Learn Writing with Uncle Jim, Volume 1

What about dialog with no tags? Ie:

"blah blah blah"
"oh really? foo bar..."
"bumpkis fiddlesticks"
"woo ahh, hold on there boy"

(Note: this is not actual dialogue from my first draft)

Is this advisable? Or are you better off sticking some he saids/she saids in there so it does look so naked?

I struggle with dialogue. My way to get it out of my head and on to the paper is to write the conversation between my characters first, then go back and tidy up, adding commentary around the tags where I think it's needed to enhance the scene. But I still seem to be stuck with a lot of naked dialogue and I'm a little worried about it.

I nearly always use 'saids' and nothing else. If there are more than two characters, nothing on the end makes things confusing, especially if all of them have been talking so far in the scene. In my mind, it's best for portraying speed, or urgency. A nice slow conversation should really be using something to slow it down.

I was thinking about a strange thing I seem to do with all my dialogue - split it up into two parts; a short part and a long part, separated by a said and maybe an action. For example:

"Oh no, I want revenge," said the Officer, not taking his eyes from Shin. "Her lot killed some of my best gunners."

Compared to

"Oh no, I want revenge. Her lot killed some of my best gunners." said the Officer, not taking his eyes from Shin.

The first example seems much more fluid, and I don't really know why. Have you discussed splitting dialogue like this before?

Hi loquax,

I think it depends on whether the person speaking would pause in the dialog where you have the action. If they wouldn't, then maybe the attribution should be at the end.

Also, I think it depends on the length of the dialog. If it's a large chunk, then having "he said" at the very end looks kind of unbalanced.

Lastly, this is something I find myself doing a lot, and checking for (and removing) in revision. Overdone, IMHO, it makes all the characters sound alike.

Robert Sawyer mentions this on his website at:

http://www.sfwriter.com/ow08.htm

Of course, not all your characters should talk the same way. I read one story recently in which there were dozens of lines of dialog like this:

"Interchangeable?" he said. "What do you mean the characters are interchangeable?"​

We have the attribution tag between an initial word and a sentence that repeats that same word. This is clearly being used to denote confusion — and works fine once or twice, but grates if the same dialog device is employed more than that in a given story — especially by multiple speakers. Assign distinctive speaking patterns to single characters.

Click to expand...

UJ's kin??

Uncle Jim,

For the second time this year I've seen the name "John D. MacDonald" referenced in a book. The latest was Stephen King's ON WRITING, the first was a novel, the title I can't recall. Would this be you using a not so discreet pen-name? A third cousin twice removed? Or another Scot-American writer with the good fortune of your last name?

--Inquiring Mind

katee said:

What about dialog with no tags?
Is this advisable? Or are you better off sticking some he saids/she saids in there so it does look so naked?

Click to expand...

As long as the reader can tell who is saying what, there's no rule that you must have tags at all.

gp101 said:

Uncle Jim,

For the second time this year I've seen the name "John D. MacDonald" referenced in a book. The latest was Stephen King's ON WRITING, the first was a novel, the title I can't recall. Would this be you using a not so discreet pen-name? A third cousin twice removed? Or another Scot-American writer with the good fortune of your last name?

--Inquiring Mind

Click to expand...

Google is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._MacDonald

P.S. I have no idea if they're distant relatives, but I'm pretty sure Jim's alive. And since John died in 1986...

John D. MacDonald was one of the more popular writers of his time, and also well-respected by his peers. A useful guy for aspiring writers to know about, and better yet, to have read books by.

Thanks for all the comments about dialogue tags- very helpful!

James D. Macdonald said:

Observe how your favorite author handles dialog tags. Go and do likewise.

Click to expand...

Except, if your favorite author wrote Regency romances several years ago, don't copy them and use 'ejaculated' for 'exclaimed'. It might be in the thesaurus, but it's a really, really bad choice nowadays. At least, it makes me snicker. YMMV.

Kris

gp101 said:

UOr another Scot-American writer with the good fortune of your last name?

Click to expand...

John D. is (or was -- he's dead now) another and far better writer than me.

================

For dialog tags: Don't confuse the readers. The tags are there to keep the readers from getting confused. Don't annoy or distract the readers. Anything else you do is part of the art. Play around and see what works.

Dialogue tags are not necessary if you only have two people talking. Sprinkle them here and there so that the readers don't lose track after 3 pages of dialogue. It's also about pace. You can have some rapid-fire dialogue to speed things up without bogging them down with tags or action:

"What happened?"
"God knows?"
"How did he died?"
"Beats me."
"What else did she say?"
"Why don't you ask her instead?"

It works well with short dialogue.

I usually just use "said" and "asked." Sometimes I need to clarify the way the character speaks the line because the speech itself is not indicative: "whispered," "shouted," etc. But that's it.

I also use dialogue tags (and sometimes short action) to give it a beat:

"Hey lady," he said. "Get out of my store."

Try not to use exclamation point. Use the tag instead:

"Hey lady," he shouted. "Get out of my store."

Also, real people do NOT speak with LONG, run-on, or grammatically perfect sentences -- that's what we call stilted dialogue:

"Rina, my mother is coming to town today and we must make the house look wonderful and impress her so that she will see that our marriage is not a sham."

Ugh! Instead, try making the sentences short: no more than 5 words, and mess up the grammar a bit as your character would do...

"Rina, my mother is coming to town. Today. Make the house look wonderful. We must impress her. So she knows, our marriage is not a sham."

Better yet, break it up by giving the other character something to response with:

"Rina, my mother is coming to down."
"Today?"
"Yeah, please make the house look wonderful."
"You want to impress her."
"I want her to know..."
"That our marriage's not a sham."
(suddenly, you have characterization and even conflict...)



Action is okay to break up the dialogue, but don't over use it. It makes for a choppy read, and shows down the pace. And if the action is trivial, it gets really annoying (she smiles, she grins, she takes a bite, she gazes at him, she lowers her head, etc. etc.)



And don't get me started on info-dumpy dialogue, when the characters tell each other things they already know so to dump information for the readers:

"My dear wife, Ruth, my mother is coming today. She is 80 years old and she can't see very well."
"I will clean the house. I know she can't move very well either. She has arthritis for 10 years now."
"And make her favorite food, which is chicken with honey sauce."
A knock at the door. John opened it.
"Ruth, see what is here. My mother, Mrs. Pickles."

(shoot the author!)

katee said:

What about dialog with no tags? Ie:

"blah blah blah"
"oh really? foo bar..."
"bumpkis fiddlesticks"
"woo ahh, hold on there boy"

Click to expand...

See The Business by Iain Banks -- the first chapter is almost entirely dialogue with no attribution tags at all. A couple of sentences of other actions, if memory serves, in about 15 pages of dialogue. It works, but only because there are only two characters involved, and their voices are substantially different from each other (one of them has just had several of his teeth extracted).

HapiSofi said:

I'm sorry, this isn't about POV or plot, but there's a bit in that Mary Higgins Clark scene that drives me straight up the wall:

"Your mother's always been a pretty woman, and all the tender loving care she's received from me over the last forty-three years has only enhanced her beauty," his father said. He paused. "What are you two smiling at?"

"You know full well I've also waited on you hand and foot, dear," Dolores Stephens replied.

Does anyone in the world talk like that? Mr. Stephens' line only works if he's a flaming mariposa going for comic effect (no disrespect intended toward flaming mariposas, who are some of the modern masters of baroque language), or this family's idiolect is heavy on sarcasm and theatricality, or he's an intolerably pompous windbag.

He pauses after saying it, which fits with the theory that he's talking that way for humorous effect; but his wife's response implies that either she doesn't think he's trying to be funny, or she's incapable of noticing that he is. We therefore have to assume he's speaking seriously.

His wife's reply is as problematic as his, in its quieter way. "You know full well" is middlin' archaic English. You don't really hear that phrase used these days by people who don't read a lot of fantasy. "I've waited on you hand and foot" is also odd. It's been a while since the social consensus has been comfortable with the idea that a wife should do that for her husband. "I've waited on you hand and foot" therefore ought to mean "I've done/had to do more for you than I should have."

My other hypothesis, based on his line about the "tender loving care" he's bestowed on his wife, and her reply about waiting on him hand and foot, is that this respectable-looking middle-aged couple is engaged in a serious long-term D/s relationship.

I doubt it, though. I think what's happening here is that Mary Higgins Clark is trying to jam several bits of initial exposition into the dialogue without regard for the way it makes her characters sound.

Click to expand...

Well, this may sound odd to you, but I grew up in a family of educators. We have a bit of a dry sense of humor. My mother honestly used the that exact phrase to me often. "You know full well..." I am the youngest of five siblings that are all educators. The sister who teaches college English and I have a "game" we play. She always uses "high dollar" words in regular speech. To make her aware she uses words a lot of people don't, I restate it's definition but do so as if I'm adding onto what she's saying. We get quite a kick out of this and it can be a challenge not to miss a beat but say, "Yea and ......" Sort of like when I took an elderly relative to the doctor and the doctor said he wanted her to add a particular medicine. I knew he had mispoken, so I asked if had meant she should take the new medicine in lieu of the Claritin? I almost laughed when he said, "Well I want her to take it instead of."

Back to the text you offered...maybe the mother was not the type to spoil him, so it was funny in context and character. I say lots of those types of things to get laughs out of my family and friends. My husband jokingly calls me the "little wife" because it's so ludicrous for him to think of me in those terms.

So, do I agree with what you've said or for that matter what I said? I think the lines sound stupid too. I do like Mary Higgins Clark though and maybe if I read it in context...but I doubt it. I just had fun trying to think of this in another light. You really said some intersting things. I'm enjoying learning by reading all over ths board. My only problem is since I've found this site, I don't write as much! LOL! I'm hoping the newness will wear off soon.

I use 'said' (or asked) for nearly all dialog unless the character really is shouting or whispering. One particular challenge I've had is in a scene where the Good Guys are sneaking into the Bad Guy's house in the middle of the night. They want to plan their strategy (these are not all military guys who've been trained to take orders via hand signals, mind you), so they have to whisper. However, I don't want to 'whisper' every blessed utterance. My hope is that once I establish that they are trying to be quiet by using a couple whispers or 'said softlys' I can revert to regular old 'said' and the reader will understand that they haven't raised their voices back to normal volume.

"What are dialogue tags?" he demanded angrily.
"I could try to explain, but it would be as casting pearls before swine," he replied loftily.
"Curse you, you supercilious blackguard," he growled threateningly.
"As if I cared what you should say," he sneered provocatively.
"I shan't let you go until you reveal your secrets," he blurted hastily.
"Very well," he expostulated grandly.




---From How Not To Do Dialogue Tags, by Sylvester P. Midlist

azbikergirl said:

I use 'said' (or asked) for nearly all dialog unless the character really is shouting or whispering. One particular challenge I've had is in a scene where the Good Guys are sneaking into the Bad Guy's house in the middle of the night. They want to plan their strategy (these are not all military guys who've been trained to take orders via hand signals, mind you), so they have to whisper. However, I don't want to 'whisper' every blessed utterance. My hope is that once I establish that they are trying to be quiet by using a couple whispers or 'said softlys' I can revert to regular old 'said' and the reader will understand that they haven't raised their voices back to normal volume.

Click to expand...

Right. Once you've established the context (they are sneaking into someone's house) and that they are whispering, you don't have to say "whisper" or "speak softly" or "under this breath" or whatever... we know. Then when they speak at normal volume, we'd know, too, because of the context (let's say they get found out and the bad guy is now talking to them -- I don't think anyone would think they're still whispering at that point).

I don't always use "asked" either, b/c if you end the sentence with a question mark, it's obvious. I almost always use "said" if I need them. Once in while I might throw in a "replied". If there's three or four in 56 thousand words, I don't worry about it.

James D. Macdonald said:

First off -- using adverbs puts us in severe danger of creating unintentional humor: "My headache is gone," Tom said absentmindedly. "The prisoners are coming down the stairs," Tom said condescendingly. "I love hotdogs!" Mandy said with relish.

These are referred to as Tom Swifties.

Click to expand...

I love Tom Swifties. Here's a site with a lot of them: http://fun-with-words.com/tom_swifties_a-e.html

Ouch! The tags are killing me!

Euan H. said:

I read a great piece of advice some time ago (unfortunately, I can't remember where). Basically, it was to have your characters doing something while they're speaking. That way you can use the actions that they're doing both to show character/emotional state and also to identify the speaker.

Click to expand...

Just make sure (as you did, Euan) that what they're playing with does something storywise--for both character and plot, preferably. Having Bob play with his moustache just makes him a moustache-twirler... unless he revels in the fact that it makes him look dastardly, and he's affected the mannerism with a sense of irony or pleasure that reflects the story as a whole. Y'know?

Here's one of our stories, in audio format: http://escape.extraneous.org/2005/06/16/ep006-jenny-nettles/

DreamWeaver said:

Except, if your favorite author wrote Regency romances several years ago, don't copy them and use 'ejaculated' for 'exclaimed'. It might be in the thesaurus, but it's a really, really bad choice nowadays. At least, it makes me snicker. YMMV.

Kris

Click to expand...

Unless you're writing comedy?!

?

Uncle Jim,

What are the benefits of writing a series such as your Mageworld's.

How do publishers see a series? Do they prefer series over single novels?

***

So, tell me see if I have this correct.

I shop a novel to the appropriate company.

I write the next one, which, I put in the in the drawer when finished for a few months before re-working it.

I write the next one, re-work and send the second, keep sending the first around, and so on?

changling said:

Uncle Jim,

What are the benefits of writing a series such as your Mageworld's.

Click to expand...

Each volume has a built-in audience. Each new reader will seek out earlier volumes.

How do publishers see a series? Do they prefer series over single novels?

Click to expand...

All depends. What it depends on is how well the first one does. Series have upsides, but also downsides. It might happen that however many read the first volume, that's how many readers you'll have for the full run. Some books also are clearly stand-alone. Some form loose series -- books about the same characters in the same setting, but don't require that the reader have read previous volumes in order to be up to speed on the plot and characters.

Don't second-guess yourself here. Write the book you want to write and let it be what it is.

***

So, tell me see if I have this correct.

I shop a novel to the appropriate company.

I write the next one, which, I put in the in the drawer when finished for a few months before re-working it.

I write the next one, re-work and send the second, keep sending the first around, and so on?

Click to expand...

Yep, that's pretty much it. Unless the second book you've written is the second in a series. In that case, just keep it in your desk drawer until the first one sells.