Dialogue

[Chilari]

Just came across this article called The Way We Talk, about writing dialogue. Thought it might be of interest.

A paragraph from the article:

Also, people don’t talk, then listen, then respond to what was said, then listen, then respond to what was said again. That’s what happens in an ideal world. That’s how we’re taught to behave during a job interview or first date. But in the real world, we jump into each other’s sentences, change the subject, and ignore each other’s responses. Many responses are monosyllabic or tangential. All-in-all, very little of it makes for enjoyable reading.

What do people think?

 

[MadMadys]

That's exactly how I approach everything I write when it comes to dialogue. Unless some of the characters talking are the more "official" type, most conversations I try just let go naturally. Characters cut each other off all the time and sometimes things seem to meander but not without a purpose.

One of my biggest turn-offs when reading a book or any story is wooden and stagy dialogue. I have put down many a book where the characters were talking in complete sentences, back and forth, saying exactly what you think they would say. It's like going to a bad play and watching actors just recite lines rather than act.

Writers fall into this trap by either two faults, at least in my experience. The first is they think the rules that apply to most writing applies to writing dialogue. The second, and it sounds mean but it isn't how I intend it, many writers don't seem to know how people talk. Especially when more than 2 people are in the conversation.

 

[Sparkie]

Good points made in the article. Thanks for sharing.

I think that dialouge, more than any other facet of writing, is about feel. Yes, it is important to listen to how people talk. What may be equally as important, however, is knowing your characters well enough to 'feel' how they'll act and react in conversational situations.

I'd like to emphasize the word 'act' here.

I try to remember when writing that communication is so much more than what a person says. When people talk to one another, they use facial expressions, posture, gestures, and other forms of body language to get their point across. Sometimes words aren't even neccesary.

In the real world, some people do ignore, interrupt, and cut off others regularly. I don't know about anyone else, but I rarely try to mimic everything I hear and see in everyday conversation. The key is, perhaps, knowing when and how to use what you've personally experienced. Dialouge doesn't need to be exactly like true life in order to 'feel real.'

 

[Penpilot]

Generally you can say a story is life with all the boring bits cut out. You can apply the same thing to dialogue. It's conversation with most the boring bits cut out. (Eg. the umms and awkward pauses, non-sequiturs, an interruptions) You can have them but they should be used in a calculating manner. Dialogue is rarely like a real conversation, it just fakes it as a real conversation.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

My view is that it depends a lot on the character and the situation. If it was teenagers chatting, then yes, everything the guy says is true. In epic fantasy when it's a noble, I'd expect a better standard of conversation.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Stammering, interruption, failure to make a point and witless lines may be realistic, but here's my show-don't-tell reason for doing very little of that:


That's an interesting point, but I, uh, prefer to r-read in comple--

Well, I don't. People cut each other off, like, all the--

Ya mean the way you just cut me--?

Exactly.

Well, then, I guess the article's got, you know... ahh...

Ahh...

...some truth to it.

Mm, hm.

So then... um... what was I? Aw, fu--

What?

I just...

You didn't!

...lost my train of--

Well it couldn't, um, 've been that, ahh, import--

Yo, wazzup bruthas!

What's the big idea of blah-blah-blah...
Dude! We're like in the middle blah-blah-blah...
Don't get all hyper, yo, 'cuz blah-blah-blah...

...a screw this!
...just let the man talk.
...yous all a bunch of hippo-crates!

Moron.

What that even *squeak*? AHEM! Whaddaya mean?

...Nuffin.


If you read that whole exchange without hating me for writing it, you're a nicer person than I am.

 

[wordwalker]

Looks like almost all the key points of dialog in just a few posts. Especially:

Generally you can say a story is life with all the boring bits cut out. You can apply the same thing to dialogue. It's conversation with most the boring bits cut out. (Eg. the umms and awkward pauses, non-sequiturs, an interruptions) You can have them but they should be used in a calculating manner. Dialogue is rarely like a real conversation, it just fakes it as a real conversation.

Love that word, "calculating." Dialog's a balance between dramatic focus and realistic bulk, but calculating use really sums up how the writer fuses them. You get a sense for how people in general and this guy in particular talk, bulk and all, but you put in only so much of the excess and only in the ways that serve the moment.

I'd like to emphasize the word 'act' here.

I try to remember when writing that communication is so much more than what a person says. When people talk to one another, they use facial expressions, posture, gestures, and other forms of body language to get their point across. Sometimes words aren't even neccesary.

So very true. I call it the "walk and talk," the other side of what happens during and often what adds clarity to dialog. If you've ever heard a good radio play, you know how deliberate it is about having a stream of talk but spicing it up with sound effects, description, and so on even in the middle of things.

One more thing I think is a top priority in dialog, maybe equal to keeping the information clear and the mood strong but believable: its other key use is to contrast characters. We always know which of our characters are impulsive, who's overeducated, who's shy, and all the rest, so the more we can work out about dialog patterns and phrases that make those differences clear, the better.

 

[Sparkie]

Did I really misspell the word 'dialogue' twice in my above post? For shame!

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I usually let a conversation flow in my head when I write dialogue, and imagine how characters would respond as they interact. I always write a scene in one sitting, and avoid editing a conversation as much as possible (and usually just for error correction) so I don't lose that natural flow.

Regarding how natural it is to respond with complete sentences and witty lines, I used to play LARPs in my 20s. It was like improv theater, but you get to hit people, and we really did have great conversations like you see in books. I guess because the conversations from NPCs meant "kill these guys and you're rewarded" or that I had a good barbarian voice or that the pirate (who was an actor) was hilarious... well, the combination of all that meant that we really did listen to each other and let each other finish sentences. And it was all on the fly with no time to edit or take back insults (which may lead to sword fights and get people "killed") or pause for laughter.

So, I guess I can honestly say that I've been in conversations which (sort of) prove that fantasy novel dialogue is not entirely unrealistic. At least in the sense that it's humanly possible for a bunch of people to have a conversation that's interesting to listen to without scripts, rehearsals, etc.

 

[Anthony]

I would think realistic dialogue involves people tuning out and their minds wandering also. This is especially evident in meetings of importance and large amounts of people. Just watch parliament.

I like using attention and the dialogue to show elements of that characters personality. An example being that one of my characters chapters only involves his own talking. As simply, he only cares for the words that come out of his own mouth.

 

[wordwalker]

I would think realistic dialogue involves people tuning out and their minds wandering also. This is especially evident in meetings of importance and large amounts of people. Just watch parliament.

I like using attention and the dialogue to show elements of that characters personality. An example being that one of my characters chapters only involves his own talking. As simply, he only cares for the words that come out of his own mouth.

Amen! It's an old truism that people tune out half of what they hear because they're already jumping to conclusions and phrasing their response.

Of course this matters less when the topic turns to Life & Death matters that you have to pay attention too... but then again, often that just means someone's more convinced they're already right and the other guy's just in denial, and they just talk past each other even louder.

 

[Chilari]

So how can we bring the realities of speech into fictional dialogue while keeping it interesting and plot relevant? I feel a reader would notice if you kept saying:

Bob didn't hear the rest of what Alice said, and as soon as she paused, he jumped in.
"But what about the human cost here?" he demanded.

And I suspect a reader might start getting annoyed if characters are always interrupting one another, seeking an opportunity to jump in when several others are talking all at once, asking someone to repeat something or ignoring someone all the time. It might be realistic, but it could well leave a reader dissatisfied. Already people get annoyed when a character fails to explain or listen to an explanation when one character has caught another apparent acting in an immoral manner. Plus if characters are ignoring each other, speaking over each other, interrupting each other all the time, it makes it harder to move the plot forward.

So how do we find a balance?

 

[Steerpike]

So how can we bring the realities of speech into fictional dialogue while keeping it interesting and plot relevant?

In my view, you don't focus on making the dialogue replicate real speech and interaction. As noted above, that gets tedious in a hurry. People stutter, use 'ums,' lose their train of thought, while others jump in over the top etc. If you try to replicate that on paper in the name of realism, you'll end up with a mess. The trick to dialogue is to create the illusion of a real, authentic conversation while in actuality the dialogue presented is a crafted fiction and not a completely accurate representation of how people talk.

 

[wordwalker]

So how can we bring the realities of speech into fictional dialogue while keeping it interesting and plot relevant?

Again, I think the key to balance is Penpilot's word:

(Eg. the umms and awkward pauses, non-sequiturs, an interruptions) You can have them but they should be used in a calculating manner.

To me, "calculating" use means starting with none of them and carefully adding in just a few until the mood and the character are established. There's no easy answer for how many that is, but I think starting at zero and adding some in is the right model.

 

[Helen]

hmm....

I think about the reasons behind the dialogue...what is being said and why...

but I don't get too nitpicky about how it's said...I let it flow naturally as I see it.

And then in the rewrite I tighten it, when it's clearer.

That's how I find the balance.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

A Self-Analysis...

Last night, when writing dialogue for a post-challenge award presentation, I had different fictional characters as the presenters. One was a teenager, so I had her stammering nervously because... well... I see a lot of that as a teacher on 'Presentation Day.' (Therefore, it's 'realistic' dialogue.)

Not to toot my own horn, but I think that was a decent use of stammering. 'Yoyo' only stammered while reading from her note card, but when she spoke freely, she spoke clearly. If I had written more than two lines of hyphenated stutters, 'ah's and misused ellipses, I think Yoyo's nervousness would have quickly gone from cute to tolerable to annoying.


I agree with a lot of what's been said about 'striking a balance' when it comes to authenticity in dialogue. I'd say that authenticity is a distant third to (#1) making the conversation entertaining and (#2) conveying a clear and relevant message to readers. Some might prioritize clarity/relevance over entertainment, which is fine. For my fictional works, clarity/relevance is a close second. If I fail to entertain, my message doesn't mean squat.

My point is that, as writers, we need to prioritize* and know what our own priorities are.


*(In the case of Yoyo's presentation, I thought her stammering added to the entertainment and the conveying of my message. The 'authenticity' was a tool that served higher purposes.)

 

[Androxine Vortex]

I made a similar thread a very long time ago called Unrealistic Dialogue. You should check it out there are very good posts in it. I think that was the first thread I ever posted here.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I made a similar thread a very long time ago called Unrealistic Dialogue. You should check it out there are very good posts in it. I think that was the first thread I ever posted here.

Here's a link to the Unrealistic Dialogue thread.

EDIT - And it was your fifth thread, but who's counting?

 

[Chilari]

Here's a link to the Unrealistic Dialogue thread.

EDIT - And it was your fifth thread, but who's counting?

Some pedant called Legendary Sidekick, apparently.

Edit: and on the topic of numbers, I've just spotted I have more repuation than posts. Aw yeah. Now I think I've derailed my own thread enough, it's someone else's turn.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

Here's a link to the Unrealistic Dialogue thread.

EDIT - And it was your fifth thread, but who's counting?

Just you......


EDIT: And why do you know that?