Skip to main content

Writing Dialogue

 


What makes dialogue effective? I consider dialogue to be one of my strengths as a writer. It helps that I have done a bit of theater over the years and have written a number of plays, which of course, are almost all dialogue. Sometimes I hear people asking how to write good dialogue.

I say, listen to how real people talk. Pay attention when you are out among people. But, and this is a big ‘but’, written dialogue won’t sound exactly like real speech. If it did, it would sound rather boring and unimaginative. I say to listen to real talk to use as a governor. A governor is a device that keeps an engine from going too fast. Your dialogue governor should keep you from going too far into the realm that no speaking person would ever go. For example, real people (other than politicians) tend not use flowery, over elaborate descriptions when they talk. That doesn’t mean you can’t use beautiful descriptive word now and then, but be judicious with their use. You can choose to make a character bombastic and given to purple prose. That can be a valid choice for a character. But you had better only have one character like that in your story, and even then, you probably want to reign them in somewhat to keep them from being too ridiculous (unless ridiculous is what you are going for).

Consider Aldous Huxley’s character, Coleman in Antic Hay:

“Interesting mangle!” Coleman smiled his thanks. “But Bishop Odo, I fear, wouldn’t even have spared you; not even for your good works. Still less for your good looks, which would only have provoked him to dwell with the more insistency on the visceral secrets which they conceal.”

No one speaks like this in the real world. And yet, Coleman does and it works for his larger than life character. Coleman speaks like this consistently throughout the book which is another thing you should strive for. Be consistent. The way your character speaks in Chapter One should be the way they speak throughout the story. Even if they have grown as a person through the story, their manner of speaking shouldn’t change much.

There needs to be a reason for the character to be saying something, otherwise you are just wasting the reader’s time. It’s just like how you don’t need to tell us every detail of the husband’s clothing, bathroom, and breakfast routines between getting out of bed and going to work. That would be needlessly tedious. The same is true with dialogue. Cut out what doesn’t need to be there to move the story forward. Dialogue is used to develop the scene, to tell us something about the character, or to give the reader information they need to know.

When you are writing a scene, you should have goals for that scene. Your characters should have goals. The dialogue should reflect those goals. A character shouldn’t state the obvious, unless they are supposed to be dense. Good use of dialogue can tell us the education level of the character, their cultural background, show us their relationship with the other characters, show us their motivation, and emotional state.  This goes some way towards “show versus tell.” The narrator doesn’t have to tell us that Joe is hungry if Joe says, “let’s get something to eat.” This is particularly useful when writing in first person, where the narrator can not get inside the head of, say, the main character’s mother, but we can see what she is feeling through her actions or her words.  

What makes dialogue really sing is wit. Wit makes dialogue crisp and memorable. But wit is a hard thing to quantify and a hard thing to teach. It is a little like saying ‘be funny here’. Easier said than done. Wit can be overdone as well. I remember some scenes from the television show “The West Wing” that were just a little too witty. Aaron Sorkin is a witty guy, and I enjoyed his dialogue, but sometimes I would see a character come back with a snappy rejoinder that was just a bit too witty to be believed, especially if it had followed another one, which had followed another one . . .

So, the best way I can describe good dialogue is that it is heightened realism. That is, it is elevated a bit above what you might hear in a normal conversation, but not so elevated as to sound phony.  A good test for this is to read your dialogue out loud, or listen to others read it. Your ear will help to tell if it passes the B.S. meter.

(My science fiction novel Star Liner, is now available in paperback or as an e-book through Amazon and other online sources).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Child of the . . .

  What was it like to grow up as a child in the 90s? How about the 1940’s? Thinking about a child growing up in each different decade, conjures up images in my mind. But that is all they are: images. I was a child in the 1960’s. I can tell you what it felt like to be growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, but what it felt like to me is not what the history books remember. History will tell you the 60’s was about the Viet Nam War, civil rights, and the space race. The 70’s was Disco and Watergate. I remember being aware of all of those things, but to me this era was about finding time to play with my friends, something I probably share with a child of any decade. It was about navigating the social intricacies of school.   It was about the Beatles, Three Dog Night, The Moody Blues, The Animals, Jefferson Airplane. It was Bullwinkle, the Wonderful World of Color, and Ed Sullivan. There are things that a kid pays attention to that the grown-ups don’t. Then there are things the adults ...

Bureaucrats

  I am one of those nameless, faceless bureaucrats. Yes, that is my job. Though I actually have a name; I even am rumored to have a face. Bureau is the French word for desk, so you could say bureaucrats are “desk people.” In short, I work for the government. I sometimes have to deliver unpleasant news to a taxpayer. I sometimes have to tell them that the deed they recorded won’t work and they will have to record another one with corrections. Or we can’t process their deed until they pay their taxes. I can understand why some of these things upset people. The thing is, we don’t decide these things. It is not the bureaucrats that make the laws. The legislature writes the laws. We are required to follow the law.   If you are going to get mad at someone, get mad at the legislature. Or maybe get mad at the voters who voted the legislature in (That’s you, by the way). The same thing happens when the voters vote in a new district, or vote for a bond, or a new operating levy for an ...

Telephonicus domesticus

Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone from 1877 bears about as much similarity to the modern smart phone as an abacus bears to a PC or Mac. There are just about as many leaps in technology in both cases. It’s funny how a major jump in technology happens (like the actual invention of the phone). Then there are some refinements over a few years or decades until it gets to a useful stable form. Then it stays virtually the same for many years with only minor innovations. The telephone was virtually unchanged from sometime before I was born until I was about forty. Push-buttons were replacing the rotary dial, but that was about it. (Isn’t it interesting though that when we call someone, we still call it “dialing?” I have never seen a dial on a cell phone.) Cell phones were introduced and (once they became cheap enough) they changed the way we phone each other. New advancements followed soon after, texting and then smart phones. Personal computers were also becoming commonplace and wer...