Descriptive tags are often redundant and therefore unnecessary. What does “imperious” mean. Most readers won’t look it up but will be slightly confused as they read on.
Here are ten simple edits that can make the writing stronger.
Great words from False Memory by Dean Koontz:
“Doctor, you’re not listening to me.”
“But I am,” he assured her.
“No, you were woolgathering, and I’m not paying these outrageous hourly rates so you can daydream,” she said sharply.
Although just five short years ago, this woman and her boring husband had been barely able to afford fries with their Big Macs, they had become as imperious and demanding as if they had been born into vast wealth.
What we might see for an improved version:
“Doctor, you’re not listening to me.”
“But I am.”
“No, you were woolgathering, and I’m not paying these outrageous hourly rates so you can daydream.”
Just five years ago, this woman had been barely able to afford fries with her Big Macs, and now she was as demanding as if she had been born into vast wealth.
Logic for making improvements:
- “He assured her” is obvious, explaining the dialogue. We don’t assure words, we say We could use said, but we don’t need the tag since we know the doctor is responding to the woman’s accusation.
- In “she said sharply,” we don’t want adverbs attached to said, because they tell rather than show. Instructors only hold that as a hard-and-fast rule because adverbs are easily overused. By avoiding adverbs most of the time, we can keep them where we think they are essential.
- Doesn’t the dialogue, “no, you were woolgathering” have a naturally accusing tone? Yes, and for that reason, the “sharply” adverb that we thought was so important winds up not adding much meaning to the verb. We can leave our “sharply” and strengthen the sentence.
- We want to avoid waiting until the very end of lengthy dialogue before we identify the speaker. The sentence is better if we place the “she said” tag after the introductory clause, “no, you were woolgathering.”
- A tag at the very end of lengthy dialogue is not a problem if readers already know who’s speaking. In this case, the woman makes a statement. The doctor offers a defense. And the woman reacts. We don’t need the “she said” tag at the end or near the beginning. We can leave it out.
- The last paragraph is in the doctor’s point of view. In response to the woman’s last line of dialogue, he recognizes the woman’s change in personality from poverty to prosperity. He’s not willing to say what he feels, so we see it in narrative.
- Is there a difference in the number of days in five years and five short years? We can leave out “short,” which duplicates the feeling we get from “just five.”
- “Her boring husband” expands the doctor’s insight outside his present confrontation with only the wife. If we limit the observation to the woman by leaving out “her boring husband,” we increase the tension.
- The “although . . . had become” sentence structure leaves everything in the past. A “then” and “now” approach is better: “Just five years ago . . . and now” is better.
- How many readers will know what imperious means? It’s redundant, since imperious, dictatorial, overbearing, and demanding have much the same meaning. Perhaps the doctor, in his superior intelligence, would use “imperious,” and “demanding” was added to help readers who wouldn’t know what “imperious” meant. Since readers are already familiar with the doctor’s personality, all we really need is “demanding.” We can leave out “imperious.”
