Let's have a dialogue about, well, dialogue

[BWFoster78]

I'm not sure what good this is doing as I have my opinion and the rest of you have yours, but I can't seem to resist. I'm reminded of the cartoon showing a woman at the top of the stairs yelling down to her husband:

"Honey, come to bed."
"I can't."
"Why not?"
"Because someone on the internet is wrong!"

I think that there absolutely do exist good rules that help you produce clear, concise writing. I further believe that clear, concise writing is the best way to get your story across to the reader, including the emotional aspects.

I fully understand that not everyone agrees with the style of writing that I like. Maybe it's possible to fly by the seat of your pants and create good writing. That approach is not the right one for me, and I think that most people on this site would be better off fully understanding the rules first before trying to do their own thing.

They broke the guidelines, quite often actually, because conveying the intent conflicted with the guidelines.

I think you'll find that Sanderson (I'm not familiar with the other author you brought up), at least, actually follows a lot of the guidelines. Is the use of "said" the most important implement in your toolbox? No. Can you overcome the deficiency if your writing is strong otherwise? Yes.

Frankly, (and this is directed solely at Ankari), I believe that your writing would greatly benefit from paying more attention to the rules.

Further, stories that aren't crafted as well can be very good stories.

No argument there, but we're getting into what can be taught versus finding some kind of natural voice that works.

Let's be honest. Most people who take up writing aren't going to be able to create masterpieces no matter how much time and effort that they put into it. If there exists out there a method of teaching writers to find a unique voice that will help them produce truly outstanding material while not adhering to any rules, I haven't found it or heard about it.

I've read a lot of stuff on this site. I can't think of a single instance where I've read something that broke all the rules and I thought that it worked. There was one instance at my writing group. An older gentleman brought in a piece that was very passive in the use of was and broke a lot of the rules. However, the piece did work. It had a unique "voice" and was funny. If you want to struggle for years to try to create that really awesome voice, more power to you. I think you're probably going to create a bunch of complete crap in the interim.

As far as Ankari goes (not trying to pick on him; he's just the one who revived the thread with his question), I think that he is focused on creating something that has the possibility of being commercially viable. In my completely honest opinion, he is not going to do that without following the rules. Again, if he struggles and writes for the next ten years, maybe he can develop those abilities and find that voice. I don't feel that that is his goal, however. He can chime in if I'm wrong.

What the "rules" allow is for writing to be taught. Come up with characters and story and setting, and the rules tell you how to present that story so that it's fit for human consumption. That's all I want - to be able to tell my story. If you want to create art, I certainly can't help you, and I don't think anyone here really can either.

 

[Butterfly]

I'm going to link to a useful relevant post at this point, before we go any further with this. Hope you all read it, just so you know where we're heading.

This Itch of Writing: Messes, clones, and plots like a W

 

[Ankari]

Read it. Liked it. Thanked.

The point she raised is something that I'm finding myself aligned with. Know what the rules are, but don't stick to them solely because they are rules. I know the counter argument: you have to completely know the rules before breaking it. And to that, I'll simply state that I am trying to do just that. If I make a mistake while doing so, then it's more helpful to know why the rule break didn't work instead of knowing that it is a rule break.

 

[Steerpike]

BWFoster:

It isn't very likely given your view, howeer, that you are going to find an instance of breaking the rules that you feel works, though, is it? That's like me saying I don't like fish, and furthermore fish is bad, my proof being I've never eaten one that I personally liked. Given your starting point, the end result is hard to escape.

I think you will admit that your own writing tends to leave a bit of emotional distance between the reader and story (or maybe you don't think it does). You might at least be open to the idea that your approach isn'telping in that regard. Everyone operates differently, but I would not be at all surprised that such an approach is reflected in the work. It would have to be. Any approach is. There has to be balance. You can't go to either extreme, and you seem to me to be at one.

 

[BWFoster78]

It isn't very likely given your view, howeer, that you are going to find an instance of breaking the rules that you feel works, though, is it?

I actually mentioned one case in my preface. I think that it takes a lot of experience and talent to do it.

I think you will admit that your own writing tends to leave a bit of emotional distance between the reader and story (or maybe you don't think it does). You might at least be open to the idea that your approach isn'telping in that regard.

I think that figuring out when and how to incorporate emotion is my toughest challenge. I think I've done well in some of the later chapters of my book, and I think that the beginning and middle chapters still need a lot of work. I disagree that my "approach" isn't helping.

You can't go to either extreme, and you seem to me to be at one.

You seem to be at the other extreme.

I think that my last post brought up an interesting point that I'm not sure can really be answered: can writing be taught?

 

[BWFoster78]

Read it. Liked it. Thanked.

The point she raised is something that I'm finding myself aligned with. Know what the rules are, but don't stick to them solely because they are rules. I know the counter argument: you have to completely know the rules before breaking it. And to that, I'll simply state that I am trying to do just that. If I make a mistake while doing so, then it's more helpful to know why the rule break didn't work instead of knowing that it is a rule break.

Unless you have readers a lot more experienced than me, I'm not sure you're going to get your question answered. I can tell you THAT something didn't work, and I can tell you that you breaking a rule likely led to the problem. I cannot, however, explain to you, in most instances, why your breaking the rule didn't work.

 

[SeverinR]

#14; I think some characters just need to speak with an unusual dialect that may be difficult to read.
Basically, like all rules it should be limited, but not an unbreakable rule.

 

[ShortHair]

Here's my two cents on dialog.

You will do yourself a great favor by studying drama. Some plays are practically nothing but dialog. Where we use said and a character's name, the playwright just uses the name.

It helps to think of a scene in terms of stage direction. Where is this character standing, what is that character doing during the speech, who's entering, who's exiting, here's a sword ready for someone to use.

If you've given the reader a good sketch of a character, you don't need to explain how that character reacts to something because the reader will already know.

 

[Bernadette PL]

Interesting. Does it distract from the read?

 

[wordwalker]

Here's my two cents on dialog.

You will do yourself a great favor by studying drama. Some plays are practically nothing but dialog. Where we use said and a character's name, the playwright just uses the name.

It helps to think of a scene in terms of stage direction. Where is this character standing, what is that character doing during the speech, who's entering, who's exiting, here's a sword ready for someone to use.

If you've given the reader a good sketch of a character, you don't need to explain how that character reacts to something because the reader will already know.

I don't agree about not needing reactions. At least, although a well-established character is someone the reader can fill in a lot of moments for, you still want to find the right balance between showing every reaction and showing none.

But stage direction, or observing plays and films, is a great way to look at scenes and see which parts are dialog and which are the necessary or emphasis points twined around the dialog. I especially like the example of a good radio play: it's all sound, so you can hear how it's a sequence of:

*Creak*
"Who's there?"
*Bang!*
(I'd never ducked so fast in my life...)

You can really see dialog, description, and other things all get laced together.