A thought or two on dialogue

[Weird Harold]

"Jen, You're wrong and you know it. Just give it up."

Jen looked at Karen in shock. "Et Tu Brute," she snapped.

Karen tried to look innocent. "I've never liked Shakespeare, and we don't study Julius Caesar until next semester anyway, so I have no idea what you mean."

The quote is an approximation of an exchange written by someone else.

The thought it brought to mind about dialogue is the question of how different writers use dialogue and whether writig disengenuous comebacks like the example is harder than keeping the dialogue serious and "on topic" or vice versa.

It's been said (and I've repeated many times in this forum) that Dialogue is both the easiest and hardest part of writing. Easy because you just have to trnscribe what your charaters say an hard because you have to develop characters enough for them to be able to speak to you.

For me, dialogue is fairly easy, because stories ideas come to me mostly as snippets of dialogue and I have to come up with some action that fits the dialogue. I'm fond of writing characters that play with words and make silly, disengenuous remarks like the example. I suppose because that's the way I learned to love the language; by hanging out with people who loved the language and loved to play with it.

In discussing writing of dialogue over the years with various people, I think I saw a pattern I didn't recognise until earlier today -- People who have chronic problems with writing dialogue have rpoblems writing dialogue because they try too hard to stay "on topic;" they dont let the silliness and non-sequiters their characters are begging to use onto the page.

As result, their dialogue is stiff and stilted instead of free-flowing and interesting. The don't write stiff and stilted dialogue because they have trouble writing dialogue as I've always thought; they have trouble writing dialogue because the dialogue is stiff and stilted.

I know some of you are saying, "Weird Harold needs to get some air because he's obviously suffering from lack of oxygen."

But think about it a second.

If you approach dialogue from an "he told her to get undressed" outline point and write your dialogue with the intent of converting the outline point into a direct statement, with the intent of conveying "Get undressed, Sarah" and no more than that, the dialogue you intend to write is stiff and stilted before you start writing.

If you approach the outline point with the character's personality in mind and write the dialogue with more than the simple purpose of showing the literal words of the order instead of telling about it, the dialogue has more life to it before you even start writing.

Granted, some characters are brusque and terse and would simply order someone to undress with a single word -- but consider the original quote in this post.

The author could have written:

Karen tired to look innocent. "I have no idea what you mean." and conveyed the information that Karen was playing innocent.

But...

The additional commentary about Shakespeare and not having read Julius Caesar yet convey something MORE than the simple fact of playing innocent. It conveys a woman who is fun loving and doesn't take anything seriously unless it is absolutely necessary and a woman who is literate without being "bookish."

At least for me, dialogue like the exmple is fairly easy to write because I appreciate the ability to say several things with one set of words -- I approach dialogue as an opportunity to show MORE than the stiff and stilted minimum required to convey literal words.


So, o I ned to get some fresh air and check the batteries in my CO detector or am I on to something with this shift in viewpoint on wy some people hve trouble writing dialogue?

 

[rikaaim]

I agree with what you say about writing the dialouge. However, I had a question about the example quote. If character A, sorry I forgot the name after reading your following post, hasn't read Julius Ceaser yet, how did she know character B's quote was from Julius Ceaser?

Dialogue hasn't been too difficult for me because I can so easily pretend to be the character. It just flows as a natural part of who I think the character is. Dialect however is a tougher challenge. I'm not too familiar with different regions and accents so my characters tend to speak a little plain because that's where I live. The mid-west is a little plain. I tend to be a little hick sometimes, but that's from my dad.

 

[BlackShanglan]

WH Is absolutely right.

Allow me to add this: weak narration usually comes from exactly the same problem. "I will describe exactly and precisely the physical actions that occur and nothing more."

Both narration and dialogue can be powerful tools to flesh out the character speaking or being used for POV. When well done, they do more than anything, even plot, to tell us what a character is really like. When mechanically done, they leave an emptiness and thinness to the text that nothing can mask. I have come to think voice - narrative and dialogue - the single most dominant factor in any text.

Use the force wisely, young padwans.

Shanglan

 

[oggbashan]

I think much of the problem with writing dialogue is Microsoft's grammar checker.

It is OK to write incomplete sentences, fragments, single word responses, to omit the pronoun or the verb. That's how we speak.

I am not too happy with the qualifying statements to dialogue. I think the tone of the response should be set by the actual dialogue, not by the surrounding text:

'Jen, you're wrong and you know it. Just give it up.'

'Et tu, Brute?'

'Julius Caesar? Never studied him. You're still wrong and pig-headed with it.'

Og

 

[rikaaim]

WH Is absolutely right.

Allow me to add this: weak narration usually comes from exactly the same problem. "I will describe exactly and precisely the physical actions that occur and nothing more."

Both narration and dialogue can be powerful tools to flesh out the character speaking or being used for POV. When well done, they do more than anything, even plot, to tell us what a character is really like. When mechanically done, they leave an emptiness and thinness to the text that nothing can mask.

Use the force wisely, young padwans.

Shanglan

Agreed. When I see a story where the narative is mostly talk and pure action description with no motives, I want to skip reading that section or the piece altogether. Even with my own stories, if they only seem like pure verbs, sounding almost like instructions on how to build an entertainment stand, I want to stop writing. I can't stand it. There is no flow. It almost seems as if I'm reading against the grain and getting a splinter for doing so. Often I can't even get my narative to flow the right way until I get the characters moving and feeling alive. Then I can better tell what they are doing as far as their actions by observing what they say and how they act.

To me writing is not throwing words on the paper. Rather it is me being fortunate enough to look into someone's life. I can see what they say and how they feel as well as what they are doing and why. I know they are made up, and I am the one making them up, but when I story of mine really gets going, I'm not writing it anymore. It simply comes out and I watch. When the movie in my head stops and no more words fall onto the pages, that's when I know I am done.

 

[gauchecritic]

I don't have any problem writing dialogue and like H I tend to let character blossom if they want to add something non-sequitir to the conversation, which at the same time illustrates that character's feelings and thoughts by expression rather than statement.

I'm sure the playwrights amongst us know the technique well. (assuming of course that we're not all Beckettian purists).

On the other hand it's also how I write the prose and in my opinion is indicative of the ability to show not tell or at least the method I use.

What it also does is introduce or sustain a subtext and at the same time create a "second level of discourse between the writer and the reader." (thanks shang) That is to say, without any visual clues whatsoever it has to be 'not what you said, it's the way you said it'

Looked at this way and realising what good dialogue inevitably includes I wonder that writers even attempt dialogue.

My advice would be to let the characters say it rather than write down what the character says.

 

[The_old_man]

In my humble efforts, I find that emotion can not be described unless dialog is present to illustrate.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

In my humble efforts, I find that emotion can not be described unless dialog is present to illustrate.

I think it can, but I prefer the use of dialogue.
For me, I just try and make the dialogue read like it would actually be spoken (too many write dialogue as if they were working on a formal document), and let the characters develop from that. Some people can do emotion very well without it, but I love to write interesting characters, and dialogue is key for that.

 

[Weird Harold]

Allow me to add this: weak narration usually comes from exactly the same problem. "I will describe exactly and precisely the physical actions that occur and nothing more."

The reason I aimed this discussion at dialogue is because even authors who excel at narration -- even first person casual narration -- don't seem to be able to consistently extend the concept to dialogue; perhaps especially thoe who excel at "first person casual" narration. It sometimes seems that the more casual and informal the narration, the stiffer and more stilted the dialogue -- like the authors feel silly "putting on different voices" to tell the story when they're into the character of the narrator.

 

[tolyk]

WH, I think part of the problem is due to authors not wanting to take up too much room with dialogue. I mean, in a paperback novel, a page can get filled up pretty quick.. I've seen novels with conversations going on for, what I consider, far too many pages. Definitely when it is pointless banter, no plot information, no character development, etc etc. Most of us have read stories/books like that and we try to avoid it in our own works, and in so doing we lose out on a lot of dialogue (Well, I personally think I'm decent with dialogue, I'm just speaking on a general level)

 

[Weird Harold]

WH, I think part of the problem is due to authors not wanting to take up too much room with dialogue. I mean, in a paperback novel, a page can get filled up pretty quick.. I've seen novels with conversations going on for, what I consider, far too many pages. Definitely when it is pointless banter, no plot information, no character development, etc etc. Most of us have read stories/books like that and we try to avoid it in our own works, and in so doing we lose out on a lot of dialogue (Well, I personally think I'm decent with dialogue, I'm just speaking on a general level)

My intial thought was that "space" isn't a consideration and I still think that's true.

However, you may have point about how opinions about reading dialogue affect how an author writes dialogue.

I happen to love authors who use long dialogues between characters engaged in the mundane tasks of everyday life and I tend to write long passages of dialogue between characters engaged in mundane things.

I don't write long dialogues without a purpose -- although it might seem that way to some readers -- I ofen use them to set up a contrast for a following crisis situation.

Still, I do write the kind of dialogue I like to read, so you may have part of a point. I'm not so sure about the "wasted space" part of your point, though. Except for reporting a whole trips worth of:

"Mom! He's touching me!"

"Am Not"

"Are Too"

"Am Not"

"Dont make me pull over to settle this!"

... Dialogue doesn't actually waste that much space, IMHO -- especially in a print-on-paper format where indents instead of white space divide paragraphs.

 

[Alex De Kok]

I find it impossible to write a story without dialogue. I try to use dialogue that sounds realistic and natural (he said, drawing a discreet veil over his dialect piece) and, like Harold, I try to write the kind I like to read myself. In fact, writing what I like to read is what got me submitting here in the first place, as before I found Lit the only erotic fiction I had found was almost universally bad, and I was sure I could do better. Whether I have is for the readers to say.

Dialogue, to me, is an inescapable part of the story and if my characters compel me to write a whole page of dialogue, so be it. In fact, one day I might finish a short piece I started with nothing except dialogue. Maybe . . .

I think the inimitable Gauche says it rather well -

My advice would be to let the characters say it rather than write down what the character says.

even if I'm not quite sure what he means.

Alex

 

[NoJo]

I find it impossible to write a story without dialogue. I try to use dialogue that sounds realistic and natural (he said, drawing a discreet veil over his dialect piece) and, like Harold, I try to write the kind I like to read myself. In fact, writing what I like to read is what got me submitting here in the first place, as before I found Lit the only erotic fiction I had found was almost universally bad, and I was sure I could do better. Whether I have is for the readers to say.

Dialogue, to me, is an inescapable part of the story and if my characters compel me to write a whole page of dialogue, so be it. In fact, one day I might finish a short piece I started with nothing except dialogue. Maybe . . .

I think the inimitable Gauche says it rather well - even if I'm not quite sure what he means.

Alex

I used to notice that my father would utter the dialog as he wrote, sotto voce. He would use realistic intonation, mimicking they way his characters spoke.

Stilted dialog is easy to avoid. You just have to listen to real people talking. Listen to your family talking, for example. Listening to yourself talking is hard, though.

 

[Alex De Kok]

I used to notice that my father would utter the dialog as he wrote, sotto voce. He would use realistic intonation, mimicking they way his characters spoke.

Stilted dialog is easy to avoid. You just have to listen to real people talking. Listen to your family talking, for example. Listening to yourself talking is hard, though.

I listen to people all the time. Don't always remember what they said! If I ever tried to write dialogue following the speech patterns of my late mother-in-law I'd get hate-mail and one bombs. I almost felt like cheering when she actually finished a sentence. She would start in the middle of a conversation assuming you knew everything that had taken place in her head before she started speaking. I still miss her.

Alex

 

[English Lady]

I love to write dialogue, I adore it. I find it, for me, the easiest bit to write because I can hear my characters talking in my head. (don't worry they don't tell me to murder folks or drink bleach or anything!)

Maybe I should write monologues? *L*

 

[NoJo]

I listen to people all the time. Don't always remember what they said! If I ever tried to write dialogue following the speech patterns of my late mother-in-law I'd get hate-mail and one bombs. I almost felt like cheering when she actually finished a sentence. She would start in the middle of a conversation assuming you knew everything that had taken place in her head before she started speaking. I still miss her.

Alex

I love that style of talking. The "I don't give a fuck" style, where you're the idiot if you can't follow the ellipsis.

My father and mother would have brilliant dialogs, full of non-sequiturs. My mother's weak grasp of English idioms (she's Russian) made it even worse.

Mum: "You never listen to me."
Dad (avoiding the ensuing bickering match): "This is a case of 'Least said, soonest mended'".
Mum: "That's why you should mend your ways."
Dad: "That's why you never fucking listen to me."