Dialogue: 'Natural' vs. 'Cinematic'

[Russ]

In modern writing the trend seems to be towards more natural language rather than what I might term more formal, antiquated or dramatic speech.

My understanding for the reason for this is that one hopes that your reader will identify and empathize with certain characters in your work, and it is easier to do so when the characters speak in a way that immediately impacts or is identifiable to your reader, i.e. more modern. Take a look a young people reading say Shakespeare for an extreme example, they are distanced from the work because of the difficulty of the difference between the way they think and the way he writes. You risk the same thing when you right in too formal or dramatic a fashion.

If connecting with your readers on a emotional level is one of your goals, I suggest it is easier achieved by writing in a way that resonates with your reader, not one that makes them slow down and think about what your character just said, or makes them think he/she has a serious stick up their ass.

I also believe that writing in gestures or movements in your dialogue is very important. Science tells us that a great deal of our communications is done through body language not just our words, and thus pure dialogue without some actions can come across as very unnatural and it can results in failures to communicate many parts of the message.

The place this happens a great deal these days (as pointed out so ably by Svrtnsse above) is on the internet. Where a lack of tone, facial expression and body language leads to many, many misunderstandings.

 

[Manalodia]

Brilliant, Svrtnsse.

 

[Zephyr]

This right here is a really good example of when just the words that are said aren't enough to convey the full meaning of what's being said.

I don't know MOK, but I'm assuming what he really means is that some beats to break up the conversation might not be such a bad thing.

TAS however, I know reasonably well (as a poster), but I'm guessing MOK doesn't. What I'm reading into the second line is that TAS doesn't approve of adding fluff - with fluff being things that aren't relevant to the story. He's just stating his opinion on the matter, like he's done several times before in plenty of other threads.

MOK (most likely) doesn't know TAS very well, and sees the comment as an attack, both on himself and his opinion, and responds as if it were.

If this had been a conversation held in person, face to face, that almost certainly wouldn't have happened. MOK and TAS would have been able to see each other and take body language etc into account.

Had the above quote been a part of a dialogue in a story, it would almost certainly have required beats to clarify what the participants really meant.

Hmm. I don't really think you can compare a potentially volatile forum conversation to a carefully scripted novel. Besides, I never said I am against adding beats (which this topic isn't even supposed to be about) and that section of dialogue I quoted isn't indicative of all my dialogue, so I really don't know why we are still flogging this horse carcass.

 

[Manalodia]

Russ, I think writing is a different format than the internet. A person has the ability to edit or clarify what they mean on the net, while in a book that would break everything to go back and explain something that should have been clearly stated. Not every line needs an action, or it will eventually be flooded with gestures that may end up unnecessary. I've read many books that only denote action when important, which was when called for. It seems the level of action you are suggesting is implying every little thing a person does, including superfluous information; I may be reading into it too much.

As for formal vs. modern, why suggest removing part of the element of a setting for the reader's sake? I understand readers sell a book, but an author writing only to appease readers is no better than a sellout artist, in my opinion. Compromising in such a way would alter a vital point perhaps the OP is trying to create. If young people can't read Shakespeare but are expected to know mathematics of advanced levels earlier and earlier, the priorities are sadly off.

 

[Russ]

Russ, I think writing is a different format than the internet. A person has the ability to edit or clarify what they mean on the net, while in a book that would break everything to go back and explain something that should have been clearly stated. Not every line needs an action, or it will eventually be flooded with gestures that may end up unnecessary. I've read many books that only denote action when important, which was when called for. It seems the level of action you are suggesting is implying every little thing a person does, including superfluous information; I may be reading into it too much.

As for formal vs. modern, why suggest removing part of the element of a setting for the reader's sake? I understand readers sell a book, but an author writing only to appease readers is no better than a sellout artist, in my opinion. Compromising in such a way would alter a vital point perhaps the OP is trying to create. If young people can't read Shakespeare but are expected to know mathematics of advanced levels earlier and earlier, the priorities are sadly off.

You make some good points.

I don't suggest that one needs to add in a gesture or movement with every line, but rather that a complete lack of gestures and body language can come across as unnatural and misses a chance to communicate with the reader. I would think that there is a happy medium where the gestures can add to the communication with the reader without clogging the page or dragging things out too long.

While I suspect I don't have as well a developed philosophy of writing as an art as you do, and I do tend towards commercial concerns when I think about writing, I don't think that writing so that the reader better identifies with your characters is "appeasing" the reader, rather it is about communicating your message better to the reader.

To me, writing is about two things. Firstly getting a message of some sort across to the reader, and/or simply entertaining your reader.

Unless the goal is to write formal or archaic dialogue than I believe that it interferes with getting your message across to your reader which undermines both of the goals of writing. I would suggest that anything that forms a barrier between the reader and the characters you want them to care about is a bad thing, while conversely anything that makes your readers feel closer to your characters and gets them invested in the fate of those characters is a good thing. If we want our readers to care, really care, we need to draw them close, not keep them at arms length.

I confess I lean strongly towards the "we write for our readers" camp. If you are talking about writing for oneself then there is no need to go to a forum to see what others think now is there?

Personally I love Shakespeare. But he has an advantage that none one on this site really has, he has thousands or tens of thousands of teachers forcing young people to read his material. I certainly don't have that advantage. I need to use more modern, less co-ercive methods to get my message to readers and hopefully entertain them at the same time.

Is writing to entertain and communicate with your readers, or even changing your writing so that more people will buy it "selling out"? That is a complex question, but I don't think it is. Writing, to me, is a partnership between the reader and the writer, and all partnerships need some compromise to work. I try not to disappoint my partners and am frequently willing to compromise with them both in my business and personal life.

I do however hope to "sell out" in the most positive way possible.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I was trying to be delicate by suggesting fluff.

I did not mean it literally.

Picking apart my words and giving them meaning based on your opinions is rude

Especially considering my comment was not directed to you.

I guess it's an easy way to get 3,000 posts.

I'm sorry you took offense. My intention was not to injure or be rude.

As a reader of your post, I have only the words you write. Anything beyond their face value did not come through. In light of that, I expressed an opinion contrary to what I saw regarding "fluff", which I took to mean stage direction and similar that may not contribute to moving story, or character, forward.

When you post in a thread, people will respond to you, regardless of whether your comment was directed at them. This is a community of writers and not a forum of two people. If you wish to direct comments to one person alone, the Private Messaging system is available.

Now, let's set this aside, move forward, and remain on topic.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I did not mean to compare the conversations had on an online forum to the conversations written in a thoroughly considered story. I meant to illustrate with a practical example how lack of body language and facial expressions can lead to unforeseen misunderstandings. Talking is about more than just words.

But, let's get back to the topic at hand...

Which made me wonder. What do you like to see in your fantasy books? Do you like natural-flowing dialogue, that could be read in a contemporary setting and easily understood, or do you prefer cinematic style dialogue, that perhaps would not sound so natural when read aloud, but serves a purpose to the story?

One of my main motivations for reading - and specifically for reading fantasy - is escapism. When I read, I want to get away from the real world, to spend some time in, well... somewhere else. Because of this, the flow of the language is important to me, not just in dialogue, but throughout the entire story.
I don't like it when I come up against long complicated words that I'm not entirely sure what they mean, or how to pronounce, and I don't like it when characters speak in a way that seem stilted or unnatural.
That doesn't mean that I want to read a contemporary language even in a non-contemporary setting, but it means that I want characters to speak in a way that I can believe a person would actually speak in.

One way to look at it is as if the text is a barrier between me and the story. If I'm sitting down to read and get away from everyday life, I'd prefer it if I don't have to struggle to get to the world on the other side.

 

[Reaver]

I was trying to be delicate by suggesting fluff.

I did not mean it literally.

Picking apart my words and giving them meaning based on your opinions is rude

Especially considering my comment was not directed to you.

I guess it's an easy way to get 3,000 posts.

Take it easy. T.A.S. isn't picking apart anyone's words. He's simply commenting on your comment. That's what we do here.

*EDIT* I realize that I'm re-hashing what T.A.S. has already said in a previous post, so please accept my apology.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Zephyr here is how I think about dialogue. Would my character really say what he is saying?

For example I have one character, Julian Jacobsen, I call him Jude. He's part of a diseased magical community that is severely oppressed by the rest of the mages. His family hates him. But he had a great mentor teach him how to deal with the disease and his family. Hid coping mechanism is sarcasm. Some ones a jerk to him he retorts. His nature is brusque. His words are small. And his sentences short. He doesn't pontificate he doesn't speak much. Action is his modus operandi.

I have another character I'm working on, a law student. He speaks a lot, goes off on tangent, and thinks more than acts. His word choices are longer, more formal, and more precise than Jude's. His sentences, particularly his written sentences, are long and wordy. He uses technical jargon judt to use the jargon at every chance.

So, on the one end we have a more natural speaker with a lot of body language on the other a more formal and controlled speaker. But no one in their respective books will be like them. Jude's sister will be more formal. The soldier friend of the lawyer will swear and use simple words and be more emotive.

My take is summed up as this: do what your character would.

 

[skip.knox]

To return to some of the original comments, I did not hear anything in Edam's speech that would suggest anything other than a mature adult. He speaks the same as the other characters around him, so he doesn't *seem* young to me. Other people say he is, but he neither speaks nor behaves like a child or an adolescent. That may be one factor in the assessment of wooden.

A second factor has already been mentioned. There's no tension or conflict in the dialog. Nothing seems to be at stake; everything is explanatory, save for the one moment of embarrassment.

You will note that neither of these belong either to "natural" or to "cinematic" approaches. Those categories seem arbitrary at best, in any case. There is only dialog that works (as in the usual--moves the story, develops character, sets mood, etc.) or dialog that doesn't work. It can be high-flown and ornate, or it can be modern and hip. Both approaches can fail. Either can succeed. For myself, I would work on writing dialog that succeeds, and let literary critics invent categories for it.

 

[Manalodia]

You make some good points.

I don't suggest that one needs to add in a gesture or movement with every line, but rather that a complete lack of gestures and body language can come across as unnatural and misses a chance to communicate with the reader. I would think that there is a happy medium where the gestures can add to the communication with the reader without clogging the page or dragging things out too long.

While I suspect I don't have as well a developed philosophy of writing as an art as you do, and I do tend towards commercial concerns when I think about writing, I don't think that writing so that the reader better identifies with your characters is "appeasing" the reader, rather it is about communicating your message better to the reader.

To me, writing is about two things. Firstly getting a message of some sort across to the reader, and/or simply entertaining your reader.

Unless the goal is to write formal or archaic dialogue than I believe that it interferes with getting your message across to your reader which undermines both of the goals of writing. I would suggest that anything that forms a barrier between the reader and the characters you want them to care about is a bad thing, while conversely anything that makes your readers feel closer to your characters and gets them invested in the fate of those characters is a good thing. If we want our readers to care, really care, we need to draw them close, not keep them at arms length.

I confess I lean strongly towards the "we write for our readers" camp. If you are talking about writing for oneself then there is no need to go to a forum to see what others think now is there?

Personally I love Shakespeare. But he has an advantage that none one on this site really has, he has thousands or tens of thousands of teachers forcing young people to read his material. I certainly don't have that advantage. I need to use more modern, less co-ercive methods to get my message to readers and hopefully entertain them at the same time.

Is writing to entertain and communicate with your readers, or even changing your writing so that more people will buy it "selling out"? That is a complex question, but I don't think it is. Writing, to me, is a partnership between the reader and the writer, and all partnerships need some compromise to work. I try not to disappoint my partners and am frequently willing to compromise with them both in my business and personal life.

I do however hope to "sell out" in the most positive way possible.

You make good points yourself, yet even though Shakespeare is forced on students, none of them will care for him outside the classroom or in life if they really don't. Writing is indeed about communicating with your readers the best way, yet most times the readers find the author. Just because he changes the dialogue does not mean the content will be anymore appeasing to the reader; it likely will still be set in archaic period, which they cannot relate to in itself. This is fantasy after all, so the readers would expect or be delighted to find archaic language being in a work. Some love that authenticity.

Writing is very much a form of art; now do artists make art based on the their audience or expressing themselves to the audience? There is some difference, but it is very much the same at the heart of it. Nothing wrong with wanting commercial success, but how many other authors want that same thing and compromise similarly? Individualism may not be promoted in society know, but a strong one with dedicated vision can't be denied. I think it is a brave notion to take such a chance and see how even other writers perceive it.

I think we all hope to in some way if need be with as little "give" as possible, but all seek to maintain our loins and be successful at the same time~ ^_^

 

[Manalodia]

I think another thing to consider about the setting, if it is indeed based off of times of yore, that youth were mature for their age. They did not have luxuries like we do now and childhood was brief as they had to prepare for life. Nobles might have more of a relaxed period, but eventually the daughter would be married off, requiring her to be prepped as a respectable lady and the son was to take after his father or another respectable profession. It was no different for the poor, save less to look forward to but hardship and hard labour.

The poor had a very lax tongue depending in some cases (some were more proper than others), and the nobles had a very formal way of speaking. Children, those in school especially, were expected to bare themselves with due manners. It is not unrealistic that the main character may sound adult, but there could be room for adolescent thought/action.

Zeyphyr may not have entirely honed his writing skills and use of the style, but the direction is evident and we can point him in the right direction.