Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
  1.  

    Found some livejournal entries that I thought could provide some great discussion fodder.

    This one more or less blasts us for a lot of our complaints.
    However, this one appears to defend our sporking a bit too.

    (will post more once I’ve finished both in detail)

  2.  

    I disagree with the first one, since ITS JUST MY STYLE is the lame-ass excuse every shitty artist/writer/whatever trots out to deflect criticism instead of trying to improve. Do I think said bookisms are fine in small doses? Yes. Do I think adverbs used to explain things like tone and volume are acceptable in reasonable amounts? Yes. But simply going LOL I DO WHAT I WANT and spamming them because YOUR STYLE doesn’t use effective dialogue is just lazy, and no amount of rationalizing is going to change that.

    Also, kinda want to punch the person in the comments who claimed to like using phrases like “’_______________,’ she smiled.” People don’t smile words, you halfwit.

  3.  

    I disagree with the first one, since ITS JUST MY STYLE is the lame-ass excuse every shitty artist/writer/whatever trots out to deflect criticism instead of trying to improve.

    I think the point was, however, that some things are not rules, just styles. Your style might be shitty, but that doesn’t mean you’re breaking any writing rules. Sort of like how I could paint a masterpiece using only shades of brown. It’ll probably be horrible, but there’s no rules of art saying I can’t.

    Do I think said bookisms are fine in small doses? Yes. Do I think adverbs used to explain things like tone and volume are acceptable in reasonable amounts? Yes. But simply going LOL I DO WHAT I WANT and spamming them because YOUR STYLE doesn’t use effective dialogue is just lazy, and no amount of rationalizing is going to change that.

    I believe that was the point of the LJ. Though sometimes we critics should be careful that we don’t let our style preferences be elevated to concrete rules. It’d be a bit like criticizing a book for not being written in English.

    Also, kinda want to punch the person in the comments who claimed to like using phrases like “’_______________,’ she smiled.” People don’t smile words, you halfwit.

    It’s one of those things I wonder if we’ll start seeing more as a combination of “she said with a smile”. After all, with formatting and technology nowadays, we don’t always need some of the grammar rules we used to have. It’s entirely reasonable to see things going to this format:
    “[dialogue]” [designation] [action they performed while/after saying].

    From a technical standpoint, it always struck me as odd to just have “blah blah” dave said. I mean, obviously he said something, that’s what the “” mean. Seems to me it would be more efficient to replace said with more descriptive terms that aren’t self-evident.

  4.  

    From a technical standpoint, it always struck me as odd to just have “blah blah” dave said. I mean, obviously he said something, that’s what the “” mean. Seems to me it would be more efficient to replace said with more descriptive terms that aren’t self-evident.

    I always thought that was for dialogue attribution when there are multiple people talking. Sometimes, Jane Austen doesn’t have the dialogue tags and it sure caused confusion for me. As for replacing ‘said’ with something more descriptive…I wouldn’t do it all the time, just when the dialogue itself cannot convey the whole emotion.

  5.  

    From a technical standpoint, it always struck me as odd to just have “blah blah” dave said. I mean, obviously he said something, that’s what the “” mean.

    Well, yeah, that’s why good writers don’t stick them in after every line. It’s there to show us who said it, not how they said it.

  6.  

    What DL said^
    Unadorned speaker attributions are just to prevent confusion. I leave them out entirely if I can, especially if I’m putting the dialogue in the middle of a paragraph dedicated to the speaking character doing other stuff. You also don’t really need them often if your character voices are distinct enough.

    That’s what the debate boils down to, though. It’s a showing versus telling argument. It’s a lot easier/lazier to have Jimmy huff his dialogue instead of say it than it is to make it clear from the dialogue itself that he is huffy. The anti-said camp tries to paint adherence to “said” as mechanical, stripped down, and sterile, but that’s wrong for the same reason showing is better than telling.

    It’s like a painting in a gallery or something. The spoken words are the painting itself, and the dialogue tags are just the frame. Adding an unwieldy, pointlessly ostentatious frame might make a mundane and artless painting seem impressive to the untrained eye, but for paintings that are actually good, such a frame would only distract from the picture.

  7.  

    Well, yeah, that’s why good writers don’t stick them in after every line. It’s there to show us who said it, not how they said it.

    Duh, I believe I mentioned that. But if we’re going that far, why not just cut out “said” all together? Why not just have books that go:
    “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.” -Han
    “You always say that.” -Luke
    “And I’m always right!”

    That’s what the debate boils down to, though. It’s a showing versus telling argument. It’s a lot easier/lazier to have Jimmy huff his dialogue instead of say it than it is to make it clear from the dialogue itself that he is huffy. The anti-said camp tries to paint adherence to “said” as mechanical, stripped down, and sterile, but that’s wrong for the same reason showing is better than telling.

    Yes, but as always there’s a different between theory and practice. Let’s be honest, there are some things that dialogue will never be able to portray just on its own. Example:

    “Guess who I ran into at the supermarket.”

    Now, how did the above person say the above quote? Add some extra info and you get…

    “Guess who I ran into at the supermarket,” she said in a chipper tone.
    “Guess who I ran into at the supermarket.” she huffed.

    The only way to get any details from the dialogue is to do another no-no and have the character outright say their feelings.

    “What a great day! Guess who I ran into at the supermarket!”
    “God I’m pissed. Guess who I ran into at the supermarket.”

    Now if you asked me, I’d rather the author use all those ‘said’ words, and decorative adverbs then do bad dialogue. Let’s face it, without actors of comic drawings, there’s no way you’re going to be able to pack the meaning into a line that visual mediums do. And there’s always the risk that your readers not believing anything you say.

    •  
      CommentAuthorKyllorac
    • CommentTimeMar 13th 2010 edited
     

    I also think it arises from the mistaken assumptions that sparsity = concision, and that adjectives and/or adverbs = descriptive. I love my adverbs, and I really hate coming across writing advice that presents the all adverbs = bad as a rule. There are times when adverbs are not only appropriate, but necessary. On the other hand, adverbs (and adjectives) are so easy – easily used, easily abused. Lazy writing, in whatever style, is lazy writing and therefore bad. Adverbs are just one of the tools we writers have; to not use them ever is a waste, and it is even lazier to blame adverbs for bad writing.

    I personally prefer a concise style. I happen to like being able to read and understand something on the first read through and not have to go back and reread it just to figure out what the heck it was possibly trying to say. Since effectively communicating is the whole point of writing, and since concision tends to facilitate clarity, I personally find concise writing (the Hemming Way; which is really quite ironic a name if you consider the meaning of the word “hemming”) to be far superior than the word vomit we all know as purple prose. Something I’ve noticed about purple prose is that, although it’s chock full adjectives, adverbs, and vivid verbs (all those lovely descriptiony words), it really doesn’t describe anything.

    Seriously, despite all the “descriptive” words, those descriptions are among the most vague and unclear I have ever encountered. “He ran swiftly.” Okay. How fast is “swiftly”? Is it faster than, say, “quickly”? And how about “speedily”? There’s the same problem with nouns and adjectives. “Her blue eyes gleamed gold in the light.” How blue are her eyes? Are they pale blue, as in almost grey? Are they the dark blue that’s almost purplish, like the Hope Diamond? Or are they an intensely blue blue that can only be described as true blue, like blue ribbon blue? And then there’s the question of what kind of light is it? Is it firelight? Sunlight? The light of a flashlight or some other man-made light-source? What color is the light? Nouns without adjectives are vague. Adjectives without specificity are vague. Adverbs without points of reference are vague. Even vivid verbs are quite vague if just left to their lonesome. No one element of the language can exist in a clear and coherent whole without the other parts. It takes a combination, carefully balanced and clearly purposed, to make a truly good piece of writing.

    This is also pretty much my stance on the whole show versus tell debacle. Showing is good and necessary. Telling is also good and necessary. The emphasis should be more on the quality and balance of the showing and the telling than whether or not a writer is showing or telling.

    Basically, I agree with the main idea of both essays. I do think the second one could have been written much better, though. It is quite obvious by reading it that the Hemmingway school is one the writer does not think much of.

  8.  

    @Nate: There’s plenty of other ways to get her huffiness across without resorting to saying she huffed or was chipper, the least of which is to describe her body language along with it. Moreover, presuming she goes on to elaborate about who she met, the way she feels about meeting said person should become evident. If the remainder of her speech is excited, the reader can easily tell she was excited to meet who she met. The same is true if the rest of her words are pissed.

  9.  

    (yay! we’re all having a discussion – though I think we all mostly agree, it a talk about degrees)

    @Nate: There’s plenty of other ways to get her huffiness across without resorting to saying she huffed or was chipper, the least of which is to describe her body language along with it. Moreover, presuming she goes on to elaborate about who she met, the way she feels about meeting said person should become evident. If the remainder of her speech is excited, the reader can easily tell she was excited to meet who she met. The same is true if the rest of her words are pissed.

    Certainly. But as I was saying, you start putting that into practice and it gets less distinct. I’ve recently got a free software program that will “speak” what’s written in word and intend to start running my dialogue through it. The question becomes, can you tell what inflections should be in there when listening even to a flat reading?

    Since effectively communicating is the whole point of writing, and since concision tends to facilitate clarity, I personally find concise writing (the Hemming Way; which is really quite ironic a name if you consider the meaning of the word “hemming”) to be far superior than the word vomit we all know as purple prose. Something I’ve noticed about purple prose is that, although it’s chock full adjectives, adverbs, and vivid verbs (all those lovely descriptiony words), it really doesn’t describe anything.

    I agree in most part. I’m just curious as to whether “purple prose” is really the opposite of the Heming Way. I wouldn’t describe Tolkien as using the Heming style but would you really describe him as using purple prose either? Hmmm… we should come up with a better term (as I think purple prose is an abuse of this style, just as there can be abuses of the heming way)

    Basically, I agree with the main idea of both essays. I do think the second one could have been written much better, though. It is quite obvious by reading it that the Hemmingway school is one the writer does not think much of.

    I think it’s more reactionary. Currently the Hemming Way is in vogue so… really how much praise do you need to give it? (her entire second essay could have probably just been a link to the writing section of the internet) The first essay was making a case that goes against the current popularity. The latter might be described as “preaching to the choir”. Certainly we can all (especially the plethora of teenagers on here) can appreciate rebellion now and then. ;-)

    •  
      CommentAuthorKyllorac
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2010
     

    I agree in most part. I’m just curious as to whether “purple prose” is really the opposite of the Heming Way. I wouldn’t describe Tolkien as using the Heming style but would you really describe him as using purple prose either? Hmmm… we should come up with a better term (as I think purple prose is an abuse of this style, just as there can be abuses of the heming way)

    We do need a better term. I was writing that post and thinking “What’s a good way to describe it that everybody’s familiar with?” Purple prose just came up first.

    I think it’s more reactionary. Currently the Hemming Way is in vogue so… really how much praise do you need to give it? (her entire second essay could have probably just been a link to the writing section of the internet) The first essay was making a case that goes against the current popularity. The latter might be described as “preaching to the choir”. Certainly we can all (especially the plethora of teenagers on here) can appreciate rebellion now and then. ;-)

    Meh. My main quibble is that there is an obvious bias in both the articles, though it’s more tolerable in the first. I don’t know about anyone else, but obvious biases in any written thing really irritate me, and I will sometimes stop reading because of the bias. Recently, I came across a very witty and humorous factbook on Shakespeare that made lots of references to history, and I was happy despite the fairly obvious liberal leanings of the authors until they made a Bush jab. Then another. And another. And then they went full out liberal everything, and I put the book down. The sad thing is that the authors were truly witty, and that the book could have been pure, undiluted awesome if they had just resisted the urge to bash Bush and other such related things.

    /tangent

  10.  

    @Kyllorac
    I agree about biases. I hate when I tell that the author is actively campaigning against or for something. I like objectivity, or at least a decent attempt at it.

    Anyway, I can see the point that this person is trying to make: That this stuff isn’t set in stone, but everyone acts like it is. I can understand using verbs other than “said” occasionally, or even using gasp an adverb. Like Nate said, you can’t always convey how someone said something just by what they said. Sometimes you need one of those descriptive verbs. One “huffed” in a sea of “saids” won’t make your writing purple. Now, if the author seems to be afraid of the word said, that’s a whole other story. When someone always “smiles,” “exclaims,” “interjects,” and “says meaningfully” it gets old.

    How do you guys feel about using “asked”? I use it quite a lot for questions. It doesn’t seem purple to me. For some reason “What are you doing?” he asked sounds better to me than “What are you doing?” he said.

  11.  

    Yeah, I use ‘asked’ for a question, but only if I need to clarify who’s saying it. Otherwise, it gets left untagged usually.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMoldorm
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2010
     

    I generally use action-tags rather than adverbs when writing dialogue, like “ “...” he said, doing something relevant and contextual.”
    When I start to use adverbs or interesting “said” variations, I then find it hard to stop.

  12.  

    like “ “...” he said, doing something relevant and contextual.”

    That’s what I do. I used to use “said” variations all the time because I thought, “I can’t say ‘said’ over and over again.” I now know better. I still think they are okay occasionally.

  13.  

    I think basically what everyone’s trying to say is that adverbs, variations of ‘said’, etc. are all okay in moderation.

    •  
      CommentAuthorAdamPottle
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2010
     

    Hmm. I like said, but I prefer to put the dialogue among actions. Here’s a bit of a conversation between two of the main characters- unfortunately only one said present. I personally think it isn’t too purple but y’know, shred it.

    John Montback had witnessed something mighty in the deep violent south of the country where Imperial armies rolled slowly towards Pernis from Kemmersburgh. A single blurred photograph of exactly what he expected but did not want to see stared balefully up at him from the house’s kitchen table. It was plainly massive and solid and in charge, total charge, of the battle it had been photographed in by an embedded reporter. It most unfortunately did not touch the ground at any point, the picture clearly showed.
    “Hiassen, get in here!” The sergeant major strolled lazily in, drinking a coffee. “Have you seen this?” Montback pointed a single shaking finger at the grav-tank. “They don’t— shouldn’t— shouldn’t have these. This is not good, this is bad. Cappaniata selling to them, dammit; we’re up against the world— like hell I’m dealing with a war crimes tribunal; I’m done with this shit, we’re done with this shit, I’m leaving—”
    Hiassen stood there, picking at his armour. “Uh huh.”
    “That didn’t sound too professional, did it?”
    “No sir. Not at all.”
    “Well.”
    “Yep.”
    Montback picked up the picture and squinted. “It can’t be that big, can it?”
    “I heard they were about thirty, thirty-five feet long, fifteen wide and a good ten high.”
    He processed the dimensions. “That is not reasonable at all.” Other things too— auto-tracking guns, chaff dischargers, reactive armour, the frightening fact that this hundred-tonne or more thing moved as fast as a sports car over clear terrain and could turn on a dime.
    “I hear our tanks aren’t doing the best against the fucker. Ten confirmed destroyed by it alone since we hit de Creer. The first lieutenant has gone and volunteered us to head south and do something about it.
    “Us as in the battalion?”
    “Us as in the platoon. Thirty-six dudes in jeeps and canvas backed trucks against a destroyer of companies. Should be fun, he says.”
    Montback sat down heavily. “Isn’t this when they send in the crack team of special forces commandos who have trained for years in harsh conditions to face and destroy any foe? A ragtag band of eccentric troops who use their unique skills and teamwork to save the day? A bunch of loveable loser kids with a crazy coach and a chance, just a little chance at the pennant if they learn to believe in themselves?”
    “I think the last one was a kid’s movie or several. The Imperial Royal Dragoons politely declined and the whackos are already court-martialled, dead or in the reserves.”
    “So we were wanted for what, exactly? My excellent leadership skills?” He flexed.
    “I don’t think you’re quite seeing the whole picture, sir. The lieutenant volunteered us. We’re going south because nobody else particularly wanted to and the first lieutenant wanted to see some action before Makarsay gave up and we all got discharged.”
    “So we are without special skills?”
    Hiassen shrugged. “Private Mason can juggle pretty well.”
    “We are without special skills.”
    “Exactly,” the sergeant major said. He took a drink. “We’re leaving at fourteen hundred hours sharp tomorrow afternoon, no delays. Should be on the front lines in a day.”
    Montback nodded and put down the picture. “Sleep is a good idea, then.”
    “I’m too damn buzzed to sleep. Me and some other NCO’s are going to egg the 3rd Artillery’s brigadier’s place later, you interested?”
    “Not tonight, sergeant.”
    “Figures.” He made a half-assed salute and wandered out onto the porch humming the national anthem.
    Montback took the photo, folded it once and tucked it into his back pocket.

  14.  

    He flexed.

    Do you mean he flexed his muscles?

    •  
      CommentAuthorAdamPottle
    • CommentTimeMar 14th 2010
     

    yes indeed.

  15.  

    @Nate Winchester

    Duh, I believe I mentioned that. But if we’re going that far, why not just cut out “said” all together? Why not just have books that go:
    “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.” -Han

    I apologize for my lateness, but the reason is that ENGLISH DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

    Seriously, it should be self-evident.

  16.  

    I’m pretty sure Nate was exaggerating…

  17.  

    I use “said” when I put tags at all. I usually do the

    “Words and stuff”
    “Reply to above words”
    “That was a dang snappy reply”

    if it is only two characters conversing.

  18.  

    @NeuroticPlatypus

    I’m pretty sure Nate was exaggerating…

    I’m pretty sure that I was up too late…

    Still, he’s making an awfully large leap.

  19.  

    Still, he’s making an awfully large leap.

    NP was right. I know that’s how english “works” my point was simply that “said” contributes nothing other than solving grammar’s technical requirements. At least when you replace it with something else they fulfill double duty (and would be more efficient).

    When they’re even needed. I frequently use Islington’s method, peppering in identifiers every so often just to be sure the reader is keeping track of whose turn it is.