I'm reading Shadow of the Giant for the first time and I noticed a pattern in it. When adding dialog tags Card always seems to write them in this order if he uses a character's proper name.

"blah blah blah," said Alai. "Blah blah blah."

Do you think that flows better than:

"blah blah blah," Alai said. "Blah blah blah."

Or is the difference effectively invisible? What is the opinion of the modern writing community including editors and publishers?

I also noticed Card tends to say "he said" or "she said" if tagging with a common pronoun instead of a proper name, rather than "said he" and "said she."

 

He contemplated his navel, sipping at his tea.

"Well, of course, my opinion's the same as in my previous posts," he said.

A frown crossed his face, and got stuck on it.

"Trouble is," TS said as he stroked his imaginary beard, "I can't remember what I said."

Then his face brightened.

"But I just read some steampunk," said TS, "and it's really irritating how they recreate the Victorian long-winded way of narrative in an attempt to create atmosphere."

TS assumed a Victorian pose, despite not knowing what one looks like.

"Whatever feels right and flows in the context, methinks," said he.
 

A lot of which sounds more natural probably has to do with regional and/or cultural dialect, so what will flow better for one reader may not for another. I'm just making an educated guess about that, though; I've never actually studied whether that's true of dialogue tags.
 

"I did, too," he agreed.

"And now," she continued, shamelessly picking her nose, "I do what feels right when considering the name, the adverb (if any) and the action that may come after."

"Me too," said the man with one red shoe, offering the other to Marva as a tissue.
 

One authors works I noticed this...

MC said

said other characters.

It helped establish clearly whose POV the narrative came from.
 

Ideally, like in life, a variety of methods is more spicy. One method might slow pace, another might quicken pace. One method might deepen immersion, another might create distance. One might depict sensory perspective, another might be an invisible simple tell. One method divides long sentences of dialogue into simpler clauses, another follows or precedes dialogue. What method works best in any given situation is a matter of purpose and intent. Preserving logical linear causation is one of very few requirements. In intensely poignant dialogue exchanges, a quick pace might result from limiting attribution.

A subjective narrator might evaluate characters' exchange of dialogue, nonverbal cues, and tone of voice, in which case instead of attribution tags, introspective context deepens immersion through the narrator's point of view; narrator thought and character word strings with a narrator's thoughts providing attribution.

An invisible objective narrator might depict a point of view character evaluating an exchange, in which case one method is for the point of view character's thoughts to attribute dialogue for the point of view character, and other parties' gestures, tone of voice, expressions, and actions attributing theirs.

Animacy priority in literature slowly changed during the last several hundred years with the emergence of fiction forms. In the past, dialogue took position as subject in first syntatical priority. Who said what was viewed as an object complement in lower animacy priority, but in the past subjective narrators were common and as a consequence, the narrator had first priority in animacy. Today, subjective narrators are not as common as they once were. They're prone to distancing readers from the immediacy of the moment in a story.

Whether //he said// or //said he// is prescriptively proper is, of course not an absolute, is a matter of taste and intent and certainly neither is prescriptively prohibited. <<"Dialogue clause (subject)," attribution clause (predicate, object complement).>> //"Hello world," said he.// is a traditional attribution syntax that's a little out of vogue in today's person-oriented preferred syntax (animacy). However, using that method might be suitable for a pastiche or a homage to past literary traditions. Or it might set a mood related to portraying a remote-in-the-past setting or creating a historical quality.

In objective narration, modern-day preferred dialogue syntax places a speaker in first priority animacy-wise, <<"Dialogue clause (subject complement)," attribution clause (subject, predicate).>> //"Hello world," he said.//

The main difference, as I see it, is that the modern syntax allows for more ready association with characters, which contributes a subtle immediacy to immersion.

[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited May 15, 2009).]
 

Sometimes, when I'm suffering through a dark and despairing mood, I think of this, and wonder, "Hey, if I switched back to 'said so-and-so,' would my work have a better chance of being published?"

On the other hand, I was reading an SF novel---commercial-oriented, rather than literary---where it was always "so-and-so said." So I'm not alone in my usage.