He said, she said (HP)

[thistlechaser]

I'm rereading the series (which goes much faster when you have the books as files you can read at work), and I have confirmed that GoF is my favorite book by far. To me, it's way more scary and emotional than the other books, and many of my favorite characters had big parts in it.

Unfortunately I finished it last night, so now I'm reading my least favorite book of the series: OotP. (Can you believe I lost the hard copy of it? How can you lose a book as big as a phone book?) It's not just that I didn't like the book much, the lack of fulfilled potential makes me really really sad. She used... 700? 800? pages, and yet still we got lines like this:

"He's got the Cruciatus Curse for causing pain," said Harry, "he doesn't need anything more efficient than that."

Harry said? He said? My god, he just went through this a couple months ago, tortured by the most evil guy around, pain so bad it felt like "his bones were on fire", and he just says it? Maybe it stands out more when reading it on screen, or maybe I'm just watching for the bad writing more now, but this is just so sad. Quote, no lines cut out, as it appears on the page:

"The weapon Sirius mentioned?" said Harry.
"Let slip, more like," said Fred with relish, now sitting next to Ron. "We didn't hear about that on the old Extendables, did we?"
"What d'you reckon it is?" said Harry.
"Could be anything," said Fred.
"But there can't be anything worse than the Avada Kedavra Curse, can there?" said Ron. "What's worse than death?"
"Maybe it's something that can kill loads of people at once," suggested George.
"Maybe it's some particularly painful way of killing people," said Ron fearfully.
"He's got the Cruciatus Curse for causing pain," said Harry, "he doesn't need anything more efficient than that."

Said, said, said, said. What's with that? Why didn't an editor spot this and suggest changes? What beta reader (non-fandom people: a fanfic's editor) would let this slip through?

Yes, when I read Harry's line I project a lot into it: A tone of voice, a posture for him, how his eyes move, flatness of voice, but *I* shouldn't be the one to do that. I'm not saying JKR needs to supply every detail of the scene, but how about a general idea? I see Harry's voice as quiet on his line, subdued, flat-ish. I see his body as slightly curled inward, his face lowered, his eyes on no one... but someone could see it just the opposite: Angry tone, bitter, eyes hard, daring anyone to meet his gaze.

A small part of me wants to think that she did it on purpose, allowing the readers to read the scene/character as they want to... but that can't be. This isn't a Choose Your Own Adventures book where my seeing Harry as defeated in the scene and you seeing him as angry would lead us down different story paths. ...But then I wonder if it's actually some writing trick to make people connect with the character better (you project what you would feel in that situation onto Harry, and boom! Connection!) ...but mostly I just think it's poor writing. Sigh.

ETA: A line for you twincestors out there. Said by Fred or George (the book doesn't say which):

"Yeah, well, it's harder in the dark."

Comments

[fealu-bryne.livejournal.com]

"Yeah, well, it's harder in the dark."

"Or in the shower," added George. "But I'm sure if you worked at it a little, it'll work fine."

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Quote (but don't ask me why Ginny was in the middle of things...):

Fred, George and Ginny were doing a kind of war dance to a chant that went: "He got off, he got off, he got off ..."

[bouteillebleu.livejournal.com]

Yes, when I read Harry's line I project a lot into it: A tone of voice, a posture for him, how his eyes move, flatness of voice, but *I* shouldn't be the one to do that.

I disagree with you here. I can see how what you read into Harry's way of talking makes sense, but it's not how I'd have visualised it - then again, I tend not to project much into the characters, or even to notice how they're speaking unless it seems to not make sense (like someone talking happily about a rather painful recent experience, for example). Some people, like you, will prefer to read lots of emotional detail into the way people speak, but others may prefer not to, and putting it in forces the reader to see it one way rather than another.

Using 'said', as you said (oh, what a bad pun), is a way to avoid having to specify how something was said, since it's often almost skipped over when reading dialogue.

I see Harry's voice as quiet on his line, subdued, flat-ish. I see his body as slightly curled inward, his face lowered, his eyes on no one... but someone could see it just the opposite: Angry tone, bitter, eyes hard, daring anyone to meet his gaze.

And since you could see it one way, and someone else could see it differently, that's probably precisely why it's not been specified in any more detail than just "said".

Or maybe Rowling just prefers writing dialogue to figuring out exactly how the dialogue's been said. (I can understand that viewpoint, as I'm pretty terrible at description but a bit better at dialogue.)

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Using 'said', as you said (oh, what a bad pun), is a way to avoid having to specify how something was said, since it's often almost skipped over when reading dialogue.

Hm, interesting. I don't skip over that part of the dialogue (or any parts of the story). But no matter if some readers skip a part or not, as the writer she should establish and describe what the truth of the scene is; I shouldn't be able to see it as black and you see it as white.

And since you could see it one way, and someone else could see it differently, that's probably precisely why it's not been specified in any more detail than just "said".

Agreed that that's possible, but not that it's correct. When I read a story, I want to be able to visualize the characters in my head -- I need to be able to see them. Her "Harry said" leaves him as nothing more than a blank wall, totally empty. What's the use in that?

[bouteillebleu.livejournal.com]

Actually, something struck me after I wrote my first reply. Perhaps Rowling doesn't know herself how Harry would be saying something like that - after all, there are several ways he could say a line like that - so she avoids having to explicitly say it. It's a bit annoying, though, as it puts the burden on the reader to guess.

[chrysoula.livejournal.com]

Mmm, using nothing more elaborate than 'He said/She said' is a trick for writing good dialogue, and focusing people on the dialogue, not the writing. Using adverbs too much is a nono. Using words like 'gasped
' or 'cried' or 'whined' too much is also a nono. 'Said' is nearly invisible, like quote marks. The judicious use of such descriptive words-- 'shouted', 'snapped' are more-- can add some flavor to dialogue but you only want to use them when you really want to emphasize it. Using them constantly is just bad technique

In the bit you quoted, it's what's being said more than how it's being said that carries the scene, for me, at least. Clearly not true for you, but, hey, thought I'd give you my thoughts on what editor-types might have been thinking.

[isildur.livejournal.com]

'Said' is straight out of Strunk and White. I never use anything but 'said'. If I need to convey an emotional state, posture, or attitude, the verb in a piece of dialogue is not the place to do it.

King calls them 'Swifties', from the Tom Swift books. It's tempting to interject all kinds of action and excitement into that verb, but it never, ever works out.

If the character isn't 'saying' -- if they're shouting, or whispering -- then another verb can do that work. That's an actual physical descriptive difference. But if the dialogue itself can't carry the intended emotion, it's the dialogue that needs work, not the verb. Ditto adverbs; 'he said, breathlessly' drives me up the wall.

[firebyrd.livejournal.com]

I'm going to have to side with the people who are pointing out that using "said" is the appropriate word in almost all cases. Here's a good explanation why, by Orson Scott Card.

http://hatrack.com/writingclass/lessons/1998-08-14-1.shtml

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Interesting! For me, the scene totally didn't work. I'm not looking for:

"Blah blah blah," she said quickly. (Or 'quickly said'.)

More like:

"Blah blah blah," she said to Bob in a rush, her eyes and attention jumping to the next person in line to see what he wanted.

I guess it's just me, but pure, plain dialogue can't carry a scene for me, not unless the writer wants me to position the characters, decide on their expressions, etc. (But then, I'm no professional writer or editor!)

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Interesting! I'm not going to argue with Strunk and White, so I guess this moves into "it just doesn't work for me" instead of "WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!".

Agreed on the adverbs. I'm not looking for "she said softly" or "he said quietly", I'd like more... action? description? in them. Example:

"Yeah, okay," though she voiced agreement, her expression said that she wanted to do anything but that.
He closed in on her. "You're not going to try to back out of this, are you?" Eyes narrowing, his voice lowered and he whispered a threat, "Blah blah blah..."

I don't know, maybe it comes from RPing? It makes me twitch to read:

"Boo," Bob said.
"Hoo," Jane replied.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Hee, oops! On Jane, it should be 'said' as well. I guess even when trying to give an example of it, my brain refuses to do said/said.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Since Strunk and White say it's okay, I'm going to drop my argument over it except to say: It doesn't work for me and I hate it. It may not be wrong, but it makes me twich and hold my head and sit in a corner and rock back and forth. :)

(And and and! I kept thinking of more things to add as I wrote that sentence. Heh!)

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Hee, could be! I'd hope she'd know that though...

[sileas.livejournal.com]

I prefer it if someone uses 'said/says' instead of all the flowery description. *g* It makes the dialogue have more power and let's me concentrate on what is said rather than what the writer wants to describe.

Yes, when I read Harry's line I project a lot into it: A tone of voice, a posture for him, how his eyes move, flatness of voice, but *I* shouldn't be the one to do that.

*nods* I do that too, but I have tremendous fun doing so. *g* Imagining Harry's posture takes a lot less time than reading two sentences describing exactly what his posture is.

"He's got the Cruciatus Curse for causing pain," said Harry, "he doesn't need anything more efficient than that."

And I read that line both ways too. Harry could sound defeated, bitter or angry. The book is different every time I grab a hold of it.

My highschool teachers really had it wrong when they said I couldn't use 'said' twice in the same story. They also had an aversion to ; and to short sentences. Fan fiction has taught me a lot. :-)

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Very interesting! It's good to see how many different things people want out of the writing of a book!

The book is different every time I grab a hold of it.

That made me stop and think. My first thought was that that was a good thing! Most of me still thinks it is, but... it gets back to that "which way is the right way" issue I have. JKR must have had one tone in mind when she wrote it, and that's the one I want to hear when I read it.

Fan fiction has taught me a lot. :-)

I love how much good fanfic does. :)

[sileas.livejournal.com]

JKR must have had one tone in mind when she wrote it, and that's the one I want to hear when I read it.


*nods* I definitely can see that as important, because if we interpret her tone of dialogue a bit differently, then we'll miss the point.

But in Ootp, it's obvious Harry is angry quite a lot. He also strikes me as fatalistic sometimes. So both interpretations of the example can be correct.
The general feeling for the Weasley twins are that they are playful, daredevils, sneaky and don't listen to authorative figures. But some of their lines could be interpreted as different. It depends on context, I think.

Sometimes it's handy that JK Rowling doesn't use 'said'. I distinctly remember reading the Occlumency lesson and I was surprised when a sentence was supposedly shouted when I thought it was whispered or something like that. I don't know what line it was exactly, but it really surprised me. So I know I misinterpret some dialogue. ;-)

[1200seconds.livejournal.com]

I remember the flowery poses on GarouMUSH. For my part, though, since the medium was semi-realtime, I was always too busy with identifying and typing what my character said to worry too much about nuances in how he said it.

"Boo," Bob said.
"Hoo," Jane said.

That's bad writing, but I think it's bad writing because they're not saying anything worth my time as a reader. If the dialogue is powerful enough, it doesn't need structural adornment. But if "Boo" and "Hoo" are meaningful lines, as in:

"...and then airport security wouldn't let me through, but they already made me put my baby through the X-ray machine, and they wouldn't give her back to me. They think I'm some sort of terrorist, oh God, I just want my baby..."
"Boo," Bob said.
"Hoo," Jane said.

You don't need narrative to tell you that Bob and Jane are nasty and cruel people. Putting that remark in there might detract from the starkness of their response. :-)

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see. Makes sense!

[chrysoula.livejournal.com]

I think of it like this. When I'm watching somebody else talk, all I know is that they're saying something. They might be doing something with their hands, but if it doesn't stand out I'm not going to notice it. Whether they were sad, or angry, or bitter when they said what they said is up for me to interpret. I may interpret it differently, later, thinking about additional information. This is like interpreting a book differently each time you read it.



--

Bob stepped up to the counter. "I need a new driver's lic--"
"Take a form from the counter behind you, first one on the left, fill it out and get back in line. Next please!" said the woman.

--

This has been an interesting thread for me, because it's making me stretch in intriguing mental directions, as I internally write out situations in my head, and consider the reasons behind the style guides. I /think/ that the less words you can use to say something, the more effective it is, if you can say it clearly. The more words used, the more diluted the concept you're trying to express becomes. Presumably this is because the human brain has a limited capacity to retain concepts when faced with competing information. I guess this is why good poetry really works, and why songs can have such an impact on people, why short stories usually hit harder than novels, and so forth. With longer works, like novels and long plays, you trade off some ability to make a stunning impact for the ability to weave themes and concepts together, and present complicated and realistic characters and settings. But minimizing the words you use to do it is still valuable for maintaining a relatively high level of reader-grip.

For some reason, the following little story (http://rebecca.hitherby.com/archives/000214.php) occurred to me as a good example of 'less is more' but possibly you'd need to be familiar with the other stuff on the site for that to mean anything.

[isildur.livejournal.com]

Hah! Reading that example, I just realized: I try not to use *any* attribution verbs if I can avoid them.

So I would say:

Bob stepped up to the counter. "I need a new driver's lic--"
"Take a form from the counter behind you, first one on the left, fill it out and get back in line. Next please!"
Bob blinked, his hand poised halfway to the countertop, momentarily speechless.

If I thought that wasn't clear enough, I might add an actual *action* following the second line of dialogue:

"Next please!" The woman didn't even look up from her computer; her indifference was a clear dismissal.

[chrysoula.livejournal.com]

Although I guess I should note that the 'Bob' example isn't entirely reflective of the actual scene that rubbed Thistle wrong; that scene was a pure dialogue scene, whereas in our Bob example, what we're trying to convey is action or lack thereof as Bob is dismissed by this woman.

I'm curious how you feel, Thistle, about scenes with no tags at all?


"What the hell was that?" she said.
"Oh, it was the dog."
"What was she so excited by?"
"The postman, if you can believe it."
"At this hour?"
"That's what I said to him. He just handed me this package and left."

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

That's way more appropriate for MUSHing. (And you're damn good at it, in MUSHes -- with most people, the dialogue itself was important; you were one of the few people who really described how their character was moving. I really appreciated that.)

Stunk and White yadda yadda everything else everyone already said.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I guess since I MUSHed for so long, it still affects how I read and write today.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

For me, those don't work in general. There's only one writer (nopejr) who has ever pulled that off in a way that I love. It's his usual style for writing, and I don't know how he does it that's different than others, but he's the best dialogue writer I know (fandom or professional).

When I talk, I gesture, I move, I change expressions, I try to communicate in more than just words. When talking to someone else, I watch for those things as well.

"What the hell was that?" she said.
"Oh, it was the dog."
"What was she so excited by?"

That makes me feel like I have one eye covered. So much more goes on in a conversation than just what's spoken! And it's often more important than the words themselves! I hate not knowing the rest of what's being communicated.

[chrysoula.livejournal.com]

Hm. See, I've been watching conversations I have with Kevin since this thread began, and honestly, there isn't a lot more to our conversations than that, not the actual conversations. There aren't any extrordinary things that happen while we're talking to each other. I might be leaning against the back door while Kevin smokes a cigarette outside. Once the initial postures are set up, there's not a change until he finishes the cigarette. This seems to be true for most of our conversations. That's sometimes not true, but that's most likely in highly charged emotional situations where the dialogue is supplemental to the action and the emotional content.

I agree that there are certain kinds of writing where the body language is more important than the words people are saying. I think it's a very small subset of fictiondom-- romance novels and slash, I think. Stuff aimed primarily at women, and focused on the emotional states the protagonists experience. I suspect action and crime novels, the kind of thing mostly aimed at guys, is pretty dry on the emotional front and I believe that's where you find the writers hailed for their sharp and well-constructed dialogue.

I think the standards of what makes emotional fiction 'good' are different from the standards applied to the rest of fiction. I think the goal of romance novels is not to be 'good writing', though that helps, but to encourage a certain emotional high in the reader via the reader's vicarious exposure to high-emotion states through the protagonist's experience of them. The best romance novels are the ones that create the best 'high' for the reader. It explains why romance novels sell in such bulk, as well; the high isn't as effective when you know the precise twists and turns of the novel's plot.

Anyhow, in order to create the high, much more detailed attention needs to be paid to the nuances of body language. This is because the one thing it's important to maintain is a high level of sexual tension, and that is conveyed (in an 'imagine yourself in this position' sense rather than a 'be amused by this exchange' sense) by body language as much or more than dialogue.

So, in closing, I think it depends on the context of the story and the scene.

I should note, from an enticement side of things, that my novel is clearly influenced by my exposure to romance novels and female-focused fantasy novels. :-) Entice! Entice!

[chrysoula.livejournal.com]

Oh, BTW.

My guess is that, indeed, you read differently while looking at a screen vs. looking at paper in your hands. Given your experience MUSHing and reading fanfic online, you expect certain things from stuff you seen on a screen. But presumably you read offline books as well, and have different expectations for them.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

That makes sense, yep!