Proper Uses of Dialogue

[T.Allen.Smith]

I, like may others here, am always looking for ways to improve my skill by incorporating effective guidelines for writing and editing. I came across a point about dialogue that, in my opinion, is useful in getting rid of unnecessary words (redundant dialogue) during editing & reducing the occurrences during the writing process.

- Dialogue should add to the reader's present knowledge.

Thoughts or exceptions?

EDIT: Rephrasing the question...

Does the consideration of advancing the reader's present knowledge outweigh that of the character's present knowledge?

 

[BWFoster78]

Seems this list would be the same as the uses for a scene, which some would say has to accomplish ALL the following:

o Introduce new information
o Relate to the significant situation
o Build upon last scene
o Involve, inform, or affect the protagonist
o Make the reader feel more clued in
o Move forward in time

Of course, translating this to dialogue would mean the dialogue passage as a whole rather than each piece of dialogue.

On a personal note, I can't tell you how many lines of dialogue I cut on my early passes because I'm just repeating something the character already said in a slightly different way.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

On a personal note, I can't tell you how many lines of dialogue I cut on my early passes because I'm just repeating something the character already said in a slightly different way.

Yes. This is what I'm talking about.

Last night while writing, I had a moment where I wrote dialogue between two characters coming together for the first time in the story (although they already know each other). I noticed afterwards, that some of the dialogue is information the reader already knows. Even though it seems natural for these two characters to discuss these things at that point in time, I'm now thinking they shouldn't because the reader already has most of the information.

I'll probably do some editing/cutting on it tonight as I think the advice about advancing from reader's present knowledge is correct.

 

[BWFoster78]

Got you.

In that case, you summarize: Joe and Bob discussed X for a while.

You absolutely do not want to repeat (or at least keep to a tiny minimum the amount of repeating) information that the reader knows unless you have a specific reason for doing so.

If we're talking rules of dialogue, though, I think that the best dialogue is a battle between characters where each speaks from their own emotional perspectives in lieu of answering the other.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

In that case, you summarize: Joe and Bob discussed X for a while.

Summarizing seems too much like telling to me.

...the best dialogue is a battle between characters where each speaks from their own emotional perspectives in lieu of answering the other.

I like your point about the conversation focusing on emotional perspectives though. Since one of the characters hasn't been seen yet, this is new information for the reader.

Thanks Brian.

 

[BWFoster78]

Thanks Brian.

No problem. Glad my comment helped.

Summarizing seems too much like telling to me.

A while back, I strictly adhered to the absolute Show, Don't Tell philosophy. The only exception I allowed myself was scene transitions.

Truthfully, I found that following this stricture too closely hampered my writing, especially from the standpoint of injecting emotion. I still think it's great advice as long as you include the "unless you have a good reason." Loosening my definition of "a good reason" has, I think, benefited me greatly.

Not saying you need to do the same; just sayin'...

 

[ThinkerX]

Dialogue should add to the reader's present knowledge.

Thoughts or exceptions?

It has the potential to put unwanted contraints on your characters.

By way of real world example: THere is a guy I work with occasionally - the original 'motormouth'. He will talk up anybody anytime anywhere and only occasionally say something relevant to the topic at hand. He is known for this. Taken at face value, the above premise would almost rule out writing such a character.

This premise might also make it rougher to write the dialogue of the poetic or well educated types.

 

[wordwalker]

But:

Don't forget about pacing. Sometimes it's good to pause and talk over something for aft/annie (aftermath or anticipation) purposes. It can be tricky because this usually means it's old data, but it can have some value, and it can become less old if you play up the attitude someone has about it: they're really angry/ tired/ overjoyed/ whatever about these facts now, maybe so much more than they were that they're pushing to change the plan about it. Especially if it's a character who wasn't around when they went over the facts before.

Then again, you could break off the original discussion --or the discovery of the facts-- to allow some of it to only come up at this point anyway, spread the conversation around for buildup's sake.

 

[Jaredonian]

One possible way to give your characters a reason to skip past discussing these already known facts would be to introduce some element of urgency to the scene. Not only will that give them a reason to skip repeating things, but it would also add some tension to the scene.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Vonnegut said that every sentence should do one of two things: reveal character or advance the story. If the dialogue is covering plot information the reader already has, one possibility is to hit the same points but do them in a way that reveals character. I love writing where two different characters describe the same event, which tells the reader a lot more about the characters than the event if done correctly.

The flip side is that authors like Umberto Eco and Robert Heinlein, whose books often contain multiple digressions from the main story, would disagree with Vonnegut's advice. They're a bit more of the school of thought that a sentence that entertains serves a purpose regardless of whether it does anything else.

 

[ThinkerX]

If my somewhat hazy memory serves, Vonnegut wrote mostly short fiction.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

To be sure, Vonnegut wrote novels but none of them were even close to the 400+ pages that Eco and Heinlein might turn out.

As I think about it, Name of the Rose and Foucault's Pendulum are almost entirely "digressions". Eco likes to communicate ideas, with his characters and story basically excuses to get into them.

 

[Anders Ämting]

I, like may others here, am always looking for ways to improve my skill by incorporating effective guidelines for writing and editing. I came across a point about dialogue that, in my opinion, is useful in getting rid of unnecessary words (redundant dialogue) during editing & reducing the occurrences during the writing process.

- Dialogue should add to the reader's present knowledge.

Thoughts or exceptions?

EDIT: Rephrasing the question...

Does the consideration of advancing the reader's present knowledge outweigh that of the character's present knowledge?

I'm... not sure I'd put it that way. It sounds wrong to me.

Rather, if your dialogue is isn't contributing to your reader's understanding* of the story, you might be telling your story wrong. That may not necessarily be a problem with the dialogue itself. (But than again, it may.)

*I think I like this word better than "knowlegde", since it carries a slightly different meaning.

 

[Steerpike]

I read a book for enjoyment. I might also read it for information, but if I'm not enjoying it at the same time I won't continue to read it. I don't care how many digressions an author goes on, or what she's using dialogue to do, so long at it is enjoyable to read.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I read a book for enjoyment. I might also read it for information, but if I'm not enjoying it at the same time I won't continue to read it. I don't care how many digressions an author goes on, or what she's using dialogue to do, so long at it is enjoyable to read.

That's where my concern lies. I would think that stating information the reader already knows (in dialogue or any other format) may negatively impact enjoyment because it is redundant information.

If however, it can be shown through a different character's emotion then that is new. That's the approach I'm going to take for now and see how it plays out.

Thanks for the replies everyone!

 

[Steerpike]

If however, it can be shown through a different character's emotion then that is new. That's the approach I'm going to take for now and see how it plays out.

Yeah, I think that works. If the reader identifies with the character and the character's emotions, then the reader will experience some of that emotion vicariously. The enjoyment comes in the character's reaction to the news, and that exists even if the reader is already aware of the information.

 

[Anders Ämting]

That's where my concern lies. I would think that stating information the reader already knows (in dialogue or any other format) may negatively impact enjoyment because it is redundant information.

Beware generalizations. I'm sure there are times doing this might actually be favourable.

Sometimes the reader may need a reminder, because it was three hundred pages since you mentioned something extremely important that didn't seem important at the time. Sometimes you can deliver the same information but from a perspective that gives it new meaning. And sometimes the reader will expect a character to say a certain thing they already know ahead of time, and find it odd if he doesn't. Not to mention, quite often repeating something serves a thematic purpose.

I wonder if we're not overthinking this. Wouldn't it be better to say that any dialogue that gives something worthwhile to the reader is good?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Beware generalizations. I'm sure there are times doing this might actually be favourable.

Sometimes the reader may need a reminder, because it was three hundred pages since you mentioned something extremely important that didn't seem important at the time.

Good point. In the case I'm referring to, this occurs within the same chapter. Regardless, your point is valid and I concur.

 

[Anders Ämting]

Good point. In the case I'm referring to, this occurs within the same chapter. Regardless, your point is valid and I concur.

Yeah, in such a case I would also consider trimming it. Redundancy is something to be mindful of, after all. That's just good writing.

 

[BWFoster78]

Yeah, in such a case I would also consider trimming it. Redundancy is something to be mindful of, after all. That's just good writing.

I tend to place much more emphasis on avoiding this type of redundancy that this comment indicates. To me, it's one of the primary sins of a writer and seriously lessens enjoyment. (Before the writer/reader vs reader debate rekindles, I felt that way long before learning how to be a writer). As a reader, it just always feels that a writer thinks I'm an idiot if he tells me things over and over.