I really liked The Andromeda Strain, enough so that I've reread it several times. I've enjoyed a lot of his other books. The "said" thing doesn't bother me at all.

Journalistic style is to use "said" for everything.

I rewrote one of my stories using it a few years ago and I plan to someday go back and undo it.

English major chime-in:

The golden rule of Show, Don't Tell dictates use of "said" whenever possible. "Asked" and "replied" are pretty much the only accepted alternatives. Dialogue tagging ought to be as simple and unobtrusive as possible; I prefer to see "said" everywhere, because when that's all you see, your brain tunes it out and all you see is the dialogue, which is the way it should be. The idea is, if you can't get across in the dialogue itself that Jim whined his lines, tagging it ..., Jim whined isn't going to do the legwork for you. I've had teachers refer to it as an admission of failure.

End English major chime-in.

I like most Jack McDevitt. However, I love his A Talent for War with the kind of passion that has made me urge it upon strangers on the street and buy every used copy I find to give away. It's so good that it taints his other books, because I read each one breathlessly hoping that it's another Talent for War and it never is.

Dialogue tagging ought to be as simple and unobtrusive as possible;

But dialogue tagging can be simpler. So why bother with "said"? It's medium simple, conveys nothing. If you intend to convey nothing, use nothing.

So why bother with "said"? It's medium simple, conveys nothing. If you intend to convey nothing, use nothing.

Sometimes having, "[character] said" helps the reader keep track of who is saying what, especially in a long, intricate piece of dialog. I don't think it's necessary after every speaker says his/her bit, but it can help keep things straight. This is especially true when there are more than two characters talking.

"Valuable point one."

"Ah-hah, but counterpoint."

"Allegedly supportive commentary re: the first person's idea."

"Nicely put, but that allegedly supportive commentary is not really to the point"

A good writer might convey who is saying what in the above by letting us know what the characters think, whether they are the sort of person who makes their own side look stupid, and so on. But I think sprinkingly a few Speaker 1, 2, or 3 saids throughout the above would add a lot to it. And "said" seems more transparent to me than saying, "he intoned," "she sniffed," "he commented," "she drawled," etc. I'm a big fan of dialog heavy writing, and I like "said". My eye just skips right over it, acknowledges the speaker, and goes on to the next bit.

I'm gonna stick with, when the close-quote comes right after a question mark, it's legitimate, nay, called-for, to say "asked" instead of "said". Also, I read journalism a lot. The New York Times has a lot more verve on any given day in its local news section than Michael Crichton has in a novel. In this modern age, the NYT does not necessarily eschew thesauri. I think they even have more synonyms for "said" than Elmore Leonard, although that's not saying very much.

Agreed Crichton is a crap SF writer because he's a crap writer. He's more sort of like a well-researched (or well-bullshitted) terrier with a squeaky chew-toy than he is a novelist. If I want to see someone whale the everliving tar out of an issue, in a way that isn't entertaining or enlightening, I will watch Fox News (for 30 seconds) instead.

I think they even have more synonyms for "said" than Elmore Leonard, although that's not saying very much.

Um? Leonard famously calls for only using "said." See here

Hi. I love Crichton. Sorry.

Huh.

t crickets

P.K. Dick, love him or hate him?

He had an amazing gift for evocative titles, and was extremely influential, and yeah, I find him hard work. But worth it. So, put me down in the Love column, but it is love like going to the gym. I like the end result, not completely crazy about the process.

Sometimes having, "[character] said" helps the reader keep track of who is saying what, especially in a long, intricate piece of dialog. I don't think it's necessary after every speaker says his/her bit, but it can help keep things straight. This is especially true when there are more than two characters talking.

Deb has a bit on this, and I can't do it justice. But there are a million ways to indicate who's talking.

If an author only uses one, all the time? It starts to stick out. And said's precisely the first one I'll notice, because it's the most obvious. To me -- other people obviously don't see it at all.

The exclusive use of "said" rather than synonyms doesn't bother me. Its frequent—nay, continuous—use is another matter.