Earlier this year, the Guardian asked several writers for ten rules for the craft, similar to the ten rules Elmore Leonard published this year. I abide by this particular rule of Leonard’s, which was taught me by my journalism professor:
Never use a verb other than “said” to carry dialogue. The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But “said” is far less intrusive than “grumbled”, “gasped”, “cautioned”, “lied”. I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with “she asseverated” and had to stop reading and go to the dictionary.
Here’s another good one, this time from Geoff Dyer:
Beware of clichés. Not just the clichés that Martin Amis is at war with. There are clichés of response as well as expression. There are clichés of observation and of thought – even of conception. Many novels, even quite a few adequately written ones, are clichés of form which conform to clichés of expectation.
This is good stuff. Care to argue over any of these? They aren’t all golden.
Like all writing rules, they’re good in general, not always good in a particular case. There may be times when “said” isn’t the right word. But you need to have a defensible reason for choosing another.
Yes. I was taught the rule in the context of reporting. I think Leonard is advising toward action or fast-paced writing. I’m going to copy a comment Mark Bertrand appears to have deleted from Facebook: “I was going to expostulate, but instead I’ll just say: “I like that rule, too.””
Joyce Carol Oates: “Don’t try to anticipate an ‘ideal reader’ – there may be one, but he/she is reading someone else.”
Hi,
There are some rules for Writing Fiction.
Sweat the Small Stuff.
Dump the Ballast.
Keep Your Conscience Clean.
Resist Judging Your Characters.
Watch Out for First Person.
Don’t Get Bogged Down by Back-story.
Anticipate a Long Process.
Intraday Tips || Nifty Tips || Mcx tips
I remember finding Leonard’s rules too limiting. In theatre, a show can be done presentationally, or representationally. The latter is “realism”, while the former can be a great variety of things. Representational theatre aims to keep the theatrics from getting in the way of the story, but people go to the theatre to be entertained, not merely to experience a narrative. To pick one example, a musical can never be truly representational unless it is a musical about people who actually break into song, but that doesn’t mean that musicals aren’t entertaining.
There is a sparse style that is in vogue with people who criticize writing, which is the equivalent of representationalism. They want to keep the author’s style out of the way. But there are authors that are read for their style, and not because they are master narrativists.
Encouraging sparse style in beginning writers is probably okay, to help keep them from getting florid at inappropriate times, but “always use said” is taking even that way too far.
Great points, Nigel. Thanks. I still prefer ‘said’ in most cases, but I’m thinking generally of reporting, not fiction. I know a guy who adds all kinds of emotion to his reporting which is entirely fabricated, and it’s interesting but I don’t like it. I want to stick to the facts as best as I can.
In terms of fiction, I feel that cliches often get a bad rap. Pat Rothfuss made one of the most successful fantasy novels ever by serving the reader cliches straight, twisted, and inverted, but mostly straight. Joe Abercrombie spoils some of the most complex and compelling characters ever by forcing them to leap away any time they get close to a cliche, resulting in a story that gets increasingly uninteresting as it works its way to an anti-Tolkien finale. So I’d have to echo Nigel Ray and say that “never use cliches” is also taking things way too far.
(I thought this out on my blog: http://chestertonianrambler.blogspot.com/2010/08/cliches-two-test-cases.html Feel free to argue with me there or here.)
Good post, sir. Perhaps fantasy elements or retold stories are not always cliches. Isn’t a cliche something that has lost a bit of its meaning due to overuse? I wouldn’t think you could say that boy-meets-girl-find-love-get married is a cliche. It’s a well-loved story. We tell stories over and again because we like them. Does that mean all of our favorite stories are cliches?
And of the story elements, is it the prostitute with the heart of gold cliche every time a bad guy repents and helps the hero? I’m not sure I’m saying what I mean there.
From Bull Durham,
Crash Davis: It’s time to work on your interviews.
Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: My interviews? What do I gotta do?
Crash Davis: You’re gonna have to learn your clichés. You’re gonna have to study them, you’re gonna have to know them. They’re your friends. Write this down: “We gotta play it one day at a time.”
Ebby Calvin LaLoosh: Got to play… it’s pretty boring.
Crash Davis: ‘Course it’s boring, that’s the point. Write it down.
I enjoy Elmore Leonard, so I thought I would appreciate his rules more than I really do. What I like best about his stories is that his characters never vapor lock. I particularly dislike a narrative driven by a character who moans in place, or who toggles between two unbearable choices: I have to do this; no, I can’t do it; but I have to; but I can’t. Boring. Leonard’s characters always burst out of their traps in an unexpected direction. That makes them a cliche, in a way — “they screwed with the wrong guy” — but it’s an entertainment that never goes dry for me.