Proper Uses of Dialogue

[Steerpike]

Yeah, I agree that redundancy is a problem. The idea that the reader is stupid is the cause of quite a few mistakes, in my view. Anything from redundancy in dialogue or exposition, to infodumps because the writer is sure the reader won't 'get' what is going on unless they pile on information. It also leads to clumsy, heavy-handed delivery of themes, where instead of letting the work speak for itself as they should, the writer is convinced the reader don't understand what they're actually saying unless they hit them upside the head with it.

 

[BWFoster78]

Yeah, I agree that redundancy is a problem. The idea that the reader is stupid is the cause of quite a few mistakes, in my view. Anything from redundancy in dialogue or exposition, to infodumps because the writer is sure the reader won't 'get' what is going on unless they pile on information. It also leads to clumsy, heavy-handed delivery of themes, where instead of letting the work speak for itself as they should, the writer is convinced the reader don't understand what they're actually saying unless they hit them upside the head with it.

On the other hand, after dealing with beta readers, I can understand the temptation... ARGHH!

Everything that happens is right there in the text; I don't see how it could possibly have been misconstrued.

The temptation is to just explain away while the correct technique, I think, is to remove ambigousness somehow without directly explaining. So, so hard sometimes...

 

[Steerpike]

On the other hand, after dealing with beta readers, I can understand the temptation... ARGHH!

Everything that happens is right there in the text; I don't see how it could possibly have been misconstrued.

The temptation is to just explain away while the correct technique, I think, is to remove ambigousness somehow without directly explaining. So, so hard sometimes...

Yes. If I was convinced that the story provided enough information for the reader to put the pieces together, I probably wouldn't change it over one or two comments from readers I didn't know well. If every person reading it has the same reaction, I'd have to start thinking about it. Or if I had one or two readers who I knew were great, and did not have to be lead by the nose, but still missed what I was going for, then I'd go back and make changes. But the types of changes I'd make would be for purposes of clarity, I think. Maybe shining a bit more light on what I already had, and trying to make it more clear to the reader what was going on. I don't think I'd react to those types of critiques by going back and making literal statements or repeating things already said or done in hopes that the reader who missed it the first time would catch on after the second or third.

I've seen some stories that are almost as bad as:

John: Wow, so the mastermind really was the old man after all.
Jill: Yeah, he resented the fact that his mother favored his older brother, and he plotted to ruin the family.
John: He must have been the mysterious Mr. X who sent the letter.
Jill: And don't forget the confrontation at the mall, he must have set that up too.
John: He's in jail now, though. It just goes to show that no matter what injustices have been done to you, vigilante-style revenge is no solution. It only destroys the individual who seeks it.
Jill: You can say that again!
John: Thanks, I will....

And so on. I've read a few submissions over the years where the ending was almost just that bad, because the author was afraid the reader might have failed to put some pieces together.

I suppose no matter what the story, there will always be a sort of lowest common denominator of readers who will miss things. To me, you can't write your work for that group. The larger body of readers like challenging, complex stories written by authors who don't spoon-feed them every nuance of the tale. I feel a writer is better off on the whole writing a story that appeals to the intelligence of readers rather than insults it, even if they end up losing a few readers along the way.

As you say, finding that line can be hard. Sometimes, in hindsight after having written a story, things look more obvious than they are.

 

[BWFoster78]

John: Wow, so the mastermind really was the old man after all.
Jill: Yeah, he resented the fact that his mother favored his older brother, and he plotted to ruin the family.
John: He must have been the mysterious Mr. X who sent the letter.
Jill: And don't forget the confrontation at the mall, he must have set that up too.
John: He's in jail now, though. It just goes to show that no matter what injustices have been done to you, vigilante-style revenge is no solution. It only destroys the individual who seeks it.
Jill: You can say that again!
John: Thanks, I will....

When reading this I couldn't help but hear the Scooby Doo theme music in my mind...

Back to the original topic to stave off my thread-jacking: even though I scour my text for redundant, purposeless dialogue, I found this in my last run through of a chapter just this morning.

I prayed for you every day. We were all so worried.

What, exactly, does that second line add? Given the context, the fact that the speaker prayed completely conveys worry.

This redundancy made it through at least a dozen read throughs. They're so hard to spot sometimes!

 

[Steerpike]

What, exactly, does that second line add? Given the context, the fact that the speaker prayed completely conveys worry.

This redundancy made it through at least a dozen read throughs. They're so hard to spot sometimes!

That wouldn't bother as a reader. One thing I do try to keep in mind is the personality of the character talking. If that bit of dialogue is consistent with how the character would speak, I'd leave it alone even though the second part may not add everything. Not every person speaks with an economy of words, and if all of your characters do so then at some point they all start to sound the same.

 

[BWFoster78]

That wouldn't bother as a reader. One thing I do try to keep in mind is the personality of the character talking. If that bit of dialogue is consistent with how the character would speak, I'd leave it alone even though the second part may not add everything. Not every person speaks with an economy of words, and if all of your characters do so then at some point they all start to sound the same.

I grant that the characters sounding the same IS a problem with my writing.

At this point in time, I feel that economy of words is more important than developing distinct character voices. Perhaps I'll change that opinion in the future.

I'm not necessarily as concerned about "what bothers a reader" as much as I am with developing and staying consistent to my own style guidelines. Those guidelines, at the moment, say: Don't make two statements in dialogue that say the same thing unless you have a good reason to do so.

Since I've no good reason to include that second sentence, it's gone.

Besides, my editor charges me like 3/4 of a cent per word. This revision just saved me close to $.04!

EDIT: On a more serious note - Though this one line might not bother the reader, if an author develops a habit of leaving in extraneous sentences, I think that the lack of tight editing will eventually lead to a reduction in the overall quality of the piece. What's worse: a hundred tiny mistakes or one big one?

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

What, exactly, does that second line add? Given the context, the fact that the speaker prayed completely conveys worry.

I would have thought that the first line conveys the fact that the speaker was worried. The second line conveys the fact that other people were too. Maybe that's already picked up in another part of the dialogue.

 

[BWFoster78]

I would have thought that the first line conveys the fact that the speaker was worried. The second line conveys the fact that other people were too. Maybe that's already picked up in another part of the dialogue.

It does indeed, and I considered that point. Contextually, I didn't feel that the addition of other people being worried added anything.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

It does indeed, and I considered that point. Contextually, I didn't feel that the addition of other people being worried added anything.

You know the context & the character so cutting the second sentence was likely the correct call.

I do see instances, depending on context, where this second line could add characterization.

"I prayed for you everyday. We were all so worried."

If the speaking character, for some reason, wanted to draw attention away from their own worry, then saying "We were all so worried" serves a purpose. Suppose this was a woman talking. She has feelings for the person she's speaking to and her emotions lead to her saying something she didn't intend to say. She then covers with "We were all so worried." This casts the emotions across the entire group, taking her out of the spotlight. As a reader, I love subtleties like that.

Now, I'd probably mix some physical response (like blushing) to accentuate the effect I'm going for but you wouldn't really need to. The words, if placed into context properly might do all the work themselves.

Anyway, it's probably far off base from what is happening in your story. Still, i hope this illustrates how a seemingly redundant line, in another light, may not be redundant at all.

 

[BWFoster78]

If the speaking character, for some reason, wanted to draw attention away from their own worry, then saying "We were all so worried" serves a purpose. Suppose this was a woman talking. She has feelings for the person she's speaking to and her emotions lead to her saying something she didn't intend to say. She then covers with "We were all so worried." This casts the emotions across the entire group, taking her out of the spotlight. As a reader, I love subtleties like that.

I, too, enjoy such subtleties. Seems like it would almost be too subtle without inserting the beat as you suggested, though.

Anyway, it's probably far off base from what is happening in your story. Still, i hope this illustrates how a seemingly redundant line, in another light, may not be redundant at all.

Understood, though it's unfortunately not the case here. Just five wasted words that served no purpose I could discern. Perhaps it's symptomatic of having a daily word count when writing?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Just five wasted words that served no purpose I could discern. Perhaps it's symptomatic of having a daily word count when writing?

I sometimes think the same. Truth is though (at least for me), if I'm spewing out words to hit a word count goal, not being mindful of my writing guidelines as I churn along, then I need to step back & slow down.

I feel that conscious effort with each sentence, adhering to the principles I've set for myself, while still achieving my daily goal is the best way for me to improve as a writer.

 

[BWFoster78]

I sometimes think the same. Truth is though (at least for me), if I'm spewing out words to hit a word count goal, not being mindful of my writing guidelines as I churn along, then I need to step back & slow down.

I feel that conscious effort with each sentence, adhering to the principles I've set for myself, while still achieving my daily goal is the best way for me to improve as a writer.

Truthfully, I haven't written daily in a while since I'm focused on editing at the moment. My recollection is that, if words are flowing, it's not an issue. Some days, however, each and every letter is a struggle. On those days, I do just find myself writing something so that I can get away from the computer. Funny thing is, though, that even those words don't completely suck and sometimes result in interesting plot happenings (though I have a path for my story from the beginning, I'm pretty much a discovery writer).

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

My recollection is that, if words are flowing, it's not an issue. Some days, however, each and every letter is a struggle. On those days, I do just find myself writing something so that I can get away from the computer. Funny thing is, though, that even those words don't completely suck and sometimes result in interesting plot happenings ..

That's one of the reasons why writing everyday is such a good practice.

Editing is still writing in my opinion. I rarely edit where something doesn't need a rewrite.

 

[BWFoster78]

That's one of the reasons why writing everyday is such a good practice.

Editing is still writing in my opinion. I rarely edit where something doesn't need a rewrite.

Yeah, but I don't do word count goals with editing. It's more like, "I want to get this many chapters/scenes done this week."