• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Charcaterization in Dialogue

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
I've been thinking a lot about dialogue lately... here's the next installment if you will indulge me.

Characterization:
What tools do you use, as a writer, to define the distinctions between characters?

It is easy to fall into the trap of "every character sounding like a carbon copy of the other". Admittedly, during a first draft, I find this commonplace in my own writing. Knowing this, I reserve an entire revision to dialogue, focusing on characterization through dialogue primarily.

Let's talk basics for a moment, writing characters on different social spectrums... the uneducated and rough versus the highly articulate & polished types. In my own writing, I tend to use more menial words and shorter sentences for the gruff character and longer sentencing with flowery, descriptive words for the dialogue of a refined character. That's not uncommon and a relatively easy distinction to put to paper.

My questions lies in finer shades of character. Those where the lines between class, education, nationality, race, etc. are slim to nonexistant.

In the ensemble of an entire cast, what are some of the tools you employ to differentiate these characters through dialogue?

Do you feel this is an important aspect of storytelling?

Other thoughts or comments?
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
In my WIP my main characters grew up in the same neighborhood, so they all have a similar vocabulary to draw on. But my writing group has confirmed to me that each has their own voice or presence when they speak. I only have two POV characters--one major, one minor--and the other eight recurring characters in the story have to be revealed through description and dialogue. What I did to differentiate them is attitude.

When something happens in the story, each of them has at least a slightly different attitude towards it, ranging from something like it's the end of the world to who gives a crap. This is filtered through their base personality and effects what they say and how they say it.

To me, dialogue is kind of selfish. What I mean by that is it's all about the speaker. They're reacting to what's happening in the scene but from a point of how it effects them.

For example if three guys see a pretty girl walking towards them, what they say can reveal a bit of who they are.

Guy 1: Hey, look at the tatas on her.

Guy 2: Doesn't she have an honest smile?

Guy 3: That hair of hers, absolutely brilliant. I wonder who her stylist is.
 

Chilari

Staff
Moderator
Penpilot has said what I was thinking, but far better than I could have phrased it. The language the character uses isn't just influenced by their upbringing and education, but also by their personality and approach to life. A character who constantly seeks approval might be be eager to tell other characters what she's achieved but hesitant to suggest ideas, and thus phrase new ideas in a questioning manner, seeking positive responses from those around her. Whereas someone who is naturally confident and the leader of the group might suggest ideas with great ease, using language and phrasing that suggests he expects the others to just agree. A character who is patient and thoughtful might not speak immediately, but listen to what others say and take it into account before coming out with a confident but quiet and concise suggestion. Say these three characters are all suggesting the same idea: they can get into the castle by posing as servants to the visiting ambassador.

Approval seeker: Okay, how about, right, we dress up as someone who has free access to the castle, right? Like Lord Ambassador's servants. They've got a uniform, right? And the guards don't expect to recognise them, just their clothes. So how about that?

Leader: I have a simple solution: we find or make some liveries like those worn by Lord Ambassador's servants and walk right past the guards. Easy.

Patient concise guy: Lord Ambassador's servants pass unchallenged into the castle. If we disguise ourselves in their uniforms, we can get past the guards.

The difference between the leader character here and the patient concise guy is that the leader starts by talking about himself, how it's his idea, and merely states the plan. The patient guy starts with an observation, and follows with the suggestions so that he explains his reasoning. Meanwhile the approval seeker does explain reasoning, but in a different way, in the order that she probably came up with the idea in the first place. She starts with an undeveloped solution, then an observation, then joins these together to present the full solution. And it's all mixed in with the language that shows her personality, that she's not merely suggesting an idea, she's looking for encouragement and testing the waters too.
 

Rob P

Minstrel
I have a take on this. What if you had two characters who were identical twins. Same upbringing, generally the same experiences, similar attitudes, etc etc.

What would be the one thing verbally that would differentiate one from the other if the only sense available to you was your hearing? As a writer you would need to think of that one thing.

I can only think of potentially two, timing and linked in with that, intonation derived from how they breathe between words, structuring their sentences accordingly. As a writer we can only apply pacing to the dialogue and perhaps that would be the difference.

What do you reckon?
 
Last edited:
I have a take on this. What if you had two characters who were identical twins. Same upbringing, generally the same experiences, similar attitudes, etc etc.

What would be the one thing verbally that would differentiate one from the other if the only sense available to you was your hearing? As a writer you would need to think of that one thing.

I can only think of potentially two, timing and linked in with that, intonation derived from how they breathe between words, structuring their sentences accordingly. As a writer we can only apply pacing to the dialogue and perhaps that would be the difference.

What do you reckon?


Ah, but even with identical twins there will be personality differences. For example, with a set of identical twins I know, one is a married scientist with two babies who lives in Maryland and the other a single librarian living with her post-grad school boyfriend in Chicago. Sure, they both have the same voice, but they have taken vastly different life paths, and that will affect how each of them speaks, what they say, the words they use, etc.
 

Chilari

Staff
Moderator
Rob P, I reckon the twins would have different outlooks based on their different experiences or interpretation of events. They might be twins but they won't have identical experiences, they'll have done different things at some points - and have different desires and dreams for their futures. And so they could well speak differently, in ways better conveyed through writing than when they pause to breathe, the meter of their speech, etc, because of their approach and attitude towards a given situation.
 
Some of my favorite tricks are:

How quickly does someone get through a point, combined with how well-ordered his words are. So you might have:
  • a quick, clumsy "bash at" a statement, maybe accidentally leaving some of his point out
  • (a variation, someone who knows he's sloppy and tends to repeat himself trying to add what he missed)
  • a "short and sweet" statement
  • eloquent but rambling
  • carefully going through several things to make a point (most common among leaders or specialists, that other people let get through it)

What things get his interest most? Those are the things most likely to make him speak up, but also: does he like to speak first, or second (and is it because he's a moment slow, or did he really hear what the other guy said even though he's got his own point in mind?), or let everyone else go and then guide them all? What would make him interrupt?

(In fact, and this relates to Penpilot's point: people rarely talk about what a thing is. Unless they have real doubts, they jump past that to what they expect it to do and how it'll affect them, and what they want to do about it. (Not "The orcs have been our enemies for a thousand years" but "If they don't attack us today they will next month, so...) It's those actions that define the story and the character anyway; the trick is focusing on them while keeping clear what that reasoning's based on.)

And, just to say it again: maybe the best tool is to compare who's in a given scene and know who talks first, or longest, or fights to get his own points in, and who tries to bring things around to his view by the end --or thinks tacking on the last word is a victory.
 

Guru Coyote

Archmage
I would try to work out the different Personality Types of each character. One way to do this might be to think about the way each uses imagery in their words.
A (maybe not very good) example of what I mean:
Several characters commenting on an argument that just took place:
A: "You really took him apart, Joe."
B: "That stung, Joe."
C: "Those were scalding words, Joe."
All three are basically saying the same thing, only they use different zones of experience to do so (deconstruction, a sting, heat)
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
To begin with, I think that charcaterization probably assumes a world of felines, and I must say that I'm intrigued...

Seriously, though, as my editor pointed out (I love saying that I have an editor), unique voice is one of my weaknesses as an author. In examining the problem, I think it's endemic of another one of my major weaknesses - failing to get inside the head of each of my characters.

I'm wary of trying to include too much difference, beyond word choice, in grammar and dialect because that can often seem gimmicky and cause reader distraction. I think that the solution, as others above have eloquently stated, is to really step back and think, "What is this character's honest reaction?"

Unfortunately, I find it so much easier to know what to do than to actually do it :(
 
I admit, I don't really think about this much. Different characters sound differently, is all. I mostly just try to make it match their manerism in general.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Dialogue is supposed to 'sound like' natural speech to the reader's ear. Not emulate natural speech, but sound like it. When you are writing in the lean, modern style that people build a lot of 'rules' around (the type of writing Brian is going for, I think, and which can be very effective), the narrator is supposed to disappear into the background. There is not supposed to be an intrusive, authorial voice.

Thus, if that's the type of writing you are doing, there are opposite goals for dialogue and exposition, and it doesn't make sense to treat them the same way. Even if you are writing in the lean, modern style that take prose to its bare essentials, it is a mistake to treat dialogue the same way. You run into a few problems:

1. The dialogue lacks emotion; all of the soul is sucked out of it by treating it like exposition and whittling it down to bare essentials;

2. Characters all sound alike, because when you go through and edit the dialogue and strip it bare you are removing distinctive features that make characters stand out; and

3. The distinction between characters and narrator, or dialogue and exposition is lost. You're using the same rules for every word on the page, with no regard to whether it is dialogue or not, and so your dialogue reads just like your exposition. At this point, you might as well present every conversation in summary form.
 

SeverinR

Vala
In my WIP my main characters grew up in the same neighborhood, so they all have a similar vocabulary to draw on. But my writing group has confirmed to me that each has their own voice or presence when they speak. I only have two POV characters--one major, one minor--and the other eight recurring characters in the story have to be revealed through description and dialogue. What I did to differentiate them is attitude.

When something happens in the story, each of them has at least a slightly different attitude towards it, ranging from something like it's the end of the world to who gives a crap. This is filtered through their base personality and effects what they say and how they say it.

To me, dialogue is kind of selfish. What I mean by that is it's all about the speaker. They're reacting to what's happening in the scene but from a point of how it effects them.

For example if three guys see a pretty girl walking towards them, what they say can reveal a bit of who they are.

Guy 1: Hey, look at the tatas on her.

Guy 2: Doesn't she have an honest smile?

Guy 3: That hair of hers, absolutely brilliant. I wonder who her stylist is.

I do like the examples, with one sentence you know a little about the person:
example1; sexist, possibly believes he is a ladies man, true or not we don't know.
2;good guy, probably in the friend zone with most women.
3. feminine guy, possibly gay.
 

BWFoster78

Myth Weaver
You run into a few problems:

Steerpike,

As far as what I'M trying to accomplish, I disagree to an extent:

1. The dialogue lacks emotion; all of the soul is sucked out of it by treating it like exposition and whittling it down to bare essentials;

I consider conveying emotional context to be an essential and not something to be removed, so I don't think that this is a correct representation of what I'm trying to do.

2. Characters all sound alike, because when you go through and edit the dialogue and strip it bare you are removing distinctive features that make characters stand out; and

I'll grant that this is true and an issue with which I struggle. My best solution is to try, which is hard for me as stated previously, to write from that character's perspective and infuse that character's emotion into each line. For some characters, I do add modified verbage and manner of speaking, but I try to limit this to a great extent.

3. The distinction between characters and narrator, or dialogue and exposition is lost. You're using the same rules for every word on the page, with no regard to whether it is dialogue or not, and so your dialogue reads just like your exposition. At this point, you might as well present every conversation in summary form.

No offense, but this, to me, is a weak argument. It assumes a use of dialogue that I don't agree with at all. Dialogue is much more than just another way of presenting information, and it's worth IS NOT solely defined simply by using a separate set of rules.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Troubadour
I'm wary of trying to include too much difference, beyond word choice, in grammar and dialect because that can often seem gimmicky and cause reader distraction.

Agreed and I'd add to that list an overemphasis on speech patterns. These things can all work (Chilari gives some examples) but if overdone are distracting.

I tend to prefer Penpilot's approach, where characterization comes more from what a character talks about in dialogue (what lens or focus they bring to any given issue) rather than how they talk about it.

In examining the problem, I think it's endemic of another one of my major weaknesses - failing to get inside the head of each of my characters.

One thing that I find helpful here is mentally linking each of my characters to someone from my own life or to a movie or television actor who seems to embody the attributes I want my character to have. I find this makes it easier to imagine how the character would react to any given situation. It also helps set off the alarm bells whenever I inadvertently make them do something that is out of character.
 

Guru Coyote

Archmage
I think we are carving out two aspects of dialog / characteristic speech:

a) HOW a char says something

b) WHAT a char talks about
both of these are helpful to define (characterize) a character.

Under the "how" I'd put things like word choice, grammar, dialect

Under the "what" there is the filter (what details do they note and respond to), and the general aims and goals.

One thought regarding the goals of a character:
This can be helpful even if the author were to make the dialog *lean,' cutting out on 'excess words.' (Note I put that in quotes o´for a reason.)
The goals of a character will determine what aspects of any given situation they would pick up on, and what they would say. A character who is mainly interested in power will comment on different aspects of the same situation as one who is all about social interaction.
So, even if the author uses very much the same mode of speech for these characters, their dialog will still be typical of each.
 

Alexandra

Closed Account
Tywin Lannister to Arya Stark: "Lowborn girls say 'm'lord', not 'my lord'. If you're going to pose as a commoner, you should do it properly."

Arya Stark: [defiantly] "My mother served Lady Dustin for many years, MY LORD. She taught me how to speak proper... properly."

Tywin Lannister: [amused] "You're too smart for your own good. Has anyone told you that?"

Arya Stark: [smiles] "Yes."

Don't overthink your dialogue, if the conversation sounds right and flows odds are tis right.
 

SeverinR

Vala
Tywin Lannister to Arya Stark: "Lowborn girls say 'm'lord', not 'my lord'. If you're going to pose as a commoner, you should do it properly."

Arya Stark: [defiantly] "My mother served Lady Dustin for many years, MY LORD. She taught me how to speak proper... properly."

Tywin Lannister: [amused] "You're too smart for your own good. Has anyone told you that?"

Arya Stark: [smiles] "Yes."

Don't overthink your dialogue, if the conversation sounds right and flows odds are tis right.
My two favorite characters, love the quotes as long as they don't give away season ii. (Obviously they're both still alive.)
Both statements are true, and show that both the speakers have given thought to the situation.

Of course, first rule of dialog, it must contribute to the story. Talking of the weather or boring topics that don't enhance the story break the rule of writing:
"Writing is living with the boring parts removed."
The dialog above enhances the storyline that Arya is fleeing and was noticed by Tywin, it enhances Tywin's character, because they are officially on opposing sides, and for what ever reason does not look at the girl as an enemy.(reason doesn't really matter for this discussion.)

Great example.
 
Last edited:

Alexandra

Closed Account
I have a take on this. What if you had two characters who were identical twins.... What do you reckon?

I'd run for the shredder! Twins in novels and movies – kisses of death. Amnesia too:

Strider awoke to the sound of the hooves of war horses pounding through his head. 'Ooh,' he groaned while sitting up, sword in sticky hand, blade glistening dark red. He looked around the room. Empty bottles and tankards littered the floor and the small space stank of ale, vomit and blood. Frodo lay curled on his side at the ranger's feet. 'Wake up ya drunken runt, the day's a dawnin'.' He kicked the halfling who rolled over, revealing a slash to his side and a pool of congealed blood. 'Oh shit,' Strider muttered, 'what 'ave I done now?'

Twins or amnesia? No! :wink:
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
With the responses in this thread (thanks to all!) and my own thoughts on the subject, I've started making a list of distinctions that can be employed in dialogue. If you don't like lists, please ignore.... It is intended as a tool for creative thinking during my editing process. I thought others might find it useful.

Potential Dialogue Differentiations/Distinctions:
1) Gender
- Men and women communicate differently & they speak differently.
- Often members of one gender also speak differently to members of the other gender compared to how they'd speak to their own. (i.e. Men might speak differently to a group of men than they would to a girlfriend).

2) Generational
- The era that a person was raised, and their current age, will affect how they speak. Again, this may also differ depending on whom they are speaking to.
- This can also be indicated by generational phrases common to a time period (i.e. "gag me with a spoon.")

3) Nationality/Ethnicity
- This doesn't refer solely to dialects (which should be used sparingly) but could also be indicated by speech structure. (i.e. A character speaking in a language that is not their native language may use simple words & shorter phrasing. In this light, the word choice may have little to do with education or social position).

4) Education
- How characters were educated (if at all) as well as where they were educated, play a large role in how they speak. A noble woman, versed in how to address people properly, might say "My Lord" where the serving wench speaking the common might say "M'Lord".

5) Social status/Background
- A character raised by wolves will speak quite differently than a duchess. Was the character raised on a farm or in the big city? - Further, characters from one social status may speak differently to another character they may view as their superior. The reverse is also true. A noble may speak with disdain or pity to a subordinate class. Is your character a person of authority, used to being obeyed? Is the character one who is accustomed to being kicked around?

6) Occupation
- An engineer might speak differently than a newspaper reporter, or a car salesman. This crosses over with education somewhat. However, professional lingo, a preference for concise speech over elaborate phrasings, closed ended questions as opposed to open ended, etc...these differences are worth consideration.

7) Speaker Perceptions or Outlook
- Our outlook, how we perceive things, differs greatly from person to person. In psychology, the theory of mood congruence states that people in a positive mindset tend to notice positive stimuli faster than negative. The reverse is also true. Therefore, a curmudgeon would tend to comment on the negative aspects of the world around him. The woman with the perpetual positive attitude will speak about the bright side of events.
- This would also consider a character's attitude towards others. Are they a nurturer? Are they distrusting? Are they normally respectful or disrespectful? There are many possibilities.

7) Aspects of personality (i.e. moody, emotional, easily agitated, impatient, a joker, the calm collected type, etc.)
- Some aspects of personality will be more permanent or dependent on change through the character arc. For example, is your character an introvert or extrovert?
- Others will change in relation to context. A character who is normally calm and calculating may not be if they believe their child was just abducted. They would likely freak out, acting irrationally...and rightfully so.


I realize there may be some crossover in the above items. I'm trying to think & list as many distinctions as possible. Any others I have missed?
 
Last edited:

Guru Coyote

Archmage
This belongs somewhere in the 7) (Personality Type):
the choice of words can depend on the mode in which the character relates to the world. This is often discussed in 'learning types': some are autiory learners, some haptic, some learn by discussion with others (relationship-oriented, not sure what the right term is here.)
Examples:
auditory person might say: "Crack your whip man!"
while a haptic person would focus on the touch/feel aspect: "Let them feel the whip!"
A vision oriented person would phrase the very same thing as: "Show them the whip!"

(Why am I using this image, I wonder... time for bed.)
 
Top