Writing good dialogue - Page 2 - Writers Forum

a15haddad · 07-22-2005, 06:00 PM

Seriously?

Shit. I already used it. Oh well, I read a good story.

writesalot · 07-23-2005, 02:56 AM

phew! my dad would of killed me something messed up my computer...thanks!

Viqto · 08-11-2005, 03:33 PM

I completely sympathize with your situation as I write very plain dialogue (or at least believe so, never got any comments about it before) as well. After reading all the suggestions from the previous replies I feel like I just walked out of a literary discussion. The ideas now swimming in my head will enable me to write more profoundly and expressively.

(under my breath)...freaking literary gods on this site....

suzakugaiden · 08-12-2005, 02:51 AM

Learn how real people talk. This might seem obvious, and you might be thinking, "Hey, I talk all the time. What are you talking about? I know how real people talk!"

But do you?

When you talk and when you listen, it's just natural. It's instinctual. It's not thought. When you WRITE dialogue, you have to conciously be aware of the natural flow of dialogue.

A few vague clues:

1) Real dialogue is quite tangential.
2) People have false starts. They retract statements. They stumble.
3) Whether or not you include body language depends entirely on whether or not the CHARACTERS would be noticing it.
R) Friends adopts in-jokes.
5) Everyone develops their own style of speaking.
6) "Word daisychaining." If someone says a noticable word, it'll get used again, even in purely tangential threads.
*) Conversations are cyclical.
7) Real dialogue is typically not calculated. If it is planned out,there's a reason for it typically.
8) Odd syntaxes.

Quote:

People don't want to read realistic dialogue; they want to read interesting dialogue.

I find realistic dialogue far more interesting than that which is obvioualy altered for the sake of moving the story forward. Especially in a novel, where word economy doesn't matter as much. And in a short story, if the dialogue needs to be streamlined for motion purposes, consider hashing it entirely.

Anyway, I generally don't lose (Should be use. Hahaha) conversation with my friends as examples of good dialogue. They're quite tangential and frequently in more than two languages, and are also so riddled with injokes...

Code:

eople also rarely call each other by name when addessing them,

I do quite a bit. Just not always by their first names.

Quote:

It's harder for the reader to understand.

Bah. Put a little more faith in the reader.

Quote:

Maybe have one guy say "ya" instead of "you" and things like that.

I've never heard anyone use "ya" in such a manner that it's worth spelling that way. Then again, I also can't pronounce "Co-cola" in any reasonabe (Flannery O'conner, anyone?) so it could be a reasonable thing. At the least, around here, a sped up "you" is more of a "yiw" than a "ya." "y'" might not be a bad idea. "Lemme help y' with that" is more... approximate to the actual pronounciation anyway, and accurately depicts that it IS a shortened word.

I'm also a bit uneasy with whaddya want? because it's not distinctly ambiguated.

Of course, a lot of this comes with English's issue of breaking sounds. Technically, if you wanted the most accurate-sounding dialogue, you'd replace every t with d, every vowel with a schwa, and... well, you get my point.

Oh, on accents. Generally avoid them. Using meta-accents/word corruptions like "d'you," "wanna," "lemme" and the ilk are okay. But if you're writing something like, "Arr, wer gong ter da mall" or something, you're just going to be incomprehensible at best and hated at worst. I'd like to smash Rowling for doing this with Hagrid.

cindyfreire · 08-18-2005, 05:21 PM

A few years ago, I attempted to write my first book, but eventually I hit a block; one that I decided, meant that the story was plotless. I abandoned it altogether. One of the problems I found in the several chapters I ad written, was that, while the dialogue was ok, it didn't pop off the page and leave an impression worth remembering. I am a perfectionist and therefore decided that if dialgue was a weakpoint of mine, that's what I would start working on first. I started paying more attention to how people really speak, instead of writing what I think should be said (proper grammer). I think that each character should have a distinct voice, and in order to achieve that naturalness, one must sometimes abandone the concept of proper grammer. It is not always fitting. I have recently written a book and am now working on book 2, and I do have a couple of characters who speak properly, but that is determined strictly on the character's personal motivations for his choice of speaking patterns. Get to know your characters and dump the idea of always having the satisfy your hunger for proper grammer. You might find that writing dialogue will come easier to you.

Good luck!

suzakugaiden · 08-19-2005, 01:01 AM

The vernacular in the group-model -- such as that among friends or that among families -- often tends toward a homogenized state; and while some distinction is present, at times it becomes purely habitual. Keep in mind that in any situation, the differences in speaking will be immensely subtle; it's not a matter of John saying "sweet" and Lester swearing a lot, but it's more in their general carriage.

Robgb · 08-19-2005, 11:33 PM

One great way to spruce up your dialogue is to write it straight, even boring if you have to, then go back, look at each line and ask yourself, "How can I make this more interesting?"

Have your characters use unique ways to say something -- not over the top, but different enough to give it a spark of life.

Another thing to remember when writing dialogue is that people often talk AROUND a subject. Often talk AT each other rather than TO each other.

A good technique is to answer a question with another question:

"Are you going to the store?"

"Why, are you afraid I won't come back?"

Instead of just answering, Yes, the character throws something back that turns this into much more than just a simple conversation. And your reader is already wondering what's going on between them.

Quack Corleone · 08-20-2005, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Also, though dialogue is people talking, don't have them talk exactly like people do. It should be much more to the point. As in, take out all the "um" and "uh" and "well" and "like" and all the unneccessary pauses. Use them when you want to show that a person doesn't really know what to say or it's important that they trail off, or that they're stalling or embarassed, but don't use them all the time even though that's how people talk. It's harder for the reader to understand.

I second that! Realistic dialogue is boring. In real life, people speak in boring ways and use the same boring words over and over and over again. Ones like "nice". Y'ech.

I think good dialogue is dialogue that says as much as possible in as few words as possible. I mean, when you speak to your friends you don't have time to process your thoughts fully, refine what you're going to say, how you're going to say it, or, sometimes, even understand why. So what you say comes out in a raw form. But, as a writer, it's your job to work the raw dialogue until it's as expressive and succinct as possible. Look at the Hemingway story that was referenced earlier. There is a lot of dialogue, but the lines are all short full of meaning. That's what makes it great, not any silly notion that it's "real". Why is writing "natural" dialogue or "realistic" dialogue considered the measure of good dialogue? To me, it's quite the opposite.

It's a bit sad that people seem so stuck on realism in writing for some reason, even though the other arts have gotten away from it fairly cleanly by now. I think good dialogue has a specific rhythm, flow, an illusion of simplicity, and, like Vincent Gray said, plenty of subtext. Nothing real or unreal about it, other than the fact that it can't be realistic.

For example, two people who love each other telling each other how "nice" they are, is boring and bland, but common in rea life. Two people who love each other telling other about how great their donuts taste this morning, on the other hand...

I don't think there is no place for realistic dialogue in writing, but I think that everyone's gone a bit crazy trying to make everything "real". It's a work of fiction, it ain't real anyway!

In cinema, for example, you can have a neo-realist film (something standard, like Bicycle Thieves, or something newer, like Linklater's "Before" pair), a minimialist film (something by Bergman) and a surrealist film (a Bunuel or a Lynch), and all can be considered great. But two of the three, in no way, strive to be realistic. They try to show what reality cannot, to transcend it. I think more dialogue, and writing in general, should be allowed to do the same.

Just some peanuts for thought munching.

Robgb · 08-20-2005, 09:56 AM

Dialogue should not be realistic, but should always carry the ILLUSION of realism, just as drama is the illusion of reality.

The trick is to avoid crossing the line into implausability.

writesalot · 08-21-2005, 02:33 PM

Thanks for the great advice everyone!