We still have that conference call set up where I work! Every time I have to use it now, my fingers *stumble* over the keys, when once they *sashayed* over a similar keyboard.
You see, your experience using that phone to set up talks between authors and your students reminds me that I used to do something similar when I hosted a talk radio show for our college radio station. This was mainly an excuse for me to get to interview authors I liked. Back in those heady days, no one really knew how to use the internet to search for things, so as long as I called a publisher and spoke in an authoritative voice about wanting to interview one of their authors, the agent assumed that the left-side-of-the dial frequency and call signal meant I was with public radio, not a college station. I never disabused them of that notion.
We find creative ways to work around our budget limitations in academe. I always thought it was sad when someone (or their booking agent) said they didn't do podcasts anymore or wouldn't budge on their $10K/day speaking fee. Maybe I'd think differently if I were bombarded with requests, but I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the big authors who still made time for little venues.
"One exception to this rule is dialogue. Dialogue should nuance how each speaker says their lines in the spoken words themselves. Start throwing too many action verbs around (he groaned, she spat) and your reader will soon start thinking sounds like writing instead of just dreaming the scene." This is my feeling, as well. If an author wants to convey actions or body language during dialogue, this can either be implied through the dialogue or separated from the dialogue by alternate means. Slow the writing down and mix a couple of descriptive sentences into the space between the spoken words. A "he whispered" or "she bellowed" once in awhile is fine. That said, I'm a huge fan of conversations that consist only of spoken words and let the reader fill in the blanks. Something like this:
Question/statement from speaker one.
Response from speaker two.
And so forth, for as long as needed. No parentheses required.
There is something you mentioned that I'm deeply ambivalent about: the advice to only use the verbs "said" or "asked" in dialogue (and some others, sparingly). That advice seems to fly in the face of "verb it up," which I think is great advice. I understand that someone cannot literally "stumble" an utterance ("Well, um, I guess so," he stumbled), so I get that some verbs do not work as speech tags, and I understand that dialogue is *supposed to* convey the type of speaking (shouting, whispering, whimpering, stammering, demanding, etc.) through the words being said, and that's all fine and good. But why ignore all these wonderful alternatives to said and asked? Sometimes I think that editors have trained themselves to be triggered by alternative dialogue verbs, to the point that they can't read a piece without being distracted by them. Is this actually true for untrained readers?
A great question! First, there is no craft rule that can't be broken. It's all a matter of taste. My bias is for uncluttered writing, and I think the conventional wisdom with speech tags is that you want to avoid Tom Swifties (though those can be fun as a parlor game).
For my part, redundancy takes the magic out of prose. I prefer trusting the reader to connect more dots. The best way, in my opinion, to work in those great verbs is to combine speech with action, so that you're not directly describing the speech but supplementing it with something sensory that adds to the scene.
Let me add a few examples from Aymann Ismail's "Becoming Baba."
"My mom asked me how I felt about you," she said.
I swallowed so loudly I could have sworn she heard it. "What did you tell her?" I asked.
...
"Honestly, if I'm going to take that leap of faith with anyone, it'll be you." We both sat quietly for a moment, letting what I'd just said ring out.
Ismail uses a lot of other verbs, too, but most of the time it sounds to me like he's trying too hard, or forcing a description that could be nuanced. I like how the words stand alone and action adds to it in the examples above.
But you're asking a different question about editors and untrained readers. The goal of good editing is to improve the reading experience. I suppose one could see an editorial sensibility as a neurotic set of triggers, but the idea is to preserve the magic for both trained and untrained readers alike, removing obstacles to the ideas and the imaginative experience.
I suppose in the end, the writer has to consider what they enjoy reading and how they want to recreate that experience for their readers.
I do want to clarify a couple of things. 1) I do adhere to the advice to stick to "said" and "asked". Mostly because I have acquired that same sensibility, but also because I don't want to look like a noob. 2) I didn't mean to generalize that editors are neurotic and easily triggered. At the same time, I am concerned about the degree to which they and agents acknowledge that there are fads in writing styles, and how awareness of those fads affects what they say they like. They pay attention to trends and concern themselves with how easily they expect something will sell, and far be it from me to criticize them for doing their jobs. But to say that a particular craft decision is in fashion and makes the piece easier to sell, and to say that that craft decision helps make the piece *good*, are two entirely different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) statements. 3) I recognize that dialogue is a different animal from exposition. The dialogue itself is reported action or thought. The "said" or "asked" is simply a link between that action or thought and the exposition that surrounds it. As such, it should step back out of the limelight. This is counter to my original complaint. I just don't want to see all those wonderful dialogue verbs (proclaimed! asserted! bellowed! chirped!) relegated to the island of misfit verbs.
No shame in having acquired a discerning sensibility. I don't know how much editors and agents chase trends in writing styles. I think they do chase trends in identity politics or celebrity, but that has little to do with craft, which is part of the problem with traditional publishing. I'd have to see examples of craft decisions that are en vogue but not aesthetically superior to comment more intelligently.
I wonder for #3 how you feel about working some of those great verbs into summaries of dialogue. That's a technique I've often recommended for moving a narrative along. Dialogue can lag, and no one wants to listen to windy monologues. So sometimes it works to balance the quoted words with something like:
"I'm so tired," she said.
"Why?" I asked.
Judy complained that her cat had been scratching at her door at 3am for three days straight. She was seeing stars on the way to work.
Half-baked example, perhaps, but the action verbs land differently in a paraphrase or summary like that, and it's a mini example of how to work the accordion of time. Quoted words slow down the pace, summarized words speed it up.
We still have that conference call set up where I work! Every time I have to use it now, my fingers *stumble* over the keys, when once they *sashayed* over a similar keyboard.
You see, your experience using that phone to set up talks between authors and your students reminds me that I used to do something similar when I hosted a talk radio show for our college radio station. This was mainly an excuse for me to get to interview authors I liked. Back in those heady days, no one really knew how to use the internet to search for things, so as long as I called a publisher and spoke in an authoritative voice about wanting to interview one of their authors, the agent assumed that the left-side-of-the dial frequency and call signal meant I was with public radio, not a college station. I never disabused them of that notion.
We find creative ways to work around our budget limitations in academe. I always thought it was sad when someone (or their booking agent) said they didn't do podcasts anymore or wouldn't budge on their $10K/day speaking fee. Maybe I'd think differently if I were bombarded with requests, but I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the big authors who still made time for little venues.
"One exception to this rule is dialogue. Dialogue should nuance how each speaker says their lines in the spoken words themselves. Start throwing too many action verbs around (he groaned, she spat) and your reader will soon start thinking sounds like writing instead of just dreaming the scene." This is my feeling, as well. If an author wants to convey actions or body language during dialogue, this can either be implied through the dialogue or separated from the dialogue by alternate means. Slow the writing down and mix a couple of descriptive sentences into the space between the spoken words. A "he whispered" or "she bellowed" once in awhile is fine. That said, I'm a huge fan of conversations that consist only of spoken words and let the reader fill in the blanks. Something like this:
Question/statement from speaker one.
Response from speaker two.
And so forth, for as long as needed. No parentheses required.
Thanks, Josh!
💯None of this is rigid, but more can be cut than most writers realize.
I pounded both my fists on the table (emphatically—not needed) as I shouted “Yes!”
Indeed -- nicely done!
I pounded both fists on the table. "Yes!"
There is something you mentioned that I'm deeply ambivalent about: the advice to only use the verbs "said" or "asked" in dialogue (and some others, sparingly). That advice seems to fly in the face of "verb it up," which I think is great advice. I understand that someone cannot literally "stumble" an utterance ("Well, um, I guess so," he stumbled), so I get that some verbs do not work as speech tags, and I understand that dialogue is *supposed to* convey the type of speaking (shouting, whispering, whimpering, stammering, demanding, etc.) through the words being said, and that's all fine and good. But why ignore all these wonderful alternatives to said and asked? Sometimes I think that editors have trained themselves to be triggered by alternative dialogue verbs, to the point that they can't read a piece without being distracted by them. Is this actually true for untrained readers?
A great question! First, there is no craft rule that can't be broken. It's all a matter of taste. My bias is for uncluttered writing, and I think the conventional wisdom with speech tags is that you want to avoid Tom Swifties (though those can be fun as a parlor game).
https://www.thoughtco.com/tom-swifty-word-play-1692472
For my part, redundancy takes the magic out of prose. I prefer trusting the reader to connect more dots. The best way, in my opinion, to work in those great verbs is to combine speech with action, so that you're not directly describing the speech but supplementing it with something sensory that adds to the scene.
Let me add a few examples from Aymann Ismail's "Becoming Baba."
"My mom asked me how I felt about you," she said.
I swallowed so loudly I could have sworn she heard it. "What did you tell her?" I asked.
...
"Honestly, if I'm going to take that leap of faith with anyone, it'll be you." We both sat quietly for a moment, letting what I'd just said ring out.
Ismail uses a lot of other verbs, too, but most of the time it sounds to me like he's trying too hard, or forcing a description that could be nuanced. I like how the words stand alone and action adds to it in the examples above.
But you're asking a different question about editors and untrained readers. The goal of good editing is to improve the reading experience. I suppose one could see an editorial sensibility as a neurotic set of triggers, but the idea is to preserve the magic for both trained and untrained readers alike, removing obstacles to the ideas and the imaginative experience.
I suppose in the end, the writer has to consider what they enjoy reading and how they want to recreate that experience for their readers.
Thanks, Josh. I completely agree.
I do want to clarify a couple of things. 1) I do adhere to the advice to stick to "said" and "asked". Mostly because I have acquired that same sensibility, but also because I don't want to look like a noob. 2) I didn't mean to generalize that editors are neurotic and easily triggered. At the same time, I am concerned about the degree to which they and agents acknowledge that there are fads in writing styles, and how awareness of those fads affects what they say they like. They pay attention to trends and concern themselves with how easily they expect something will sell, and far be it from me to criticize them for doing their jobs. But to say that a particular craft decision is in fashion and makes the piece easier to sell, and to say that that craft decision helps make the piece *good*, are two entirely different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) statements. 3) I recognize that dialogue is a different animal from exposition. The dialogue itself is reported action or thought. The "said" or "asked" is simply a link between that action or thought and the exposition that surrounds it. As such, it should step back out of the limelight. This is counter to my original complaint. I just don't want to see all those wonderful dialogue verbs (proclaimed! asserted! bellowed! chirped!) relegated to the island of misfit verbs.
No shame in having acquired a discerning sensibility. I don't know how much editors and agents chase trends in writing styles. I think they do chase trends in identity politics or celebrity, but that has little to do with craft, which is part of the problem with traditional publishing. I'd have to see examples of craft decisions that are en vogue but not aesthetically superior to comment more intelligently.
I wonder for #3 how you feel about working some of those great verbs into summaries of dialogue. That's a technique I've often recommended for moving a narrative along. Dialogue can lag, and no one wants to listen to windy monologues. So sometimes it works to balance the quoted words with something like:
"I'm so tired," she said.
"Why?" I asked.
Judy complained that her cat had been scratching at her door at 3am for three days straight. She was seeing stars on the way to work.
Half-baked example, perhaps, but the action verbs land differently in a paraphrase or summary like that, and it's a mini example of how to work the accordion of time. Quoted words slow down the pace, summarized words speed it up.