My usual is something like this:
Lord Terin drew his sword, "So it has come to this."

since I was taught to never have dialogue like this:
"Hi there, how are you?"
"I am fine."
"Can't you come up with a better answer than that?"
"Three."
"What?"
"Three. That's my try at a better answer."

Do you think I can get away with my mixing of sentence and speech? Microsoft Word doesn't know any better, and it really is my style.

While I agree with Kingjon that you should use said the most, and particularly when you're inexperienced, there are always times to use other words. For instance, a question followed by said instead of something like asked will always throw me off.

I've occasionally noticed that enough uses of said in a row starts to irritate me for some reason, but I'm not sure if I'll really notice most of the time. But it is something that's happened a few times, so it might be something to watch out for. Or I might be the only person in the world that is ever bothered by it, and even that isn't often.

No; like any idiom "he said" an become tiresome after a while. This is why varying it with things like "replied," "answered," "shouted," and the like occasionally as appropriate is reasonable, as is hanging the sentence structure (put the speech tag before or even in the middle of the dialogue, not just always after), using adjectives, or using simultaneous action instead of describing the act of speaing (whih is what "said" is). The point of the guideline to "just use 'said'" is that most of the time our eyes just skip over "said", only noticing who's talking, while "declared," "exclaimed," "expostulated," and even more unusual "said-book-isms" draw attention to themselves---and the dialogue itself is what's important, not the act of speaking it.

Yeah, I could tell it's a run-on technically... but it is how I write at the same time. Do you think that that version of speech-tagging could fall under a breakable rule? I wouldn't write run on sentences in any other form; I am always careful to punctuate somehow to avoid run-ons. Wouldn't technically any dialogue without a tag be a fragment then? If that's permissible... what about run-on dialogue?

Okay, that's about what I thought. Generally things like declared and exclaimed are probably entirely useless for writing.

I agree (though there's a place for them to be used very occasionally for variety). Howeer, some writers (inluding, notably, the translators of the NIV) apparently think that "says" should be avoided in most cases and use things like "delared" routinely instead.

Now that...is beyond excessive... I'm surprised I hadn't noticed in the NIV if it's that bad, though. I don't use it myself, but I know people who do. Although I guess I'm also less bothered by the use of things besides said than most people.

For example: Recasting "'I'm cold,' she said" as "She said that she was cold" shows that the original was proper, but "'I'm cold,' she shivered" becomes "She shivered that she was cold", which doesn't make sense because the original wasn't grammatical.

These are tricky devils. I tend to omit them entirely.

In which way are they tricky devils? I expect you know that. Every way.

So I guess you were asking how I omit them. I guess I don't entirely, since that's kinda impossible, but I get rid of them as quickly as possible. So after ensuring my readers know who's saying what, if necessary, you know, to avoid confusion, I stop tagging and just have a new paragraph for each character's reply.

Grammar is not so much, I believe, a stringent set of rules to make what you write 'correct'. It is more a method by which we make a string of marks intelligible.

And not only is that so...but even if you wanted to write within the convention, there is no convention on a good many things – even things that a lot of people claim there is a convention for. See – different people claim different conventions.

I haven't seen a lot of grammar discussion, but the one I did see consisted mainly of people saying 'I was told'.

(I would like to add to kingjon's list the times where you say the tag the paragraph before the actual speech, and when you use a colon after it instead of a comma.

In my opinion, Reiyen's method of doing speech is really interesting. I like it.

I agree that it is not 'correct'. But I do not see that as a reason to not do it. It is perfectly understandable. And it is impossible to be completely 'correct' anyways...so why try?

Some people say that splitting sentences, or doing one-word sentences, is not correct...and as far as I can see, looking at technical grammar, it isn't really. But. I like it. And...it is clear what my meaning is too.

Eh.... * slightly grinning * It made sense to me. In fact I just got inspired and started writing a scene including that....

The biggest problem with that method is when the reader is distracted in the middle of a conversation, and then has to figure out who's talking when he comes back to it. Also, for some reason I seem to almost always have at least three characters in a conversation, and it just doesn't work so well then.

True, but if the characters are unique enough, the reader should be able to tell who said what.

One of my writing books, Writing to Sell by Scott Meredith, explains the need for periodic dialogue tags even in a conversation between two quite different people with the example of a stretch of dialogue in which---because the author relied solely on alternating paragraphs to keep track of who was talking---the villain is suddenly shouting "O help!" and the damsel in distress is growling, "Scream all you want; no one can hear you."

Aren't they doing something while talking?

Lady Rwebhu Kidh wrote:
Grammar is not so much, I believe, a stringent set of rules to make what you write 'correct'. It is more a method by which we make a string of marks intelligible.

Yes and no. It's a set of conventions by which we make ourselves understood to our readers---who, we hope, will include not only our current peers but generations to come. Like the conventions of etiquette and decorum, or of art or music, the conventions may be ignored if we can trust that you know what you're doing, and if you have a good reason for setting them aside. But like other such conventions, it's not a good idea to set them aside lightly, or just because someone else did.
Lady Rwebhu Kidh wrote:
And not only is that so...but even if you wanted to write within the convention, there is no convention on a good many things – even things that a lot of people claim there is a convention for. See – different people claim different conventions.

For many things there is not yet a standard; for a few others the standards are changing. That doesn't make it any better an idea to throw off all standards.
Lady Rwebhu Kidh wrote:
I haven't seen a lot of grammar discussion, but the one I did see consisted mainly of people saying 'I was told'.

Snce we're discussing a convention by which prose from centuries ago is still readily intelligible today, and (we hope) our writing may be read and understood by our generations to come, "I was taught" is a fairly strong justification---the whole point of a convention is that, whether it's perfectly logical or not, it's shared by the entire community. And I've been too lazy to go pull Fowler or Strunk & White off the shelf.

(I've forgotten whether "my list" was correct or incorrect idioms ...) I'd advise against using that form in most cases; it's probably technically correct, but sufficiently rare to draw attention to itself rather than the speech (the same reason avoiding "said-book-isms" is a good idea)

It's quite possible to be completely grammatical. And even if what he intended to convey by "his method" is quite plain, it actually means something quite different (in his original example, that the character transmitted his words by the action of swinging his sword), which is (on some rare occasions) actually what an author means.

Some things (fragments and run-ons in particular) are acceptable in dialogue and in-POV narration (because that's how people think and talk) in moderation, but not in ordinary prose.

Let me rephrase that slightly: Some authors seem to think that (to use this example) "'I'm cold,' she shivered" is roughly equivalent to "'I'm cold,' she said. She shivered." while instead it means that her shivering conveyed the words "I'm cold." So technically it's less a matter of grammar than of usage---to paraphrase The Princess Bride "I do not think that construction means what you think it means."

Even so ... One of my writing books, Writing to Sell by Scott Meredith, explains the need for periodic dialogue tags even in a conversation between two quite different people with the example of a stretch of dialogue in which---because the author relied solely on alternating paragraphs to keep track of who was talking---the villain is suddenly shouting "O help!" and the damsel in distress is growling, "Scream all you want; no one can hear you."
In any case, "if the characters are unique enough" is a big if; by the end of a book about two brothers (for example) the reader might be able to tell them apart just by their dialogue, with no help from tags, but I would't count on it.

I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that the solution to the issue of using actions as speech tags is simply to do it like this:

"I'm cold." (Name) shivered.

By putting a period at the end of the speech, the the shivering is no longer being said to be how it was communicated, and the shivering is, in effect, simply an action added to an otherwise 'untagged' bit of dialogue, and, I think, should work just fine.

I think there is something to be said for speech tags being overused, though. Also, I think always using said, and other such speech tags are not always best for the story. I do not think that you should be too creative, either, but I think we should also watch blanket statements about speech tags. Some of the greats, after all, do not strictly follow what has been said in this thread.

I am sorry if I was seeming to say that we should skip convention and consistency and what is being taught...I didn't mean to. What I was trying to say is that the teachers disagree, not that you shouldn't listen to them.

But since people don't agree on conventions, and language is a live organism, really, I don't think that 'I was told' should be the only reason to use a specific syntax. We need to look at our grammar and lexicology and do it the best way that we can come to a conclusion about – taking into account what the conventions are, and logic, and multitudes of other things.

But language does change, as you mentioned, and I don't think that is a bad thing. I try intentionally in how I say things to change it for the better. I'm the sort of person that finds a good word, and uses it even if the dictionary claims it is 'unused'.

That is why I think that adding the way Reiyen does speech tags to the list would be a good thing. It is a helpful syntax, and I think it would be an improvement to use it.

Rare in modern books perhaps, but not in my favorite ones. So I use it. I try to learn from the books I like. * smiles *

The speech is an action of the person, and it is connected to another action of his by a comma. It doesn't need to be stated that it is speech, because it has quotation marks.

What I was meaning by it is that 'shivered' becomes a new word when used differently than it is normally used, like how a lot of the words we use today originated. For example 'critique' (I think Strunk mentioned that one in his book – I can't remember, and our 'Elements of Style' fell to pieces so I can't look it up ). Critique didn't used to be a verb, if I remember correctly, it was only a noun. But now we go about 'critiquing' things all the time. ;D

Rare in modern books perhaps, but not in my favorite ones. So I use it. I try to learn from the books I like. * smiles *

I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that the solution to the issue of using actions as speech tags is simply to do it like this:

"I'm cold." (Name) shivered.

By putting a period at the end of the speech, the the shivering is no longer being said to be how it was communicated, and the shivering is, in effect, simply an action added to an otherwise 'untagged' bit of dialogue, and, I think, should work just fine.

Quite. As I (think I) said above, it's entirely reasonable to deviate from convention if you know what you're doing. The reason I've belabored the "just use said" point is that I got the impression from some of my teachers, and apparently some authors still believe, that you shouldn't use said, so the refutation needs to be particularly clear.

What balderdash! Said is a perfectly good, perfectly reasonable, and just plain classic way to say things.

They say that it's boring, and so come up with things like, "gritted" and "snapped" (how many people really try to bite others while they're talking?).

The Pudua system of writing, *grits teeth and hisses at the very name* encourages you to come up with extremely creative ways of saying things.
They have you come up with extremely vivid adjectives, such descriptive adverbs they're almost silly, and demonize the poor word, "said".

There is a reason for this of course. Most fledgling writers tend to write in a cliche manner, and don't use extensive vocabulary. The idea is that once you have to write seriously, all the ostentatious wording that you've been using, because it is so unnatural, will tone itself down and will turn into simply good writing.

That's the theory anyway.

It's not because said is a vile, egregious word that puts readers to sleep instantly with it's magic wand of boredom. Said is a very useful, common word. They're just banning it as a means to make students a little more creative for a limited time period.

Word "said" is O.K. Efforts to avoid repetition by inserting "grunted," "snorted," etc., are waste motion and offend the pure in heart."

[W]riters always use too many adverbs. On one page I found 11 modifying the word "said." "He said morosely, violently, eloquently, so on." Editorial theory should probably be that a writer who can't make his context indicate the way his character is talking ought to be in another line of work. Anyway, it is impossible for a character to go through all these emotional states one after the other. Lon Chaney might be able to do it, but he is dead.

Quite. As I (think I) said above, it's entirely reasonable to deviate from convention if you know what you're doing. The reason I've belabored the "just use said" point is that I got the impression from some of my teachers, and apparently some authors still believe, that you shouldn't use said, so the refutation needs to be particularly clear.

Yes, teachers sometimes disagree, but since any particular language's grammar isn't a purely rational thing (in contrast to mathematics) "I was taught" is arguably the best place to start a discussion; once disagreements appear we can either find more authoritative sources we both accept, or we can find some soure of common ground and work our way forwards by reason.

Since, like I said, grammar etc. aren't purely rational things, and the main aim is to be clearly understood by our peers and generations to come, in my opinion we ought to follow convention (which is what "I was taught" boils down to, unless the teacher was demonstrably wrong) unless there's good reason not to---like I said, diverging can be eminently reasonable if you know what you're doing.

Whereas I find it distinctly unhelpful; I objected so strongly to it not because it's unonventional or "wrong," but because it already means something that's not what he's trying to make it mean. It's as if an author decided to use colons or left-parentheses instead of commas in most constructions where commas are conventionally used---there's no reason to do it that way when there's a perfectly good way to convey the intended meaning already, and doing it that way significantly confuses other idioms. Or like the amusing mistake that Lynne Truss took as the title of her book: "a panda ... eats, shoots and leaves."

Remember, the aim is to communicate with current and future readers; if a convention has been "out of fashion" for centuries now, it's probably not a good idea to use it unless you're deliberately aiming to evoke the feel of those earlier eras (e.g. if your story is set in Regency England).

But if there isn't a speech-verb, the speech-action is implied, so what was said shouldn't be attached to the previous action as if that were the action of speaking.

That's a simple "verbing" of a noun; it happens all the time. Changing the meaning of an entire construction is much, much rarer, and usually takes decades if not centuries to become widely accepted---there are still debates over the Oxford comma, for example.

I should note that the crucible in which my views on grammatical convention were forged (to use a rather overly strong metaphor ...) was few years on the editorial board of my college's student literary magazine. A substantial fraction of the submissions were ... works ... whose authors apparently thought that randomly breaking (inane) prose into multiple lines, or removing all punctuation, or not capitalizing anything, made it "poetry" and worth publishing. e. e. cummings knew what he was doing (most of the time); these imitators did not. So "my favorite books did it this way" is not sufficient justification . "I know what I'm doing, and I have a good reason for it" can be (so long as that's true).

Er, I wouldn't generally associate either of those with biting, actually. I mean, snapped can be used in connection to biting, I guess, but it's not nearly exclusively used for that. I certainly wouldn't consider "snapped" to be even a moderately unusual descriptor for someone speaking. It's rather common, in my experience, and I even use it in normal conversation. In fact, looking it up in a dictionary, the speaking related definition comes even before the definition for its use like "the twig snapped". Gritted, though, is a little odd to use as a replacement for said, although I don't think it would throw me off if I did encounter it.

The trouble is that when it comes time to write "for real," we write like we did in practice---so insisting that students practice writing prose full of a "beginners' mistake" is highly dangerous. And the idea that in writing "for real" any ostentatious habits will iron themselves out is unrealistic---in previous generations, some authors cultivated that style, since that's what the editors wanted ("hack-work" sold better than excellent or innovative ideas).

Is it enough to say that I don't agree? I don't see any reason why you shouldn't. It is clear from context.

Is it enough to say that I don't agree? I don't see any reason why you shouldn't. It is clear from context.

However I learn from my books; they are my teachers more than anything.

But convention today will be different convention tomorrow, the same as convention yesterday is different from convention today. How do you mean that obeying the convention today will make our writing more easily understood by readers tomorrow?

What do you mean by 'good reason not to'?

What would be a good reason?

But in most cases the meaning that it already would mean makes no sense and is not useful. Whereas using that construction (which could mean what Reiyen wants it to if you look at it a different way) in the new meaning in many cases makes sense and is useful.

* tilts head * And I think that the more ways you can say something the better.

And a new way of doing something could especially be permissible if part of an author's style, because the readers will get used to it.

“Out of fashion”. * nods slightly *

Basically, I don't care if it is out of fashion. * smiles * See, I am a person that forms a belief on something, then acts on it. Maybe it is not in fashion, but if I think there is a good reason to do something, I do it. It is not in fashion for me to do a lot of things that are part of my life, not just grammar, and I don't have that as a very major consideration. A consideration, yes, but not major – if there is no reason not to go with fashion (reasons being sometimes as minor as 'I like it this way'), I'll go with it. But if there is, I won't.

This results in me eating, dressing, living, and, apparently, writing, in a very strange way to most people. You don't have to, of course...but that is the way I do it. * smiles * So basically, I agree to disagree with you. I like writing using that way of speech-tagging. You don't.

Is it enough to say that I don't agree? I don't see any reason why you shouldn't. It is clear from context.

Right. (What's the Oxford comma? I've never heard of it.)

I have never heard of E.E. Cummings, so I am not precisely sure what your example is about, however I think I know what you are talking about.

For that matter, I have seen a lot of normal grammar and words abused and used distastefully.

I try not to use them distastefully if I do use them, and I always try to have sufficient reason before I use anything, whether learned from a teacher or read in a book.

Personally, though I don't think that people should try and come up with weird words just for the sake of being 'colorful', I do think that if a word works best even though it is not commonly used in that context it shouldn't be discouraged.

It's one thing to break the rules to accomplish something; it's another to break them because people can still figure it out.

You guys have some seriously deep thoughts going back and forth. I'm loving reading it all.

* mouth quirks * Or maybe you'll just end up with more questions. * wry * * grins *

Somebody mentioned italics at some point, so I thought I'd also mention that I never italicize a character's thoughts (and I find it annoying when authors do so). Some people find that thoughts can then be confused with narrative, but I feel that if you are ever confused, that is probably the author's fault, and that there are convincing arguments to be made that a character's thoughts are part of the narration (especially in the third-person-omniscient).

Technically, you all are not, so far as I know (I dabble in linguistics), actually debating a "grammar" issue. Grammar is morphology (which this clearly is not) and syntax (which doesn't stipulate the correct usage of words, only their positions and influence on each other).

It's also clearly not a semantic (what a word means) issue.

This is really pragmatic (linguistic sense) issue. Pragmatics include style, conventions, and even body language. Pragmatics are all about making your meaning and intentions clear.

Basically, you all are arguing about whose assumptions about English are more reasonable, not about how English actually works.

By the way, intentionally breaking conventions and rules to make a point (a la cummings) is different than doing it because you don't know any better. When it comes to proper English, just like the law, "ignorance is no excuse".

So "my favorite books did it this way" is not sufficient justification . "I know what I'm doing, and I have a good reason for it" can be (so long as that's true).