Clarification on Dialogue Punctuation Rules

[MelissaBaby]

The true description would be:

. . . he said, nodding.

That's the simple AND accurate way to say it.

I've been mulling this over, and fine, that's the rule, but it seems arbitrary to me.

"I agree," he nodded.

"I agree," he said, nodding.

Each sentence conveys the same information to the reader. Without resorting to authority, can someone explain to me the reasons for the rule? Is there a concern that if the dialogue is followed by the action without any sort of break, readers will suddenly forget what question marks convey?

Rules are easier to adhere to when we understand their purpose than when it's just a matter of "because we say so."

 

[SimonDoom]

I've been mulling this over, and fine, that's the rule, but it seems arbitrary to me.

"I agree," he nodded.

"I agree," he said, nodding.

Each sentence conveys the same information to the reader. Without resorting to authority, can someone explain to me the reasons for the rule? Is there a concern that if the dialogue is followed by the action without any sort of break, readers will suddenly forget what question marks convey?

Rules are easier to adhere to when we understand their purpose than when it's just a matter of "because we say so."

The part that follows the quote and comma -- "he nodded" -- is a dialogue tag. It clarifies who is responsible for the spoken line. Words like "said" and "asked" and "replied" are accurate because they are verbs that describe a person speaking. The spoken line is what's being spoken.

In a grammatical sense, "I agree" is the direct object (a noun clause) of the verb "said", where "he" is the noun and subject. He [subject/noun] said [transitive verb] "I agree" [direct object/noun clause].

You can't "nod" a spoken line. It's an incorrect use of the verb. You can't glare a spoken line. These verbs don't describe saying something. They describe something else. They're also not transitive verbs (a transitive verb has an object; an intransitive verb does not).

You can use variations on "said" like "exclaimed", "expostulated", "yelled", or "cried", because all of them describe, sometimes perhaps in somewhat melodramatic form, a person uttering spoken words. But some authors, like Elmore Leonard, almost never use terms even of this type. They stick with "said" almost exclusively.

When you use words like "glare" or "nod" as dialog tags, you're eliminating the real dialogue tag and in its place putting a word that does not describe words coming out of someone's mouth but an action that accompanies it. It's imprecise.

In the example you've given, nobody is going to be confused. Everyone understands what you're saying. In the scheme of things, it's not big potatoes. I wouldn't look at that and say, "There goes MelissaBaby again, she gets a 2 from me!" But I personally prefer to see dialogue handled more or less the conventional way, because it's clearer and easier to understand. And I will downvote a story if the author is so sloppy about handling dialogue that it confuses or distracts me.

I've made this suggestion before and I recommend doing this: pick a high quality, published author you like, and see how they do it. My guess is that they handle dialogue more or less the conventional way.

 

[NotWise]

I've been mulling this over, and fine, that's the rule, but it seems arbitrary to me.

"I agree," he nodded.

"I agree," he said, nodding.

Each sentence conveys the same information to the reader. Without resorting to authority, can someone explain to me the reasons for the rule? Is there a concern that if the dialogue is followed by the action without any sort of break, readers will suddenly forget what question marks convey?

Rules are easier to adhere to when we understand their purpose than when it's just a matter of "because we say so."

You can google "dialogue tags in fiction" and get the same rules repeated over and over. Try this little article. She doesn't address "nod" specifically, but she does talk about "smile," "laugh," "giggle," and "sigh." It's a simple step to extend to "nod."

The basic problem is that the act of nodding does not produce the words "I agree." I think readers are going to understand "'I agree,' he nodded." as shorthand for "'I agree,' he said, nodding," or something similar. We don't usually write in shorthand.

What I do in this specific case is leave out the quotation "I agree" and just describe his nod to convey "I agree."

"'I agree,' he nodded," becomes "He nodded," or "He nodded in agreement." That helps avoid using little bits of dialogue that don't say much.

 

[SimonDoom]

What I do in this specific case is leave out the quotation "I agree" and just describe his nod to convey "I agree."

"'I agree,' he nodded," becomes "He nodded," or "He nodded in agreement." That helps avoid using little bits of dialogue that don't say much.

You make a good point I hadn't even considered: redundancy. It's not necessary to tell the reader that someone said "I agree" AND that they nodded. Your way is more subtle, shorter, shows rather than tells, and gets the point across clearly. But I wouldn't say "nodded in agreement" because that raises the redundancy problem again; nodding is by its nature a gesture of agreement -- or, at least, it would be understood that way by English speakers. "Nodded" does the trick all by itself.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You cannot glare dialogue, and you cannot grimace dialogue. But the actions are part of the way they're communicating. We know exactly what's being done and being said, despite not following the rules. I think they read well.

Speaking only for myself and my reactions here.

It's not that they can't be understood; as you say, the meaning is unambiguous. It's that it's distracting. I notice non-standard punctuation/grammar, and that gets me thinking consciously about how the story is written, and that weakens my immersion in the story.

If I'm walking along a smooth path, I don't have to think about walking at all. It's just an unconscious act, and my mind is free to enjoy the journey and take in the scenery. But if that path is uneven, and I have to consciously think about where I'm placing my feet - even if the footing is still perfectly stable and solid - that's a very different feel. I'm much less likely to be ignoring the scenery, because I have to think about the path.

For me, seeing non-tags used as tags feels a little bit like that. It distracts me, makes me remember that I'm reading a fictional story that somebody wrote, gets me thinking about the author and not the characters.

FWIW, of the two examples you give, the first can be handled by using em-dashes as per my previous post. The second can't... but I'd argue that "he grimaced" doesn't actually add much to the story there, because it's largely redundant with the information provided by the dialogue.

 

[NotWise]

But I wouldn't say "nodded in agreement" because that raises the redundancy problem again; nodding is by its nature a gesture of agreement -- or, at least, it would be understood that way by English speakers. "Nodded" does the trick all by itself.

That wasn't an actual example. I might have overused that trick in my Summer Lovin' story, but here's an actual example:

“You must by Mateo,” he said, and the man nodded his reply without looking away.

 

[AlexBailey]

Wow, you forum denizens are amazing!

I've learned so much about dialogue just going over this thread. It's very humbling to see how much education it takes to get up to speed in the literary world. In the blue collar world of contracting where I earn my livelihood I am an expert who has trained thousands in my field. I can walk onto a construction project and can know, with little more than a glance, how skilled a craftsman is. As an expert, I can find things that could have done better but are perfectly serviceable in a way that will never draw the attention of a non-expert. Some people I've been hired to oversee appreciate the constructive criticism while others uselessly rail against it.

Here on literotica I welcome the criticism. I feel like a new apprentice who has just found a free on-line training program. Unfortunately I cannot make writing my new full time gig so I will continue to bumble about, making mistakes and hopefully learning from the experts. In my trade you only become eligible for journeymanship after working under a master for 8000 hours. By that scale I see that I have a long way to go.

I sincerely apologize for annoying you skilled writers with all of the 'shiners' I will have in my work as I try to develop my skills.


I asked for some feedback on a piece of dialogue in the Story Feedback section but I found this thread while waiting. If you have time, please let me know how I'm doing:

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1509405

I made an effort to eliminate tags as much as possible but after reading this thread I see there are many more rules I'm not aware of. A little supervision can go a long way.

I still find it difficult to remove myself from my own work as I try to edit it. If I don't allow some time to pass (typically a couple of days) I seem to read it expecting what I intended rather than how it appears. Being somewhat dyslexic doesn't help but I intend to keep working at this.

Thanks!

 

[Bramblethorn]

Each sentence conveys the same information to the reader. Without resorting to authority, can someone explain to me the reasons for the rule? Is there a concern that if the dialogue is followed by the action without any sort of break, readers will suddenly forget what question marks convey?

Rules are easier to adhere to when we understand their purpose than when it's just a matter of "because we say so."

IMHO this is a bit like driving on the left vs. right side of the road: perhaps one of those options is a little better than the other, but it's also helpful if everybody in the one country drives on the same side of the road.

Living languages are constantly in tension between the need to change to adapt to changes in the things people want to say, and the annoyance that change causes, whether that's the distraction I mentioned in my previous post, or bigger difficulties in comprehension. I'm often on the pro-change side of those questions, but in this one I'm not sold; it's not a big change, but by the same token it doesn't seem like more than a marginal improvement to the language, so I'm not convinced it outweighs the annoyance of change. Especially since we already have a punctuation standard that covers a lot of the cases where people want to use this.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

nodding is by its nature a gesture of agreement

Or acknowledgement
Or greeting
Or an indicator of fatigue

 

[KeithD]

Or acknowledgement
Or greeting
Or an indicator of fatigue

Or, in some cultures, a "No."

 

[SimonDoom]

Wow, you forum denizens are amazing!

I've learned so much about dialogue just going over this thread. It's very humbling to see how much education it takes to get up to speed in the literary world. In the blue collar world of contracting where I earn my livelihood I am an expert who has trained thousands in my field. I can walk onto a construction project and can know, with little more than a glance, how skilled a craftsman is. As an expert, I can find things that could have done better but are perfectly serviceable in a way that will never draw the attention of a non-expert. Some people I've been hired to oversee appreciate the constructive criticism while others uselessly rail against it.

Here on literotica I welcome the criticism. I feel like a new apprentice who has just found a free on-line training program. Unfortunately I cannot make writing my new full time gig so I will continue to bumble about, making mistakes and hopefully learning from the experts. In my trade you only become eligible for journeymanship after working under a master for 8000 hours. By that scale I see that I have a long way to go.

I sincerely apologize for annoying you skilled writers with all of the 'shiners' I will have in my work as I try to develop my skills.


I asked for some feedback on a piece of dialogue in the Story Feedback section but I found this thread while waiting. If you have time, please let me know how I'm doing:

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1509405

I made an effort to eliminate tags as much as possible but after reading this thread I see there are many more rules I'm not aware of. A little supervision can go a long way.

I still find it difficult to remove myself from my own work as I try to edit it. If I don't allow some time to pass (typically a couple of days) I seem to read it expecting what I intended rather than how it appears. Being somewhat dyslexic doesn't help but I intend to keep working at this.

Thanks!

I scanned the dialogue passage in the thread you linked to. My thoughts:

First, you should NOT make an effort to eliminate tags as much as possible. That's not what good writers do. In long passages of dialogue, use tags (preferably just "said" IMO) where you need them to clarify who's speaking, and leave them out where it's unnecessary.

Generally speaking, in a long passage of dialogue, the first two lines of dialogue should have tags to show the different speakers. After that, you may not need them. E.g,

"Hello," she said.

"Hello yourself," he said. "Nice to see you here again."

"I'm glad to be back."

"Uncle Ned's arrived yesterday. He'll be glad to see you, too."

In your passage, there were several instances where it was difficult to tell at first who was talking. In those cases, use a dialogue tag.

You have a habit of sandwiching a narrative sentence between two snippets of dialogue in a single paragraph. That's not wrong, but I think you over do it. You should mix it up:

-- Have some paragraphs with dialogue alone (with or without tag)

-- Have some paragraphs with a dialogue snippet followed by a narrative sentence

-- Have some paragraphs that are only narrative

-- Have some paragraphs that are longer and mix narrative and dialogue (I don't do a lot of this)


Generally speaking, I prefer not to bury my dialogue inside a paragraph. I like to start a paragraph with dialogue and finish it with narrative, or have only dialogue in the paragraph. Not always, but usually. I think the dialogue "pops" more if you don't bury it, but instead highlight it.

In passages of dialogue, short paragraphs look good and are easier to read.

As far as education is concerned, the best education you can get about this stuff is to pick good writers and read their stuff carefully. I mean, really carefully. Think of an author whose writing gives you pleasure, and then look at how they do it. Try imitating them.

It's often very difficult for us to judge our own writing and to know whether what we're doing works or not. I've written things I was proud of at the time and then gotten a comment that makes me think, "Hmmm. He's right. That's just stupid." That's one of the reasons it's helpful to look at others' work.

 

[SimonDoom]

Or acknowledgement
Or greeting
Or an indicator of fatigue

Sure. And as KeithD says, in some cultures it means "no." But in a story with English-speaking characters the context usually will make clear which meaning the nod has.

Ex.:

"Are you going to the store?" she asked.

He nodded.



No oral response or extra modifier is needed to make it clear to us what he is communicating.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

Sure. And as KeithD says, in some cultures it means "no." But in a story with English-speaking characters the context usually will make clear which meaning the nod has.

Ex.:

"Are you going to the store?" she asked.

He nodded.

No oral response or extra modifier is needed to make it clear to us what he is communicating.

Yes, in that clear and concise example, a modifier is uncessary.

But my point to you is this: in this thread you've written that winks all mean the same thing, and that nods all mean the same thing. They don't. While you can and should show the intent of the person making the nonverbal communication with context, in some cases the most efficient way of doing so is with a modifier. While nonverbal communication is generally a more accurate expression of a person's internal state than their verbal communication, it's also ambiguous. We humans figure out the meaning from the totality of the circumstances including other nonverbal cues presented at the same time. But we're talking about figuring out ways to indicate all that in writing. Hence the use of modifiers.

A slow nod could indicate hesitation in agreement, or that the person is unsure of what's being asked. A fast nod could indicate enthusiasm. A curt nod, disapproval (i.e. the person is ordered to do something they don't want to, but have to do anyway).

Even a bit of dialogue such as: "Well, that I agree with," she said, giving a quick nod." could emphasize the person's change in opinion.

None of this changes the fundamental point of how to put the words in the document in a manner that makes sense to the greatest number of people. And as I wrote previously, reading this thread has helped me be cognizant of a bad habit I didn't know I had, and can now correct.

 

[HectorBidon]

"Oh, what do you want?" grinned this old man, in a fierce, monotonous whine. "Oh, my eyes and limbs, what do you want?" -- Charles Dickens in David Copperfield

So here's one example of a dialog tag other than said that made it into print. In the online creative-writing sites, tags like this are called "said-bookisms," apparently after a 1940's booklet called the "Said Book" that listed many of them. Most of the sites discourage their use, beyond asked, replied, and the occasional shouted or whispered. One interesting discussion is here.

However, some of the sites acknowledge that this prohibition should be taken as a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. You certainly shouldn't use said-bookisms after every snippet of dialog. That would distract from the flow of the conversation. You shouldn't use them unnecessarily. ("Shit!" he exclaimed. No need for any tag here.) You shouldn't use them as a lazy way of "telling" the emotional coloring. Show it instead, in the dialog or in the action.

Dickens mostly used the tag said, although he employed a wider number of tags than we use nowadays, including: returned, cried, observed, retorted, murmured, growled, pursued, answered, suggested, repeated, hinted, stammered, simpered, faltered, exclaimed, suggested, muttered. But occasionally, as above, he used a word like smiled that does not have a literal connotation of verbal communication at all.

The OP's example is very similar:

“It takes more than this to make me bedridden,” she winked playfully.​

In both cases the author does show the action (smiling, winking), but in a kind of a shorthand way by rolling it into the tag. I have to agree with Melissa, that this seems ok to me. It's concise and it paints a clear picture, even though it requires an imaginative interpretation. I use tags like this all the time. Apparently, other languages allow, and even encourage, a wider range of tags than publication-grade English currently does. The article above suggests that winked is a perfectly acceptable dialog tag in Czech.

That said, I have to admit that I do like Simon's reworking better:

“It takes more than this to make me bedridden,” she said with a [playful] wink.​

This paints the same picture, but without requiring the imaginative interpretation. I'm sure that Simon and Keith are right that publishers, and some readers, would insist on this more precise version and tear out their hair over the original.

But the choice seems like a matter of style to me. I'm not trying to get anything published. At least I know now to be aware of said-bookisms, to consider alternatives, and to avoid overuse. But I'll probably keep on using them when they seem to be a better choice. Said Charley, wrinkling his brow and hunching his shoulders in a shruglike manner

 

[SimonDoom]

I have a tendency to overstate things. Sometimes I talk about something like it's a "rule" when what I really mean is "this is a good guideline which, if followed regularly, will get you the right result most of the time, and if you look at the way good, published authors do it, it works for them, too." I'd say that about the use of nods and winks in connection with dialogue. But you're right: you can always find exceptions, and you should be sensitive to them.

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

"Oh, what do you want?" grinned this old man, in a fierce, monotonous whine. "Oh, my eyes and limbs, what do you want?" -- Charles Dickens in David Copperfield

So here's one example of a dialog tag other than said that made it into print. In the online creative-writing sites, tags like this are called "said-bookisms," apparently after a 1940's booklet called the "Said Book" that listed many of them. Most of the sites discourage their use, beyond asked, replied, and the occasional shouted or whispered. One interesting discussion is here.

However, some of the sites acknowledge that this prohibition should be taken as a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. You certainly shouldn't use said-bookisms after every snippet of dialog. That would distract from the flow of the conversation. You shouldn't use them unnecessarily. ("Shit!" he exclaimed. No need for any tag here.) You shouldn't use them as a lazy way of "telling" the emotional coloring. Show it instead, in the dialog or in the action.

Dickens mostly used the tag said, although he employed a wider number of tags than we use nowadays, including: returned, cried, observed, retorted, murmured, growled, pursued, answered, suggested, repeated, hinted, stammered, simpered, faltered, exclaimed, suggested, muttered. But occasionally, as above, he used a word like smiled that does not have a literal connotation of verbal communication at all.

The OP's example is very similar:

“It takes more than this to make me bedridden,” she winked playfully.​

In both cases the author does show the action (smiling, winking), but in a kind of a shorthand way by rolling it into the tag. I have to agree with Melissa, that this seems ok to me. It's concise and it paints a clear picture, even though it requires an imaginative interpretation. I use tags like this all the time. Apparently, other languages allow, and even encourage, a wider range of tags than publication-grade English currently does. The article above suggests that winked is a perfectly acceptable dialog tag in Czech.

That said, I have to admit that I do like Simon's reworking better:

“It takes more than this to make me bedridden,” she said with a [playful] wink.​

This paints the same picture, but without requiring the imaginative interpretation. I'm sure that Simon and Keith are right that publishers, and some readers, would insist on this more precise version and tear out their hair over the original.

But the choice seems like a matter of style to me. I'm not trying to get anything published. At least I know now to be aware of said-bookisms, to consider alternatives, and to avoid overuse. But I'll probably keep on using them when they seem to be a better choice. Said Charley, wrinkling his brow and hunching his shoulders in a shruglike manner

All of that’s insightful and true.

But I think you’re overlooking that the OP asked why that 3rd example she presented was “grammatically correct” when it didn’t fall naturally on her ear.

When you understand the rules, it makes it easier to find fun, fluid, delicious ways to break said rules. But you should endeavor to first understand.

 

[KeithD]

The bottom line is that it shouldn't be as much about you being oh so clever and independent as a writer as you being able to keep the reader with you on understanding what you're doing and not being distracted from clearly following the flow of your "masterpiece."

 

[HectorBidon]

I think you’re overlooking that the OP asked why that 3rd example she presented was “grammatically correct” when it didn’t fall naturally on her ear.

When you understand the rules, it makes it easier to find fun, fluid, delicious ways to break said rules. But you should endeavor to first understand.

You're right of course. I didn't mean to lead anyone astray.

Previous posters have laid out the grammatical complaint against the OP's original sentence like this: The act of winking does not involve vocalization, therefore the verb wink shouldn't take quoted speech as its direct object. You can wink an eye, but you can't wink a statement. The OP's second and third sentences are both grammatically correct because they avoid this, although Simon's and Ogg's versions perhaps read a little better:

"It takes more than this to make be bedridden," she said with a playful wink.

She winked playfully. “It takes more than this to make me bedridden."​

Both these versions manage to say what the original sentence was trying to say, but in a way that is less distracting to the reader. This is what we should strive for.

——

[These are some further musings about dialog tags inspired by this thread but not necessarily directly germane to the original post.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the acceptability of a dialog tag isn't a little more complicated than a simple grammatical test. I'm not sure that a non English speaker armed with just a dictionary and a mirror would necessarily be able to figure out what words can and can't be used. Speak can be used as a transitive verb—we can speak the truth, we can speak our mind. If we stand in front of a mirror and speak, words come out. But we don't use speak as a dialog tag. We do use told, but only if the sentence contains an indirect object. "Like this," she told him. Smiling doesn't produce words, but it does have a transitive meaning that involves communication—we can smile our approval or our appreciation. So it wasn't so much of a stretch for Dickens to use smiled as a dialog tag, or for us to understand what he's saying. By analogy, why not winked, nodded, and shrugged?

It seems to me that the acceptability of a word as a dialog tag is as much a matter of accepted usage as of grammar. Each language and each era probably has its own "Said Book" of tags that are considered acceptable. Our book nowadays is lean and mean. It encourages us to write prose that is precise and clear, which is a good thing. And, as this thread has shown, it doesn't really detract from our ability to get our meaning across. The take-home rule seems to be to use said most of the time, and to avoid words that don't pass the mirror test.

Simon has mentioned that some authors hardly ever even use words like yelled or cried that do pass the mirror test. I can see why you wouldn't want to use them in passages where the focus is on the dialog and you don't want the tags to distract. But what about action scenes or mood-setting scenes in which snippets of dialog appear, but more as part of the action than as an extended conversation? I don't see why more descriptive or evocative words are necessarily bad in such situations.

She was standing on the counter, stooped against the ceiling.

"What is it?" I asked, my heart pounding like crazy.

"A mouse," she squeaked.​

I'm sure there are other ways that this scene could be written, but I don't think that this way is necessarily bad. I'd maintain that squeaked here adds to the color of the scene in a "showing" rather than a "telling" way, and that saying something like she said in a high, squeaky voice would be unnecessarily wordy. I don't see why words like shouted, whispered, huffed, cooed, murmured, purred should necessarily be stricken from an author's palette, as long as they are used appropriately. I wonder what others think?]

"How's that?" he snarled. But the poor horse was already dead.

 

[SimonDoom]

She was standing on the counter, stooped against the ceiling.

"What is it?" I asked, my heart pounding like crazy.

"A mouse," she squeaked.​

I'm sure there are other ways that this scene could be written, but I don't think that this way is necessarily bad. I'd maintain that squeaked here adds to the color of the scene in a "showing" rather than a "telling" way, and that saying something like she said in a high, squeaky voice would be unnecessarily wordy. I don't see why words like shouted, whispered, huffed, cooed, murmured, purred should necessarily be stricken from an author's palette, as long as they are used appropriately. I wonder what others think?]

I think the specific example you've given is a good one. In this particular case "squeaked" is descriptive and evocative. It's easy to imagine someone's voice coming out like a squeak in that case. And the word "squeak" is what we associate with mice, so it's appropriate in that sense too.

In general, though, there are two possible problems with fancy dialogue tags, as well as the use of adverbs to modify them. First, they tend to tell not show. Second, if they're used too much they come across as overwriting -- a common flaw of amateur writers.

I think this advice on the subject is good: https://www.novel-writing-help.com/dialogue-tags.html

 

[AlexBailey]

What about something like:

"I've always believed in you" he confided.

-Confided- refers to the what he did with the dialog, it isn't a separate action but it isn't a vocalization either.





Other options:


"I've always believed in you." He confided.


"I've always believed in you" he said confidingly.

"I've always believed in you" he said, confidingly.


Is it just a matter of preference for the reader's ear? As someone who reads more non-fiction than fiction it seems to read effectively in all the forms above with the first seeming the most natural (to my simple mind.)

 

[SimonDoom]

What about something like:

"I've always believed in you" he confided.

-Confided- refers to the what he did with the dialog, it isn't a separate action but it isn't a vocalization either.





Other options:


"I've always believed in you." He confided.


"I've always believed in you" he said confidingly.

"I've always believed in you" he said, confidingly.


Is it just a matter of preference for the reader's ear? As someone who reads more non-fiction than fiction it seems to read effectively in all the forms above with the first seeming the most natural (to my simple mind.)

Two points:

First, you need a comma after "you" before the closing quotation mark.

Second, what's the point of using "confided" or "confidingly"? What are you adding by inserting that word, as opposed to just using "said"? To me, this is a good example of unnecessary telling, as opposed to showing. The context of the statement should reveal whether it's a confidential statement. If it doesn't, then it seems to me this is an example of the narrator intruding unnecessarily in the dialogue.

Better would be something like this:

He leaned toward her and spoke softly into her ear.

"I've always believed in you," he said.


That's an example of showing, not telling.

 

[ElectricBlue]

What about something like:

"I've always believed in you" he confided.

-Confided- refers to the what he did with the dialog, it isn't a separate action but it isn't a vocalization either.

Other options:


"I've always believed in you." He confided.


"I've always believed in you" he said confidingly.

"I've always believed in you" he said, confidingly.


Is it just a matter of preference for the reader's ear? As someone who reads more non-fiction than fiction it seems to read effectively in all the forms above with the first seeming the most natural (to my simple mind.)

The confidence (and its variants) is redundant.

The dialogue is self contained, and doesn't need elaboration. "Confided" suggests there is something secret between the parties, something else that is qualifying the belief.

But "always" belies that - there is nothing mysterious about the belief. "Always" is a strong word, and doesn't need support, nor does it need weakening.


"Let the dialogue stand," roared Gandalf, standing on the bridge.

"Gosh," said Pippin. "He's very confident about that."

"He's always been like that," observed Merry. "He's a man of action, gets on with it, and expects his words to do the same."

"Fuck, what was that?" Frodo enquired, somewhat alarmed.

"The fucking balrog..." wailed Gandalf, plummeting to his doom.

The balrog sniggered, checking for blood under his fingernails. "Stupid writers, titting about with their dialogue tags and qualifiers. If they'd listened to the old wizard, I wouldn't have had a chance."

Suzie looked at Simon proudly. "Mom, he got a special mention!"

"That's for services to grammar," Simon's mom said, giving her boy a cup of tea and a kiss that was just a little more than motherly.

And thus, the merry gang of AHers crossed yet another grammar bridge and made their way to the Participle Room, via the Tense Tunnel and the Spelling Garden. And it was only Wednesday.

Suzie looked up, alarmed. "That's confusing, isn't it still only Tuesday?"

"Let me explain the international date line, my dear." EB led the girl away.

 

[SimonDoom]

Suzie looked up, alarmed. "That's confusing, isn't it still only Tuesday?"

"Let me explain the international date line, my dear." EB led the girl away.

Hey, that's my sister you're talking about!

Just make sure you return her with her red silk panties. They were a Valentine's Day gift.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Hey, that's my sister you're talking about!

Just make sure you return her with her red silk panties. They were a Valentine's Day gift.

Suzie looked up and grinned. "What do you think I'm wearing now, Si?"

As an aside, she wouldn't be the first Valentine's Day gift for EB. Jason Clearwater sent a Valentine for Adam, a couple of years ago. She was rather tasty, too .

 

[HectorBidon]

What about something like:

"I've always believed in you" he confided.

I agree that Simon's suggestion—He leaned toward her and spoke softly into her ear—is one way to show that the speech is a confidence without having to explicitly spell it out. But I'm not convinced that it's the only way to go. This approach requires a style in which you interweave the dialog with a narrative about the physical interactions between the speakers. But some authors write convincing dialog without that much narrative description, letting the dialog itself convey the emotional give and take. In this case, if the arc of the dialog makes it clear that these words are given in confidence, I don't see why the narration can't confirm it by saying he confided. You could say this is redundant, but I might answer that it just stays true to the emotional arc, and that it helps to gently guide the reader along.