Dialogue: 'Natural' vs. 'Cinematic'

[Zephyr]

Hello all! I am new here. I have been skulking around recently, lurking, replying hither and thither, and I have not seen anything so far pertaining to this question I have, so I will ask away.

Recently I allowed a friend to read some work I had done. Upon reading it (and I am not entirely sure what kind of books/literature he finds most enjoyable) he proceeded to attack my writing as being too "wordy" and such. Well, fair enough, if it was not to his taste that is fine. Can't please everyone, am I right?

Anyway, he also said my dialogue was not believable. My children did not speak as children do, and it carried with it a kind of wooden magniloquence, to coin a phrase.

Having that in mind, I showed it to the president of my university writing-society, and he said, "well, yes, he's right, in a way; it is wooden. But, the thing is, you're writing High-Fantasy, and it's a cinematic style of language. It works."

Which made me wonder. What do you like to see in your fantasy books? Do you like natural-flowing dialogue, that could be read in a contemporary setting and easily understood, or do you prefer cinematic style dialogue, that perhaps would not sound so natural when read aloud, but serves a purpose to the story? Personally, I prefer the latter. I do not find it necessary to have contemporary style dialogue forcefully wedged into a relatively abstract setting. I think dialogue needs to serve the story in which it is written, and not merely be responsive to mr/mrs every-day modern speaker.

Anyway, here is an excerpt of the work in question, for your perusal if you wish. See what you think.

“Now before I can dub you, dear boy,” Sir Tell began, “there is the small matter of your beast.”
“Ah, I knew I had forgotten something.”
“It is a fitting beast, for this.”
Sir Tell presented Edam with his shield, which was in a kite shape, painted red, and upon it was emblazoned the visage of a dragon, snarling, cruel and horrendous, with many horns and whiskers.
“This shield was crafted especially for my best knights,” said Sir Tell, “for we are the greatest fighters on Mundi, that is no boast, and you are joining their ranks and are my heir, so this shield is for you.”
Edam slung the shield over his shoulder and felt the grip of it in his left hand. It was ever so light, and it covered him well.
“It will protect you from the strongest of steel, the sharpest of glastal and the fiercest of dragon-fire. It is enchanted, and will serve only those fit to wield it, and seeing you hold it now is evidence enough to me at least that you are the one.”
“I thank you Sir Tell,” and Edam bowed low.
“And that brings me on to the task at hand.”
“Oh, of course.”
“We have discovered a dragon, nesting in the caves on the east side of the island.”
“A dragon?”
“Yes, not a mighty dragon like the old tales, but it is a dragon nonetheless, and the peasants have seen it roaming around at night, stealing sheep and what not. It will not come near the castle, for we have a peridexion tree, thank the stars, but it seems not to be afraid of approaching the village. It is time for it to be slain, and it will be an excellent test for you, Edam.”
“I am to go alone, to fight this dragon?”
“It is the way it must be.”
“But Johen had only to fight a bonnacon.”
“I should have preferred a dragon,” interrupted Johen. “I was confined to a bath for a week.”
“And Jasmine, she fought a manticore, which is no comparison to a dragon.”
“Ah, perhaps you are not fit to wield Dawn, then, if you are afraid of a little dragon,” said Sir Tell.
Edam’s cheeks suddenly burned, and he felt embarrassed and ashamed. “No, I am sorry. I suppose I am just a bit surprised. I have never even seen a dragon, is all, and they are so terrifying in the stories and the legends.”

Edam left the castle, and in the courtyard he sat down upon a bench looking at the men-at-arms going about their business and the peacocks strutting around with their wonderful plumage. It was another hot summer, and he then felt that he did not have the energy to slay anything greater than a cold glass of ale. Greynod came and sat down beside him.
“You will win the battle, do not fear.”
“Oh, will I? And how do you know, Greynod.”
“Because you are destined for greater things beyond now, things it would be unwise to reveal to you, but something you ought to know anyway.”
“How am I to defeat a dragon, Greynod? In the tales they are oh so large and terrifying, and I am not yet six foot tall.”
“Well, I happen to know a little about this dragon. First of all, it is what we call a knucker, and it will likely not be found in a cave, but in a hole in the ground. He is likely to have moved here upon finding our deciduous woodland, and the streams that fall from the hills will be wonderful for him, being alone. In fact, you would look for him by the stream, as he is likely to want to be close to the source of water. Be careful around ditches, or tree roots, where he will want to hide. The knucker will probably not attack you, not unless it is very hungry indeed, because he prefers to eat children and small animals, and you are quite grown up now, Edam; but all the same, be wary, as dragons are tricksters. The knucker does not breathe fire, but instead shoots venom, but your shield ought to be built to defend yourself from that also. You will know you are near his den if you see any pools of venom, but do not dip your fingers in to test!”
“Is that all?” Edam asked, quite overwhelmed.
“No. What else is there? Well, when you are fighting the beast, you know to be wary of his venom. He cannot fly…”
“If he cannot fly, how did he come to the island?”
“Well he will have gotten a boat, of course.”
“A boat?”
“Yes, have you not been paying attention? Dragons are tricksters, and he will have disguised himself as a poor old woman, or something.”
“I don’t believe that is possible.”
“Well you are young and are likely to dismiss these things. When you are as old as me, you will learn! Anyway, where was I?”
“You said he cannot fly.”
“Ah, well. No, he cannot, for living in holes has rendered his wings vestigial and now he has no use for them. He likes to slink under the cover of night.”
“Well, I suppose I had go and take Dawn and slay a dragon.”
“Do not fret, Edam. When you are laughing and celebrating later today, you will be wanting to slay another hundred dragons.”

 

[Feo Takahari]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm kind of worried you're going to flip out on folks who don't like that excerpt. It's fine to ask for criticism, and it's fine to argue what you think is the right approach, but pushing your approach this strongly and then opening the floor by directly calling for criticism brings up worries of Anne Rice. You're also talking as if the only options are "contemporary" dialogue or going over the top, excluding any middle ground or alternate approach.

Speaking personally, I go naturalistic so I can make extreme emotions stand out more. When your characters are always over the top, it's difficult to move the top. When they're a bit more reserved, it's really surprising when they're pushed to the breaking point and have an outburst.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Your dialogue seems fine to me. It's more theatrical in style than my own, but that is style, after all. Some readers will like it, some won't.

I don't think readers of fantasy would bat an eye at the style though. I've read many books which are similar, and I've enjoyed them, even if written outside of my preference.

The key to any prose, dialogue or narrative, is clarity of expression, purpose geared toward story or character, and whether or not it interests the reader. As long as you can accomplish those three things, you're fine.

Style, and reader tastes, are subjective. Write what you'd want to read, in the style you'd enjoy. There's sure to be others like you.

 

[Zephyr]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm kind of worried you're going to flip out on folks who don't like that excerpt. It's fine to ask for criticism, and it's fine to argue what you think is the right approach, but pushing your approach this strongly and then opening the floor by directly calling for criticism brings up worries of Anne Rice. You're also talking as if the only options are "contemporary" dialogue or going over the top, excluding any middle ground or alternate approach.

Quite the opposite, actually. I only placed that excerpt in as an afterthought, in case anyone was wondering what had in fact been considered "wooden" by my critique.

I was just curious as to what people's approach to dialogue was in fantasy settings.

Also, I would not and did not call "cinematic" or theatrical dialogue "over-the-top". I merely find there are these different approaches in their extremes. I have no doubt there is a spectrum of dialogue types, but it's not possible to quantify it, so I went for a more simplistic approach.

As far as I am concerned, I am in agreement with T.Allen. I don't think you will please everybody, and generally I think you write in a style that has become familiar to you by that which you have read, i.e. if I read classical literature, I am disposed to write in a similar style; the same goes for contemporary, etc. Some people are bound to be pernickety about things, but accepting that some will not enjoy your writing is no different than accepting some people do not enjoy art, or certain genres of music.

P.S. I am not prone to "flipping out" either

 

[Feo Takahari]

Sorry. I'm used to dealing with fanfic writers, so I get a little paranoid.

 

[WooHooMan]

Sorry. I'm used to dealing with fanfic writers, so I get a little paranoid.

That's totally reasonable. They make me nervous too.

I like giving all characters different ways of speaking. Unless you're specifically going for an "epic" feel or an "un-epic" feel, you don't need to stick to one or the other for all characters. That's my take anyway.

Which brings the question of how cinematic should the narrator speak. You don't want naturalistic narration over cinematic dialogue or vice-versa.

 

[Zephyr]

That's totally reasonable. They make me nervous too.

But I am not a fanfic writer... and it would be preferable/polite not to assume that I am..

I have thought about the "giving all characters different ways of speaking" idea, but I think perhaps it would contrast too sharply; that is to say, I would assume most people would speak in a particular fashion during that same era, if we are dealing with one universal language. Granted there will be dialects and regional variations, but if we were to stray too far, it might seem a little unusual. E.g. placing modern American vernacular into what is otherwise a setting analogous to medieval England. That's an extreme example, but worth putting into consideration, as I enjoy throwing spanners into the proverbial works :3

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

You don't want naturalistic narration over cinematic dialogue or vice-versa.

Why not?

I think that could work, and work well by separating the narrator from the characters, making the narrator an "outside looking in" storyteller.

It all depends on execution.

 

[cupiscent]

I think the most important thing is having a consistent style throughout - or at least a consistency within characters, and for those characters who inhabit the same spheres - and a style that makes sense given the setting. In the book I'm reading at present, there have been a couple of spoken lines that really jarred for me as being too much "modern speak" among characters who had previously been speaking a in a more simple, staid and measured manner. On the other hand, I just finished The Goblin Emperor, which has some amazing and convoluted language patterns, which totally works because it's such an intricate, self-aware court setting.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I'm one of those people for whom this kind of dialogue doesn't work. To me, it feels like reading from a script rather than a story about people talking. I don't get much emotion from them.
One thing that might help with this would be to add a little bit about the body language of the speakers as beats that go along with their lines. A bit like this:

“And that brings me on to the task at hand.” Sir Tell held up a finger to signal for attention.
“Oh, of course.” Edam looked up and nodded.
“We have discovered a dragon, nesting in the caves on the east side of the island.”
Edam's mouth fell open. “A dragon?”

These are just quick examples to illustrate what can be done. It may or may not suit your style, but it's something I try to put in whenever I can.

 

[Zephyr]

One thing that might help with this would be to add a little bit about the body language of the speakers as beats that go along with their lines.

The problem I have with this is that, for me at least, it interrupts the flow of dialogue. It is a relatively long conversation, and pretty soon you would run out of things to say, and constantly putting in things like "he flicked his hair back" and "his mouth fell open" and "he performed some other kind of gesticulation" would get rather dull, almost like you were trying too hard or were not confident in what you had written - I saw it with a piece a friend had written, and quite literally every single piece of dialogue was met with a description of gesticulation. A conversation that should have lasted 2 minutes became a very long grind, as he was describing every single movement the characters were making while talking. I thinks it works well if you have only one or two lines of dialogue.

Dialogue also should be able to express emotion well on its own, if you ask me

 

[Penpilot]

A conversation that should have lasted 2 minutes became a very long grind, as he was describing every single movement the characters were making while talking. I thinks it works well if you have only one or two lines of dialogue.

That's one of the dangers when it isn't done right. Some call it fidgety characters. It's completely possible to write a long conversation with a character performing actions without being repetitive or drawing unnecessary attention to itself. IMHO it's about the actions/activity being natural to the situation and each action having meaning.

Dialogue and narration should be working together. When a character does an action, that action shouldn't be a mean-nothing action. It should be developing character, plot, or setting, as well as convey emotion too, adding to the emotion in the dialogue and helping to bring it into focus.

For example. (Not my example. Taken from Writing Excuses Podcast)

If the text is something like this "I don't like what you're saying to me." She looked away from him. "I don't understand it at all."

The looking away is a meaningless action if what she's looking at isn't important in the ways I listed above.

But if the text is like this instead. "I don't like what you're saying to me." She fiddled with the knife on the table. "I don't understand it."

That fiddling with the knife on the table immediately starts to tell you what she's thinking about, because if she's going from "I don't like what you're saying to me" to I need to play with this knife, it's saying something about her emotional state without explicitly declaring it.

My 2cents.

 

[Terry Greer]

You're right it can get a bit dull if all you're writing is little actions such as "flicked his hair back" etc. But that's the challenge - to tell you what the characters in the story are feeling - and responding to in each piece of dialogue. Obviously as the author you know exactly what each character is thinking - but the reader doesn't have that luxury and needs their hand holding a fair bit more.

My view is that dialogue alone can't convey everything - or there wouldn't be script notes, stage directions and directors to interpret it in screenplays. Or rehearsals to explore a character for that matter. Screenplays are purposefully left as spare as possible just so the director and actors have room to impart their own interpretation onto a story. They're allowed it as they know what's coming and how to guide it to its conclusion. Novels and stories are different and the author shouldn't allow for that ambiguity as the reader only has a single shot at experiencing the story in a linear manner. To me what a character is thinking is at least as important as the dialogue.

I do personally find dialogue that dense difficult to read. I need to know what the characters think about what's being said - is it believed, is it taken as boasting, is it thought pompous - etc. It's also very easy to lose who's speaking sometimes - which also breaks the thread. Having to potentially reread sections to confirm who said what is at least as bad as being dull.

 

[Zephyr]

Yes, it's all dependent on situation. A character's movements during such an exchange should provide something meaningful to the plot or to their development. The knife situation is a good example. Like anything, it should be used sparingly to good effect, to give more impact. Anyway, I think we are going off-topic a little bit.

 

[Terry Greer]

Do you like natural-flowing dialogue, that could be read in a contemporary setting and easily understood, or do you prefer cinematic style dialogue, that perhaps would not sound so natural when read aloud, but serves a purpose to the story?

You're right - my take on this issue is:

Purely naturalistic dialogue is impossible - we're dealing with fantasy worlds, and to use a naturalistic approach would mean that we would have to either use a 'modern' vernacular to stand in for that, a historic 'model' or invent one. Unfortunately the reader also has to understand what we mean - so we have to make sure anything we do write is also intelligible. This means that we can't write in a true invented/researched realistic style for our fantasy worlds (without driving the average reader away) - but we can go someway towards it with the odd invented phrase or term.
Using a purely modern vernacular is a real turn off for me - it puts no distance on the fantasy - and breaks any sense of 'reality' the world is striving for (unless of course the setting is contemporary).

The problem I have with considering 'naturally flowing dialogue' is that natural language is often filled with useless words and filler exchanges that slow down the story and exist (in real discussions) to bolster feedback and confirmation. But when written these naturalistic exchanges often make the characters just seem dumb.

Most natural sounding dialogue in books and films is really just that - naturally sounding - it belies the amount of work that has gone into honing down a huge number of dialogue exchanges into a polished cinematic exchange.
When making a documentary film hundreds of hours are recorded - but what's shown isn't just what happens in front of a camera - it's edited - it's concatenated - removing redundancy, pauses, repetition, extraneous stuff etc. Stuff that would be boring to hear in detail.
A real conversation could take half an hour around a campfire - the reader needs to get through the salient points in a couple of minutes.

I guess I'm rambling a bit - because I think all dialogue is basically cinematic and needs to be to avoid becoming boring. Certainly when writing I 'see' everything in my mind being played out as in a movie - it's the only way i can approach anything.

 

[MineOwnKing]

Readers are fickle, writer/readers are worse.
Sounds perfectly fine to me.
You might need more fluff between the dialogue.
Hire a good developmental editor that never holds back a punch and you will get all the honesty you need.
People that enjoy your style will eventually find it.
It takes time.

 

[Manalodia]

A lot of people have given great advice you can sort through and determine what works best for you work. I myself find what you have written appropriate considering the setting. I've also implemented dialogue matching the setting in my story, but it is somewhat lax besides entirely proper speech from some. Keeping in mind where the characters are from, if there are phrases only they would use (invent some, if not for character), and slight variation if dealing with another character from different land. Even people back then expressed character and had phrases that denoted such. It can open up a little bit, but while still maintaining itself.
A lot of readers now aren't familiar with more traditional High Fantasy writing and won't like it. Not everyone is going to, and as MineOwnKing said, an audience that does will find you.

Keep going with what you have, but have enough room for adding certain things when it fits best. Natural dialogue is completely terrible outside modern setting non-fiction. It sounds entirely out of place in a fantasy setting to me and it catered towards "easy readers" or youth, IMO. This may not be the only book you write. Others might have a more relaxed approach, but it works for the piece you have.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Yes, it's all dependent on situation. A character's movements during such an exchange should provide something meaningful to the plot or to their development. The knife situation is a good example. Like anything, it should be used sparingly to good effect, to give more impact. Anyway, I think we are going off-topic a little bit.

I know you think this is a bit off-topic, but I feel it's an important part of dialogue. I don't believe this is something that needs to be used sparingly.

You might need more fluff between the dialogue.

I don't believe in fluff, at all.

In my opinion, every word should be geared toward purpose, and on as many layers as possible. Dialogue and action, written well, is an interaction that adds layers of extra meaning, even subtext. A good writer can do this continually and you won't even know unless you purposefully take the time to dissect the sentences. That, however, is a style choice in some regards...how much you want to utilize that technique.

 

[MineOwnKing]

I was trying to be delicate by suggesting fluff.

I did not mean it literally.

Picking apart my words and giving them meaning based on your opinions is rude

Especially considering my comment was not directed to you.

I guess it's an easy way to get 3,000 posts.

 

[Svrtnsse]

"You might need more fluff between the dialogue."
"I don't believe in fluff, at all."

This right here is a really good example of when just the words that are said aren't enough to convey the full meaning of what's being said.

I don't know MOK, but I'm assuming what he really means is that some beats to break up the conversation might not be such a bad thing.

TAS however, I know reasonably well (as a poster), but I'm guessing MOK doesn't. What I'm reading into the second line is that TAS doesn't approve of adding fluff - with fluff being things that aren't relevant to the story. He's just stating his opinion on the matter, like he's done several times before in plenty of other threads.

MOK (most likely) doesn't know TAS very well, and sees the comment as an attack, both on himself and his opinion, and responds as if it were.

If this had been a conversation held in person, face to face, that almost certainly wouldn't have happened. MOK and TAS would have been able to see each other and take body language etc into account.

Had the above quote been a part of a dialogue in a story, it would almost certainly have required beats to clarify what the participants really meant.