I bought a editing book called, SELF-EDITING for FICTION WRITERS by Renni Browne and Dave King.

I am in the process of revising my first draft and I am interested in books on editing completed work, not writing. This book (I am reading now) seems to have some good ideas about editing ones work.

Has anyone read this book? What do you agree with, or not agree with?

The chapter on dialogue says to never explain how you character feels with tags such as: she said in astonishment. (and so on) I do use an occasional tag with my dialogue. I could strip them out, but it would require rewriting to show the characters emotion. (Which would require more dialogue.) I always thought of dialogue tags as a form of short-hand to speed up the story and cut a log of extra dialogue, but perhaps I was wrong.

Anyway, if you have read this self-editing book, how do you feel about the authors editing suggestions? Do they know what they are talking about, or is this just another ‘set of rules set in stone’ that only apply to those who wish to use them?

Is there a better book on self-editing ones work?

Azel

Azel, I posted a brief review about this book four years ago (I'm just mentioning that because I can't believe I've been around the site that long!)

It’s an excellent book – I love the bit about letting your characters swear…

think about how much power a single expletive can have if it’s the only one in the whole fucking book.

That always makes me laugh.

On dialogue tags; it’s fine to say things like ‘she said’, but beyond that, with only a few exceptions, the dialogue and the related actions should show the character’s emotions. For instance, I would never write she said in astonishment, because it’s Telling, and it’s cheating the reader out of the full picture. Show what she’s doing – her eyes could widen, her mouth drop open, she could abruptly stop whatever she happens to be doing at that moment. Alternatively, her own line of dialogue could show her astonishment; ‘You have got to be joking?’

Dee

Hi Dee

Yes, the editors who wrote the book seem to know what they are talking about. I have read so many books on writing that I approach any such book with caution. So far, I have been impressed with their advice on editing. I also like the fact that the book they wrote is not to large (pages). They seem to cover only the most important faults a writer makes, and not try to cover every little writing rule they can think of, like a writing instructor might do.

What about dialogue tags such as: she smiled; she paused; she hesitated? These would be physical descriptions added to dialogue.

Azel

Yes, I've heard good things of that book too.

What about dialogue tags such as: she smiled; she paused; she hesitated?

Well these aren't really dialogue tags, they're just sentences. 'Paused' and 'hesitated' indicate silences in the speech, not speech itself, and smiled isn't a kind of talking, it's something she does with her face: useful for indicating who's talking without a dialogue tag, like any action, but not technically a dialogue tag.

Dee's so right that as far as possible you want to make how something's said inherent in what they say, and/or in the action of the scene, rather than using adverbs and other trimmings.

She slammed the book onto the table. 'So you thought I'd enjoy it, did you?' is much more effective than 'So you thought I'd enjoy it, did you?' she said angrily

Obviously sometimes you need a different verb from 'said', when it's going to be impossible from the spoken words to tell how they're spoken. (It's usually about volume, occasionally about tone of voice.)

'How dare you?' he shouted. is different from 'How dare you?' he mumbled.

But you're still showing how it's said, and leaving the reader to work out what that signifies (always a good plan) not telling that he's angry, or embarrassed.

And speaking personally, nothing makes my toes curl more than 'fancy' speech tags, because again, they're showing, not telling, or worse still, just variety for the sake of it.

'What will you do next?' he laughed. 'So you thought it would help?' she sneered. 'Fancy that,' she smiled. and most horrible of all 'Don't tell me,' he joked.

because if it's a joke, it should be obvious. If we need telling that he joked, then the dialogue and action have failed...

In fact fancy dialogue tags intrude far more than the almost invisible 'said' ever does. You can use 'said' just about as often as you need to keep the reader on track, and they'll never notice. I almost never use anything else, except for simple volume indicators like 'whispered.'

Emma

Personally, I use dialogue tags of the shouted/mumbled/whispered/sighed/demanded type quite a lot. I think it's a very succinct and relatively smooth/invisible way of conveying quite a lot in a single word. I also use adverbs with 'said' a fair bit, too. But I think it's a case of mixing it up. I try to avoid a speech tag a fair proportion of the time, and to use action snippets instead to show who's talking and what their reactions are, as Emma illustrates. But why religiously avoid adverbs and speech tags other than 'said', when these are great descriptive words and can convey such a lot (she pondered in mystification)? Like all 'rules', these ones about dialogue are not to be followed too slavishly, in my opinion.

Rosy

I use dialogue tags of the shouted/mumbled/whispered/sighed/demanded type quite a lot

So do I, though maybe not a lot, because they're about how something's said. I agree that there's nothing to be slavishly avoided, but I don't use adverbs if a verb like those will do it better, just because given the choice (which one doesn't always have), it's more immediate. But I might well write, 'she yelled almost silently' if that's what the piece needs.

I did say, 'personally', and one reason I don't use much except 'said' is that I'm almost always writing from a character's PoV, and even if it's multiple PoVs, I rarely have a comment-y type narrator. 'I said, mystified' is fine, obviously - the narrator-character is telling you how to take the dialogue. But if I write, 'she said, mystified,', then who's telling the reader that she's mystified? The other characters can't know, and there's no one else in my writing, though there might well be in someone else's. I'd have to make my narrator-character observe: 'she said, sounding mystified,', and I might well do that.

But I'm fairly sure that my next novel will be 3rd person with at least multiple PoVs, so by definition there will be an omniscient if not a comment-y narrator, so I may yet be forced to eat my words.

Emma

Azel,

'Self-Editing for Fiction Writers' is an excellent book. It's difficult to find anything in it not to agree with. Very crudely speaking, I find advice books work best if they're more towards one or other end of the spectrum between, for want of a better description, right brain and left brain thinking. Another very good 'left brain' book, for example, is 'Stein on Writing' by Sol Stein, which I think this could help you considerably with editing your novel.

A couple of excellent 'right brain' books are 'Becoming a Writer' by Dorothea Brande and 'The Passionate Accurate Story: Making Your Heart's Truth into Literature' by Carol Bly. The latter is brilliant for putting into words effects which we've all experienced but are not often able to describe (you can read some of the first chapter on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1571312196/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-4573803-0484157#reader-link).

As for dialogue tags, I agree that they should be avoided at all costs. After all, if someone is talking to you in real life, they don't say things like, "God, you're such a mean bitch, I say spitefully." You work it out from their tone, expression, etc. The only time people use tags in real life is when they're unsure of how you'll take what they've said, e.g. "You look a right mess -- only joking!", although, of course, this often attempts to neutralise real meaning: they actually think you do look a mess but don't want you getting angry with them for saying so.

Now, it could be argued that in the silent form of prose, there aren't the tone and volume indicators you get in real life, therefore, it's legitimate to use tags, or at least to indicate whether someone's shouting or whispering, etc. But I think writers should still try instead to convey these flavours through clever word use and by employing the one tool we have that real life doesn't: omniscient selective description. For example:

"No, that's fine, really; I don't mind waiting," he said, index finger rapidly tapping the desk.

If you don't select telling body language, and dialogue which shows tone (which is also selective, of course, not purely realistic to the way people actually speak), but take the short cut of tags, I think you risk alienating any reader other than those who just want a fast, shallow, read.

Terry

I know it's a long time ago but when I was at school writing 'said' was an absolute no-no. Every time it was used in a story we had to find ten other ways of writing it instead, and 'shouted/whispered/yelled' could only be used once each. I find it's an extremely difficult habit to break and I don't think I ever use 'said' for that reason.
So that's another part of my story back to the drawing board then!!!
I have the Sol Stein book and I have to say it is brilliant.
Tracy

'shouted/whispered/yelled' could only be used once each

Must have made it difficult to write a good row, then!

writing 'said' was an absolute no-no. Every time it was used in a story we had to find ten other ways of writing it instead

Why not? Dear God, this is horrible - just for the sheer tight-arsed rule-bound bossiness, apart from anything else. It's bad enough when teachers tell children to get out there thesauruses (thesaurii?) and use 'more interesting' words. At least that's expanding their vocabulary, even if it's poor training for a writer.

At a purely personal level - and I do mean this as a matter of personal taste, not literary judgement - I think naff dialogue tags really are the first thing that alert me to the fact that I'm probably not going to find the book I've just picked up worth bothering with. At the very least, it had better be incredibly compelling in some other way, for me to persevere beyond a page or so.

Emma

<Added>

Eek! out their thesauruses

Nothing like being in a rage to make you neglect the basics, like proof-reading!

Another problem with dialogue tags is that they (normally) come after the piece of dialogue they're tagging. Which can disrupt the reading flow, in that the reader has already inferred a flavour from the actual speech but then gets your reading of the flavour. Which will confuse and irritate if it differs, as well as break the reading flow. And even if it agrees, will still irritate because you're telling them what they already know. Also, a little ambiguity is natural where speech is concerned, and courts mystery. This happens in life, when, say, two people discuss a conversation they'd had earlier with a third, and find their interpretations of the other person's intentions and inflections differ. Which is often legitimate, in that few of us when we speak know exactly what we mean in the first place. So, 'said' allows characters to not be overly defined. I'd say this applies to volume tags, too -- because, to an extent, yelling, for example, is subjective. A sergeant major may sound like he's yelling to anyone who doesn't know him, but to himself he's just whispering. Yet once you say 'he yelled', you remove the range of interpretations there might be amongst your characters. Of course, the reverse is true, too: that when you don't want any ambiguity, when you want the reader to see that everyone in a scene interprets volume in the same way, then you'd use 'yell' or 'shout' or 'whisper'.

Terry

<Added>

Sometimes people say to me they think a line of dialogue in one of my stories is very funny. And I think that's strange because I didn't intend it to be funny. I used to think this was a failure on my part, in not being specific. But I understand now, that it's part of the magical conspiracy that can build between a writer and a reader when both are in love with a story. It's a bit like a marriage, where you aren't joined so much by hard contracts, as a mutual love of mystery and life. So, I now thank God for 'said', because it allows that conspiracy to live and breathe. I'm with Emma on dialogue tags being off-putting. They indicate the author doesn't trust the marriage, basically.

Thank you everyone for your views on dialogue. I can see I’ve got a lot of dialogue cutting and rewriting ahead of me.

Another writing habit I am guilty of, I read about in SELF-EDITING for FICTION WRITERS, is describing my characters physical movement in a room or house. Anyway, the SELF-EDITING for FICTION WRITERS book says I don’t need to show/explain all my characters physical movements. They say the reader will understand that a character has moved, and that I don’t need to show it.

I am not sure just how much character movement to tell the reader about and how much to leave out. For example, I might say my character got up from her chair and walked over to sit at a table, were she looked at some unpaid bills. I need to tell the reader that the character is not sitting in her chair any longer, and that she has moved to a table to look at ,worry over, some bills she can’t afford to pay.

I understand what the SELF-EDITING Book is saying, yet I am not sure when to apply this rule. I don’t want to confuse the reader by having my character pop into different locations around the house. And why is it bad to describe the characters movement? How does this hurt the reader or story? Why can’t I leave it in?

Azel

I think there are two general but opposite principles to try to simultaneously satisfy here. Firstly, it's the author's job to tell the reader where his characters are and what they're doing. To not do so leaves the reader sightless on the one hand and perpetually surprised on the other. For example, if you don't tell your readers that your character has got out of bed, they'll still be picturing him there; so, if you suddenly say he's chatting to the bus driver, the reader has to mentally either wrench the character out of bed and on to the bus, or imagine the bus driver in bed with him, too!

Second, you need to keep the pace of the story matching the characters' actions. Which means, usually, keeping characters' actions to a minimum, purely because it takes a lot longer to describe an action than to do it. This of course is the big challenge with thriller writers.

A way round this problem is to back-work your characters' actions, in order to minimise them. So, in your example, if the important element of the scene is your character looking at unpaid bills, and if it's not important she was sitting in a chair before that, just start the scene with her opening the bill. The key is to see any action as part of the story; in other words, wherever possible only include an action if it's significant. It's not bad to describe a characters' movements, but if if there is no added value in the description, it will drag at the pace and mute the integrity of a scene.

But, really, you're not alone on this one. It's one of the most necessary and difficult skills to get right.

Terry

SELF-EDITING for FICTION WRITERS by Renni Browne and Dave King.

I found this excellent. I also love Stein, On Writing.

Sorry to harp, and with all due respect to Terry (and all other proponents of the fashionable CW 'rules', but I still can't see why it's Good to describe what the character does while he/she is speaking - tapping the desk, gritting her teeth, shuffling in embarrassment - but Bad to tell the reader that she yelled or whimpered or muttered or wheedled. Both things tell us stuff. One might be more visual and the other more aural, I suppose - but both convey needful information about mood to surround and bring alove the naked words of dialogue. Colourful speech tags are brief (so unobtrusive, to my mind) and convey the necessary informtaion neatly and succinctly. What's the objection?

Rosy

yelled or whimpered or muttered

I'm all for these - I don't think they're Bad at all. They're about how something's said - tone, volume, articulation. Fine by me. And I agree that they're often much more succinct than a piece of action - it depends on the exact pace and style of the scene, which works better.

wheedled

I'm not so sure about, because it's a judgement, rather than a statement. With something like this, for me, it depends entirely on the relationship of the narrator to the story. Who's deciding that she's wheedling? I'd want to know.

Emma