I may have mentioned that the mystery list I subscribe to has a variety of recurring topics. One that shows up regularly is the age-old question of whether it is ever under any circumstances appropriate to indicate the speaker by using any verb other than "said."

I know, the answer is pretty obvious, but it's amazing and sort of amusing how earnestly this gets batted back and forth on this list (and occasionally on my mystery writing list.) It is actually much funnier on the first one because that's the reader list. The funny part is, why would readers, by engaging in this debate, try to tell each other what we should like to read? You can almost understand writers passing around this sort of advice as part of the quest for the magic formula for publication, but why would readers bother? If you like or dislike certain elements of style, choose your reading material accordingly.

I don't know if this debate happens in non-genre writing, or in fact in any genre other than my own. The good folks at editorrent2 had an entry not long ago about dull verbs that don't add to the image in the reader's mind, and exhorted writers to choose the most precise word to convey their intended meaning--which tends to make me suspect which side they'd be on in this little debate.

Most amusing of all is the writer/editor (she wears two hats: a multiply-published author who also apparently works as an editor for a publishing house that markets directly to libraries) who insists that her pet peeve is animal attributions such as "he snarled" and "she purred."

It's only funny because I own one of her books and therefore I know for a fact that she uses animal attributions, as well as adverbs and a number of other techniques she says are her pet peeves "as an editor."

Oh yeah, I've called her on it. She's never responded and I sort of didn't expect her to--you will be vastly astonished to know that I just wanted her to know someone was onto her bullshit.

The argument in favour of "said" and only "said" is, it's supposedly invisible and therefore non-intrusive. People who argue in favour of only ever using "said" when you absolutely need a dialogue tag will argue that the actual content of the dialogue, that is, the words themselves, should be all anyone needs.

Right. Of course that's true.

Quick--in the line above, was I being sincere or sarcastic?

Would it be more obvious if I added a tone of voice by typing "Riiiiight. Of course that's true"?

My feeling is that the truly invisible words are the most precise ones. I don't notice non-said dialogue tags at all when they are words that convey a tone or an emotion that help create my mental impression of what's going on in the story. Sure, clumsy, poorly-chosen tags and obtrusive adverbs are distracting, but they tend to be symptoms of general problems in the story, and simply eliminating adverbs and converting all dialogue tags to "said" wouldn't fix it. You'd just end up with a shorter story. Possibly a less flouncy and annoying one, but I am willing to bet there would still be plenty of badly-chosen words there.

Robert B Parker, in his Spenser series, is the king of "said" only. He doesn't even use "asked," or even many question marks. Which is exactly as distracting as you're thinking it is when the detective character is going around interviewing people. Another problem is, in order to convey the emotion in his scenes, he ends up resorting to clumsy narrative to tell us what everyone is feeling. He has to do this because he denies himself the tools to convey characters' tones, and anyone who has ever had a conversation in English knows that the actual words themselves are never all there is to a conversation.

On the mystery writing list there is a member who writes screenplays, and she is adamant that words-only tell you all you need to know. One day I will ask her whether she is exclusively a writer of unproduced screenplays, because anyone who has ever read an interview about Captain Jack Sparrow knows Johnny Depp's delivery had everything to do with how that character turned out. If you simply read the screenplay it would be possible to understand why the writers thought of Jack as a completely different character.

The best example of misunderstanding the dialogue that I've encountered in a while is that of the pilot for The Rockford Files: Stephen J Cannell tells the story of how he showed the script to the studio bosses, who hated it. Among their complaints was the fact the character was such a jerk that even his own father hated him.

Okay, have you seen The Rockford Files? Have you heard the tones Jim and Rocky take with each other? Do you seriously believe there isn't deep affection between the two?

Yes, screenplays lack dialogue attributions at all, but what they do have, eventually, is actors and directors who can interpret the words and show the viewer what they mean. And in the production stage, someone has to decide what they're going to convey. I suspect at that point the writer's vision is not paramount.

I've noticed that even good sources--even the Stephen King book on writing--immediately goes to the silly place when arguing against non-said tags. The examples given tend to be "she expostulated," "he opined," and everyone's favourite, "they ejaculated." (Perfectly good word, just not used that way much anymore. It's a bit like when you refer to prophylactic antibiotics and everyone thinks you're somehow talking about condoms.) Likewise, the adverbs offered to prop up the "no adverbs!" argument are generally the most florid and ridiculous ones the person giving the advice can come up with.

Once again: the word that is invisible is the word that is best for the circumstances, the one that lets you stay immersed in the story because it is so well-chosen that it supports the dream of the story, rather than rattling into your consciousness with the awareness that it is wrong.

As a writer, I fall into the camp of "use the most appropriate word you can find." So, a lot of the time Jordy just says things. A lot of the time he gets no attribution because none is needed. But if it seems appropriate for him to mumble or whisper or confide, then by golly he's going to.

Easy for me to say, since I am unpublished. But there are lots of books out there that use one or another dialogue marker, and a lot of them are perfectly good books. As a reader, I see no reason to try and inflict stupid artificial rules on writers who are getting along fine doing what they do. As a reader, I just read them.