The deceptive reader triangle (All credit of concept to Tom Chiarella)

[Leif Notae]

All right, since my participation in the other thread (Do These Things Bother Others...) warranted some in depth details as to what I meant, I wanted to make this a separate thread for those who struggle with dialogue or even getting a realistic story out of their head at times. This is what I am calling the "faux triangle", but all the credit in the world belongs to Tom Chiarella in his "Writing Dialogue" book. Please, do yourself a favor and check it out.

The reader relationship triangle​

Now, this doesn't apply to everything you writer or all writers who exist, but it does point out the problems when you think about the reader as a participant instead of a voyeur.

When you write with the reader as a participant (the left side of the diagram), you are including them in on the conversation and showing them tidbits they wouldn't have seen before. They are to "get the joke" before the characters do, or they will alter dialogue to state things that a normal person wouldn't do, just for the sake of doing it. ("Well, as you know Bob...").

The right side of this diagram is where more depth is found in hooking a reader. They are not a PART of the manuscript, but they are looking in on it. A witness to a world they could get lost in. Sneaking a listen in on a key piece of dialogue only passed between friends. Sharing intimate moments with people they know they shouldn't.

When you run through your writing, whether it is dialogue or just the regular scene, take a look at this diagram and see if there is something you can do to EXCLUDE the reader from being a part of the scene and instead INCLUDE them as a voyeur. Give them something tantalizing and, dare I say, naughty to remember.

Again, go get the book. This awkward Excel diagram doesn't do the content justice.

 

[BWFoster78]

Leif,

I get what you're saying, and I found it useful. I'd find it more useful if you could include an example of this...

When you run through your writing, whether it is dialogue or just the regular scene, take a look at this diagram and see if there is something you can do to EXCLUDE the reader from being a part of the scene and instead INCLUDE them as a voyeur. Give them something tantalizing and, dare I say, naughty to remember.

Thanks.

Brian

 

[Anders Ämting]

It's an interesting theory. Though, it seems to me that either approach works depending on what is most appropriate for the scene question - sometimes you want the readers to be part of the scene, sometimes you want them to be the voyour, yes?

 

[Leif Notae]

Sure thing Brian.

Think of it this way. You are sitting at a booth in a restaurant. You are enjoying your meal and you overhear a conversation the next booth over.

The faux triangle assumes they already know you are listening and are a part of the scene. Everything they say will "magically fill the void" and "answer any question you might have" without betraying their relationship. In fact, it becomes a detriment to their status because they have now made it a three way conversation (even though you are silent, you are a part of it). This takes the punch out of everything they say, and demystifies what they are saying since they are trying to include you.

The voyeur T (my own term) assumes they DON'T know you are listening. They are still discussing something vital, but more flavor comes out. Perhaps they are exchanging knowledge they aren't supposed to, or they are star crossed lovers hoping to sneak in some time before they have to return to their loveless lives. The scene/dialogue you will get here is more realistic, more intense, and excludes you from their conversation. When you overhear it, you feel guilty. You might even feel dirty. But you want more. You know this is vital.

That's the type of thing you are shooting for. That's what you want in a writing session. Action on a movie set without the audience. Sweeping novelized romance without a third passing a bucket of popcorn...

Hope that helped.

 

[Leif Notae]

It's an interesting theory. Though, it seems to me that either approach works depending on what is most appropriate for the scene question - sometimes you want the readers to be part of the scene, sometimes you want them to be the voyour, yes?

I would submit you never want your reader to be a part of the scene unless you are doing a comedy. Everything else destroys the tension and pitch of the scene.

 

[Xaysai]

Writing is too hard.

I'm going to take up an easier hobby, like planking.

 

[Leif Notae]

Writing is too filled with extra-dimensional squid hugs.

I'm going to take up an easier hobby, like planking.

There, I fixed it for you.

 

[Anders Ämting]

I would submit you never want your reader to be a part of the scene unless you are doing a comedy. Everything else destroys the tension and pitch of the scene.

How do you figure?

I think I get what you are saying but tension is just tool for telling a story, not the story itself. Sometimes you want to relieve tension, sometimes you want to increase it, and quite often the fact that the reader "gets the joke" before the character does is what creates tension.

Sometimes you don't want the reader to feel dirty, sometimes you do. It depends on wether or not dirtyness is appropriate for the scene. Sometimes you'll want to make them feel like they are participating instead, getting them gung ho about what is going on, or simply tell them something that changes their perspective just a little bit.

Stories can come alive because they are things full of variances and subtleties and contrasts that can all be manipulated by the author to achieve different emotional responses in the reader. That's the whole point of writing: To manipulate the reader's emotions.

So, only writing one way all the time just doesn't really make sense to me.

 

[Leif Notae]

How do you figure?

I think I get what you are saying but tension is just tool for telling a story, not the story itself. Sometimes you want to relieve tension, sometimes you want to increase it, and quite often the fact that the reader "gets the joke" before the character does is what creates tension.

Sometimes you don't want the reader to feel dirty, sometimes you do. It depends on wether or not dirtyness is appropriate for the scene. Sometimes you'll want to make them feel like they are participating instead, getting them gung ho about what is going on, or simply tell them something that changes their perspective just a little bit.

Stories can come alive because they are things full of variances and subtleties and contrasts that can all be manipulated by the author to achieve different emotional responses in the reader. That's the whole point of writing: To manipulate the reader's emotions.

So, only writing one way all the time just doesn't really make sense to me.

Except when you do it a certain way and you make it fall flat because, much like I said in the last thread, you are afraid your reader won't get it. In fact, including them in makes it more evident and readily apparent you need to be the director sitting in the chair next to them, poking at them every five minutes and telling them some obscure knowledge they don't need to know about in order to enjoy your story.

 

[Ankari]

Steven Erickson does this all the time. What Lief describes here makes sense. I'll have to be more aware of such things when I write.

 

[Leif Notae]

Steven Erickson does this all the time. What Lief describes here makes sense. I'll have to be more aware of such things when I write.

Remember, this shouldn't prevent you from the act of writing your first draft, but it should be in your mind when you are going through some edits. When you see something flat, perhaps you might be including the reader when you shouldn't. Play it by ear.

 

[Feo Takahari]

What about fiction that directly addresses the reader, like The Catcher in the Rye?

 

[Leif Notae]

What about fiction that directly addresses the reader, like The Catcher in the Rye?

Meh, I've read Catcher for class and it wasn't special, but it was also fot learning so take my POV with a grain of salt.