Write dialog as if REAL people were speaking to each other

[SecondCircle]

I understand what the OP is getting at. Not literally to mean writing dialogue word for word the way human beings speak, (with pauses, "uh's" and "um's", and other nuances of speech that make it an unintelligible mess when written down), but rather just writing the way a character would talk in a plausible manner. In a way that makes it seem as though a real, living, breathing character is actually speaking the words. As opposed to robotic text that breaks the veil of that whole suspension of disbelief thing and reads like an encyclopedia entry. As long as it fits the character speaking it's fine.

Sure, one could scour the world and peek into many different cultures and customs and find hundreds of thousands of different ways of speaking. But I think the OP just meant that typically, we don't address one another by name every single time we open our mouth in a single conversation, especially not if there's just one other person we know that we are talking to.

I get the Incest kink thing, but there are better ways of reinforcing the taboo in the readers mind without beating them over the head with "brother, sister, father, daddy, mother, uncle" right in the dialogue. The pet names might come up for a given character, yes, but too much of that type of dialogue ("Oh yes, lick your sister's pussy, little bro!") starts to sound like bad porn acting.

Of course, anyone can write as they please. I understand the preference for realistic dialogue that sounds like it's coming from an actual person though, as opposed to sounding scripted.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, yes, but that's not what the OP actually posted. The writer's response was that you do have to adjust the dialogue for the different medium of reading rather than hearing (and/or participating in a conversation, which is more interactive and garbled when transcripted than even monologue is). In writing, you do occasionally need to throw in an addresee's name in dialogue or the dialogue slug as necessary to keep the reader's understanding on the road.

And, beyond this, as at least one responder noted, in erotica, a pet name used in direct address can intensify the arousal--and thus serve the story better.

A verbal, face-to-face exchange is not the same as a written story--they entail different presentation skills to maintaining understanding and clarity. The OP show an understanding of this.

 

[SecondCircle]

Presentation different, aye. Only expounding upon the suggested thoughts of dialogue with my own. While poor examples might have been introduced, the idea was not to allow any writing necessity or presentation to cause the dialogue to feel like simple text, as opposed to a character actually talking.

Or in other words, I think what they were trying to say was lost in their attempt to say it, so I went from there and added my own thoughts. Pet name here or there sure (but not beaten over the head.) Mention the name here and again to avoid reader confusion yes. Not an exact word for word transcript of the mess that is actual human speech, of course. But along the way of making that transition to the written word is where most dialogue fails and reads like a textbook. Even with writing cues in place, it shouldn't sound fake, stilted, stupid, silly, or like it was read by a robot. It should sound realistic. Like an actual person is saying those things.

Meeting somewhat in the middle, as it were.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, sure, but the OP didn't show the pet name being repeated. The OP jumped on it being used once. And went further to show that the OP didn't realize that real, spoken speech won't cut it in written form.

I can understand you expanding on the OP, but you couched it in what you think the OP was saying. You changed the goal posts.

 

[SecondCircle]

I put up new goal posts. Viewed from another part of the stadium. True I can't be sure that my reading between their lines about what they were "getting at" is accurate, nor is that really the point. Just another voice with another angle from another part of the stadium with my own preferences on the dialogue I find "realistic". That is all.

 

[oggbashan]

As always, what is 'realistic' depends on the reader's perception no matter how hard the author tries to make dialogue work.

What might work for one reader might not work for another. Some people have more imagination when reading than others do.

I like this example from a Shakespeare - Much Ado About Nothing performed at The Globe. As read in a printed text would the average reader get this much out of a few words?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkmSIy8PayY

 

[SecondCircle]

Hm. True, but that sort of subjectivity applies to almost anything in fiction.

 

[sr71plt]

Still, I think I can pretty much guarantee that if you recorded, transcribed, and dropped a typical conversation in a written story as the "real," faithful, authentic dialogue, your reader would be absolutely confused and frustrated by the flow and incoherence of the story. That was the thrust of the OP's thread initiation. Hope the OP can see the difference now between real talk and written presentation of dialogue.

 

[SecondCircle]

Nay that's one end of the spectrum. The extremely realistic end of the spectrum. I totally agree with not writing the spoken dialogue word for word as if recorded. As stated, that does not translate to a coherent written form for a story.

The other end of the spectrum is the one that is pure text, lifeless and dry. Without any sort of realism in the mannerisms of the actual characters, and without making them sound like they are actual people, the illusion is undone. The fly can see the spider's web this way.

What I gathered was a search for that middle ground. The happy middle area where the spoken word is formatted in a way that keeps the story understandable but alive enough to still convince the reader that these are things actual people would say.

Like anything, pet names for incest are fine, but they can stick out like a special effects wire on a stunt man clearly visible in final film. If it's the way the person talks and is an effective way to highlight the taboo, than so be it. But it isn't wrong to suggest that there are other ways than what could be awkward sounding dialogue to hammer home the taboo, perhaps within the very body of a story.

Lay it on too thick, and it sounds, eh, corny. (All subjective to the reader, of course, of course). But it'd be the equivalent of putting square framed glasses on a short guy in a suit with a guitar and having him say things like, "Phew what a great shoe, or my name ain't Buddy Holly!" If poorly executed, as is often done, it can induce eye rolls. Like, "We get it already, your cute little bro is licking your sissy clit."

But as with all things it depends.

 

[sr71plt]

Fine. That doesn't really relate to the OP's stated opinions. But then, you didn't claim it was this time. I hope that the bottom line is that the OP got the message on making dialogue real despite all of the side discussion. Otherwise, the OP isn't going to be writing very good dialogue.

 

[SecondCircle]

Mm. What I've said does relate to it, but that ship has sailed I think. Much of what I've read of their opinions in the thread lead me to believe they'll be fine in terms of writing good dialogue. They've acknowledged the points made and that there's many exceptions to what they're suggesting in any case. As many have noted anyway, there's no real one way of writing good dialogue.

 

[sr71plt]

Whatever makes you feel justified.

 

[wastrel86]

I agree with the OP. Good on him for calling it out.

Re the comment that (s)he hasn't published any stories here, that's the logical fallacy that we refer to as an ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). That has no bearing on the validity of the argument. The kind poster that perpetrated the fallacy can ignore my comments as well, as I haven't published anything either.

Also, we don't need to pound it home (pun intended) that her brother is licking her cunt. If someone is so daft while reading an incest story that he needs the dialogue to remind him, then he should read a few well-written short stories so that he gains an understanding of how dialog works. (This site is called LITerotica, eh?)

I also agree with the poster that said people aren't usually articulate while such bits are being licked. That said, I know from experience that it happens. It really depends on the character. If the character has been developed as a person who would say that, then let her chat away. We can do it without the dialog: "The experience felt surreal. She wasn't sure it was really happening until she flinched when his stubble rubbed along her inner thigh and she felt his lips press against hers, those lips that had crookedly grinned at her so many times when he said 'Hey, sis.'" (sorry, hackish, just off the cuff.)

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Still, I think I can pretty much guarantee that if you recorded, transcribed, and dropped a typical conversation in a written story as the "real," faithful, authentic dialogue, your reader would be absolutely confused and frustrated by the flow and incoherence of the story.

It's not that bad. I tend towards realistic dialogue from bright people. Because my characters are sometimes youngish females in the process of discovering what they feel, they speak hesitantly sometimes, and um's and broken sentences start to appear:

"I- wait. No. That's not what I - I'm not like that!" She blushed, hard. "Do you really think I'd... uh, I- I have to go!"

In real life where I live, "have to" would have been haveta, but since I'm writing for a wide audience and local slang isn't meaningful, "have to" is a reasonable concession. Everything else is word for word from an actual event, and writing it how it sounded is what makes it effective.

Where it gets difficult is when two characters have known each other for a long time and they have so much shared context and so many inside jokes that an outside observer is largely excluded. That's where the OP is coming from - two people in a room just about never address each other by title or name because they both know who they're talking to. You can do it for effect in front of an audience -

The pair burst onto the stage and surveyed the cheering crowd, hats tipping a mile a minute.

"Well, my word, Mr. Brown!"

"Absolutely the limit, Mr. Smith!"

- but two people alone in a room? Unless they're signalling a wide gulf in social class or rank, that won't happen. Of course, a wide gulf and use of required titles can be sexy.

"Miss Lux, I require that blouse off, now."

"Sir! I... no, please, I must never!"

"Will I be forced to lower myself to the expediency of ripping it off myself, Miss Lux?"

Shivering, with eyes lowered, she reached for the buttons. "No, sir," she whispered.

The OP's point about "little bro" doesn't strike me as falling into that category., though.

 

[oggbashan]

I agree with the OP. Good on him for calling it out.

Re the comment that (s)he hasn't published any stories here, that's the logical fallacy that we refer to as an ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). That has no bearing on the validity of the argument. The kind poster that perpetrated the fallacy can ignore my comments as well, as I haven't published anything either.

...

Ad hominem is more usual on the General and Politics Boards.

But I think you need to appreciate the history of the Authors' Hangout. Many times every year a newbie comes along to state "You're doing it all wrong. This is the ONLY way to write..."

It can be irritating to be told again and again that there are better ways to write, or even worse there is only one way to write, from people who give no evidence that they have ever written a story.

However writers have been complaining about critics from the era of classical Greek drama.

The original post has led to an interesting discussion about dialogue but I can understand some of us being annoyed by the didactic tone and resenting it.