Dialogue, saidisms and facial tics.

[mum23]

After some excellent crits one thing stood out that I haven't been made so much aware of. Dialogue tags.
When is or when is it not best to use said?
Facial tics and expressions?

My dialogue; “Sometimes fate decides for us,” Maureen stated. “Some children have to be born and I feel this child will be a fire sign or will be born within the sign. Maybe March.”
“Perhaps it’s my friend’s daughter.” Once again I offered information.
“It's not his daughter; you won't be close to her. You will simply look after her.” Then Maureen quickly added. “He will be good with your children. But if you want another daughter,” and she winked. “Well she's there if you decide.”

Suggestion; “Sometimes fate decides for us. Some children have to be born and I feel this child will be a fire sign or will be born within the sign. Maybe March.”

“Perhaps it’s my friend’s daughter.”

“It's not his daughter; you won't be close to her. You will simply look after her. He will be good with your children. But if you want another daughter . . . Well she's there if you decide.”

To me, the 2nd dialogue works so much better as suggested. Why am I not seeing this in the first place?
I think I have "show vs tell" then this comes along. AAGGGHHHHHHH!!!

[scarletpeaches]

I think the second example works better, too.

I only ever use dialogue tags when I need to make it clear who is speaking, and an action is not necessary or possible. Even then, I try to stick to 'said' as much as I can. I have more of a problem when there are three people in the conversation rather than the much-easier-to-deal-with two...and in each novel I've written, there always seems to be one big scene centred around a three-way conversation. D'oh! Why do I do that to myself?!

But when it comes to dialogue tags, the dialogue itself should make clear a) who is speaking, b) who they are speaking to and c) how they are speaking...all of which do away with the need for a pesky tag.

[dempsey]

Why people hate "said" I don't understand. It's one of the few relatively invisible words in English.

Tags should only be used to make it clear who is speaking. It's perfectly sensible to leave things without tags if the reader can keep up on who is saying what.

You don't use "said" when someone does something other than simply "say" something and it isn't obvious how they are doing so from some other bit of text. If there's an exclamation point after a series of very angry words, I'll be able to suss out that this person is shouting. You don't need to tell me.

And the second example does work better.

[scarletpeaches]

Did we just agree again?

*shudder*

[dempsey]

This is becoming a situation. Someone alert the authorities.

[mum23]

I think the second example works better, too.

I only ever use dialogue tags when I need to make it clear who is speaking, and an action is not necessary or possible. Even then, I try to stick to 'said' as much as I can. I have more of a problem when there are three people in the conversation rather than the much-easier-to-deal-with two...and in each novel I've written, there always seems to be one big scene centred around a three-way conversation. D'oh! Why do I do that to myself?!

But when it comes to dialogue tags, the dialogue itself should make clear a) who is speaking, b) who they are speaking to and c) how they are speaking...all of which do away with the need for a pesky tag.

Thanks Scarlett. So how about this. A said AND a facial tic?

“I want to give you an old name. Can you take the name Mary, in spirit or around you? And I see a church but it's not a wedding and you are dealing with horses. Do you have any?” Maureen said, lost in some sort of knowing grin.

[slcboston]

I like the second better, but with a caveat. I think the tag in the middle of the last thing Maureen says creates a different flow of the words. And this is one of the advantages to the tags/descriptors above just general punctuation.

So while, yes, tags should be used generally only to clarify who's speaking, in absence of other indicators, there are times when from a narrative standpoint they can be beneficial. There are some things you can't convey from speech alone, and a sparing usage of tags and indicators can help create a more detailed and vivid picture for your reader.

[scarletpeaches]

I think if they're sprinkled sparingly, they work. But not every piece of dialogue needs an attribution or a 'tic'.

I've just been editing a scene I thought was the mutt's nuts when I first wrote it...one of my infamous three-way conversations again. *sigh* Too many damn tags and attributions, even with the difficulty of not being able to back-and-forth as you could with two people.

Still, it's teaching me to give each character an individual voice, to make it clear to the reader who's talking without having to hit them over the head with groans, interjections, cries, stutters, mutters and ejaculations.

[DeadlyAccurate]

After some excellent crits one thing stood out that I haven't been made so much aware of. Dialogue tags.
When is or when is it not best to use said?
Facial tics and expressions?

My dialogue; “Sometimes fate decides for us,” Maureen stated. “Some children have to be born and I feel this child will be a fire sign or will be born within the sign. Maybe March.”
“Perhaps it’s my friend’s daughter.” Once again I offered information.
“It's not his daughter; you won't be close to her. You will simply look after her.” Then Maureen quickly added. “He will be good with your children. But if you want another daughter,” and she winked. “Well she's there if you decide.”

This one has several errors and a few other problems. First, the word "stated" in the first line throws you out of the story the way "said" wouldn't; it isn't even necessary. It's obvious the words are being stated. You just stated them.

The second line, "Perhaps..." has an irrelevant second sentence. Again, it's obvious the narrator is offering information. He/She just did.

And the final one, you need a comma, not a period, after "added." And it should probably be "But if you want another daughter..." She winked. "Well, she's there if you decide."

[BlueLucario]

Why people hate "said" I don't understand. It's one of the few relatively invisible words in English.

Tags should only be used to make it clear who is speaking. It's perfectly sensible to leave things without tags if the reader can keep up on who is saying what.

You don't use "said" when someone does something other than simply "say" something and it isn't obvious how they are doing so from some other bit of text. If there's an exclamation point after a series of very angry words, I'll be able to suss out that this person is shouting. You don't need to tell me.

And the second example does work better.

Sometimes it isn't obvious. I got an F in my short story English project for constantly using said. The teacher was very constructive though. I was taught in school that when you use dialogue, you describe to the reader how this quote is being said, using "said" shows the reader that the author is too lazy and the tag gets annoying rather fast.

Oh well, down with school.

"SCHOOL SUCKS!" I said.

I should still say said. It won't look right if said is being used for this quote. But that's my opinion


I like the second one better because it's easier to read.

[kristie911]

I prefer to write dialogue without tags. It's a personal preference. But when it starts to become necessary to point out who's speaking, I will usually add some kind of action. Too much action makes characters seem twitchy but very seldom will two people have a conversation with no movement whatsoever. Maybe that's just me though...I like to talk with my hands. :)

In this case, I definitely like the second example better.

[scarletpeaches]

Sometimes it isn't obvious. I got an F in my short story English project for constantly using said. The teacher was very constructive though. I was taught in school that when you use dialogue, you describe to the reader how this quote is being said, using "said" shows the reader that the author is too lazy and the tag gets annoying rather fast.

Oh well, down with school.

"SCHOOL SUCKS!" I said.

I should still say said. It won't look right if said is being used for this quote. But that's my opinion


I like the second one better because it's easier to read.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

You describe through the dialogue itself how the words are said. The speech should, if you'll pardon the pun, speak for itself.

[FennelGiraffe]

Yes, the second version is much better. But. (There's always a but, you know...)

Now you have talking heads. They don't have bodies, they aren't in any location, etc. Of course, this is only a brief excerpt. The rest of the scene may address that adequately. If so, there's nothing at all wrong with a few lines of pure dialog.

If not though, you might want to add some narrative back in. If you do, there's nothing wrong with winking. That is, not unless all of your characters wink and blink and frown and sneer through all of their dialog. That sort of thing is best used sparingly. Oh, and of course you can't use winking as a dialog tag; people can't wink words.

But if you have several paragraphs of dialog with no narrative at all, you might want to try something like this:
“Sometimes fate decides for us. Some children have to be born and I feel this child will be a fire sign or will be born within the sign. Maybe March.”

I stepped toward the window and raised one hand to shade my eyes against the harsh sunlight. As I peered down the road, I wondered why Gavin hadn't returned yet. “Perhaps it’s my friend’s daughter.”

“It's not his daughter; you won't be close to her. You will simply look after her. He will be good with your children. But if you want another daughter . . . Well she's there if you decide.”

[DeadlyAccurate]

I was taught in school that when you use dialogue, you describe to the reader how this quote is being said, using "said" shows the reader that the author is too lazy and the tag gets annoying rather fast.

Your teacher was wrong, but of course you know that now. Fortunately, since you're here, you'll be able to unlearn whatever writing-related crap they were teaching you.

[katiemac]

I'll admit to this being one of my smaller issues. I tend to over-describe character's movements, especially within dialogue. I let myself do it the first time, but end up eliminating almost all of it during revisions -- it's just not necessary.

Another poster mentioned "floating bodies," so yes, the second set of dialogue is easier to read, but too much without tags can be confusing. But the direction doesn't always have to be a direct tag. The key is to let the dialogue itself reinforce who is speaking and how they're speaking.

“I want to give you an old name. Can you take the name Mary, in spirit or around you? And I see a church but it's not a wedding and you are dealing with horses. Do you have any?” Maureen said, lost in some sort of knowing grin.

Your example: "Do you know any?" Maureen said, lost in some sort of knowing grin.

"Do you know any?" Maureen grinned.

This example isn't the best, because it suggests that she might be grinning her question, but you can usually eliminate the "said" half if you have another direction.

"I love you," she said, looking at the photograph.

"I love you." She looked at the photograph.

Of course, it always depends. It may be important that she's looking at the photograph when she speaks instead of who she's speaking to.

The biggest question to ask is whether or not her "knowing grin" is important.

[FennelGiraffe]

Sometimes it isn't obvious. I got an F in my short story English project for constantly using said. The teacher was very constructive though. I was taught in school that when you use dialogue, you describe to the reader how this quote is being said, using "said" shows the reader that the author is too lazy and the tag gets annoying rather fast.


Generally, using specific and descriptive verbs is good and repeating the same word frequently is bad. As you now know, however, the convention for dialog tags is to stick with the unobtrusive "said." For some reason, though, many otherwise competent school teachers aren't aware of that distinction.

[IceCreamEmpress]

I almost always use "said" unless it's necessary to use another word that describes the physical action of speaking, like "shouted" or "whispered". I try not to use "explained" more than once per 100 pages, because otherwise I would probably use it way too often.

Generally, using specific and descriptive verbs is good and repeating the same word frequently is bad. As you now know, however, the convention for dialog tags is to stick with the unobtrusive "said." For some reason, though, many otherwise competent school teachers aren't aware of that distinction.

One of the first things that one does as a teacher of first-year college writing is to inform students that the "rules" some of them learned in high school writing are wrong. "Never use 'said'" is one of those particular bugbears, as are "Never use the first person when writing essays" and "Never use contractions when writing essays."

And one still receives a large number of essays that begin: "In the opinion of this writer..." and sound like Mr. Spock. Excuse me, Head? Have I neglected to introduce you to my friend Desk?

[kuwisdelu]

Sometimes it isn't obvious. I got an F in my short story English project for constantly using said. The teacher was very constructive though. I was taught in school that when you use dialogue, you describe to the reader how this quote is being said, using "said" shows the reader that the author is too lazy and the tag gets annoying rather fast.


Dontcha hate that? As everyone else here has pointed out--your teacher was wrong. He's a couple hundred years too late. But all teachers are.

Unless you're lucky enough to have a teacher who's a published author, teachers have always been saying this, have always been wrong, and have always confused beginning writers. All writers go through the "but my teacher said not to use 'said'!" phase.

My opinion is this is a holdover from back a couple centuries ago when writers DID use tags like "ejaculated" and it was accepted. But times change, and now that tag would get you funny looks, and as others have pointed out "said" is now an invisible word. Use it at will.

[Birol]

My opinion is this is a holdover from back a couple centuries ago when writers DID use tags like "ejaculated" and it was accepted. But times change, and now that tag would get you funny looks, and as others have pointed out "said" is now an invisible word. Use it at will.

I think it's an attempt to build the student's vocabulary by encouraging use.

[Sage]

I think it's an attempt to build the student's vocabulary by encouraging use.
I definitely agree with this. I remember having a full list of words to use instead of "said" in elementary or middle school. Still, it's kinda sad that in school you are taught to use anything but "said," for dialogue, and then you get out into the real writing world and find out that the advice is backwards.

[Birol]

School-based English courses aren't really about creative writing. Nor are they about writing commercially. They're designed to teach the formal use of language.

[IceCreamEmpress]

School-based English courses aren't really about creative writing. Nor are they about writing commercially. They're designed to teach the formal use of language.

But here's the thing: there is no context in which the commandments "Don't use 'said'," "Don't use the first person singular," and "Don't use contractions" are appropriate.

Wait, I take that back. It's not appropriate to use the first person singular when writing a papal enyclical.

[Birol]

The use of 'said' is largely about creative writing. Dialogue is largely about fiction. However, the creation of short stories in the context of English classes allows the students an opportunity to practice properly using quotation marks, adverbs, etc. Students are not being trained to write creatively when they write short fiction in high school comp; they're being given an exercise which allows them to use the tools they've been shown.

Contractions are inherently informal and not appropriate in either academic or business writing, both of which are formal writing styles. Students are much more likely to engage in academic or business writing than they are to write creatively.

[IceCreamEmpress]

Contractions are inherently informal and not appropriate in either academic or business writing, both of which are formal writing styles.

I could not possibly disagree with you more about this! Contractions can be, and are, appropriately used in the most formal academic presentations imaginable, as they are in business writing from SEC filings to arguments before the Supreme Court.

This (http://rmjacobsen.squarespace.com/articles/2006/1/4/contractions-and-how-not-to-abuse-em.html) is one of the best things I've read on the subject--it does a much better job than I do of articulating why a blanket ban on contractions is counterproductive (and quotes from some of my favorite writing gurus, including Zinsser and Garner, in support of the theory).

And surely we agree that the "don't use the first person singular" rule is ridiculous, yes? There is nothing that, to my mind, seems as amateurish and clunky as "In this writer's opinion" or similar.

[katiemac]

And surely we agree that the "don't use the first person singular" rule is ridiculous, yes? There is nothing that, to my mind, seems as amateurish and clunky as "In this writer's opinion" or similar.

As a tutor of academic writing, I pretty much still stand by the "no first person singular" rule. However, that doesn't mean I urge people to use "in this writer's opinion," or any variation. Their opinions are obvious in the text without having to use "I" or "the writer" at all.

I believe the 'no first person' rule originated because students tended to use it because it is completely unnecessary most of the time. But, as always, I stand by the idea that any writing rule can be broken.

[Birol]

No. We don't agree. The fact is, elementary school and high school English courses are not designed to teach people to write professionally. Instead, they are designed as an introduction to the tools of language, which can be applied to other endeavors the students might choose to pursue. In my training, contractions are frowned on in formal, academic papers.

As for the "first person singular" rule, students tend to gravitate toward this point of view. It is not always appropriate. In order to break students of this habit and to train them in the use of other points of view and teach them to think about the language they are using, it is necessary to deny them the "crutch" they are accustomed to using.

Additionally, even most professional writers are not able to use the first person singular well, which is why, when individuals are setting out on the professional course, it's use is discouraged. Few are capable of using it well enough to keep the reader engaged throughout the course of a book-length work.

I was trained to eliminate any hesitation marks, such as "in this writer's opinion," that might weaken my position. Just state the opinion. Do not announce that it is an opinion or belief in any manner whatsoever.

[IceCreamEmpress]

As a tutor of academic writing, I pretty much still stand by the "no first person singular" rule. However, that doesn't mean I urge people to use "in this writer's opininon," or any variation. Their opinions are obvious in the text without having to use "I" or "the writer" at all.

Well, yes. I think it's true that it's usually much stronger to present an argument in the third person.

What I was thinking of was the people who had absorbed the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law, and had included bizarre circumlocutions in their essays like "When this writer was in third grade..."

[kuwisdelu]

I think it's an attempt to build the student's vocabulary by encouraging use.


That would make sense, but in my opinion, that's a pretty sad attempt.

I wonder if any of us have simply asked a teacher who says this why they say this?

[badducky]

I think anyone who is teaching students how to write short stories ought to have published one somewhere first. Otherwise, they ought to contact someone who has and get their advice and guidance on the subject. How come teachers believe their own ancient textbooks and ignore current scholarship? Books on grammar and usage that exist in the circular closed system of academia oft lose touch with the books that focus on common usage. How long did it take for "google" to enter the dictionary as a verb? Too long. Too long.

Also, wouldn't it be cool to make reading at least one current literary magazine and one current tech manual a requirement for a High School English course?

To the OP:

Said is more than just an invisible word. It's also a spacer, and a "beat" in your dialog that controls the flow of the eye over the spoken words.

“Sometimes fate decides for us," she said. "Some children have to be born and I feel this child will be a fire sign or will be born within the sign." She squinted into the sun. "Maybe March.”

“Perhaps it’s my friend’s daughter,” he said.

“It's not his daughter; you won't be close to her," she replied. "You will simply look after her. He will be good with your children. But if you want another daughter..." Her voice trailed off.

He tried to say something in the silence. He opened his mouth.

She spoke before he could. "Well she's there if you decide.”


Pacing your dialog is a vital skill, and you have to edumacate yourself how to do it. It's not just using "said", but filling in the spaces and controlling the flow with simple statements that carry the tone and weight and emotion. You do describe what people feel, and how they act, and everything you're trying to do in your original post. You just have to do it artfully.

The secret way to learn this pacing and flow stuff? Read buckets of modern poetry. I recommend Anne Sexton and James Merrill.

addendum: do you know what a semi-colon sounds like? If you don't know what a semi-colon sounds like, don't write one. Certainly not in dialog!

[mum23]

I'll admit to this being one of my smaller issues. I tend to over-describe character's movements, especially within dialogue. I let myself do it the first time, but end up eliminating almost all of it during revisions -- it's just not necessary.

Another poster mentioned "floating bodies," so yes, the second set of dialogue is easier to read, but too much without tags can be confusing. But the direction doesn't always have to be a direct tag. The key is to let the dialogue itself reinforce who is speaking and how they're speaking.



Your example: "Do you know any?" Maureen said, lost in some sort of knowing grin.

"Do you know any?" Maureen grinned.

This example isn't the best, because it suggests that she might be grinning her question, but you can usually eliminate the "said" half if you have another direction.

"I love you," she said, looking at the photograph.

"I love you." She looked at the photograph.

Of course, it always depends. It may be important that she's looking at the photograph when she speaks instead of who she's speaking to.

The biggest question to ask is whether or not her "knowing grin" is important.

You've been reading my stuff!! lol. Thanks for the suggestions.

[mum23]

:flag:Do I need to wave the flag? I hope not. Maybe you kind folk can help me learn this dialogue lesson.

Here is my sample.

Lashing rain beat aginst the window and a thick veil of mist covered my beloved hills. The weather was depressing and matched my mood.
"My mummy says I don't have to talk to you." Caitlin eventually broke her morning silence.
"What?" I continued to watch the rain without absorbing the sentance.
"MY mummy says I don't have to talk to you."
I turned to look at her, confused. "When did she say that?" There was no reply. Instead, Caitlin continued to draw.

[Birol]

What dialogue lesson are you trying to learn? Reading these five lines, what I can immediately say is the sentence "Caitlin eventually broke her morning silence" feels out of place to me. It breaks the rhythm of the rest of the exchange.


ETA: Merged threads.

[Elaine Margarett]

:flag:Do I need to wave the flag? I hope not. Maybe you kind folk can help me learn this dialogue lesson.

Here is my sample.

Lashing rain beat aginst the window and a thick veil of mist covered my beloved hills. The weather was depressing and matched my mood.
"My mummy says I don't have to talk to you." Caitlin eventually broke her morning silence.
"What?" I continued to watch the rain without absorbing the sentance.
"MY mummy says I don't have to talk to you."
I turned to look at her, confused. "When did she say that?" There was no reply. Instead, Caitlin continued to draw.

I'm not sure what your question is? The only thing I would change in the above would be placing the describing action before the first line of dialog. IOW~~
Caitlin eventually broke her silence. "My mummy says..."

This way the reader knows the first line of dialog doesn't come from the POV character but from someone else. You also avoid a dialog tag while still directing the reader as to whom is speaking. The last two sentences after your final line of dialog *could* be on a seperate line, which would give it more impact. EX~~

I turned to her, confused. "When did she say that?"
There was no reply. Instead, Caitlin continued to draw.

HTH,
EM

[BlueLucario]

Dontcha hate that? As everyone else here has pointed out--your teacher was wrong. He's a couple hundred years too late. But all teachers are.

Unless you're lucky enough to have a teacher who's a published author, teachers have always been saying this, have always been wrong, and have always confused beginning writers. All writers go through the "but my teacher said not to use 'said'!" phase.

My opinion is this is a holdover from back a couple centuries ago when writers DID use tags like "ejaculated" and it was accepted. But times change, and now that tag would get you funny looks, and as others have pointed out "said" is now an invisible word. Use it at will.

Yes. I know my teacher was wrong. Like I said, school sucks. I'm glad I'm getting out of here in may.

"ejaculate" That word is so funny. (okay please ignore me.)

Ever since i got here, I use said in all of my dialogue tags.

[BlueLucario]

:flag:Do I need to wave the flag? I hope not. Maybe you kind folk can help me learn this dialogue lesson.

Here is my sample.

Lashing rain beat aginst(You spelled against wrong. But you can ignore me) the window and a thick veil of mist covered my beloved hills. The weather was depressing and matched my mood.
"My mummy says I don't have to talk to you." Caitlin eventually broke her morning silence.
"What?" I continued to watch the rain without absorbing the sentance.(Sentence is spelled wrong too.) You don't need The word "What" I think the phrase after that just tell us that this person isn't paying much attention
"MY mummy says I don't have to talk to you."
I turned to look at her, confused. "When did she say that?" There was no reply. Instead, Caitlin continued to draw.


I think most of this whole thing is a bit redundant.

[mum23]

I think most of this whole thing is a bit redundant.

You are familiar with the content of my work then, to be able to offer such a statement?

If you read the scene correctly, you will have noted that Caitlin hasn't spoken to the MC all morning. To delete the "what" would make the whole scene redundant wouldn't it?
Perhaps you find it easier to give critisism than to take it?

[Birol]

Ever since i got here, I use said in all of my dialogue tags.

That's not exactly correct either. Sometimes, you don't need a dialogue tag at all. Sometimes, you need a sentence to add meaning or flavor to the dialogue rather than a tag. Sometimes, you need to use 'asked' or 'replied'.

Said isn't always correct. It's just usually correct.

I know, I know. I'm making your head hurt again. ;)

[mum23]

That's not exactly correct either. Sometimes, you don't need a dialogue tag at all. Sometimes, you need a sentence to add meaning or flavor to the dialogue rather than a tag. Sometimes, you need to use 'asked' or 'replied'.

Said isn't always correct. It's just usually correct.

I know, I know. I'm making your head hurt again. ;)

My head already hurts.
I was once told (I think) when using dialoge, to "make it as real as possible." In doing that I have now been told, quite correctly, that it's not always possible as it can sound stilted. What is right and what is wrong?
So yes, my head hurts.

[Birol]

You are familiar with the content of my work then, to be able to offer such a statement?

If you read the scene correctly, you will have noted that Caitlin hasn't spoken to the MC all morning. To delete the "what" would make the whole scene redundant wouldn't it?
Perhaps you find it easier to give critisism than to take it?

This really isn't necessary. BlueLucario is permitted to respond to anyone else's post on this board the same as any other member. You do not have to take her advice or listen to her opinions, the same as she is not required to listen to yours.

I sincerely hope that you do not have to cut another person down in order to feel better about yourself, which is how the above reads to me. If another person aggravates you to a degree that you are unable to respond civilly, then you should use the Ignore button.

[Birol]

My head already hurts.
I was once told (I think) when using dialoge, to "make it as real as possible." In doing that I have now been told, quite correctly, that it's not always possible as it can sound stilted. What is right and what is wrong?
So yes, my head hurts.

You should make it sound natural, which isn't the same as making it sound real. Most people, when speaking, make lots of hesitation noises, like 'huh,' 'mmm,' etc. But you can't write that way. It would drive the reader nuts.

There's another axiom in writing, 'truth is stranger than fiction.' What that means is that we can't exactly mirror real life, even while trying to shine a light on the human condition, because, in real life, people don't always behave logically and sometimes things happen out of nowhere that don't make any sense whatsoever. If some of the illogical, out-of-left field things that occur in the real world were to happen in fiction, then our readers would throw the book across the room. They wouldn't read us.

The same is true of dialogue. You need to make it sound natural, which isn't necessarily the same thing as making it sound real.

[bethany]

OMG, one day I'm going to get my hands on that hand out, the one with all the alternatives for said, and then I'll know all the secrets of bad dialogue.

I just tell my students not to use anything that is impossible. You can't yawn, yodel, or grunt entire sentences. If they want to use a few "creative" tags I don't say anything. However, I am teaching creative writing next year, so that will be interesting.

BTW there is a handout, two sided, that says all of the different words you can use for said. It was floating around when I was in school and I know it's still there, somewhere. When I find it I'll scan it and post it for you guys (after all these years I doubt there's any sort of copyright on it;))

[Birol]

Bethany, you made me curious, so I just did a quick Google. Is this the list (http://cyberspaces.net/6traits/wsaid.html) you're talking about? (Note the 'Next Page' button at the bottom.)


ETA: I also found this list (http://www.writingfix.com/wordlists/Synonyms_for_said.pdf).

[Bubastes]

That list is just...ew. Bleah. If I didn't know what to avoid before, I sure know now.

[bethany]

Bethany, you made me curious, so I just did a quick Google. Is this the list (http://cyberspaces.net/6traits/wsaid.html) you're talking about? (Note the 'Next Page' button at the bottom.)


ETA: I also found this list (http://www.writingfix.com/wordlists/Synonyms_for_said.pdf).

Actually, the one I remember had like 4 columns on the front and the entire back was filled up, but I'm sure there are many variations!

[mum23]

This really isn't necessary. BlueLucario is permitted to respond to anyone else's post on this board the same as any other member. You do not have to take her advice or listen to her opinions, the same as she is not required to listen to yours.

I sincerely hope that you do not have to cut another person down in order to feel better about yourself, which is how the above reads to me. If another person aggravates you to a degree that you are unable to respond civilly, then you should use the Ignore button.

Apologies to you Birol. Yes Blue is permitted to respond yet I didn't feel her response was to question the content then point out spelling errors.
I am not the type of person who "cuts people down" not my style. Yet it seems it was ok for Blue to "belittle" me by pointing out spelling and tell me the piece was redundant.
All I am trying to do is learn. If people get some smug kick from responses like this then perhaps this isn't for me.
I can take critiques gracefully when I ask for them, yet to have some person feel smug because I may not be as good they are is another matter.

[BlueLucario]

Apologies to you Birol. Yes Blue is permitted to respond yet I didn't feel her response was to question the content then point out spelling errors.
I am not the type of person who "cuts people down" not my style. Yet it seems it was ok for Blue to "belittle" me by pointing out spelling and tell me the piece was redundant.
All I am trying to do is learn. If people get some smug kick from responses like this then perhaps this isn't for me.
I can take critiques gracefully when I ask for them, yet to have some person feel smug because I may not be as good they are is another matter.

Sorry about that, I just want to help. I didn't mean to put you down. I was just saying that "What" isn't needed. Since the phrase after that says it all.

[mum23]

Sorry about that, I just want to help. I didn't mean to put you down. I was just saying that "What" isn't needed. Since the phrase after that says it all.

I understand that Blue. Yet I did not ask for a critique so to have you raise 2 spelling points and to state the phrase was redundant wasn't the question I asked (I don't think). But it's fine. I have taken what I need from the comments and applied them. Thanks for posting.:)

[Shadow_Ferret]

Oddball here.

I liked the first example in the OP's post. I prefer stage directions and facial ticks to just straight talking head dialog.

[Bekah]

Apologies to you Birol. Yes Blue is permitted to respond yet I didn't feel her response was to question the content then point out spelling errors.
I am not the type of person who "cuts people down" not my style. Yet it seems it was ok for Blue to "belittle" me by pointing out spelling and tell me the piece was redundant.
All I am trying to do is learn. If people get some smug kick from responses like this then perhaps this isn't for me.
I can take critiques gracefully when I ask for them, yet to have some person feel smug because I may not be as good they are is another matter.

You did ask for critique. You posted the sample in hopes that someone could help you "learn this dialogue lesson."

There's a lengthy thread up about critiques, largely concerning how to accept them gracefully. How you respond reflects on you, not the critic. Being rude to a critic because they're somehow not "qualified" isn't any better than being rude to someone who's more experienced.

I think Blue sometimes parrots critiques she's received without understanding if they apply to the work she's critting. (I don't think "redundant" applied in this case.) But she shouldn't be attacked for commenting on something, whether she's off-track (redundancy) or right on the money (misspellings). You did misspell things. People have pointed out misspellings to her, too. If she's learning the lesson that such errors detract from the flow of a piece, then good for her.

[dpaterso]

Drive-by comments on posted sample:

Lashing rain beat aginst the window and a thick veil of mist covered my beloved hills. The weather was depressing and matched my mood.
Rain lashed against the window. A thick veil of mist covered my beloved hills. The depressing weather matched my mood.

...Why? "Lashing" and "beat against" say the same thing twice. The window is close and the hills are distant, making them two distinct objects, so I split the sentence. The "was" construction is usually a warning flag that a verb could be used in a more direct, stronger manner. Each to their own preferences.

"My mummy says I don't have to talk to you." Caitlin eventually broke her morning silence.
I'd swap these sentences around. As soon as she talks we know she's broken her silence. So say this first.

"What?" I continued to watch the rain without absorbing the sentance.
Ditto, I'd swap these sentences too, so she watches the rain and doesn't absorb the sentence before she says, "What?"

I turned to look at her, confused. "When did she say that?" There was no reply. Instead, Caitlin continued to draw.
I'd drop "There was no reply" which is a response to someone/something who isn't seen or is elsewhere, but your protag has already turned to look directly at Caitlin. I'd recast the above to: I turned to look at her, confused. "When did she say that?" Instead of replying, Caitlin continued to draw.

I'm not claiming I'm right, I'm just saying how I'd write it. You're the author, you get to decide. Enjoy. :)

-Derek

[mum23]

Drive-by comments on posted sample:


Rain lashed against the window. A thick veil of mist covered my beloved hills. The depressing weather matched my mood.

...Why? "Lashing" and "beat against" say the same thing twice. The window is close and the hills are distant, making them two distinct objects, so I split the sentence. The "was" construction is usually a warning flag that a verb could be used in a more direct, stronger manner. Each to their own preferences.


I'd swap these sentences around. As soon as she talks we know she's broken her silence. So say this first.


Ditto, I'd swap these sentences too, so she watches the rain and doesn't absorb the sentence before she says, "What?"


I'd drop "There was no reply" which is a response to someone/something who isn't seen or is elsewhere, but your protag has already turned to look directly at Caitlin. I'd recast the above to: I turned to look at her, confused. "When did she say that?" Instead of replying, Caitlin continued to draw.

I'm not claiming I'm right, I'm just saying how I'd write it. You're the author, you get to decide. Enjoy. :)

-Derek

Cheers Derek. This is how I need the help. You have broken the sentance down and explained why. I am greatful for this. May not mean much to you, but helps me heaps.

[job]

:flag:Do I need to wave the flag? I hope not. Maybe you kind folk can help me learn this dialogue lesson.

Here is my sample.

Lashing rain beat aginst the window and a thick veil of mist covered my beloved hills. The weather was depressing and matched my mood.
"My mummy says I don't have to talk to you." Caitlin eventually broke her morning silence.
"What?" I continued to watch the rain without absorbing the sentance.
"MY mummy says I don't have to talk to you."
I turned to look at her, confused. "When did she say that?" There was no reply. Instead, Caitlin continued to draw.


Thing is ... one can't say much, looking at just a short snippet.
Optimal tagging is done within the context of a whole scene, not just in the four or five lines.


Y'see ... Dialog tagging is a vast country...
Let me just set a few toes on the shoreline ...


You got a couple three different ways to tag dialog.

--Tags can be a 'said'.
"You're a frog," the magician said.
'Said' is the basic black of dialog tagging. Goes anywhere and is nearly always 'just right'.
Avoid the adverbial tail, the Tom Swifty. But when adverb+said is the best and easiest way to slip in an exact emotion or action, use it. Six times in a ms? Seven?


-- Tags can be a 'saidism' -- questioned, added, opined and an infinite etc.
"You're a frog," the magician intoned.
A newbie must be told not to use these, because their tenth-grade teacher was in love with saidisms. We must break the chain before it overwhelms us all.
But 'saidisms' have their place. When it is vitally important how a thing was said, just use a saidism.
Consider the saidism to be medical use of cocaine. Forbidden generally and with good reason, cocaine is nonetheless the medicine of choice for eye surgery.


-- Tags can be an action.
"You're a frog." The magician waved his magic wand.
(Forgive me Fennel, that I call this a tag. I'm weak.)

a) When we set action next to dialog, the reader assumes the dialog is spoken either by the subject of the sentence or by the character closest to the dialog.
We try to make obvious what character is speaking.

b) Because dialog is inherently close-up, the 'tagging action' chosen by the novice writer is often 'close-up' too. This leads to a plethera of facial expressions, small-body movements and little pointless actions. Such dialog tends to be full of twitches and tics and walking over to look out the window and turning back.

It is better technique to save 'he smiled' or 'he lifted an eyebrow' or 'he sat down' for when we need these exact expressions. We do not want to waste the potentially powerful, 'he smiled', on random dialog tagging.

c) Tagging action is most interesting and useful when it serves a true purpose in the scene. Somebody walking over to look out the window does not advance the plot nor serve any story purpose. Drowning your assistant does.
"You're a frog." The magician held Maurice struggling under the water.
"He can't breathe, can he?" The frog clung to the edge of the bowl, interested.
"Not underwater." The magician let the boy up to snatch a quick lungful of air. "Not yet."
Ideally, you tag with action so interesting the reader is breathlessly (g) following both the dialog and the story action that's happening behind it.
Carefully adjusting the interest in these parallel advancements serves many authorial purposes.

d) Failing that kind of breathless story-advancing activity, one can use a lengthy 'stage-business' action that spans the whole conversatiion. This long, drawn-out stage business has the merit of avoiding stereotyped and over-used smiles, facial tics and twitches.

"You're a frog, you know." Ernie, the magician, opened a bottle of something that buzzed.
"The damp green skin gives it away."
"I didn't say you were a stupid frog." Ernie spilled a teaspoon of wingless flies onto the chopping board.
"What I want to know is why I woke up with a bad case of amphibian. That's not just your everyday flu."
"It's more your everyday fluke." Chop, chop, chop.
"You've been experimenting again, haven't you?"
"What makes you think that?" Ernie took a dozen small fly carcasses onto the point of the knife and upended them into the glass bowl. "Move a bit to the side, will you?"


-- Tags can be an internal -- that is, something the speaker thinks, feels, knows, experiences. When we insert an internal next to the line of dialog, we know it is spoken by the POV chharacter.
"You're a frog." The magician considered this problem.
"You're a frog." The magician was filled with consternation.
"You're a frog." The magician's head ached.
"You're a frog." The magician panicked.
"You're a frog." Purple light hit the magician right in the eyes.



-- Tags can be internal monologue -- the speaker talks to himself.
"You're a frog." Oh good, the magician thought.
"I'm a frog." This is a devil of a predicament for a private detective.


-- Tags can be by responsion -- that is, it's obvious because it's a response.
"What do you think?" George said.
"We have problems," the Magician said.
"What?"
"You're a frog."

And see the long example above with the flies, where half the dialog is tagged by responsion. You can go on for pages and pages without any written tags at all, using only responsion and 'voice'.

-- Tags can be by 'voice' -- that is, only one character sounds like that.
"Ye be a frog, lad."

-- 'Voice' is a special case of tagging by 'idiosyncracy' -- that is, only one character could possibly say this line because of facts contained within the dialog itself.
"And I'm an Albanian tree frog." Thus we know it is Sergei, because he is the only Albanian in the story.
"I'm a frog." came from under the bed. And thus we know it is Mary, who was last seen hiding under the bed.
"You're a frog." Far below, in the parking lot, the Swat team assembled. And we know this is Randolph, because Randolph is the one at the window with the AK-47. We tag here by the placement of the character in the room. This is also an example of tagging by an internal.






This is only a selection of the ways to tag dialog and the nuances thereof.
As I said, dialog is a big country.

My advice would be to pick a couple authors with spiffy writing style, (Dunnett, Trollope -- look at his responsion tagging,) buy paperbacks, and mark 50 pages of tags with a yellow highlighter. LOOK at what these folks do. They are the masters.

[DeadlyAccurate]

Cheers Derek. This is how I need the help. You have broken the sentance down and explained why. I am greatful for this. May not mean much to you, but helps me heaps.

Blue is learning, and I thought her critique was nice and an attempt to be helpful. I would've corrected your spelling, too, if I'd been inclined to critique the piece. (Sentence. Grateful.)

For the record, I'd keep the "What?" and drop the other sentence entirely. But I'm a sparse writer.

ETA: I so want to read more about Ernie and the frog.

[mum23]

Thank you Job. I shall print this out and add to the list of valuable info I am collecting.

[mum23]

Blue is learning, and I thought her critique was nice and an attempt to be helpful. I would've corrected your spelling, too, if I'd been inclined to critique the piece. (Sentence. Grateful.)

For the record, I'd keep the "What?" and drop the other sentence entirely. But I'm a sparse writer.

Thanks Deadly. Without appearing too picky (which I hope I have straightened things out with Blue) in the Critique thread, she posted (and I quote)

DON'T Check the piece for grammar and punctuation. It's a waste of time. Tell the author that he has several grammar problems, don't tell him where because he can point it out himself.

Which incidentally she did twice. Then said she thought the whole thing was a bit redundant.

Yep, know I am not too good with grammar and spelling (thank heavens for dictionaries) However Derek DID offer what I was looking for, apart other posters who helped.

I do thank you for raising this with me but hope it can be put to rest now.:)

[BlueLucario]

DON'T Check the piece for grammar and punctuation. It's a waste of time. Tell the author that he has several grammar problems, don't tell him where because he can point it out himself.

Which incidentally she did twice. Then said she thought the whole thing was a bit redundant.

Yep, know I am not too good with grammar and spelling (thank heavens for dictionaries) However Derek DID offer what I was looking for, apart other posters who helped.

I do thank you for raising this with me but hope it can be put to rest now.:)


Why exactly are you making such a big deal about it?:e2shrug: Other people would have done the same thing I did.

[Bekah]

Thanks Deadly. Without appearing too picky (which I hope I have straightened things out with Blue) in the Critique thread, she posted (and I quote)

DON'T Check the piece for grammar and punctuation. It's a waste of time. Tell the author that he has several grammar problems, don't tell him where because he can point it out himself.

Which incidentally she did twice. Then said she thought the whole thing was a bit redundant.


Blue posted the "Don't Check the piece for grammar and punctuation," tip more than two hours after she corrected the spelling in your piece and you jumped all over her. There's nothing contradictory about that. She just gathered that some people must not appreciate that sort of help.

[BlueLucario]

Blue posted the "Don't Check the piece for grammar and punctuation," tip more than two hours after she corrected the spelling in your piece and you jumped all over her. There's nothing contradictory about that. She just gathered that some people must not appreciate that sort of help.


Yes, that's also because of that. It's a waste of time for the critters to crit such tedious material and because some people don't appreciate being nagged because of grammar errors, but that's life. This is why I type like this, and yet I'm used to it, so no one can nag you about the post.

Mum I didn't mean to attack you.

[Birol]

Gang, let's all take a step back. Take a deep breath. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Let it slowy. Slowly. Slowly.

I really am serious that the sniping needs to end. Okay?

[Moon Daughter]

Gang, let's all take a step back. Take a deep breath. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Let it slowy. Slowly. Slowly.

I really am serious that the sniping needs to end. Okay?

Just to add on, I think people should also take a minute to understand if whether or not the person meant it as an insult. I bet you'd find a lot of situations where you *think* the person is attacking you and they're really not. Maybe they didn't write it in a way to not offend sensitive people, but wouldn't it be better to ask in PM how they meant it?

[FennelGiraffe]

-- Tags can be an action.
"You're a frog." The magician waved his magic wand.
(Forgive me Fennel, that I call this a tag. I'm weak.)


:roll:

[FennelGiraffe]

Lashing rain beat aginst the window and a thick veil of mist covered my beloved hills. The weather was depressing and matched my mood.
"My mummy says I don't have to talk to you." Caitlin eventually broke her morning silence.
"What?" I continued to watch the rain without absorbing the sentance.
"MY mummy says I don't have to talk to you."
I turned to look at her, confused. "When did she say that?" There was no reply. Instead, Caitlin continued to draw.
The only thing I would change in the above would be placing the describing action before the first line of dialog. IOW~~
Caitlin eventually broke her silence. "My mummy says..."

This way the reader knows the first line of dialog doesn't come from the POV character but from someone else. You also avoid a dialog tag while still directing the reader as to whom is speaking.

This thread has moved on quite a bit, but I can't resist commenting on one detail.

I strongly agree with switching the order of that paragraph, but for an entirely different reason: Chronological order. The POV char should notice that Caitlin has begun to speak before understanding what Caitlin says.

It's important to maintain control over the time sequence of actions, not just in large scale, but also at the sentence and paragraph level.

[mum23]

This thread has moved on quite a bit, but I can't resist commenting on one detail.

I strongly agree with switching the order of that paragraph, but for an entirely different reason: Chronological order. The POV char should notice that Caitlin has begun to speak before understanding what Caitlin says.

It's important to maintain control over the time sequence of actions, not just in large scale, but also at the sentence and paragraph level.

Thanks Fennel. These are the typ of responses I am after.

[VGrossack]

If you can tolerate it, here's an article I wrote on the subject...

Who Speaks? Pointers about Attribution in Dialogue
Victoria Grossack

In this month’s column I want to cover an aspect of dialogue: how you, as an author, let your readers know which of your characters is doing the speaking. You may consider this aspect trivial, unimportant, nit-picky, even dull. But understanding it and mastering it will contribute significantly to the smoothness and the readability of your work.

He said: The Most Common Approach
The most frequently used method for signaling the speaker to the reader is some variant of the phrase he said, or he asked, if the piece of dialogue happens to be a question. Here are a few examples:

He said, “I want to go home now.”

He said: “I want to go home now.”

“I want to go home now,” he said.

“I want to go home now,” said he.

The first and the third variants are used most commonly, but I have seen the second and the fourth frequently. Which should you use? Honestly, there is little difference between these alternatives. My recommendation is for you to consider which is clearest and least obtrusive to the reader. For example, if the speeches are long, and there are more than two characters in the conversation, you may prefer the first or second variant so that your reader knows immediately who is speaking. Another factor in your choice is the rhythm of your writing – you don’t want to stick with one form too long in a single passage; it becomes monotonous.

Modifiers for Said
The word “said” does not have to stand alone; as an author, you can often indicate how your characters are speaking. Perhaps they are speaking loudly or quietly; perhaps they are speaking hurriedly or slowly; perhaps they are speaking sweetly or nastily. This can be achieved quite easily by including the adverb next to the word said. Here are a few examples:

“You don’t love him,” Julie said nastily. “You just love his money.”

“No, I’m not going to eat the spinach,” the pimply-faced teenager said firmly.

“I hate you!” the girl said passionately.

These adverbs modify how the speaker makes his or her speech. Now, I have a prejudice against adverbs, because I believe they can encourage lazy writing, in which the author tells instead of shows. Nevertheless, many novels that I like are littered with adverbs used in just this manner, so perhaps my prejudice is unreasonable.

Alternatives to “Said”
Often you can eliminate the said plus the adverb by using a single word that combines both meanings. For example, perhaps instead of said nastily you could write hissed.

Besides – he said, she said – don’t you get tired of writing the word said over and over and over again? Aren’t there other words that will do? Of course there are! So, here are a few alternatives to enrich your writing experience:

Acknowledge, add, admit, affirm, allege, agree, announce, argue, articulate, ask, assert, aver, avow, bark, beg, bid, bluff, bluster, boast, brag, butt in, carp, challenge, chant, chime in, chirp, chorus, cite, claim, command, comment, communicate, concede, confess, confide, contest, continue, contradict, convey, correct, crab, declare, defend, deliver, demand, deny, disclose, divulge, duel, echo, emphasize, encourage, enquire, enunciate, exaggerate, exclaim, explain, expostulate, express, fence, fib, forward, gab, gripe, groan, grumble, grunt, guess, harangue, hiss, howl, imply, inquire, insist, instruct, interject, interrogate, interrupt, jeer, jest, joke, kid, lambaste, lecture, lie, lip, maintain, make known, mention, moan, mock, mumble, murmur, mutter, nag, object, offer, opine, orate, pant, parry, plead, point out, prattle, profess, predicate, pronounce, protest, purr, query, question, quip, quote, recite, refute, reiterate, rejoin, relate, remark, render, reply, report, respond, retort, reveal, scream, screech, shout, shriek, sing, snap, speak, stammer, state, stutter, suggest, swear, tattle, tell, thunder, urge, utter, verbalize, vocalize, voice, warn, warrant, wheeze, whisper, worry, yell, yowl

Now that I’ve given you some additional options, here are some caveats:

First, this list is by no means complete. There are plenty of other possibilities.

Second, not all of these alternatives have quite the same meaning, so you have to use them according to the situation.

Third, and perhaps most importantly – even though putting this list together was challenging and fun, and even though using the right alternative can be very effective – these alternatives should be used sparingly in your replacement of the word “said.” Why is this? Well, if you use them too frequently, they call attention to themselves. Here’s a piece of dialogue to illustrate my point:

“It’s late,” he announced.

“No, it’s not,” she protested.

“We have to leave now,” he insisted.

“No, we don’t,” she contradicted.

“If we don’t leave now, we won’t make it!” he exclaimed.

“You worry too much,” she complained.

“Only because I’m with you,” he grumbled.

There are many problems with this sample dialogue – the content is dull and the rhythm monotonous – and the dialogue is not being improved by the verbs being used to signal attribution. These verbs are, in my opinion, actually more interesting and more creative than the dialogue itself, thereby calling attention to themselves. Each one by itself might be considered acceptable, actually improving the conversation, but having so many is overdone – rather like an ice cream with too many flavors, or a room cluttered with too many knick knacks.

In contrast, the humble “said” calls less attention to itself. Even though it may feel tiresome to type the word “said” over and over, you, as the author, are generally far more aware of this word than are your readers.

Still, there are several other ways to approach this problem; let’s examine them.

No Attribution
It may be possible to skip attribution altogether. In short sections, especially when just two characters are present, you can do this without losing the reader. For example:

“It’s late,” he said.

“No, it’s not,” she protested.

“We have to leave now.”

It should be obvious to readers that the character speaking the third sentence above is again “he.” In this instance, this is “obvious” for at least two reasons. First, this is a conversation with only two characters, and so when she isn’t speaking, then he must be.

Second, it is also obvious from what is being said. He is maintaining that it is late, therefore the statement, “We have to leave now,” only makes sense he says it.

You can continue the conversation without attributions for a little while, relying on the reader to understand, from alternation and context, who is saying which piece of dialogue. However, this falls apart when more than two characters are speaking, and the reader can also become lost if it continues too long. Also, you don’t want your readers to be able to tell who’s speaking from context all the time, because this means that their conversations contain no surprises.

Note that other clues within a speech may indicate who is speaking. These include the manner of speech, such as a tendency to use bad grammar or long words or other peculiarities (such as talking about “My Precious” – generally uttered by Gollum/Sméagol of The Lord of the Rings); the perspective that the character has on the world; what the character’s chief concerns are (if a character in one of the Harry Potter books makes a panicky statement about schoolwork, well, then, the speaker is probably Hermione Granger). These last few bits are straying into the topic of what people say, so this will be saved for a future column.

Names
Names, especially used in a manner where one character is addressing another, can also tell you who is speaking – or at least, who will speak next. Here’s an example:

“Lucy, it’s late.”

“No, Ricky, it’s not.”

“We have to leave now, Lucy.”

“No, Ricky, we don’t.”

When the first character addresses Lucy, the reader assumes that the next character to speak will be Lucy. Then when Lucy replies, using the name Ricky, we assume that the next character to speak will be Ricky.

The technique of using names – although it seems to work fairly well in the example above, for I can hear the characters getting louder with each other as the conflict increases – this technique should be applied with care. First, people don’t use each other’s names that often while speaking, especially when just two of them are around. So dialogue employing this technique can sound unnatural.

Second, when there are more than two participants in the conversation, this approach does not always work. Lucy may always address her words to Ricky – but if Fred is around, does he interrupt? Again, you don’t want to rely too much on this method.

Conversational Beats
Another way to let the reader know who is speaking without resorting to direct attribution is to imply it by combining a character’s piece of dialogue with additional information about that character. This may sound complicated and confusing; it’s easier to show than to explain further. So here’s an example using conversational beats:

He glanced at his watch. “It’s late.”

“No, it’s not,” she protested, grabbing the decanter of sherry.

He rose to his feet. “We have to leave now.”

She poured herself another drink. “No, we don’t.”

The passage above contains only a single direct attribution, protested, but you had no difficulty determining which character was speaking, did you?

Using conversational beats is my favorite method of handling dialogue attribution. I like it because it gets away from having just talking heads, which can become dull for the reader. Injecting these conversational beats injects something more visual into a passage of dialogue (which would otherwise simply concentrate on the auditory sense for the reader). The conversational beats can also complement what the character is saying. The glancing at the watch and the rising to the feet are both acts of someone who wants to depart, while the woman’s actions emphasize the fact that she wants to stay and have another drink.

The conversational beats connect your story to the dialogue in many ways. You can use them to convey the character’s emotions or what the character is thinking:

“It’s late,” he said, glancing at his watch.

She raised an eyebrow. “No, it’s not.”

The raising of her eyebrow signals that she does not agree, that she perhaps doubts his interpretation of the hour, or that she simply does not believe him. Characters can have many physical responses that could demonstrate how they are feeling, such as slamming doors, stamping feet, wiping away tears, clearing throats, or twiddling their thumbs.

You can also integrate your conversation with the story’s action. Perhaps the conversational beats serve simply to move along an activity. Imagine that Stan and Stella are visiting the fair while having a conversation about another subject.

Stan handed two tickets to the man collecting them for the Ferris wheel. He opened the gate for her. “Ready to see the city from up on high?”

Stella scooted onto the hard plastic seat, and pulled in her legs as Stan climbed in after her. “I’m ready to listen to you tell me whether or not you know where the painting is.”

“Do you really want to talk about that now?” As they swung gently upwards, Stan gestured at the vista before them. “It’s too beautiful to waste words on an old painting. It wasn’t even very good.”

As their seat kept climbing higher – the ground had to be eight stories below them now – Stella experienced a wave of dizziness. What had possessed her to agree to meet this guy at the fair, when she suffered from vertigo? She clutched the bar that was holding them in, and willed herself to concentrate. “That painting may not have been very valuable – but my grandfather was the artist. So, you see, I need to find it.”

In the passage above, the conversational beats are moving along with the dialogue – sometimes directly related to what is being said, at other times not related to it at all. But the conversational beats, besides taking us to a different setting and a different activity, also let the readers know who is speaking. You could insert dialogue attributions in the passage above – it would not hurt – but it is not necessary.

Conclusion
For attribution, there is no single best method. I believe you should mix and match according to the needs of your story. As you become more conscious of this part of your writing, you will develop your own sense rhythm and your own artistic approach.

[mum23]

Thanks V.
Printed and used for referance as Job's article.:Hug2:

[narnia]

Thanks for the excellent examples everyone, saved for future reference.

Now I have a question!

A recent crit I recieved said (hee hee) I have an incredibly low number of assignment verbs for my dialogue, meaning "he said/she said/she yelled/etc."
He also said that overuse of the speech-then-action construct (derth of assignment verbs) makes it look forced and pointed out that in 29 pages I didn't use "said" ONCE to assign speech. His comment was; "That is sooo unusual that it pokes the reader in the eye. Seriously."

I read this and thought, huh, never realized that. I went back and read it but (no, not golden word syndrome, really!!!) I don't see anything abnormal about it, that's just how I write. But then again he also pointed out that it is no longer SOP to use 2 spaces between sentences and that was news to me! I did look it up, and now I feel really old... :cry:

I would appreciate any thoughts on this, is it really that horrible to not use said? :(

Thanks in advance everyone!

:Sun:

[DeadlyAccurate]

I would appreciate any thoughts on this, is it really that horrible to not use said? :(

I'd have to see the work in question to know for sure, but how do you handle beats?

Ex:

"Look at it this way," he said. "If we don't go in, we don't have to talk to her."

Also, are you mostly doing:

"Dialog." Action.
"Dialog." Action.

Or are you mixing it up:

"Dialog." Action.
Action. "Dialog."

I don't have many tags either, but I don't know how it would sound if I went a couple dozen pages with none.

[narnia]

Um, yeah, examples do help, I should have thought of that! :o Here's a section (what he read, no changes made as of yet):

Dr. Cornell frowned. Lucy hoped it was just something he ate. Her hands were clasped tightly together in her lap.

“How is your close-up vision? Any improvement?”

Lucy hesitated. “I’m not really sure. I mean, it’s a little hard to tell.”

The frown morphed into a pursing of the lips. “The bubbles are still smoothing out. I don’t see any need to touch the eye today, but if they’re still there next week we may have to do an additional small procedure.”

She took the plunge. “There’s something else.” Dr. Cornell had rolled his chair around to make notes on her chart. Lucy was glad. It was easier talking to his back. “The spots of light have become something else. I can’t explain …” She wasn’t sure if he was even listening. “I keep seeing things right up against my face.”

“Sorry…?” His arm was still moving.

“I still can’t see very well in the area around me, but things keep appearing in my face, close up.” Lucy knew she was making no sense. Dr. Cornell swiveled his chair back around.

“What’s that?” One eyebrow was arched.

“Last week I was having trouble seeing within an arm’s length, and I had those spots I told you about. But now the spots are like a big mass of light right in front of my face,” Lucy put a hand up in front of her face, “and the other day it was a woman’s face.”

The eyebrow arched higher and his mouth opened a little. You’re a complete crackpot didn’t need to come out of his mouth. Lucy heard it loud and clear in his expression. “Never mind,” she mumbled, “I’m sure it’s just the air bubbles.”

And another, a little longer:

Jim came in after she was settled. They were usually the first ones in every morning. Their company let them choose their own schedule for the most part, and Lucy and Jim preferred to come in early so they could leave earlier. He stuck his head over the cube wall as usual to say good morning. And promptly exclaimed, “What is that?” (NOTE: she is sitting on a pillow, fell down the stairs in the previous section.)

Lucy looked up, even that motion causing a grimace of pain. “I’d show you but then you’d have to go home sick.”

By the time she’d finished her story, Jim was laughing so hard he was gasping for breath. Lucy couldn’t help but join in no matter how much it hurt.

“So, tell me why you really lost your footing?” He’d rolled his chair around the wall into her cube.

“Promise me you won’t laugh? Because if you do, I’ll start again and it’s way too painful.”

“I promise,” he replied, but Lucy knew he didn’t intend to keep it if he couldn’t help it.

She took a deep breath. “Okay. Ever since I had the surgery I’ve been seeing strange things. It started as flashes of light, then bigger blobs of light, I don’t know. And I think I see things out of the corner of my eye but there’s nothing there. That’s how I fell down the stairs.” Jim was looking at her funny. Great. Might as well finish it off. “And the other day I saw a woman’s face, as if she was standing inches from me. It freaked me out.”

Jim crossed his eyes and pursed his lips like a fish. “Did she look like this?”

Lucy smacked his arm. “See, I knew you’d make fun of me.” She sighed. “It really is bizarre. And that doesn’t count the dreams…..” She trailed off as a shift in her chair sent a spasm of pain down her leg.

Jim’s face went serious. “Okay, I believe you, but I think it’s just because your eyes haven’t healed completely.”

“Yeah, so explain the woman’s face.”

“You’re a nut job, but that’s an established fact so I didn’t think I had to mention it.”

“Thanks Jim. I was afraid to tell you because I thought you’d, well, you know.” The Tylenol was wearing off.

“Lucy, I’ve known you for ten years. So, unless you’ve been abducted by aliens and replaced, okay, something’s up and we’ll figure it out. Did you say anything to the doctor?”

She snorted. “Oh yeah. I think he’s going to have a security guard in the room with us next Monday.”

“Hmm, well, okay.” Jim leaned back to look down the hallway. Others were starting to drift in. “We’ll talk later, sweetie. If anyone overhears us the security guard will show up here first.” He stood up and started pushing his chair back around the wall. “Don’t worry, it’ll be fine. But you’ve convinced me that the surgery is definitely not in my future.”

Thanks again!!!!

[IceCreamEmpress]

I think you've overcorrected a bit. If EVERY exchange is tagged with an action, it feels just as stilted as if NO exchanges are tagged with an action.

Go back and take out some of your least favorite action tags and replace them with "said".

You're really good at writing action tags, which is hard. But it's kind of a virtuoso thing, also, so you don't want to do it every single time.

[DeadlyAccurate]

Other than a couple places (for example, I'd changed "he replied" to just "he said" since it's obvious he's replying) I don't see a problem. You have a few redundant sentences but I had no trouble following your dialog.

[Birol]

The dialogue reads fine to me.

[HeronW]

One of the worst used/inappropriate tags is 'ejaculated' as an expression of forceful/loud/urgent dialogue.

Unless the speaker has a penis for a mouth there's no need for it.

[narnia]

I think you've overcorrected a bit. If EVERY exchange is tagged with an action, it feels just as stilted as if NO exchanges are tagged with an action.

Go back and take out some of your least favorite action tags and replace them with "said".

You're really good at writing action tags, which is hard. But it's kind of a virtuoso thing, also, so you don't want to do it every single time.

Thanks for the tag compliment (hey, I'll take any I can get!!). I am planning some quality time with the first 10 chapters this weekend and I will reexamine my tags.

:e2chain: -> will work for action tags

Thanks again!

[narnia]

Other than a couple places (for example, I'd changed "he replied" to just "he said" since it's obvious he's replying) I don't see a problem. You have a few redundant sentences but I had no trouble following your dialog.

Thanks for the feedback, it's greatly appreciated. I hadn't noticed redundancy and I will definitely look for it.

Anyone ever think writing a novel is like juggling .... ?

:Sun:

[narnia]

The dialogue reads fine to me.

I may be a self-professed hack but I do love nice things said about my stuff! :o

Thanks!

[narnia]

One of the worst used/inappropriate tags is 'ejaculated' as an expression of forceful/loud/urgent dialogue.

Unless the speaker has a penis for a mouth there's no need for it.

:roll:

[mum23]

One of the worst used/inappropriate tags is 'ejaculated' as an expression of forceful/loud/urgent dialogue.

Unless the speaker has a penis for a mouth there's no need for it.

Come to think of it, my ex husband had a very funny shaped mouth!

[HeronW]

mum23...
is this good or bad? lol

[ClaudiaGray]

One thing I've learned while working on this project for Disney: In writing for kids, more substitutes for "said" can be a good thing. Adult and YA readers already know a lot of verbal and/or unspoken cues for emotion that small children may not. So the same verbs that would be overkill/browbeating for adults are helpful and sometimes fun for younger readers.

Of course, it all depends on the type of project you're working on, the tone you're going for, etc., but it's food for thought.

[wrinkles]

Hey Narnia. Regarding your writing sample: while it's obvious you are a talented writer, I have to agree with your critter. The numerous sentences describing the appearance of the doctor, and those revealing the thoughts of the main character, made the sample choppy and pulled me out of the story.

I think it would be better to use action-oriented sentences instead of descriptive. As in:

The doctor sat down slowly and carefully (I don't have anything against adverbs). "We really have to talk about the condition of your eyes."

As had been pointed out by many others, "he said" tends to disappear, leaving the reader "hearing" only the dialogue.

I think the juggling comment is appropriate. A mix of unattributed dialogue and the use of "he said/she said" before and after lines of dialogue is best. As is the use of dialogue tags within longer sentences, like DeadlyAccurate noted. Read your writing aloud. You ear will guide you.

[narnia]

Hey Narnia. Regarding your writing sample: while it's obvious you are a talented writer, I have to agree with your critter. The numerous sentences describing the appearance of the doctor, and those revealing the thoughts of the main character, made the sample choppy and pulled me out of the story.

I think it would be better to use action-oriented sentences instead of descriptive. As in:

The doctor sat down slowly and carefully (I don't have anything against adverbs). "We really have to talk about the condition of your eyes."

As had been pointed out by many others, "he said" tends to disappear, leaving the reader "hearing" only the dialogue.

I think the juggling comment is appropriate. A mix of unattributed dialogue and the use of "he said/she said" before and after lines of dialogue is best. As is the use of dialogue tags within longer sentences, like DeadlyAccurate noted. Read your writing aloud. You ear will guide you.

Hi wrinkles! (I really love your username, BTW.)

Now it could be because I can't get past the compliment :o, I am not quite sure what you mean by the bolded part. Might I humbly ask if you could expand on that...?

I'll do as you suggest and read it out loud.

And thanks for the compliment. I will add your post to the list of places to visit when I am knee deep in I s&ck quicksand. :thankyou:

[dempsey]

"Said" is an invisible word. People see it, but they don't see it. Their brain registers that a person has been associated with the word, but not the fact that it was the word "said" that did it.

Does that make sense or did I bollocks it up yet further?

[wrinkles]

Thanks. My username is taken from the term of ridicule and derision continually directed at me by my thirteen-year-old son.

As for your question, when I read good written dialogue, I "hear" and "see" the characters talking. I'm in the world of the book, unless something jerks me out of it. I assume this is the same for everyone, but can't guarantee it.

The use of action sentences which help identify the speaker, such as:

The doctor tugged at his tie and cleared his throat. "I have good news and bad news. The good news is you have twenty-four hours to live. The bad news is I should have told you that yesterday."

Along with the use of "he said/she said" keep me in the story by helping me follow who is speaking, without getting in the way. If done well, they disappear, leaving only the speakers.

However, the way your dialogue was written in your sample, I was pulled out of the scene by the physical descriptions and the way you reveal the thoughts of the POV character. Hope that makes it clearer.

[Serenity]

*Jumping into the thread for one moment...

The doctor tugged at his tie and cleared his throat. "I have good news and bad news. The good news is you have twenty-four hours to live. The bad news is I should have told you that yesterday."

I LOVE this!

*Jumping out of the thread...:D

[narnia]

"Said" is an invisible word. People see it, but they don't see it. Their brain registers that a person has been associated with the word, but not the fact that it was the word "said" that did it.

Does that make sense or did I bollocks it up yet further?

I think so ... perhaps there's a little 'bollocks' involved but that's okay! :tongue Reminds me of an old school mate from across the pond!

I understand the concept, now I need to apply it and find examples of it in my stuff.

I may be back!

:D

[narnia]

Thanks. My username is taken from the term of ridicule and derision continually directed at me by my thirteen-year-old son.

As for your question, when I read good written dialogue, I "hear" and "see" the characters talking. I'm in the world of the book, unless something jerks me out of it. I assume this is the same for everyone, but can't guarantee it.

The use of action sentences which help identify the speaker, such as:

The doctor tugged at his tie and cleared his throat. "I have good news and bad news. The good news is you have twenty-four hours to live. The bad news is I should have told you that yesterday."

Along with the use of "he said/she said" keep me in the story by helping me follow who is speaking, without getting in the way. If done well, they disappear, leaving only the speakers.

However, the way your dialogue was written in your sample, I was pulled out of the scene by the physical descriptions and the way you reveal the thoughts of the POV character. Hope that makes it clearer.

Sorry about the negative association with your username, but I have a teensy sneaking suspicion that deep down you know it's used with love! :heart: (By your son, I mean!)

I think I get what you mean, and I'll pay closer attention to it in my revisions. Thanks so much for your help, it's greatly appreciated!

:thankyou:

[job]

Hi Narnia --

Let me do a totally uncalled-for crit of your tagging.

The short comment is:

Your tagging problem is not so much that you lack the requisite number of 'saids'. It's that you substitute other things for 'said'.

You tag lines that don't need a tag.
And you tag with 'saidisms'
And you tag with facial tics.

I don't see anything in this particular passage that just demands 'said', but I see a good bit of unnecessary tagging that should probably be removed.

When you tag with facial tics and small body movements, your characters tend to hop around the stag, twitching.
Don't do that.




**********************

Dr. Cornell frowned. Lucy hoped it was just something he ate. Her hands were clasped tightly together in her lap.

Since the rest of the snippet is about how bored the Dr. is, why is he frowning? You send Lucy off worrying that the Dr. has found something wrong with her. He hasn't. After this line she stops worrying that he has. You've written a total red herring -- that frown -- and you drop it twenty words later.

Why do you send us rabbiting off after that false trail?
You do it so you can tag this line with a facial tic.

This is just a simon-pure example of why we do not to tag with tics and saidisms --
These tics and saidism are very very often NOT what you want to say.
They're 'off'.
And then you have to explain the 'off' emotion that you've dragged in

When we let ourselves tag with facial tics, we find ourselves 'writing to the tic.'
Having given our fellow a frown or a grin or a sigh or a pout because it was easy to tag his dialog that way,
we now must write a reason for him to frown or grin or sigh.

You want to tag the Dr's dialog with a frown.
Does it truly fit where this snippet is going?
To explain that easy tagline, your Lucy character now sits and worries he's found something wrong with her.
For one line.
Then you forget all about that, and it becomes a little chopped-off nubbins of a plotlet and it never goes anywhere at all.

All because you grabbed a 'he frowned' out of the air to tag with instead of just using 'he said.'

Honest.

Yes. It's a small point.
But you're asking about tagging.
And one of the things we do with tagging is tell the story.
We do not let the tail wag the dog. We don't write from the dialog tags.

Chuck the frown out unless there is a good and important reason for the Dr. to frown and you intend to go somewhere with that frown.

As a general rule, do not use 'he frowned' or 'he smiled' or 'he grimaced' or 'he grinned' or any of their cousins and sisters and aunts unless the character has a good specific reason for frowning, smiling or gimacing and you can state right out why he's doing it and it's an important part of your scene..
And probably not then.

OK. Housekeeping detail is we move the clasping hands down to tag the next line of dialog. Lucy has enough to claps her hands about that we don't need frowns from the doctor to make it happen.

“How is your close-up vision? Any improvement?”

Lucy hesitated.
(Show her hesitating and her uncertainty. Don't tell.
You don't need a tag here. It's obvious who is speaking.
'hesitated' is a saidism.) “I’m not really sure. I mean, it’s a little hard to tell.”

The frown morphed into a pursing of the lips. (No. No. Really. Please. No. Aside from the fact that this is a facial tic and the doctor is grimacing like a monkey all through this scene -- your words do not sound like believable internals. Lucy is the POV person in this scene, and she doesn't talk that way. Nobody talks that way.) “The bubbles are still smoothing out. I don’t see any need to touch the eye today, but if they’re still there next week we may have to do an additional small procedure.”

She took the plunge. “There’s something else.” Dr. Cornell had rolled his chair around to make notes on her chart. Lucy was glad. It was easier talking to his back. “The spots of light have become something else. I can’t explain …” She wasn’t sure if he was even listening. “I keep seeing things right up against my face.”

“Sorry…?” His arm was still moving. (If that arm moving is supposed to be him taking notes on her chart -- writing doesn't use a whole arm. So this is a scratch-your-head action. Further comment -- There is almost always a more vivid verb than 'to move'.)

“I still can’t see very well in the area around me, but things keep appearing in my face, close up.”

(I really want her to get to the point, because, yes, she isn't making any sense. There is a fine and dfficult art to making characters speak repetitively and boringly and disjointedly. You want to show the other character being bored and annoyed without boring the reader. One way to do this is to tell and not show. That is -- describe her talking but don't give it to us blow by blow. As in 'She stumbled on for a while, repeating herself, not working up the courage to get to the point.')

Lucy knew she was making no sense. Dr. Cornell swiveled his chair back around.(This last sentence is the Dr.'s action, so it belongs in the next paragraph with the Dr.'s line of dialog, not with Lucy's .)

“What’s that?” One eyebrow was arched.(Facial tic. Just no.)

“Last week I was having trouble seeing within an arm’s length, and I had those spots I told you about. But now the spots are like a big mass of light right in front of my face,” Lucy put a hand up in front of her face, “and the other day it was a woman’s face.”(This is a huh? for me. What was a woman's face? She saw spots that looked like a woman's face?)

The eyebrow arched higher and his mouth opened a little. (No. Just no. If you are doing this facial dancing anywhere else in your manuscript go through and root it out.) You’re a complete crackpot didn’t need to come out of his mouth. Lucy heard it loud and clear in his expression. (This needs a paragraph break, because we have, essentially given the Dr. a line of dialog and must put her line of dialog in it's own para.)

“Never mind,” she mumbled, (now here's one of those saidism.) “I’m sure it’s just the air bubbles.”

***********************


Retagged, reparagraphed, doing some additonal edits ..
The additional edits are --

-- rearranging a passive sentence about clasping hands,
-- removing a couple bits of repetition. 'Face' and 'close' get said fairly often.
-- Making the doctor ask 'doctor type' questions to aid in characterizing him.
-- pulling out one -ing verb, just because that's good policy where possible.
-- Using 'she' for the POV character instead of her name.
-- pulling out six or eight unneeded words. (ex. clasping hands 'together' instead of just clasping them. Use it or leave it out. But it's not a needed word. Myself, I'd think twice about 'tightly'.)





Dr. Cornell said, “How's your close-up vision? Any improvement?”

Lucy clasped her hands tightly in her lap. “I’m not really . . . sure. I mean, it’s a little hard to tell.”

“The bubbles are smoothing out. I don’t see any need to touch the eye today. If they’re still there next week we'll do an additional small procedure.”

She took the plunge. “There’s something else.” Dr. Cornell had rolled his chair around to make notes. She was glad. It was easier to talk to his back. “The spots of light . . . They've become . . . . I can’t explain …” She wasn’t sure he was listening. “I keep seeing things, right up against my face.”

“Sorry. Things …?” He kept writing.

“I told you I can’t see very well, close up. But things keep . . . appearing. Appearing right in my face.” Lucy knew she wasn't making sense.

Dr. Cornell swiveled his chair back around. “What things? Flashes of lights? Dark specks? Ripples?”

It's still ... Those spots I told you about . . . But now they're like a big mass of light right in front of my face.” Lucy put a hand up to show him. “Yesterday, the spots made a woman’s face, looking at me.”

You’re a complete crackpot didn’t need to come out of his mouth. She heard it loud and clear in his expression.

“Never mind,” she mumbled, “I’m sure it’s just the air bubbles.”







And another, a little longer:

Jim came in after she was settled. They were usually the first ones in every morning. Their company let them choose their own schedule for the most part, and Lucy and Jim preferred to come in early so they could leave earlier. He stuck his head over the cube wall as usual to say good morning. And promptly exclaimed, “What is that?”



Let me offer an alternative to that entire paragraph above.

As usual, Jim was in the office early. He stuck his head over her cubicle wall. "What happened to you?"



Now there is a reason I am being outright and brutal in talking about all this.
It's because none of this is important in the least.

All this is technique.
It can be learned.
Technique has nothing to do with whether you can write or not and whether you are a storyteller and whether you will someday write wonderful books.
Technique is just technique.

I'm talking about the basics of sawing boards. This has nothing to do with how good an architect you are.

[narnia]

Thanks job! I appreciate any crits, called for or no!

I like most of your suggestions, most because a couple of the changes don't 'jibe' with unseen material, but that's okay! :tongue

The frown was connected to the fact that there are still issues with her eye (the bubbles), which would have been clearer (I hope) if I'd included the part just prior to the snippet, in case you were wondering. :)

And he does always arch an eyebrow - the doc is based on a real person! Yes, I know, just cos it's real doesn't mean it translates into riveting reading.

Your suggestions have shown me good examples of how to tighten things up, thanks very much!

ETA: Our posts crossed paths. You're not being brutal, trust me, it's all part of the learning process.

And I will continue to hope that my architect skills will be up to par ....

[job]

...
The frown was connected to the fact that there are still issues with her eye (the bubbles), which would have been clearer (I hope) if I'd included the part just prior to the snippet, in case you were wondering. :)

And he does always arch an eyebrow


Nothing is intrinsically wrong with frowning or arching or turning to cast a glance or grinning or scratching or any of these facial/small body movement tags.
One can always say -- "It's not wrong.'

But is it right?


Look at the deeper and basic question of why you are telling us about the Dr's face.

The POV character picks out what is important by noticing it. Three characters living the same scene will see three different sets of objects and actions.

When you talk about actions, you say to the reader -- these are important. These tell you something exciting about the ongoing story.

In your scene, the Dr's facial expression stands in a central position of interest.
(Instead of, say, the POV character's internals or her memories or her stream-of-consciousness thoughts or how her stomach feels because she is afraid ...)

Are you writing it this way on purpose?
Or are you letting your dialog tags wag the dog?


The second problem in tagging with facial tics and small body movements is just the sheer amount of dancing around the characters do.

Lookit .... You have 300 words and maybe 5 minutes of elapsed time.

The Dr ...
frowns. He purses his lips. He rolls his chair over and turns his back. He writes. He swivels and faces her and rolls his chair back. His arm moves. His eyebrow arches. His eyebrow arches higher. He opens his mouth. He assumes a skeptical expression.


Why is the scene written so all this frenetic motion happens?
Why is the POV character compelled to tell us all of this, even if it does happen?
What are you saying with this action?


I'm not asking you to justify this tag or that. One can always find a justification for any tag in question.

I'm suggesting you look at the overall modus operandi for tagging.
There are a lot of reasons folks tag with 'said', and one of them is to avoid facial tics and small body twitches.

[Lauri B]

Hi folks, if you'd like to discuss this particular person's work further, please do it in SYW or Novels. Thanks!
Your friendly, neighborhood hall monitor

[narnia]

-- snipping to save space --
I'm suggesting you look at the overall modus operandi for tagging.
There are a lot of reasons folks tag with 'said', and one of them is to avoid facial tics and small body twitches.

Thanks again job! I guess there is a lot more to correctly using tags that I need to brush up on.

** sigh ** more homework...

:)

[scarletpeaches]

One of the worst used/inappropriate tags is 'ejaculated' as an expression of forceful/loud/urgent dialogue.

Unless the speaker has a penis for a mouth there's no need for it.

Must. Not. Make. Obvious. Oral. Sex. Joke...

Must...not...