Let's have a dialogue about, well, dialogue

[BWFoster78]

I think that is probably more in line with modern fiction, and I like plenty of books written that way. I like stylistic novels like Lolita and the Gormenghast books as well, and my hope is we won't lose those. I have noticed a few more novels the past few years where the style calls attention to itself, but I don't know if that is new trend or just a couple of books I happened across. It seems to me that in the era of self-publishing electronically, we'll have room for all sorts of writing.

I would hope so. The barrier to publishing is so much lower, though getting noticed would seem to be proportiately increased.

I so much prefer modern writing. Every time I had to read a "classic" for school, I pretty much hated it.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Weighing in on rule #1 & #14......


1. Everyone knows my detailed disdain for adverbs. However, in dialogue, as long as it's not overblown usage of adverbs, I'm fine with them. I think this concept applies to other writerly "rules" as well. As long as the dialogue isn't chock full of bad grammar, bad sentence structure, and repetition then it's fine. Moderation is the key. Overuse, even in dialogue, can be a distraction that reduces reader immersion.

14. Characterization through dialogue is an effective tool. Often it is either overlooked or simply avoided due to difficulty or the belief that a dialect in the written form is a bad choice. To this I'd say that most cases of bad dialect writing comes down to over-writing. Now, there are exceptions but for the most part, when a reader sees a sentence like Butterfly's:

" I neva cannae wurk oot woot e's sayin." - a case of intentional overwriting.

It reads with confusion. I feel the trick lies with choosing a word or two that carries the same effect & use those words in that specific character's dialogue often.

"I neva can work out what he's sayin." - easier to understand, same basic effect.

 

[BWFoster78]

1. Everyone knows my detailed disdain for adverbs. However, in dialogue, as long as it's not overblown usage of adverbs,

This boils down to: why is it bad to use adverbs?

1) It's indicative of telling.
2) A lot of times, they don't add anything to the sentence.

Usually, adverbs don't actually detract all that much from the work (assuming reason 2); they just violate the edict against unnecessary words. In dialogue, however, they're an easy way to add character. Since the negatives are low, it's not as big a deal.

I think this concept applies to other writerly "rules" as well.

Depends on the rule. Redundancy = bad regardless. Unnecessary words can get bad fast. Bad grammar can be used to indicate voice, but you have to be extra careful. Grammar is there for a reason. It provides clear rules for writing in an understandable manner. When you break them, you increase your chances of introducing confusion, and dialogue must be clear.

Moderation is the key. Overuse, even in dialogue, can be a distraction that reduces reader immersion.

Amen, brother.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Depends on the rule. Redundancy = bad regardless.

Not always the case.... People repeat themselves when speaking or use redundant phrasings all the time. This is especially true in heightened emotional states. A clever author, with a firm grasp on emotional cues like these can use repetition & redundancies to accentuate a character's emotional state.

 

[BWFoster78]

I've had a bit of an epiphany.

This is going to sound stupid, as in "I can't believe you didn't already know this." I struggle with adding action to dialogue. I picture my characters and shout at them "Do something!" They raise their eyebrows, smirk, nod or shake their heads, roll their eyes, but that's about it. It gets repititious after a while.

Anyway, I'm editing a scene today, and a thought occurred to me: have them act according to the task they're performing! I know. Not exactly a revolutionary idea, but, seriously, it hadn't really hit me before.

Since the characters in question were packing up for the road, I'm showing them folding shirts and stuffing bags in between talking to each other. It worked great.

I don't know if anyone else out there is as dense as me on this, but maybe this advice will help someone.

Thanks.

 

[JonSnow]

I actually use this technique a lot.... if they are sitting at a table talking, i'll have them sip wine,shift in their chair, or break off a chunk of bread, etc... working outside, they might wipe sweat off their forehead, cough, or wipe their dirty hands on their trousers...

It was actually something I figured out early in my writing experience, before I figured out a lot of other "basic" things... everyone is different. Like anything else, don't overdo it. But it will help you keep the action "moving" during long dialog exchanges.

 

[BWFoster78]

Hey, it's better than rolling eyes all the time.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Yes, giving your characters activities to perform is crucial in my opinion. Otherwise, you often have dry dialogue because they're just standing there talking. Normally I try to keep characters busy during the conversation.

However, if you want to really focus on what's being said, sometimes just two people locked onto each other, doing nothing but talking, works well. The absence of action, in cases like these, can magnify the drama... It's too important to the characters... They stop everything else just to talk (or threaten, coerce, beg, etc.)

 

[Ireth]

I have the opposite problem, BW. Much of the time my characters act and act, and I have to scream at them to "Say something!" This gets especially hard when they're in awkward situations and are unwilling to speak in-character at all. They'll snark at ME about it, but not say a word to each other.

 

[BWFoster78]

Agreed, Ireth. Definitely the opposite. I have no problem coming up with conversation.

 

[Butterfly]

Observe their body language. It is important in communication.

Where they look, how they keep eye contact, their posture, how they fiddle with things, how muscles twitch, the things that distract them, how willing they are to listen, folded arms, folded legs, scratches, how they hold their hands. Things like that.

Do it right and you can show a lot outside of dialogue and action on how someone is feeling.

 

[BWFoster78]

Observe their body language. It is important in communication.

Where they look, how they keep eye contact, their posture, how they fiddle with things, how muscles twitch, the things that distract them, how willing they are to listen, folded arms, folded legs, scratches, how they hold their hands. Things like that.

Do it right and you can show a lot outside of dialogue and action on how someone is feeling.

I find that there are only so many ways that I know of to express their body language, though. I end up overusing expressions and words.

It is good, though. I needed to find other techniques to add action to supplement.

 

[Penpilot]

Anyway, I'm editing a scene today, and a thought occurred to me: have them act according to the task they're performing! I know. Not exactly a revolutionary idea, but, seriously, it hadn't really hit me before.

Just to add to this. You can also use the tasks preformed to relate and reflect the emotion of the dialogue in a bit of show-not-tell. If a person is being teased while they're washing dishes, the way they wash dishes will be effected. They may clank glasses and plates more or wring out that dish towel really really tight, conveying emotion and maybe some character.

The task can also parallel conversation and play off each other. Two people fencing while one is trying to finesse information from the other as an example. Each thrust and parry of fencing can work in conjunction with the thrust and parry of conversation.

 

[Ghost]

I see instances where your rules would compete with characterization, at least in my case. There are long-winded characters, characters who don't know or care about rules of grammar, characters who repeat themselves. The idea is for new writers to learn the difference between intentional and sloppy. After that, we can learn the difference between effective and ineffective.

If people say "there are no rules in dialogue" and use that as an excuse for poor writing... well, they're missing the point on why there is leeway in speech. It doesn't turn into a free-for-all just because you put quotation marks around it. "Your a bad person!" doesn't work whether it's in dialogue or not. (Maybe when it's for comedy or when we're reading what a character wrote?) It's distracting, and there should be a better reason than laziness for doing something like that.

My only rule or standard for dialogue is that it has to make sense for this character who's talking to this person in this situation. People enter conversations with their own desires and assumptions, so for me, each line should be written with that particular speaker in mind. I know what the speaker meant to say, what she really said, and what the listener heard—and it's possible for each to be a different thing.

13. Dialogue should always move the plot forward, avoid meaningless background.

Dialogue can set the tone: adding or diffusing tension, providing a dose of humor, etc. It can reveal the speaker's nature and show how they interact with others. It can speed up the pacing. It can show aspects of the characters' culture and their standing, thereby adding to the setting. I don't think each line of dialogue has to move the plot forward or risk being chucked. Dialogue can be so much more than a conveyance for plot points.

Yes, giving your characters activities to perform is crucial in my opinion. Otherwise, you often have dry dialogue because they're just standing there talking. [...] However, if you want to really focus on what's being said, sometimes just two people locked onto each other, doing nothing but talking, works well. The absence of action, in cases like these, can magnify the drama...

I agree with this. The actions orient the reader within the scene. I look at actions as a tool to punctuate dialogue or a way to frame the whole conversation. It's also a great way to multitask.

The task can also parallel conversation and play off each other. Two people fencing while one is trying to finesse information from the other as an example. Each thrust and parry of fencing can work in conjunction with the thrust and parry of conversation.

I'd use this technique sparingly. Some writers are good at it, but it's easy for some to go overboard and make all the actions mirror or contrast with the dialogue. It becomes unrealistic and transparent, like a poorly written play. But I'd still recommend experimenting with this technique. It shows undercurrents in a conversation that the speech may only suggest.

 

[BWFoster78]

Ghost,

My only problem with this statement:

My only rule or standard for dialogue is that it has to make sense for this character who's talking to this person in this situation.

is when it is used to justify putting something in the book that will annoy or turnoff the reader. Yes, your character may talk with a southern accent. Yes, you can give more "life" to the character by writing phonetically to describe how he sounds. No, I'm not going to continue reading more than a few lines before tossing the book across the room unless you're darn good at the dialect.

 

[Ghost]

My personal "rule" is strictly about characterization. Why does the villain waste time telling the hero how to disarm the bomb instead of killing him right away? How does the wizard tell the farm boy useless trivia but neglect to tell the boy vital information? If two characters loathe each other, why would they exchange pleasantries for two pages without any tension? That's what I mean. What Character A says to Character B should sense for them and the situation. I try to keep this in mind.

Let's say I have a party of adventurers who've been traveling at a hard pace. They stop to rest at a historic battlefield. They recite stories of the battle and wax poetic about the follies of war. I've never hinted that the characters are aficionados of history, war, storytelling or philosophy, and they're presumably exhausted. So why are they having this conversation now and with each other? To show off the world-building?

There are times when it seems the author didn't bother thinking from each perspective. Characters infodump in dialogue for the benefit of the MC (and the reader) whether it's in character or not. Two characters, who are described as straight-forward and honest, refuse to discuss a problem and a misunderstanding escalates until the truth is revealed just in time for the characters to forgive each other and get married. That's the kind of thing I want to avoid.

RE: Dialect
I totally agree with you there. A character may not know or care about rules of grammar, but the author knows what the character meant. The thing about dialect is that you have to balance what the speaker says, what the listener hears, and what the reader sees. I once read a novel where the author used "heah" in dialogue. It took me chapters to figure out she meant "here" and I'm a rhotic speaker. (This was back when I felt obligated to finish a book, so nowadays the author doesn't get more than a page to win me over with "quirky" spelling.)

I should give examples of what I'm talking about:

I can't get any satisfaction.
I can't get no satisfaction.
Ah ain't gittin no satisfaction.

Those all come across differently to me. I'm okay with the first two, but the last one could just as easily be "I ain't gettin' no satisfaction" or something along those lines. Doing that is overkill because now the reader has to decode misspelled words. Plus, it can veer off into caricature very quickly.

I think there's wiggle room for characters to use fragments, double negatives, etc.

 

[BWFoster78]

Ghost,

I think we're pretty much in agreement.

How to present exposition is a totally different conversation, one that I'm certainly no expert regarding. There are plot points you have to get across to the reader, and how best to do that without sounding like "as you know, Bob" is a constant struggle.

 

[Helen]

Just because characters say something, doesn't make it dialogue.

Dialogue helps move the plot forward..or something forward.

 

[Ireth]

How to present exposition is a totally different conversation, one that I'm certainly no expert regarding. There are plot points you have to get across to the reader, and how best to do that without sounding like "as you know, Bob" is a constant struggle.

How do you define exposition as opposed to infodump? I know the two can and do overlap at times, but I've seen them used interchangeably, and that kind of annoyed me. In my view, exposition is getting across information that one or more characters already know, whether it's ancient history or summarizing events that the reader just read for the sake of another character who wasn't present. Infodumping is any type of information that comes in huge walls of dialogue, whether or not the other characters know about it already. The Council of Elrond chapter in LOTR comes to mind. It's fascinating history and info about the rest of Middle-earth, but there's just so MUCH of it. At least it is filtered through the characters' POVs, so that makes it more interesting than it could have been.

 

[BWFoster78]

How do you define exposition as opposed to infodump? I know the two can and do overlap at times, but I've seen them used interchangeably, and that kind of annoyed me. In my view, exposition is getting across information that one or more characters already know, whether it's ancient history or summarizing events that the reader just read for the sake of another character who wasn't present. Infodumping is any type of information that comes in huge walls of dialogue, whether or not the other characters know about it already. The Council of Elrond chapter in LOTR comes to mind. It's fascinating history and info about the rest of Middle-earth, but there's just so MUCH of it. At least it is filtered through the characters' POVs, so that makes it more interesting than it could have been.

This is one of the definitions from Dictionary.com:

Exposition - n - Writing or speech primarily intended to convey information or to explain.

or converted to the terminology of writing:

Exposition - n - The act of the author conveying information to the reader.

As a writer, we have to get information to the reader about the plot. In my terminology, exposition is the completion of this task. Poorly executed exposition is typically referred to as an infodump. Ideally, you convey the information to the reader without him ever realizing that's what you're doing.

In my mind, how the information is communicated, whether through dialogue or other means, is irrelevant to the definition of the term.