Okay, trying another review. Last time I apparently missed the mark pretty bad. So I'm going to try and be a better reviewer this time.

As always, this is my own opinion based on my own experiences as a writer. Take some of it, none of it, or all of it as you see fit.

Calling Myself Loyal by Gumball2

Synopsis

After the events of "The Last Roundup", Rainbow Dash questions her loyalty to her friends.

So, how do I start with this one? I guess I'll start by saying that this is a fun fic. The kind of fic where you really get into the story and just want to see how it plays out. As a slice of lifer, I adored the little bit of mystery that carried through the story. What exactly happened to the characters? How did Rainbow end up getting blamed for her friend's injuries, etc. etc.

As far as a complete one shot goes, this is excellent. In fanfiction, I run into a lot of stories that honestly weren't thought out enough. It's like the author focused on once scene and thought of the others as less important. This is a very bad habit to get into. Though there should be "climactic" scenes, every scene is important. I'm glad Gumball2 acknowledged this. His story is not only consistent in quality, but there were no weak bits that stood out to me. Thank you for taking the time to see that each scene has value.

Before I get into the little details, I need to say that this story has its own style of narration. To some, it'll be refreshing and I imagine to others it is frustrating. I myself found it frustrating at first, but it slowly grew on me as I got absorbed into the story. It's a past-tense first person, but it reads a little different than most first person I've read. That could honestly be just me as I almost never read first person. Whatever it is, I found that, after the initial shock, it worked very well with the story and enhanced the readability. I don't believe I would have enjoyed the story as much if Gumball2 hadn't written it in first person.

The only major gripe I had with this story was that the characterization was all over the place. At times, it's so spot on that I was completely and totally invested and absorbed into the characters and their situation. Then at other times I had to groan at how off it was. A big example of this would be Twilight's meltdown. I'll not spoil it for you, but the entire dialogue felt incredibly out of character for Twilight. I don't see Twilight blowing up at Rainbow for something that was obviously an accident, I just don't. That's just my opinion of course.

Rainbow Dash in general had the best characterization of them all. However, I felt there were places that the author went over the top theatrical on me. I felt like I was reading some whiny middle schooler's diary. I know it's an emotional situation, but it's just a tad much. Maybe switching out some words for less dramatic ones would help.

The reading quality of the fic was pretty good. What really sealed the deal for me was the way Rainbow's thoughts were presented. Gumball2's done a lovely job with that. It's the main reason I kept reading the fic and why I felt so invested in Rainbow's situation. So brownie points for that.

A side note: Get someone to edit this. There aren't a lot of errors, but there are a few easy ones that could be cleaned up for a better read.

When we get down to the writing, here I have a problem. By fanfiction standards, this is above average. But, by my own, personal standards, the entire story is just average. Yes, he gets the point across, yes the grammar errors are few and far between, but there is no literary spice. It's . . . oatmeal.

This kind of writing is what I see as a halfway point, marking the start of an intermediate author. He's got the basics down, he's even started adding in his own style, but hasn't got to the point where his story "pops" yet. This is more than likely a knitpick for most of you hobby writers, and frankly it's not a big deal at all. It's still a wonderful story. Feel free to ignore this next bit, but, if you want to move to the next level with your writing, here's what I suggest . . .

Said tags are apparently controversial. But-in my opinion-I think using stronger ones would help. Better yet, switch between using the tags and descriptions from the main character's POV or narration for a more rich, varied reading experience. You want to limit the use of said-tags so that they are sprinkles not the main dessert.

Get rid of color-based/species based descriptors. This is a mark of a novice writer. There are five senses and a lot more important details to focus on than just color. It's boring and adds nothing to the story but to tell you the color of their coat. What you want are descriptors that add to your characterization. What makes them them? Think about the main detail you'd notice about a character if you only saw them for a fleeting second. Bring out what makes them unique. Anyone can have brown hair, but how many characters have a great, bushy brown walrus mustache eating up half their face? If you focus on identifying features rather than color or species/gender, readers will remember the characters better and become more invested in them as a result.

Shake up your verbs. Use descriptive, active verbs rather than passive ones. Also, limit your use of "was." Any author can use "was" in a sentence, but how many can use "discombobulate?" Start thinking and reaching for words outside the norm, words to make your sentences pop and to really paint a picture for the reader.

In the same way, shake up your sentence structure/length. There's plenty of ways to say something other than Noun + Verb. It's hard at first, but the more you practice, the easier it'll become.

Overall, this is a wonderful fic. It has some proofing errors, but a quick edit should fix that up in a jiffy. A lot of fun to read, easy to immerse yourself in, and a great example of first person done well.Have a look for yourself and see what I mean. ^^

Official Rating: Recommended

Use stronger said-tags. Eliminate "said" when at all possible, instead choosing more descriptive tags like, "asserted" or "murmured."

Not this. This is possibly the worst advice one writer can ever give another. Never use descriptive saidisms like 'asserted' or 'murmured'. That's the clear mark of an amateur. It's telly, it's generally redundant, and it's demeaning to any half-awake reader.

There is no excuse for this. We regularly reject stories at The Royal Guard for abuse of this (rarely, if ever, for that alone, but you get the point). Anyone looking to get highlighted by the 'guard, EqD, et. al. would do well to err on the side of using minimal saidisms. Writing like this is why E. L. James cops so much flack for being a hack.

Beyond that, I just want to repeat that the story has a lot of proofing errors. Far too many.

-M

(Edited 17.27 15/08/'15 – Reference to SA removed by request)

4631646 I don't agree with you there. The problem with said tags is not their use, but their abuse. They are used as a crutch more often than not, and yes, should be avoided. However, you see them used frequently in popular professional works (such as Harry Potter), so don't give me that nonsense about it being non-professional. There are places for said tags, and places where they are not needed. It identifies how a line is read, and readers are so used to them that they hardly even register them when they read.

It's like saying you can't rhyme in poems. You know, there are times when rhyming enhances a poem and times when it does not. The same can be said of said tags. It is not some cut and dry "never use them" or "use them as much as you want" deal. Writing is an art. Said tags are tools. If you leave that tool on the shelf, you're limiting yourself. Understanding how and when to use them is the key. So no, I don't abide with that crap about never using them. It's like saying you can't use crayons in art because kindergartners color with them. There is a time and place for everything, and said-tags shouldn't be blacklisted just because they're abused.

And yes, there were a lot of proofing errors, but I felt that was more a result of poor editing than the author's ability to write.

4631646

Not this. This is possibly the worst advice one writer can ever give another. Never use descriptive saidisms like 'asserted' or 'murmured'. That's the clear mark of an amateur. It's telly, it's generally redundant, and it's demeaning to any half-awake reader.

I... disagree. There are several cases when you're writing where words like 'whispered,' 'murmured,' 'grumbled,' 'snarled,' 'pressed,' 'shouted,' and the like are so much more useful than 'said.' When a person is angry, for example, or on the verge of turning to violence and smashing someone's head in, using 'snarled' instead of 'said' conveys the character's emotion so much better without going into excess fluff or eating up words with unnecessary body language description.

Granted, 'asserted' is just awkward in pretty much all cases, but if a character is murmuring something, then they're murmuring. Why is that amateurish to state it as such? It does so much better than "said, his voice low and murmuring." It's shorter, cleaner, and says the same thing with one word instead of several.

But hey, maybe that's just me.

4631646

Never use descriptive saidisms like 'asserted' or 'murmured'. That's the clear mark of an amateur.

I take issue with calling this the clear mark of an amateur. Never? That's a very strong word. I have three books in front of me by various authors. I'm going to start reading them and mark the page where I encounter my first saidism.

Robin Hobb (Mad Ship) Page 1. Saidism: confided
Flip to random page. Found one on second flip.

Walter Jon Williams (Dread Empire's Fall) Page 5. Saidism: assured (Second page of chapter 1, following an all narrative prologue)
Flip to random page. Found one on first flip.

Robert Jordan (The Dragon Reborn) Page 14 (First line of dialogue). Saidism: muttered.
Flip to random page. Found one on my first flip.

I... think we can agree that Robin Hobb (Who by that point had published four books) is not an amateur (and I'm rather more recently familiar with her works, and can assure you that she does use saidisms quite frequently in her work.)

Nor is Robert Jordan an amateur.

Walter Jon Williams was unknown to me before I picked up this book, but the cover proclaims he's written at least one more and it was a NY Times Bestseller.

My methods for finding these was neither scientific nor exhaustive, but merely to serve to point out that even seasoned authors, with a number of publishing credits under their belt, resort to saidisms fairly frequently.

Sorry, but I do not accept that this is the mark of an amateur. There are more important elements of storytelling that are the mark of an amateur, such as over-reliance on cliches without the work to back them up, flat main characters with no more than a single dimension, limited descriptions, and I'm sure I could think of more, but I'd rather not spend more time on this.

Toodles.

4631690

It is not some cut and dry "never use them" or "use them as much as you want" deal.

No, it isn't. It's about learning when to use them and when not to. If, however, you can master not using them at all, then you have the full range at your command, which is ideally where any writer wants to be.

The point is that actively throwing in more of them on the false premise that it makes writing stronger is not a reasonable thing to suggest. It is double-plus ungood.

It's like saying you can't use crayons in art because kindergartners color with them.

No, it's more like your advice is to suggest crayons to a waterpainting class because some children like them.

4631699

There are several cases when you're writing where words like 'whispered,' 'murmured,' 'grumbled,' 'snarled,' 'pressed,' 'shouted,' and the like are so much more useful than 'said.' When a person is angry, for example, or on the verge of turning to violence and smashing someone's head in, using 'snarled' instead of 'said' conveys the character's emotion so much better without going into excess fluff or eating up words with unnecessary body language description.

A) I said nothing about words like 'shouted' or 'whispered'. These are not telly, and are not necessarily crutches or redundant.

B) Using snarled in that circumstance would be far more likely to weaken a sentence than strengthen it. The essence behind the dialogue is far more powerfully carried by context, tone, and description that it is by relying on a saidism as a crutch.

4631703 Are any of these people actively removing 'said' in favour of these words, or did they think it was the right word to begin with? That's a huge difference.

Yes, I was almost certainly overzealous in my terminology, but the 'to mark yourself as an amateur' terminology is more or less the words of the equally professional editors I learned it from and I repeated it without much thought. However, I stand by the principle.

To be specific, verbs describing physical properties are not particularly problematic: whispered, shouted, replied, etc. Neither are contextual verbs: asked, answered, replied, etc.

The problem verbs are the ones that give information inappropriate for the circumstance. Confided and assured are such examples. What everyone seems to be ignoring, though, is that much of the 'art' in writing comes from knowing when to break the rules. However, to know when to break the rules requires learning why those rules exist. Do you really think I never use such saidisms? Of course I do, but you'd better believe they are rare as rockinghorse shit and always supported by the context, style, and perspective of the story where they are used.

All that aside, however, it strikes me that you are making something of a pointlessly semantic point; it all depends on whether you're taking 'amateur' in its definition of 'not for profit' or merely 'unskilled or inexperienced'. You appear to be saying that it can't be amateur because people who get paid to write do it. This has very little to do with whether the writing itself is of good quality; writing for profit has a plethora of other skills associated with it that are not based on the quality of the prose.

I am unmoved on the subject. My advice to Gumball2 is to ignore that particular piece of advice given by Bluegrass: if you want to master dialogue mechanics, learn to use less saidisms so that you can decide for yourself where they are helpful and where they are a crutch. Using more of them will make your writing weaker.

I have little doubt that if he wishes to learn, he will ask me to make my case, and I will be happy to do it. I learned it from professionals, I kept it because it was successful, and others have found it suitably enlightening.

4631830
So where does "ejaculated" fit into that?

'Cause that was a pretty well received series that used it as a saidism, both critically and commercially.

4631830

All that aside, however, it strikes me that you are making something of a pointlessly semantic point; it all depends on whether you're taking 'amateur' in its definition of 'not for profit' or merely 'unskilled or inexperienced'.

I am not saying that at all. I simply turned to the closest resource I had available: three books - two I had read and enjoyed greatly, and one I had not read yet. I suppose it must seem like I was saying that, given a lack of other cues in my reply, however it was not my intent - not that that counts for much; "I didn't mean to hit you in the face!" doesn't count for much, either, when you have been hit in the face--you have still been hit in the face.

I'll add, though, that I looked through the books on my desk quickly because, yes, your overzealous wording did strike me in the wrong way and irritated me. I was rather hasty off the mark and didn't do more than peruse and look for saidisms (which both whispered and shouted are) because it struck me as being overly snippy and even damaging. And so, I apologize in turn for being overly snippy.

I will say that:
"Never use anything but 'said' when you must use a dialogue tag" without the caveat of "break this rule when you feel it would be appropriate" is as bad a piece of advice as "replace all dialogue tags with saidisms," as many inexperienced writers will take that to heart and work over hard to avoid even the hint of a saidism where one might have the right impact at the right time.

Some may take that to the point of being dry in their writing because they did not think to account for artistic license, or learned this caveat-free declaration as their first writing lesson, and that first lesson is often the hardest to shake. Some may eventually find that attempting to adhere to such rules sours their taste for writing, and they leave off of it entirely.

I suppose I'm saying: take care of making definitive declarations. Some people do listen and take those declarations to heart.

Also, I'm sorry for hitting you in the face.

4631592

Thank you for taking the time to read and review my fic. I appreciate it very much.

4631646
4631690
4631699
4631703
4631830
4631840
4631893

I wasn't expecting a discussion of this scale, but I feel I should put at least a little input. At the time of writing this fic (which at this point was well over a year ago), I was aware about the pitfall of saidisms. Aside from "asked", "answered", and the occasional "replied" I did everything I could to avoid using them because, based on what I learned, they weakened my prose.

I'm glad to have read this thread because all of you have gave me something to consider going into the future. Thank you.

I probably shouldn't step in at this point, but speaking as somebody who's trying to become a published author, this:

Use stronger said-tags. Eliminate "said" when at all possible, instead choosing more descriptive tags like, "asserted" or "murmured." Better yet, take switch between using the tags and descriptions from the main character's POV or narration for a more rich, varied reading experience. You want to limit the use of said-tags so that they are sprinkles not the main dessert.

and this:

Never use descriptive saidisms like 'asserted' or 'murmured'. That's the clear mark of an amateur. It's telly, it's generally redundant, and it's demeaning to any half-awake reader.

are both highly polarizing statements in the writing world.

And they're both close to being wrong.

Here's the truth that most writers will tell you: said should be invisible. Said is your friend. Said is the easiest dialogue you can use.

But you do need variety.

If you use said to tag every single piece of dialogue, then it will be noticed. It's less annoying than tagging every single piece of dialogue with a saidism, but it's still up there. That's why you should aim for a variety of structures. If you must tag, tag with said, but include some saidisms. And offer variety of structure by using action beats. Then your saids, exclaimeds, querieds, etc. become less noticeable because they're not happening with regular frequency. It's the regularity and similarity that kills prose (unless you're doing poetic prose which is a beast of another color), not the tagging itself.

Well, since everyone is doing it, I might as well give my opinion. Use 'said' if necessary. If the character is simply stating something or whatever, 'said' usually does the trick. Only use something else (retorted, remarked, opined, et cetera) when it most benefits the prose. Otherwise, always using 'said' can be quite boring.

In The Lord of the Rings, 90% of all tags are 'said', yet Tolkien also uses muttered, remarked, returned, and asked pretty frequently, too. So... yeah.

4631840 I assume you're talking about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I find that funny because I've only ever heard that point mentioned out of mockery.

4632231

If you use said to tag every single piece of dialogue, then it will be noticed.

But that's conflating the situation with an entirely different issue. If you use 'said' as a dialogue tag where necessary then it won't get noticed. Overuse is what causes the issue, and weakening your tags with saidisms is misunderstanding what the problem is to begin with.

Socratic reasoning: if there are authors who use 'said' almost exclusively (setting aside contextual requirements like 'asked' and 'answered'), then 'but you do need variety' is clearly false. Off the top of my head, I refer to James Lee Burke and Kelley Armstrong. Both of these spring to mind because they are authors who are excellent writers as much as they are storytellers.

To quote from Kelley Armstrong:

Someone told me x is a rule of writing. Is that true?
There are no rules in writing (except "tell a good story" but that should go without saying.) Instead there are guidelines—ways that most writers do things and that the average editor and reader seems to like.
Examples of guidelines? Here's one: minimize your use of adverbs. Here's another: whenever possible use "said" and "asked" as dialogue tags, instead of something more flowery ("wailed," "bemoaned," "snarled," "blubbered" etc) What if, as a writer, you find a lack of adverbs and the
constant use of "said" unbelievably dull and the sign of an unimaginative mind? Then ignore those guidelines. You'll find NYT bestselling novelists who do. So long as the rest of your writing is exceptionally strong, you might be able to get away with it. Guidelines exist to guide
the writer. They are not hard-and-fast rules.

You can't reasonably bemoan one extreme position and then make an absolute claim that does not withstand scrutiny. You only need variety if you're using too many tags in the first place, and that is a separate issue.

You only need variety if you're using too many tags in the first place, and that is a separate issue.

Which is why I stated:

That's why you should aim for a variety of structures. If you must tag, tag with said, but include some saidisms. And offer variety of structure by using action beats.

I'd bet that the authors you list use action beats among their "saids". So that, again, their use of said is, ultimately, minimal in the relative structure of their story.

4633477

I'd bet that the authors you list use action beats among their "saids". So that, again, their use of said is, ultimately, minimal in the relative structure of their story.

Of course. That's more or less my point.

4631690
What you're saying there is all well and good, but what you said in your review was

Use stronger said-tags. Eliminate "said" when at all possible, instead choosing more descriptive tags like, "asserted" or "murmured."

You're both stating preference as a rule without a backing argument/explanation where it matters, i.e. right at the start.

4633472

You can't reasonably bemoan one extreme position and then make an absolute claim that does not withstand scrutiny.

You probably realize this, but I think a big cause of everyone coming out so strongly against your comment is that you did exactly what you're advising against here. It would have been better to include in your original comment the caveats and reasoning you offered in later ones, rather than leaving it at "never" and "this kind of thing will serve to keep you out of feature groups".

4633683 Yeah, it was a knee-jerk reaction to the reviewer, and not exactly the right tone to be used by others. It wasn't meant for anyone else, but it wasn't presented in a way that was appropriate for that end.

That said, the line where I explicitly offer advice is a lot more general than I think people are giving it credit for: "Anyone looking to get highlighted by the 'guard, EqD, et. al. would do well to err on the side of using minimal saidisms[emphasis added]." 'Would do well' not 'you must', 'to err' rather than 'it is correct to', and 'minimal saidisms' not zero.

That's hardly extreme, but it doesn't excuse me for coming out of the gate all pissed off at Bluegrass – and I really was.