# Proper Uses of Dialogue



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 12, 2013)

I, like may others here, am always looking for ways to improve my skill by incorporating effective guidelines for writing and editing. I came across a point about dialogue that, in my opinion, is useful in getting rid of unnecessary words (redundant dialogue) during editing & reducing the occurrences during the writing process.

- Dialogue should add to the reader's present knowledge.

Thoughts or exceptions?

EDIT: Rephrasing the question...

Does the consideration of advancing the reader's present knowledge outweigh that of the character's present knowledge?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2013)

Seems this list would be the same as the uses for a scene, which some would say has to accomplish ALL the following:

o	Introduce new information
o	Relate to the significant situation
o	Build upon last scene
o	Involve, inform, or affect the protagonist
o	Make the reader feel more clued in
o	Move forward in time

Of course, translating this to dialogue would mean the dialogue passage as a whole rather than each piece of dialogue.

On a personal note, I can't tell you how many lines of dialogue I cut on my early passes because I'm just repeating something the character already said in a slightly different way.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 12, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> On a personal note, I can't tell you how many lines of dialogue I cut on my early passes because I'm just repeating something the character already said in a slightly different way.



Yes. This is what I'm talking about. 

Last night while writing, I had a moment where I wrote dialogue between two characters coming together for the first time in the story (although they already know each other). I noticed afterwards, that some of the dialogue is information the reader already knows. Even though it seems natural for these two characters to discuss these things at that point in time, I'm now thinking they shouldn't because the reader already has most of the information.

I'll probably do some editing/cutting on it tonight as I think the advice about advancing from reader's present knowledge is correct.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2013)

Got you.

In that case, you summarize:  Joe and Bob discussed X for a while.

You absolutely do not want to repeat (or at least keep to a tiny minimum the amount of repeating) information that the reader knows unless you have a specific reason for doing so.

If we're talking rules of dialogue, though, I think that the best dialogue is a battle between characters where each speaks from their own emotional perspectives in lieu of answering the other.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 12, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> In that case, you summarize:  Joe and Bob discussed X for a while.



Summarizing seems too much like telling to me.



BWFoster78 said:


> ...the best dialogue is a battle between characters where each speaks from their own emotional perspectives in lieu of answering the other.



I like your point about the conversation focusing on emotional perspectives though. Since one of the characters hasn't been seen yet, this is new information for the reader. 

Thanks Brian.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2013)

> Thanks Brian.



No problem.  Glad my comment helped.



> Summarizing seems too much like telling to me.



A while back, I strictly adhered to the absolute Show, Don't Tell philosophy.  The only exception I allowed myself was scene transitions.

Truthfully, I found that following this stricture too closely hampered my writing, especially from the standpoint of injecting emotion.  I still think it's great advice as long as you include the "unless you have a good reason."  Loosening my definition of "a good reason" has, I think, benefited me greatly.

Not saying you need to do the same; just sayin'...


----------



## ThinkerX (Feb 12, 2013)

> Dialogue should add to the reader's present knowledge.
> 
> Thoughts or exceptions?



It has the potential to put unwanted contraints on your characters.

By way of real world example:  THere is a guy I work with occasionally - the original 'motormouth'.  He will talk up anybody anytime anywhere and only occasionally say something relevant to the topic at hand.  He is known for this.  Taken at face value, the above premise would almost rule out writing such a character.

This premise might also make it rougher to write the dialogue of the poetic or well educated types.


----------



## wordwalker (Feb 12, 2013)

But:

Don't forget about pacing. Sometimes it's good to pause and talk over something for aft/annie (aftermath or anticipation) purposes. It can be tricky because this usually means it's old data, but it can have some value, and it can become less old if you play up the attitude someone has about it: they're _really_ angry/ tired/ overjoyed/ whatever about these facts now, maybe so much more than they were that they're pushing to change the plan about it. Especially if it's a character who wasn't around when they went over the facts before.

Then again, you could break off the original discussion --or the discovery of the facts-- to allow some of it to only come up at this point anyway, spread the conversation around for buildup's sake.


----------



## Jaredonian (Feb 12, 2013)

One possible way to give your characters a reason to skip past discussing these already known facts would be to introduce some element of urgency to the scene.  Not only will that give them a reason to skip repeating things, but it would also add some tension to the scene.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Feb 12, 2013)

Vonnegut said that every sentence should do one of two things: reveal character or advance the story.  If the dialogue is covering plot information the reader already has, one possibility is to hit the same points but do them in a way that reveals character.  I love writing where two different characters describe the same event, which tells the reader a lot more about the characters than the event if done correctly.

The flip side is that authors like Umberto Eco and Robert Heinlein, whose books often contain multiple digressions from the main story, would disagree with Vonnegut's advice.  They're a bit more of the school of thought that a sentence that entertains serves a purpose regardless of whether it does anything else.


----------



## ThinkerX (Feb 12, 2013)

If my somewhat hazy memory serves, Vonnegut wrote mostly short fiction.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Feb 12, 2013)

To be sure, Vonnegut wrote novels but none of them were even close to the 400+ pages that Eco and Heinlein might turn out.  

As I think about it, Name of the Rose and Foucault's Pendulum are almost entirely "digressions".  Eco likes to communicate ideas, with his characters and story basically excuses to get into them.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 12, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I, like may others here, am always looking for ways to improve my skill by incorporating effective guidelines for writing and editing. I came across a point about dialogue that, in my opinion, is useful in getting rid of unnecessary words (redundant dialogue) during editing & reducing the occurrences during the writing process.
> 
> - Dialogue should add to the reader's present knowledge.
> 
> ...



I'm... not sure I'd put it _that_ way. It sounds wrong to me.

Rather, if your dialogue is isn't contributing to your reader's understanding* of the story, you might be telling your story wrong. That may not necessarily be a problem with the dialogue itself. (But than again, it may.)

*I think I like this word better than "knowlegde", since it carries a slightly different meaning.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2013)

I read a book for enjoyment. I might also read it for information, but if I'm not enjoying it at the same time I won't continue to read it. I don't care how many digressions an author goes on, or what she's using dialogue to do, so long at it is enjoyable to read.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 12, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I read a book for enjoyment. I might also read it for information, but if I'm not enjoying it at the same time I won't continue to read it. I don't care how many digressions an author goes on, or what she's using dialogue to do, so long at it is enjoyable to read.



That's where my concern lies. I would think that stating information the reader already knows (in dialogue or any other format) may negatively impact enjoyment because it is redundant information. 

If however, it can be shown through a different character's emotion then that is new. That's the approach I'm going to take for now and see how it plays out.

Thanks for the replies everyone!


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> If however, it can be shown through a different character's emotion then that is new. That's the approach I'm going to take for now and see how it plays out.



Yeah, I think that works. If the reader identifies with the character and the character's emotions, then the reader will experience some of that emotion vicariously. The enjoyment comes in the character's reaction to the news, and that exists even if the reader is already aware of the information.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 13, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> That's where my concern lies. I would think that stating information the reader already knows (in dialogue or any other format) may negatively impact enjoyment because it is redundant information.



Beware generalizations. I'm sure there are times doing this might actually be favourable. 

Sometimes the reader may need a reminder, because it was three hundred pages since you mentioned something extremely important that didn't seem important at the time. Sometimes you can deliver the same information but from a perspective that gives it new meaning. And sometimes the reader will expect a character to say a certain thing they already know ahead of time, and find it odd if he doesn't. Not to mention, quite often repeating something serves a thematic purpose.

I wonder if we're not overthinking this. Wouldn't it be better to say that any dialogue that _gives something worthwhile_ to the reader is good?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 13, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Beware generalizations. I'm sure there are times doing this might actually be favourable.
> 
> Sometimes the reader may need a reminder, because it was three hundred pages since you mentioned something extremely important that didn't seem important at the time.



Good point. In the case I'm referring to, this occurs within the same chapter. Regardless, your point is valid and I concur.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 13, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Good point. In the case I'm referring to, this occurs within the same chapter. Regardless, your point is valid and I concur.



Yeah, in such a case I would also consider trimming it. Redundancy _is _something to be mindful of, after all. That's just good writing.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 13, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Yeah, in such a case I would also consider trimming it. Redundancy _is _something to be mindful of, after all. That's just good writing.



I tend to place much more emphasis on avoiding this type of redundancy that this comment indicates.  To me, it's one of the primary sins of a writer and seriously lessens enjoyment.  (Before the writer/reader vs reader debate rekindles, I felt that way long before learning how to be a writer).  As a reader, it just always feels that a writer thinks I'm an idiot if he tells me things over and over.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 13, 2013)

Yeah, I agree that redundancy is a problem. The idea that the reader is stupid is the cause of quite a few mistakes, in my view. Anything from redundancy in dialogue or exposition, to infodumps because the writer is sure the reader won't 'get' what is going on unless they pile on information. It also leads to clumsy, heavy-handed delivery of themes, where instead of letting the work speak for itself as they should, the writer is convinced the reader don't understand what they're actually saying unless they hit them upside the head with it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 13, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, I agree that redundancy is a problem. The idea that the reader is stupid is the cause of quite a few mistakes, in my view. Anything from redundancy in dialogue or exposition, to infodumps because the writer is sure the reader won't 'get' what is going on unless they pile on information. It also leads to clumsy, heavy-handed delivery of themes, where instead of letting the work speak for itself as they should, the writer is convinced the reader don't understand what they're actually saying unless they hit them upside the head with it.



On the other hand, after dealing with beta readers, I can understand the temptation...  ARGHH!  

Everything that happens is right there in the text; I don't see how it could possibly have been misconstrued.

The temptation is to just explain away while the correct technique, I think, is to remove ambigousness somehow without directly explaining.  So, so hard sometimes...


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 13, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> On the other hand, after dealing with beta readers, I can understand the temptation...  ARGHH!
> 
> Everything that happens is right there in the text; I don't see how it could possibly have been misconstrued.
> 
> The temptation is to just explain away while the correct technique, I think, is to remove ambigousness somehow without directly explaining.  So, so hard sometimes...



Yes. If I was convinced that the story provided enough information for the reader to put the pieces together, I probably wouldn't change it over one or two comments from readers I didn't know well. If every person reading it has the same reaction, I'd have to start thinking about it. Or if I had one or two readers who I knew were great, and did not have to be lead by the nose, but still missed what I was going for, then I'd go back and make changes. But the types of changes I'd make would be for purposes of clarity, I think. Maybe shining a bit more light on what I already had, and trying to make it more clear to the reader what was going on. I don't think I'd react to those types of critiques by going back and making literal statements or repeating things already said or done in hopes that the reader who missed it the first time would catch on after the second or third.

I've seen some stories that are almost as bad as:

John: Wow, so the mastermind really was the old man after all.
Jill: Yeah, he resented the fact that his mother favored his older brother, and he plotted to ruin the family.
John: He must have been the mysterious Mr. X who sent the letter.
Jill: And don't forget the confrontation at the mall, he must have set that up too.
John: He's in jail now, though. It just goes to show that no matter what injustices have been done to you, vigilante-style revenge is no solution. It only destroys the individual who seeks it.
Jill: You can say that again!
John: Thanks, I will....

And so on. I've read a few submissions over the years where the ending was almost just that bad, because the author was afraid the reader might have failed to put some pieces together.

I suppose no matter what the story, there will always be a sort of lowest common denominator of readers who will miss things. To me, you can't write your work for that group. The larger body of readers like challenging, complex stories written by authors who don't spoon-feed them every nuance of the tale. I feel a writer is better off on the whole writing a story that appeals to the intelligence of readers rather than insults it, even if they end up losing a few readers along the way.

As you say, finding that line can be hard. Sometimes, in hindsight after having written a story, things look more obvious than they are.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 13, 2013)

> John: Wow, so the mastermind really was the old man after all.
> Jill: Yeah, he resented the fact that his mother favored his older brother, and he plotted to ruin the family.
> John: He must have been the mysterious Mr. X who sent the letter.
> Jill: And don't forget the confrontation at the mall, he must have set that up too.
> ...



When reading this I couldn't help but hear the Scooby Doo theme music in my mind...

Back to the original topic to stave off my thread-jacking: even though I scour my text for redundant, purposeless dialogue, I found this in my last run through of a chapter just this morning.



> I prayed for you every day.  We were all so worried.



What, exactly, does that second line add?  Given the context, the fact that the speaker prayed completely conveys worry.  

This redundancy made it through at least a dozen read throughs.  They're so hard to spot sometimes!


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 13, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> What, exactly, does that second line add?  Given the context, the fact that the speaker prayed completely conveys worry.
> 
> This redundancy made it through at least a dozen read throughs.  They're so hard to spot sometimes!



That wouldn't bother as a reader. One thing I do try to keep in mind is the personality of the character talking. If that bit of dialogue is consistent with how the character would speak, I'd leave it alone even though the second part may not add everything. Not every person speaks with an economy of words, and if all of your characters do so then at some point they all start to sound the same.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 13, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> That wouldn't bother as a reader. One thing I do try to keep in mind is the personality of the character talking. If that bit of dialogue is consistent with how the character would speak, I'd leave it alone even though the second part may not add everything. Not every person speaks with an economy of words, and if all of your characters do so then at some point they all start to sound the same.



I grant that the characters sounding the same IS a problem with my writing.

At this point in time, I feel that economy of words is more important than developing distinct character voices.  Perhaps I'll change that opinion in the future.

I'm not necessarily as concerned about "what bothers a reader" as much as I am with developing and staying consistent to my own style guidelines.  Those guidelines, at the moment, say: Don't make two statements in dialogue that say the same thing unless you have a good reason to do so.

Since I've no good reason to include that second sentence, it's gone.

Besides, my editor charges me like 3/4 of a cent per word.  This revision just saved me close to $.04! 

EDIT: On a more serious note - Though this one line might not bother the reader, if an author develops a habit of leaving in extraneous sentences, I think that the lack of tight editing will eventually lead to a reduction in the overall quality of the piece.  What's worse: a hundred tiny mistakes or one big one?


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Feb 13, 2013)

> What, exactly, does that second line add? Given the context, the fact that the speaker prayed completely conveys worry.



I would have thought that the first line conveys the fact that the speaker was worried.  The second line conveys the fact that other people were too.  Maybe that's already picked up in another part of the dialogue.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 13, 2013)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> I would have thought that the first line conveys the fact that the speaker was worried.  The second line conveys the fact that other people were too.  Maybe that's already picked up in another part of the dialogue.



It does indeed, and I considered that point.  Contextually, I didn't feel that the addition of other people being worried added anything.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 13, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> It does indeed, and I considered that point.  Contextually, I didn't feel that the addition of other people being worried added anything.



You know the context & the character so cutting the second sentence was likely the correct call.

I do see instances, depending on context, where this second line could add characterization.



> "I prayed for you everyday. We were all so worried."



If the speaking character, for some reason, wanted to draw attention away from their own worry, then saying "We were all so worried" serves a purpose. Suppose this was a woman talking. She has feelings for the person she's speaking to and her emotions lead to her saying something she didn't intend to say. She then covers with "We were all so worried." This casts the emotions across the entire group, taking her out of the spotlight. As a reader, I love subtleties like that.

Now, I'd probably mix some physical response (like blushing) to accentuate the effect I'm going for but you wouldn't really need to. The words, if placed into context properly might do all the work themselves.

Anyway, it's probably far off base from what is happening in your story. Still, i hope this illustrates how a seemingly redundant line, in another light, may not be redundant at all.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 13, 2013)

> If the speaking character, for some reason, wanted to draw attention away from their own worry, then saying "We were all so worried" serves a purpose. Suppose this was a woman talking. She has feelings for the person she's speaking to and her emotions lead to her saying something she didn't intend to say. She then covers with "We were all so worried." This casts the emotions across the entire group, taking her out of the spotlight. As a reader, I love subtleties like that.



I, too, enjoy such subtleties.  Seems like it would almost be too subtle without inserting the beat as you suggested, though.



> Anyway, it's probably far off base from what is happening in your story. Still, i hope this illustrates how a seemingly redundant line, in another light, may not be redundant at all.



Understood, though it's unfortunately not the case here.  Just five wasted words that served no purpose I could discern.  Perhaps it's symptomatic of having a daily word count when writing?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 13, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Just five wasted words that served no purpose I could discern.  Perhaps it's symptomatic of having a daily word count when writing?



I sometimes think the same. Truth is though (at least for me), if I'm spewing out words to hit a word count goal, not being mindful of my writing guidelines as I churn along, then I need to step back & slow down.

I feel that conscious effort with each sentence, adhering to the principles I've set for myself, while still achieving my daily goal is the best way for me to improve as a writer.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 13, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I sometimes think the same. Truth is though (at least for me), if I'm spewing out words to hit a word count goal, not being mindful of my writing guidelines as I churn along, then I need to step back & slow down.
> 
> I feel that conscious effort with each sentence, adhering to the principles I've set for myself, while still achieving my daily goal is the best way for me to improve as a writer.



Truthfully, I haven't written daily in a while since I'm focused on editing at the moment.  My recollection is that, if words are flowing, it's not an issue.  Some days, however, each and every letter is a struggle.  On those days, I do just find myself writing something so that I can get away from the computer.  Funny thing is, though, that even those words don't completely suck and sometimes result in interesting plot happenings (though I have a path for my story from the beginning, I'm pretty much a discovery writer).


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 13, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> My recollection is that, if words are flowing, it's not an issue.  Some days, however, each and every letter is a struggle.  On those days, I do just find myself writing something so that I can get away from the computer.  Funny thing is, though, that even those words don't completely suck and sometimes result in interesting plot happenings ..



That's one of the reasons why writing everyday is such a good practice.

Editing is still writing in my opinion. I rarely edit where something doesn't need a rewrite.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 13, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> That's one of the reasons why writing everyday is such a good practice.
> 
> Editing is still writing in my opinion. I rarely edit where something doesn't need a rewrite.



Yeah, but I don't do word count goals with editing.  It's more like, "I want to get this many chapters/scenes done this week."


----------

