Vivid, convincing dialogue

[robertreams]

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.

writing dialogue is like writing a story. It should not be true, but should be "true to life".

That is you may not know anyone who speaks exactly that way, but it shlould sound right in your head when you read it.

 

[Perfideous]

Speaking of needing some punctuation . . . .

speaking of needing some nine millimeter therapy

 

[slyc_willie]

speaking of needing some nine millimeter therapy

Now that was a pathetic and moronic insult to make, even on an Internet forum board.

 

[sr71plt]

Now that was a pathetic and moronic insult to make, even on an Internet forum board.

I could embarrass P, of course, by showing an edit of the posting leading into this. So could a whole bunch of others here too, I'm sure.

This isn't P's first performance of noncontact with the English language on the boards while giving "guidance." You'd think the poster would wake up to reality after a while.

 

[slyc_willie]

I could embarrass P, of course, by showing an edit of the posting leading into this. So could a whole bunch of others here too, I'm sure.

This isn't P's first performance of noncontact with the English language on the boards while giving "guidance." You'd think the poster would wake up to reality after a while.

I don't care if that poster has the wisdom of ages to share with the rest of us. A single post of something like that is enough for me to think he or she is nothing but a child. I'll not respond to Perfideous again, nor will I ever read anything he or she has to say.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't care if that poster has the wisdom of ages to share with the rest of us. A single post of something like that is enough for me to think he or she is nothing but a child. I'll not respond to Perfideous again, nor will I ever read anything he or she has to say.

I'm sort of used to this stuff. People suck into the Internet discussion board near axiom that all posters are equal so much that when their application of that is shown as false--equal access does not mean equal knowledge; just being on the Internet doesn't make you equal to the knowledge of everyone else on the Internet on any given topic--that their "cover-up" response is something like this one was.

I just hope to Jehovah that Perfideous isn't signed up as a voluntary editor here.

 

[slyc_willie]

I'm sort of used to this stuff. People suck into the Internet discussion board near axiom that all posters are equal so much that when their application of that is shown as false--equal access does not mean equal knowledge; just being on the Internet doesn't make you equal to the knowledge of everyone else on the Internet on any given topic--that their "cover-up" response is something like this one was.

I just hope to Jehovah that Perfideous isn't signed up as a voluntary editor here.

That post was beyond childish. I've not only reported it, but sent a PM to Laurel about it. Regardless of arguments and differences, there's no excuse for anything like that here, or anywhere. P. may not be banned because this site believes in free speech, and I truly respect that, but I hope others here will see that poster for what he or she is.

And just to be clear, I would have done the same if that post was made toward LC, JBJ, or any of the GB Mad Hatters that frequently go around picking fights.

 

[robertreams]

You couldn't get very far at all into a three-person conversation without going off the rails with the reader on who said what.

And one of your sentences is incorrect. It should be "I turned toward Jack. [period, not comma] "Well, I know what I'd do."

(It's not fully clear in this construction that the dialogue is by "I," by the way. "I" could be turning to Jack to hear what Jack had to say.)

I disagree totally. The sentence is much more effective, its meaning much more clear with the comma. Sometimes "proper" grammar has to yield to author intent.

 

[Catchalot]

I disagree totally. The sentence is much more effective, its meaning much more clear with the comma. Sometimes "proper" grammar has to yield to author intent.

There you go, just toss the rules out and do it however you want

Seriously, a good writer should be able to use the rules, so the reader doesn't have to try and figure out why they keep getting broken. If you think the only way you can write that dialog is by breaking the fundamental rules of grammar, you shouldn't be writing for the public.

 

[Perfideous]

I could embarrass P, of course, by showing an edit of the posting leading into this. So could a whole bunch of others here too, I'm sure.

This isn't P's first performance of noncontact with the English language on the boards while giving "guidance." You'd think the poster would wake up to reality after a while.

What on earth is that nonsense supposed to mean?

 

[Perfideous]

That post was beyond childish. I've not only reported it, but sent a PM to Laurel about it. Regardless of arguments and differences, there's no excuse for anything like that here, or anywhere. P. may not be banned because this site believes in free speech, and I truly respect that, but I hope others here will see that poster for what he or she is.

And just to be clear, I would have done the same if that post was made toward LC, JBJ, or any of the GB Mad Hatters that frequently go around picking fights.

So it's fine for snide insults from your buddy but not for me to respond?

Yes, that's fair.

 

[Perfideous]

I'm sort of used to this stuff. People suck into the Internet discussion board near axiom that all posters are equal so much that when their application of that is shown as false--equal access does not mean equal knowledge; just being on the Internet doesn't make you equal to the knowledge of everyone else on the Internet on any given topic--that their "cover-up" response is something like this one was.

I just hope to Jehovah that Perfideous isn't signed up as a voluntary editor here.

You arrogant tosser.

 

[Catchalot]

Uh, you said he needed to be shot with a gun, I think that's a little harsh, sorry.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIT is split along a sexual-political line; the straights are on one side and the mutant/freaks are on the other. PILOT is the mutant/freak club, just like AMICUS usta be the straight teams hammer.

PILOT is a pissy harridan prancing about in his harlequin suit, and once you see him for what he is he morphs into Rodney Dangerfield. PILOT thinks his barstool is a throne.

 

[Perfideous]

Uh, you said he needed to be shot with a gun, I think that's a little harsh, sorry.

No I didn't, it was a whimsical little quip just like his whimsical little put down (one in a series) of me.

The problem with Americans ,you see, is that you're all too serious. You can't laugh at a joke unless someone explains it, you take a month to analyze it and an authority figure tells you it's OK to laugh and then you look furtively around and if someone else is laughing you might try a minor chuckle yourself.

Look at Monty Python. By the time America discovered them they were old men.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No I didn't, it was a whimsical little quip just like his whimsical little put down (one in a series) of me.

The problem with Americans ,you see, is that you're all too serious. You can't laugh at a joke unless someone explains it, you take a month to analyze it and an authority figure tells you it's OK to laugh and then you look furtively around and if someone else is laughing you might try a minor chuckle yourself.

Look at Monty Python. By the time America discovered them they were old men.

American libruls have no sense of humor unless theyre falling off their barstools, and then they don't get the joke. Fuck all the pansy cry babies who whine about your comment.

PILOT needs a nuclear enema. Fuck him if he cant take a joke.

 

[Catchalot]

No I didn't, it was a whimsical little quip just like his whimsical little put down (one in a series) of me.

The problem with Americans ,you see, is that you're all too serious. You can't laugh at a joke unless someone explains it, you take a month to analyze it and an authority figure tells you it's OK to laugh and then you look furtively around and if someone else is laughing you might try a minor chuckle yourself.

Look at Monty Python. By the time America discovered them they were old men.

Okay, so go eat a lemon, it might sweeten up your disposition. See, I have a sense of humor too, and I don't even need you to die for it to be funny.

 

[PennLady]

I disagree totally. The sentence is much more effective, its meaning much more clear with the comma. Sometimes "proper" grammar has to yield to author intent.

To me this is less about grammar than punctuation, but I'm sure both apply. The sentence is wrong as it is written. There should be a period before the quote around the spoken statement. If you want a comma, then add a dialogue tag: I turned to Jack and said,.

And at least to me, the meaning is not "much more clear" with the comma. It's a stumbling block which leads me to go back and re-read the sentence to see if I missed something, which takes me out of the story.

Yes, "proper" grammar has to yield sometimes -- which is why when writing fiction you can and should use sentence fragments, some slang terms, things like that. But the punctuation keeps things moving and provides cues to the reader and in that sentence the only cue I get is "something's wrong."

 

[TxRad]

American libruls have no sense of humor unless theyre falling off their barstools, and then they don't get the joke. Fuck all the pansy cry babies who whine about your comment.

PILOT needs a nuclear enema. Fuck him if he cant take a joke.

And you are the biggest joke around here.

Some people just can't take a serious intelligent conversation.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

And you are the biggest joke around here.

Some people just can't take a serious intelligent conversation.

Another happy hour host just chimed in. He has more PUI (Posting Under the Influence) arrests than anyone in history.

 

[TxRad]

Another happy hour host just chimed in. He has more PUI (Posting Under the Influence) arrests than anyone in history.

A perfect example of what I said.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A perfect example of what I said.

^^^^ Has more barstool crashes than Evil Knievil

 

[Bramblethorn]

No I didn't, it was a whimsical little quip just like his whimsical little put down (one in a series) of me.

The problem with Americans ,you see, is that you're all too serious. You can't laugh at a joke unless someone explains it, you take a month to analyze it and an authority figure tells you it's OK to laugh and then you look furtively around and if someone else is laughing you might try a minor chuckle yourself.

Look at Monty Python. By the time America discovered them they were old men.

[nitpick]When "Flying Circus" started screening on PBS in mid-1974 and became an instant success, the oldest of the Pythons was not yet 35. Also, if I have the dates right, Terry Gilliam was American for the first 26 years of his life.[/nitpick]

Funny thing is, a lot of Python's humour was a reaction to British seriousness. In the words of a Mr. J. Cleese:

"Wanda, do you have any idea what it's like being English? Being so correct all the time, being so stifled by this dread of, of doing the wrong thing, of saying to someone, 'Are you married?' and hearing, ' My wife left me this morning,' or saying, uh, ' Do you have children?' and being told they all burned to death on Wednesday. You see, Wanda, we're all terrified of embarrassment. That's why we're so - dead."

 

[sr71plt]

I disagree totally. The sentence is much more effective, its meaning much more clear with the comma. Sometimes "proper" grammar has to yield to author intent.

Sorry, the author who believes this more often than not is the one who doesn't have a basic understanding of grammar and wants it to be legitimate to skip that step altogether. It's an "easy button" attempt to level the field down to their current level.

This is the typical "it's all about me" response. Sorry, but it's just as much about the reader as it is about the author, and the reader requires some understood grounding.

 

[sr71plt]

You arrogant tosser.

The Literotica definition of "arrogance": A word of abuse and derision to be leveled at someone who has been shown to know more about a specific issue or topic than you are pretending to know.