Writing Dialog

[Celia Cyanide]

Please share some of your methods for writing dialog. Where do you get it, and how do you know when you've done it well? In writing classes and books about writing, the attitude seems to be that some people are good at it, and others not so good. But there has to be a way to learn. What do you think?

[Fishmonkey]

The key to writing good dialog is to make it sound natural, without being anything like real dialog. When most people talk, it often sounds like this:

"Let's get some lunch."
"What?"
"Lunch! Do you want lunch?"
"Uhhhh, okay. What do you feel like?"
"I dunno. What do you feel like?"
"Why don't you chose."
"What?"

In fiction, you want to avoid meaningless exchanges. I don't think that every conversation should further the plot, but even banter should reveal character, give reader clues about the folks talking, the dynamics between them. Is character A fearful and tongue-tied when character B is around? Does character C have a penchant for nasty jokes but tries to dissolve them by saying 'I'm just kidding?' You want every character to have a voice of their own, and this voice should be consistent with their personality. For example, a meek character can have halting, hesitant speech, etc.

I'm sorry of this is more of a description than a how-to. I personally find that if I imagine a character well, their speech patterns become apparent. I rarely do character sketches, but I try to see them well enough to hear their voices.

[RubyRoo]

My teachers always used to tell me to avoid dialougue at all costs which I totally disagree with, ofcourse, becuase without dialougue the whole story would be the same and boring and...hang on....I've just realised the best short story I've written has no dialougue....re thinking...OK
A story, in my opinion, that is spoken in the third person with no dialougue is boring.!:D

[maestrowork]

1. People do not talk in complete sentences all the time
2. People do not speak in long sentences, unless they're giving a speech
3. People tend to give and take in conversation and not monopolize
4. People do not tell each other things they already know (as in info dump)
5. People do not say each other's name in conversation every time they speak (even in a 3- or 4-way conversation)
6. People do not always say things (learn to use "silence" effectively)
7. People do not just sit and talk and do nothing else
8. People do not engage in endless chatter -- in fiction, at least. Use dialogue only when it reveals character, presents conflicts, and advances the plot; otherwise, use narration instead
9. People have distinct "voice" in speaking, even when the differences are subtle
10. People interrupt others -- they don't always take turns

[maestrowork]

My teachers always used to tell me to avoid dialougue at all costs...

* Gasp *

[debraji]

11. People don't always answer a question directly.

12. People sometimes lie.

13. Some folks are repetitive. This can be used to great comic effect.

14. You can suggest dialect through word choice and rhythm without writing it phonetically.

Listen to your neighbors at the coffee shop or on the bus. Secretly take notes. Eavesdropping can lead to great stories and characters.

After you write some dialogue, find some place private and act it out loud to fine tune it.

Dialog can reveal education, origin, sense of humor, state of mind, sensitivity (or lack thereof), the dynamics of a relationship.... Practice three-way and four-way dialogs. Does your reader always know who's talking?

Read plays, movie scripts. Then go back to novels you love and look closely at how the writer has handled dialog. It doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Setting, gesture, action, and thought can be all intertwined. Watch out for overuse of adverbs (she advised knowingly).

[Celia Cyanide]

My teachers always used to tell me to avoid dialougue at all costs which I totally disagree with, ofcourse, becuase without dialougue the whole story would be the same and boring and...hang on....I've just realised the best short story I've written has no dialougue....re thinking...OK
A story, in my opinion, that is spoken in the third person with no dialougue is boring.!:D

Ruby, I mean no offense by this, but did your teachers mean everyone, or just you? As in, did they think you, personally, write better when you avoid dialog, or did they honestly think everyone should do it? Because if the latter is the case, then that is truly bizarre. Bad dialog can slow a story down, but good dialog can be the most interesting part of a story to read. But you just said you did your best work without dialog, so maybe they noticed this about your work?

Maestro said:

"4. People do not tell each other things they already know (as in info dump)"

I am curious...is there a term, similar to info dump, that means, "a scene of dialog stuck in because nothing interesting is happening in the main plot right now?"

"6. People do not always say things (learn to use "silence" effectively)"

Very true! Along those lines, people do not always (I would almost say hardley ever) say exactly what they're thinking.

Is there anyone who previously was not good at dialog and used a technique to improve? My friend says he likes to read the dialog out loud to find out if it works or not. I've started doing that, but wouldn't you know it...it still sounded just fine to me, but I'm still not sure about everyone else. :)

[Darin C. Bradley]

Another pitfall is to use too many tags in an exchange. Typically, tags work best in formulas of three. There are many many exceptions -- I only offer this as an example.

<tag> <dialogue> <tag>
<dialogue> <tag> <dialogue>

Twos work equally well, but it can quickly become confusing if there are too many interrupting a chunk of dialogue in *one* dialogic paragraph.

i.e. Jeff shrugged. "I don't know -- I'm afraid of monkeys," he said, fingering a cigarette. "If they weren't so furry," he continued, "I might like 'em --"

If this terrible example took place in more than one dialogic paragraph, it might not be so freight-trainy:

Jeff shrugged.
"I don't know -- I'm afraid of monkeys," he said, fingering a cigarette. "If they weren't so furry, I might like 'em --"


Just my two cents

[NeuroFizz]

I am curious...is there a term, similar to info dump, that means, "a scene of dialog stuck in because nothing interesting is happening in the main plot right now?"
Yes. It's called, "delete this entire chapter/scene."

For addition to Ray's list:
15. Don't start off a line of dialogue with "Look" or "Well" unless you want to use that as a quirk of one of your characters. (This is a personal peeve, so others may disagree)

[NeuroFizz]

Jeff shrugged.
"I don't know -- I'm afraid of monkeys," he said, fingering a cigarette. "If they weren't so furry, I might like 'em --"
Or:
"I don't know. I'm afraid of monkeys." Jeff fingered a cigarette. "If they weren't so furry, I might like them."

This is more compact and includes two little things important for dialogue.
1. Avoid redundancies (e.g. saying Jeff shrugged his shoulders and then have him say "I don't know.")
2. Overuse of em dashes and ellipses. I'm sure most people know that an em dash in conversation is used for a sudden interruption, and an ellipsis is used to show a line of dialogue that tails off, sometimes unfinished.
Sorry to be preachy.

[maestrowork]

16. People do not curse incessantly (in fiction), even though in real time they may use the F or the S word every other word all the time.

17. Avoid cliche and stereotypes. Sure, your character might like to say, "Bro.." or "You know what I mean..." or "Get out" or "Doh" or "Honey," etc. all the time, but try not to abuse these "flavors" or "quirks."

18. (this one I'm not sure about, but my editor told me so and I think it makes sense...) There are no semicolons in dialogue.

[Celia Cyanide]

Yes. It's called, "delete this entire chapter/scene."

No, that wouldn't be what it's called. That would be what you should do with it.
I'm looking for a noun, in case I wanted to ask someone, "Is this scene a [insert term here]?"

If there is not a name for that, someone should make one up.

[debraji]

Uncle Jim has said that often when readers spot a problem with your story, they are quite right in locating the problem, but completely wrong in their diagnosis.

[NeuroFizz]

No, that wouldn't be what it's called. That would be what you should do with it.
I'm looking for a noun, in case I wanted to ask someone, "Is this scene a [insert term here]?"

If there is not a name for that, someone should make one up.
Sorry. I was being cheeky, but serious. I would call it a throw-away scene since it doesn't add to the forward movement of the story. Others may call is a filler scene. Some people put them in to slow the pace of the story, but there are other ways to accomplish that.

[NeuroFizz]

16. People do not curse incessantly (in fiction), even though in real time they may use the F or the S word every other word all the time.

17. Avoid cliche and stereotypes. Sure, your character might like to say, "Bro.." or "You know what I mean..." or "Get out" or "Doh" or "Honey," etc. all the time, but try not to abuse these "flavors" or "quirks."

18. (this one I'm not sure about, but my editor told me so and I think it makes sense...) There are no semicolons in dialogue.
Add the following, copied from my earlier post:
19. Avoid redundancies (e.g. saying Jeff shrugged his shoulders and then have him say "I don't know.")
20. Do not overuse em dashes and ellipses. An em dash in conversation is used for a sudden interruption, and an ellipsis is used to show a line of dialogue that tails off, sometimes unfinished.


Now, someone should collate Ray's list in a way we can all add to it. It may be useful as a quick reference.

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

seconded

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm not sure the how-to books aren't correct in saying dialogue is something you are or are not good at. A tin ear for dialogue is something I'm not sure I've ever seen corrected.

I don't think this means dialogue writing can't be improved, but it is the one part of writing that I don't believe can be taught. Having said that, there are some things I've always tried to keep in mind when writing dialogue.

1. Dialogue sometimes means writing sentences exactly the way real people talk, and sometimes means just mimicking the way real people talk. Some people do speak in complete sentences and complete thoughts. Many people do not clutter up their speech with unnecessary jibber-jabber and sounds. No two real people speak exactly the same, and generalities can get you in trouble.

Because of this, no two characters should have exactly the same speech patterns, either.

2. Never put words into a character's mouth. A good character is who and what he is. A good character is the way he is. When he has something to say, let him say it in his way. When he doesn't have anything to say, let him be silent.

3. Along these same lines, never write a line of dialogue just because it's been two or three or five pages since the last line, and you believe it's time to include more.

4. Dialogue is much more than the words being spoken. Good dialogue is about rhythm and cadence and pauses.

5. Reading dialogue aloud is a good idea, but it won't in any way tell you whether or not the dialogue is good or bad, and can't possibly tell you whether or not the dialogue is needed, or whether it holds true for a specific character.

What reading aloud can tell you is whether or not you can actually speak the dialogue without stumbling, whether or not it rolls off your tongue.

But what rolls off your tongue may tongue-tie a character in another situation or with less confidence, and what makes you tongue-tied may roll easily off the tongue of a character who is confident, educated, charming, and erudite.

So decide based on the character, not on your own reading/speaking ability.

6. Examine why the dialogue is there. What does it do? Contrary to another popular "rule," all dialogue does not have to be there just to move the story forward. If this is all dialogue does, the story isn't going to be terribly realistic. Dialogue is also a very good way to reveal character, and dialogue is also good for verisimilitude.

If a situation arises where a real person would absolutely say something, then the character should say something as well. And he will, if you don't stifle him with rules.

At any rate, dialogue is written with the ear, not with the eye, and not with the mouth. Dialogue can't be written to specific rules because no two characters are the same, and no two stories are the same.

For me, the only real "rule" I try to follow is to let the characters be who they are. Let them write the dialogue.

[Jamesaritchie]

Add the following, copied from my earlier post:
19. Avoid redundancies (e.g. saying Jeff shrugged his shoulders and then have him say "I don't know.")
.

I don't quite agree with this one. Redundancies in speech, maybe, but real people do shrug and say, "I don't know." It's very common. If your character is the type of person who would do this, let him do it. Dialogue isn't about rules, it's about people.

[Jamesaritchie]

18. (this one I'm not sure about, but my editor told me so and I think it makes sense...) There are no semicolons in dialogue.

Your editor is right.

[Jamesaritchie]

My teachers always used to tell me to avoid dialougue at all costs which I totally disagree with, ofcourse, becuase without dialougue the whole story would be the same and boring and...hang on....I've just realised the best short story I've written has no dialougue....re thinking...OK
A story, in my opinion, that is spoken in the third person with no dialougue is boring.!:D

There have been a handful of very good third person short stories written without any dialogue, and one masterpiece, Jack London's "To Build A Fire," that has only one short line of dialogue, said to no one, as the protagonist dies.

First person fiction is really all dialogue, only without the quotation marks.

[NeuroFizz]

I don't quite agree with this one. Redundancies in speech, maybe, but real people do shrug and say, "I don't know." It's very common. If your character is the type of person who would do this, let him do it. Dialogue isn't about rules, it's about people.
The point being, do what feels right. The "no redundancies" was put to me by an editor who was trying to help "tighten up" the section, and improve the rhythm. Redundancies can drive a reader (at least me) nuts if they are frequent. That's my caution.

[Celia Cyanide]

5. Reading dialogue aloud is a good idea, but it won't in any way tell you whether or not the dialogue is good or bad, and can't possibly tell you whether or not the dialogue is needed, or whether it holds true for a specific character.

What reading aloud can tell you is whether or not you can actually speak the dialogue without stumbling, whether or not it rolls off your tongue.

But what rolls off your tongue may tongue-tie a character in another situation or with less confidence, and what makes you tongue-tied may roll easily off the tongue of a character who is confident, educated, charming, and erudite.

So decide based on the character, not on your own reading/speaking ability.


I never realized it before, but now that you mention it, I think this is really the root of my problem.

I am also an actor. Sometimes, at auditions, and even sometimes on shoots, I am handed a script that is, to put it bluntly, quite bad dialog. I can't rewrite the script. Sometimes, they let you once you are cast, but it's bad form to say at an audition, "you know, this dialog could be better, and I'm the one to do it!" So I make it work. Those words may not sound like something anyone would say, but I have to find the state of mind the character was in that made her say it, and make people believe it.

If I read my dialog aloud, I can "play" any of the characters I've written, and I can make their words work. That doesn't mean that's what other people will hear in their head when they read it. When I first read a script, what I hear in my head is usually different from the way I say a line after I've been reheasing a while.

[Jamesaritchie]

The point being, do what feels right. The "no redundancies" was put to me by an editor who was trying to help "tighten up" the section, and improve the rhythm. Redundancies can drive a reader (at least me) nuts if they are frequent. That's my caution.

I agree, but I simply wouldn't consider this a redundancy. And, of course, some writers have made a reputation from redundacy. Try reading Gertrude Stein.

[Sage]

11. People don't always answer a question directly.

12. People sometimes lie.

I had to train myself to write people outright lying, not just omitting things. Even my dishonest characters, I still wanted them to say only true things, but have them be misleading. Then I realized that they would lie, & I need them to lie, so why wasn't I making them lie?

5. People do not say each other's name in conversation every time they speak (even in a 3- or 4-way conversation)

Oh, god, I am so guilty of doing this sometimes. I go back through my work & go, "Sage, why do you have her saying his name every time she opens her mouth?!" I know it's not done in real life, but it comes out when I'm writing when someone is calling someone, or to emphasize a statement, or whatever reason I find for it. Then I have to go back through & find which ones are actually needed.


I think the key to writing dialogue is just knowing your characters (someone said this already, & I agree). Put yourself in their place & think of how they would respond to a situation or another character's comment. If you can't find their voice, it might be a clue that that character needs a little more development.

Me, I have a tendency to allow the dialogue to take over the story, so I wrote a character who almost never spoke. It's fun to give yourself challenges! :crazy:

[RubyRoo]

Ruby, I mean no offense by this, but did your teachers mean everyone, or just you? As in, did they think you, personally, write better when you avoid dialog, or did they honestly think everyone should do it? Because if the latter is the case, then that is truly bizarre. Bad dialog can slow a story down, but good dialog can be the most interesting part of a story to read. But you just said you did your best work without dialog, so maybe they noticed this about your work?


Wierdly enough she was talking to everyone! Lots of my mates only read the dialougue in books.

[Flapdoodle]

The key to writing good dialog is to make it sound natural, without being anything like real dialog. When most people talk, it often sounds like this:

"Let's get some lunch."
"What?"
"Lunch! Do you want lunch?"
"Uhhhh, okay. What do you feel like?"
"I dunno. What do you feel like?"
"Why don't you chose."
"What?"

In fiction, you want to avoid meaningless exchanges. I don't think that every conversation should further the plot, but even banter should reveal character, give reader clues about the folks talking, the dynamics between them. Is character A fearful and tongue-tied when character B is around? Does character C have a penchant for nasty jokes but tries to dissolve them by saying 'I'm just kidding?' You want every character to have a voice of their own, and this voice should be consistent with their personality. For example, a meek character can have halting, hesitant speech, etc.

I'm sorry of this is more of a description than a how-to. I personally find that if I imagine a character well, their speech patterns become apparent. I rarely do character sketches, but I try to see them well enough to hear their voices.

That's some good advice regarding meaningless exchanges. I gave a friend a script that I had written and it was full of dialogue like that. He just said something along the lines of "This dialogue is rubbish. It's not interesting." then read heaps of it out. He was very harsh. But true!

[Mistook]

To me, writing dialogue calls on some of the same skills as acting. One of the reasons Shakespeare is so highly praised is because his scripts come fully loaded. Everything is there in the words and the rhythm, and it takes nothing for the actor to slip into the role.

Shake was an actor himself, so he knew what to supply to other actors.

In witing fiction, I think you need some ability to "get into character", especially when writing dialogue. It should always be first and foremost an exchange between two people, and any other designs you have on building the plot come second.

Before your write each line, you have to "assume" the character.

Okay, now I'm Selma, what does she think of all this? How's she going to respond. She's seventy. She'll use outdated slang, in a way that still bites, because she's a tough old nag, with a quick wit. Yet she's moved by the last remark, and softened, and what Ryan doesn't know is, he's just plucked an old dusty heartstring, so she'll try to go easy, and maybe blow her nose to cover up the sentimentality.

[Celia Cyanide]

To me, writing dialogue calls on some of the same skills as acting...Before your write each line, you have to "assume" the character.

I am a film actor, whereas Shakespeare was a stage actor, so there was a bit of a different relationship between actor/writer there. Still...point taken.

As confused as I am by this, I do think there is probably a way to use my ability as an actor to write dialog. I think I'm going to post a scene of dialog I've written in "show you're work" and see what people think. I was always considered pretty good at dialog before. But I noticed that ever since I started acting that I can no longer tell if I wrote really bad dialog just by looking at it.

Flapdoodle said:

""This dialogue is rubbish. It's not interesting." then read heaps of it out. He was very harsh. But true!"

Someone once told me that my dialog was "too realistic," and I think that can sometimes be the case. If people really are having a conversation like that, I think this is the one time where you should maybe TELL me that instead of SHOWING me what they were saying! :)

[batgirl]

I don't know how helpful this might be, but something I found enlightening was reading transcripts of social worker or sociologist interviews (court records might work the same way) where every um, er, like, repetition, and so on are painstakingly included. It really brought home to me how much of an artificial construct fictional dialogue is. Thank God for it, too.
Having one character say the other character's name repeatedly could suggest that he's a bit of a manipulator - I believe there are some 'active listening' or persuasive speaking methods that suggest doing this, to establish a connection. I don't know whether it works - a co-worker of mine has a habit of using her interlocutor's name in every sentence, and I find it madly irritating rather than charming.
-Barbara

[Sage]

=Having one character say the other character's name repeatedly could suggest that he's a bit of a manipulator - I believe there are some 'active listening' or persuasive speaking methods that suggest doing this, to establish a connection.
-Barbara

I think, instinctively, this is part of what I was doing. I just wrote a scene w/ a character manipulating my MC, & because of this thread, I noticed how much I wanted to have her saying his name during this scene. But since part of what she's doing is attempting to make a connection to him, as well as manipulate him to see her way, I feel much better about it now.

[Sage]

What about writing for little kids' dialogue? Like how kids tend to make "th" into "f"s or "d"s & make their "r"s & "l"s into "w"s when they're speaking. Do you guys suggest keeping true to the child character's way of speaking, or to avoid writing it that way so we don't make the readers have to "translate" what the kid is saying?

[Fishmonkey]

What about writing for little kids' dialogue? Like how kids tend to make "th" into "f"s or "d"s & make their "r"s & "l"s into "w"s when they're speaking. Do you guys suggest keeping true to the child character's way of speaking, or to avoid writing it that way so we don't make the readers have to "translate" what the kid is saying?

Just my opinion, but I would avoid phonetic spelling of child's speech. It's a bit too cute. Then again, I guess it would depend on the market -- some would probably welcome cute.

[Celia Cyanide]

That's a very interesting question, Sage.

Just my opinion, but I would avoid phonetic spelling of child's speech. It's a bit too cute. Then again, I guess it would depend on the market -- some would probably welcome cute.

Yeah, I would tend to agree with that. I think that phonetically spelling dialog can be interesting, under many different circumstances. In Trainspotting, I liked it, but I know several people who couldn't stand it.

If you're talking about a child, you might want to describe how he says it.

"He didn't wanna go wiff me," said Jordan.

One sentence like that might be ok, but if the kid is a recurring character, and he starts saying somefing about how his toof fell out, it could get "too cute." Personally, I would prefer:

"He didn't wanna go with me," said Jordan. He was having trouble pronouncing his "th" sounds, and they came out sounding more like "f's."

One reason I like this is that, in the child's mind, he didn't say the word, "wiff," he said "with." I had a friend who worked in a day care center, and he noticed that children seemed to understand each other, even when he didn't. A little boy asked him, "Are we having take today?" He had no idea what he said, until a little girl asked, "Yeah, are we having cake today?" She didn't translate. She just reacted as if he said the word, "cake," and to him, he did.

[ecouteuse]

Celia,

Here's an exercise which may be fun and of use to help you practice writing good dialog that works for the story (not just because an actor is good at reading the words):

Write a scene where one of the people in the room is ashamed about what they're doing, but they're going to do it anyway, for whatever purpose they have. BUT YOU CANNOT LET THEM DISCUSS THE THING THEY'RE DOING (or the thing being done to one by the other). The other person in the room is the victim of whatever the fist person is doing. Convey that shame through their dialog in spite of the fact that they're not saying anything directly. Keep this scene under two pages, preferably one.

Suggestions as to shameful things: one can be stealing from the other, betraying the other, lying to the other, using the other for his/her own purposes, etc.

Get someone else to read the dialog, then, and describe back to you what their perceptions are of the person who feels the shame in spite of what they're doing.

To make it really difficult, when you've done that one, reverse the roles of the two characters you have already written. How would the other character handle the exact same situation, dialog-wise? This will force you to make different, and hopefully unique-to-the-character choices in phrasing, pauses, so that just the way they handle the discussion reflects on who they are as people (their verbal style).

(hope that helps)

[brinkett]

Having one character say the other character's name repeatedly could suggest that he's a bit of a manipulator - I believe there are some 'active listening' or persuasive speaking methods that suggest doing this, to establish a connection.
I always get suspicious when someone does this verbally or in writing. The moment they start dropping my name into every line, I think, "Okay, what do they want?" I throw up a wall. I don't feel warm and fuzzy.

[Celia Cyanide]

Write a scene where one of the people in the room is ashamed about what they're doing, but they're going to do it anyway, for whatever purpose they have. BUT YOU CANNOT LET THEM DISCUSS THE THING THEY'RE DOING (or the thing being done to one by the other). The other person in the room is the victim of whatever the fist person is doing. Convey that shame through their dialog in spite of the fact that they're not saying anything directly. Keep this scene under two pages, preferably one.

This is a good idea, and I think it could help me. I am writing a scene right now that I am having trouble with. A guy and a girl are having lunch. She has been held hostage and is being let out for a few hours unbeknownst to him. She hasn't been fed very well. She likes him, and wants to pay attention to what he is saying, but can think only of how hungry she is. She can't tell him what has happened to her, because she has to go back. But she can't pretend not to be starving just to be polite. He is confused, because she seems more interested in her food than in him, yet she asked him out, for reasons he is unsure of.

It's not the same thing, at all, but what is similar is that I have to show what's going on through their dialog, only they can't talk about what's going on.

[Jamesaritchie]

Lots of my mates only read the dialougue in books.

That's just weird. Who would only read the dialogue in books, and why? And in some books I've read, your mates would only be reading about one page in twenty.

[reph]

A guy and a girl are having lunch....She likes him, and wants to pay attention to what he is saying, but can think only of how hungry she is.
A scene late in Of Human Bondage tackles a similar problem, or its reverse. A young man who's fallen into poverty visits a family. They know he's hungry, but he's too proud to admit he is. They find tactful ways of offering him food. Naturally, the scene is well handled.

[fallenangelwriter]

James- i don't know of anyone who literally reads only the dialogue, i will confess to skimming over the tags between lines of dialogue. it's not even a conscious decision, my eyes just slide to the next line of speech.

[mesh138]

2. Overuse of em dashes and ellipses. I'm sure most people know that an em dash in conversation is used for a sudden interruption, and an ellipsis is used to show a line of dialogue that tails off, sometimes unfinished.
Sorry to be preachy.[/QUOTE]

Ever tried to read Louis Ferdinand Celine? If not, look at "Death on the Installment Plan" next time you're at the bookstore.

[jsh]

18. (this one I'm not sure about, but my editor told me so and I think it makes sense...) There are no semicolons in dialogue.
Would somebody please be kind enough to explain this? From my perspective, it seems prima facie silly for a couple of reasons. First, a semicolon is a legitimate bit of punctuation that illustrates grammatical relations between linguistic elements--its removal seems odd when it is appropriate. Second, it signals a softer break than a full stop, so that a series of independent clauses connected by semicolons (yeah, my grammar terms probably aren't perfect) gives a faster, gallopping bit of breathless speech without cluttering with conjunctions or comma splices. "I spoke to Lassie; Billy's in the well; I've got a date; you've got to go save him!" Finally, I feel that I speak with semicolons; does that make my speech pathological?

Anyway, I'm NOT claiming I'm correct and others are not. I'm saying that I don't understand the rule and why it's logical.

Thanks!!

[farfromfearless]

In my opinion, dialog really depends on the character's personality and punctuation in their dialog really helps to bring out the character's traits, in small subtle ways. I agree that to some point, that much of a character's dialog might rely heavily on style and/or the writer's own experiences. Still, I find that a good rule of thumb is to keep dialog relevant to the scene and story; extraneous dialog - that is meaningless dialog - should be avoided where possible. I prefer not to read books where dialog between characters ends up being witty banter, chock full of social references (most of which I do not get), or about mundane things. If I'm going to listen in on a conversation, I would hope that it was interesting.

[Arkie]

What’s the first thing acquisition editors look for when they began reading a fiction submission? Several editors we know have answered that question the same way: “The first thing I do is find a scene with some dialogue. If the dialogue doesn’t work, the manuscript gets bounced. If it’s good, I start reading.”

“Self-Editing for Fiction Writers,”—Renne Browne and Dave King—Harper Collins, New York/2004(82)

[inanna]

Would somebody please be kind enough to explain this? From my perspective, it seems prima facie silly for a couple of reasons. First, a semicolon is a legitimate bit of punctuation that illustrates grammatical relations between linguistic elements--its removal seems odd when it is appropriate. Second, it signals a softer break than a full stop, so that a series of independent clauses connected by semicolons (yeah, my grammar terms probably aren't perfect) gives a faster, gallopping bit of breathless speech without cluttering with conjunctions or comma splices. "I spoke to Lassie; Billy's in the well; I've got a date; you've got to go save him!" Finally, I feel that I speak with semicolons; does that make my speech pathological?

Anyway, I'm NOT claiming I'm correct and others are not. I'm saying that I don't understand the rule and why it's logical.

Thanks!!

I'm probably not going to articulate this properly, so hopefully someone will come along later who can, but here's my best shot: a semi-colon is recognized as a way to link two separate but related sentances in terms of written prose (I'm sure you know that - sorry to state the obvious). It creates a pause as we read it, but it's not suitable for dialogue because it either appears too formal or is not a verbal construct (...? does that even make sense?).

What I'm trying to say, is that an em dash or an ellipse will work to indicate a pause in speech, but a semi-colon's function is strictly for the written word. Since dialogue is supposed to give the illusion of speech, using one breaks the illusion. I'm pretty sure that's the reason. Same thing with parentheses - you wouldn't have a character use them in his speech if he were making an aside. They're visual aids for a reader of text. Right?

somebody help me out here....

[Celia Cyanide]

What I'm trying to say, is that an em dash or an ellipse will work to indicate a pause in speech, but a semi-colon's function is strictly for the written word. Since dialogue is supposed to give the illusion of speech, using one breaks the illusion. I'm pretty sure that's the reason. Same thing with parentheses - you wouldn't have a character use them in his speech if he were making an aside. They're visual aids for a reader of text. Right?

I think you've nailed it. We use punctuation in dialog to indicate how the character speaks it. When we hear people talk, we hear commas and periods, and sometimes elipses and em dashes. We don't hear semicolons or parenthesis.

[expatbrat]

This is a great threat. Thanks everyone for your contributions.

Question: Do writers who find it easy to start a conversation with anyone (in real life) write better dialogue than those who are not as good at it? Does an ability to communicate easily and naturally in real life lead to an ability to write good dialogue for a variety of characters?

Should we be practising talking with the checkout chick and the petrol station attendee's or is our time better spent copying down dialogue between two fellow passengers on the bus?

[J.S Greer]

Originally Posted by RubyRoo
My teachers always used to tell me to avoid dialougue at all costs...


* Gasp *

wow, what a great teacher...lol

[JasonChirevas]

The bit about characters not using each other's names in coversation is good advice. It makes the dialog artificial and the writing self-conscious.

So does this...

This is a pet peeve, so your mileage may vary, but little grates on my mental ears more than reading something like this:

"What's going on in that head of yours?"

or this

"I've always admired that ring of yours."

or this

"Tell that dog of yours to shut up!"

Blabluhblabluhbla...of yours is how self-conscious writers think people speak. The characters using each others names is the same thing. It's manufactured, hollow, forced familiarity. It's a crutch.

I do believe you either have an ear for dialog or you do not but, like with every aspect of writing, I think the best piece of advice for getting better is this...

Let go.

-Jason

[BruceJ]

This is a great threat. Thanks everyone for your contributions.

Question: Do writers who find it easy to start a conversation with anyone (in real life) write better dialogue than those who are not as good at it? Does an ability to communicate easily and naturally in real life lead to an ability to write good dialogue for a variety of characters?

Should we be practising talking with the checkout chick and the petrol station attendee's or is our time better spent copying down dialogue between two fellow passengers on the bus?

Seems like it should, Ex, but I'm reminded of a comment Peter Ustinov made that great conversationalists are not so much those who know how to talk, but those who know how to listen (paraphrased). People who find it easy to engage in conversation, or just do it a lot, may not necessarily be doing it well. I hear/read more about serious authors absorbing conversation around them for inspiration/verbal nuances than engaging in it so much themselves.

Just a thought.

[johnzakour]

The bit about characters not using each other's names in coversation is good advice. It makes the dialog artificial and the writing self-conscious.



Though there are times when you may want to use a character's name to stress a point or an emotion. For instance, my wife uses my name on those rare occasions when she is angry with me. "John, I don't believe you did that!"

[Jamesaritchie]

The bit about characters not using each other's names in coversation is good advice. It makes the dialog artificial and the writing self-conscious.

So does this...

This is a pet peeve, so your mileage may vary, but little grates on my mental ears more than reading something like this:

"What's going on in that head of yours?"

or this

"I've always admired that ring of yours."

or this

"Tell that dog of yours to shut up!"

Blabluhblabluhbla...of yours is how self-conscious writers think people speak. The characters using each others names is the same thing. It's manufactured, hollow, forced familiarity. It's a crutch.

I do believe you either have an ear for dialog or you do not but, like with every aspect of writing, I think the best piece of advice for getting better is this...

Let go.

-Jason

Never say never. Names in dialogue can be easily overused, but never using them at all is silly. Real people use names in dialogue fairly often, and so should the writer. The trick is to use them appropriately. Dialogue that never uses names is at least as bad as dialogue that overuses names.

I doubt a single day has gone by without someone I know failing to use my name in dialogue.

Nor is there anything at all wrong with the sentence "Tell that dog of yours to shut up." Used in the right place and time, it's a good piece of dialogue.

I believe good dialogue is most often written by those who do not try to follow such "rules."

Dialogue is good when it's something that character would actually say, should he be real person in a similar situation. Period. And real people most certainly do use names in dialogue, and do use such sentences as "Tell that dog of yours to shut up."

[inanna]

Seems like it should, Ex, but I'm reminded of a comment Peter Ustinov made that great conversationalists are not so much those who know how to talk, but those who know how to listen (paraphrased). People who find it easy to engage in conversation, or just do it a lot, may not necessarily be doing it well. I hear/read more about serious authors absorbing conversation around them for inspiration/verbal nuances than engaging in it so much themselves.

Just a thought.

ITA. Chit-chat is not a strength of mine, but I like to think dialogue is. Just listening to people talk will give you tons of material, as well as help with rhythm, slang and style. Plus it's easier to concentrate when you're just eavesdropping, as opposed to engaged in a conversation. Not to mention less stressful, if you're a natural introvert like me :)

[icerose]

I have found that my dialog has greatly improved since I started imagining my characters and listening to them. When you hear the conversation in your head with their little quirks and speech patterns it flows better on the page.

At least for me.

[jsh]

I'm probably not going to articulate this properly, so hopefully someone will come along later who can, but here's my best shot: a semi-colon is recognized as a way to link two separate but related sentances in terms of written prose (I'm sure you know that - sorry to state the obvious). It creates a pause as we read it, but it's not suitable for dialogue because it either appears too formal or is not a verbal construct (...? does that even make sense?).
Yes, I think so. It's not a case of dropping a valid element of punctuation, but of reflecting the rythm of speech. So, suppose I intend a character to say, for example, the following sentence: "Yes, a horse shoe upside the head would hurt; however, it would take my mind off the pain in my foot." If I want to emphasize the pause before however, I'd make it a full stop. If I wanted it to come off as a lingering, pregnant afterthought, I might use an ellipses (sp?). If I wanted it to come quickly, like a speedy parenthetical statement, then I might use an em-dash. The semicolon doesn't communicate the rythm or pace of the spoken sentence, but those other punctuation marks do.

If that's what you're saying, then I think I understand.

Thanks!

[Celia Cyanide]

The bit about characters not using each other's names in coversation is good advice. It makes the dialog artificial and the writing self-conscious.

This is very true. I think part of it comes from being influenced by dialog in films. The characters in movies need to use each other's names so that the audience will know their names. When writing prose, we often forget that the narration mentions the character's names often enough.

[Tracy]

I think dialogue is one of the most exciting parts of reading/writing - it's the most intimate/fly-on-the-wall/eavesdroppingish aspect of the whole process. During narration we're watching the scene but not necessarily involved - with narration, we're right there.

I remember reading Isabel Allende's book "Daughter of Fortune", over which many people had raved, but being very disappointed in it. I realised that the problem was that there was so little dialogue that I was always hovering over the action, so to speak, rather than being immersed in it.

Too much dialogue would be equally wrong, of course, but IMHO it's what brings the novel to life.

[Jamesaritchie]

This is very true. I think part of it comes from being influenced by dialog in films. The characters in movies need to use each other's names so that the audience will know their names. When writing prose, we often forget that the narration mentions the character's names often enough.

So you're saying that if more than two characters are present, a character's name shouldn't be used in dialogue so the other characters, and the reader, will know who is being addressed?

Of that if you're in a room with several people, your name isn't used in speech so you'll know you're the one being spoken to? And hasn't anyone ever said something like, "Hey, Celia, you want to go with us to the mall?"

Not using names is fine, if there's no chance of confusion, but whenever more than two characters are present, you sometimes need to use a name in dialogue, just as real people do, even when everyone in the room knows the name of everyone else in the room.

Dialogue isn't about movies, and it isn't about books. It's about how real people actually speak, and real people do often have the need of using names in speech. So do characters.

No, characters should use a name every time they speak, but if they never, ever use a name, they're going to be cardboard characters who do not come across as real people.

[BruceJ]

Yes, I think so. It's not a case of dropping a valid element of punctuation, but of reflecting the rythm of speech. So, suppose I intend a character to say, for example, the following sentence: "Yes, a horse shoe upside the head would hurt; however, it would take my mind off the pain in my foot." If I want to emphasize the pause before however, I'd make it a full stop. If I wanted it to come off as a lingering, pregnant afterthought, I might use an ellipses (sp?). If I wanted it to come quickly, like a speedy parenthetical statement, then I might use an em-dash. The semicolon doesn't communicate the rythm or pace of the spoken sentence, but those other punctuation marks do.

If that's what you're saying, then I think I understand.

Thanks!

Agree and this supports everything I've read about the use of semicolons in fiction. I'm trying to recall the last book I've read (fiction) that used a semicolon. As I've experimented with them before in my own dialogue, I find myself tripping over its formality. It's such a little element to snap the dream that I'm not sure it's worth the risk.

[Judg]

Dialogue isn't about movies, and it isn't about books. It's about how real people actually speak, and real people do often have the need of using names in speech. So do characters.
This is true, but only up to a point. Real conversations throw in a lot of pointless patter, pauses, and such, that would be be painful to read, just like real life consists of a lot of actions we don't want to hear about. We rarely need - or want - to know every detail of a character's early-morning routine, the fact he washes his hands after going to the bathroom, or even that he goes to the bathroom at all. The job of the writer is to edit what would be happening realistically down to just what is significant, or useful to give us a feel for what is happening.

So we have to reproduce dialogue in such a way that it includes enough realistic detail that it comes across as authentic, and not so much that it drives readers to distraction. Good written dialogue is normally much pithier than real life dialogue.

[Celia Cyanide]

So you're saying that if more than two characters are present, a character's name shouldn't be used in dialogue so the other characters, and the reader, will know who is being addressed?

No. I am not saying that.

[JasonChirevas]

Though there are times when you may want to use a character's name to stress a point or an emotion. For instance, my wife uses my name on those rare occasions when she is angry with me. "John, I don't believe you did that!"

Indeed. Note I said "in conversation" not "never" or "not even in exclamation."

It was my impression this thread was about general techniques for good dialog.

-Jason

[JasonChirevas]

Never say never. Names in dialogue can be easily overused, but never using them at all is silly. Real people use names in dialogue fairly often, and so should the writer. The trick is to use them appropriately. Dialogue that never uses names is at least as bad as dialogue that overuses names.

I doubt a single day has gone by without someone I know failing to use my name in dialogue.

Nor is there anything at all wrong with the sentence "Tell that dog of yours to shut up." Used in the right place and time, it's a good piece of dialogue.

I believe good dialogue is most often written by those who do not try to follow such "rules."

Dialogue is good when it's something that character would actually say, should he be real person in a similar situation. Period. And real people most certainly do use names in dialogue, and do use such sentences as "Tell that dog of yours to shut up."

I agree, one should never say never. That's why I didn't.

Do me a favor? Just by way of experiment, listen for "that ____ of yours" in real life. You're not going to hear it.

You will hear it in poorly written television, though.

-Jason

[Bufty]

I think writing dialogue is enormous fun. If it's right it flows, and if it doesn't flow, I find a few questions often help to at least narrow down where any problem may lie or how the dialogue might be improved. I don't believe these are exhaustive and they really cover the construction of the dialogue more than the word-by-word content.

Does it make sense?
Is it an info dump?
Is it obvious - to the reader - who is speaking and to whom, whether or not there's a tag.
Is the tag in the right place?
Is the dialogue 'ball' being bounced back and forth frequently enough or
are the speakers allowed to speak for too long or on too many topics?
Is the dialogue following a stimulus/response sequence and are the responses and stimulii as close to each other as possible?
If the speaker gives more than one stimulus, is the responder responding to the last one?
Does the responder sometimes repeat the stimulus?
If the action tag and not the dialogue itself is the stimulus to the next line of dialogue, is the action tag placed after the dialogue?
Is the feel/think/act then speak sequence being considered/followed?

[M.A.Gardener]

When I write dialogue, I try to put myself into the role of the character would do. I say what I've written outloud, just like the character. I use facial expressions and physical movements when I'm talking. This helps me visualize the character and - I think - make the dialogue more believable.

[anodyne]

Sage, I use people's names when I talk. Not every line, but a lot. To emphasize things. Especially when I'm displeased with my husband. When We're fighting his name gets dropped every sentence or so. Just a thought.

[Oliveman]

Here's the thing when planning ahead, and noting that you need dialogue to move one way before you actually write it: The plot event/dialogue block must make sense according to the motivations of the characters, as in, it must be what they would naturally say. If you have a deep understanding of your characters, only then can you preordain that indeed this event will happen then using dialogue.

If, when writing it, you feel yourself deviating at all from their character in favor of the plot, catch yourself and change the set up or the plot itself, letting the believability of the characters take priority. Think of it as they have control over what they say, not you. If it does not seem as if a giant hand jumped in and grabbed their mouth and moved it, then you're on the right track. Remember: it is ALL about the character in dialogue.

That being said, make sure to have a point to dialogue, and any talk that your character would normally, and uneventfully or suggestively have should be omitted unless it helps set up the plot or shape your character. It has to have a purpose for being, or people will get bored. And if you have boring dialogue, make the point, somehow, that it is boring, then shake up the world of boring dialogue later on as part of your story.

This Is Post #50!

[J.S Greer]

I doubt a single day has gone by without someone I know failing to use my name in dialogue.


True, but its usually at the beginning of the convo, or when someone is asking a question.

I think repeating a characters name when it isnt how someone would normally speak is a bit distracting.

[spacejock2]

I have found that my dialog has greatly improved since I started imagining my characters and listening to them. When you hear the conversation in your head with their little quirks and speech patterns it flows better on the page.

At least for me.

Bears repeating, that does. You don't write dialogue, you just transcribe what the characters are saying to each other in your head.

Later on you can tidy it up by combining lines of dialogue and fixing repetition. (Four alternating lines of dialogue can often be condensed into a much snappier two.)

[The Gorn]

Please share some of your methods for writing dialog. Where do you get it, and how do you know when you've done it well? In writing classes and books about writing, the attitude seems to be that some people are good at it, and others not so good. But there has to be a way to learn. What do you think?

Writing dialog is easy for me. First look at the situation your charactors are in. How do they react to it? Just imagine yourself as the speaking charactor. You have all of their knowledge:idea: , skills:guns: :box: :e2fight: , and most importantly their attitude:e2headban :e2cry: :e2Order: :rant: :scared: . What then would you say?

[J.S Greer]

I have found that my dialog has greatly improved since I started imagining my characters and listening to them. When you hear the conversation in your head with their little quirks and speech patterns it flows better on the page.

It helps with dialogue, and I find that it helps with the story in genreal too. I read sections out loud all of the time, it helps me weed out the crap:D

[Chumplet]

No, that wouldn't be what it's called. That would be what you should do with it.
I'm looking for a noun, in case I wanted to ask someone, "Is this scene a [insert term here]?"

If there is not a name for that, someone should make one up.

In the newspaper business, we call it a filler.

[Chumplet]

I've been told that my dialogue pops, but my prose needs work. I don't know why the dialogue works. Perhaps it's because I play the scene out in my head like a movie. I hear the inflections in the voice and see the expression in the face as the character speaks. I like to mix in action tags rather than dialogue tags, too.

Regarding using names while speaking - yes, I do, when the character is angry or trying to drive a point across.

[Prawn]

When I am stuck in writing, I use dialogue to explore the characters and their motivations. When I start a scene, I may know the point of the scene, but not what they characters will say to each other. Sometimes there are interesting surpsises that emerge from a nice dialogue riff, and the scene changes entirely. Un-needed dialogue can be deleted afterwards.

[JadeFrog]

This thread was very helpful for taking a second look at some of my dialog. Thank you to everyone who offered advice.

[maestrowork]

Can someone please collect all the pointers and post them in an FAQ? :) Good stuff here.

[DWSTXS]

There have been a handful of very good third person short stories written without any dialogue, and one masterpiece, Jack London's "To Build A Fire," that has only one short line of dialogue, said to no one, as the protagonist dies.

First person fiction is really all dialogue, only without the quotation marks.


'To Build a Fire' is a truly excellent piece of writing. Simple. Concise.
The first version I read of this story was the version London wrote in which the protagonist lived through the ordeal.
Either version is great reading by one of the great American authors of all time.

[miles]

The best piece of advice I ever read about this subject concerned the difference between direct and indirect dialogue. I think the book was called HOW TO WRITE A DAMN GOOD NOVEL, and I kept some notes and use them often for this.



Direct dialogue:

"What ya doin'?" Joe asked.

"Reading."

"Oh. Reading what?"

"Moby-Dick."

"Is it any good?"

"Just a fishing story."

Joe sat down. He ran his finger around his collar to wipe away the sweat
trickling down his neck.

"Ah, I've got to ask you something," he said.

"I'm listening."

"Er, have you got a date for the prom?"

"I wasn't going to go to the prom."

"Gee, everyone goes to the prom. How'd you like to go with me?"

"Hmmm. I'll think about it, okay?"

"Don't think about it, do it! I'll get my old man's car. I'll have plenty of money."

"It sounds sort of all right."

"We can have dinner at Benny's Pizza Palace."

"Well, okay then."



Direct dialogue is realistic, but boring. It simply answers questions, but doesn't make for very memorable, interesting characters.

Indirect dialogue does the opposite. Here's the same scene using it:



"I have to sit down here, it's my job," Joe said.

"Oh?" said Mary, looking up from the book she was reading.

"Yeah, the school pays me a buck fifty an hour to study in the cafeteria and serve as a good example."

"Sit anywhere you like, it's a free country."

Joe smiled at her and said, "I know your future."

"How would you know my future?"

"I read Tarot cards."

"I don't believe in Tarot cards, my family is Unitarian."

Joe took the cards out of his pocket and shuffled them. He put the first one down. He said, "You're going to be picked up at eight P.M. in a green Chevy Nova."

"I am?"

"The devastatingly handsome young man who's driving will be wearing a white
dinner jacket with a plaid cumberbund."

"He will?"

"He will take you to the prom at this very school's gymnasium."

"Gee, the cards say all that, do they?"

"That and more." He put away the cards.

"I don't want to ruin all the surprises."

"Am I being asked for a date?"

"Will you go with me?"

"The cards tell all, right? Then you ought to know."

[Dale Emery]

My current favorite trick is to make the characters talk indirectly, so that they communicate a great deal by innuendo and by what they don't say.

Here's an example: http://dalefiction.dale.emery.name/2008/04/gourlays/

Not a great story, but I enjoyed making father and son talk past each other.

Dale

[Dale Emery]

The best piece of advice I ever read about this subject concerned the difference between direct and indirect dialogue.

Exactly.

Give each character a private agenda, something they don't want to express directly. Their private agendas drive the conversation through what's half-spoken and unspoken. And the agendas show up in gestures, tone of voice, and other non-verbal signs.

Dale

[maestrowork]

And don't forget subtexts. They work great in dialogue.

[jbryson]

What I'm trying to say, is that an em dash or an ellipse will work to indicate a pause in speech, but a semi-colon's function is strictly for the written word. Since dialogue is supposed to give the illusion of speech, using one breaks the illusion. I'm pretty sure that's the reason. Same thing with parentheses - you wouldn't have a character use them in his speech if he were making an aside. They're visual aids for a reader of text. Right?


Right, the rules of grammar don't apply to a character's speech, especially if the character doesn't know those rules. Characters speak like people talk.

[jbryson]

[QUOTE=JasonChirevas;995032
listen for "that ____ of yours" in real life. You're not going to hear it.

You will hear it in poorly written television, though.

-Jason[/QUOTE]

Then, we can expect to begin hearing it in real conversation, probably sooner than later.

[ClaudiaGray]

Dialogue is one of the things I analyze the least. Not because it's not important -- it absolutely is -- but it's something that I find difficult to approach in a calculated way. Basically, I work until I can hear the characters' distinctive voices, which takes a very long time, and then I rewrite the dialogue in their "true" words.

One thing to watch is making sure that different characters in their books have different speech patterns. Sometimes you read a book and it seems as though all the characters studied together at the same school of rhetoric. I like to get different patterns of talking, expressions, etc. from all the people in a book.

[Dana-Lynn]

Bumping this thread up, 'cause I think it's very helpful.

This should be made a sticky. . . . Lots of people need help with their dialogue, and there's tons of great tips in this thread.



:D

[Phoebe H]

I don't know how helpful this might be, but something I found enlightening was reading transcripts of social worker or sociologist interviews (court records might work the same way) where every um, er, like, repetition, and so on are painstakingly included. It really brought home to me how much of an artificial construct fictional dialogue is. Thank God for it, too.

That was going to be my suggestion, too. My degree was in linguistics, and at one point I had to spend a lot of time transcribing conversations phonemically, with each speaker charted on its own line on the page so that you could examine the overlaps. Dear god, I hope I never have to do that again, but it definitely teaches you a lot about conversational flow.

[B]The best piece of advice I ever read about this subject concerned the difference between direct and indirect dialogue.

What this makes me think of is something that I always try to remember while writing dialog, Grice's Conversational Maxim's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gricean_maxims). They may seem fairly obvious, but the thing to keep in mind is that these are the rules that the *listener* is using to infer the speaker's intent. (And, by extension, that the reader is using to understand what is going on.) So it's more helpful in gauging the reaction than in steering the conversation.

[Matera the Mad]

I don't know where JasonChirevas is from, but I hear "that ____ of yours" frequently.

phoebe has a 'phlea :tongue