Dialogue is so awkward in novels with all the "he said, she said" repeated throughout...

I think you better quit.

All you have to do is just omit all of the "he said, she saids." If there are quotation marks then it's immediately assumed that they're speaking. You only really need to do it once.

This is an amateur mistake OP, I don't really know why you're suggesting it's a regular thing

>JR
>Ulysses
>Austen
>Zola
Get it together man

>This but I wasn't use Light Novels

so tired

must sleep

There's also something to be said about the *quality* of what's being said. If it's clever writing, I don't mind grappling with some awkward dialogue tags that scan slowly.

The same is true for non-trash English writing, which you should try reading.

There are various ways to address this, but I've learned very early on that it's annoying and monotonous for the reader (or at least me, personally) when I'm reading a conversation with excessive 'he said/she said'. I go about it a different way.

>A somewhat middle-aged man talking to a young woman

"You got daddy issues, or somethin'?" The deep, gravelly voice had a smile in it, reflected by the one that shone at her across the diner's table.
"Still chasing young skirts?" In both word and face, the higher pitched voice replied with an equally amused grin. The conversation had been ongoing for coming up on an hour, they weren't sure how many cups of coffees they'd had but needless to say the two were very much enjoying one another's company.
"Alright, alright, easy now. So you were saying about your co-worker-?"
"Yeah, Sandy! So she tried the same site, right?" Eager to continue the story, he could barely finish the final syllable. "The guy's picture turned out to be, like, 20 years old! Mirror on top, salt and pepper on the sides... mostly salt... and maybe half a dozen teeth with none in the front." The man across from her, to be fair with a little bit of 'salt and pepper' himself, mostly pepper, was already bucking his head back however attempting to stifle his laughter with a large, calloused hand over his mouth. He could suddenly smell the cologne he'd dabbed on his face and the back of his neck before leaving the house an hour and a half ago.

"Y'know, yer pretty HOT fer an ol' guy..."
"Ahhhhh, go on!" Nearly spilling some of his drink on the bar they'd been drinking the night away at, he leaned back in disbelief, then put on a show of an overdramatic woman in a B-movie acting overly embarrassed, the backs of his fingers coming to the edges of his jaw. "You'll make me BLUSH!"
To this, his date for the evening, or rather, now well into the night, roared out with slightly cackled laughter, but to his ears charming none the less, and he adored being able to make her laugh so. He could feel the years turning back with each bounce to her chest as her head hung back in revelry. Though she couldn't see his gaze on her bosom, she knew it were there, having gotten used to it in their short time together, and somehow enjoyed being so clearly desired.

>End

Alright, so there's an example. Describe the voice as deep or high-pitched, say 'man' or 'woman', specify 'young' or 'old'. The occasional he or she is ok but don't let it become monotonous. Also, once you've got the conversation going, you could forgo description of who's speaking altogether. When it's established that it's only two people talking, then just have them talk, and leave description out of it unless something changes or someone does something.

If you really can't think of anything to do but put 'he said' or 'she said', then this...

I just never notice either way in good English books

That's the point of good style. You don't notice it.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE HE SAID SHE SAID BULLSHIT

This actually is the opposite of the correct solution. Strong dialogue should suggest both the speaker, their tone, and their behavior without the use of all this descriptive clutter. If the dialogue isn't strong enough to suggest the things that you spend all these extra words describing, then the "he said" approach is at least superior because those words can be glossed over by the reader in favor of conversational flow, which your sample has none of.

I like to have a lot of description, and sometimes during conversations things happen. Actions, changes in scenery, little tidbits to breathe more life, and so on and so forth. I often get clear visuals in what I'm depicting, and I want to depict the visuals reasonably well. I've already gotten half a dozen books finished thus far, a seventh one is about a quarter finished probably. My style will likely improve in time, but I think I've pretty well established what my style is. Dialogue can flow, but I don't want to force it to do so by limiting my description, but at the same time I think I've done well in not going overboard with the description either. This, for me, seems like a happy medium.

I'm not a best-selling author, but for someone so new (first book finished less than a year ago) I do believe I'm doing quite well. I've gotten eight ratings/reviews thus far, and if memory serves it's three 5-star, two 4-star, one 3-star, and two 2-star. I have reason to believe that those 2-star reviews were dishonest but for now we'll assume they're genuine; it comes to an average of 3.75 stars. I find this to be a very acceptable start, and I truly believe it will improve. The little excerpt I gave was simply given off the top of my head, written in the moment, with no backstory of the characters beyond apparently possibly meeting on a dating site, and going at FAR faster a pace than I'd typically like for such a short amount of time. My writing typically goes at a slow pace, day by day, though of course I'll eventually write something that jumps about a little bit more I think. I've got lots of things in mind, lots of ideas, some potentially good, and some that I worry will be utterly terrible but I won't know until I get it written and see what people think.

>lets change the contents of the reality our book is displaying to make ot easier for the readers who exist in a totally different reality
Yeah, kys

I'd also like to say that suggesting a 'correct solution' in terms of writing is a very difficult thing, possibly outright incorrect. Writing styles can differ wildly, and what works for some people might not work for others, likewise I don't think there's any particular style or rule in writing that ALL readers can agree on. Variables in description, perceived flow in dialogue, I mean what one reader might love another one could hate. One's trash is another's treasure? Perhaps one's 'descriptive clutter' is another's 'enjoyable visualization'.

All depends on outlook, really. 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is one saying that I definitely believes to ring true. When I was a teenager and even in my early teens I was a big fat butterball, but there were chicks that found me desirable. Surprisingly, I was quite sexually active in spite of being overweight, possibly even obese at the time. Similarly, I have to admit to being something of a chubby chaser; I'd sooner make a double-take on a woman ten or twenty pounds overweight than I would a perfectly slim and fit supermodel, and that's just the truth. I prefer a tough and outdoorsy woman more than something with a slim waist, done-up nails, lots of make-up, and hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of products in her hair. I believe that assessment also goes with writing; there are many different types and preferences, whether talking about the written word or women.

In fact I've already got something of a fan who says he'll buy WHATEVER books I release because he loves my writing so much, but also I've been told that my style of writing is sort of 'old', like it's out of the 50s or something, even though I'm only in my 20s. So I think it's foolish to try and alter my style based on someone's preferences, because chances are, that change would likely end up going against the preferences of another. Someone suggests I put more cream in the cups of coffee I serve, but then someone EXTREMELY intolerant to lactose comes along and has to spend a couple hours on the shitter.

this is bad

It's not difficult to write with context. Give actions character elsewhere. For scenes with dialogue it should be all about the dialogue.

Some advice. If you think you have to cite your character in order to defend against anonymous criticism, you've already failed.

You're intentionally missing the point of what I said.

Also, to both of you, this shit is like sophomoric writing advice. Not like it applies universally, but it definitely applies to that sample.

>"Ahhhhh, go on! You'll make me BLUSH!"
Is strong dialogue and it makes it clear that he's trying to act melodramatically, so the description is redundant while also seriously breaking flow.

Or how about
>"Yeah, Sandy! So she tried the same site, right?" Eager to continue the story, he could barely finish the final syllable. "The guy's picture turned out to be, like, 20 years old!
Don't you see how the description undermines the dialogue? He's talking fast, so fast he almost misses a syllable, but instead of letting the reader hear this, we interrupt it with a long sentence. Even "Eagerly, he said 'The guy's picture turned out to be, like, 20 years old!'" would have better flow while also saying the same basic thing.

It's possible to insert description without interrupting flow. This sample even has strong dialogue, but instead it wants to cut the conversation up to say things that are already mostly inherent in the dialogue. Anyway I don't mean to be harsh but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from.

Actions happen during dialogue sometimes, but in that little except from nothing I had to try and give SOME visuals to the characters to make it interesting. Even if it's just a couple paragraphs, what's the point of writing or reading it if you have no idea who the characters are, why they've met, and so on and so forth? Might only be an example of being able to use things other than 'he said' and 'she said', but that doesn't mean it should be bland writing of ONLY dialogue without a drop of context other than "middle-aged man and young woman".

I don't know what you mean by 'cite your character', but I'm just having a conversation here. user responded and gave his opinion, so I responded with my own, and then backed it up with a few facts such as ratings. If you're seeing it as an argument, then that's ok, we'll say I lost hard and drop it there. I don't go on the internet to argue or to claim winners and losers. If that's your prerogative then so be it. There's no offence or defence as far as I'm concerned. Just conversation.

Make characters say interesting things in order to keep things interesting. Give them individual voices to make them characters and keep things differentiated. It's about negating he said/she said, not replacing them with tons of details.

Heavy amounts of description cutting up dialogue with no higher purpose just sounds like someone "trying" to write.

>Even "Eagerly, he said 'The guy's picture turned out to be, like, 20 years old!"
I assume you mean 'she'. The two sentences you point out in that 2nd bit of greentext is from the girl. If it's in the same paragraph, it's from the same person. When it's a new paragraph, it is the other person, unless otherwise suggested. The reason I put in 'Eager to continue the story, he could barely finish the final syllable' is because in the last sentence he made...

>"Alright, alright, easy now. So you were saying about your co-worker-?"

Notice the dash thing at the end? It means he was cut-off, barely able to finish the sentence before she quickly jumped in to finish her story which evidently started before this 'excerpt' began. In case the reader is unfamiliar with using dashes to signify being cut-off verbally, I added it in description, and it also gives the visual of a young woman happily sharing in some gossip. Wide-eyed, perky, talking fast, and so on and so forth.

This is very amateur. People should not imitate it.

You make it sound like when people are talking in a book, that's the only thing that should be going on, and all other aspects should be minimized to let the dialogue flow as smoothly as possible. Well what if it's while during a conversation that I decide to add little things, like the smell in the air, the sound of the smooth floor under sneakers, seeing a wave in her hair as she jolts her head sideways at a car honking, or what have you? Who's to say a writer must leave all things alone when it comes time to talk? For that matter, when is it time to talk? If two characters have more than a couple lines of dialogue each does that mean those four lines should be as smooth as possible with nothing in-between, or is it ok to break up those four individual lines with a sentence or two in between?

This all seems a lot like "that's not how I right, THIS is how I write, so I think that's how you should write, too". Also, let's not forget, it's something I pulled out of my ass in the moment just to show how you can avoid he said/she said. I've not had time to figure out the characters, how they actually look, how they're getting along, their pasts, or anything. It's just two stand-alone paragraphs that I tried to give a good amount of detail so that the reader can get SOME visuals, SOME context, and so on. It's not much, but there's a little.

If I'd have done things your way, well, it'd just be dialogue and you might not know that the male has some greying in his hair, might not know that the female enjoys being desired, might not know that they met on a website, that the guy she met before him had aged significantly worse and was probably much older, that they got lost in coffee as they conversed, and indeed if I'd have left it to just dialogue for "you'll make me BLUSH!" without adding any description whatsoever, well... If I were to give that line to a hundred readers who also happened to know how to draw, and then told them all to draw how they saw the scene, I dare say there would have been a whole lot of variety. In what I seen in my mind, now that I've given the greatest run-on sentence ever written, he had the backs of his fingers against the sides of his jaw in an over-the-top fashion. That's how my character acted, an action that HE made, this fictional being that I am giving life with words... so why shouldn't I tell the reader what he does? It's a part of who he is, it's a mannerism he went with, it's his sense of humour, so for the reader who is getting to know him, why should I deny them that specific motion?

I've only been writing books for less than a year so your assessment at me being an amateur is literally correct, and it is also good for people to not imitate others unless it's being done ironically. I wouldn't mind getting to know Hunter S. Thompson's work so as to try my own joking rendition of his style, but if I ever do try that it likely won't be for a few years yet.

I'm a big fan of Gaddis, where descriptions and dialogue are for the most part kept separate. I'm not really thinking about communicating character via action with respect to this thread's topic since the main concern seems to be avoiding "___ said." I would simply use things like "he turned," or "he groaned," and very sparingly, to clarify speakers. All that needs to be done, at the simplest level, to get around "___ said" is to bring the subject back into the reader's view, as directing the spectator's eye in a painting works. I like letting details fall into one another and having characters pick up each other's movements, but I wouldn't do it to communicate the bulk of their personality. It would reveal their personality, but only as slightly as a turn or a groan in conversation does *in connection* to the words being spoken. Appearances I'd put elsewhere. Is the character wearing a scarf? Sure, but I would not describe every stitch in the midst of a conversation. I would rather they simply unwrap it or toy with it or tighten it in service of something being said at the moment.

Imitation is a great way to learn anything, not just writing. Just keep your imitations to yourself, treat them like figure drawing practice, not like finished paintings to hang up or sell. But do imitate. It's the best way to figure out what you really want your style to be like.

Sounds like a fair assessment, and good call on replacing 'said' with... adverbs? Well, descriptive words, rather than just 'said'. I also believe that the basic he/she pronoun should be replaced as well otherwise it'll get monotonous, and of course I don't mean it in the obnoxious SJW sense... fucking 'they'. Special snowflakes...

Oh so you're a teenager. It all makes sense now.

>The deep, gravelly voice had a smile in it
>voice had a smile in it

This is unironically one of the worst lines I've ever read.

I come out on the more descriptive side of this debate these days, but not in all cases. The first book I wrote contained pretty much no description within or around the dialogue and was strictly he said/she said stuff because that's how I thought (and was told by people like Stephen King in On Writing) that that was how it was supposed to be done. But I really came to dislike this method the more I studied other writers who could weave description into the dialogue well, because stand alone dialogue is often boring. It's best when subtle though.

IMO, I would call this example from above:

>"Yeah, Sandy! So she tried the same site, right?" Eager to continue the story, he could barely finish the final syllable. "The guy's..."

... not a good example mainly because it's drawing attention to the dialogue that is being interrupted to give details about the dialogue. It also stops instead of flows between it.

I find inserting description and other elements into the dialogue to be more effective when it flows right through. Forgive if made up example is shitty:

>"What is this place?"
>"Well," she said on her return to the cabinet, "it's a camp for blah blah blah," grabbing three towels then turning around fast to try and catch him.

To me dialogue seems much more alive when you can insert fibers of action into it, and since I began trying to get better at writing dialogue, I've experimented with various ways to do this. Some people obviously just don't like this though, so I'm not ultimately sure.

Another thing I like that Pynchon often does in his later books is just not saying "said."

>"I'd been fooled," Sasha nodding, mock-serious. "Toughest..."

I like this approach too, but I can see how it could throw the reader off at times.

These are just some thoughts and opinions I haven't really put into words before but try to figure out on my own in the process from time to time. Thoughts?

If you can't write good dialogue in a book, you sure as hell shouldn't be writing it in a script. I can just imagine (sternly) and (cheerfully) before every line. Stage directions are for chumps.

For some reason you're making it sound like description and flow have to be at odds with each other. The truth is that you can describe things all you want and still have great flow. You could stick two paragraphs in between each line of dialogue and still have good flow. It's all about what you describe and how you describe it.

I didn't actually intend to respond to you here btw: but was on my phone and didn't want to type into the box at the top.

I'm in my 20s.

Never heard a voice and knew they were smiling/cheerful without having to look at them?

Fucking good post, and I definitely think it's going to affect my writing, or at least I'll make a conscious effort to see flow in dialogue. Like I said, the couple paragraphs I gave were just tossed in, just showing how not to use he said/she said which is quite a simple matter. I'm a good writer, it's taken months for my modesty to accept it but I have accepted it. Not great; I'm a looooong ways from making any 'great' work of writing, if it ever comes, but I definitely think for starting out I'm doing quite good.

That's what it sounds like in here; when there is dialogue then it's time for description to shush. Like description is a child running around and giggling at everything it sees, while dialogue is the adults talking, and children should remain quiet when the adults are talking. Allowing dialogue and description to flow together should not be looked down upon, and suggesting it's wrong to allow much if any description during dialogue is incorrect seems in and of itself incorrect. It's restricting, but writing is a very freeing experience.

On the note of flowing, it can also be fun to have choppy moments. Intensity, fast-paced, people speaking over each other, cutting in, sentences being cut short, an oncoming threat or otherwise a situation that must be faced, limited time to consider how to address the issue, but he's already there, "Can I take your order, madame?" Silence. A deer in the headlights. Panic setting in. Heart racing. People looking. Shouldn't have come tonight. Shouldn't have come. Everyone is looking, and she shouldn't have come.

I dunno, I guess that sort of evolved into an example of how things can be mixed up. I mean, how many damn commas did I use? That's not proper, in fact most would probably say it's downright ridiculous, but I think it's quite interesting if the context is right. The right setup, the right mood, and so on and so forth. Sometimes in writing, I think rules are optional. Hell, even try breaking the 4th wall, why not?

If that's your problem, why not write a play? You can write as much dialogue as you want.

Yeah but its pretty easy to fuck that up in mangoo that is dialogue heavy. Death Note has entire chapters try and reach the next plot point or solve some kind of puzzle, and its just panels and panels of text with nothing going on other than L doing something weird.

That said you can leave out the context but also give some direction to how its meant to be performed if you write a play.

Yes, you are disabled

>That's what it sounds like in here; when there is dialogue then it's time for description to shush.
Then you missed the point of people's criticism. The point was that the mixture of description and dialogue in the original sample did not flow well, but there would be a way to mix that description in with the dialogue that does flow well. Flow and description do not have to be at odds, but if you're an amateur then they tend to be. That's why the advice to just use "he said" is good for amateurs, it keeps flow intact, at least.

>He's never read Dostoevsky, Nabokov, or Hemingway

Is this too minimalist for you OP? I'm trying to use a focused third person narrative, but I want to be able to intersperse thought and action without cluttering speech -- really only using it when there would be a natural pause in conversation. Some of the descriptions are bad, I realize that a breeze can't tug an umbrella, I'd be interested in hearing a link from the waiter's coats in the breeze to the table though, into his own monologue.

I'm guessing the above post is a little too much. This is what I meant to include.

Lina approves this post

not OP but I just want to say I liked that a lot

I like it

Thanks anons. I'm basically trying to imitate Hills Like White Elephants with a bit more monologue. Dialogue is actually my weakest part, because my way of speaking is so illogical and my memory for events is so poor, I literally have to shoot out random lines and work by trial and error until I think there's a logical response to it and thread things back and forth. Sometimes I'm worried I have alzheimers but I know it's just my learning disorders.