Oblique dialogue

No idea, but the first two hits on Google gave me these two posts:

http://jessicanelson7590.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/oblique-dialogue.html
https://jthorsson.com/2012/08/31/lets-talk-dialogue-as-flash-fiction/

Is that what you're looking for?

Here you go:

"What is oblique dialogue?" Thekherham asked. "Can you give me some examples?"

"Have you seen the deodorant?" I replied. "I smell like kazoo."

Thekherham said:

Just what the title says. What is oblique dialogue? Can you give me some examples?

Click to expand...

Oblique dialogue is indirect dialogue. It means not answering questions directly, or use misdirection/distraction, or beating around the bush, or changing the subject, or saying something unexpected or only tangentially related.

There's an example in this article. And Sol Stein in Stein on Writing talks about oblique dialogue.

I think it's important to be conscious of this. I think there's a tendency when writing dialogue to not to what Beth defined so well, because we're so intent on writing dialogue that drives the story. But that's not the way people talk in real life.

Oblique dialogue also occurs when characters speaking misunderstand each other, or are talking about entirely different things without realizing it. The great TV comedy shows commonly feature such dialogue, things like Taxi, Cheers, WKRP, Seinfeld.

caw

Good point, blacbird. Maybe our challenge as prose writers is to be mindful of it as a possibility, but not to overdo it. I think it can get old pretty fast. Maybe it works better in the dramatic arts.

Maze Runner said:

I think it's important to be conscious of this. I think there's a tendency when writing dialogue to not to what Beth defined so well, because we're so intent on writing dialogue that drives the story. But that's not the way people talk in real life.

Click to expand...

This. Dialog can be too on the nose when everyone says exactly what they mean. Sometimes people are saying different things than their words suggest (if taken at face value). Context (or internals) can let the reader know what the character really means in some cases. I agree it can be overdone, though. Dialog shouldn't be exactly like real speech, with all the "ums" and trailing off and interruptions and tangents, or scenes with dialog would be frustrating to read.

Maze Runner said:

Good point, blacbird. Maybe our challenge as prose writers is to be mindful of it as a possibility, but not to overdo it. I think it can get old pretty fast. Maybe it works better in the dramatic arts.

Click to expand...

Does it help to keep it less 'random' and overdone if the writer keeps in mind why it's happening, what both sides want and why they're talking at cross-purposes?
One is an undercover police officer, trying to get as much information about a crime as possible, while the other is a criminal, trying to give as little information as possible.
Or, one is a teenage kid trying to feel out how the other one feels about going to a party with him, while the other is trying to keep her options open in case she gets a better offer.

frimble3 said:

Does it help to keep it less 'random' and overdone if the writer keeps in mind why it's happening, what both sides want and why they're talking at cross-purposes?

Click to expand...

Of course. And no dialogue should ever be random.

Agreed- and to make the dialogue exchange meaningful, the reader should preferably also become aware of what both sides want and why they are apparently not giving each other straight answers.

Pretty much every line uttered by the Fool in Robin Hobb's Farseer books is an excellent example.