Writers tutorial entry; how to make your dialogue sparkle

One sign of a fine cabinetmaker, I’m told, is the
deftness with which he handles his nails.
"Of course," he added, quickly "the finest
cabinetmakers are often female."
To resume my metaphor... each nail should do
its job without calling attention to itself. The
same might also be said about the dialogue
tags we use when writing fiction. (For example,
'he added, quickly’.)
Technically called ‘inquits’ or ‘turn ancillaries’,
dialogue tags act as stage directions to convey
to the reader, perhaps subconsciously, who is
speaking and - sometimes - in what mood or
manner.
The modern convention is that inquits should
be invisible, like carpentry nails. To decorate
our dialogue with colourful tags like ‘he
snortled’, ‘she chortled’, ‘they fumed’, (or worse,
'she beamed'), is perceived today as clumsy.
The reader trips over them and falls out of the
story.
True, florid tags can be used to good effect
when writing comedy or farce. ('"Yes, no,
maybe. Who knows?" he verbigerated in
despair’). But if you don’t intend to be funny -
or the humour doesn’t work - the reader will
yearn to hide your thesaurus.
Solution #1 :
Don’t use dialogue tags at all if it’s obvious
from the context who’s speaking. If it’s not
obvious, a volley of innocuous inquits like ‘he
said’, ‘she said’, and the like, may be forgiven.
They're stage directions, supposed to be
invisible. But they’re boring. Sometimes, you do
need to convey the manner in which a
character speaks, and without using too many
adverbs - the sign of an amateur. So...
Solution #2:
Characterise the speaker, and mark who’s
speaking, by using a variation of the Pathetic
Fallacy. This is the poetic device of granting
human emotions to non-human phenomena or
objects. It’s also a nifty little trick when writing
dialogue.
NOT: ‘"Sir, you insult me," he glowered.’
Properly speaking, ‘glower’ cannot be used as a
verb for a speech act. (We’ve all done this, and
worse, but - if overdone - it becomes hilarious.)
INSTEAD: "‘Sir, you insult me!" His eyebrows
lifted with menace.’ OR ‘The shadows darkened
in his face.’ OR ‘The room grew cold.’ OR
‘Thunder crackled in the hills. The storm was
growing closer.’
It is now clear from the obliging behaviour of
the environment both who is speaking and in
what manner. The Pathetic Fallacy has come to
our rescue.
Solution #3 : Let characters convey their moods
with actions not with adverbs .
NOT: ‘"That is very foolish," she said,
reprovingly.’
INSTEAD: ‘"That is very foolish." She made a
close inspection of her fingertips.’ OR ‘She
clicked her ballpoint pen.’ OR ‘She bit her
finger-roll in half.’
We have now replaced the adverb 'reprovingly'
with action. The scene has acquired energy -
plus a little extra characterisation.
Use this device too often, however, and readers
will cry ‘How well s/he writes!’ rather than
‘what a good story!’. No matter. A story, so
grossly over-written, might win the Booker
prize...
(Even if it's unlikely to win a story
competition.)