I say don't say it with with

I have a pet peeve when it comes to a certain kind of description in dialogue. It's this type of statement:

He gazed at the painting. "Marvelous," he said with satisfaction.

My feeling is that this "he said with" construction signals lazy, ineffective dialogue for a number of reasons. I went to one of my favorite sources, Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Renni Browne and Dave King, to see what they have to say about it. While they didn't focus on the use of "with" in this way, it does fall within a no-no: explaining dialogue. Their position: don't do it. Mine, too.

For one thing, it's "telling," not showing. The example above is just that -- telling the reader the character's emotion, not showing the emotion.

Saying it with with is lazy writing because good dialogue shouldn't have to be explained. Both the words and the action surrounding it should show emotion and nuance.

For example, in the example above, what if it went something like this:

He gazed at the painting, then smiled and said, "Marvelous."

Written this way, I think the reader understands an even more complex array of emotion -- pleasure, admiration, satisfaction -- via the character's behavior without an iota of telling.

There's another thing that bothers me about the "said with"construction -- because it follows a line of dialogue, it often puts things, as my granny used to say, "Bassackwards." For example:

"Ants," he said with fear in his voice.

My view is that if you want a reader to take in a line of dialogue flavored by a character's emotion, the reader has to know how the line is delivered before the words come. Otherwise, the reader has to backtrack, and I don't think they do that. In the example, the reader needs to be shown, not told:

His eyes widened when he saw black specks marching in under the door, and his voice squeaked when he said, "Ants."

Here are examples from samples sent to me and client manuscripts:

"Dialogue," she said with a huge grin.

Clumsy. You say things with your mouth, for one thing. Instead:

A grin stretched across her face. "Dialogue."

Note that you don't need a "she said" when you use an action beat in this way.

"Dialogue," he said with such hope in his voice.

Nope. Show me with behavior that his emotion is one of great hope.

"Dialogue," she said with a grin that couldn't help but make you smile back.

A complicated explanation of dialogue. What if it went this way:

She said, "Dialogue," and then flashed a grin that couldn't help but make you smile back.

Lot of things troubling about this next one, including eyes that "dart" around.

"Dialogue," he said with his eyes darting around looking for hidden spies in the bushes.

How about:

His gaze darted over the bushes, looking for hidden spies. "Dialogue."

The following example tries to show me an attitude rather than tell me about it, but it's still bassackwards:

"Dialogue," Farnsworth said with the assurance of a bridge player laying down the ace of trump.

Isn't his attitude more clear if you just turn it around, i.e.

With the assurance of a bridge player laying down the ace of trump, Farnsworth said, "Dialogue."

Come to think of it, "assurance" is still "telling" here, isn't it? Wouldn't the reader get it if the narrative said:

Like a bridge player laying down the ace of trump, Farnsworth said, "Dialogue."

Another aspect of "said with" is that it suggests that characters do things that are not really possible, i.e.

"Dialogue," he said with a shrug of his shoulders.

Unless you're using sign language, the only part of your body that actually says things is your mouth. When characters say things with a shrug or a scowl or a look, it bothers me.

By the way, the example also exhibits over-writing: the phrase "of his shoulders" is not needed. People don't shrug with any other part of their anatomy, and it suffices to say:

He shrugged. "Dialogue."

Note that a nine-word bit of narrative dropped down to just three words in this case.

Here are more real-life examples of using "said with" to explain dialogue. Think about how you would show the emotions instead.

"Dialogue," Steve said with contempt.

"Dialogue," I said with a bit of irritation in my voice.

"Dialogue," Ralph said with disgust.

"Dialogue," he said with obvious pride.

"Dialogue," Peggy said with a little belligerence.

"Dialogue," she said with delight.

"Dialogue," he said with a dull incurious inflection.

"Dialogue," he said with pretended anger.

"Dialogue," he said with seriousness befitting the formality.

Then there are the ones that try to blend action with speaking in ways that don't really work.

"Dialogue," she said with a giggle.

Not really. People giggle when they giggle and speak when they speak, but not at the same time. Instead, separate the action for a more clear picture and crisper dialogue, i.e.

She giggled. "Dialogue."

Some more examples -- in each case, think about how much more effective the dialogue portion would be if the action that characterizes it came first.

"Dialogue," Andrea said with her face screwed up.

"Dialogue," Byron said with a sideways look at me.

"Dialogue," she said with a wicked grin.

"Dialogue," she said with a worried look

"Dialogue," she said with an admiring look.

"Dialogue," he said with just the hint of a grin.

"Dialogue," Susan said with a sigh.

"Dialogue," Pete said with a chuckle in his voice.

"Dialogue," she said with a frown.

"Dialogue," he said with a fixed stare.

"This is my dialogue," he said hesitantly.

That last one is a good example of lazy use of an adverb. Wouldn't it be more effective if it were something that showed the hesitation so the reader experiences it rather than reads about it? For instance,

"This is…" He swallowed and glanced at her face. "…my dialogue."

So, I say with determination, your dialogue will be far more effective -- and crisper -- if you show emotion rather than explain it, and place your illustrations before the dialogue so that the reader can apply the flavoring at the right time.

When I decide to harp on usages such as this, I do a search through my own manuscripts to see if I practice what I preach. I'm pleased to say that, in four novels, there was not a single instance of "said with." In my client files, there was one that had none, some that had a few, one that was littered with them, and so on.

My advice? Search for "said with" and "asked with" and see if you can't do a better job of showing rather than telling.

For what it's worth.

Ray

Free edit in exchange for posting permission. You send a sample that you have questions about and of which you'd like an edit. I won't post it without your permission.

ARCHIVES .

© 2006 Ray Rhamey