From the Dialogue section of section of my book, Flogging the Quill, Crafting a Novel that Sells. is “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 “he said with” construction signals lazy, ineffective dialogue. I went to 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 craft 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 what the character’s emotion is, 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.
What if the example above went something like this instead:
He gazed at the painting, and then smiled. “Marvelous.”
Written that 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. Here are examples of “withage” from samples sent to me and from 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, although there’s nothing wrong with a “she said” now and then if it helps the rhythm of your narrative.
“Dialogue,” he said with such hope in his voice.
Nope. Show me with behavior that his emotion is one of great hope. What about this one?
“Dialogue,” she said with a grin that couldn’t help but make you smile back.
This is still “said with” and 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.
There’s more than a “said with” troubling the following narrative, including eyes that “dart” around.
“Dialogue,” he said with his eyes darting around looking for hidden spies in the bushes.
Instead, 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 driving in reverse.
“Dialogue,” Farnsworth said with the assurance of a bridge player laying down the ace of trump.
Isn’t his attitude clearer if you just turn it around?
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, isn’t it? Wouldn’t the reader get it if the narrative said this?
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.
“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 to just three words, and became more effective.
Following are more real-life examples of using “said with” to explain dialogue. In the physical book, I provide a blank line for readers to write out how they would show the emotions instead of telling about them with “with.”
I’m providing virtual lines for you to do the same here. It’ll mean more if you actually do the rewriting.
“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 clearer picture and crisper dialogue.
She giggled. “Dialogue.”
More examples from real manuscripts—in each case, think about how much more effective the dialogue portion would be if the action that characterizes it came first, and write your solution below it.
“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.
So, I say with determination, your dialogue will be far more effective 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.
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
© 2011 Ray Rhamey