Using the word 'said'.

[grahamsealby]

Krista raised an interesting subject on using the word 'said' when writing dialogue. I don't like, and don't use I, he/she, or they said, trying to identify whose speaking. It is plainly boring to read a story where dialogue is interrupted countless times by the phrase He/She said. I'm told that editors and publishers require the phrase before going to print.

Nonetheless, I don't use the phrase in any of my writing. You can structure dialogue so that it's obvious who is talking. All it takes is a bit of skill. After several lines, you can insert a person's name as an identifier. For instance, if 'Peter' is talking to 'Mary', you can say 'Thanks, Mary, that's a great idea'. If you abandon the phrase He/She said in any manuscript, the word count would greatly diminish. I claim it's unnecessary, and I don't know why publishers insist upon its usage.

What do you guys think?

[William King]

I took a look at the last chapter I just published. I used I said three or four times and I used alternatives like, he replied, around three times. For the rest of the dialogue the speaker was identified through the narrative action. In summary, I would do what I do, limit I said, use alternatives, replied, asked, smiled, and use narrative action to identify who is speaking. I wouldn't say I said is redundant.

[Jason Rimbaud]

4 hours ago, grahamsealby said:

Krista raised an interesting subject on using the word 'said' when writing dialogue. I don't like, and don't use I, he/she, or they said, trying to identify whose speaking. It is plainly boring to read a story where dialogue is interrupted countless times by the phrase He/She said. I'm told that editors and publishers require the phrase before going to print.

Nonetheless, I don't use the phrase in any of my writing. You can structure dialogue so that it's obvious who is talking. All it takes is a bit of skill. After several lines, you can insert a person's name as an identifier. For instance, if 'Peter' is talking to 'Mary', you can say 'Thanks, Mary, that's a great idea'. If you abandon the phrase He/She said in any manuscript, the word count would greatly diminish. I claim it's unnecessary, and I don't know why publishers insist upon its usage.

What do you guys think?

I tend to agree with you on most of the things you said. You should always try to find ways to identify who's speaking. And including the character name, in the dialogue, is a great one. 

That being said, . I don't agree that it's unnecessary. 

It has wildly been accepted and agreed upon by most in the professional field that he said/she said is nearly invisible to the majority of the readers. The idea is to focus on what the dialogue is as opposed to lazily adding gasped, exclaimed, etc etc. 

In addition, in my writing, I'll have multiple characters talking at the same time. I'm abused to having two conversations between three people happening in a car drive. So the use of he said/she said, Sean said/Eric said, provides clarity for the reader. 

The publisher wants the writer to focus on the actual words and dialogue to convey what emotion is needed without relaying on words like angrily, lustfully, and pretty much anything ending in LY.

Because I suck at writing, I use all of those words but I use he said/she said the most. I'd hate to actually do the math for even one chapter. But I tend to write/right tons of dialogue with quick responses with multiple characters. 

I am currently, attempting to forgo the use of he said by using other methods. For example. 

Sean looked at him with a smirk. "You're an idiot." 

Michael swayed slightly, a blank stare on his face. "Well, you're blinded by beer goggles." 

"I'm not the one that can't stand straight, am I?"

I don't think that is proper, but since I don't care, I continue to do all the wrong things in my writings.  

But I do love your topic selections.  

[Ron]

You may look back on the subject: Said. @CassieQ previously brought this subject up for discussion.

SAID

[William King]

8 hours ago, Ron said:

You may look back on the subject: Said. @CassieQ previously brought this subject up for discussion.

SAID

In essence, that thread stated: It's considered more effective to use the narration to indicate the mood and tenor of the speech rather than a speech tag. I agree.

[grahamsealby]

On 2/24/2026 at 8:25 AM, Jason Rimbaud said:

I tend to agree with you on most of the things you said. You should always try to find ways to identify who's speaking. And including the character name, in the dialogue, is a great one. 

That being said, . I don't agree that it's unnecessary. 

It has wildly been accepted and agreed upon by most in the professional field that he said/she said is nearly invisible to the majority of the readers. The idea is to focus on what the dialogue is as opposed to lazily adding gasped, exclaimed, etc etc. 

In addition, in my writing, I'll have multiple characters talking at the same time. I'm abused to having two conversations between three people happening in a car drive. So the use of he said/she said, Sean said/Eric said, provides clarity for the reader. 

The publisher wants the writer to focus on the actual words and dialogue to convey what emotion is needed without relaying on words like angrily, lustfully, and pretty much anything ending in LY.

Because I suck at writing, I use all of those words but I use he said/she said the most. I'd hate to actually do the math for even one chapter. But I tend to write/right tons of dialogue with quick responses with multiple characters. 

I am currently, attempting to forgo the use of he said by using other methods. For example. 

Sean looked at him with a smirk. "You're an idiot." 

Michael swayed slightly, a blank stare on his face. "Well, you're blinded by beer goggles." 

"I'm not the one that can't stand straight, am I?"

I don't think that is proper, but since I don't care, I continue to do all the wrong things in my writings.  

But I do love your topic selections.  

Your comment that 'He/She said is nearly invisible to most readers' I find a bit curious. If the readers are ignoring the descriptive phrase, then why do publishers insist upon it? As well as writing, I'm a prolific reader, and I've noticed that many authors don't include the phrase but rely on creative dialogue to tell the reader whose talking.

[Jason Rimbaud]

18 minutes ago, grahamsealby said:

Your comment that 'He/She said is nearly invisible to most readers' I find a bit curious

That is the claim the publishers make.  In all my research in an attempt to answer your question, that is what I found in multiple sources.  But I am not a publisher or editor so the reason behind it I’m not sure. 
 

I also have no desire to be published so I continue to use what I think is best. I think it’s more of legacy thinking than any real reason. The guy who trained them said it so now they are telling you to say the same thing.   
 

if you want endless amusement, give the same chapter to two different editors and watch them disagree with the others suggestions.  Ten years or so I did and it was nearly three weeks of getting edits from one, sending those edits to the other and watch most of the edits change for one reason or the other.  
 

and times change, with self publishing becoming more fashionable, many authors might be bypassing publishers so that practice could become less prevalent in modern writings.  I don’t know, I’m not sure when I read a book that wasn’t ten to twenty years old. I can’t think of a single author I read that is new.  
 

 

[Krista]

9 hours ago, grahamsealby said:

Your comment that 'He/She said is nearly invisible to most readers' I find a bit curious. If the readers are ignoring the descriptive phrase, then why do publishers insist upon it? As well as writing, I'm a prolific reader, and I've noticed that many authors don't include the phrase but rely on creative dialogue to tell the reader whose talking.

It may come down to the fact that reading comprehension differs dramatically, and they're attempting to be more universally easy. Dialog tags are easy. You know when someone is finished speaking for the moment when you see them. Even if 'said' becomes distinctly invisible to most people, some people may need that roadmap to make it to the next sentence. Editors and Publishers may insist on tagging dialog a certain way, it could be a preference.

Or, they may have run into a lot of writing that has 'talking head syndrome,' where they adopt a policy that requires edits be made to include more dialog tags. 

Dialog tags and how you do them is mostly stylistic. People will have differing opinions on them all day. I like dialog tags, simple, and repetitive. Said, countered, asked, etc. I would much rather the tone and what information be perceived more in the writing within the dialog, and in the writing leading up to and following it. 

If you have to convey emotion through dialog tags, then you lose me. I should know the character is yelling, screaming, joking, asking, telling a lie, crying, etc well before the.. "he cried..." told me. And you don't need to be double-barrel confirming it either. If the character is obviously shouting, swearing, crying, etc, you don't need to follow that up with, "he cried..." We already know, or should know. 

But that is opinion. I like Said because it does disappear. I don't notice it when I read. Being there is a comfort, sure, because the brain sees it, but it doesn't fire on it. 

It's like the direction on shampoo bottles, the brain knows it is there, but we all know how to wash our hair, surely. 

[ReaderPaul]

5 hours ago, Krista said:

It may come down to the fact that reading comprehension differs dramatically, and they're attempting to be more universally easy. Dialog tags are easy. You know when someone is finished speaking for the moment when you see them. Even if 'said' becomes distinctly invisible to most people, some people may need that roadmap to make it to the next sentence. Editors and Publishers may insist on tagging dialog a certain way, it could be a preference.

Or, they may have run into a lot of writing that has 'talking head syndrome,' where they adopt a policy that requires edits be made to include more dialog tags. 

Dialog tags and how you do them is mostly stylistic. People will have differing opinions on them all day. I like dialog tags, simple, and repetitive. Said, countered, asked, etc. I would much rather the tone and what information be perceived more in the writing within the dialog, and in the writing leading up to and following it. 

I am different, but I HATE repeated used of the word "said".  What you said, @Krista, about "talking head syndrome" struck a nerve with me.  There is a balance between overuse of dialog tags and an insufficient quantity.  If written skillfully, an author and reader should have a pretty good idea who is speaking -- especially in a two-person conversation.  When three or more are  conversing, more frequent tags might be needed.

[grahamsealby]

Thanks, guys, for responding to my question. Jason Rimaud raised an issue that I hadn't thought about - what do you do when you have a group of people talking? I'm going to check my 'Dummies for Creative Writing' - the only textbook I possess. There again, I might try AI. I'm going to continue ignoring the phrase 'I; He, She, They said' and stick to the more creative dialogue. I may be dogmatic but I'm only 89 so if I'm a bit naughty Ill have to live with my bad. I just love a challange.

I'm really keen on dialogue when writing. Good dialogue helps the reader understand who and what a chracter is. It's the same as 'listenning' to a person in oral mode. If you come accross any new developments, please contact me. Once again, thanks for responding!

[Krista]

10 hours ago, ReaderPaul said:

I am different, but I HATE repeated used of the word "said".  What you said, @Krista, about "talking head syndrome" struck a nerve with me.  There is a balance between overuse of dialog tags and an insufficient quantity.  If written skillfully, an author and reader should have a pretty good idea who is speaking -- especially in a two-person conversation.  When three or more are  conversing, more frequent tags might be needed.

Talking head syndrome has nothing to do with how many speakers, or the use of dialog tags, or absence of them. Although they do help in extended portions of dialog and with multiple speakers.

Talking head syndrome is when a writer relies far too heavily on the dialog to the point you cannot see more than just two or more people conversing. There is nothing going on underneath the dialog to carry it forward. I honestly don't see how I struck a nerve, as it is a very common issue in writing and why most people become lost in dialog heavy writing. Dialog tags do play a part in helping the symptom, but it isn't the blanket band aide either.

Edited to Add: Publishing companies adopt policies all the time. If they suggest Said and/or more dialog tags to be implemented, it more or less could be for a multitude of reasons. I gave an example. Talking head syndrome. They see hundreds of stories, if they can nullify most of their issues with the writing by suggesting more tags, then add more tags. Simple. Or move on to a different publishing company. They are the ones taking a risk on 'your writing.' 

Edited February 26 by Krista

[ReaderPaul]

7 minutes ago, Krista said:

Talking head syndrome has nothing to do with how many speakers, or the use of dialog tags, or absence of them. Although they do help in extended portions of dialog and with multiple speakers.

Talking head syndrome is when a writer relies far too heavily on the dialog to the point you cannot see more than just two or more people conversing. There is nothing going on underneath the dialog to carry it forward. I honestly don't see how I struck a nerve, as it is a very common issue in writing and why most people become lost in dialog heavy writing. Dialog tags do play a part in helping the symptom, but it isn't the blanket band aide either.

Edited to Add: Publishing companies adopt policies all the time. If they suggest Said and/or more dialog tags to be implemented, it more or less could be for a multitude of reasons. I gave an example. Talking head syndrome. They see hundreds of stories, if they can nullify most of their issues with the writing by suggesting more tags, then add more tags. Simple. Or move on to a different publishing company. They are the ones taking a risk on 'your writing.' 

You struck a nerve of AGREEMENT.  Some of Asimov's later books relied too much on dialog and not enough of other things for full enjoyment.

A publisher's requirements changes things, I agree.  But that is between the author and the particular publisher and must be dealt with on a case by case basis.

[Krista]

1 minute ago, ReaderPaul said:

You struck a nerve of AGREEMENT.  Some of Asimov's later books relied too much on dialog and not enough of other things for full enjoyment.

A publisher's requirements changes things, I agree.  But that is between the author and the particular publisher and must be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Oh.. sorry... tis what I get for getting on GA whilst on my lunch break and I'm both in a rush and hangry and dealing with husband shenanigans. I was genuinely confused. I thought you were cross at me for suggesting Talking Head Syndome at all. Woopsies. 

[ReaderPaul]

1 minute ago, Krista said:

Oh.. sorry... tis what I get for getting on GA whilst on my lunch break and I'm both in a rush and hangry and dealing with husband shenanigans. I was genuinely confused. I thought you were cross at me for suggesting Talking Head Syndome at all. Woopsies. 

Not cross at all.  You tend to be right on when you discuss writing, and If I find myself wondering about what you say, I think about it.  After all, you have a lot of experience that I lack.

[Jason Rimbaud]

21 minutes ago, ReaderPaul said:

If I find myself wondering about what you say, I think about it.  After all, you have a lot of experience that I lack.

Maybe we should bring up a certain habit of a certain someone that over explains actions in a certain someone's story. . . 

[Jason Rimbaud]

26 minutes ago, Krista said:

hangry

Seems like a perpetual state in some people's behavior.  . 

[Krista]

2 hours ago, ReaderPaul said:

Not cross at all.  You tend to be right on when you discuss writing, and If I find myself wondering about what you say, I think about it.  After all, you have a lot of experience that I lack.

Oh. If you read anything I've written you will quickly see that I do not do dialog structure well. I use 'Said' a ton, I do throw in a few 'counters' 'asked' or whatever. I'm self-taught in all this, so my opinions are also coming from a place that is self decided. So, that is as far as that goes with me. What I've learned most about writing is the more strict a person is about structure, stylistic choices, etc the less fun writing is. So I approach writing with bad habits just to keep the creativity there. Balance is key, as you've said. But as far as being correct all the time, not me. Definitely not me. If I were to pursue a publisher, I'd be editing/having my stories edited more thoroughly, and work on breaking my bad habits. 

2 hours ago, Jason Rimbaud said:

Maybe we should bring up a certain habit of a certain someone that over explains actions in a certain someone's story. . . 

Hush your face.  

2 hours ago, Jason Rimbaud said:

Seems like a perpetual state in some people's behavior.  . 

That and dehydrated... hangry and thirsty.... different meanings for different people, mind you. 

[wildone]

6 hours ago, Krista said:

Oh. If you read anything I've written you will quickly see that I do not do dialog structure well. I use 'Said' a ton, I do throw in a few 'counters' 'asked' or whatever. I'm self-taught in all this, so my opinions are also coming from a place that is self decided. So, that is as far as that goes with me. What I've learned most about writing is the more strict a person is about structure, stylistic choices, etc the less fun writing is. So I approach writing with bad habits just to keep the creativity there. Balance is key, as you've said. But as far as being correct all the time, not me. Definitely not me. If I were to pursue a publisher, I'd be editing/having my stories edited more thoroughly, and work on breaking my bad habits. 

We have had several conversations about this, as in my limited writing I try to avoid said, and Krista says said silly sums in stories. SSSSS. But now to hear that is what publishers prefer, this is one of the few time she is write and I'm wrong Runs and hides.

6 hours ago, Krista said:

That and dehydrated... hangry and thirsty.... different meanings for different people, mind you. 

I think I can attest to the fact that your mood is about the same before during and after eating and drinking  But nice excuse. That and it is all my fault  

[Jason Rimbaud]

20 minutes ago, wildone said:

his is one of the few time she is write and I'm wrong

It's spreading.  

Not that the FO is right/write, but the other thing.   . 

21 minutes ago, wildone said:

6 hours ago, Krista said:

 

I think I can attest to the fact that your mood is about the same before during and after eating and drinking

I knew it!!!! I to was also write/right!   . 

[ReaderPaul]

15 hours ago, Jason Rimbaud said:

It's spreading.  
Not that the FO is right/write, but the other thing.   . 
I knew it!!!! I to was also write/right!   . 

What?  Not write / wright / right / rite?  After all, much of writing rules are by rite or rote, accustomed rituals of grammar, pacing, and and one wrights (wright as meaning maker or builder or constructor, especially as a playwright or writer) and so on.  I really like the sometimes ambiguity of English!

[Krista]

6 hours ago, ReaderPaul said:

What?  Not write / wright / right / rite?  After all, much of writing rules are by rite or rote, accustomed rituals of grammar, pacing, and and one wrights (wright as meaning maker or builder or constructor, especially as a playwright or writer) and so on.  I really like the sometimes ambiguity of English!

Oh goodness me. That hurt my noggin. And stop feeding him, he is like a cat he'll keep coming back.  

[Jason Rimbaud]

7 minutes ago, Krista said:

Oh goodness me. That hurt my noggin. And stop feeding him, he is like a cat he'll keep coming back.  

When you're right/write, you're right/write. 

Maybe now you'll be willing to help perform the rite/right/write! 

[Krista]

On 2/26/2026 at 12:13 PM, grahamsealby said:

Thanks, guys, for responding to my question. Jason Rimaud raised an issue that I hadn't thought about - what do you do when you have a group of people talking? I'm going to check my 'Dummies for Creative Writing' - the only textbook I possess. There again, I might try AI. I'm going to continue ignoring the phrase 'I; He, She, They said' and stick to the more creative dialogue. I may be dogmatic but I'm only 89 so if I'm a bit naughty Ill have to live with my bad. I just love a challange.

I'm really keen on dialogue when writing. Good dialogue helps the reader understand who and what a chracter is. It's the same as 'listenning' to a person in oral mode. If you come accross any new developments, please contact me. Once again, thanks for responding!

A lot of the work needs to be done in characterization, so when the characters speak there is a distinction in voice already. Although, most people write similar characters in one given story generally. Friend groups can be similar as much as they are different. But, distinctive voices help narrow the focus on who is speaking. With similar characters all talking at once, you will need to do what others have said, I believe it was @Jason Rimbaud and name drop more often than you would if there were just two speakers involved. You can do so by naming the character within the dialog, or you can do it outside of dialog. You'll probably be more understood with a slight increase in dialog tags as well.

Another way to help when multiple characters are speaking is to bring in the environment around them. Give all the characters involvement around the dialog, movement, sensory things - touch, smell, taste, hearing. Give them action. It breaks up the dialog slightly and gives readers a chance to engage an entire picture instead of the words the speakers are saying. If you can visualize all the characters involved as you read, then who is speaking can become more clearly noted. Observations are important. 

Some of the main goals with writing is to tell an interesting story of your making and imagination. To entertain. But to also convey information correctly, easily, and creatively. In fiction there are constant information processes going on, that's how we comprehend what we're reading. So as a writer of anything, conveying the information as easily as possible, making it smooth, and understood is a goal one should have. If you muddy the information, you lose the audience. So, clarity is key in this. 

Edited February 28 by Krista

[CassieQ]

On 2/26/2026 at 2:01 PM, Krista said:

Oh.. sorry... tis what I get for getting on GA whilst on my lunch break and I'm both in a rush and hangry and dealing with husband shenanigans. I was genuinely confused. I thought you were cross at me for suggesting Talking Head Syndome at all. Woopsies. 

I was genuinely confused as well.   

[ReaderPaul]

On 2/27/2026 at 8:59 PM, Krista said:

A lot of the work needs to be done in characterization, so when the characters speak there is a distinction in voice already. Although, most people write similar characters in one given story generally. Friend groups can be similar as much as they are different. But, distinctive voices help narrow the focus on who is speaking. With similar characters all talking at once, you will need to do what others have said, I believe it was @Jason Rimbaud and name drop more often than you would if there were just two speakers involved. You can do so by naming the character within the dialog, or you can do it outside of dialog. You'll probably be more understood with a slight increase in dialog tags as well.

Another way to help when multiple characters are speaking is to bring in the environment around them. Give all the characters involvement around the dialog, movement, sensory things - touch, smell, taste, hearing. Give them action. It breaks up the dialog slightly and gives readers a chance to engage an entire picture instead of the words the speakers are saying. If you can visualize all the characters involved as you read, then who is speaking can become more clearly noted. Observations are important. 

Some of the main goals with writing is to tell an interesting story of your making and imagination. To entertain. But to also convey information correctly, easily, and creatively. In fiction there are constant information processes going on, that's how we comprehend what we're reading. So as a writer of anything, conveying the information as easily as possible, making it smooth, and understood is a goal one should have. If you muddy the information, you lose the audience. So, clarity is key in this. 

Spoken like a true smith -- a true wordsmith, that is.  Well said, @Krista