Xjyuk

"Albert, you're already drunk! Stop it!" she implored him.

"Nah, if I stop drinking, I won't have an excuse to miss work
tommorrow!" he joked around.

I am wondering if it's possible to use phrasal verbs like "joked around" in our dialog tags. Also, aside phrasal verbs, is it possible to not even use a verb in our dialog tags? I can't imagine it being possible, but I thought maybe someone had an example in mind where we don't use any verb or phrasal verb at all.

In English, the dialogue tags you want to be using most of the time are "said" and "asked". "Answered"/"replied" is also OK. Those dialogue tags are transparent, as it where - our mind slides off them, we do not linger.

You can add some nuance, if you need: "he said with a smile" or "he said angrily". But it's better that the smile, the anger, etc. are evident from the words being said, rather than added in a description tag.

Other dialogue tags, like "implored" are a way of giving extra emphasis. They should be used sparingly. The same way you wouldn't put an exclamation mark after every single sentence in your text.

"He joked around" should not be used as a dialogue tag - joking around is not a way of saying things. Same goes for things that aren't verbs at all.

You can, on the other hand, leave multiple lines completely without dialogue tags, so long as it's clear who's saying what. This is particularly true in scenes with only two characters present.

So, to sum up, don't overthink dialogue tags. Don't try to get creative. Use the simplest tools that would do the job.

This advice is only true of English writing - other languages, like French and Russian have a different view on this matter. And it is true only of modern writing - if you wish to imitate something from an earlier period, you'd want to look at literature from that time and find our what dialogue tags were common back then.

First, if the context is obvious, you don't need a dialogue tag at all.

"Albert, you're already drunk! Stop it!" she implored him.

"Nah, if I stop drinking, I won't have an excuse to miss work tomorrow!"

Second, if the dialogue ends in anything but a period, I prefer the attribution up front. Not all authors agree, and I don't always do it myself, but if the reader should be putting any spin on the tone, it helps if they know up front how to read the words.

Alice implored him, "Albert, you're already drunk! Stop it!"

Albert giggled. "Nah, if I stop drinking, I won't have an excuse to miss work tomorrow!"

In general, as I have done here, you don't even absolutely need "said" or a dialogue tag. You can indicate who is talking by directing the reader's attention to a character by describing an action on the same line. "Albert giggled."

Instead of "implored" we can describe Alice's expression:

Albert poured himself another glass, and Alice knit her brow in concern. "Albert, you're already drunk! Stop it!"

Now I do use "said" frequently, as Galastel says it is transparent to readers. But I also think every time a person talks, you have an opportunity to aid the visual and action imagination of the reader by describing an action instead of a tag. It is an opportunity to add visual body language and facial expressions to the conversation, which is important in avoiding the sense of disembodied talking heads.

Humans are smart, creative, and able to use their own imagination when reading, and as such we can actually stray into surprisingly flexible grounds when it comes to writing and structuring dialog or actions.

The important thing to remember is to keep things clear as to who is saying or doing what by establishing context, but can achieve that with wide ranging options.

A basic context and structuring might look like the following:

"Hey." Said John.

"What?" Replied Jane.

Then consider the following and what is implied based on the given context:

"Hey Jane." Said John.

"What?"

We manage to convey effectively the same information, with one less word, and no real change in context by relying on it being implied that Jane would be the one responding.

The key rule is bundling information in paragraphs, and keeping context or hints of who is doing or saying things in 'reasonably' close proximity to the words or actions. But we can also slowly build up various conventions and push limits of what we're implying rather far.

• If a paragraph has John doing or thinking about something, then it is clearly implied that any attached dialog would 'belong' to him.

However it is also critical to watch out for areas where you may need to break your conventions:

A common convention is that one paragraph would be one character's words/actions, and the next can often be expected to 'belong' to a different character - If we have to break an overly long section of one character's words/actions into multiple paragraphs in a row, then it is important to be careful and clearly embed whether or not there has been a shift in 'character-ownership' in the paragraph structure. [If John is doing and saying things for several paragraphs in a row, be sure that it isn't ambiguous as to whether or not the paragraphs are still 'his', or if one feels like it could have been another character's reply or reaction.]

With implied and embedded context from nearby paragraphs we can stretch things even further:

[We can 'lead into' a paragraph with descriptive text focused on John's actions, or even having established a convention that the 'focus character' has consistently gotten the first line of each chapter leading up to this:]

"Hey Jane."

"She's not here numb-nut."

"Oh, sorry Sarah, thought you were Jane."

"No John, you idiot, I'm actually over here in the other room..."

When we get into structuring dialog like this it can become important to very carefully test-read the sections to ensure a piece is not allowed to drift too far from clarity, but in this case we have avoided direct dialog/ownership tags and introduced a third character to the mix.

Using dialog based commentary of current actions, we can push our luck on this sort of thing to an extreme while keeping things clear on who is doing and saying what, and can rely on people's ability to 'read between the lines' for a lot of our content.

• However all of this ultimately comes down to careful test-reads and edits of the work in question.

Remember, we can always walk back or rework things. Experiment, and keep in mind the work's tone, pacing, and 'feel'. Figure out "What is going on" in the scene/story, then keep massaging the text till your story comes through clearly, and reads in a way you're happy with.