Begging you pardon? What ARE you saying?

Whenever someone mentions invented language I always first think of A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgress. Or maybe traces of 1984.

Some of yours sounds more like true dialect than invented speech. Faulkner was the master of that.

Invented idioms can be fun, as long as the reader gets the drift.

I don't really see anything wrong with the dialogue there. It slows down my reading a bit (as my mental voice tries to sound out the slang) but it's all good. As long as your main character doesn't have quite this strong a dialect (which may become annoying for me after a few pages), I don't think you've got anything to be worried about.

I have to agree - I have no problem with your language - providing that it's not your main character that constantly speaks like this. The reason for this is simple - it will slow down most readers at the begiinning until they "get the hang of it" and I would be worried that they wouldn't get to that stage without putting down your book.

Coming from Northern Ireland (Norn Iron - if you want it in a broad Belfast accent) we would be used to this type of speech as practically everything is shortened here as well as having an unusual turn of phrase. You'll find that virtually every small(ish) community will have it's own peculiarities of speech so most people will be able to identify with at least some of your phrases.

The important thing is that when you write it - test it - make sure that the reader can relatively easily understand what you're saying.

I love Pratchett's novels and no the language didn't annoy me at all, certainly slowed me down in places but annoy no. So there I definitely agree with you. However I do realise that it has the potential to irritate and annoy and if you're going for a more mainstream market you need to be aware of this. I read a book recently where one of the main characters was from the deep south in the US, the author wrote the character's dialogue and thoughts in coloquial language but they introduced the character in normal language with very little coloquial language - as the novel progressed the amount of coloquialism's increased until at the end of the book every thought and all of his speech was coloquial but it had been increased so smoothly that you didn't even notice the change.

The beauty of Pratchett's books is that they're sheer genius but that's a personal opinion - I've noticed that people either love him or hate him there doesn't seem to be an in-between.

For me, it's like a strong spice. A little is very effective, too much spoils the meal. I've stopped reading books where the dialect made me work too hard to understand what was being said. It's one of those things where just because you can do it, doesn't always mean you should Trust your gut on that one.

I'm going to take a different view, one that has come up in several other threads on this type of topic before. You are writing phonetic dialect. If your story was filled with dialogue like you've written in your original post, I'd put the book back on the shelf and move on. This kind of writing makes reading tedious, and I want to read stories that allow me to dive in and that carry me away. But I don't want to have to work for it--it takes the pleasure away from it all. I don't mind working a little to flesh out the theme or plot of a story, but I don't want to have to work hard to just figure out what words are being used, aside from an occasional peek in the dictionary. At least in this latter case, I learn a new word.

Point number one. In dialogue, write words not sounds. (There are some exceptions, but not many, and not that carry throughout a story in bulk.)

Point number two. If you (1) throw apostrophes all over the place in the dialogue, (2) leave out vowels in word after word, (3) spell real words wrong, and/or you substitute consonants in real words so the word is the same but just sounds different in how it is pronounced--just to make the speech "sound" like you want--give it up immediately. The reader is going to go crosseyed and it really doesn't add anything to the story if it is done over and over again.

Point number three. Sure, you can find authors who have done all kinds of unconventional things, but look at those authors. They usually are skilled and experienced authors who have the savvy to pull it off. This kind of thing is extremely difficult to pull off, and even if done well, it will piss off some readers. For a beginning writer, writing phonetic dialogue will likely land the story in the slush pile, thrown not placed.

Point number four. Some new authors do this because they think it is cool and original (not saying you, the OP, are of this mindset). This means the writer is using this "technique" for the author, not for the reader. This writing business is all about the reader, not about the writer. We do things for the reader, not to make ourselves look cool or original. One way to thrill readers is to do something original, but we should never make those readers have to work hard to see the originality in the stories. This is where writing talent really comes into play. A talented writer knows just how much of this kind of thing is needed to get the story-points across the reader. Those authors who have pulled this kind of thing off probably were able to do it because of their writing talent.

Point number five. NEVER choose an unusual writing technique solely because this published writer or that published writer has done it before. ALWAYS choose that unusual writing technique because it best serves the story--it is the single best way to tell this story.


That said, there are ways to get unique or unusual speech patterns into a story without pissing off, or turning off the readers, or making them break a sweat getting through the passages of dialogue. Putting in unusual word usages is the best way, but with some economy of use--don't put them all over the place. A character may have some pet phrases that can be used, and he/she can "invent" words, but in these cases they should still resemble real words (as opposed to leaving out vowels or otherwise spelling the words wrong). He/she can also combine two words into one on occasion, with some unusual or region-specific meaning or flavor. It doesn't take much of this to establish that the character has an unusual dialect or an unusual method of speaking. And this is all a writer has to do--establish in the reader's mind that this character has an unsual manner of speaking. If doesn't have to be cooked into the reader's head with a book full of dialogue that is gravyslathered with apostrophes and starved of vowels.

Also, keep in mind that this type of phonetic dialogue frequently gives the distinct impression that the character is both stupid and uneducated (exceptions are when they are used strictly for accents that are "foreign" to the reader). The latter is not that big of a deal, but do you really want your readers to have the impression that all of these characters are stupid? You, as a writer, will have to work mighty hard to show the reader that they are not really stupid, but just have unusual speech mannerisms.

I consider Pratchett and Welsh to be niche authors. They may be the most successful authors in their particular genres but certainly I would consider Welsh especially to be a cult author. Mainstream publications in my eyes are not really authors anymore they are brands. Examples of these would be James Patterson, Tom Clancy, Virginnia Andrews.

All I'm saying is be careful when you use colloquial language. Make sure that your readers will understand what you're saying and that it isn't overdone. Danthia says it perfectly - too much and some people will stop reading.