Thread: Dialog tags

Hi all.

I just got my manuscript back from a professional editor and he suggested that I correct my dialog tags. He doesn't like tags like “You can’t carry him like that,” the Princess snapped. Or “Oh,” she groaned. He says, "stick with words that imply the actual spoken word, such as yelled, whispered, etc" He says unpublished writers, like myself, have to adhere to a stricter standard when starting out.

What do y'all think?

Thanks.
SingleFin

I'm not sure what the difference is between 'snapped', 'groaned', 'yelled', and 'whispered' as far as 'implying the spoken word'. Maybe I'm missing the distinction here.

Interesting. I never thought it was wrong to use 'groaned' or 'snapped.' Perhaps try getting a second opinion? If the second editor still thinks its wrong, then go ahead then change dialog tags.

Can't say I see the difference between yelling, groaning, and snapping that your editor is indicating is there. If you figure it out, though, it looks like at least three of us could stand to learn something new.

Good luck with the manuscript.

I've never gotten anything published, but as a reader, I want to see that the magistrate droned, not that he merely talked. I want characters to retort, not merely reply, and I do very much prefer it when the old man wheezes his last words rather than merely whispering them. I can't see how "The princess said" is better than "The princess snapped", unless (a) you overuse "snapped" or (b) she really is saying what preceded in a perfectly calm, everyday tone.

Of course, as primarily a reader, not a writer, I can't be sure that any of that will make sense to an editor.

Originally Posted by The Jaded

I've never gotten anything published, but as a reader, I want to see that the magistrate droned, not that he merely talked. I want characters to retort, not merely reply, and I do very much prefer it when the old man wheezes his last words rather than merely whispering them.

I totally agree with this. The point is to enable the reader to see the scene and hear what's happening, as if the story was actually first-hand information.

Perhaps the editor is more concerned with the overuse of such tags? I know that there is a common concern among some editors that those unpublished feel it necessary to expand every 'he said', 'she said' into a game played with a thesaurus to find new and exciting ways of saying 'said'.

There is opinion that since we are all familiar with the reading of 'he said' or 'she said' during dialogue that it no longer registers and allows for a smoother flow for the reader. When a dialogue is either fast-paced or involves multiple character switching it may help the reader's comprehension to keep the tags as simple as possible so that they don't feel they have to pause and depict the way in which something was said.

If you wanted to describe a line of dialogue then describe it, but not necessarily inside the tag at the end. Think about the wheezed example above.

"Yes.. I was attacked.. by ... the monster of the abbey", he wheezed.

Can you really wheeze a whole sentence of dialogue? Similarly for sneered or hissed. Can you hiss a whole line of dialogue? It can feel slightly overplayed and melodramatic at times.

"Yes.. I was attacked.. by ... the monster of the abbey", he said. He wheezed with the rattling death throes so familiar with dramatic fiction.

A mix of grammar pacing, alternate description and simpler dialogue can still work just as well.

My 2 cents Opinion may vary

Originally Posted by Simon Dowling

Can you really wheeze a whole sentence of dialogue? Similarly for sneered or hissed. Can you hiss a whole line of dialogue? It can feel slightly overplayed and melodramatic at times.

Good point. But of course, when the sentence is just a short one, say:

"That is absurd," he sneered.

... then I think that could be fine.

"Yes.. I was attacked.. by ... the monster of the abbey", he said. He wheezed with the rattling death throes so familiar with dramatic fiction.

I see what you did there.

There is a distinction, to me anyway.

Groaned describes an attitude and yelled describes the act. I think your editor is correct.

The writer should try to pass the attitude with which the dialogue is delivered within the text of the dialogue.

This isn’t always possible, especially with ‘incidental’ characters.

Originally Posted by qwertyman
The writer should try to pass the attitude with which the dialogue is delivered within the text of the dialogue.

"Pass the attitude."

Is that like "pass the salt"?

Or is it more akin to "pass a bowel movement"?

Interesting OP. Simon and Qwertman have already responded with similar thoughts to mine.

There is a difference between something like "whispered" and "snapped". I think what the editor is probably trying to get at is for you to think about your dialogue. The dialogue itself can be "snappy" if it is written so - I'd imagine short, curt bursts of words for example. However, I don't think it's possible for dialogue to be written as if it was being "whispered" as this refers to what Qwertyman calls the act of delivery.

I have generally been of the belief that "said" is the preferred option because it's one of those words that people don't actually read. The benefit of using "said" is that it forces the writer to more closely examine the dialogue that comes before it and ensure that the right tone/ emotion comes through without relying on the verb.

Originally Posted by Bad Craziness

There is a difference between something like "whispered" and "snapped". I think what the editor is probably trying to get at is for you to think about your dialogue. The dialogue itself can be "snappy" if it is written so - I'd imagine short, curt bursts of words for example. However, I don't think it's possible for dialogue to be written as if it was being "whispered" as this refers to what Qwertyman calls the act of delivery.

Okay, that makes more sense now, don't depend on dialogue tags to do all the work. Good discussion! I have a feeling that this is one of my writing weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Bad Craziness

There is a difference between something like "whispered" and "snapped". I think what the editor is probably trying to get at is for you to think about your dialogue. The dialogue itself can be "snappy" if it is written so - I'd imagine short, curt bursts of words for example.

Very well said. Come to think of it, if the statement appears like AntiquatedLinguistics, but your tag says "He snapped," then the dialog tag won't fit and that's probably what your editor was trying to point out.

As Foxee said,

Originally Posted by Foxee

Don't depend on dialogue tags to do all the work.

I have to admit, I have some problems with this, too. This has truly been a very worthwhile discussion.

Originally Posted by Simon Dowling

There is opinion that since we are all familiar with the reading of 'he said' or 'she said' during dialogue that it no longer registers and allows for a smoother flow for the reader. When a dialogue is either fast-paced or involves multiple character switching it may help the reader's comprehension to keep the tags as simple as possible so that they don't feel they have to pause and depict the way in which something was said.

Originally Posted by Bad Craziness

I have generally been of the belief that "said" is the preferred option because it's one of those words that people don't actually read. The benefit of using "said" is that it forces the writer to more closely examine the dialogue that comes before it and ensure that the right tone/ emotion comes through without relying on the verb.

These two very good points would appear to be an argument for just skipping the dialogue tags altogether. That can sometimes be done once the participants are established, but most dialogue will need the tags at least to establish who's doing the talking with whom.

As a reader I find that too much "he said, she said" tends to get annoying very quickly, as would the overuse of any other word. That's why I try to find alternatives in my own writing or drop the tags as soon as I can. I'm trying to stay out of the readers' way rather than annoy them.

Originally Posted by Lone_Wolfe

These two very good points would appear to be an argument for just skipping the dialogue tags altogether. That can sometimes be done once the participants are established, but most dialogue will need the tags at least to establish who's doing the talking with whom.

As a reader I find that too much "he said, she said" tends to get annoying very quickly, as would the overuse of any other word. That's why I try to find alternatives in my own writing or drop the tags as soon as I can. I'm trying to stay out of the readers' way rather than annoy them.

I agree that dialogue tags like he said/she said are overused and prefer to 'introduce' a character with actions before they speak. It can be more challenging to the writing process to come up with original ways of incorporating dialogue. This is from my first novel. It's set in 19th century Egypt, so excuse the formality.

Khalil leaned his huge frame across the desk, beaming jovially as he extended a cupped hand towards Antoine. ‘You are a gentleman, mister Belzoni.’ He did not take the items greedily, though was not reticent either. By way of making the gifts a part of their negotiations, he placed them on the desk in front of him. ‘So you are a collector now? That is what my assistant tells me.’

I agree as well that it can more satisfying to the reader to understand the character and how they might speak, rather than the writer spoon feeding them.