Vivid, convincing dialogue

[CarolinaPeach]

Over on 'Story Feedback' we bumped into the topic of dialogue. That's a tricky thing to handle, so I thought it might be good to have a collection of dialogue tips and hints. Here is my little spiel:


The thing you want to achieve in dialogue is the feeling that you are there with the characters, not hearing someone report the conversation to you. Show, don't tell.

There are a couple of ways to communicate who is doing the talking without using tags. (He said, she replied, I announced, etc.)

I like following or preceding dialogue snippets with action, it makes it more immediate and real.

“Is this how you like it?” I rubbed her nipples gently.

James pointed the gun at me. “Don't move one more step!” I obeyed.

Another way is to have the speaker use a name within the dialogue.

“Jeff, hand me the hot cross buns.”

“Just a little to the left, Tina.”

Sometimes you can just trust your reader to get things without any cues at all. When there are only two people talking, you can usually get away with two or three lines without any tags or other cues at all.

When dealing with sex scenes, it is harder because either person might be screaming 'Oh Jesus, that feels so good' or 'Don't stop, baby.' I use more actions in hot sex scenes, and more names in tender sex scenes. Sex scenes are also a good place to throw in vivid verbs. 'He groaned' or 'She murmured' or 'Sally screamed' or 'I whispered.' You have to be careful not to over-use vivid verbs in tags, though. That can get you into pretentious writing.

A lot of this tags vs no tags vs alternatives to tags is about trusting your reader to figure things out. An editor can be very very helpful there, letting you know when you've gone too far in avoiding tags to the point of it being confusing.

These are CarolinaPeach's hints and tips. Anyone else have advice?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sex is like dying, and equally as difficult to capture, moment to moment. I think its best to capture the salient moments when things change.

 

[damppanties]

My foremost issue with dialogue is when it's written in a formal, staid voice. It's more often that not continuation of the narrative voice. There are too many times I've thought 'no one really speaks like that' when reading dialogue in a story. Complete, grammatical sentences and big words are not really the way people speak. Speech is more concise, direct, and grammatically incomplete.

 

[CarolinaPeach]

My foremost issue with dialogue is when it's written in a formal, staid voice. It's more often that not continuation of the narrative voice. There are too many times I've thought 'no one really speaks like that' when reading dialogue in a story. Complete, grammatical sentences and big words are not really the way people speak. Speech is more concise, direct, and grammatically incomplete.

Contractions are your friend. Dialogue without them sounds hopelessly formal and unrealistic.

 

[PennLady]

I've been told I write good dialogue, but it's hard to analyze just what it is I do. I "hear" the dialogue in my head, I guess, and then I try to render it so that it flows. Things that help are contractions, tags, facial expressions and body language, things like that. Also, punctuation.

I think that punctuation is the top offender with dialogue. I know some people don't care, but when I read dialogue with wrong or misplaced punctuation, it jars me out of the story because the first thing I do is re-read it to see if I missed something. I think part of the reason I'm always surprised by this is that all you have to, most of the time, is pick up a book from the library and see how that author did it.

The next dialogue problem is the formal speech that others have mentioned, especially in stories where it's not called for. The story will be going along in perhaps a fairly conversational tone, and then suddenly everyone talks like Data from Star Trek. Contractions go a long way towards fixing this.

I tend to use dialogue tags to get started, that is, to let the reader know who's speaking at first, but then I'll lose them. I don't go too many lines without either a tag or a line like "She looked at him," so the reader can keep track. It's easy, I've found, to lose track of who said what without the occasional indicator.

Having a name in the dialogue can be helpful, but I don't think it makes anything more immediate or real, as the OP says. It's also something I've seen way overused, where an author uses it in nearly every other sentence in a conversation. That's an instance where I think you need to step back and really look at it -- when I talk to my husband, for example, I don't say his name in every sentence or even every other. If there are only two people in the scene, then using names should only be done for certain reasons, like emphasis or perhaps anger.

For sex scenes, I think I have to disagree with the OP as well. Words like groaned and whispered are certainly more specific and descriptive than "said," but they are also, like moaned and screamed and few others, often overused in sex scenes. (As are adverbs like slowly, quickly, finally.) But much of that will depend on how much talking goes on in the sex scene; some characters talk, some don't. If you're going to use such tags, then I do agree with the OP that you should use them sparingly.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Real speech sounds like idgit nonsense, so the trick for dialogue is to render intelligence into whatever vernacular you require, and keep it simple. I've read some deep thinking expressed in Slave speech. I've translated Pennsylvania White Girl to Old Florida Mammy, and vice versa.

 

[3113]

The best dialogue advice I know is to avoid "orange juice." This refers to bland dialogue that, however realistic, doesn't move the story along or tell us anything about the characters.

Example:
"Good morning."
"Morning."
"Would you like some orange juice."
"Sure."

In erotic terms that would be echoing the advice to avoid having everyone saying nothing more than "Oh, god!" and "oh fuck! Don't stop!" Which is to say, realistic dialogue that we all use in our day-to-day doesn't necessarily make for good dialogue in a story. Yes, it has to sound "realistic" --and depending on the character that could mean "formal" if our protagonist is a 100 year old vampire from Latvia--still not comfortable in the modern world and English isn't his native tongue. But dialogue also has to play its part in moving the story along and making characters come to life (outside of undead vampires).

So, the writer should ask, "What information am I getting across with this?" Either about the character, their feelings, or the action.

To that end, I would also say, try to really imagine how the characters speak and show it in the dialogue. Which doesn't mean one should do accents with crazy spellings, but don't be afraid to add in bits to suggest an accent or something of the character's background, how they were raised ("Yes, ma'am, that's a fact for sure!") and so distinguish their dialogue from all the other character's. Also, avoid doing a Hemingway and going for pure dialogue unless that's the "trick" to this or that story. Even Hemingway famously got tripped up in one story..

You don't want the reader stopping in the middle of a story in order to go back and figure out who is saying what.

 

[sr71plt]

A lot of good observations. High on the list to consider/remember is that written dialogue needs to be "realistic," not "real." You don't render it exactly like it is spoken, or you'd get lost in a incomprehensible mess and repetition repetition repetition. (In real life, we generally repeat everything two more times, and we usually stop in midsentence--speaking just long enough to know the point has been made--or to think it has, because the response generally is on the other persons point, not the one we were making).

Tags are necessary just enough to keep the reader clear on who is saying what, and in written dialogue instead of dialogue tags you can, as has been mentioned, put the name of the one addressed in the dialogue. This isn't done much in real speaking, but it helps in written dialogue.

On dialects, it's best to do a smattering of words rather than attempt faithful rendering--and the biggest problem with using dialects is to be consistent.

I don't shy away from the "groaned" or "moaned" or even the "Ahhhhh" occasionally in erotica. They are quick, full indicators when your context is in the throes of sex and when you want the reading to be racing along breathlessly. The kicker is not to overuse them. But you would say that about any device.

 

[steve44uk]

Oooh, this is one of my pet peeves. One of the factors most likely to make me put a book down it click away from a story is unconvincing, overly formal or frankly implausible dialogue.

It's all about the character's voice, for me. Would that character, given the background you've given the reader, actually say that? If you're not sure, try saying it out loud. Better yet, record it (aren't mobile phones wonderful?) and play it back. Still sound right?

Cadence is important too. People rarely speak in fully formed, coherent sentences. I'm not advocating replicating every pause or "umm," but a bit if that, for emphasis' sake, can make an impact, particularly in situations where emotions are running high. Hanging sentences, especially in animated 2- or 3-way conversations, are fine - people talk over one another all the time.

Punctuation can be fun.
Contrast: "Don't you fucking dare!" he growled.
with: "Don't. You. Fucking. Dare!"

But, for me, it's the voice. Dodgy dialogue is a sure sign that the author doesn't know or doesn't care about their characters.

 

[sr71plt]

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.

 

[CarolinaPeach]

Oh good, lots of people have lots to say! I'm very glad to hear from so many different people.

Having a name in the dialogue can be helpful, but I don't think it makes anything more immediate or real, as the OP says. It's also something I've seen way overused, where an author uses it in nearly every other sentence in a conversation. That's an instance where I think you need to step back and really look at it -- when I talk to my husband, for example, I don't say his name in every sentence or even every other. If there are only two people in the scene, then using names should only be done for certain reasons, like emphasis or perhaps anger.

Well, I actually didn't say names make it more immediate and real, but that actions make it more immediate and real. Such as:

James pointed the gun at me. "Don't move one more step."

Names are handy, but you are right that it is not common every day speech to go around addressing people by name every other sentence. I definitely agree there. However, it is common in every day speech for people to say "Oh!" and "Hey!" and "Umm..." to gain the attention of their conversation partner. Which would look really weird on paper. So slipping in with "Honey, blah blah blah." or "Blah blah blah, Jones," is not so weird, in my opinion. But like everything, it can be overused.

It's all about the character's voice, for me. Would that character, given the background you've given the reader, actually say that? If you're not sure, try saying it out loud. Better yet, record it (aren't mobile phones wonderful?) and play it back. Still sound right?

But, for me, it's the voice. Dodgy dialogue is a sure sign that the author doesn't know or doesn't care about their characters.

I would definitely agree here, you have to know your characters to get them to converse well.

Reading aloud is one of the tools of the trade that is under-used. Recording and replaying is even better. I find lots of problems by reading aloud. And I don't care if the neighbors think I am talking to myself.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Oh good, lots of people have lots to say! I'm very glad to hear from so many different people.



Well, I actually didn't say names make it more vivid, but that actions make it more vivid. Such as:

James pointed the gun at me. "Don't move one more step."

Names are handy, but you are right that it is not common every day speech to go around addressing people by name every other sentence. I definitely agree there. However, it is common in every day speech for people to say "Oh!" and "Hey!" and "Umm..." to gain the attention of their conversation partner. Which would look really weird on paper. So slipping in with "Honey, blah blah blah." or "Blah blah blah, Jones," is not so weird, in my opinion. But like everything, it can be overused.



I would definitely agree here, you have to know your characters to get them to converse well.

Reading aloud is one of the tools of the trade that is under-used. Recording and replaying is even better. I find lots of problems by reading aloud. And I don't care if the neighbors think I am talking to myself.

Ayn Rand calls it 'concretizing.' Making nouns outta nuthin much. 'Bob' is powerful, 'the boy' aint. "Bob tripped on the welding cable and fell 150 feet from the top of the water tower to the bed of the Chevy pickup."

 

[sr71plt]

Huh? I don't think that's what's being discussed about using names at all.

You seem to be drifting in a cloud today, JBJ.

 

[laptopwriter]

A lot of very good stuff here!

For me writing is like acting; I try to put myself in the role of my character then I talk the way I think he/she would talk; I might even act out the scene in the privacy of my bedroom, just to see what hand gestures or facial expressions I use.

I agree that contractions are your friend, I use them a lot. Sometimes I think I use them too much but I've never had a complaint so...

One trick I do sometimes is allow the person talking to become confused; we all do it. We all start to say something then think twice and backtrack. We don't all speak in perfect sentences so why should our characters?

"Damn it, Jean, that's not what I said at all. I was trying to tell you...I mean, oh shit you've got me so damn mixed up I don't know what I'm saying anymore."

I really like that suggestion about using action instead of tags. It made me realize I don't do that enough. Some other really good suggestions here as well.

 

[HeyAll]

IMO dialogue should be written as if you're watching your favorite tv show.

If you look at your writing, read it, visualize it and think, "There's no way I would ever see characters talking like that on tv," then you're on the wrong track.

I also like to think of a general description of the characters before I start writing. Is the person smart, rigid, naive, out going, ect...

 

[TE999]

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.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, but, again, written dialogue shouldn't be faithfully rendered spoken dialogue. It needs to be flavor, not the whole stew.

 

[TE999]

Yes, but, again, written dialogue shouldn't be faithfully rendered spoken dialogue. It needs to be flavor, not the whole stew.

True, true, on the other hand, many, many people express themselves so poorly that rendering that into written dialogue would be tedious at best; what with all the "um's, uh's, y'know's, ah's, see what I mean's," pauses and stammers it would be boring ... as most people are.

 

[sr71plt]

Like, ya know, ya know?

 

[oggbashan]

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.

 

[3113]

I like using contractions, accents, slang, idioms and generally sloppy grammar to replicate real conversations. No one speaks the 'King's English' anyway

Well, but we have to take story into account as well, no? What if one is writing up a conversation between blue-blood Edwardian aristocrats and their butler? The "ya knows" and contractions don't quite fit there. Or consider if we're writing up fantasy story with elves and wizards.

There's a wonderful essay by Ursula K. LeGuin "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" where she discusses how a fantasy story with wizards and elves and such was drained of all verisimilitude for her when the dialogue between wizardly types came across as no different than what might used between politicians in modern day Washington, DC.

Which is to say, politicians may be politicians no matter where or when, but something other than the content of their speech (i.e. that they're discussing dragons) has to tell the reader that these speakers are in Elfland. King's English rather than modern contractions, idioms, etc.would be one way to indicate that.

 

[laptopwriter]

Yup, tags should be used sparingly

I have read pieces where there are, "he said/she said" tags at the end of almost every sentence; rarely do I ever get to the end of those stores, they're just too boring.

I think it's like anything else, you need a good mix. I try to leave off tags whenever possible. you just want to make sure the reader doesn't get confused; I've had that happen too. I hate it when I have to stop and go back up the page so I can figure out who's talking. That's where you bring in action like Pennlady was talking about.

"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?"

I think a lot of writers are redundant. I've seen a lot who would put, 'I said,' on the end. There's no reason at all to use a tag here; it's obvious who is talking to whom. Even if a third party joins in; he can be introduced without tags.

That's when Pete joined the converstion, "Well I know what I'd do."

I had to laugh, "Yeah, Pete, we all know what you'd do."

 

[sr71plt]

For those writing period pieces, it might be useful to know when contractions started to be used. According to the Journal of English Linguistics article the indexed discussion is based on, they first appeared in the earth seventeenth century (1600s), gained momentum through the eighteenth century, and were fully accepted by the nineteenth century.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/contractions.aspx

 

[sr71plt]

I have read pieces where there are, "he said/she said" tags at the end of almost every sentence; rarely do I ever get to the end of those stores, they're just too boring.

I think it's like anything else, you need a good mix. I try to leave off tags whenever possible. you just want to make sure the reader doesn't get confused; I've had that happen too. I hate it when I have to stop and go back up the page so I can figure out who's talking. That's where you bring in action like Pennlady was talking about.

"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?"

I think a lot of writers are redundant. I've seen a lot who would put, 'I said,' on the end. There's no reason at all to use a tag here; it's obvious who is talking to whom. Even if a third party joins in; he can be introduced without tags.

That's when Pete joined the converstion, "Well I know what I'd do."

I had to laugh, "Yeah, Pete, we all know what you'd do."

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.)

 

[damppanties]

"I turned toward Jack, "So what are you going to do?"

That's when Pete joined the converstion, "Well I know what I'd do."

I had to laugh, "Yeah, Pete, we all know what you'd do."

IMO, in all of the examples quoted, the first comma should be a period. The action sentences are not dialogue tags. They are separate sentences that will help your reader but have nothing to do with the dialogue as such, and they should be treated as separate sentences. So:

I turned toward Jack. "So what are you going to do?"

That's when Pete joined the conversation. "Well, I know what I'd do."

I had to laugh. "Yeah, Pete, we all know what you'd do.