Said Said Said - Discussion

Google something like 'using said in writing' or 'dialogue said' and you'll get a host of websites preaching about how you should be replacing the verb 'said' with as many possible variants as you can. Yelled, screamed, groaned, moaned, whispered, growled, etc. It's a shame these people never talked to a professional editor. 

'Said' is invisible. Said reads like punctuation, your brain doesn't turn it into anything more than an invisible, subconscious guide to who's saying the thing. And that's where its power is, how it effortlessly hooks the dialogue to the character without your brain ever bothering to consciously narrate the word. The same way you don't consciously narrate your periods as STOP at the end of each sentence. 

So why is that better than yelled, screamed, groaned, moaned, whispered, growled? For the same reason adverbs should be minimize: they are rife with 'telling,' instead of 'showing.'

Consider the two following examples: 

Example 1: Garry stepped forward, claws out, body hunched over, breathing heavy. He growled like an animal between clenched teeth, and approached the innocent kine. “You're dead.” 

Example 2: “You're dead,” Garry said. He stepped forward, claws out, body hunched over, breathing heavy. He growled liked an animal between clenched teeth, and approached the innocent kine. 

Example 3: “You're dead,” Garry growled. He stepped forward, claws out, body hunched over, breathing heavy, and approached the innocent kine.

Example 1 and 2 are the typical back-and-forth dialogue beats you'll find in a professionally edited story. Ex1 is when I use an action beat to assign dialogue, which is ideal, but when you're having a lot of actions or characters talking, or a lot of dialogue in general, you can use 'said' to reassign the mental connection of who's talking, like in Ex2. Your brain slides right over 'said,' but it's essential in making sure the reader knows who's talking when a scene gets complicated or long, or whatever reason that has lead to some ambiguity on who owns the dialogue. 

The issue is with Ex3. He 'growled' is a 'NOTICE ME' sign. I'm telling you what he said was a growl. I'm pressing pause on the book, stepping out of the book, getting in your face, and telling you he GROWLED that dialogue you just read. 

Which is fine if it's a rare thing that needs to be called out. If it's unusual for the character and scene, if it's something that deserves having extra attention drawn to it because it's important, then sure, use growled. Use yelled or screamed or groaned or moaned or whispered, but use them very rarely. Use them when it's something you would literally want you reader to pause on, and take notice of.   

But is it worth it? When assigning 'growled' as your dialogue attribution, you're telling the reader what happened. You're telling the reader 'this dialogue you just read? He growled it!' instead of letting context, action beats, and scene building craft that implication. You're telling, not showing.   

This applies doubly so for adverbs on dialogue. 'He said menacingly' is an even more jarring example of telling the reader what's going on. 

If you can create the context for him to 'growl,' then trust your readers to read the dialogue that way in their heads, and reap the reward of flowing dialogue. Flowing dialogue is sweet sweet candy that makes books a joy to read.

Thoughts? Disagree or Agree? 

Disclaimer: I'm re-editing My Little Ventrue right now (it's not professional-grade prose, IMO), and finding lots of weak prose. In particular, adverb abuse. Bleh! I'll write about adverbs in the future, no doubt.