More Editing How-To's: Dialogue
More editing how-to's.
I like writing that is spare and lean. And there's nothing worse than looking at a page full of "he said's" and "she said's" when reading dialogue. However, I remember when I was first writing, I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out how to write lengthy dialogue without the occasional reminder for the reader of who the heck was talking. That's when I learned to tie an action to a speaker. When I became an editor, I found out most of the publishers I worked with preferred this method, too. And when authors didn't so do, when they had a lot of he saids and she saids, their dialogue somehow seemed "clunkier."
Okay, so how do you do this?
"I don't understand why you are so damn difficult."
"That's part of my charm."
This has no identifiers. Now, if this was part of lengthy dialogue, you wouldn't want to have a whole bunch of lines without knowing who was speaking. Ever do that "line counting" thing? Going backward in dialogue when you are reading to figure out who the heck is speaking? That's not good either. And you like to know who speaks first.
"I don't understand why you are so damn difficult," he said.
"That's part of my charm," she replied.
Kind of clunky. And if you have a lot of he saids/she replied/he offered/she added, it gets even clunkier. Plus you run out of different ways to basically say "he said." So you tie an action to the speaker.
He reached for case file. "I don't understand why you are so damn difficult."
"That's part of my charm."
There's no confusion, but you eliminate he said/she said entirely. He has the action. It's his dialogue. He owns it by default there. You can even put the action after the piece of dialogue.
"I don't understand why you are so damn difficult." He picked up the case folder and flung it across the room.
"That's part of my charm."
I understand that an occasional he said/she said is a quick touchpoint in dialogue. But when I edit and see a ton of dialogue "markers," I usually tell writers to get rid of them, and this is the method most often used.
Any other dialogue tricks up your sleeve? Do you do that "line counting" thing in dialogue-heavy books? (Or am I the only one?) Thoughts?
Peace,
E
I like writing that is spare and lean. And there's nothing worse than looking at a page full of "he said's" and "she said's" when reading dialogue. However, I remember when I was first writing, I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out how to write lengthy dialogue without the occasional reminder for the reader of who the heck was talking. That's when I learned to tie an action to a speaker. When I became an editor, I found out most of the publishers I worked with preferred this method, too. And when authors didn't so do, when they had a lot of he saids and she saids, their dialogue somehow seemed "clunkier."
Okay, so how do you do this?
"I don't understand why you are so damn difficult."
"That's part of my charm."
This has no identifiers. Now, if this was part of lengthy dialogue, you wouldn't want to have a whole bunch of lines without knowing who was speaking. Ever do that "line counting" thing? Going backward in dialogue when you are reading to figure out who the heck is speaking? That's not good either. And you like to know who speaks first.
"I don't understand why you are so damn difficult," he said.
"That's part of my charm," she replied.
Kind of clunky. And if you have a lot of he saids/she replied/he offered/she added, it gets even clunkier. Plus you run out of different ways to basically say "he said." So you tie an action to the speaker.
He reached for case file. "I don't understand why you are so damn difficult."
"That's part of my charm."
There's no confusion, but you eliminate he said/she said entirely. He has the action. It's his dialogue. He owns it by default there. You can even put the action after the piece of dialogue.
"I don't understand why you are so damn difficult." He picked up the case folder and flung it across the room.
"That's part of my charm."
I understand that an occasional he said/she said is a quick touchpoint in dialogue. But when I edit and see a ton of dialogue "markers," I usually tell writers to get rid of them, and this is the method most often used.
Any other dialogue tricks up your sleeve? Do you do that "line counting" thing in dialogue-heavy books? (Or am I the only one?) Thoughts?
Peace,
E
Labels: dialogue, editing how-to's
posted by Erica Orloff at 6:32 AM
18 Comments:
I never use he/she/I said. It's feels unnatural when I try to. I would prefer that my dialogue be distinct enough to be noticed without having to spell out who is talking. I'm not snobbish toward authors who do use it, but it really turns me off when it is overused.
I do not feel this way about children's books, though.
Hi Heather:
Yay . . . someone else who self-edits the way I do. :-)
E
I’ve definitely done the backwards line counting routine. It often happens when more that two characters are in a scene. Then there’s a bit more need for dialog tags. Your suggestion of action staging is a great technique. And in your last example, we see character-building from the man’s reaction as he throws the case folder.
The good news is that the word “said” is practically invisible. It rarely stops the eye. Whereas, I think even common tags like “replied,” “answered”, “asked” and others can stop the eye if they’re overused. And then there’s my favorite pet peeves—dialog tags where humans take on animal traits: She hissed, he barked, etc.
But staging is a great way to avoid dialog confusion and gives the writer the opportunity to build character.
Hi Joe:
Staging can build character . . . definitely. And I hadn't thought about why, exactly, those other tags bother me so much. Particularly hissed and barked and so on. But others, too. You're right . . . they call attention to themselves, in a sense.
Cheers,
E
Some really success writers like Robert B. Parker and Elmore Leonard do pretty much stick to "he said," but anything can be overused.
Note, though, that if you, as a writer, are working toward a certain type of rhythm, then "he said" or "she said" may have more to do with rhythm than with identifying who's talking.
I think actions connecting to the speaker is good, although, again, you have to make sure you don't overload actions just to identify speakers or the whole thing becomes exposition-heavy.
Hey, nobody said this was easy. Writing's all about choices!
But you know what kills me as a reader? (And yes, I've had to do that count backward thing numerous times). It's the paragraph break dialogue. For example:
"I really think you know what I mean. Some guy's explaining something, he's got a speech going, some big run-on monologue, and the author knows it's running on too long, so what does he do?
"Instead of having a new person speaking, even interrupting a little bit, he (or she) starts a new paragraph, but it's still the same character talking."
"Are you sure you want to put it that way, Mark?"
"Absolutely. Because what this does to me is it makes me think someone else interrupted and started talking. It becomes very, very confusing. At least to me."
"Ah, I get what you're talking about."
Mark:
LOL! You know, as an editor, I am aware that's technically correct (starting the new paragraph/dialogue with a closing quote mark), but it drives me crazy, too. I know it seems a little "devicey" to interrupt just to avoid it, but I'd rather do so. I'd rather the reader not have to work at it and instead be lost in the story . . . and I find that jarring as a reader, so I avoid it as a writer.
And yeah. Rhythm is important, too. I didn't realize it so much until I wrote poetry in my early 20s . . . had some published, really enjoyed writing poetry. But more than that, it taught me about cadence and an underlying organic rhythm to writing that I wasn't as aware of before.
E
May I ask a question? I was once told that if you interrupt a sentence with action, you should punctuate it like below. But I've seen it done differently, too.
"I hate trying to come up--" she slammed the desk with each syllable "--with example sentences!"
(Okay, terrible example. I actually wouldn't use the em dashes there, but pretend I gave an example where you would, LOL.)
I agree with you and Mark about that new-paragraph-same-person-speaking thing.
spy:
Interrupting is different because you're cutting into an actual sentence. You could do it the way you have, you could do it with commas. I tend to do it more like my example. Like:
"This is the dialogue." Here's my action. "Now he blabs on and on."
And, like Mark said, you have to have "gimme" room for the fact that you might be aiming for a certain rhythm to the thing.
"Hey, Erica!" he said drunkenly. "I know I shouldna be using tags, but those golldarn things are sho mush fun I canna get 'way from them. An' dialect too. Screw it. I love you guys. I mean it. I really love you guys. Does anyone have pretzels? I really need a pretzel."
Adverbial dialogue tags are my pet peeve.
He said angrily.
She said mildly.
I said solemnly.
Whatever.
I usually stick with he said/she said/I said (like Joe said, these become practically invisible), or eliminate tags altogether when I think attribution is obvious.
Sometimes I throw an action in, but only if it's relevent. I don't want to make my character do something just to identify who's speaking.
Jude:
I've had editors ask for a tag of some sort . . . in general, it goes back to not wanting the reader to have to stop the flow of reading to identify a speaker or whatever. Not wanting "lost" spots in the book. So for me, the action thing works . . . because it's not necessary for most dialogue (like Heather, you're trying to make the dialogue distinct). But definitely in scenes of two or more, it gets tricky at times.
And adverbs in dialogue . . . like Elmore Leonard espouses, they're a no-no.
E
I agree the action thing does work, but like anything else it can be overdone ad nauseum.
I was reading part of a novel earlier today, and almost EVERY snippet of dialogue had an action tag attached. To me, it gets tiresome after a while.
Of course, the author I was reading is a mega-bestseller, so I could be wrong. :)
Erica,
Your examples include:
"I don't understand why you are so damn difficult." He picked up the case folder and flung it across the room.
"That's part of my charm."
I recently read a how-to book that stated "and" depicted simultaneous actions; therefore, we're supposed to use, "and then".
Yet, I'm aware that the use of "then" is discouraged.
My gut tells me your example is correct and is the most acceptable form usage.
If you could please confirm, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks,
Kathy
Hey Kathy:
Bottom line? There is the Chicago Manual of Style and Strunk and White . . . and numerous other books that will tell you the "precise" language . . . and then there's practical usage, rhythm and so on.
I'm okay with "and" as I used it. ;-)
But you know, it's all in the execution.
E
Another brilliant post that is getting formatted and pasted up next to my monitor so that whenever I am writing I can gauge how well I am doing.
Thanks ewoh:
I feel weird being instructional on my blog, but there you go. For you. :-)
E
Adverbial abuse is the primary reason I couldn't get through the first Harry Potter book, Tena decried desparagingly.
tena--
LOL! Writers should be ticketed: "Adverbial Abuse"--a misdemeanor. Or maybe a Class II Felony.
:-)
E
Post a Comment
<< Home