Sentence structure

[Arthur_Connelly]

Let's start with a sentence:

"I never would have been able to think of that myself," he said dryly.

Adverb aside, some would say that the sentence is flawed because the reader reads the sentence one way then has to go back and read it again because the adverb completely alters the voice. So, lately I've been trying:

He said dryly, "I never would have been able to think of that myself."

or

He said, in a dry as dust tone, "I never would have been able to think of that myself."

Is this any better as far as readability goes. Sarcasm is always hard to communicate because even in real life people don't always pick up on it.

 

[HareBrain]

Does the adverb completely alter the tone? It can do, as in:

"Goodnight and sweet dreams, little lambkin," she said thunderously.

But in this case, I think the words themselves sound quite dry anyway, and coming to "dryly" would not make me revise my reading. If the sarcasm was intended to be obvious, you could italicise "never", but I don't think that's what you mean here. I would be happy with the first, but to be on the safe side, there's nothing wrong with the second. The third sounds a bit clumsy.

But in context, and with a well-drawn character, you should be able to dispense with the adverb altogether -- his veiled sarcasm would be obvious.

 

[Mouse]

I like the first sentence. I see nothing wrong with adverbs!

 

[The Judge]

I'm voting with everyone else, the first sentence is the best to my ear and eye (except "I would never have thought of that myself" might read a little better). If the sentence had been longer and/or more ambiguous in tone, then yes, it might have helped to put the "dryly" earlier but I think it's OK here. And if the sentence were longer, I would favour breaking for attribution rather than putting it at the beginning eg "Yes. Thank you," he said dryly. "I would never..."

As for whether to keep the adverb -- if you're relatively sparing with them, I would as it does reinforce the tone. If you have too many, throw some of the others out!

By the way, the third alternative you give is wholly different to my mind. "Dryly" implies a dry wit; "dry as dust" something very boring -- an ancient lawyer might have a dry as dust voice, as if his words were coated in the stuff.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I agree with The Judge on all her points. Keep the adverb, but don't put the dialogue tag at the beginning. (That usually looks affected, unless you are going for an old-fashioned style generally, which it does not at all seem that you are).

If this is the actual sentence, instead of just an example, I think I favor placing the tag in the middle.

 

[ctg]

I know that nobody hasn't bothered suggesting that you should remove whole said bit, but I think if he's sarcastic, then the line itself should speak for itself and what comes afterwards are the reactions. Those reactions are the interesting bits. Well, at least to me. The reason is that sarcasm, at least to me, are smart jokes and if people cannot get them then you know ... they don't.

So, if you feel experimenting, then you could try to remove the said indicator and rewrite the reactions.

 

[Ursa major]

I tend to agree with ctg, if only because some sort of reaction is what the character's words are meant to provoke, aren't they? (Otherwise why did he, in this case, say them?) And by relying on reaction, the author is showing, not telling.

(Okay, rules are there to be broken; but again, there's no point in having the sentence at all if there's no reaction required, unless it's made into the character's thought, in which the intention is still clear without any adverb.)

You may have an issue where the phrase is misunderstood and the character saying them is not the POV, so cannot think: Sarcasm's wasted on them.




EDIT: I was unclear how Teresa would be able to implement her intention of "placing the tag in the middle": the original sentence does not look very suitable for splitting into two.

 

[JDP]

I wouldn't agree that a reaction is necessary from another character (is that the reaction you mean, Ursa?). This could be showing the reader the character's character.

"I would never have been able to think of that myself."

"I would never," he muttered dryly, "have been able to think of that myself."

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

"I would never," he muttered dryly, "have been able to think of that myself."

This second one of JDP's is the way I was thinking of it, Ursa.

Without the "muttered." I like adverbs, I'm OK with saidisms if not overdone, but not in combination.

 

[Ursa major]

I tend to fight shy of that, Teresa, if only because I get nervous that it doesn't sound quite right enough.

(The enough bit is the key: being unpublished induces in me a fear of looking a bit gauche and so a conscious effort - how successful, I don't know - to do anything I can to avoid it.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Dividing a sentence places an emphasis on the last word before the tag, Ursa -- in this case, "Never."

It accomplishes that emphasis and allows the writer to do so without using italics. Some of us -- naturally, I am not talking about myself -- tend to make too much use of italics, and this would be a handy way to avoid an italicized word in this one instance.

 

[Ursa major]

Thanks for the hint, Teresa.


(I will admit to using italics rather more often than I perhaps should.)

 

[Arthur_Connelly]

Thanks for the help. Would this this sort of sentence be correct-

Ron swallowed the lump in his throat and squeaked, "My mother's coming? Here? Today?"

-or is it still better to just go this way? Letting the action and words themselves convey the tone of the sentence?

Ron swallowed the lump in his throat. "My mother's coming? Here? Today?"

Kind of a weak example, but it's the best I could come up with at the moment.

 

[The Judge]

I think the first one is valid, because there's nothing in the words themselves which indicate squeakiness, though I can imagine the Hemingway-istas among us are asking whether we need to know Ron squeaked the line, as opposed to whispered or muttered it.

I was going to say the second version by itself** doesn't tell us if he's speaking in panic (at the thought of having to tidy up the house in readiness) or emotion (he's not seen her for several years) -- the lump in the throat probably indicates the latter. But in fact the "squeaked" doesn't tell us that either, and if he's a mouse, it tells us even less...


** but of course in reality, it isn't by itself, you have all the surrounding prose which should tell us his thoughts.

 

[stringfold]

I think the key here is not to overuse the adverbs and alternatives to "said". I don't think any readers will stumble over the odd "squeak" or "dryly" but if they are used all over the place then the reader can quickly tire of them.

When I started going through my (unpublished) novel for the second time, I had to rip out numerous instances of groanings and moanings and sighings, etc. almost all of which didn't need to be there in the first place.

 

[J Riff]

All good advice. Maybe ' as dry-as-dust ? Dunno if that's right.
It may also depend how you've been writing previous to the specific line.
If the line being said is more important than the tone it's being said in, put the dialogue first. ?