Stel- La!

[CharleyH]

Ok its a grab for Omega's attention. But really.

A line out of a Tenn. Williams play, "Streetcar Named Desire' and emotively so perfectly articulated by Marlon Brando in a film.

I know dialogue is hard in stories, but what makes you write, or think you write dialogue so gooood? What makes - not good dialogue, but GREAT dialogue?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

When it comes down to it, dialogue is something that the narrator, in the story universe, remembers so distinctly and is so important to the narrative or to characterise a situation, that he/she absolutely has to quote it word for word.

More than real (anecdotes seldom are), it has to be memorable, weird, something out of a David Lynch movie. It has to be important. Otherwise, there's no reason for the narrator to remember the exact words, and there's no reason for him/her not to simply narrate the scene.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I think I have written some of the worst dialogue by a native english speaker.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ok its a grab for Omega's attention. But really.

A line out of a Tenn. Williams play, "Streetcar Named Desire' and emotively so perfectly articulated by Marlon Brando in a film.

I know dialogue is hard in stories, but what makes you write, or think you write dialogue so gooood? What makes - not good dialogue, but GREAT dialogue?

You got my attention (I'm so greedy)

Stanley Kowalski's dialogue right there- is; "Stella? Hey, Stellaaaah!" As he realises she's walked on him- him having raped her demented sister and all. Hold, fade to black...

I think, and I hope, that I write good dialogue. Some guidlines I've developed are;

•Dialogue is not exposition; it should sound natural, which means ungrammatical and unforced. People use shortcuts in speach, and they're understandable when they're written- as long as they are written as dialogue.

•Sometimes, the dialogue is wordless- "a sullen grunt was his only reply" type of thing. That can add a real dimension into two character's interplay, as one person strives to overcome the other's reticence (My characters get physical about now )

•On the other hand, every line of dialogue should move the plot forward in some way- idle chat should provide some insight into the character's personality, or drop a foreshadowing hint, or something. If the talk is gratuitous, I try to edit it out. (Sometimes the lines don't want to leave, of course, because I think they are just so kewt! but I do try, I do)

•People do not use each other's names very often in conversation, not even in a multiple-person convo. (This means the author has to find effective ways of showing which character is talking to whom)

•Each character might have a couple of idiosyncrasies- my artist, for instance, says "You see?" while her musician boyfriend says "Hey, listen!" (but not in every sentence, for crissakes!)

•Likewise all of us speak from a point of view- my studious young "librarian of the future" sees the same events a little differently than his rough-trade trick does. This influences the dialogue, so that your characters can be at cross-purposes without realising it, or sometimes inducing the need to resolve things.

•I admit that I probably write more dialect than I should. It's my literary wank, I guess

•Edit, edit, edit!

 

[mjl2010]

You got my attention (I'm so greedy)

Stanley Kowalski's dialogue right there- is; "Stella? Hey, Stellaaaah!" As he realises she's walked on him- him having raped her demented sister and all. Hold, fade to black...

I think, and I hope, that I write good dialogue. Some guidlines I've developed are;

•Dialogue is not exposition; it should sound natural, which means ungrammatical and unforced. People use shortcuts in speach, and they're understandable when they're written- as long as they are written as dialogue.

•Sometimes, the dialogue is wordless- "a sullen grunt was his only reply" type of thing. That can add a real dimension into two character's interplay, as one person strives to overcome the other's reticence (My characters get physical about now )

•On the other hand, every line of dialogue should move the plot forward in some way- idle chat should provide some insight into the character's personality, or drop a foreshadowing hint, or something. If the talk is gratuitous, I try to edit it out. (Sometimes the lines don't want to leave, of course, because I think they are just so kewt! but I do try, I do)

•People do not use each other's names very often in conversation, not even in a multiple-person convo. (This means the author has to find effective ways of showing which character is talking to whom)

•Each character might have a couple of idiosyncrasies- my artist, for instance, says "You see?" while her musician boyfriend says "Hey, listen!" (but not in every sentence, for crissakes!)

•Likewise all of us speak from a point of view- my studious young "librarian of the future" sees the same events a little differently than his rough-trade trick does. This influences the dialogue, so that your characters can be at cross-purposes without realising it, or sometimes inducing the need to resolve things.

•I admit that I probably write more dialect than I should. It's my literary wank, I guess

•Edit, edit, edit!

Really good Stella. I hope you don't mind I'm printing this out and taping it above my monitor.

MJL

 

[Stella_Omega]

Really good Stella. I hope you don't mind I'm printing this out and taping it above my monitor.

MJL

Gawrsh!
I'm hoping that more people will have rules too, and we can compile a master list!

Charley my love? What about you?

 

[neonlyte]

Great Rules Stella!

I have a huge weakness for writing dialogue, have to rein myself in. The piece I put in the 'voice/transportation' comp, I thought was pretty much 'me' in terms of the way I want dialogue to move my story forward.

Here's a snippet from much, much later in the same story - there are five characters in this scene, though only three 'speak' - the point of quoting this is it pin-points a moment in time for people of a certain age, and hopefully makes the differences between the nationalities better than any amount of explanation might:

“How did you get the images… the buildings, I mean, so quickly?” Alain asked in surprisingly passable English.

“Nicked ‘em off a French military database,” Doug answered nonchalantly, “probably best not to mention that. It’s stereoscopic imagery, they have it of all major ports and river inlets. We just played with them, cleaned them up. Looks good doesn’t it.”

Alain looked a little pained, I wondered what he was thinking.

“You penetrated our national security system,” he asked. Foolishly I thought, they were only photographs of St Malo and the surroundings.

“Nah… not really. Well a little bit. These were in an archive. Didn’t go anywhere sensitive. Could have done though, someone ought to fix that.”

Angela smiled sweetly, “he’s joking with you Monsieur Alain, I don’t think Doug has forgiven the French for burning our lambs. He’s a vegetarian.”

I suppressed a laugh, Philip turned his head away, he knew if he caught my eyes we’d both burst out laughing.

“So these didn’t come from security sources,” Alain persisted.

“Yes,” Angela answered, diplomatically.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Yoh! Tell it like it is!

You got my attention (I'm so greedy)

Stanley Kowalski's dialogue right there- is; "Stella? Hey, Stellaaaah!" As he realises she's walked on him- him having raped her demented sister and all. Hold, fade to black...

I think, and I hope, that I write good dialogue. Some guidlines I've developed are;

•Dialogue is not exposition; it should sound natural, which means ungrammatical and unforced. People use shortcuts in speach, and they're understandable when they're written- as long as they are written as dialogue.

Ay-men to that, sistah!

Absolutely. Someone who uses grammatically perfect speech is unusual, and almost certainly not a native speaker of $LANGUAGE.

•Sometimes, the dialogue is wordless- "a sullen grunt was his only reply" type of thing. That can add a real dimension into two character's interplay, as one person strives to overcome the other's reticence (My characters get physical about now )

Yes, but, there are a lot of ways to do this. The more laconic, the better, on the whole:

"You think this is her secret, don't you?" she asked, quietly.

"She hasn't chosen to tell you."

"I know. OK, can I ask questions?"

I shrugged, and nodded.

"It was something about her masochism?"

•On the other hand, every line of dialogue should move the plot forward in some way- idle chat should provide some insight into the character's personality, or drop a foreshadowing hint, or something. If the talk is gratuitous, I try to edit it out. (Sometimes the lines don't want to leave, of course, because I think they are just so kewt! but I do try, I do)

The shorter the piece, the more important this rule. In longer pieces, dialogue which simply establishes character can be justified in itself. On the other hand, if you look at the work of a real master of the craft (I was rereading JK Rowling last night) you'll find that even in a 600 page tome each little snippet of dialogue is doing at least three jobs.

•People do not use each other's names very often in conversation, not even in a multiple-person convo. (This means the author has to find effective ways of showing which character is talking to whom)

•Each character might have a couple of idiosyncrasies- my artist, for instance, says "You see?" while her musician boyfriend says "Hey, listen!" (but not in every sentence, for crissakes!)

The trick, in my experience, is to write one voice at a time. Yes, characteristics turns of phrase help. But they can get irritating if used too often. More to the point, different people use different rhythms of speech and different characteristic constructs. You really have to act the parts, and you often really do have to say it aloud. You have to ask yourself, of each line of dialogue, is this something this character would say? And, more importantly, is this how this character would express it?

•Likewise all of us speak from a point of view- my studious young "librarian of the future" sees the same events a little differently than his rough-trade trick does. This influences the dialogue, so that your characters can be at cross-purposes without realising it, or sometimes inducing the need to resolve things.

•I admit that I probably write more dialect than I should. It's my literary wank, I guess

Gin yir weird gars ye scrieve i' th' doric, ye'd better ken it lik yir ain leid, for yin o' yir redars surely will.

•Edit, edit, edit!

Say it, sistah! Say it!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Gin yir weird gars ye scrieve i' th' doric, ye'd better ken it lik yir ain leid, for yin o' yir redars surely will.

Okay, then I need a different word instead of "dialect" Accent? Even so, I try to keep it down to a dull roar.

On the other hand, a very successfully crafted book that uses an unexplained dialect all the way through, is "Riddley Walker" by Russel Hoban. I can't praise it highly enough. Nor could I possibly match its virtuosity.

But I do write in "Renfair speak" as a dialect, in "The Ballad of Mad Moll" and it was fun to do, and I think effective </plug>

Oh, that brings up another one! watch out for the number of furrin' words you use. I just read something where the characters suddenly broke out into a spate of gealic. it was personally gratifying for the author, and it did establish someone's home base, but didn't otherwise do a thing for me the uneducated American who was reading it.

Dorothy Sayers would insert letters written in French into her mystery stories. It was about the only fault the woman ever indulged herself in.

I have a character right now that won't say "fuck" but will speak filthy in Ojibwe, because that was the language that he learned to make love in. Three words, is all I'm using, and only so the other character can ask- "What?" and have it translated, then the bit of history is disclosed, and the revenge plot can start to take shape...but three words, that's all I think I'll need.

The more laconic, the better, on the whole

yep, I agree with you there!

Someone who uses grammatically perfect speech is unusual, and almost certainly not a native speaker of $LANGUAGE

that is about the best way to indicate a non-native speaker *nods*

The shorter the piece, the more important this rule. In longer pieces, dialogue which simply establishes character can be justified in itself. On the other hand, if you look at the work of a real master of the craft (I was rereading JK Rowling last night) you'll find that even in a 600 page tome each little snippet of dialogue is doing at least three jobs.

can I get a WIT-NUSS!

Rowlings a master? duuude... her ghostwriters maybe...

 

[CharleyH]

self-bumping before all good writing asks get E.A. Poe'd.

 

[Stella_Omega]

self-bumping before all good writing asks get E.A. Poe'd.

What have you got for dialogue thoughts, you adorable brat?

 

[SimonBrooke]

On the other hand, a very successfully crafted book that uses an unexplained dialect all the way through, is "Riddley Walker" by Russel Hoban. I can't praise it highly enough. Nor could I possibly match its virtuosity.

Oh, hell, YES! Utterly brilliant book, most strongly recommended.

Oh, that brings up another one! watch out for the number of furrin' words you use. I just read something where the characters suddenly broke out into a spate of gealic. it was personally gratifying for the author, and it did establish someone's home base, but didn't otherwise do a thing for me the uneducated American who was reading it.

Dorothy Sayers would insert letters written in French into her mystery stories. It was about the only fault the woman ever indulged herself in.

We did a whole thread about that over on the SDC. I have to say I don't agree with you. I don't think either Dorothy Sayers or anyone else should be forced to write down to a monoglot lowest common denominator. One may lose some audience if one chooses not to, but...

I'll confess to being an intellectual snob. I don't care if a story stretches me and uses things I have to look up, if it's a good enough story.

Rowlings a master? duuude... her ghostwriters maybe...

When I can write as tightly as she can... well, I never will. I was deconstructing a couple of paragraphs of apparently casual dialogue in the middle of the Half-Blood Prince, and every bloody sentence is doing so many different jobs. And she can hide clues in plain sight with a confidence which would make Dorothy Sayers writhe with jealousy - compare the clumsy way the tube of flake white is handled in Five Red Herrings with the finesse of the necklace handover in HBP:

"I expect "nothing"'s in the back getting more Firewhisky," said Hermione, waspishly.

There it is - the cue the plot turns on - out in the open in plain sight, and you and I and everyone else missed it. Because we were diverted by all the other things that piece of dialogue is doing. As against:

(Here Lord Peter told the Sergeant what he was looking for and why, but as the intelligent reader will readily supply these details for himself, they are omitted from this page.)

Yes - well - there too is the cue the plot turns on. And the intelligent reader who has been educated in the art of oil painting can indeed supply the detail... but clumsy, clumsy, clumsy. I will utterly agree with you that Sayers writes incomparably better English, and paints unquestionably more rounded and believable characters (although her attempts at a Galloway accent are risible) - but when it comes to sustaining a complex plot, Rowling is sans pareil.

 

[CharleyH]

What have you got for dialogue thoughts, you adorable brat?

I am biding time as always - holding back for now - reading, listening...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Excellent observations, Simon!
"Riddley Walker" has amazing dialogue. Hoban's invented dialect combines fragments of words and gives them whole layers of meaning.
"Are you crying Plow Mercy, Erny?" My jaw drops.

We did a whole thread about that over on the SDC. I have to say I don't agree with you. I don't think either Dorothy Sayers or anyone else should be forced to write down to a monoglot lowest common denominator. One may lose some audience if one chooses not to, but...

Hey, I'm a pushover for arguments like this one

I'll confess to being an intellectual snob. I don't care if a story stretches me and uses things I have to look up, if it's a good enough story.

I'm reading the "System Of The World" series right now, Neil Stephenson. It's caused me to buy two research books so far... more coming I can tell.

As for Rowling, I have to admit I fell by the wayside at the third book.
So I apologise for my remarks- but I was not impressed with her skills at that time. I never picked her up again- There's just so much more to be reading, and she makes me feel stubborn. Still, why shouldn't she have gotten much better?

Originally Posted by Dorothy L Sayers
(Here Lord Peter told the Sergeant what he was looking for and why, but as the intelligent reader will readily supply these details for himself, they are omitted from this page.)

Yes - well - there too is the cue the plot turns on. And the intelligent reader who has been educated in the art of oil painting can indeed supply the detail... but clumsy, clumsy, clumsy. I will utterly agree with you that Sayers writes incomparably better English, and paints unquestionably more rounded and believable characters (although her attempts at a Galloway accent are risible) - but when it comes to sustaining a complex plot, Rowling is sans pareil.

That can only be the worst of all the Whimsey books she ever wrote. It reeked of hurry-up-and-finish-it. Give me "Have His Carcass" or Gaudy Night" or "Busman's Honeymoon" (of course the torrid romance in those last three books is pretty sexy stuff in that reticent Georgian way she had)
But that woman could write dialogue! And I learned a lot from her about keeping hold of my grammar, as well. A very craftsmanly writer.

And I kinda sorta think that Rowling is getting a great deal of professional help since the third book *ducks the rotten vegetables* And I wish more writers would. Hell, I wish I could!

 

[SimonBrooke]

Excellent observations, Simon!
"Riddley Walker" has amazing dialogue. Hoban's invented dialect combines fragments of words and gives them whole layers of meaning.
"Are you crying Plow Mercy, Erny?" My jaw drops.

Hey, I'm a pushover for arguments like this one

I'm reading the "System Of The World" series right now, Neil Stephenson. It's caused me to buy two research books so far... more coming I can tell.

Oh, yes.

Have you read Crytonomicon? If not, do - I absolutely recommend it. Also Snow Crash. The one of his I look forward to reading next is The Diamond Age: Or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer.

As for Rowling, I have to admit I fell by the wayside at the third book.
So I apologise for my remarks- but I was not impressed with her skills at that time. I never picked her up again- There's just so much more to be reading, and she makes me feel stubborn. Still, why shouldn't she have gotten much better?

I don't think she has got better. Her characterisation is still pretty facile, and her use of English isn't marvellous. And you in the States probably miss 90% of the political satire, and some of the social satire as well. What she does, though, is plot. And plot and plot and plot. And her writing works very hard; every line is doing more than it seems on the surface.

That can only be the worst of all the Whimsey books she ever wrote. It reeked of hurry-up-and-finish-it.

Well, for me it has the supreme benefit of being set in my back yard, forbye she couldnae dae th' accent. 'Imphm', hah! However, I love the whole series, from The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club right through to Busman's Honeymoon. But for me the best of the lot has to be Gaudy Night, which is really more romance than mystery. And, had it not been for Strong Poison I would never had read The Wallet of Kai Lung, and that would have been sad.

But that woman could write dialogue! And I learned a lot from her about keeping hold of my grammar, as well. A very craftsmanly writer.

Interesting woman, actually. Her non-fiction and translations also bear looking at.

 

[starrkers]

My only rule to dialogue is to read it out loud after writing it. If it sounds off or doesn't sit in your mouth well, rewrite it.

 

[damppanties]

•People do not use each other's names very often in conversation, not even in a multiple-person convo. (This means the author has to find effective ways of showing which character is talking to whom)

Authors who do this make me grit my teeth most often when it comes to dialogue. Can't emphasise it enough.

Btw, Charley, horrible name for a dialogue thread. I almost didn't open it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, yes.

Have you read Crytonomicon? If not, do - I absolutely recommend it. Also Snow Crash. The one of his I look forward to reading next is The Diamond Age: Or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer.

I've read them all! "System" is actually the prequel to "Cryptonomicon" you know that, right? A kind of tail wagging the dog phenomenon, if I have the chronology correctly- one very thick book begetting three impossibly thick books to explain the first one!

I don't think she has got better. Her characterisation is still pretty facile, and her use of English isn't marvellous. And you in the States probably miss 90% of the political satire, and some of the social satire as well. What she does, though, is plot. And plot and plot and plot. And her writing works very hard; every line is doing more than it seems on the surface.

Us in the States- that would probably explain it, seriously. Even so, I still think she's getting a lot of help.

Well, for me it has the supreme benefit of being set in my back yard, forbye she couldnae dae th' accent. 'Imphm', hah! However, I love the whole series, from The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club right through to Busman's Honeymoon. But for me the best of the lot has to be Gaudy Night, which is really more romance than mystery. And, had it not been for Strong Poison I would never had read The Wallet of Kai Lung, and that would have been sad.



Interesting woman, actually. Her non-fiction and translations also bear looking at.

Simon, this is very nice, I don't often meet anyone who has had so many shared tastes. I too went out hunting for "Kai Lung" after reading those quotes in "Strong Poison" (I found a very old copy, with horrible type, and my house rabbit ate the spine off of it to boot) Bramagh wasn't quite as pleasurable for me as I'd hoped, I have to say. A fun read, but I never found myself completely immersed in the stories.

I once grabbed the Penguin edition of "Beowulf" and found that it was translated and annotated by Dorothy Sayers. And I know she translated parts (?) of Dante.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Authors who do this make me grit my teeth most often when it comes to dialogue. Can't emphasise it enough.

Btw, Charley, horrible name for a dialogue thread. I almost didn't open it.

It's that semiotics thing again *nods*
I opened it though...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Btw, Charley, horrible name for a dialogue thread. I almost didn't open it.

I agree. Charley, if you're going to start these writing threads, then you have to be more clear!

I thought you were just gonna tell Stella her box was full...

I just popped in to see if I could help...

 

[Stella_Omega]

I agree. Charley, if you're going to start these writing threads, then you have to be more clear!

I thought you were just gonna tell Stella her box was full...

I just popped in to see if I could help...

Now you're not playing fair. *pouts*

 

[damppanties]

I agree. Charley, if you're going to start these writing threads, then you have to be more clear!

I thought you were just gonna tell Stella her box was full...

I just popped in to see if I could help...

Same here. I thought I'd play with two of my favourite girls.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Now you're not playing fair. *pouts*

who me? *batting eyelashes*

so how about using "tags" in dialogue? "he asked, she said"

 

[SimonBrooke]

I thought you were just gonna tell Stella her box was full...

Selena Kittyn, I am shocked.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Selena Kittyn, I am shocked.

.