|
I flipped through my copy of the Chicago Manual of Style and saw no mention of how to use "said." If it's not in the publisher's house style, it's up to the author to decide on how dialogue is tagged - if at all.
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
I've been doing some editing of stories online and I'm noticing a trend of authors mixing in character action with their dialogue. Almost like reading a movie script in paragraph form. Here are some bad examples, lifted straight from actual stories: quote:“It wasn’t your fault,” she gasped. “The car didn’t crash because you were fighting with your mom. There was a drunk driver. He…” She paused, gulping for air, like fish trying to breathe on land. “He swerved into the oncoming traffic. Slammed into the car. You and your mom died,” she whispered. “The baby was alright, though…” quote:Jessica moved the sweat-plastered hair out of her face and gulped. “Your mom… She says…” She screwed up her face like she was trying to remember the solution to a math problem. “She says to come home.” A tear trailed down her cheek. My instinct is has been to bring the action together and separate it from the dialogue, but I'm seeing it a lot - enough to make me wonder if I'm out of the loop. Anyone got any insight? Is this a thing now? Or am I just encountering a lot of terrible writers?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Crisco Kid posted:That's typical, yeah. The examples you gave are overwrought with melodrama and insert description too much, but the practice itself is a good tool to have: http://www.writingexcuses.com/2013/08/04/writing-excuses-8-31-combining-dialogue-blocking-and-description/ Thanks, I'll check that out. Jagermonster posted:I think it breaks up the monotony of "'[Dialogue],' [Character] said" over and over by throwing in some action that character is preforming to indicate who's speaking: "[Character] opened the door. '[Dialogue]'" (etc.) Action tags are a definite thing, but it's the continual switching from dialogue to action to dialogue to action all in one paragraph that weirds me out. And yes, the examples are terrible, but they were handy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Whenever this discussion comes up, I find the anti-ideology crowd's arguments seem to revolve around Ayn Rand's novels (consciously or not), which are bad for a variety of reasons; one of which is that it's a thinly veiled philosophical argument. When I think of ideological driven works, I think of something like David Simon's The Wire or say Raymond Chandler's works. They have specific points about the nature of institutions, government, police, the rich, etc, and how they all interact and to what effect. These author are trying to say something about the world, and ultimately influence it. (Needles to say, I'm pro-ideology.) I'm not up on post-structuralist, post-modernist, post-"Death of the Author" analysis, but I think this point is about how the author's ideology is inevitable. Who's the good guy, who's the bad guy, what is a struggle, what does it mean to win - all this is influenced by the author's ideology. But bad writing is bad writing, plain and simple. Choosing or rejecting ideology will not save from having to write well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Dan Harmon has got a series of articles about a plot structure that is pretty adaptable to word count - or rather running time, since he wrote them to help people tell a complete story in a five minute video for Channel 101. They might be helpful to keep word counts down: Story Structure 101: Super Basic poo poo Story Structure 102: Pure, Boring Theory. Story Structure 103: Let's Simplify Before Moving On Story Structure 104: The Juicy Details Story Structure 105: How TV is Different Story Structure 106: Five Minute Pilots
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Not to derail the incest fiction, but here's an interesting video on how Pixar sets up their first act to drive the rest of the story. It's about movies, but I think everyone can get something out of it. I saw it thanks to this post from John August.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
magnificent7 posted:Jesus Christ this place is the worst place to feel good about wanting to write. Really? Place seems normal to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Also: Does anyone here own a usage dictionary? I've read lots of glowing reviews of Brian Garner's Modern American Usage, but I'm not sure whether it's necessary to own. Any questions I've had have been answered with Google, so I don't know is $28.50 is worth it to have a giant book on my desk instead. I've got the Merriam-Webster Usage Dictionary and it is awesome. I was skeptical when I first bought it, but the more I use it, the more I love it. I find that when I search stuff on Google, I get linked to random forum post where someone merely repeats the "rule" they learned from their teacher, as if it is gospel. The usage dictionary, however, shows (with sources) the development of all the competing guidelines and the reasoning behind them. It also has recommendations for how to handle different situations. I find it provides helpful information so I can decide how best present my work, and not some random, arbitrary "rule."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
The Worst Muse Twitter feed is showing promise:The Worst Muse posted:You SHOULD base your protagonist on you. Disguise him by giving him really intense green eyes and an ancestral weapon. You don't have those! The Worst Muse posted:You won't have to do as much research if you replace the city's immigrant population with elves. The Worst Muse posted:It's doesn't really count as exposition if a character is just reminiscing out loud.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
You could also use The Random Rejection Letter Generator.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Speaking of Thunderdome, I want to start participating again, but I've got like six thousand unread messages going back to January. Did anything important come up?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
PoshAlligator posted:Also smoking. I make too many of my characters smoke. I was reading a book on directing movies which had this advice: quote:Never give your actors glasses, mugs, or cigarettes. Instead, make them act. Works for characters too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
qntm posted:What does this actually entail, in text? An actor can fine-tune their facial expressions, body language and intonation to express all kinds of insanely subtle things. In text, it would be the simplest thing in the world to just explain directly that this is what the character is doing/feeling, and I do that sometimes, but it often feels laborious and expository. The dude who played the librarian in Buffy is the perfect example. If he wanted to "be in thought," he'd always look up and put one of the arms of his glasses in his mouth. If he wanted to act "frustrated," he'd always pull his glasses off and sigh. If he wanted to act "evasive," he'd always sip from his mug and look away. Always. The point is these "glasses, mugs, and cigarettes" become cheap tricks, basically cliches, to avoid having to actually show the character in an emotional state. You know -- acting. Authors do this too. Crabrock wrote in the first post in the chain how authors drown their characters in whiskey to show that they're manly men, stoic and covered in stubble. So what does this actually entail in text? Have your characters act. Don't hang cliched symbols on them. Follow perhaps the oldest piece of writing wisdom (after "get paid in advance"): show, don't tell.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 23:15
|
|