against opening with the weather.

So according to the "rules," we have to open with a character, but they can't be speaking, and we can't describe them, their surroundings, or the weather they're experiencing? :Wha:

[Celia Cyanide]

So according to the "rules," we have to open with a character, but they can't be speaking, and we can't describe them, their surroundings, or the weather they're experiencing? :Wha:

As Steve said, the most clear and concise explanation so far, is that the point is not to obey the rule, but understand why it's there and go your own way.

In theory, describing the weather the character is experiencing is fine. The reason why there is a rule about it is that sometimes, writers get so caught up in describing the weather that they neglct to mention the character who is experiencing it for too long. And all we're left with is the weather. A lot of times, it doesn't really feel like a story yet until we see the character, so the description of the weather seems like a throwaway paragraph. The character experiencing and reacting to the weather is usually more interesting than just the weather itself.

[Sage]

I know. I was just teasing 'cuz it suddenly sounded like there were so many rules that you couldn't actually write anything (especially since I consider everything that isn't dialogue as a part of "description")

[Jamesaritchie]

So according to the "rules," we have to open with a character, but they can't be speaking, and we can't describe them, their surroundings, or the weather they're experiencing? :Wha:

Exactly! You Must start a novel with action, and action only. Of course, you can't describe it, either, and certainly no one can tell you what's going on.

The thing is, none of these "Rules" are rules at all. Each one sprang up from two sources. 1. Opinion from what someone likes or dislikes in the opening of a novel. 2. The fact that most new writers do one or all these things poorly, so well-meaning editors and agents tell them not to do this and not to do that and to forget about the other.

The are real rules that should usually be followed. These come from centuries of trial, error, and much experimentation, along with tons of exposure to the reading public. They've stood the test of time, and they've evolved, been refined, right along with the reading public.

But you can also find a boatload of things masquerading as rules, and all any of them really mean is, "If you're going to do this, then for heaven's sake, do it well."

[NewB]

If that indeed is a rule, then I am guilty of breaking it - twice!

I had posted both stories on another forum and none of the reviewers/readers commented on the opening. I guess they liked it, otherwise they would mentioned it.

[macandal]

Both Kiss of the Spider Woman by Manuel Puig and JR by William Gaddis are novels which are practically all dialogue. There goes that rule...

[katrinka]

I would like to know who writes these "rules." I also heard a rule saying "hissing" (as in "she hissed.") is a big no-no. Editors supposedly hate it. Yet I see a lot of hissing in best-selling fiction.

Regarding dialogue, if it works, and it's the only way to begin your story, then do it.

Marie

[Celia Cyanide]

I would like to know who writes these "rules." I also heard a rule saying "hissing" (as in "she hissed.") is a big no-no. Editors supposedly hate it. Yet I see a lot of hissing in best-selling fiction.

In my opinion, and this has nothing to do with what editors do or do not hate, sometimes words like "hissed" are irritating because they are forced alternatives for "said." People do "hiss" sometimes, but not because the writer thinks they can't let them them to just "say." Sometimes, these words describe sentences that would have been a stretch for anyone to really hiss all the way through. I once read a big long chunk of dialog that ended with, "she laughed." My reacting was that for her to be able to laugh all the way through that dialog, she would have had to react to something really hilarious, which she didn't.

[pconsidine]

opening with dialogue is weak only when the dialogue itself is weak...

a wonderful opening because it tells us about the personalities of the characters, the time of year, the financial state of the family, Meg's love for clothing, Jo's odd demeanour, Amy's jealously of the girls at school and Beth's warm, loving manner. I think this is the key. If you dig down to the roots of the "no dialogue rule," I think it has more to do with characterization than the mere presence of dialogue. It is very challenging to write a handful of lines of dialogue that really illustrate a character in the way that Henriette's example does. So challenging, in fact, that most people don't pull it off.

As an aside, if there's one thing I've noticed about writing groups, it's that they really love rules and will often cite violations of them to the exclusion of all else.

[Jamesaritchie]

I would like to know who writes these "rules." I also heard a rule saying "hissing" (as in "she hissed.") is a big no-no. Editors supposedly hate it. Yet I see a lot of hissing in best-selling fiction.

Regarding dialogue, if it works, and it's the only way to begin your story, then do it.

Marie



I believe such things as "hissed" follows under the accuracy rule. Only certain words can be hissed, and when you have a character hissing words that can't be hissed, it throws the reader off.

To be honest, in most bestselling adult fiction, I see the word "said." I don't think I've read anything where a character hissed in twenty years. If I did, I'd laugh every time they hissed. Then I'd probably throw the book away and look for a new writer.

[My-Immortal]

I believe such things as "hissed" follows under the accuracy rule. Only certain words can be hissed, and when you have a character hissing words that can't be hissed, it throws the reader off.

To be honest, in most bestselling adult fiction, I see the word "said." I don't think I've read anything where a character hissed in twenty years. If I did, I'd laugh every time they hissed. Then I'd probably throw the book away and look for a new writer.

I'm not trying to be a pain (and I don't think I've ever used "hissed" though I almost want to try putting it in my next WIP just once for laughs), but if an author did use "hissed" and it was done properly (maybe the character has his/her two front teeth missing...or would that be lisped?) would you still throw the book away? http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

Most of the time I use "said". Sometimes "replied" or "asked" and occasionally "continued". I find that those words seem to disappear while reading. It's when a writer starts using more colorful tags that I start to wonder about their dialogue. If I need to be told multiple times that the character "shouted" or "whispered" or "screamed" or "moaned" etc...because I didn't grasp that in what they actually uttered, then perhaps the dialogue should have been edited or improved.

"And that is all I have to say about this," I hissed, while the corners of my lips drew up into a sly grin.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

[scarletpeaches]

Shaun Hutson's characters 'rasp' a lot.

[maestrowork]

I'm not trying to be a pain (and I don't think I've ever used "hissed" though I almost want to try putting it in my next WIP just once for laughs), but if an author did use "hissed" and it was done properly (maybe the character has his/her two front teeth missing...or would that be lisped?) would you still throw the book away? http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

Most of the time I use "said". Sometimes "replied" or "asked" and occasionally "continued". I find that those words seem to disappear while reading. It's when a writer starts using more colorful tags that I start to wonder about their dialogue. If I need to be told multiple times that the character "shouted" or "whispered" or "screamed" or "moaned" etc...because I didn't grasp that in what they actually uttered, then perhaps the dialogue should have been edited or improved.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

I was reading an excerpt from a mystery novel by a well-known writer... well, within the first two pages I counted: "huffed," "offered," "hissed," "replied," "shouted," "rebutted," and "cried." These tags really did call attention to themselves and made me want to close the book with this thought: "The author simply is bad with dialogue."

Or am I just being critical because I'm a writer? Do her readers not notice or care?

[brokenfingers]

To be honest, I don't think the average reader notices.

I've been re-reading some books that I read years ago and only just now noticed a certain author's use of different dialogue tags. When I originally read the books, I thoroughly enjoyed them and never noticed such things. I just read through the books and gobbled them up.

It kinda reminds me of when I'd hear a song or a band I liked and a musician friend would scoff: "They're not a band! They're not musicians!"

Being more familiar with music and the music world, he had a different opinion than I. I just liked what I heard.

[Susan Gable]

To be honest, I don't think the average reader notices.

I've been re-reading some books that I read years ago and only just now noticed a certain author's use of different dialogue tags. When I originally read the books, I thoroughly enjoyed them and never noticed such things. I just read through the books and gobbled them up.
.

I agree completely. The average reader doesn't notice that this is not good writing because they don't KNOW. They're busy getting wrapped up in the story.

Nothing ruins you for blind, sheer-pleasure-inducing reading like learning about writing craft. <G>

Doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to write our best, but yep, I totally agree with this. :)

When reading, though, we also have to remember that the craft of writing is always evolving, and what is considered bad writing today was standard "back then" - whenever back then was. (When the piece was written.)

In the future people may read the stuff we knocked ourselves out to craft well and say, eeewww, those people couldn't write their way out of wet paper bags. <G>

Susan G.

[Celia Cyanide]

Doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to write our best, but yep, I totally agree with this. :)

Yes, this same thing occurs to me on a semi-regular basis. Most people read, but most of them are probably not writers. Just like most people who buy CDs are not musicians, and most people who watch movies are not filmmakers or actors. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best at what we do, as Susan says. And to be honest, I'm not sure what the significance of this is. Just that the more you learn about an art form, the less you enjoy it, because you get pickier and pickier. Probably it relates the the thread about why The DaVinci Code is "bad writing." Most people don't write, so they don't notice, and don't care. Even if they do notice bad writing, it probably doesn't bother them too much, because they aren't thinking, "I could have written this book better." There is just something in it that they appreciate.

In the future people may read the stuff we knocked ourselves out to craft well and say, eeewww, those people couldn't write their way out of wet paper bags. <G>

I think the standard "good writing" probably changes a little. Many novels that are considered classics might not be published if written today. I love Dracula and Frankenstein, but I can't help but think that their diary style, and long introductions wouldn't "hook" if written today. Of course, these books don't really need a "hook," in that respect, their hook being that they are classic literature.

[maestrowork]

Language is a living thing. We could look at old classics and say, "You can't write like that anymore." It's probably true, but at the time, those books were considered great writing, and they are classics now for a reason. It doesn't mean writers don't improve, or at least change over time. That's why when a writer "breaks the rules" and changes the literary world (e.g. Hemingway with his precise, terse prose), it's such a big deal. I think we mere mortals only try to follow the trends and be the best we can... meanwhile, the true geniuses would try to change the world with new and provocative ideas -- some work, and some don't.

[henriette]

i hope that one can write in the style of classic literature in today's world, because that's what i'm attempting with my current WIP! *wink*

i really think that style and prose comes from the author's own personality combined with their formative influences. if one grew up reading classics, shakespeare, greek drama and 19th century poetry (as i did), one's writing will reflect this. yet if one spent the first 30 years of their life reading stephen king, pinter and e.e. cummings, their writing will reflect very different ideas and themes. i admire king, pinter and cummings very much but i did not spend years studying their work and contemplating their place in history. for this reason, my own writing reflects a classic style more than a contemporary one. and that's ok. i've come to accept my shortcomings as a chick-lit or contemporary writer. hehe.

my first attempt at a novel was a modern story, but it failed miserably because my literary influences were written at least 100 years ago. today's language sounded like rocks and sand in my characters mouths. but when i started writing a period piece, the language began to flow naturally. go figure.

and as for "regular people don't see the shortcomings": no self respecting music theatre person would say "chicago" is a good movie. there, i said it, and am ready for the rotten tomatoes. :)

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm not trying to be a pain (and I don't think I've ever used "hissed" though I almost want to try putting it in my next WIP just once for laughs), but if an author did use "hissed" and it was done properly (maybe the character has his/her two front teeth missing...or would that be lisped?) would you still throw the book away? http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

Most of the time I use "said". Sometimes "replied" or "asked" and occasionally "continued". I find that those words seem to disappear while reading. It's when a writer starts using more colorful tags that I start to wonder about their dialogue. If I need to be told multiple times that the character "shouted" or "whispered" or "screamed" or "moaned" etc...because I didn't grasp that in what they actually uttered, then perhaps the dialogue should have been edited or improved.

"And that is all I have to say about this," I hissed, while the corners of my lips drew up into a sly grin.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

If done properly, I won't toss anything because of a hiss. But the writer needs to understand that a hiss isn't a thing, it's a specific, fricative sound, Only the letters "T," particularly as in "th," and the letters "S" and "Z," can be hissed, and both change the way a word sounds, and probably the way it has to be written.

No one can hiss the average sentence, and no one can hiss words that don't begin or end with these specific letters, and then only that portion of a word is hissed. My gripe is that the word "hissed" is used incorrectly.

This is one area where I think both the ear and the eye matter greatly. Think of your character in a movie, rather than in a book. The director tells the actor to hiss the words. Just exactly how does he do this? He can't turn to the audience and say "And that is all I have to say about this," I hissed.

He must actually hiss the words so the audience knows he's hissing them. Try actually hissing that sentence. Say it aloud, and hiss it. See how it sounds. Did you really hiss it, and if you did, does it sound the way you really want that character to sound? This is true of all dialogue. Can you really say it the way you're telling the reader it was said, and if you can, is that really how you want it to sound. And can't you write it so the reader knows it was said that way without being told?

Dialogue tag verbs have fallen out of favor with adults for a number of reasons. One reason is not just that most readers don't notice them, it's why most readers don't notice them. Most don't notice them because they follow the dialogue. By the time a reader gets to the word "hissed," or reads a "screamed," or even a "laughed," a "replied," or anything else, the dialogue has already been read. The reader has already heard the sentence in his own head. Now comes the verb that tells the reader that he may have sounded it out wrong in his head, and has to sound it out again the way you want him to.

Such verbs may be bad writing, when used incorrectly, but bad writing isn't the problem. Even when done well, the problem is that most readers are reasonably intelligent, else they wouldn't be readers, and they assign their own sound to a sentence based on the situation and the way you write the sentence, and so pretty much ignore the verb. Or think, "No, that's not how he would have said it." Or, "Do you think I'm an idiot? I don't need you to tell me that."

So there's no need to put verbs in for those who will just ignore them, and better to avoid verbs for those who don't like them.

Even such innocuous verbs as "replied" and "asked" are questionable. You certainly don't need both a question mark and "he asked." Talk about redundant. And a lack of trust in the reader. How many questions can you think of that readers won't recognize as a question, even without the question mark?

And when one character says something, and then the next character says something back, of course "he replied." Readers don't have to be told that he replied. They know what a reply is.

From the writer's side of things, verbs in dialogue tags can also be a crutch. They often mean, "I don't trust my ability to write dialogue that can be read and understood properly without telling the reader how I want this character to say these words."

Dialogue that needs such verbs is probably not very good dialogue, and dialogue that doesn't need them should be left without them.

But it really isn't about good or bad writing. It's about knowing that most readers are going to ignore such verbs and assign their own reading to the dialogue, and that most readers who do notice them won't like them. So why give either group a long list of such verbs?

Writing has been called a "five thousand year experiment in learning what average readers want." I think this is accurate.

Like any other part of writing, using verbs in dialogue tags can be horrible writing, or it can be good writing. It can be redundant writing, or it can be just enough. Such verbs can tell the reader you don't trust yourself and you don't trust them, or they can give a reader information that's really needed.

But I do know this. Many who stick verbs in their dialogue tags obviously do not read the dialogue aloud and follow their own instructions.

To go off on a slight tangent, one of the main reasons new writers are told to avoid "ly" words is because of dialogue. It isn't enough to say "he hissed," too many writers want to say "he hissed evilly." They can't just say, "he laughed," they have to say "he laughed shrilly." I've even seen "he asked questionably."

Nope, verbs aren't enough. Got to have some adverbs, as well.

[Susan Gable]

yet if one spent the first 30 years of their life reading stephen king, pinter and e.e. cummings, their writing will reflect very different ideas and themes. i admire king, pinter and cummings very much but i did not spend years studying their work and contemplating their place in history.

LOL, Henriette. One doesn't study King and writers like him, nor contemplate his place in history. One ENJOYS King, etc.and those types of stories. <G> (I'm not saying there's nothing to be learned from studying contemporary writers - I'm one of those people who grew up prefering to read King, Heinlein, Koontz, McCaffrey, Mitchner, Jakes, etc. In other words, "popular" fiction as opposed to classic literature. I'm just saying - they're meant to be enjoyed, not taken apart to see what makes them tick. <G> That's kind of what I was saying about how learning to write can interfere with reading pleasure.)

for this reason, my own writing reflects a classic style more than a contemporary one. and that's ok. i've come to accept my shortcomings as a chick-lit or contemporary writer. hehe.

my first attempt at a novel was a modern story, but it failed miserably because my literary influences were written at least 100 years ago. today's language sounded like rocks and sand in my characters mouths. but when i started writing a period piece, the language began to flow naturally. go figure.

Good for you! It's excellent that you found your own voice, and are writing in tune with it as opposed to trying to go against it. :) Writing is hard enough as it is without us trying to write against our natural tendencies, our voices.

Susan G.

[Jamesaritchie]

i hope that one can write in the style of classic literature in today's world, because that's what i'm attempting with my current WIP! *wink*

i really think that style and prose comes from the author's own personality combined with their formative influences. if one grew up reading classics, shakespeare, greek drama and 19th century poetry (as i did), one's writing will reflect this. yet if one spent the first 30 years of their life reading stephen king, pinter and e.e. cummings, their writing will reflect very different ideas and themes. i admire king, pinter and cummings very much but i did not spend years studying their work and contemplating their place in history. for this reason, my own writing reflects a classic style more than a contemporary one. and that's ok. i've come to accept my shortcomings as a chick-lit or contemporary writer. hehe.

my first attempt at a novel was a modern story, but it failed miserably because my literary influences were written at least 100 years ago. today's language sounded like rocks and sand in my characters mouths. but when i started writing a period piece, the language began to flow naturally. go figure.

and as for "regular people don't see the shortcomings": no self respecting music theatre person would say "chicago" is a good movie. there, i said it, and am ready for the rotten tomatoes. :)



I find that most famous contemporary writers are highly influenced by the writers of 100 or more years ago. Whether you're talking about Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Ray Bradbury, or Lucius Shepard, if you look at their favorite reading list, you'll find tons of classic, 100 year old novels in it. And the influence clearly shows in their work, and is one reason so many love them, even when they don't recognize the influence.

I don't believe it's possible to be a great writer without reading a ton of classic literature. You learn why it's classic, why it's still being read, what works and what doesn't, and you don't spend half your time reinventing the wheel. If you wish to be a great writer, you have to read the great writers. There is no other way. Good writers come in all forms, but no one touches the sky without standing on the shoulders of giants.

The trick is to also read and study enough contemporary fiction that you stay current, that your own style matches what most of today's readers want to read.

I'll disagree with Susan about one thing. You should study King and other contemporary writers, and contenmplate their place in history, just as you study those writers who have already carved out a place. Some few of today's genre writers are the classic giants of tomorrow. There's not a doubt in my mind that both Stephen King and Ray Bradbury will, a hundred years form now, be considered two of the classic writers from our period.

Fortunately, many writers do just this, and many a college writing course is now devoted to intently studying Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, ans a handful of other contemporary genre writers.

Not many considered Shakespeare a great writer while he was alive, either, and Dickens was usually considered a hack who wrote tripe for the masses.
Never mind what many said about Mary Shelly and Bram Stoker.

And all the writers we now think of as giants read reams by those who came before them. Shakespeare apparently read everything ever written, if you look at the influences in his own work.

Stories by writers such as King and Bradbury are meant to be enjoyed, but they go far beyond mere enjoyment. They have something to say, and often something extremely important. What they have to say comes in the form of horror or contemtporay story such as "Shawshank" and "The Body" (Stand By Me) with King, and in the guise of fantasy and science fiction with Bradbury, but this was also true of Shakespeare (A Midsummer Night's Dream was clearly fantasy, and Hamlet a ghost story, etc.) and Bram Stoker (Horror), and Mary Shelly (Science Fiction.)

I wouldn't call King Shakespeare, but I think he's fully earned his title "The American Dickens.)

And no one at any time or any place has more important things to say than Ray Bradbury, or says them as well. And no one, no one, living today uses language as well as Bradbury does at his best.

Good writers do adjust the style of their writing according to the period the novel is set in, as well as to the taste of today's readers. It's not only possible to write in the style of classic literature, the best writers of our day do so on a regular basis, making only slight changes to accomodate the modern reader.

[azbikergirl]

From the writer's side of things, verbs in dialogue tags can also be a crutch. They often mean, "I don't trust my ability to write dialogue that can be read and understood properly without telling the reader how I want this character to say these words."
In general, I agree with this. But this brings to mind a question I've had about dialog tags and exclamations. We are warned not to use exclamation points (one or two per BOOK, so says one expert), and if we use them, do so with things that are exclaimed (rather than stuff like "These shoes would go great with your red dress! You should buy them!") Makes perfect sense to me.

But say I have a scene in which Dick is playing fetch with Spot. The stick goes wild, and Spot's about to run out into the street in front of a car.

"Stop!" Dick shouted. <-- experts advise against this

"Stop," Dick said. <-- just doesn't get the urgency of the moment across

This is a situation where the urgency is communicated by the situation itself, so the second example would seem to be the right one, but it feels understated to me. What would you recommend?

[inanna]

"Stop!" Dick shouted. <-- experts advise against this

"Stop," Dick said. <-- just doesn't get the urgency of the moment across

This is a situation where the urgency is communicated by the situation itself, so the second example would seem to be the right one, but it feels understated to me. What would you recommend?

I have a question along those lines as well. I've tried hard to avoid colorful dialogue tags and adverbs--no "she cried" or "she said angrily" (shudder). But, I do find myself resorting to them when I feel like I need to indicate dynamics--"she whispered" or "mumbled", "she said softly".

And just like in azbikergirls example, the line doesn't seem to read right without them. The same words said in a soft or normal tone will come across in two different ways. Does anyone else find this to be a problem?

[maestrowork]

I have a question along those lines as well. I've tried hard to avoid colorful dialogue tags and adverbs--no "she cried" or "she said angrily" (shudder). But, I do find myself resorting to them when I feel like I need to indicate dynamics--"she whispered" or "mumbled", "she said softly".

And just like in azbikergirls example, the line doesn't seem to read right without them. The same words said in a soft or normal tone will come across in two different ways. Does anyone else find this to be a problem?

What are your characters doing before or after the dialogue? What is the context? What is going on in the story? People don't stand there all calm one second, then turn and shout angrily.

Besides, it IS perfectly okay to write:

"Stop," he shouted. (just get rid of the exclamation point)
"Wait," she whispered.

However, if the line "Stop" doesn't convey the urgency, then it's probably more of a problem with the scene than with the dialogue itself. Either the author has not done the job of leading the readers to that point and emotion, or the context is murky. The only reason why you need to use the dialogue to dictate that urgency is if the situation is completely unexpected, as in (pleaes pardon the poor writing ;) ):


The sun illuminated everything with bright colors, and the breeze soothed. Mary Ann pushed the baby stroller under the grand oak trees, enjoying the the scenery and the content smile on her sleeping baby's face.

"Stop," a man shouted.

Mary Ann was knocked over by a violent force...


Even in this case, it's arguable that "shouted" is needed since in the context, especially what happens after the man said "Stop," indicates that it's not a mere gentle whisper or a "How do you do, Miss?" Remember, dialogue tags are supposed to be invisible. In this case, even if you simply drop "a man shouted" the scene is still intact.

[azbikergirl]

In Maestro's example, I would hesitate to remove the shouted tag.

"Stop," a man said.

Mary Ann was knocked over by a violent force. (passive phrasing, but we'll skip that for now!)

As a reader, I'd have to return to the 'stop' line to re-read it in a shout, and I'd be annoyed that the writer didn't give me enough clues as I was reading it to know that the man had shouted it rather than said it.

[inanna]

What are your characters doing before or after the dialogue? What is the context? What is going on in the story? People don't stand there all calm one second, then turn and shout angrily.

Besides, it IS perfectly okay to write:

"Stop," he shouted. (just get rid of the exclamation point)
"Wait," she whispered.

However, if the line "Stop" doesn't convey the urgency, then it's probably more of a problem with the scene than with the dialogue itself. Either the author has not done the job of leading the readers to that point and emotion, or the context is murky. The only reason why you need to use the dialogue to dictate that urgency is if the situation is completely unexpected, as in (pleaes pardon the poor writing ;) ):


The sun illuminated everything with bright colors, and the breeze soothed. Mary Ann pushed the baby stroller under the grand oak trees, enjoying the the scenery and the content smile on her sleeping baby's face.

"Stop," a man shouted.

Mary Ann was knocked over by a violent force...


Even in this case, it's arguable that "shouted" is needed since in the context, especially what happens after the man said "Stop," indicates that it's not a mere gentle whisper or a "How do you do, Miss?" Remember, dialogue tags are supposed to be invisible. In this case, even if you simply drop "a man shouted" the scene is still intact.

Okay. But I would argue that the "Stop" needs either the "shouted" or an exclamation point if the reader is to get the urgency as they read that particular line. And you're right that you could leave off the tag and the punctuation and the reader would be able to determine the meaning based on the next line. So here's what I'm wondering--am I micromanaging my scenes? I want the reader to get that a character is whispeing or speaking with urgency ASAP, but am I not giving them enough credit? We digest what we read at a very rapid speed, so is taking dialogue line-by-line overkill?

If that makes sense...

[JackieG]

I think "Stop!" is a good example of a writer listening to his/her own instincts.

I personally don't find "Stop," he shouted -- though perfectly acceptable-- to sound like the staccato warning it's supposed to be. And I don't believe an editor or publisher will toss out a well-crafted story over one or two incidences of whether a dialogue tag is "used correctly."

If a work is littered with overstated redundancies, then we might have a problem. It helps to remember that readers "hear" our writing in their heads while they read. Language has to "sound" right in order to be read right.

[Sharon Mock]

I have an allergy to extraneous exclamation points and I see nothing wrong with a line like "Stop!" he shouted. If the line's "spoken" with a strong enough exclamation point, in fact, I think it's inappropriate to use a period.

After all, we'd never write something like "What are you doing," she said. We'd write "What are you doing?" she asked, even though it's clear from the context that she's asking a question.

However, I never use exclamation points in narrative, and in dialogue I prune them down as much as possible.

(Also, that rule about not starting a novel with dialogue? I've never come across it.)

[maestrowork]

Like I said, I don't think there's anything wrong with "Stop," he shouted. But I do think that we as writers sometimes don't give our readers or our own writing ability enough credit. Writing is not about presenting every thought or meaning on the page. We have to trust that our readers are intelligent enough to understand between the lines, or have the ability to interpret what they're reading. There are things such as pace, cadence, sentence fragments, etc. that create that sensory for the readers, that something is urgent, quick, or languid, calm. You will be letting your readers experience these sensories, instead of telling them.

How much is too much or how much is not enough is entirely up to us, as writers. Personally, I prefer to let my readers feel it. To me, the following (A) reads more "urgent" than (B):

(A)
"Stop."

Mary Ann turned. A man knocked her over.

(B)
"Stop!" a man shouted.

Mary Ann turned and watched in horror as someone quickly approached her and knocked her over.


Obviously, this is a matter of style and taste.

[My-Immortal]

Jamesaritchie - As I stated in my last post, I wasn't trying to be a pain (was aiming for humorous but I guess I missed by a mile) - but I couldn't quite tell from your reply post if you believed me or not.

As for the sentence, you are correct, you can't hiss ALL the words, but you can hiss "this" (the last word) and that was what I meant. I thought to explain that in the tag after the dialogue (such as, "And that is all I have to say about this," I hissed, drawing out the last 's' in the word 'this' - but then I thought most readers would understand I meant that without the explanation). Of course, I wrote that entire post rather quickly, and as I stated before with the intent towards simply being humorful (which again, perhaps was not how it was read).

"Even such innocuous verbs as "replied" and "asked" are questionable. You certainly don't need both a question mark and "he asked." Talk about redundant. And a lack of trust in the reader. How many questions can you think of that readers won't recognize as a question, even without the question mark?

And when one character says something, and then the next character says something back, of course "he replied." Readers don't have to be told that he replied. They know what a reply is."

I have seen "replied" and "asked" in many other books and consider then similar to "said". In using your arguement against "replied" and "asked" one could say the same about "said". Doesn't the quotation marks around the words tell the reader that the person just 'said' something? And as for 'how many questions can you think of that readers won't recognize as a question, even without the question mark?' - perhaps the question mark itself is also redundant.

I agree that some authors use many colorful tags that aren't needed, but I think on occasion a few sprinkled here and there throughout the text are fine.

"Even when done well, the problem is that most readers are reasonably intelligent, else they wouldn't be readers, and they assign their own sound to a sentence based on the situation and the way you write the sentence, and so pretty much ignore the verb. Or think, "No, that's not how he would have said it." Or, "Do you think I'm an idiot? I don't need you to tell me that."

So there's no need to put verbs in for those who will just ignore them, and better to avoid verbs for those who don't like them."

Okay, but who is writing the story, and who is reading it? If the author wants to occasionally explain how a line of dialogue sounded in THEIR head, why should they not express it? Simply because they are afraid that someone reading it might ignore it or dislike it? That sounds like a strange rule to me.

If all dialogue should simply have the verb "said" used, why not just get rid of that too?

"I'm not trying to be a pain," I

"But you are and I wish you would go away," You

"I won't write about this again," I

"Perhaps you shouldn't write anything again," You

"Wow. That is harsh," I

"Go away," You

"Fine," I

....Actually, with new paragraphs an author could get away with some of the names too.

Oh wells. I'm truly trying to have a little fun here. I hope you know that.

<waits for the crushing reply> :)

[Jamesaritchie]

In general, I agree with this. But this brings to mind a question I've had about dialog tags and exclamations. We are warned not to use exclamation points (one or two per BOOK, so says one expert), and if we use them, do so with things that are exclaimed (rather than stuff like "These shoes would go great with your red dress! You should buy them!") Makes perfect sense to me.

But say I have a scene in which Dick is playing fetch with Spot. The stick goes wild, and Spot's about to run out into the street in front of a car.

"Stop!" Dick shouted. <-- experts advise against this

"Stop," Dick said. <-- just doesn't get the urgency of the moment across

This is a situation where the urgency is communicated by the situation itself, so the second example would seem to be the right one, but it feels understated to me. What would you recommend?



I wouldn't begin to argue that such dialogue tags can never be used. I just believe that far more often than not, the writing is better without them. I wouldn't mind a "He shouted." I wouldn't mind an exclamation mark. They should be used rarely, but not using them at all doesn't make much sense. I wouldn't even mind italics. "Stop!"

But I believe it's always good to look for variations by getting the word shout in before the character actually shouts. Look for similar variations with such words as whispered. <<< Celia put her lips so close to his ear he could feel her breath as she spoke. "Did you invite them?" >>>

I think the reader would understand and hear a whisper.

Or an overblown example to get the point across. <<< When Richard came through the front door, Celia was already charging down the stairs. Her voice would have broken a wine glass or killed a dog. "Where the hell have you been all night?"

I think the reader could hear her voice well without adding a dialogue tag such as screamed, shrill, piercing, etc. And they would hear it this way before they reached the tag.

I think the key is to never say never, but don't use such tags automatically. That's where writers get in trouble. They take the easy way out. Read what's on both sides of the sentence, look for ways to lead in, look for actions that show the same thing a too late tag says, and then use whichever one works best for that particular line of dialogue. If you need the tag, if it works better than any alternative, then use it. If there's a better way, and there usually is, then use that way.

Never say never, but experiment, learn alternate methods. The more ways you can do something, the more likely it is you'll make the best choice in any given situation.

[maestrowork]

That has been done. It's called a script:


I: What a jerk.
You: Yeah.
She: I agree.

Certainly that could work...

I think JAR's point is that if you need a tag to identify the speaker, 99% of the time "said" is adequate. In many cases, you could simply drop the tags altogether (if it's an exchange between two people). So something like the following is redundant:

"What is that?" he asked.
"A fish sandwich," she replied.
"How much is it?" he asked.
"$2.50," she answered.

vs.

He pointed at the package in her hand. "What is that?"
"A fish sandwich."
"How much is it?"
"$2.50."


Nice and clean.

[Jamesaritchie]

[QUOTE=Sharon Mock]
We'd write "What are you doing?" she asked,
[QUOTE]

I'd never write "What are you doing?" she asked. It's redundant. If you have the question mark, there's no need to write "she asked." The question mark already told the reader "she asked." And if you have "she asked," you don't need the question mark.

I believe the correct way to use "she asked" is when it comes after a comma and there's no question mark leading into it. "Are we driving straight through to Indianapolis," she asked, "or are we stopping in Louisville to see your mom?"

[My-Immortal]

But I believe it's always good to look for variations by getting the word shout in before the character actually shouts. Look for similar variations with such words as whispered. <<< Celia put her lips so close to his ear he could feel her breath as she spoke. "Did you invite them?" >>>

I think the reader would understand and hear a whisper.

I like this example for 'whispered' very much, but I think it would be hilarious if used for shouted:

Celia put her lips so close to his ear he could feel her breath as she shouted. "Did you invite them?"

[maestrowork]

I like this example for 'whispered' very much, but I think it would be hilarious if used for shouted:

Celia put her lips so close to his ear he could feel her breath as she shouted. "Did you invite them?"

But you wouldn't use that for shouting, would you? That was clearly an act of whispering. For shouting, you would write something like:

Celia opened her big mouth and let it all out as she shouted. "Did you invite them?"

Same idea. Different actions for different purposes.

[My-Immortal]

[QUOTE=Sharon Mock]
We'd write "What are you doing?" she asked,
[QUOTE]

I'd never write "What are you doing?" she asked. It's redundant. If you have the question mark, there's no need to write "she asked." The question mark already told the reader "she asked." And if you have "she asked," you don't need the question mark.

I believe the correct way to use "she asked" is when it comes after a comma and there's no question mark leading into it. "Are we driving straight through to Indianapolis," she asked, "or are we stopping in Louisville to see your mom?"

Okay. That makes sense. I thought you were saying you would never use the 'asked' tag. I have seen "What are you doing?" she asked. and it never set off alarm bells for me, but if that is truly incorrect then I have learned something new today. (I almost used an '!' point there but it seems no one likes them.)

[My-Immortal]

But you wouldn't use that for shouting, would you? That was clearly an act of whispering. For shouting, you would write something like:

Celia opened her big mouth and let it all out as she shouted. "Did you invite them?"

Same idea. Different actions for different purposes.

But what if I wanted a character to do just that? What if Celia is a real...witch. She gets up real close to her husband as if she's going to whisper the question and THEN lets him have it. For an obvious "shouting" statement, Celia opened her big mouth and let it all out as she shouted. "Did you invite them?" is great.

Celia put her lips so close to his ear he could feel her breath as she shouted. "Did you invite them?" tells you something about Celia's nature.

(I was going off on a tangent).

Have fun writing everyone. :)

[Jamesaritchie]

Jamesaritchie - one could say the same about "said". Doesn't the quotation marks around the words tell the reader that the person just 'said' something? And as for 'how many questions can you think of that readers won't recognize as a question, even without the question mark?' - perhaps the question mark itself is also redundant.

You can and should say the same thing about "said. "Said" is not always necessary, and when it isn't, good writers don't use it. Using "he aid" or "she aid" in every line of dialogue reads as poorly as anything else. "he said" has two good uses. It can be there for natural rhythm, mainly when you want the cadence to be right, or you want a natural pause. "I don't know about you," he said, "but I think we're screwed.

And it can be used when you need to make sure the reader knows who is speaking. "I don't know about you," Richard said, "but I think we're screwed."

But good dialogue writers don't always use any dialogue tag, including "said."

<<< Richard had been browsing the menu for twenty minutes before a waitress came over to his table. "Do you need more time, sweetie?, she asked. "I can give you a few more minutes."

"No," he said. "I know what I want. Give me the chicken dinner."

"That is good today," she said. "You get two sides with that."

"Give me the green beans, and, ummm, the corn," he said.

"Anything else?" she asked.

"Pie," he said. "But I don't see pie on here. "I'd love a piece if pie."

"Shoot," she said." "The pie is supposed to be on an insert. I guess you didn't get one. We have apple, cherry, pecan, and, let's see, lemon."

"They all sound good," he said. "Which do you like."

"Hah, look at me, honey," she said. "I like all of them. But I have to say the apple is really good."

"Okay," he said. "Apple it is."

"Whipped cream," she asked. "Or maybe ice cream."

"Ice cream sounds great," he said. "I haven't had apple pie and ice cream in years."

"Anything else?" she asked.

"Yeah," he said. "Bring me a big glass of milk."


You got it, honey," she said. "I'll be back before you know it." >>>

If you aren't sick of "he said" and 'she said" by now, you never will be. The answer is not to stick in fancier verbs. Read the same thing with no tags at all.

<<< Richard had been browsing the menu for twenty minutes before a waitress came over to his table. "Do you need more time, sweetie?" I can give you a few more minutes."

"No. I know what I want. Give me the chicken dinner."

"That is good today. You get two sides with that."

"Give me the green beans, and, ummm, the corn'"

"Anything else?"

"Pie. But I don't see pie on here. I'd love a piece of pie."

"Shoot. The pie is supposed to be on an insert. I guess you didn't get one. We have apple, cherry, pecan, and, let's see, lemon."

"They all sound good. Which do you like."

"Hah, look at me, honey. I like all of them. But I have to say the apple is really good."

"Okay, apple it is."

"Whipped cream? Or maybe ice cream?"

"Ice cream sounds great. I haven't had apple pie and ice cream in years."

"Anything else?"

"Yeah. Bring me a big glass of milk."


You got it, honey," she said. "I'll be back before you know it." >>>

Do you have any trouble telling who's speaking, or that they are speaking, even with no "said" tags. You can add some narrative to spice it up, but tags of any kind sometimes just get in the way.

Okay, but who is writing the story, and who is reading it? If the author wants to occasionally explain how a line of dialogue sounded in THEIR head, why should they not express it? Simply because they are afraid that someone reading it might ignore it or dislike it? That sounds like a strange rule to me.

The trouble is, the reader is the object, not the writer, and no matter what you tell the reader about how a sentence should sound, the reader isn't always going to agree. Better to show them, not tell them. If you have to explain, you're in trouble.

We're telling the story, but when you do want get across to the reader how something sounds in your head the weakest way of doing this is with tags. You can tell them how something sounds in your head, which they may ignore, or you can show them how something sounds in your head, which is very difficult to ignore. Read those writers who are known for writing dialogue that's far above average and see how they do it. Tags ain't it. Elmore Leonard is a good example. Dialogue has made him famous, and he seldom, if ever, uses anything other than "said," and often doesn't use that, but the reader still knows exactly how Leonard wants that dialogue to sound

If all dialogue should simply have the verb "said" used, why not just get rid of that too?

"I'm not trying to be a pain," I

"But you are and I wish you would go away," You

"I won't write about this again," I

"Perhaps you shouldn't write anything again," You

"Wow. That is harsh," I

"Go away," You

"Fine," I

:)

Also get rid of the word "I" and you just improved your dialogue writing. As I pointed out earlier in the post, you should, whenever possible, get rid of "said." As often as not, "said" is no more necessary than any other dialogue tag, and gets just as annoying when overused.

I see a lot of things in published books. Sometimes tags are there for a reason, but more often that not tags are there because the writers doesn't trust himself or the reader.

Read those writers who are famous for great dialogue. You should have no trouble telling exactly how the writer wants every line to sound, and following who is and who isn't speaking, even without "said," let alone without the big verbs.

As for question marks, we use them because sometimes a question doesn't sound like a question, so we need them.

[Jamesaritchie]

But you wouldn't use that for shouting, would you? That was clearly an act of whispering. For shouting, you would write something like:

Celia opened her big mouth and let it all out as she shouted. "Did you invite them?"

Same idea. Different actions for different purposes.

Right.

Never say never, but do look for variations.

[Josh]

There is only one rule in writing: does it work?

If the answer is "yes," then very little else matters...




The only advice that is always true, that.

[Celia Cyanide]

I wouldn't begin to argue that such dialogue tags can never be used. I just believe that far more often than not, the writing is better without them.

My feeling is, it gets on my nerves when I read something with a lot of words like, "replied," "hissed," "mused," "belched," "laughed," etc., and I can tell that the writer was thinking, "Gotta avoid 'said'! Already used 'said' in this chapter!" It sounds like they are basically making the characters speak differently than they normally would, just to avoid use of "said."

Instead of asking myself, "What can I used instead of 'said'?" I wait until I need these other words. For example, my character is saying something, and I can hear the way they say it. How would I describe how that sounds?

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go yell in my husband's ear. He's invited those guests I don't like again. ;)

[reph]

I can tell that the writer was thinking, "Gotta avoid 'said'! Already used 'said' in this chapter!" It sounds like they are basically making the characters speak differently than they normally would, just to avoid use of "said."
That's exactly what they're doing. Those words are called "saidbookisms," in (dis)honor of a real or imaginary book that lists substitutes for "said."

The really pernicious saidbookisms are "laughed," "shrugged," and other words that don't denote ways of speaking. Shrugging isn't a form of uttering. "'I don't know,' Jerry shrugged" is no more sensible than "'There's the flag,' Sally pointed."

[Mistook]

That's exactly what they're doing. Those words are called "saidbookisms," in (dis)honor of a real or imaginary book that lists substitutes for "said."

The really pernicious saidbookisms are "laughed," "shrugged," and other words that don't denote ways of speaking. Shrugging isn't a form of uttering. "'I don't know,' Jerry shrugged" is no more sensible than "'There's the flag,' Sally pointed."


It's been bugging me... I've done the reasearch and I've found that it actually is possible to shrug when you are speaking. And... (hold on to your hats everybody) have the shrug, be an inclusive gesture in the language.

I've also laughed while simultaneously speaking. I know... I must be a freak of nature to speak through a laugh. My uncle could burp and talk at the same time, but most normal humans can't laugh a line of dialogue.

[My-Immortal]

That's exactly what they're doing. Those words are called "saidbookisms," in (dis)honor of a real or imaginary book that lists substitutes for "said."

The really pernicious saidbookisms are "laughed," "shrugged," and other words that don't denote ways of speaking. Shrugging isn't a form of uttering. "'I don't know,' Jerry shrugged" is no more sensible than "'There's the flag,' Sally pointed."

True you cannot 'shrug' or 'point' a statement, however if you change the punctuation on those statements wouldn't they be correct?

"I don't know." Jerry shrugged.

Or perhaps it might read better as: Jerry shrugged. "I don't know."

With it as two seperate sentences, I would see this as two seperate actions. The character said something and performed an action.

"There's the flag." Sally pointed.

Again, I think it would read better as: Sally pointed. "There's the flag."

Some might argue that the sentence 'Jerry shrugged.' or 'Sally pointed.' isn't needed. I suppose it would depend upon the context of the story.

Honestly, I think we're getting a little knit-picking here. Some people are going to prefer to include some 'stage directions' along with their dialogue, others won't. Some might only use 'said' or no tags at all. Some might occasionally toss in something else. As long as the tags - whatever they might be - don't distract from the story that is what we should strive for, isn't it? I try to avoid 'lazy writing'. It may slip into my first drafts, just so I can get the story out of my head, but I work to edit those out in the second drafts.

Take care all - and good luck writing. :)

[Jamesaritchie]

It's been bugging me... I've done the reasearch and I've found that it actually is possible to shrug when you are speaking. And... (hold on to your hats everybody) have the shrug, be an inclusive gesture in the language.

I've also laughed while simultaneously speaking. I know... I must be a freak of nature to speak through a laugh. My uncle could burp and talk at the same time, but most normal humans can't laugh a line of dialogue.

It is possible to shrug while speaking, but it isn't possible to shrug the words themselves, which is what it sounds like you're doing if "he shrugged" comes after the dialogue.

"I don't know," John shrugged. This sounds to me as if John actually shrugged teh words, rather than said them.

On the other hand <<< John shrugged. "I don't know." ??? sound like two acts to me.

Even better would be <<< "John shrugged and said, "I don't know" >>> To me, this clearly means John did two things. He spoke, and he shrugged.

[Jamesaritchie]

There is only one rule in writing: does it work?

If the answer is "yes," then very little else matters...

\

Very true. But how do you know whether or not it works? You name it, and a bunch of writers are doing all sorts of things and believing fully that they work, even when they don't. The Penitentiary Pacific thread proves this.

I think the best way to know whether or not something works is partly to trust your instincts, but also to see how those writers who are pretty much universally acclaimed for doing certain things do it.

"Does it work is a great rule," but not one I'm sure very many of us are able to follow in isolation. It's pretty easy to tell what works and what doesn't when you're shooting free throws, but knowing what works and what doesn't in writing is a bit trickier.

[reph]

It is possible to shrug while speaking, but it isn't possible to shrug the words themselves, which is what it sounds like you're doing if "he shrugged" comes after the dialogue.

"I don't know," John shrugged. This sounds to me as if John actually shrugged teh words, rather than said them.
That's what it means: he shrugged the words. It's impossible to shrug words.

Here's a way to demonstrate what's wrong. If you analyze the sentence grammatically, you get this: "John" is the subject. "Shrugged" is the verb. It's transitive, and the utterance "I don't know" is its direct object. The sentence says that the speech "I don't know" got shrugged. That's absurd; speeches aren't shrugged.

(When we don't hear something, we ask "What did John say?" We don't ask "What did John shrug?")

You can laugh while speaking, although your speech will probably be hard to understand, but you won't be laughing your words. You'll be doing two things, laughing and speaking.

Writers sometimes have a character smile a speech. This is even worse. Just try speaking while smiling!

"I don't know." John shrugged. looks fine to me. I prefer it to the version with "and."

[Celia Cyanide]

You can laugh while speaking, although your speech will probably be hard to understand, but you won't be laughing your words. You'll be doing two things, laughing and speaking.

I agree with Mistook on this. I work at a nightclub and concert venue and spend enough time around giggling teenage girls to believe that people do laugh when they talk. They don't literally laugh words, but but if you use this, people will know what you mean. If I ever see it used, I think it does describe a certain way to say something that "said" would not cover. So I have no problem with it.

Writers sometimes have a character smile a speech. This is even worse. Just try speaking while smiling!

I speak while smiling all the time. However, I agree that this is taking it a bit too far.

"I saw Soul Asylum last night," Celia smiled.

Doesn't work at all.

"I saw Soul Asylum last night," Celia said with a smile.

Not all that interesting, but useful if you really want people to know that Celia is smiling. It's probably better if you save it for a special occaison, like this:

"He took the last brownie, so I stabbed him," Celia said with a smile.

How is smiling words different from laughing words? I think the fact that laughing makes a sound. To me, "laughed," indicates a manner of speaking, and I think it's okay, as long as it's used sparingly.

[My-Immortal]

It is possible to shrug while speaking, but it isn't possible to shrug the words themselves, which is what it sounds like you're doing if "he shrugged" comes after the dialogue.

"I don't know," John shrugged. This sounds to me as if John actually shrugged teh words, rather than said them.

On the other hand <<< John shrugged. "I don't know." ??? sound like two acts to me.

Even better would be <<< "John shrugged and said, "I don't know" >>> To me, this clearly means John did two things. He spoke, and he shrugged.

(To avoid any confusion in 'tone' - I am replying to this post with a bit of humor.)

HEY! (and yes, I used an "!" this time) Just a few posts ago you got after me about using dialogue tags when they aren't needed and now you toss in a 'said' here? In this case I think the 'said' is redundant.

John shrugged. "I don't know."

John shrugged. (An action describing what John did).
"I don't know." (Tells the reader what John said after he shrugged).

Why exactly would you need to add "and said"? Doesn't the quotations tell the reader that already? To toss in a quote from one of your earlier posts...Talk about redundant. And a lack of trust in the reader.

I suppose there really isn't anything wrong with adding 'and said', just so there isn't any confusion on the part of the reader...

...but then I suppose adding an 'asked' or 'replied' isn't all that bad either, you know, just so the reader isn't confused. :)

Celia put her lips so close to his ear he could feel her breath as she spoke. "Did you invite them?"

John shrugged and said, "I don't know."

"Well, I sure didn't invite them." Celia drew back and stared at the strange pair standing in the corner discussing grammar and dialogue tags.

"Should I tell them to go," John asked, "or let them stay?"

"They can stay," Celia replied. She crossed her arms over her chest and stared at the two. "But if they start talking about proper punctuation I'm kicking them out."


Have fun writing everyone! :)

[My-Immortal]

"I saw Soul Asylum last night," Celia smiled.

Doesn't work at all.

"I saw Soul Asylum last night," Celia said with a smile.

Not all that interesting, but useful if you really want people to know that Celia is smiling. It's probably better if you save it for a special occaison, like this:

"He took the last brownie, so I stabbed him," Celia said with a smile.

How is smiling words different from laughing words? I think the fact that laughing makes a sound. To me, "laughed," indicates a manner of speaking, and I think it's okay, as long as it's used sparingly.


"He took the last brownie," Celia said and then her lips twisted into a devilish grin, "so I stabbed him."

Would this work for you?

[JackieG]

I think that witch shouting in her hubby's ear is funny.

But anyway, I do think nitpicking can be a good thing when it helps writers sort out how they feel about something. We don't all have to agree on the "right" way, but we've had a good chance to test our personal feelings.

Someone mentioned cadence or pace earlier--and to that point I have 2 cents. I find that using no tags for dialogue can make for such a fast read that the pace gets way off. It's a good rule of thumb when the action is fast and I want a fast read, but then during times of recovery and slowing down, tags can add just a "beat" that is sometimes needed.

It may not be perfect grammar, but it makes for smoother rhythm. That being said, I am in the "less is more" category when it comes to adverbs and tags.

There is a particularly successful writing team in the Fantasy genre that I can NOT read for exactly the reason we're discussing. "Hissed", "replied", "groaned", "queried", "laughed"-- call me difficult, but I once counted the varied tags on a single page and got to 15 before I closed the book and never went back.

[azbikergirl]

Why exactly would you need to add "and said"? Doesn't the quotations tell the reader that already? To toss in a quote from one of your earlier posts...Talk about redundant. And a lack of trust in the reader.

Speaking for myself, I would add an occasional 'said' where it's not needed because this:

John shrugged. "I don't care."
Mary put her hands on her hips. "Why not?"
"Because it's not important."
"Well, I think it is."
John sighed. "I don't care about that either." He picked up his coat and headed to the door.

for pages on end seems hard-edged to me. I like an occasional dialog tag, and I sometimes like to put them between utterances like My-Immortal's last example.

[Celia Cyanide]

"He took the last brownie," Celia said and then her lips twisted into a devilish grin, "so I stabbed him."

Would this work for you?

Well, yes, unless I didn't.

Imagine, if you will, Celia Cyanide looking like a "bad seed," with braids and all.

"What happed to William?" asked Celia's mother.

"He took the last brownie, so I stabbed him," Celia said with a smile.

As Beverly watched Celia dance around the kitchen, she wondered if her daughter were only joking this time. She hoped so.

[My-Immortal]

Well, yes, unless I didn't.

Imagine, if you will, Celia Cyanide looking like a "bad seed," with braids and all.

"What happed to William?" asked Celia's mother.

"He took the last brownie, so I stabbed him," Celia said with a smile.

As Beverly watched Celia dance around the kitchen, she wondered if her daughter were only joking this time. She hoped so.

Not to beat a dead horse, but if I am understanding James correctly the first sentence shouldn't have the '?' and 'asked' - though if you replace 'asked' with 'said' it just sounds a little funny to me.

"What happened to William?" said Celia's mother.

I suppose you could load some action in front of the question though and avoid the 'asked' / 'said' problem.

Celia's mother turned away from the kitchen sink and struggled to hide a frown. "What happened to William?"

"He took the last brownie," Celia said with a smile, "so I stabbed him."

As Beverly watched Celia dance around the kitchen, she wondered if her daughter were only joking this time. She hoped so.

Turning back to the sink, Beverly rinsed the knife she had found resting innocently at the bottom.

[Lenora Rose]

"He took the last brownie," Celia said and then her lips twisted into a devilish grin, "so I stabbed him."

Would this work for you?

No, because the personality implied by a character smiling after saying "I stabbed him" is very different from the personality implied by having the same person grinning devilishly. Which one you would use is based on what the person is like.

To disagree with James A Ritchie, "Asked" after a question is as invisible as "said" is after any other dialogue. And a question is the one place where a "said" tag stops being invisible to me, because I always pause and wonder, "Should she be <u>asking</u> that?"


<i>"What happed to William?" asked Celia's mother. </i>

Reads more smoothly (to me) than

<i>"What happed to William?" said Celia's mother. </i>

Assuming, of course, you need any dialogue tag at all. If this is the first sentence of the book, you certainly do, because you don't otherwise know who the speaker is. If it came in the middle of an extended conversation with just two people, you probably need neither "said" nor "asked".

(Tags are almost redundant with two speakers, except for pacing -- JackieG pegged that one dead on -- and occasional reminders. Though it's important to say that with three or four characters in conversation, while the rule is still "no more than necessary", more *are* necessary.)

[Jamesaritchie]

(To avoid any confusion in 'tone' - I am replying to this post with a bit of humor.)

HEY! (and yes, I used an "!" this time) Just a few posts ago you got after me about using dialogue tags when they aren't needed and now you toss in a 'said' here? In this case I think the 'said' is redundant.

John shrugged. "I don't know."

John shrugged. (An action describing what John did).
"I don't know." (Tells the reader what John said after he shrugged).

Why exactly would you need to add "and said"? Doesn't the quotations tell the reader that already? To toss in a quote from one of your earlier posts...Talk about redundant. And a lack of trust in the reader.


Have fun writing everyone! :)

You don't need to add "he said," but I like it there because "shrugged" always bothers me in this context. A personal peeve. "Shrugged" comes across as a bookism to me, so I violate my own rule to handle it. I don't like bookisms.

And it truth, in my own fiction, I never write "said" before dialogue. But I don't usually use bookisms, either. Though I occasionally did, early on. Live and learn.

[Jamesaritchie]

I like an occasional dialog tag, and I sometimes like to put them between utterances like My-Immortal's last example.

So do I. Sometimes you do need dialogue tags. It's just a matter of where, when, and why. They shouldn't be put in without thought, or because the writer doesn't want to look for another way.

Where "he said" is concerned, I believe many writers use it from habit. It becomes so natural to type "he said" that it's done without any thought as to whether or not it's actually needed.

[Jamesaritchie]

Someone mentioned cadence or pace earlier--and to that point I have 2 cents. I find that using no tags for dialogue can make for such a fast read that the pace gets way off. It's a good rule of thumb when the action is fast and I want a fast read, but then during times of recovery and slowing down, tags can add just a "beat" that is sometimes needed.

It may not be perfect grammar, but it makes for smoother rhythm. That being said, I am in the "less is more" category when it comes to adverbs and tags.

.

Rhythm and cadence is a very good reason for using dialogue tags, particularly "he said." Breaking up dialogue with an occasional "he said" can also add emphasis to the second part of the sentence. As in the example I use, "I don't know about you," he said, "but I think we're screwed."

In this case, a dialogue tags is used instead of dashes or an ellipsis to put a pause in the right place. It works very well.

[My-Immortal]

Rhythm and cadence is a very good reason for using dialogue tags, particularly "he said." Breaking up dialogue with an occasional "he said" can also add emphasis to the second part of the sentence. As in the example I use, "I don't know about you," he said, "but I think we're screwed."

In this case, a dialogue tags is used instead of dashes or an ellipsis to put a pause in the right place. It works very well.

I like putting the 'he said' in the middle of this sentence too because not only does it add emphasis, and puts a pause in the right place, but it also puts the most dramatic word in the sentence at the end. If you wrote it -

"I don't know about you, but I think we're screwed," he said.

-it just doesn't have the same impact.

Of course, if you replaced 'he' with a character name, it's not a terrible first line either...

"I don't know about you," John said, "but I think we're screwed."

Perhaps a little overly dramatic, but I'd be tempted to read on to see what was happening.

[My-Immortal]

No, because the personality implied by a character smiling after saying "I stabbed him" is very different from the personality implied by having the same person grinning devilishly. Which one you would use is based on what the person is like.

I know the personality was changed by my changing of the line - I meant simply would the line work grammatically.

[Celia Cyanide]

To disagree with James A Ritchie, "Asked" after a question is as invisible as "said" is after any other dialogue. And a question is the one place where a "said" tag stops being invisible to me, because I always pause and wonder, "Should she be <u>asking</u> that?"


<i>"What happed to William?" asked Celia's mother. </i>

Reads more smoothly (to me) than

<i>"What happed to William?" said Celia's mother. </i>

Yeah, I'm with you on that. To me, "asked" implies a completely different inflection than "said." I think "said" could be used if, grammatically, the sentence should end in a question mark, but the character says it as more of a statement. For example:

Beverly knelt down beside William's body. A knife poked out from between his shoulder blades, and a broken brownie lay crushed between his fingers.

"I'm in trouble, aren't I?" said Celia.

[My-Immortal]

Watch out for Celia! I would suggest not taking her brownies!

Yes, I know, TWO exclamation points right off the bat.

Beverly knelt down beside William's body. A knife poked out from between his shoulder blades, and a broken brownie lay crushed between his fingers.

"I'm in trouble, aren't I?" said Celia.

I like the understated reply at the end. LOL

So - to get back to the thread - would any of this be interesting ways to start a book or are we just talking about grammar?

Gotta get some sleep. Celia, eat your brownies and quit leaving them out on the table for anyone to eat! LOL

Take care

[maestrowork]

Rhythm and cadence is a very good reason for using dialogue tags, particularly "he said." Breaking up dialogue with an occasional "he said" can also add emphasis to the second part of the sentence. As in the example I use, "I don't know about you," he said, "but I think we're screwed."

In this case, a dialogue tags is used instead of dashes or an ellipsis to put a pause in the right place. It works very well.


I use tags to break up speech a lot, to add that little pause. It's subliminal but very effective:

"There's something wrong about this," he said. "Something very wrong."

[Greer]

I know everybody is trying to be good intentioned here, but PLENTY of great writers use dialogue tags other than "said." A quick example: I opened to a few random spots in "Adventures of Augie March" by Saul Bellow and found "panted," "laughed," "said fiercely," "screamed," "uttered," and "gasped." In "Middlesex" by Jeffrey Eugenides, a random search produces "shrugged," "yelled," "shouted," "complained," "sang," many occasions of "asked," and exclamations marks all over the place.

The difference, I suppose, is they are (or were) wildly successful writers, and know instinctively when it is appropriate to do these things. Still, to force yourself to stilt your language or subtly change the effect of the sentence merely to avoid using a different dialogue tag is foolish.

[azbikergirl]

And beginning writers tend to either go overboard or actually try not to use 'said.'

[Sage]

That's 'cuz that's what English teachers taught us when we were in school (or at least my generation).

The trick is to find the happy middle ground. Don't go looking through your thesaurus for ways to get around saying "said," but don't be so obsessed w/ using the invisible "said" that you never have any variation at all, especially when there are natural points where you would have used another term instead. If someone is really laughing their words, there's no reason not to say so. If they're whispering, your audience might not be able to get that based purely on the words they whisper. If they're grumbling, it might be a little more apparent, but not necessarily so.

[azbikergirl]

The November 2005 issue of Writer's Digest has an article by Nancy Kress on dialog tags (p. 20). In it, she advises against trying to find synonyms for 'said' when 'said' works fine and suggests that tags such as shouted, whispered, gasped and murmured "identify tone of voice [which] can sharpen the reader's mental image without callng undue attention to themselves." Like most of her articles, this one's quite good.

[Anatole Ghio]

LOL, Henriette. One doesn't study King and writers like him, nor contemplate his place in history.

I'm not sure even Stephen King would agree with this statement. He has written before on his awareness of craft and theme, and while he always tries first to write a well made story, when it serves the story to have a deeper meaning, he will also write for theme.

Language, narrative, ideas: these are all living things, and change with time. One can indeed learn much by studying popular writers, even if the lesson is only in how to convey ones story in the same form and convention as other popular writers.

[katrinka]

LOL!
I feel if the dialogue is written well enough, you can dispense with using tag lines other than "said."
I don't know what best-selling authors James is reading, but the authors I've read in the past couple weeks who've used "hissing" were Candace Bushnell and Patricia Cornwell. I've also seen "rasp" in Cornwell's work.
Marie

[Sage]

I agree completely. The average reader doesn't notice that this is not good writing because they don't KNOW. They're busy getting wrapped up in the story.

Nothing ruins you for blind, sheer-pleasure-inducing reading like learning about writing craft. <G>

This is so so true. As research for the style of novel I'm writing, I picked up a series of novels that I really loved as a kid. This was shortly after I came onto this site.

The first thing I noticed for the first one was, as a writer, I hated the opening chapter. Too much exposition, & I knew what was happening there was important, but not in the same time as the rest of the story, & if I was just going to get an info dump about the scene anyway, I might as well have it done in "real time."

I noticed that even though it was written third person omniscient, it felt limited for such long lengths of time that it would really throw me off when we got to see another character's POV mid-scene.

I skipped ahead to the beginning of the fourth book (which was the first one I read as a kid, & the one I liked best (although, strangely, as a kid I thought the first was more advanced. I think it's just how I viewed fantasy at the time)), & that beginning is much better. Though it is written in omniscient, you can tell right away because it goes introducing different characters from their POVs within the first chapter & I didn't feel thrown by the shift at any point. It also has a catchier hook within the first paragraph.

[My-Immortal]

I agree completely. The average reader doesn't notice that this is not good writing because they don't KNOW. They're busy getting wrapped up in the story.

Nothing ruins you for blind, sheer-pleasure-inducing reading like learning about writing craft. <G>

A little off topic, but I think one of the reasons the movie industry is suffering from lack of ticket sales (besides the number of simply bad movies and the high price of going to the theater lately), is all the extras the directors/producers etc include on the DVDs. It may boost some of the DVD sales to have all those extras on it, but by revealing how the magic happens behind the camera I think the thrill of going to the movies is diminished slightly. I remember a time when I used to watch a movie at the theater and be amazed by what I saw and wonder, 'how did they do that?!'....

...now, I (and everyone else) knows and are no longer impressed.

Perhaps if Hollywood realized that we all know how special effects work (thanks to them), and started focusing on actually producing a good story again, we'd start returning to the theaters.

Can you imagine if they started doing the same with books?

Instead of buying just one book - it could be packaged as a two-book deal with one disc...I mean book...actually containing the manuscript while the second disc...I mean book...would contain the 'behind the scenes...er...page look at how the book came to life. It could have pictures of the author sitting in front of the computer typing...perhaps sections of the very first rough draft...sections of stories that were cut out - the 'deleted scenes' - the 'extended scenes' - the 'alternate endings'....

Hmmmm...I meant that to be a little off the wall, but actually I think that would be a bit fun to look at.

Hey! I thought of it first!

But then, if everyone realized how books were created they'd know just how crazy we all are.

[maestrowork]

I personally think the behind the scene things make watching movies more enjoyable... perhaps it's just me. I've been in movies and have seen plenty being made... that actually makes me appreciate movies even more.

And with books, I think I have a better appreciation of what a good book is and how well something is written... I think what being a writer means is that my standards are higher now. Five years ago I might have enjoyed a pulp fiction and not thought about how badly it was written. But not anymore. But it doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading a good book. I just find Grisham's Skpping Christmas (both the book and the movie) poorly done. On the other hand, I enjoy his "A Painted House."

[brinkett]

A little off topic, but I think one of the reasons the movie industry is suffering from lack of ticket sales (besides the number of simply bad movies and the high price of going to the theater lately), is all the extras the directors/producers etc include on the DVDs.
I think it's because tickets are overpriced, the DVD comes out fairly soon after the movie leaves the theatre, and it's so much more pleasant to watch a movie curled up on your sofa. You don't have to deal with boors who insist on giving the person next to them a running commentary, someone kicking the back of your seat every ten seconds, having a five year old sit next to you because mom and dad couldn't find a babysitter or believe everyone will find their screaming brat adorable, even during the middle of a movie, or being held captive to twenty or more minutes of advertising and crap trailers.

[Blue]

my opinion:

DONT EVER FOLLOW RULES. (now if you need to please someone, that's different)

writing is an artform. create your art, man. put your vision on paper. IF YOU HAVE TALENT, THEN PEOPLE WILL RECOGNIZE IT. PERIOD. that's why i write-- because i know i'm good, and people connect with it. to get published with this attitude is usually a steep undertaking, but i'd rather do another job than ruin my writing for mediocrity. ( i have 2 books published by the way)

BUT, if you're trying to please someone, like a publisher, because you want money, then that's a totally different goal. and in truth a relevant an important one. one that i refuse to deal with. i suppose that's why i'm living alone in a mountain cabin! lol.

[My-Immortal]

I think it's because tickets are overpriced, the DVD comes out fairly soon after the movie leaves the theatre, and it's so much more pleasant to watch a movie curled up on your sofa. You don't have to deal with boors who insist on giving the person next to them a running commentary, someone kicking the back of your seat every ten seconds, having a five year old sit next to you because mom and dad couldn't find a babysitter or believe everyone will find their screaming brat adorable, even during the middle of a movie, or being held captive to twenty or more minutes of advertising and crap trailers.

I totally agree with all the above too. Commercials before the movie should go. I have a little one and because we don't have a regular babysitter I haven't seen too many movies in the theater since he was born. (We do not take him even though so many other people do).

I'm not saying I don't enjoy the 'behind the scenes' - I do. I find it fascinating to see how the movies are made (I was an extra in the movie "The Babe" - not the pig movie, the one about Babe Ruth. I spent the day in the stands at Wrigley Field while they filmed a couple of scenes. It was fun to watch how it happens and no, you can't pick me out from all the other people - not that any of you would really care), I just wonder if that isn't also a contributing factor.

I also wonder if the internet isn't to blame. If a movie really sucks, word gets out worldwide a lot faster now than ever before. Of course, if a movie (or book) is good, the news of it spreads faster too.

Just some speculation...that...ummm...well....doesn't exactly talk about 'starting a novel with dialogue'....ummmm....

I do it if I can write a line of dialogue that catches someone's attention, but I quickly tie it into the scene and the characters involved. I think starting with dialogue can give a sense of urgency (at least in my current WIP it does).

There - now the post includes something about the thread. :)

Back to work...