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

The Trip Home

  My wife and I recently returned from a trip to New York to visit my son and his wife. What follows is an excerpt of my notes from that trip. Departure day. So we and the kids (adult kids) leave by 5:30 AM. These “kids” are night owls. They rarely wake before 10:00 if they don’t have to, so we appreciate the sacrifice. Daughter-in-Law (DIL) drove us the 30 minutes to the train station. Hugs and good-byes for her (we love DIL. DIL is an irresistible force). Son navigates us a route to the platform with fewer stairs than the way we came. We get a ticket and get on the train headed for the big city and Grand Central Station. I soon realize that this train is not an express train like the one we took coming out. Instead of taking a little over an hour like we did before, this one would take a little over an hour and a half. We stop at places with names like Cold Springs and Peekskill (on this trip we saw a lot of place names that ended in “kill” including Kaatskill, i.e. Catskill, and

That 70's Decade

  Can a decade become a caricature? My teen years were in the 1970’s and none of us who lived through the 70’s thought our decade was going to be a figure of fun. When you are a part of it, you don’t realize what people are going to make fun of later. I think there are two reasons why people snicker when the 70’s are mentioned: clothing styles and Disco. Both things could be called extensions of trends that started in the 60’s. When the hippy styles of the 60’s became more formalized for the dance floor, the result was (in hindsight) rather bizarre. They did not seem bizarre at the time. People following present fashion trends never understand that they are wearing something that will be laughed at in ten years. Yes, I did have a pair of bell-bottom blue jeans (are they making a comeback?) The mere mention of the 1970’s conjures up someone in a ridiculous pose wearing a disco suit. We who lived through the 70’s just went about our normal life. There were quite a lot of things that ha

Tyranny of the Masses

  I was listening to Benjamin Netanyahu on the radio. He was justifying his change in the law that removed power from the Israeli Supreme Court, saying that it was the will of the people. Majority rules. This made me think of “Tyranny of the masses,” a concept that notes: just because a majority of people are for something, that doesn’t make it right. I am sure you can think of historical examples where the people of a country supported a policy that was demonstrably wrong. When everything is completely governed by majority rule, the rights of the minority can be subverted by the majority. The framers of our American Constitution knew this, and tried to put in some checks and balances into our system of government. This was to guard against all forms of tyranny whether from a dictator, or from tyranny of the masses. One of those checks is that we have a representative government. The people themselves don’t pass laws, but instead elect representatives at the federal and local level t