He said...she said

Okay, how about

"I like strawberries."
"I only like strawberries"

The fact is that "only" can change a sentence to a greater degree than "really" or "slightly" or "faintly". The more powerful the adverb, the easier it is to forgive.


I would say "lighting flashed across the sky". But not "thunder rumbled across the sky". I see the sky as a visual thing. I know, technically the air around you, even if you're in a room, counts as "sky". But I view it as the thing you see when you look up. Therefore you wouldn't really be able to hear this rumble unless you were in the sky.

Gawd, I'm confused now. Meh, I just wouldn't say it

SpookyWriter said:

"They only killed people who were over 6ft"

"They killed people who were over 6ft"

Both make sense to me. One implies they concentrated on giants and the other one was stating a fact that being over 6ft meant a certain death.

I didn't understand your comment about the thunder. Doesn't thunder rumble? And if not across the sky then where?

Thanks,

Jon

Click to expand...

I prefer the statement with "only". It implies that there is an internal fear/anger, etc. that causes a specific response in certain circumstances (and they are normally harmless.) The other implies no such special circumstances. It has the same MEANING, but conveys a different MESSAGE.

Thunder is a sound. The sky is a visual. You can't connect the two together into a meaningful combination. You can have thunder be above (a direction), or have it rumble in the distance (a level of loudness), but across the sky implies that it can be seen. Does that make sense?

But this is starting to go FAR afield from the original discussion of he said/she said. If you want to continue discussing adverb/adjective usage and the like, let's start up a separate thread for it.

"The thunder rumbled in the distance. I heard it just as the lightning streaked overhead." he said.

I knew there was something wrong with the sentence when I spotted it. I was looking for dialogue tags. At least my editing skills are improving a little.

Thanks to both Cathy and Loquax for their explanations.

Jon

I try to avoid excessive use of dialogue tags and concentrate on movement or actions of the characters to denote how they speak or react to a given situation. However, I do find that it's nearly impossible to get rid of them all.

---
Moments later a nurse, tired and somewhat beleaguered, rushed into the room. “What’s happened?”

“Something's wrong!” Linda blurted.


---

So I have Linda's tag as blurted -- but I keep looking at these types of scenes and wonder whether I could do it better, or is there a better? I read my favorites like Barker and King, and notice they tend to use more action or acoustic tags than I do. But they're making money and selling books, so why do folks insist I remove the "he said" "she said" tags?



Jon

SpookyWriter said:

I try to avoid excessive use of dialogue tags and concentrate on movement or actions of the characters to denote how they speak or react to a given situation. However, I do find that it's nearly impossible to get rid of them all.

---
Moments later a nurse, tired and somewhat beleaguered, rushed into the room. “What’s happened?”

“Something's wrong!” Linda blurted.


---

So I have Linda's tag as blurted -- but I keep looking at these types of scenes and wonder whether I could do it better, or is there a better? I read my favorites like Barker and King, and notice they tend to use more action or acoustic tags than I do. But they're making money and selling books, so why do folks insist I remove the "he said" "she said" tags?



Jon

Click to expand...

You don't have to remove he said, she said tags altogether, but both Barker and King use them only when needed, and King tries not to use much other than he said, she said. If the reader already knows who is talking, why do you need a tag?

"Blurted" is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary. It adds nothing to the dialogue, and just distracts the reader.

Of course, I also believe a writer should be allowed only one exclamation mark per novel.

popmuze said:

I've just spent most of the day (not all of it, go Steelers!) removing dialogue tags and excessive adverbs from my manuscript. I have to say it was liberating, like learning to walk without crutches.

I was astounded at how many times I used the words "finally" "especially" and "probably."

However, there were still quite a lot of "onlys" that I was unable to remove. I need someone to tell me that only isn't really an adverb, maybe more of a preposition that lost its way.

Hey, anybody up for a discussion of the serial comma?

Click to expand...

"Only" could also be an adjective, which is often even worse than an adverb. But however you use "only," it's generally a weak word.

cwfgal said:

More on hissing: One of my cats just hissed at the other one and there was no ssss sound to it, more of a hard hhhh sound instead. Beth

Click to expand...

A sibilant isn't only an ess sound. But my cats sound like a solid ess to my ear.

loquax said:

I would use "Thunder rumbled across the sky"
But then, nobody would be able to hear it if it only rumbled across the sky....

My example would be

"They only killed people who were over 6ft"

Without the "only", this sentence would make even less sense.

Click to expand...

"Only" tends to be a weak word. What's wrong with "They killed everyone over 6ft," Or, "Everyone they killed was over 6ft."

Jamesaritchie said:

"Only" could also be an adjective, which is often even worse than an adverb. But however you use "only," it's generally a weak word.

Click to expand...

Along with rather, quite, somewhat, almost, usually, sometimes, often, sort of, kind of...

Jamesaritchie said:

"Blurted" is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary. It adds nothing to the dialogue, and just distracts the reader.

Click to expand...

James, I agree. I am going through the manuscript to remove unnecessary dialogue tags that denote either action or acoustics. I'd rather leave as few as possible, "he said" or "she said" tags if (as you said) the person speaking is easily identified.

Thanks,

Jon

SpookyWriter said:

[1] Would Linda be talking in the paragraph? [2] I looked up awhile and it means "a short time" so is this the correct usage?

Click to expand...

1. Linda says "You had me...," doesn't she? She is talking in the paragraph.

2. The use is incorrect. "Awhile" means for a short time. That's the American Heritage Dictionary's definition: "for a short time." "Awhile" is an adverb. You can't use an adverb as the object of a preposition.

The dictionary follows the definition with this Usage Note: "Awhile is not preceded by for....Each of the following is possible: stay awhile; stay for a while; stay a while (but not stay for awhile)."

SpookyWriter said:

Moments later a nurse, tired and somewhat beleaguered, rushed into the room. “What’s happened?"

“Something's wrong!” Linda blurted.

---

So I have Linda's tag as blurted -- but I keep looking at these types of scenes and wonder whether I could do it better, or is there a better?

Click to expand...

For one thing, people don't blurt speeches; they blurt them out. This is a point about the grammar of "blurt," independent of the opinions offered earlier that "blurt" doesn't help the passage.

Another thing about "blurted": Blurting isn't just speaking suddenly or emphatically. It's saying something you want to withhold. (Blurting is often followed by regretting.) Only Linda knows whether she was blurting, unless another person is there who knows that Linda wanted the fact of something's being wrong to remain secret. So whose point of view are we in, Linda's or someone else's?

A related question is who perceives the nurse as tired.

"Somewhat beleaguered" is a "Huh?" description: it's like "somewhat assaulted." Anyway, "somewhat" and "seemingly" usually detract from the effect intended by the words near them.

In a quotation in another post, the spelling should be "lightning."

scarletpeaches said:

Along with rather, quite, somewhat, almost, usually, sometimes, often, sort of, kind of...

Click to expand...

Yes. I use many of these words in first drafts. Part of my process with the cleanup draft is eliminating them.

reph said:

1. Linda says "You had me...," doesn't she? She is talking in the paragraph.

2. The use is incorrect. "Awhile" means for a short time. That's the American Heritage Dictionary's definition: "for a short time." "Awhile" is an adverb. You can't use an adverb as the object of a preposition.

The dictionary follows the definition with this Usage Note: "Awhile is not preceded by for....Each of the following is possible: stay awhile; stay for a while; stay a while (but not stay for awhile)."

Click to expand...

I used awhile five times in my manuscript. Four times incorrectly and I made those changes. Good eye!

P.S. I used somewhat four times and removed them. Somehow is used nineteen times and I am in the process of rewriting those sentences. I've eliminated almost all sentences that begin with "It was" or "There was", so the work is becoming better, I hope.

Jon

Jamesaritchie said:

"Only" tends to be a weak word. What's wrong with "They killed everyone over 6ft," Or, "Everyone they killed was over 6ft."

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a strong word. Jon was trying to give an example of a sentence where an adverb could be forgiven, and his example used "faintly". I gave my example because I see "only" as one of the only adverbs that can be forgiven. Oh, I mean, every adverb apart from "only" and a few others are hard to forgive.

I think that your rearrangement of the example would work. However, "They killed everyone over 6ft" means something completely different, and I'm surprised you even suggested it. Even "Everyone they killed was over six foot" has "was" in it, which to my eyes, makes it a weaker, less direct sentence.

I suppose it comes down to how much you hate adverbs. I can see you hate them a lot.

loquax said:

I didn't say it was a strong word. Jon was trying to give an example of a sentence where an adverb could be forgiven, and his example used "faintly". I gave my example because I see "only" as one of the only adverbs that can be forgiven. Oh, I mean, every adverb apart from "only" and a few others are hard to forgive.

I think that your rearrangement of the example would work. However, "They killed everyone over 6ft" means something completely different, and I'm surprised you even suggested it. Even "Everyone they killed was over six foot" has "was" in it, which to my eyes, makes it a weaker, less direct sentence.

I suppose it comes down to how much you hate adverbs. I can see you hate them a lot.

Click to expand...

That's why I used two examples. They mean very different things. The sentence with "only" could have meant either. It was unclear.

"Was" is not a bad word, and writers avoid it at their own peril. I think one of the biggest mistakes many writers make is trying so hard to avoid the word "was." It comes from worrying too much about passive writing, I suppose, but "was" is a perfectly good past tense word, and very often the easiest, best, and clearest way of saying something.

It isn't about avoiding adverbs. although adverbs generally weaken writing. "Only" almost always weakens a sentence.

"They only killed people over 6ft" does not mean "They killed everyone over 6ft". There is no confusion. They mean two entirely different things. Here's the kicker:
In the statement "They killed everyone over 6ft", they kill all of them.

Now, really, does mine mean this too? If you think it does, then there's no point in arguing because my brain functions differently from yours.

The debate over which is better - using "was" or an adverb.... well I'm not going to argue with you there either. It's a personal preference. You think mine is weaker, I think yours is weaker. If words could duel, I'd happily get mine to slap yours round the face with a glove. But they can't. So I won't.

Well heck, even I knew the difference (earlier reply).

"They only killed people who were over 6ft"

"They killed people who were over 6ft"

Both make sense to me. One implies they concentrated on giants and the other one was stating a fact that being over 6ft meant a certain death.