Vivid, convincing dialogue

[laptopwriter]

Sr. Yes, eventually you would have to ident who's talking

That's why I used the word, "introduce," a thrid party. Obviously at some point you're going to have to use some tags. Also, I disagree with your assessment that the first part could be taken either way. If it had been been the 2nd person talking it would have read...

I turned toward Jack. "What are you going to do?" he asked.
"I don't know."

I believe without the tag it is clear who is talking to whom; at least it would be for me. Also there would obviously be a set up before the conversation that would set the stage and make it even more clear to the reader. I understand your point, I was just trying to show a short conversation using no he said/she said tags.



Damppanties; you're absolutely correct that there should be a period; however, not always, but sometimes I use commas instead. Yes, grammatically it is incorrect but it lets the conversation flow better. Now, in narrative I would absolutely use a period, but in conversation I'm looking for flow; but that's just me.

 

[sr71plt]

That's why I used the word, "introduce," a thrid party. Obviously at some point you're going to have to use some tags. Also, I disagree with your assessment that the first part could be taken either way. If it had been been the 2nd person talking it would have read...

In a three-person conversation, the "some point" comes up pretty much immediately.

Fine with me if you disagree with my assessment on the clarity point.

 

[laptopwriter]

No hard feelings

That's just the way I would read it...if I was reading it

 

[PennLady]

That's why I used the word, "introduce," a thrid party. Obviously at some point you're going to have to use some tags. Also, I disagree with your assessment that the first part could be taken either way. If it had been been the 2nd person talking it would have read...

I turned toward Jack. "What are you going to do?" he asked.
"I don't know."

I believe without the tag it is clear who is talking to whom; at least it would be for me. Also there would obviously be a set up before the conversation that would set the stage and make it even more clear to the reader. I understand your point, I was just trying to show a short conversation using no he said/she said tags.

It might be clear if you were the author.

If I saw the original sentence (with punctuation corrected): I turned toward Jack. "So what are you going to do?"

Then I would think that "I" was speaking. Usually the dialogue on the same line as a designated person (? not sure how to say that) means that person is speaking.

So this exchange:

I turned toward Jack. "So what are you going to do?"
"Beats the hell out of me; I wish I knew."
"What do you want to do?"

Would read to me as "I" talking, then Jack, then I again. If Jack was the first speaking, I'd write it as:

I turned towards Jack.
"So what are you going to do?" (he asked.)
"Beats the hell out of me; I wish I knew."
"What do you want to do?"

With or without the tag, with the dialogue on a separate line, the order now switches from Jack to I to Jack.

Damppanties; you're absolutely correct that there should be a period; however, not always, but sometimes I use commas instead. Yes, grammatically it is incorrect but it lets the conversation flow better. Now, in narrative I would absolutely use a period, but in conversation I'm looking for flow; but that's just me.

But it's wrong. If I'm following this properly, you're saying that the comma in the first sentence "I turned toward Jack, ..." helps the flow. But it doesn't. I see that and I know it's wrong and then I look to see if I misread that sentence or the one before it. If you want a comma, then you can say, "I turned toward Jack and said, ..."

 

[damppanties]

Damppanties; you're absolutely correct that there should be a period; however, not always, but sometimes I use commas instead. Yes, grammatically it is incorrect but it lets the conversation flow better. Now, in narrative I would absolutely use a period, but in conversation I'm looking for flow; but that's just me.

I completely missed this, sorry!

But it's wrong. If I'm following this properly, you're saying that the comma in the first sentence "I turned toward Jack, ..." helps the flow. But it doesn't. I see that and I know it's wrong and then I look to see if I misread that sentence or the one before it. If you want a comma, then you can say, "I turned toward Jack and said, ..."

Yep. This would be my reaction too.

And to add to that, I think dialogue usually (of course, not always) works better in shorter bursts rather than in a longer 'flow'. In dialogue, I believe that shorter is sometimes snappier, more simple and direct - in order to hold the attention of the reader and make them move with the story quicker. Longer (or incorrect) sentences break the flow and bog it down, if anything. But this is more of a matter of style or preference I suppose.

 

[laptopwriter]

Pennlady, that's exactly what I said...

I'm not sure what we're arguing about here, you just made my point. That's the way I said it would be understood. SR said it could also be construed that I turned my head to listen to what Jack said. I believe it is clear by the way it is written that it is the first person initiating the conversation.

Now, as I said, you are correct about the period but if you use it here then SR's point becomes more valid. I was simply trying to make a point about using he said/she said tags. How many time do we, as writers, leave out commas because they disrupt the flow of dialogue? All the time.

 

[sr71plt]

Now, as I said, you are correct about the period but if you use it here then SR's point becomes more valid. I was simply trying to make a point about using he said/she said tags. How many time do we, as writers, leave out commas because they disrupt the flow of dialogue? All the time.

Not really. The way you wrote it (with the comma rather than a period--not to mention the extra double quote and the missing comma after "So," which I mistyped as "Well") is simply ungrammatical. This may bring up the "what is a proper dialogue slug and what isn't" discussion--but yours isn't.

 

[laptopwriter]

Okay everyone

Sorry I added my two cents worth, it won't happen again.

 

[slyc_willie]

Word is the enemy of good dialogue.

It objects to fragments, phrases without verbs and interjections.

Either turn Word's suggestions off, or ignore them.

**

If I am reading and all the tags are "he said", "she said" or "(name) said" then my eye slides over them. I take notice of the interaction, or who said what, but the tags don't interrupt my reading.

I dislike modifers in some written dialogue. e.g.

He said, smiling,

" he said, laughing.

she said coquettishly.

Particularly if EVERY spoken piece has them.

If the way something is said is important then there are other ways to imply the importance including punctuation as suggested by steve above.

I turn off all the automatic editors in my OpenOffice program, so that it doesn't catch anything. Nothing annoys me more than seeing squiggly red and green lines all over the page.

I try to keep to good punctuation throughout; when it comes to dialogue, I throw grammar out the window. No one speaks the Queen's English, not even the Queen herself. Dangling participles and unfinished sentences are the norm when it comes to writing dialogue.

 

[sr71plt]

No one speaks the Queen's English, not even the Queen herself.

Maybe because she's actually German?

 

[slyc_willie]

Maybe because she's actually German?

Ach, du lieber! Don't go getting technical.

 

[CWatson]

I didn't realize it until later, but the place I got my sense of dialogue from is theatre. We had to read a fair amount of plays in high school--not just Shakespeare but things written during the current century--and you start to see how good dialogue just leaps off the page. Inherit the Wind, Master Harold... and the boys, A Raisin in the Sun: these scripts practically perform themselves. One could do worse than to take inspiration from the theatre.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think Penn Lady had a good point about the punctuation. Proper punctuation doesn't go away no matter what is going on, dialogue or otherwise. I've seen folks on this board claim that grammar rules hold in dialogue as much as they do in the narrative, which is a bunch of bull. But punctuation rules do hold. They are the road map for the reader. When they go off, so does the reader.

Ayup. A lot of the subtext in speech is conveyed by timing and intonation, rather than word choice, and punctuation is our friend in translating those elements to the written page. About the only situation where I might ditch punctuation in dialogue is if I needed to convey a character who's not "punctuating" their speech normally.

Taking this speech as an example: near the start he's talking about "white pussy, black pussy, Spanish pussy". He leaves a slightly longer pause after each "pussy" than before, as most people would, and the commas reflect that.

But later on he starts running things together without those pauses. If I needed to mirror that in writing I might omit a few commas: "we got smelly pussy, we got hairy pussy bloody pussy, we got snappin' pussy, we got silk pussy velvet pussy Naugahyde pussy". Granted, that can be done by breaking out of the dialogue for description, but it'd undermine the continuous patter, and I prefer to have dialogue speak for itself.

Tom Waits' Step Right Up would be another candidate for selective depunctuation.

 

[oggbashan]

Ayup. A lot of the subtext in speech is conveyed by timing and intonation, rather than word choice, and punctuation is our friend in translating those elements to the written page. About the only situation where I might ditch punctuation in dialogue is if I needed to convey a character who's not "punctuating" their speech normally.

...

It isn't just dialogue that needs timing.

The written text is nothing like telling a story verbally. Whatever you write, it is up to the reader to decide what he/she thinks is the meaning you meant to convey.

If you are too subtle, or use references the reader doesn't know, or assume cultural norms the reader doesn't share, your story could fail for that reader.

For example, some cultures have no concept of fiction. They think that "If it is written, it must be true" and if it isn't, it is a lie. For them, Literotica would be incomprehensible.

We aren't all US citizens, and even US citizens have different cultural clues.

I know what a "redneck" means. But would many people outside the UK know what a "Geordie" is? I know, I know, some of you will. But if I mention a Geordie I would have to have some further explanation in the story if it is important to the plot that the person is a Geordie.

Some US writers refer to Amendments to the US constitution, or to Roe v Wade. Would a reader in Hong Kong know exactly what is meant?

Listen to real life dialogue between old friends and/or couples who have been married for many years. There is so much verbal shorthand and references that mean nothing to anyone else. But if you copied what you heard, the reader would be lost.

 

[Perfideous]

This thread is getting far too serious

She felt all the fun of the evening being sucked out of her and for a moment her face fell.Then she was squeezed and thrown on the bed and her daughter tickled her till she was giggling uncontrollably and struggling not to pee.She screamed for her to stop and Kirsten did- finally. She lay on her back with Kirsten sitting astride pinning her.

"Want some more?"

"No!"

"Better get dressed then."

"Thanks babe, just thanks."

"Welcome. Whatcha wearin'?"

"I thought a half cup bra, suspender belt and my black mesh stockings."

'Yeah. Classy."

"Oh I thought I might take that dress your father likes, the one I wore at the last work do of his and make some slight alterations. What about you?"

"Everyone loves a cheerleader huh?"

'You really are my daughter after all.Come on. Grab yours and I'll meet you in the sewing room."

A special moment of mother daughter bonding. Yes, I know, such sensitivity.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It isn't just dialogue that needs timing.

The written text is nothing like telling a story verbally. Whatever you write, it is up to the reader to decide what he/she thinks is the meaning you meant to convey.

If you are too subtle, or use references the reader doesn't know, or assume cultural norms the reader doesn't share, your story could fail for that reader.

For example, some cultures have no concept of fiction. They think that "If it is written, it must be true" and if it isn't, it is a lie. For them, Literotica would be incomprehensible.

We aren't all US citizens, and even US citizens have different cultural clues.

I know what a "redneck" means. But would many people outside the UK know what a "Geordie" is? I know, I know, some of you will. But if I mention a Geordie I would have to have some further explanation in the story if it is important to the plot that the person is a Geordie.

Some US writers refer to Amendments to the US constitution, or to Roe v Wade. Would a reader in Hong Kong know exactly what is meant?

Listen to real life dialogue between old friends and/or couples who have been married for many years. There is so much verbal shorthand and references that mean nothing to anyone else. But if you copied what you heard, the reader would be lost.

George V.Higgins said the same as you when he told an interviewer that his writer job is to present the information he has and let the reader decide what it means.

 

[oggbashan]

George V.Higgins said the same as you when he told an interviewer that his writer job is to present the information he has and let the reader decide what it means.

Yes, but...

The writer's job is to present the information in a way that the reader can understand even if the reader uses his own interpretation. If the writer uses images that are less than universal, the opportunities for misunderstanding increase.

 

[sr71plt]

She felt all the fun of the evening being sucked out of her and for a moment her face fell.Then she was squeezed and thrown on the bed and her daughter tickled her till she was giggling uncontrollably and struggling not to pee.She screamed for her to stop and Kirsten did- finally. She lay on her back with Kirsten sitting astride pinning her.

"Want some more?"

"No!"

"Better get dressed then."

"Thanks babe, just thanks."

"Welcome. Whatcha wearin'?"

"I thought a half cup bra, suspender belt and my black mesh stockings."

'Yeah. Classy."

"Oh I thought I might take that dress your father likes, the one I wore at the last work do of his and make some slight alterations. What about you?"

"Everyone loves a cheerleader huh?"

'You really are my daughter after all.Come on. Grab yours and I'll meet you in the sewing room."

A special moment of mother daughter bonding. Yes, I know, such sensitivity.

Speaking of needing some punctuation . . . .

 

[3113]

e-book solution to that "cultural differences" problem

I know what a "redneck" means. But would many people outside the UK know what a "Geordie" is? I know, I know, some of you will. But if I mention a Geordie I would have to have some further explanation in the story if it is important to the plot that the person is a Geordie.

Well, that's the problem with stories on the internet isn't it? Prior to the 21st century one had to be a Dickens or J.K. Rowling to get a global readership. Most authors were lucky if their books got a second printing, let alone foreign rights. And the most common of such rights was UK/US which (words like Geordie aside), are sharing the English language and don't require much translation. Which is to say, the "cultural differences" issues didn't come up in print like it does now with e-books. Consider your own stories--if they were all put out in a certain print mag with a limited circulation, rather than on the internet, you wouldn't even think about how some American reader was going to be stumped by Geordie, would you? Because that mag would probably only have a UK readership. Right?

With e-books/stories, however, writers now routinely have readers from around the globe and this does make things tricky. Luckily, if it's an e-story then definitions of unknown words and terms becomes much easier for the reader, themselves, to define. I recently purchased (for 99 cents) a Dumas novel--iBook on my iPad--where the author spends a lot of time in the opening chapter describing clothing. There were words for articles of 19th century men's clothing that, of course, no longer exist. And I had no idea what some of them were. With a couple of clicks, I was able to find out. One item named was not in the dictionary provided--but all I had to do was tell the program to "search the web" and I found it instantly...with a picture And now I know what that word means.

If I was reading a story of yours on my iPad, and ran across the word "Geordie," I'd simply have the program define it for me there and then and keep on reading. Likewise, I'm sure said programs, in other languages, can do the same for a reader unfamiliar with the word "redneck."

Welcome to 21st century reading. Global footnotes provided and easily accessible. It doesn't solve the "cultural differences" problem, per se, but it makes it less of a problem.

 

[phantasy19]

Speech tags are invisible, and using actions to keep the pace of the scene flowing works well.

Rather than have two floating heads talking to each other, use the opportunity to tell us more about the character by their actions, their body language. You can build character without having to use straight forward technique. Show, don't tell, and so on.

For example,

"Katie," he wraps her hair in his hands, guiding her open mouth towards his cock, "please."

vs

"Katie," he bites his lip as she mounts him, grinning, "please."

The first one puts the man in a more powerful position, it tells us about the submissive nature of the woman.
The second puts the man in the submissive position.

Just those two little tags make all the difference to tone and character, and that's what makes a good peice of dialogue flow well, I beleive.

Sorry if slightly off-topic.

 

[sr71plt]

Your point is well taken but both of your examples are ungrammatical.

I swear I don't understand what happened to teaching grammar in schools.

 

[PennLady]

Phantasy19 provides good examples of setting the mood, but the punctuation is wrong.

"Katie." He wraps her hair in his hands, guiding her open mouth towards his cock. "Please."

vs

"Katie." He bites his lip as she mounts him, grinning. "Please."

You can certainly use actions instead of speech tags -- I do this a lot and so do many others -- but you still have to punctuate properly. Just because the speech tag isn't there doesn't mean you use the same punctuation.

 

[CarolinaPeach]

I think action makes things more immediate and real. I think names are handy to give the reader some landmarks.

I'm sorry my original post wasn't as clear as I wanted it to be. I did not want my meaning mistaken or confused, but apparently it was. So please accept this clarification. I said: "I like following or preceding dialogue snippets with action, it makes it more immediate and real." in those words, in my original post. But my words must have been swallowed up by what came next and things got confused. It happens. No biggie, but I didn't want anyone thinking I believed names make things immediate and real, because, as PennLady points out, this is not true.

 

[SamScribble]

First and foremost, vivid, convincing dialogue must ‘sound’ right. As William Zinsser says: ‘People read with their ears, whether they know it or not.’ If I can’t ‘hear’ the dialogue, I am not likely to find it convincing.

 

[robertreams]

I like using contractions, accents, slang, idioms and generally sloppy grammar to replicate real conversations. No one speaks the 'King's English' anyway except that dude in New Delhi that answers your call for tech help on your 'puter.

except healways says "guy". lol