site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   2353 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 19, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How Not to Write a Novel:

Published authors use the word "said" almost exclusively when they wish to indicate that a particular character is saying something. "Said" is a convention so firmly established that readers for the most part do not even see it. This helps to make the dialogue realistic by keeping its superstructure invisible.

Many unpublished authors, however, become uncomfortable with the repetition of the word "said" and try to improve the technology of dialogue by substituting any verb that has ever been associated with speech or language.

A particularly egregious version of this occurs when an author conflates a stage direction with the desire to avoid the word "said" and instead of writing "You and what army,” he said, thrusting out his jaw or he asked, quirking a brow, produces something like "Hello,” he thrusted or "Are you going to finish that?” he quirked.The only thing any of this does, though, is draw attention to the unconventional verb, which reminds the reader that there is an author, who is struggling mightily to avoid the word "said".

There are of course exceptions: "asked" is used for questions, "shouted" is used for a character who is doing so, and there will occasionally be a good reason to use a word other than "said" for plain speech. But spicing things up with "importuned," "vociferated", or "clamored" will sabotage any attempt to make conversation sound real.

Published authors use the word "said" almost exclusively when they wish to indicate that a particular character is saying something. "Said" is a convention so firmly established that readers for the most part do not even see it. This helps to make the dialogue realistic by keeping its superstructure invisible.

A very convenient justification, but one belied by the fact that people very much do notice it. The structure is not invisible. The best way is just to limit usage of the word ‘said’ through sentence structure; much of the time it is redundant.

Consider:

I arrived at the party, said hello to the host and quickly found my friend. Charles said that he was angry and frustrated. It wasn’t merely the weather, he said, but the dour tone of the whole occasion that dampened even the faintest prospect of a pleasant evening.

Versus

I arrived at the party, greeted the host and quickly found my friend. Charles was angry and frustrated, not merely by the weather, but by the dour tone of the whole occasion…

Most writers of even poor prose are capable of this. The problem is much more pronounced in journalism, which adopts this rule more zealously than necessary (to put it mildly). An article about a president’s speech will say:

President Smith said Tuesday that he expected the economy to resume growing this year. Speaking at the White House, Smith said….Smith said…Smith said…the President said…the President said…he said…

Dull, dull, dull. “He added”, “he argued”, “he expanded”, he clarified” - many of these actually add useful descriptive context and break up the said monotony, which contrary to the quote actually is very noticeable.

“Vociferated” is indeed horrific, but it’s the bailey in this argument.

The How Not to Write a Novel example is referring to the use of "said" in speech tags for directly quoted dialogue, not when summarising a series of interactions in narration. There's a separate passage in the book in which they specifically encourage writers to summarise incidental dialogue much like your second example, rather than quoting it directly. The example they gave is something to the effect of:

Making her excuses, Sarah sat down to lunch with Jane.

as opposed to

"Sorry I'm late," Sarah said. "Traffic was mental."

"Don't worry about it," Jane said. "I've only been waiting five minutes."

"Oh, that's not too bad," Sarah said.

Personally, I can't recall ever reading a book which I thought was too boring and monotonous specifically because the writer failed to use enough synonyms for "said". Maybe you're talking primarily about journalism, but I think if I read a novel which featured the speech tag Joe expanded, I would probably roll my eyes. It strikes me as part of a register which is inappropriate for most fiction.

I agree, but the example was about journalism, to be clear, where the tags are a useful way of structuring a story for additional clarity. With directly quoted dialogue I think it’s a matter of writer’s preference / style, there are certainly novels with huge amounts of dialogue, bordering on a script in some cases, that I quite enjoy.

Fair enough. Offhand I can't recall an instance in which I thought a piece of journalism was sapped of interest by overuse of the word "said" but I'll keep an eye out for it in future.

Because I have too much time on my hands, I re-read one of my favourite pieces of journalism: "Shattered Glass" by Buzz Bissinger. Out of 45 speech tags, I count 30 "saids".

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats