Indicating who speaks

[MiddleAgedMan]

I'm just polishing off my latest story, and when I'm reading through it I wonder if I need to add more 'He said/She said' to indicate who the dialogue belongs to. I think the text makes it obvious, but I get uncertain if another person reading it would think so as well:

Erica nodded slowly, taking another look at John’s cock before looking at Ellen.

“Get the lube.” Looking back at John, she added, “But promise me you’ll stop if I tell you to, okay?”

“I’ll go slow, I promise. Just try to relax, it’ll be weird, at first, but once you relax and start enjoying it, it’ll be the best sensation ever, right girls?”

Is it as obvious as I think that the first two are Erica speaking, while the latter one is John?

 

[sr71plt]

With just this much, it is, but be careful to directly pin down the speaker frequently. This has sort of gotten out of hand in the mainstream. I often have to trace back up to do a check on who's saying what. This isn't a good thing for your reader to have to do. So, if the dialogue keeps going like this, I'd suggest identifying the speaker just a bit more than you're doing.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm just polishing off my latest story, and when I'm reading through it I wonder if I need to add more 'He said/She said' to indicate who the dialogue belongs to. I think the text makes it obvious, but I get uncertain if another person reading it would think so as well:



Is it as obvious as I think that the first two are Erica speaking, while the latter one is John?

Yep, excerpt is fine. If you've already established that it's just the three of them in the scene, then "girls" clearly identifies the speaker as John.

 

[Hypoxia]

It's quite obvious to me. As Pilot said, don't let dialog go free-floating. I'd rather speakers be over-identified than be unknown without a multi-page trace. And I'd rather not see miles of relentless dialog; to me, that's a show-off trick. Your example is fine. You clearly established who and what.

 

[Boxerwing]

It's quite obvious to me. As Pilot said, don't let dialog go free-floating. I'd rather speakers be over-identified than be unknown without a multi-page trace. And I'd rather not see miles of relentless dialog; to me, that's a show-off trick. Your example is fine. You clearly established who and what.

May I ask you a question about your comment? You say that miles of dialogue is "a show-off trick". I don't quite understand what you mean; can you explain it, please? I mean, I can't imagine a story made up completely of dialogue, but I'm not sure I've come across a story that I felt was dialogue-heavy.

As to the rest, I certainly agree. Even just tossing in "he said" or "she replied" helps a lot.

 

[sr71plt]

I've written a couple of stories that did well in mainstream contests that purposely were all dialogue--and probably did well because of the use of the unusual technique (one started in the middle of a dialogue sentence and ended in the middle of a dialogue sentence), but the stories were very short. The longer the story is when it's all dialogue, the more static it becomes--and gimmicky in filling in setting and plot. I've read stories here that were nothing more than a couple sitting at a kitchen breakfast island and yammering about this and that and then going to bed--and they were deadly. They are like the story form that was popular in the chick lit era--character stories, which were completely a disection of Tiffany's character as she stands in front of a mirror and puts on her hat--and does nothing else. Relying on dialogue to carry your story invites padding the wordage out in kitchen sink bits and pieces of information that don't serve the story in any way.

 

[Boxerwing]

I've written a couple of stories that did well in mainstream contests that purposely were all dialogue--and probably did well because of the use of the unusual technique (one started in the middle of a dialogue sentence and ended in the middle of a dialogue sentence), but the stories were very short. The longer the story is when it's all dialogue, the more static it becomes--and gimmicky in filling in setting and plot. I've read stories here that were nothing more than a couple sitting at a kitchen breakfast island and yammering about this and that and then going to bed--and they were deadly. They are like the story form that was popular in the chick lit era--character stories, which were completely a disection of Tiffany's character as she stands in front of a mirror and puts on her hat--and does nothing else. Relying on dialogue to carry your story invites padding the wordage out in kitchen sink bits and pieces of information that don't serve the story in any way.

Thanks very much; I appreciate your reply. I totally get what you're saying; if the characters are doing nothing but speaking, then how do you get across things like the setting without the characters talking in unbelievable ways?

Gimmicks can be useful when used carefully and judiciously, but not to base a whole story on. One of the stories I am writing is GM erotica, but the style is very formal. My editor panned it; she said that she didn't know of any stories with so much sex written in the style I was using that hadn't come off stilted. Guess I'll be doing a bunch of re-writing.

 

[NotWise]

Plays can tell stories largely in dialogue and in a play the speaker is almost always clearly identified. I think if you want to have extended dialogue that tells a lot of the story then you also have to be very clear about who is saying what. You can't leave it to the reader to figure it out.

 

[MiddleAgedMan]

Thank you all

I very much appreciate the responses, and it's good to see that you all feel the identity of the speaker is clear. Usually, I try to indicate who the speaker is by having them do something, rather than just adding 'he said/she said'. That gets really old, really fast...

As for my 'style', as it were, I tend to feel that I add too little dialogue rather than too much. I'm rather fond of describing the scene and the characters' actions, and often their comments feel obsolete.

My latest story is submitted, by the way, should be out tomorrow: John and Ellen Ch01 - Veronica.

If you're into E&V/anal/hidden cams and group sex, feel free to have a look and leave a comment, I appreciate any constructive feedback to my stories. Since English is not my first language, any tips or hints that help me improve my writing is also very much appreciated.

 

[Gorza]

This is interesting. I've told writers I edit to insert dialogue tags in certain places where it is unclear who's speaking. A couple of times now I've had the feedback that they had read somewhere that such dialogue tags were bad narrative style, weighing down dialogue. All I could do was point out that making a reader stop suspending disbelief to work out who's talking was far more invasive. As soon as you have three or more potential speakers, alternation is not going to be a completely obvious device. Even there, dialogue punctured by action, often needs a restatement of who's talking. There are, after all, far more verbs than 'said' with which to tag dialogue.

 

[MiddleAgedMan]

This is interesting. I've told writers I edit to insert dialogue tags in certain places where it is unclear who's speaking. A couple of times now I've had the feedback that they had read somewhere that such dialogue tags were bad narrative style, weighing down dialogue. All I could do was point out that making a reader stop suspending disbelief to work out who's talking was far more invasive. As soon as you have three or more potential speakers, alternation is not going to be a completely obvious device. Even there, dialogue punctured by action, often needs a restatement of who's talking. There are, after all, far more verbs than 'said' with which to tag dialogue.

Very true, I try to refrain from using he/she said whenever possible to add variety, but I think in general it's pretty easy to tell who's talking from the context, and in some cases I've left it vague on purpose, both because who said it was irrelevant at the time, but also to make the readers attribute it to whoever they want. I realise this could be irritating rather than intriguing, but I think it works, and adding he/she said just made the sentence seem awkward...

 

[Gorza]

In real life different people have distinctive ways of speaking. In too many stories on Lit, dialogue is dialogue and everyone talks the same way (cliché-laden General American is the standard dialect). One interesting way around the 'who's speaking now?' dilemma is to give each character subtly distinctive speech patterns. This is easier when characters have distinctive backgrounds, like nationality, as long as they aren't stereotypes.

 

[MiddleAgedMan]

In real life different people have distinctive ways of speaking. In too many stories on Lit, dialogue is dialogue and everyone talks the same way (cliché-laden General American is the standard dialect). One interesting way around the 'who's speaking now?' dilemma is to give each character subtly distinctive speech patterns. This is easier when characters have distinctive backgrounds, like nationality, as long as they aren't stereotypes.

I like that, good idea! I'm not sure I'll be able to pull that off with my usual characters from a non-specified European country, but they are on the plane to Barcelona as we speak (or rather, as I write), and one or more of the locals could have a distinctive catalan lisping added to his/her speech. I'll play around with it and see how it works. Thanks!

 

[Gorza]

I like that, good idea! I'm not sure I'll be able to pull that off with my usual characters from a non-specified European country, but they are on the plane to Barcelona as we speak (or rather, as I write), and one or more of the locals could have a distinctive catalan lisping added to his/her speech. I'll play around with it and see how it works. Thanks!

Respelling someone's speech to imitate the phonemes they mispronounce can be a little comic, and is best avoided. In my story Mouse's Maiden Voyage the three characters are severally French, Russian and American. They converse in English, but I tried to make the speech of each as full of the flavour of their first languages, without respelling. Often, when we speek other languages, we find it hard not to be influenced by the grammar of our mother tongue. So the French woman never drops 'that' in a relative clause, and the Russian man doesn't feel the need to use English articles. In Exploring the Ring of Kerry, the narrator is enchanted by a woman from County Kerry. Her accent is distinctive, but it's mainly achieved in writing by careful choice of word use (lots of 'so' and 'now').

 

[Hypoxia]

May I ask you a question about your comment? You say that miles of dialogue is "a show-off trick". I don't quite understand what you mean; can you explain it, please? I mean, I can't imagine a story made up completely of dialogue, but I'm not sure I've come across a story that I felt was dialogue-heavy.

Sorry for not getting back to this sooner. The all-dialog "show-off trick" IMHO is not quite as bad as 2nd-person POV. No, not quite. The author draws attention to the technique rather than the story. Stories need settings. All-dialog plays have settings; we SEE what's happening and where. All-dialog stories TELL us what's happening but must gyrate to let us see the players and their locale.

And yes, dialog invites padding. We talk much and say little. But for balanced writing I embed narrative within dialog. I used this technique throughout my The Book of Ruth series. Rather than the narrator data-dumping the narrative, he periodically lounges at his cousin's apartment-block's pool, drinks beer, ogles pretty girls, and recaps what's been happening. I surround the cousin's questions and the narrator's answers with brief, vivid descriptions of who, where, when, and what.

Allow me a photographic metaphor. Report narrative is like a wide-angle lens that captures a broad scene. Dialog is like a telephoto lens used to surgically isolate distinct elements (emotional, factual|lbogus, personal, speculative) within a scene. We need many telephoto shots to encompass the field of view of a single wide-angle image. But each of those narrower shots can be filled with telling detail. An experienced togger mixes wide-angle, 'normal', and telephoto viewpoints to tell a visual story from vantages ranging from distant to ultra-close. For me, photojournalism preceded writing. I 'see' my stories.

As to the rest, I certainly agree. Even just tossing in "he said" or "she replied" helps a lot.

I prefer a bit more texture. "He tossed his head and grumped" and "She scratched her arms and whined" and "Their voices were lost in the thunderclaps" paint a fuller picture.

 

[Boxerwing]

Allow me a photographic metaphor. Report narrative is like a wide-angle lens that captures a broad scene. Dialog is like a telephoto lens used to surgically isolate distinct elements (emotional, factual|lbogus, personal, speculative) within a scene. We need many telephoto shots to encompass the field of view of a single wide-angle image. But each of those narrower shots can be filled with telling detail. An experienced togger mixes wide-angle, 'normal', and telephoto viewpoints to tell a visual story from vantages ranging from distant to ultra-close. For me, photojournalism preceded writing. I 'see' my stories.

I prefer a bit more texture. "He tossed his head and grumped" and "She scratched her arms and whined" and "Their voices were lost in the thunderclaps" paint a fuller picture.

I'm thinking about what you're saying here, and the metaphor does seem very apt. I'm not an experienced writer, and do have a way to go, but what you said above resonates with me. I kind of "knew" it, but didn't have the words to say it. Unless a detail is extremely important, the narrative of my stories tend to have a broader view. Dialogue tends to to focus on the "important" stuff relating to character development, plot development or underlying theme. (Yup. Wouldn't be surprised if anyone were rolling their eyes. Having an underlying theme in an erotica; madness!)

I do find it difficult to sometimes "paint a fuller picture", especially as I want to find the balance between moving the plot along and adding richness. I tend to try and skip over the "said"s and "replied"s to add an action. For example, a few lines from a WIP (N.B. the characters are talking on the phone):

“Casey! Shut the fuck up!”

I shut my mouth with a snap.

I heard Mike sigh. “Casey. Look. My life is shit right now. I haven’t heard from Tara in a few weeks, so I have no fucking clue what is going on with her. Granted, this is not the first time she’s left, but I’m pretty much done. However, I still have to get my life together, you know? I…I need some time, okay?”

I mean, I could have written "Mike sighed out,...", but that is not what I wanted to say. I didn't write any type of...sorry, don't know the word, or if there is one, that means "those words that show verbalization" like said and replied. Is this another trick/technique?

Apologies to the OP if this is getting too far off topic...

 

[NotWise]

Maybe it's because the text you offered is very brief, but I had a hard time figuring out who was speaking in your example.

The first line comes out of nowhere, but it apparently doesn't come from Casey.

"I" shut my mouth in response, so reading further maybe "I" am Casey.

Now "I" hear Mike sigh. So maybe the first line came from MIke, but that assumes that there's no-one else present.

So after a couple reads and making some assumptions, *maybe* I understand who's talking.

If I'm right, then saying "I heard Mike sigh." is equivalent to "Mike sighed", or (but more expressive than) "Mike said."

For me It would be easier to read something like:

"Casey! Shut the fuck up!" Mike snapped. He paused then sighed, " Casey, Look. My life is shit right now. I haven’t heard from Tara in a few weeks, so I have no fucking clue what is going on with her. Granted, this is not the first time she’s left, but I’m pretty much done, I still have to get my life together, you know? I…I need some time.”

I generally dislike reading people rewrite other writers' lines and I just did it. Uck. I need to go wash my mind with some good wine.

 

[Boxerwing]

lol

I generally dislike reading people rewrite other writers' lines and I just did it. Uck. I need to go wash my mind with some good wine.

Okay, I'm totally laughing here. I realize it wasn't exactly the best example, and intentionally cut it short to just to show the lack of actual verbalizing words. Here is a more complete version:

Setup. Casey has the hots for Mike. Casey believes Mike is straight (after all, Mike is married to a woman). Casey just got fired, drank a whole case of beer and drunk-texted Mike that he wanted Mike to "fuck his face" and "didn't matter that (Mike) was straight". This scene is the morning after.


I looked at the time. It was 11 a.m., and Mike was probably working. I figured he wouldn't answer a call while he was on the shop floor, so I thought I'd leave him a short message apologizing.

I took a deep breath in and called his phone; it rang, then went to voice mail. After the beep I said, "Hey, Mike, it's Casey. I'm so fucking sorry about the texts last night. I was totally out of line, and I understand if you blocked me permanently. I...yeah. With everything going on in your life, you didn't need me texting you that stuff. I am just so sorry. You don't have to call back or anything, I just hope you can forgive me." I hung up, then went and crawled back under my covers, hoping to sleep the day away.

I woke back up around 3 p.m. feeling less like death and more just generally crappy. Grabbing my phone to plug it in, I noticed I had a phone message.



MOD DELETED EXTRA TEXT TO FOLLOW SITE RULES.

 

[sr71plt]

The advantage of "he said/she said," is that it is so familiar that the reader absorbs only that it has cleared up who is speaking and it doesn't really register otherwise. So, it does its job really, really well. It shouldn't be the only slug used, but if you use a clever, more descriptive slug each time, they become intrusive and and distract the reader. There needs to be a balance, the speaker needs to be clear, and the author shouldn't be embarrassed to use "said" much of the time.

 

[_Lynn_]

Okay, I'm totally laughing here. I realize it wasn't exactly the best example, and intentionally cut it short to just to show the lack of actual verbalizing words. Here is a more complete version:

Limit your example to no more than three paragraphs per forum guidelines.

 

[oggbashan]

The advantage of "he said/she said," is that it is so familiar that the reader absorbs only that it has cleared up who is speaking and it doesn't really register otherwise. So, it does its job really, really well. It shouldn't be the only slug used, but if you use a clever, more descriptive slug each time, they become intrusive and and distract the reader. There needs to be a balance, the speaker needs to be clear, and the author shouldn't be embarrassed to use "said" much of the time.

I agree with this.

I think readers skip over "he said/she said" but it is very useful for making who speaks clear. Changing it sometimes to "John said/Mary said" is enough to break up the tags.

Adding adverbs to the speech tags is distracting and easily overdone - "He said ironically/she retorted angrily".