Unrealistic Dialogue

[Kevlar]

I, for one, am one of those who is a lot more thrown off by modern speech than by "older"-sounding dialogue. As a good example, I just finished Game of Thrones for the first time (I know, I'm about ten years too late), and while I loved it, I definitely had to get used to the way people talked. In particular, it was a little jarring to hear all the modern profanities.

I've read in a few places that our modern profanities were commonplace back in the day. Men didn't go pee or urinate. They took a piss.

Anyway, I came back to agree with much of what has already been stated. The use of purely modern dialogue would be absurd in fantasy works, but period language would render the work unreadable. Find an Old English dictionary online. Not a Middle English one. True Old English. It is like reading an entirely different language. English has, over the centuries, been progressively Latinized. A good example, really, is to try reading Beowulf in its unaltered prose. For added challenge read it in its unaltered text.

If you've ever even taken a look at Beowulf, or even Chaucer, you can see how difficult it would be for the fantasy reader to understand period dialogue.

This does not, however, mean we should just throw in the towel and make our characters talk just as we do. The work seems simply shallow and unresearched if the characters are spitting out modern colloquialisms. Some good old flowery language can be a great asset when strategically placed.

Reality can appear unrealistic, so as writers we must blend invention and fact into what seems correct.

 

[Lepton]

I understand what you mean, and I agree to a point. I think that occasionally such dialog is called for in a story, but this is completely dependent on who the character or characters are talking to. I believe that when each character in a story speaks with such formal words, and overall, gracious speech, that it becomes a bit unnecessary.

Also, as a briefly wrote about about the characters, it does in fact, depend on the personality and history behind a character. I do not find the dialogue unrealistic if the character did indeed, come from a family, or lived in a place of high formality.

Although I absolutely love formal speech in stories, especially when in a different time zone, it can come to the point where it is annoying.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

I've read in a few places that our modern profanities were commonplace back in the day. Men didn't go pee or urinate. They took a piss.

Anyway, I came back to agree with much of what has already been stated. The use of purely modern dialogue would be absurd in fantasy works, but period language would render the work unreadable. Find an Old English dictionary online. Not a Middle English one. True Old English. It is like reading an entirely different language. English has, over the centuries, been progressively Latinized. A good example, really, is to try reading Beowulf in its unaltered prose. For added challenge read it in its unaltered text.

If you've ever even taken a look at Beowulf, or even Chaucer, you can see how difficult it would be for the fantasy reader to understand period dialogue.

This does not, however, mean we should just throw in the towel and make our characters talk just as we do. The work seems simply shallow and unresearched if the characters are spitting out modern colloquialisms. Some good old flowery language can be a great asset when strategically placed.

Reality can appear unrealistic, so as writers we must blend invention and fact into what seems correct.

Simply beautiful XD
I couldn't agree more. I think that's why fantasy dialogue is tricky to write. You want it to have that "old english" feel to it but obviously we do not use that sort of talk in modern times. So you actually have to think about how your characters would talk because it's not a normal conversation you would have with your friends, or even your boss at work. I'm sure he would be confused if you began a sentence with multiple formalities. I think that's why authors get dialogue wrong too often. We are almost in a way trying to write in a different language when you really think about it.

 

[mirrorrorrim]

I've read in a few places that our modern profanities were commonplace back in the day. Men didn't go pee or urinate. They took a piss.

Anyway, I came back to agree with much of what has already been stated. The use of purely modern dialogue would be absurd in fantasy works, but period language would render the work unreadable. Find an Old English dictionary online. Not a Middle English one. True Old English. It is like reading an entirely different language. English has, over the centuries, been progressively Latinized. A good example, really, is to try reading Beowulf in its unaltered prose. For added challenge read it in its unaltered text.

If you've ever even taken a look at Beowulf, or even Chaucer, you can see how difficult it would be for the fantasy reader to understand period dialogue.

This does not, however, mean we should just throw in the towel and make our characters talk just as we do. The work seems simply shallow and unresearched if the characters are spitting out modern colloquialisms. Some good old flowery language can be a great asset when strategically placed.

Reality can appear unrealistic, so as writers we must blend invention and fact into what seems correct.

That's interesting to find out, about the profanity. Thanks for correcting me!

Even when reading lines of Old English right next to their translations, I often can't see how one word got to another. To tell the truth, I even struggle with understanding Shakespeare, and he wrote in Early Modern English!

 

[Erica]

I mostly write in a fairly modern tone, but I'm trying to spice my dialog up a bit by throwing a few colloquialisms in without going overboard (hopefully) to establish things about the character's class, education or culture. For instance, some of my people will use terms like lad or lass (which may conjure up an image of them speaking with a bit of a burr without actually writing it) or using terms like chap (upper class) versus bloke (working class) when referring to what we modern Americans would call a guy (as in a male somewhere between puberty and senescence).

But then, I'm American, so these British sounding terms are far more exotic and medieval sounding to me that "guy" or "dude" would be. And I sort of envision the part of the world most of my story takes place in as being a bit more like Britain than the US. Maybe to a British reader it would just sound silly.

And I tend to use some made up or archaic swear words to get around the fact that most people really do talk like that at least sometimes, but some people get offended if you're tossing F bombs and other 'cuss words' around liberally, even if it's in character.

Where I've had trouble is with one character who is sort of a Jeremy Irons style villain (in my head) and I try to make him talk that way, but some people think he sounds stilted. I can't exactly have a high inquisitor saying "Yo dude, I'm gonna go medieval on your a__ if you don't spill your guts."

 

[Androxine Vortex]

I mostly write in a fairly modern tone, but I'm trying to spice my dialog up a bit by throwing a few colloquialisms in without going overboard (hopefully) to establish things about the character's class, education or culture. For instance, some of my people will use terms like lad or lass (which may conjure up an image of them speaking with a bit of a burr without actually writing it) or using terms like chap (upper class) versus bloke (working class) when referring to what we modern Americans would call a guy (as in a male somewhere between puberty and senescence).

But then, I'm American, so these British sounding terms are far more exotic and medieval sounding to me that "guy" or "dude" would be. And I sort of envision the part of the world most of my story takes place in as being a bit more like Britain than the US. Maybe to a British reader it would just sound silly.

And I tend to use some made up or archaic swear words to get around the fact that most people really do talk like that at least sometimes, but some people get offended if you're tossing F bombs and other 'cuss words' around liberally, even if it's in character.

Where I've had trouble is with one character who is sort of a Jeremy Irons style villain (in my head) and I try to make him talk that way, but some people think he sounds stilted. I can't exactly have a high inquisitor saying "Yo dude, I'm gonna go medieval on your a__ if you don't spill your guts."

Jeremy Irons huh? So I suppose your villain would be something like this?
Jeremy Irons Cereal.divx - YouTube

 

[karriezai]

Has anyone here ever watched A Knight's Tale? (With Heath Ledger, Shannyn Sossamon, Alan Tudyk, Paul Bettany...)

If so, have you watched the Director's Commentary bits? One of them talked at length about the stylistic choice they made in having the characters use very modern speech patterns and even music. They pointed out that there must have been equivalents back in the day. That changed the way I view my writing. I mean, it's all supposed to be a translation, anyway; I'm not expecting that my characters speak English. So I can assume that the translation includes turning their colloquialisms into equivalents we would better understand.

I do have my limits. But there are certain phrases that I'm pretty sure wouldn't have existed back then that I include for simplicity's sake. Such as "shooting the breeze."

I like it much better this way, because before I settled on this style I'd be paralyzed over the decision of whether or not to have a character say "Okay" because it seemed too modern. Haha.

 

[Erica]

Dialog needs to fit the story. I've read a lot of bad dialog, and most of that is people who try and write something that is supposed to sound lofty, and comes out like the original example. The sad thing is that most don't read it out loud. Dialog is supposed to be spoken, if the writer can't read it out loud without stumbling over the words, how does the character?

Haha, I often read passages aloud when I'm writing. My poor husband is sitting behind me on the other computer playing some game, and here I go and ask him 'does this sound okay to you?" repeatedly. No wonder writers always acknowledge their spouses.

And I had forgotten about the Jeremy Irons cereal from Family Guy......that's too funny.

 

[SeverinR]

I'm not sure what you mean by "modern" profanities; f*** and s*** and the like are all hundreds of years old.

I do not believe S*** was a profanity, a low class word possibly, it was simply another word for dung.

We must balance our modern language with the style of old, because while more true to the period, I doubt many fantasy readers would tolerate Shakespeare's style of speaking/writing for long.
"O happy dagger!
This is thy sheath; there rust, and let me die."

( I would change this to; Cold dagger, my heart is thy sheath; find home and release my sorrow.)

I do believe there was different uses of profanity in history. There are obvious 21st century style speaking.
Watching Sparticus over the weekend I was impressed at how the artful profanity flowed from all the classes of people. It was believable in that setting, a fat, lustful, lazy society with nothing to interest them but the basic raw emotions-sex, death, lust and power.

 

[Ziggy]

Style is certainly something to consider, but it doesn't make dialogue "good" or "bad".

I think a lot of people mistakenly analyse bad dialogue in terms of how things are said rather than what is being said.

Good dialogue, or even great dialogue, can be of any "style" from any "era". Be it Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Oscar Wilde, Pratchett or JK Rowling. What matters is the meaning that is conveyed, how it fits into the story and that it originates naturally and consistently from its speakers.

There is no doubt that bad dialogue often comes in the form of people trying to sound "formal" or "Kingly". Again I think this is because they are focusing too much on how they think a King should sound, rather than what a King would say.

For any of you that have watched the West Wing, there is an Episode where a PR Consultant (Amy) is trying to to teach a candidate (Santos) the "Presidential voice". And I think it's Josh who says, "I always thought it was the President who made the voice, not the other way around", which I think is very astute. It's what they say that is important, the "style" is very much secondary imo.

Accents/colloquialisms, etc are only elements of their background/environment, it doesn't define them nor make their dialogue good or bad. Of course you need to assign styles appropriately and be consistent with them, but I feel that goes without saying.

You don't need to give medieval era characters a "Shakespearean voice". Shakespeare had his own very unique and distinct style which was not at all "realistic". I think it's unwise to use too many words that are out of common usage today. I don't see that there is any need for it and feel it serves only to frustrate readers. Someone else mentioned before that they see dialogue as a "translation", which I think is a very good way of looking at it. I also don't think it's a good idea to have too much of a gap between the style of the characters dialogue and the narration.

Conveying whether someone is "simple" or "intelligent" should firstly come through the complexity and intelligence of the ideas they express. The words that they use are simply an extension of this. I want to stress that using "long words" does not necessarily make someone sound intelligent. It's quite easy to tell when a writer has abused their Thesaurus.

A character's choice of words is important, but it requires more thought than some people give it. For instance, a less intelligent person might use longer, more complex words incorrectly because they're trying to "fit in" with intellectual superiors. Or a very intelligent person might use simple language to explain very complex ideas to someone who is not as well educated. Rulers can tend to use colloquialisms and such when addressing a populace to engender camaraderie, a sense that they are "one of the people", etc. It's pretty complex when you really break it down and analyze it, but I think it's just something that comes naturally the more you write (and read, and listen) and the more the character's develop.

There is nothing that makes me cringe more than badly placed "winks" to accompany artificially "playful" dialogue. Unnatural dialogue sticks out like a sore thumb. I especially hate it when I find myself thinking of a section of dialogue "What the hell was that?" And then later the reason for it becomes obvious. When you can identify a specific reason for an author to place a certain conversation in a certain place, that is bad dialogue. That brings you right out of the story.

When dialogue feels unnatural, or when it does not fit with the character/s, that is bad dialogue.

In the end dialogue is simply another element to story telling. There is no one thing in particular that can make a story "bad", nor is there one thing that makes any piece of dialogue "bad".

But again I stress the importance of substance over style. Shakespeare is not great because he uses "fancy words", he is great for the ideas and meaning those words carried. And style is not just about what words you use. It's about sentence structure, grammar and fluidity. When you're talking about the style of your work as a whole, I don't think it's wise to stray too far from what comes naturally to you. Don't try to deliberately emulate anyone. Just write, and eventually you will develop your own style that will inevitably be a mish mash of everything you've ever read/heard/written.

So in summary, don't be worrying too much about trying to make your character "sound" like a King (or a President, or whatever), concentrate on making them one. Don't try and make your work "like Shakespeare" or "like JK Rowling", just write your story and your own style will develop.

Sorry this post is so long, rambled a bit

 

[Androxine Vortex]

Style is certainly something to consider, but it doesn't make dialogue "good" or "bad".

I think a lot of people mistakenly analyse bad dialogue in terms of how things are said rather than what is being said.

Good dialogue, or even great dialogue, can be of any "style" from any "era". Be it Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Oscar Wilde, Pratchett or JK Rowling. What matters is the meaning that is conveyed, how it fits into the story and that it originates naturally and consistently from its speakers.

There is no doubt that bad dialogue often comes in the form of people trying to sound "formal" or "Kingly". Again I think this is because they are focusing too much on how they think a King should sound, rather than what a King would say.

For any of you that have watched the West Wing, there is an Episode where a PR Consultant (Amy) is trying to to teach a candidate (Santos) the "Presidential voice". And I think it's Josh who says, "I always thought it was the President who made the voice, not the other way around", which I think is very astute. It's what they say that is important, the "style" is very much secondary imo.

Accents/colloquialisms, etc are only elements of their background/environment, it doesn't define them nor make their dialogue good or bad. Of course you need to assign styles appropriately and be consistent with them, but I feel that goes without saying.

You don't need to give medieval era characters a "Shakespearean voice". Shakespeare had his own very unique and distinct style which was not at all "realistic". I think it's unwise to use too many words that are out of common usage today. I don't see that there is any need for it and feel it serves only to frustrate readers. Someone else mentioned before that they see dialogue as a "translation", which I think is a very good way of looking at it. I also don't think it's a good idea to have too much of a gap between the style of the characters dialogue and the narration.

Conveying whether someone is "simple" or "intelligent" should firstly come through the complexity and intelligence of the ideas they express. The words that they use are simply an extension of this. I want to stress that using "long words" does not necessarily make someone sound intelligent. It's quite easy to tell when a writer has abused their Thesaurus.

A character's choice of words is important, but it requires more thought than some people give it. For instance, a less intelligent person might use longer, more complex words incorrectly because they're trying to "fit in" with intellectual superiors. Or a very intelligent person might use simple language to explain very complex ideas to someone who is not as well educated. Rulers can tend to use colloquialisms and such when addressing a populace to engender camaraderie, a sense that they are "one of the people", etc. It's pretty complex when you really break it down and analyze it, but I think it's just something that comes naturally the more you write (and read, and listen) and the more the character's develop.

There is nothing that makes me cringe more than badly placed "winks" to accompany artificially "playful" dialogue. Unnatural dialogue sticks out like a sore thumb. I especially hate it when I find myself thinking of a section of dialogue "What the hell was that?" And then later the reason for it becomes obvious. When you can identify a specific reason for an author to place a certain conversation in a certain place, that is bad dialogue. That brings you right out of the story.

When dialogue feels unnatural, or when it does not fit with the character/s, that is bad dialogue.

In the end dialogue is simply another element to story telling. There is no one thing in particular that can make a story "bad", nor is there one thing that makes any piece of dialogue "bad".

But again I stress the importance of substance over style. Shakespeare is not great because he uses "fancy words", he is great for the ideas and meaning those words carried. And style is not just about what words you use. It's about sentence structure, grammar and fluidity. When you're talking about the style of your work as a whole, I don't think it's wise to stray too far from what comes naturally to you. Don't try to deliberately emulate anyone. Just write, and eventually you will develop your own style that will inevitably be a mish mash of everything you've ever read/heard/written.

So in summary, don't be worrying too much about trying to make your character "sound" like a King (or a President, or whatever), concentrate on making them one. Don't try and make your work "like Shakespeare" or "like JK Rowling", just write your story and your own style will develop.

Sorry this post is so long, rambled a bit

Good points. I like what you mentioned about abusing a thesaurus, although it's not a bad idea to broden your vocabulary. Whenever I read or just happen to come across a word that's new, I make a note of it and then learn what it means later. I try to always make my vocab more colorful as to not having to stick to the same old words that everyone else uses.

One might say I have a most voluminous vocabulary lol

 

[Telcontar]

A big vocab is good, certainly. You have to be careful to only use words that you know, and not just words that you know about. I know a lot of words that I wouldn't feel comfortable using in a sentence, because while I basically know what they mean I don't know it well enough, and furthermore, I don't know the connotations. This changes. Sometimes I think of a word that I know in such a shallow manner, and I look it up to further acquaint myself with it. I sometimes even google it to find instances of other people using it. See what kind of people use it, and for what purpose, such as formal vs. informal writing.

 

[Ziggy]

It's more that people often take words they consider "plain" and right-click, synonyms to try and find a word that they think sounds more "sophisticated". As though by doing this they are making their character, or themselves, sound more "intellectual" or more "Shakespearean", etc. This tends to lead to "over description" where they get Thesaurus happy and sound off long/obscure adjectives.

In dialogue some people search for words they think will make their king sound "kingly", and so on. Which is fine, within reason, but is often exaggerated to the point where their characters become caricatures. The purpose of a broad vocabulary is to more accurately and/or more succinctly express yourself.

I don't want to discourage anyone from broadening their vocabulary, but don't do it through a thesaurus, do it through reading (or listening). Telcontar is right, you have to know the words you are using and how to use them in context. When you read you see words in context, but when you right-click, synonyms, you see them in isolation.

The point I was trying to make with that is that there aren't "Kingly words". Making a character's dialogue sound "Kingly" is more complicated than that.

 

[Erica]

I think the problem with using archaic language is if it is overdone, or done badly, it can be painful to read. There are some authors who are good at capturing a particular dialect, but overall, less is more. It's not a fantasy novel, but I have always loved the James Herriot books. He had a gift for portraying the way some of the old Yorkshire farmers talked without bogging you down in the dialect. But he didn't go overboard by trying to write every little thing about the accent in every situation (or it would have been as incomprehensible as some are in real life to those of us speaking American English). And he lived among them for most of his life, so he had a pretty good sense for how they really sounded. Someone who hadn't spend 40 years in the Yorkshire dales would probably fall flat trying to do what he did without consulting with a linguist and getting a lot of proofreaders who knew the dialect.

I read a book recently where one of the characters had an old style Cockney accent, and the author did a good job with it. But she mentioned a linguist in her acknowledgements.

For a typical fantasy novel, it's probably good to decide on a few turns of phrase or words that denote different status/backgrounds in your world or society...ones that capture the flavor you're trying to get across without going overboard. What you don't want is to make it too much work for your reader. I remember trying to read a book once that was written in 'old west' style dialect (thar ain't a baar on that thar hill over thar is thar?) I couldn't get past the second chapter.

 

[Ziggy]

When you're talking about accents, you really have to consider your point of view. Which language is the base from which others will have an "accent"? For instance, if you're writing a story about French people, in English, you wouldn't give them "French accents". It's a translation, you would give an Englishman trying to speak French an accent.

If you're writing about "Ye Olde England" there is no need to use "archaic" language at all, because it's a translation. You can throw in the odd word to give a "flavour" of that period. But it's more important what they're talking about rather than actually trying to emulate the speech of that era word for word, or god forbid... phonetically.

 

[M0nkeyF1st]

Personally, I don't feel it necessary to include profanities just because it's 'supposed to be realistic'. I think that you could indicate his way with words outside of dialog and let the reader insert their own local jargon. It will feel more natural to them that way too, IMHO. So what I mean here, is that you write the dialog as clearly and as 'in character' as you can - give him or her some 'hook' phrase to use now and then, to identify him in the reader's mind - but you only need to indicate a few times just after you've introduced the character that he has a tendency to be loud, vulgar, and fling profanities about like a sailor. Just make sure the point is made and then forget about it and focus on what the character is actually saying.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

Wow I forgot about this thread. One of the first ones I made.
THREADOMANCY!

 

[Sia]

Hmmm ... on the note about sounding like a 'king' or whatever, I wouldn't worry. Let's say you're writing a king... I think one of your first jobs has to be to define what a 'king' is to King Richard III or whoever. A God? The noblestman? A parent to the entire nation? How he sees himself is going to affect how he speaks.