JKR is also very fond of dialogue tags, of course. All of which is fine for readers who just want it all put on a plate for them.

Fine for children, who are not as adept as adults at 'reading' non-verbal messages.

Fine for children, who are not as adept as adults at 'reading' non-verbal messages.

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. If anything, I'd say there is more use of dialogue tags in adult fiction than children's. And don't forget that plenty of adults read and enjoy HP. It could even be argued that children have better visual imaginations than adults, not having yet had their perceptions channelled and narrowed by materialistic daily rituals, so therefore need less direct guiding towards non-verbal messages. It could also be argued -- not by me, because I'm not brave enough to ever suggest such a thing -- that children should be encouraged to exercise their imaginations and faculty to assess more, therefore it's almost immoral for an author to give them stories full of value judgements and easy tagging.

Terry

Bugger. Not only do I quite like speech tags (see, intermittently, the last 5 pages), but I adore JK Rowling! I like my fiction to be full of unambiguous moral messages. I have a leaning towards the didactic, and even the polemic - I consume avidly things which reinforce my own moral universe. My favourite extended piece of writing of all time, across all media, is probably The West Wing. I lap up any literature which peddles a powerful agenda, from Mary Barton and The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist through C.S. Lewis to To Kill a Mockingbird and Maya Angelou. As far as my writing of fiction is concerned, if I'm truthful, I'd say that the imparting of various moral/political messages in which I passionately believe is pretty much the main driving force - if not, what would be the point? - with entertaining, or making people laugh, being the thing that sweetens the pill. I think of writing a novel as very similar, in many ways, to writing a law lecture. (My lectures are also often nakedly polemical.) I also use an intruding authorial voice a fair bit in my fiction. Does this all mean there is no hope for me?

Rosy

Terry, do you have children? They would be far easier to control if they did understand non-verbal messages, hints, suggestions, threats, and outright orders, rather than sitting there with their head down thinking it doesn't apply to them!
As for Rowling, she was writing specifically for children so you cannot apply her style to adult fiction, even though adults also enjoy her books. Pick up any popular work of childrens fiction you're almost guaranteed to find speech tags.

<Added>

My favourite extended piece of writing of all time, across all media, is probably The West Wing.

Mine too :)

<Added>

I'm enjoying Pratchett's Wee Free Men series, but he's a bugger with those messages :- read lots, love words, love long words, find out about science and nature, be your own person... gets a bit monotonous after a while.

Does this all mean there is no hope for me?

Rosy, clearly there is ABSOLUTELY NO HOPE FOR YOU, since you've just signed another two-book contract with a major publisher, while being a senior member of one of the world's great universities and bringing up two children. It's just not good enough, you must have hours in the day to fill. You'll have to take up crochet, or something.

Emma

Emma!

All I mean is, what is wrong with a bit of old-fashioned moralising in a novel? Why shouldn't the author make moral judgements instead of leaving all that stuff up to the reader, to put her own spin on?

Donna Leon. She's another one (from a completely different genre) whom I really like, because she hammers away at a really blatant moral message all the time, about integrity in public and private life. She doesn't leave her readers to form their own views about these things from subliminal clues, as if coming down on one side or the other is a matter of mere personal preference: it is all laid before us on a plate. The baddies nearly always get off (unlike in the artificial world of more traditional crime ficiton) but the author leaves us in no doubt that the moral core of the world (represented by Brunetti and his family) survives intact.

Why do we need moral ambivalence, an open moral texture? Is it supposed to reflect a post-moderrn consciousness, a society where everything is up for grabs, and literature has to be a value-free zone? Maybe it's a kind of escapism, or just plain denial, but I for one don't want to read books like that.

Rosy

Sorry, this has nothing to do with speech tags, or authorial voice. It's just that Terry has touched another nerve with me!

Two different issues here, surely:

1) Do you have a moral position on what you're writing about, which you're prepared to express, or is the project about exploring how there are no moral absolutes or even clarities?

2) If you do, how obvious do you make it?

I'm very clear about 1 and, yes, I too prefer books that know that some things are more good, or bad, than others. If you asked me, I'd know exactly what I think about any moral question in the book. But with 2) I don't like being preached at, and I don't preach (I hope) in my novels.

Emma

Fair point, Emma. Whereas I'm aware I do get preachy, and have been taken to task for it several times. But the thing is that I quite like reading preachy stuff myself - as long as I agree with it!!

R

Crikey, people do like to extend and inflate here, not to mention change their tunes under cover of jolly affirmations. But I give in. I must like The West Wing and Maya Angelou for the wrong reasons. I've obviously never read a children's book in my life and must remember that if I want to write for them to adopt the same tactics as if I wanted to control their behaviour. I must also remember that when I refer to authors making value judgements about their characters before they've even described them, I really mean that I don't like authors to have any moral imperative to their work. This is a very important lesson I really must get hold of: that to advocate subtle writing and the generation of some mystery and ambiguity about one's characters is the same as saying I don't think stories should contain any moral substance. How on earth could I have realised it just isn't possible to write subtly and raise moral issues? Must also make a note to self that my consciousness is more post-modern than I thought; probably should let my friends and family know, too, since they all seem to think I'm actually a pre-modern thinker. Most importantly, I must give up this crazy idea that writers can actually improve their writing. I will immediately go buy a bumper bag of adjectives and adverbs from Tags R Us and sprinkle them like salt over everything I write from now on to provide flavour, he slightly sincerely and a bit sarcastically exclaimed. Sorry, . . .exclaimed!!!

Terry

LOL, Terry! I think I deserved that, for flying off on a tangent like that! Of course, I agree that not all fiction which eschews an overt moral commentary in the authorial voice is necessarily a value-free wasteland. I am probably hyper-sensitive, being aware that I am given, as a writer, to making explicit moral judgements, and to overuse of the soapbox. It's just that, personally, I do enjoy reading novels which tell me, in terms, what to believe (provided, as I say, I agree with their standpoint). I can't help it - JK Rowling just is a huge favourite of mine. And The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, where Lewis turns to the camera and tell us exactly why Eustace is acting the way he is on the ship, and why it doesn't make him any happier. And the undisguised lectures in Black Beauty about the cruelty of the bearing rein and why you should never say 'only ignorance'. Bang-you-on-the-head moral certitude just appeals to me, however unfashionable* - always did when I was a child reader, still does now.

But I don't know where you got the idea from that (just because I have a different view from yours) I therefore think people shouldn't bother to try and improve their writing.

Rosy

*Thinking about those shoes of yours again here, Terry!

Well, yes, those shoes probably did ruin me for life where being cool is concerned, sorry--trendy, sorry--wicked, sorry--er, cool again. Mind you I did have long hair, beard and green boots in the early seventies; then again, that was conformist garb at the time, really.

I think I should backtrack a bit here. I'm not necessarily saying that authors should never hit their readers with a moral message. I do enjoy plenty of good vs bad stories. And there is definitely a rush of reading adrenaline when a character does something really bad. For instance, Lex Luthor in the latest series of Smallville is finally doing unequivocally bad things (like beating a man to death). Which is necessary because, at the end of the (Superman myth) day he is a villain. However, they spent five and a half series building his character (differently to LL in the comics and movies) as someone not only ambiguous but who in many ways was more sympathetic than the hero--because he was more honest to himself. So, for my money, Lex's movement towards out-and-out villain is all the more powerful, upsetting, treacherous, etc, because the writers didn't tell us in the first line of dialogue of episode one that he was a very, nasty, evil, dishonest, scary and all round not very nice villain. They showed him as man who liked power, yes, but was also loyal and generous to his friends and therefore genuinely hurt that his best friend was never honest with him (which in turn made Clark's position ambiguous too). His evil side has developed almost logically out of his powerful curiosity, and the moral question raised by this (although never spelt out by the writers) is how far would any of us take our curiosity if it was backed up by vast power and wealth? Similarly, Clark is having to come to reasons for being 'good', and at what level: just to help wherever he can when he bumps into someone in difficulty, or to become pro-active and actually seek out evil-doers (I'll stop now, since I can feel some stirring theme music coming on).

Apologies--I wasn't saying you didn't believe in improving your writing, Rosy. I was rather crudely expressing the view that there is sometimes a tendency on this site to resist change and development, that we're okay just the way we are, thanks. Unfortunately, because publishing is such a difficult industry to break into, and therefore because getting a deal can become an ultimate aim, there can be a tendency for a writer to think they've made it once this happens, rather than realise it's just an important step--certainly a confirmation of ability, but not necessarily of ultimate wisdom--in the never-ending journey to write better.

Terry

True - and if we didn't believe thinking about technique was valuable, I guess none of us would be hanging about here exchanging view and trying to learn, would we?