Said D'Argo vs D'Argo said.

[CylonScream]

Is there a proper time for each usage, or is it more of a preference. I find myself using both, depending on whatever seems to roll off the tongue. Or if Ive used one to many times and I just want something different.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

There is a certain corner in the writing community that rails against "said D'Argo", in your case, because one would not say "said he", but they're a minority, I think. Besides, that premise depends a lot on the sort of books that one reads.

In general, I use whichever one sounds best at the time.

You can usually cut out a lot of the "saids" of any type, however, by fitting the speaker in with an action instead.

"I can't take this anymore," D'Argo said.

vs

"I can't take this anymore." D'Argo slammed the book on the table.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I personally favour [name][said] on the grounds that a character name followed by a verb looks more dynamic and active than the other way around. My feeling is that [said][name] is simply a legacy style that is used less these days, perhaps for that reason.

 

[Ursa major]

It's a matter of personal choice.

For me, as a reader, I was used to the 'said <character>' form and it took a while to become comfortable with the '<character said>' form**. Now I don't care.


As for characterising something as a legacy usage, I think this is best applied to something like 'said he' rather than 'said <character>', given that plenty of modern writers use the latter.


** - In my mind, and this was a long time ago, when I hadn't rally read a lot, I kind of assumed that the former was more used by English writers and the latter by North American writers. More likely, it was simply an artefact created by the smallish sample of books I'd read by then.

 

[HareBrain]

One advantage of "said X" is that you want, if possible, to end a sentence with a word that has impact. A person's name can do that; the word "said" doesn't, and indeed we want it to be as invisible as possible.

Also, if the actual speech part ends in a !, ? or dash etc, using the character name first afterwards can cause momentary uncertainty as to whether it is a dialogue tag or the start of a new sentence, and that can disrupt flow slightly.

I tend to use whichever feels right in the sentence. Sometimes it's one, sometimes the other.

 

[tinkerdan]

The Quotative inversion is interesting. This type of subject verb inversion is going to be one of those where you might have to handle it on basis of the context and how well it fits within the prose around it. I can't see that a rule of any sort could be drafted outside of on an individual basis.
There will be sentences where it will fly by unnoticed and ones where it will stick out like a sore thumb. You'll have to determine when reading it back just how well it fits the sentence.

Of course you could just invert all of them and then the reader might get used to that and doing so will likely push the reader in that direction.

So if you are consistent it might not matter as much, however if you use it sparingly then you will want to make sure you use it where it fits or it will stick out and probably poke the reader a bit and maybe out of the whole narrative.

 

[Steve Harrison]

I don't think it's particularly important, as the main aim is to make it clear to the reader know who is speaking. 'Said' becomes almost invisible when I read and irrelevant as to whether it precedes or follows the character's name.

 

[Ronald T.]

I like to use "said" after the character's name. I find it allows a more immediate and powerful acknowledgement of who is speaking. So I very seldom change my arrangement. I won't say "never", because I can't be that certain. But I like to use, and see, the name first. Just a personal preference.