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

All That We See or Seem by Ken Liu

My first experience with cyberpunk as a genre of science fiction was Neuromancer by William Gibson. Neuromancer was one of the early works that defined the cyberpunk genre. It was insanely influential. It won the Hugo Award, the Nebula Award, the Philip K. Dick Award. But for me, it just did not resonate. I had a hard time visualizing the concepts. It left a bad taste in my mouth for cyberpunk. I mostly avoided the genre. Then a couple of years ago I read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson which is cyberpunk (although some people say it is a parody of cyberpunk). Whatever, I liked it. I recently picked up All That We See or Seem by Ken Liu and it immediately became apparent to me that this was cyberpunk. Julia Z is the main character, and I think this is going to be the start of a series following her. She is a hacker (hence cyberpunk). She has got herself in trouble and so she lives on the margins, barely making it. Then a lawyer asks her for her help. His wife has been kidnapped. The ...

The Linear Nature of Time

    Go Go back Go back to the time before Before you did it Before they did it Before it was done to you Before the toast fell on the floor Before the catastrophe Before the mistake Before time’s scars Before   Go Go back Redeem it Rework it Fix it Go back   No you cannot Go back Star Liner

The Screaming Silence

  As I have mentioned, I worked for two seasons on the Spotted Owl Survey for the US Forest Service back in the day. This involved setting up stations around areas that were scheduled for timber harvesting to see if there were owls nesting there. We would look at a topographic map and see where we needed to put stations (usually along logging roads) so that we could get complete coverage of the area to be harvested. We would go out during the day and mark these stations with ribbons, then at night we would go to each station and “hoot” for ten minutes. If we did not get a response, we would move on to the next station and so on until we could be sure there were no spotted owls in the vicinity. This meant we were working at night in the woods. There is a lot of wildlife activity at night in the woods. It is not just owls, a fair number of wildlife are nocturnal. We saw coyotes, bobcats, cougars, bats, frogs, deer, elk, among other things. But it was not just seeing the wildlife, ...