|
|
Post by captainkodak1 on Jan 11, 2006 22:30:28 GMT -5
The said thing is a biggie for me and I have to watch myself. I will use other words to mean the same thing or give some action to one of the characters that is getting ready to speak.
Love the second example.
|
|
|
|
Post by fieryfalcon on Jan 11, 2006 23:09:02 GMT -5
Need to be careful with using other words though.
"That was fun," Ron smirked. - I don't think this sounds right. You can't smirk something.
"That was fun," Ron said, his face breaking into a self satisfied smirk.
I'm not an expert on the mechanics so someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the second one is preferrable.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainkodak1 on Jan 12, 2006 8:32:49 GMT -5
very true.
|
|
|
|
Post by surforst on Jan 12, 2006 18:59:52 GMT -5
Yeah, I do find that annoying. Myself, I hardly ever use the word, except when someone says it themselves. It was something I did in grade school, but thankfully got out of. By the way, loved the second example!  Pretty much the same for me. Now I avoid it like the plague just seems plain childish to use it. Well I'm glad though everyone enjoyed the second example. I felt I needed something after all to grab your all attention ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Sorsha on Jan 13, 2006 11:33:23 GMT -5
That is a fine second example. Now, me, I usually rely on adjectives: 'stated', 'beamed', etc. You got to be careful on those, too-- I find overuse of perky adjectives even worse than overuse of 'said'. No offense to you in particular (I have read some of your work and I do not think you overuse adjectives) but some authors grab a thesaurus and use every synonym for 'said' known to mankind. It makes the writing look very unprofessional and, dare I say it, cheesy. But really, why use 'said' if you only have two people talking? It ain't that hard to figure out. |
|
|
|
Post by Scoutcraft Piratess on Jan 13, 2006 17:06:48 GMT -5
That is a fine second example. Now, me, I usually rely on adjectives: 'stated', 'beamed', etc. You got to be careful on those, too-- I find overuse of perky adjectives even worse than overuse of 'said'. No offense to you in particular (I have read some of your work and I do not think you overuse adjectives) but some authors grab a thesaurus and use every synonym for 'said' known to mankind. It makes the writing look very unprofessional and, dare I say it, cheesy. But really, why use 'said' if you only have two people talking? It ain't that hard to figure out. Good point. Never, ever, ever be flowery in your writing if you do not know how to do it. I've seen too many fics and stories where the author feels he cannot repeat any common words. If you have to use 'said', be practical and just use said. Not all the time--there is nothing wrong with more creative words. They just must be used sparingly. |
|
|
|
Post by Aers (That Writer Chick) on Jan 13, 2006 19:28:26 GMT -5
best way to becoming a better writer - READ! READ! READ! READ! anything - romance novels, comic books, graphic novels, trashy tabloids, newspapers... anything and everything counts. you can learn through osmosis - if you read enough sentences with good grammar, spelling and structure (insert joke here about one of the catagories above) then you'll find it a lot easier to WRITE with good grammar, spelling and structure. seriously. dude.  |
|
recon228
Pink Sloth
Special Agent
Posts: 1
|
Post by recon228 on Jan 13, 2006 23:16:10 GMT -5
That's a very good point you illustrated about the 'he said/she said' overuse in fanfiction. I went back and looked over my own stories and found that some parts overuse the 'Kim said/Ron said' thing a bit too much.
One question I do have is: "How much is too much?"
Is it okay to put a 'Kim said' in every few lines, as long as it's not used every time she speaks? What if I say something like; "I don't get it," Kim said, scratching her head and looking down at the folder on the table in front of her. Is that better than just "I don't get it," Kim said.
How does this passage sound? Does it seem to overuse the 'he said/she said' technique too much?
|
|
|
|
Post by cloudmonet on Jan 14, 2006 1:26:14 GMT -5
If you're not sure it's clear, leave 'em in, I say. He said, she said, Kim said, Ron said, whatever, it's just two words, added to the paragraph, ignorable if redundant. It's much more annoying not to be sure who's saying what. If Kim, Ron, and Wade are all speaking, a common occurance, you've gotta attribute every line of dialog anyway, cause it won't be alternation.
When you watch an episode, you hear different voices, see the lips move on someone's face. It's obvious who's talking. Should be obvious when you're reading. If there's something happening, write it in:
"I think we've got a problem," Kim whispered to Ron, as the twenty-some oversized baboons surrounding them slowly moved closer.
But a lot of times, people are just sitting there talking.
"Let 'em talk," Cloudmonet said, "and tell me who said what."
|
|
|
|
Post by surforst on Jan 14, 2006 1:36:58 GMT -5
Ok from my perspective did you use the word 'speak' or equivalent too much? Yes I believe you overused it but if your worried about it hurting the overall flow it didn't do that too badly. It's still a good passage after all.
Some points.
Why do you have to tell me he's replying. I can pretty much gather this from the fact from what he's said. Often people will throw in emotions or voice descriptions when they don't have to. Let the reader imagine it.
If it's a question we already know he's asking him so you don't need to put it there. Also I don't need to know he asked it in a casual manner but if you have to just describe his body language. For example 'Agent Pollard leaned back letting out a sigh of relief' that tells me that what follows will probably be casual. Hope that helps.
Over all it's still good I want to stress that since I've read your work. I just don't feel you need to put in 'said', 'asked', 'agreed', or other types things when the dialog tells us what is going on. Look at professional fiction and you'll notice the writer tends not to do that. The author leaves it up to the reader sometimes to guess at the emotion or will make it clear through other means. Just something I think that'll help you work a bit.
Overall though I stress it's good though so don't get discouraged. After all I'm starting out in this and God knows I've got points to cover. We are all learning after all...except Ezbok who is just goofing off. Write Optimus in the story already!
|
|
recon228
Pink Sloth
Special Agent
Posts: 1
|
Post by recon228 on Jan 14, 2006 2:56:59 GMT -5
Thanks for the input, guys. I'll take all that into account from now on. |
|
|
|
Post by surforst on Jan 14, 2006 4:58:31 GMT -5
If you're not sure it's clear, leave 'em in, I say. He said, she said, Kim said, Ron said, whatever, it's just two words, added to the paragraph, ignorable if redundant. It's much more annoying not to be sure who's saying what. If Kim, Ron, and Wade are all speaking, a common occurance, you've gotta attribute every line of dialog anyway, cause it won't be alternation. When you watch an episode, you hear different voices, see the lips move on someone's face. It's obvious who's talking. Should be obvious when you're reading. If there's something happening, write it in: "I think we've got a problem," Kim whispered to Ron, as the twenty-some oversized baboons surrounding them slowly moved closer. But a lot of times, people are just sitting there talking. "Let 'em talk," Cloudmonet said, "and tell me who said what." On this point I have to strongly disagree. The fact of the matter is that it is often very easy to follow a line of dialog between three or more people, if the author does it right, without every having 'Kim said' in there. I'm not going to point at my works (God knows I can be picked apart) but just take a look at Zartan. If he uses 'said' it is very rare but only an idiot would be unable to follow what is going on. The reason I make that sound harsh is to make a point clear to the authors on this site. Rarely are your readers so dumb that they can't follow what you're doing. You don't have to spell out to me that Kim is talking in angry voice when she says 'I'm going to kill you Ronald!' at most all you have to do is show her face going red with rage. It's called setting it up not just telling us what's going on. A point I have problems on mind you in other areas but that's a point I won't discuss here. Another concern you brought up is a three way conversation. On this point just look at the show and you'll see how often it is a three way conversation. Most of the time the story focuses down on two people talking back and forth with an occasional point from someone else. If Wade is briefing team Possible it tends to be him and Kim talking with the occasional input from Ron. Very easy to write without using the word 'said' all the time. Mind you this doesn't make you a bad author but I'd personally just like to see less use of the word or similar methods. All points though I've already brought up. No problem. After all the point of this thread is to help us all write better. After all I found myself falling into the whole 'Kim the jerk' bit until good old Taechunsa slapped me around a bit. The sad side effect is one of my stories is probably dead because of my screw up. Live and learn I guess. God I'm going to miss that story  |
|
|
|
Post by campy on Jan 14, 2006 11:51:16 GMT -5
Of course, on the show Kim & Ron tend to address each other by name (or initials) quite a bit, even when it's just the two of them in the scene. Adding a "KP" or "Ron" in every five or six lines helps keep dialog easy to follow even without any "he saids" & such.
|
|
|
|
Post by cloudmonet on Jan 14, 2006 13:44:28 GMT -5
I strongly disagree with your strong disagreement.
But there are plenty of famous authors who do it either way. I just find it incredibly irritating as a reader to have to count back to the last clear indication, whenever it was, to try to figure out who's saying what. Why make me stop and do that when it's so easy to make it clear? Sometimes it matters who said what. Sometimes the remarks are so short, there's nothing about them that's characteristic of one person or another.
And what's wrong with "replied"? It's a perfectly good, classic variant of "said" which can be used when appropriate.
Honestly, when you're telling your friends about a conversation you had with somebody, don't you indicate who was saying what? Granted, it's a bit easier to figure this out when it's written on a page, but if it doesn't sound clear when I read it aloud, I'll add a few more indicators.
If you watch a play or a movie, or read a comic book, you always know exactly who's saying what. Why should prose make it obscure? Well, your viewpoint character's coming to from unconsciousness, and a bunch of people in the room are talking about something. Or maybe your viewpoint character's at a party, listening to a bunch of random remarks. Or maybe you're just James Joyce or Ken Kesey, whose characters seem to stumble around in a perpetual fog, drowning in their own streams of consciousness.
My own Kim/Ron stories attempt to come close to the experience of the show, which means a few things are different from my novels. There's no direct prying deeply into any character's mind. You can't see that in a dramatization other than through words, actions, facial expressions. So I describe facial expressions and indicate what they usually mean. The characters talk a lot. Well, this is what they do. There's no strong silent types here, mysteriously glowering in the corner, not usually. And you know who's saying what, immediately. The last thing you want to do is slow the pace by being hard to read.
When I was teaching myself how to write, in my last year of college and the next few years, the first thing I had to do is unlearn a lot of the stuff English professors and teachers were particularly fond of. Unless you're trying to slip a message past snoopy government authorities who don't allow freedom of speech, there's no good reason to be obscure. The great works which are obscure are so either because they're trying to slip something past the censors, or because they're old, and the language has changed since then, rendering the work unintentionally obscure. Today's classics were yesteryear's pop culture. Most of 'em weren't obscure when they were new.
Nathanial Hawthorne is old, Allen Ginsberg is slipping things past the censors. What's your reason for making me work hard to figure out who said what in stories as oversaturated with dialog as a stage play?
|
|
recon228
Pink Sloth
Special Agent
Posts: 1
|
Post by recon228 on Jan 14, 2006 17:06:34 GMT -5
I do agree with cloudmonet a bit there...
While putting a 'Kim said' every time she speaks is a bit excessive and unnecessary, when you have a conversation going on for a long time (Or with more than two people) it does make it a bit easier for the reader to have a reminder every so often.
In my writing, I usually put a 'he said/she said' at the end of dialogue to show the reader how the character is speaking, not who is speaking.
For example;
"I just don't get it," Kim sighed.
I put the 'Kim sighed' in at the end so that the reader understands the level of resignation Kim is feeling, not to explain that it is, in fact, Kim speaking. The fact that it reminds the reader who is speaking is only an added benefit in my opinion. I suppose what I need to work on, however, is to explain Kim's feelings without the 'she said' at the end.
Would something like this work better?
Kim sighed and shook her head. "I just don't get it."
Does that example convey the same image as the first one?
You pointed out earlier that this passage could have used without the 'he replied snidely' in it. Would you as the reader still understand the sarcastic tone if it just read “Well it was either build it here, or downtown Berkeley. And Berkeley’s got tougher zoning laws.”?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aers (That Writer Chick) on Jan 14, 2006 17:31:30 GMT -5
why not describe the snide, sarcastic tone?
for example: "Well it was either build it here, or downtown Berkley." His lips curled upwards in an evil smile. "And Berkley's got tougher zoning laws."
*wanders off*
|
|
|
|
Post by surforst on Jan 14, 2006 19:29:15 GMT -5
I strongly disagree with your strong disagreement. Unacceptable!  Ok maybe it's acceptable in it's own way after all disagreement is something something. I've already put forth my view point as a reader on this and I stand by what I've said. Simple as that any further argument is just that. No point behind it and since I like your work it would really stink to read in your next chapter about how a civilian named Surforst was beaten to death with wet noddles. The images are less then pleasant though they do make me hungry. Wonder why? Excellent! Use that. After all it's the why I write so I have to feel some sort of affection towards it. Besides it just sounds better then 'Kim sighed'. It's a good line unless he doesn't have the evil smile. Otherwise it does everything it should and it reads well. Good example. There other ways then directly saying to the reader the way the speech was. Describe his tone of voice for example if you have to. In the end it's up to you I'm just suggesting avoiding writing 'said' and 'replied'. Um...already done on my part. My English teachers have put hits out on me in the past for the abuse I've given the English language so no worries there. As for the obscure I don't see the connection. How is avoiding 'said' the same as those Lit books I had to read. God how can you write an entire book on a dead woman. Stupid snobs! Anyway you write what you want just remember your writing this for the reader too. It's important to remember that and never get too holy on the issue. If you think it's the greatest work ever but everyone else doesn't then you need to rethink things. Just some comments from me. Anyway have a good night! |
|
|
|
Post by cloudmonet on Jan 14, 2006 19:45:11 GMT -5
No.
And this variant by Aers gives me a different picture of Agent Pollard than your original. He's gone from being tough and cynical to being sinister.
Recon, trust me. You know what you're doing when it comes to building sentences and paragraphs. They're under your control and present what you want to present. You don't stumble or get awkward.
"He replied snidely" does add something to the dialog, including, besides what you noted, inserting a pause where a pause would be in the movie version, to perfect the timing of the punchline. Aers' version inserts too long a pause.
|
|
|
|
Post by cloudmonet on Jan 14, 2006 19:54:43 GMT -5
You know, when I first wrote "Gila Monsters," I considered using a number of the better screen names here as radio code names for the Night Rangers, then thought better of it and changed them all. You needn't worry.
Glad you like my stories even though I do use a lot of dialog indicators.
|
|
recon228
Pink Sloth
Special Agent
Posts: 1
|
Post by recon228 on Jan 14, 2006 21:10:44 GMT -5
And this variant by Aers gives me a different picture of Agent Pollard than your original. He's gone from being tough and cynical to being sinister. Yeah, I wasn't really going for sinister at that point in the scene, it was more of a snide comment. I do agree with what everyone is saying; I'm not going to put a 'Kim said' in if it's only to point out who is speaking, but I'm not going to omit character emotions just because it contains a hint of 'he said/she said'. |
|
Ok maybe it's acceptable in it's own way after all disagreement is something something. I've already put forth my view point as a reader on this and I stand by what I've said. Simple as that any further argument is just that. No point behind it and since I like your work it would really stink to read in your next chapter about how a civilian named Surforst was beaten to death with wet noddles. The images are less then pleasant though they do make me hungry. Wonder why?