When dialogue confuses instead of supporting the story

[inkyfox]

Hello, guys !
Dialogue. It’s a very useful tool for show don’t tell. But sometimes it sucks to see what some authors write. It hurts my eyes.
So, I give you an example to understand what I mean exactly:
“Have you stole my… there the book is!” Mary sees the book and grabs it.
“Have you stole my—,” Mary said but she sees the book lying on the table. “There it is.”

You know. The first example is shitty because it seems that Mary realize it while speaking and not like in the second one where she speaks first, interrupts because she realizes it’s lying there and speaks again. How can I avoid such confusing situations?

 

[mrsmig]

Since you seem to recognize the chronology issue in your first example, I'm not sure what advice you're asking for here.

I did want to point out that Rule #1 at AW is RYFW: Respect Your Fellow Writer. You can ask for advice without dumping on other writers' work - whether you're identifying them or keeping them anonymous.

 

[Maggie Maxwell]

Practice and good editing. Accept that it's going to happen (even after writing for 20, 30 years, you'll still need to edit for order at times), learn to find it when reading both others work and your own, and know that everything can be changed in drafts. Reading aloud is a commonly recommended tactic for finding text that reads awkwardly or doesn't make sense.

 

[inkyfox]

@mrsmig I meant, it confuses – at least me – when the dialogue isn't in the correct order.

 

[cornflake]

That dialogue isn't in an incorrect order though. You might prefer the action in the center, but it's not improper to have it before, in the middle, or following the dialogue.

 

[mccardey]

@mrsmig I meant, it confuses – at least me – when the dialogue isn't in the correct order.

There are so many different ways to write things - don't just assume because it confuses you that's wrong. Neither of those is "wrong". (At least - they're both wrong, but it's not about word order.)

 

[inkyfox]

@cornflake Well. I don’t prefer it. I just don't understand it well. I mean, if you're looking for your favourite book and you believe someone stole it, you wouldn't see it directly. That confuses me. If they check it but it's not logial.

 

[Sage]

There is a chronology problem in your first example (as you note), but I wonder if you would have the problem if that problem was taken out and the following action tag was actually following.

“Have you stolen my… There it is!” Mary grabs the book off her roommate's table.

Is your problem that it's stated that she sees the book after her dialogue shows us she sees it, or that you prefer dialogue/action tags in a specific place in the sentence? I think that's most of the confusion in this thread.

 

[zclesa]

I think diagogue and action that repeat can easily be boring and unnecessaily repetative. Why do does it need all this speech, which adds nothing to the story or the character?

Instead of..
“Have you stole my… there the book is!” Mary sees the book and grabs it.
“Have you stole my—,” Mary said but she sees the book lying on the table. “There it is.”

Why not?
"Did you steal my book?" Mary said. Although James shrugged, Mary saw it poking out of his backpack, which he'd laid carelessly on the sofa. Grabbing the book, she said: "I've told you before about touching my stuff."

or some variation thereof, which explains more about the characters involved, the context, the importance of the book etc. And, IMHO is a much easier read.

 

[Bufty]

You can take anything out of context (or, as you appear to have done- without any context at all) and claim it is 'wrong', but it isn't wrong. It's simply being used to support an unsupportable argument.

Everybody hopes they aim for flow and clarity.

And it's not necessary to explain everything every time. That's what becomes boring and repetitive.

I think diagogue and action that repeat can easily be boring and unnecessaily repetative. Why do does it need all this speech, which adds nothing to the story or the character?

Instead of..
“Have you stole my… there the book is!” Mary sees the book and grabs it.
“Have you stole my—,” Mary said but she sees the book lying on the table. “There it is.”

Why not?
"Did you steal my book?" Mary said. Although James shrugged, Mary saw it poking out of his backpack, which he'd laid carelessly on the sofa. Grabbing the book, she said: "I've told you before about touching my stuff."

or some variation thereof, which explains more about the characters involved, the context, the importance of the book etc. And, IMHO is a much easier read.

 

[indianroads]

For me, dialogue reveals character and the relationships between characters. Of course information is passed through conversation, but that's really only part of the story you're telling.

 

[Roxxsmom]

Ideally, the action and dialog are placed in sequential order. The two examples you give don't reflect the exact same thing. The ellipses at the end of Mary's first sentence in example one indicates that she trailed off before she saw the book. Then she said "there it is."

I don't see anything wrong with that. My main issue is that writing "Mary sees the book and grabs is" is stating something obvious, since she would have to see the book before she grabs it, presumably. You could just have "Mary grabs the book" there. Some writers like to include more obvious information than others, though. That's maybe a stylistic choice that isn't incorrect, even though we tend to pick each other to death for it in writing sites. Plenty of editors at publishing houses think it's just fine.

The second example uses an M-dash to cut into Mary's dialog and inserts the action sequentially. The M dash indicates that her words were cut off more abruptly. The "she said" isn't necessary, imo, because it's quite clear Mary is still the one talking. I'd only bother use the tag if someone other than Mary is interrupting her mid sentence and you don't want to create a new paragraph for their action. However, that's a stylistic choice.

The best way to avoid dialog and actions that don't support one another is to think of the sequence you actually want to impart. Also, think of how people are saying what they say. Even so, there's more than one correct way to do this. Some of it's a matter of style and characterization.