"Said is Dead" or "Stick with Said": Which Dialogue Tags Should You Use?

One of the most hotly contested subjects in the Writing Community on Twitter, in terms of style is whether or not writers should use dialogue tags other than one of the "Big Three": said, asked, and replied. 

To those who've read this blog in the past, you'll know that one of my maxims on writing is "There are no absolutes." Among published books, both Traditional and Indie, you can find plenty of examples that support either side of this debate, but let's examine each side of it as succinctly as possible.

Part One: The "Said-Bookism"

In traditionally published circles, at least, the general consensus is that using dialogue tags other than the "Big Three," mentioned above is one of the surest signs of an armature writers. They even have their own term for it: "Said-bookisms." Now, why is this?

It comes do to adherence to the old, much-maligned adage in writing circles, "Show, Don't Tell." (my thoughts on which you can find elsewhere on this blog).

By using a so-called "said bookism," a writer outright tells a reader how exactly they should read a give passage of dialogue. 

Verbs like yelled, lectured, ranted, screeded, tiraded, shouted, screamed, bellowed, moaned, groaned, whispered, direct a reader rather than give them the space to decide for themselves how they should read a given passage of dialogue based on context clues. 

Concurrently, it also robs the writer of the chance to use action beats to show who their characters are and and add vividness to a dialogue heavy scene. In addition, the regular usage of said bookisms conveys to a reader something of the personality of the writer they're reading. Namely, that the writer lacks confidence in their skill to convey emotions in a subtle, indirect ways.

Such a display of under confidence might get the reader to begin thinking things like: if they lack confidence, or possibly skill, to say these things without being direct about them, then might they lack the skill to tell a good story as a whole? This might lead the reader to putting their current read down and never picking it back up. By failing to show confidence, you place doubt in their mind and lose their interest in whatever else you might have to offer.

This isn't the only way a reader could take this either. They could also interpret this kind of literary stage direction as condescension. By using these sorts of tags, you send them the subtle signal that you don't think they're smart enough to properly interpret your work, which is always a mistake. 

You should always write in a way that assumes your reader is at least as smart as you, if not smarter. To do otherwise is disingenuous to them.

Part Two: "Why Limit Yourself?"

Particularly among indie writers, one can sum up the general attitude towards non-"Big Three" tags in a single phrase: "Who cares?"

And, in fairness, they have a point. 

Writing rules like "avoid said-bookisms," arose from the stylistic guidelines established by traditional publishers, newspapers, and magazines long before now. For the longest time, these were the only means by which authors could get their work out into the world, and thus, they had little choice but to adhere to what the editors requested. To do otherwise risked losing an outlet for their work, and if they lost an outlet, they risked losing the possibility of their work reaching the largest possible audience.

But we no longer live in that world.

Now, because of the web and the ease with which one can self-publish, these guidelines and rules of thumb are (rightfully) under question. The English language, in particular, has such a wide variety of means by which to express one thing that it would be foolish to deny oneself the pleasure of variety.

Besides, at the heart of this received wisdom is an unremarked contradiction.

In nearly every other part of writing (description, action, interior monologue, etc.), succinctness of expression is considered the goal. If you can say it in 3 words rather than 7, why wouldn't you? If you can use "He hastened across the room," instead of "He ran quickly across the room," why wouldn't you? It adds vividness and clarity to your writing.  As Mark Twain once said, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug."

Yet, when it comes to dialogue, editors expect writers to resort to succinctness; they're not supposed to give the reader the one word that would allow them to understand, in an instant, what was going on in a scene. Instead, they're expected to imply it through context and allow the reader to infer the tone of something. 

After all, writers of old didn't adhere to this rule. Victorian era novelists regularly deployed different words to tag their dialogue besides said, replied, or asked. So, why should contemporary writers today have to do so?

Conclusions

To repeat, there are no absolutes. This blog isn't meant to be prescriptive in anyway (although, I'm sure people will draw their own conclusions as to which side of this debate I fall on). 

In the end, every writer is the arbiter of their work and each must decide how they're going to approach this issue themselves. By modern standards, most writers and editors who still adhere to the rule against "Said-bookisms," expect the writers who work in their sphere to avoid this habit as much as possible, if not totally. Yet, in the indie world, where freedom abounds, there's more of a laissez faire attitude to this old rule.

Writing rules, like everything else in culture, change with time. Hell, people used to expect writer to put two spaces after a period until recently. So, perhaps this one will change too. 

Personally, I think moderation is the key. Much like any general writing rule, deploying a said bookism every so often isn't so bad, but as Chris Rock said, "It's like salt. A little is good, but too much will fuck up the meal."