How many kids books -- or novels of any kind -- have only passive descriptions of what people said
I should clarify that in the first case I was talking about oral storytelling. My second complaint more generally applies to the written word.
This is entirely subjective, of course, but my choice of the word reenactment was deliberate. Often, I'm not told what happened; I'm given a tedious play-by-play of both sides of the interaction.
so I was like do you wanna see a movie
and he was like I guess
and I was like, what do you mean you guess
and he's just like, I dunno, I guess
and I'm like just tell me if you want to or not
and he's all like get off my back
and I'm all like I'm not on your back
That's what I'm complaining about, not, more generally, the use of quoting as a literary device.
You excluded the main object of the conversation. Even in your contrived example the main point he is trying to convey is his disdain with the other person, how they felt when this altercation happened. your summary doesn't have any of that.
How many kids books -- or novels of any kind -- have only passive descriptions of what people said, as opposed to actually quoting the characters' words? Quoting is certainly a form of storytelling, and can often convey emotion more succinctly than needing to spell it out.
"He was like 'okaaay...'" vs "He said it was ok, but in a sarcastic manner that implied he was not happy with it."
But, distinct from an actual quote, ("And I said to him, 'What are you doing here!'", per the other poster), the quotative-like allows narrator freedom in a way that a direct quotation doesn't. The listener doesn't expect the words to be a literal quote, rather, the sense of what was said is enough, allowing the narrator to simplify, or to exaggerate for emphasis or comedic effect.