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.

I've enjoyed every Crichton I've read, only about 4, I think. He's fluff fast reading, good for the summer. Never was bugged by his writing or his style.

And don't many of his stories center around a scientific plot that is not part of our current reality? so while certainly not in the mainstream of science fiction, I think that is an ok label for it. It certainly isn't fantasy. Maybe science fictiony? He's probably the closest I'd come to reading science fiction and is probably a gateway for much more mainstream bestseller readers into science fiction.

The exclusive use of "said" rather than synonyms doesn't bother me.

But "asked" isn't a synonym for "said." Neither is "whined" nor "cajoled."

When presented with a back and forth of A said, B said, A said, B said, A said ... I end up envisioning the two of them standing face to face, playing verbal ping pong. Throw in some action words. Some description. Are they moving? Something. Anything.

Otherwise I feel expositioned at.

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

I think he follows his own rules about 96% of the time. His rules are pretty funny, though, and it is really cool to see that it is possible to use "he said" as pure punctuation in dialogue. I do think even Leonard might want to vary it up a little, but he's good at what he does.

We are so off-topic right now I can't see straight.

Tim is our thread topic, but he has foresaken us for "work" or somesuch. We are forced to talk about whatever topics float in on the wind.

Tim writes. Tim reads. We're good.

So you're telling me that, because we don't know specifically whether Tim does or does not eat olives, we can continue to discuss whether the absence of olives constitutes a violation of the definition of muffaletta?

Tim will now show up and ask us why we are talking about icky olives.

Surely you're not asking me what you can discuss and where? Not seriously at least. This is cute, right?

I will say that it wouldn't really be a continuation of the sandwich discussion as a moving of it, since no one in this thread was discussing the definition of a muffaletta.

If Tim doesn't like olives we can never be married.

I can forgive his disdain for chopped liver.