# 'That's what he/she/they/it said...'



## luckyscars (Jan 16, 2012)

I wanted to start a new post to discuss an area of prose writing I think get's generally overlooked  (or perhaps just underestimated) by many writers and especially those seeking to improve their own writing. The issue of dialogue. Or, more specifically, writing coherent, well executed and -above all- convincing dialogue.

To start, I would like to point out that I do not consider myself to be any kind of expert in this field, nor is this intended to be any kind of a tutorial. Actually quite the opposite. I use dialogue a lot but actually its the one aspect of my writing I worry about the most, mainly because it seems such a crucial area to 'get right' and yet, at the same time, one with so few 'rules' associated with it. So please treat this as merely a forum (or a forum within a forum) for those of us who might like to discuss the following fundamental questions when injecting the spoken word into your narrative:

- What aspects of a character are best expressed through dialogue, as opposed to through standard narrative? How might we express these aspects?
- What is the best way to illustrate emotion, volume and/or suspense in dialogue? For example, is the only way to give the impression of anger to write '...Jim said, angrily'? What are the functions of different verbs in dialogue attribution? Are '...Jim snarled', '...growled Jim', etc better than adverb use? What kinds of words/phrases could one use within the speech to portray a certain emotion, such as anger, without actually bearing it out in the rest of the writing?
- Is it possible for certain words and phrases to 'lose power' by heavy usage? Does a character who uses the F-Bomb every other word have the same impact as the same basic character who uses is just once or twice, or even never at all? 
- Can you write a short-story using ONLY dialogue? I recommend trying it, it's great practice!


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 16, 2012)

This ought to be an interesting discussion, since there are so many facets of dialogue and effective use of dialogue. So, to start 'er off:

For me, I don't use a lot of dialogue tags. I like using actions or gestures to illustrate emotions - slamming a fist into the wall, hand trembling, pacing back and forth - that sort of thing. Facial expressions, too, although those get complicated to describe with becoming cliché. Or _occasionally _showing the reaction of others to what's said ('surprised at his vehemence' type of thing), though I'm not fond of that. Swearing or foul language isn't uncommon in my dialogues, either, although those can be used to show a great number of emotions, not just anger or frustration, so that kind of goes back to the first two.

I definitely think that one has to be careful about over-using certain words or phrases. In other discussions about swearing, for example, I've maintained that just because real people use f*** every other word doesn't mean it works in fiction. Other phrases or indicators can be used to replace those words and still let the readers know that, yes, this character swears a lot. I also think characters can have 'pet phrases' or words, but one has to be careful not to abuse them either. Readers will learn to recognize the speaker via that pet phrase without being hit over the head with it.

Lastly, I think it's possible to write a dialogue-only short story - however, without beats, it would have to be very, very short to maintain interest. Otherwise, I think one would just be having the characters tell the reader what's going on, which is just as boring as the author telling constantly.


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 16, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> - Can you write a short-story using ONLY dialogue? I recommend trying it, it's great practice!



It's called a play.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 16, 2012)

qwertyman said:


> It's called a play.



i disagree. to me a play is formatted in a script form, almost always with some 'stage directions' and written for the purpose of performance.


----------



## justbishop (Jan 16, 2012)

"I suck at writing dialogue," she said with a sideways glance, as if hoping to be ignored.


----------



## qwertyman (Jan 16, 2012)

Well, yes the formatting would be different, that doesn't affect the contents. Stage directions? Okay, what about a radio play?

I wrote this as a radio play and a screenplay. This is the screenplay, (I've lost the radio play) but I think you could see how the stage directions could be dispensed with. Leaving a chapter heading, even that could be done away with if you wanted and establish the time of day and location in dialogue.

http://www.writingforums.com/script...nplay-anarchists-1500-words-bad-language.html


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 16, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> - What aspects of a character are best expressed through dialogue, as opposed to through standard narrative? How might we express these aspects?



Character interaction.  If you have to move the scene along through dialogue, that's fine, but it really shines as a literary tool when two or more people are holding a conversation.  Everyone has their own point of view, and the contrasting (and possible conflicting) dialogue among them can really reveal and develop who the characters are.



luckyscars said:


> - What is the best way to illustrate emotion, volume and/or suspense in dialogue? For example, is the only way to give the impression of anger to write '...Jim said, angrily'? What are the functions of different verbs in dialogue attribution? Are '...Jim snarled', '...growled Jim', etc better than adverb use? What kinds of words/phrases could one use within the speech to portray a certain emotion, such as anger, without actually bearing it out in the rest of the writing?



"Jim snarled" is almost always better than "Jim said angrily."  Never use a longer phrase when a shorter one will do, after all.  As far as using the spoken words to convey emotion, just listen to how people talk in real life.  When someone is angry, they're going to accentuate the negative.  When they're happy, just the opposite will happen.  Nervous people will struggle with their words, and somber people will speak slowly with lots of pauses.  Dialogue presentation is just as important as dialogue content.



luckyscars said:


> - Is it possible for certain words and phrases to 'lose power' by heavy usage? Does a character who uses the F-Bomb every other word have the same impact as the same basic character who uses is just once or twice, or even never at all?



Of course not, but that's the whole point.  It's just like how showing a normally happy person be upset is a lot more striking than showing a moody person with the same emotion.


----------



## aj47 (Jan 16, 2012)

Dialog is simple.  You put people in your head, listen to them, and write what they say.

Once I figured that out, it wasn't a struggle anymore.


----------



## Mystery (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm naturally charismatic and among other things have a silver tongue. I'm also a lier to the extent of prowess where I can detect other peoples lies(ever watched lie to me?). So when I want to write dialogue, I speak it out to an invisible/imagined audience and more often than not it comes out realistic and convincing. 

Lets go through your list.

For the first, whatever you want basically. Remember however that actions speak louder than words. It's not a matter of dialogue or narrative, it's a matter of showing a part of a character rather than saying it. For example, let's say I have a character likes a certain color. I'd rather repeatedly show his affection for that color in his choices/observations than say it through narrative.

Best way to illustrate emotion is by showing it, yet again. I could write "You've got to be joking, we went all this way for that fucking thing?" and leave it there, naturally you know the person is angry. I could also, however, add "Jake snarled, slamming his fist on the table, at the injustice of it all." this doesn't only now solidify his anger, but adds another level of depth to it. Nothing is removed because I showed his anger, and then went on to embelish it.

Also vocabulary is used for wealth of text and variation. Your question is odd, becausen naturally we are all programmed to know emotions by their natural reactions. No one snarls happily just like no one growls reassuringly. You can show emotions without giving it away, but thats an art of subtelty and practise.

Yes, repeated use of certain things tires them out.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 17, 2012)

> Best way to illustrate emotion is by showing it, yet again. I could write "You've got to be joking, we went all this way for that fucking thing?" and leave it there, naturally you know the person is angry. I could also, however, add "Jake snarled, slamming his fist on the table, at the injustice of it all."


When you place things after the event people have to adjust their 'headset' after the event as well, I would prefer,

Jake snarled, slamming his fist on the table, at the injustice of it all. "You've got to be joking, we went all this way for that f***ing thing?"

And please leave swear words out of posts.


----------



## Jon M (Jan 17, 2012)

> - What is the best way to illustrate emotion, volume and/or suspense in  dialogue? For example, is the only way to give the impression of anger  to write '...Jim said, angrily'? What are the functions of different  verbs in dialogue attribution? Are '...Jim snarled', '...growled Jim',  etc better than adverb use? What kinds of words/phrases could one use  within the speech to portray a certain emotion, such as anger, without  actually bearing it out in the rest of the writing?


Sometimes dialogue is just the moment when the pot boils over. Through much of the narrative, the author should be setting up a characters anger so that when he finally does speak, his anger is so obvious that there is no need for the kind of (atrocious) dialogue tags you mention. 

As for what kinds of words/phrases to use -- impossible to answer. This is all character-based, or should be. What one does or says should come from who they are. Maybe the character rubs his hands on his pantlegs when he's red in the face with anger. Maybe he does it over and over. Maybe because he likes the warm feeling of friction on his palms.


----------



## aj47 (Jan 18, 2012)

My mentor has an allergy to adverbs because "you shouldn't tell us, but show us"  

"I'm sick of this!" he said angrily, then hung up the phone.

vs.

"I'm sick of this!"  He slammed down the receiver.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 19, 2012)

Olly Buckle said:


> When you place things after the event people have to adjust their 'headset' after the event as well, I would prefer,
> 
> Jake snarled, slamming his fist on the table, at the injustice of it all. "You've got to be joking, we went all this way for that f***ing thing?"



i see your logic, but actually i don't find it makes much of a difference whether the action is before the dialogue or after. even if there is a difference in effect, both types of use may be equally useful in different ways. in my opinion whether one should begin with the dialogue or action depends on which has more impact, so the stronger should come first. so while 'Jake snarled, slamming his fist on the table, at the injustice of it all. "You've got to be joking, we went all this way for that f***ing thing?"' could be more powerful, in that a 'slamming' action probably has greater impact than the question that follows, what about a line such as ''Prepare to die,' said the Captain as he rubbed his hands together hungrily'. don't you think that order is more powerful than the one you advocate? 'The Captain rubbed his hands together hungrily. "Prepare to die," he said.'



> And please leave swear words out of posts.



Why?


----------



## The Backward OX (Jan 19, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> Why?



Easy answer: read the Rules of this site.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 19, 2012)

Ox is right, but in more detail. Please leave swear words out of posts, they are allowed in creative writing, where appropriate and with a warning, but we reckon ourselves a family friendly site. This means we are available in public institutions, like schools and hospitals where we used to be banned.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 19, 2012)

Olly Buckle said:


> Please leave swear words out of posts, they are allowed in creative writing, where appropriate and with a warning, but we reckon ourselves a family friendly site.



fair enough. i figured since Mystery was giving examples that would fall under the 'creative writing' loop-hole, but i guess since the thread doesn't come with the warning it falls short of the rules.

side note, family friendly or not, there seems to be a basic flaw with the idea of a writing forum restricting the use of any words, 'swear words' or otherwise. also, i have never known an institution of any kind that allows forums but restricts ones that have profanity in their content. most such institutions i have been in either allow forum access warts and all or block them completely. but, whatever.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 19, 2012)

> side note, family friendly or not, there seems to be a basic flaw with the idea of a writing forum restricting the use of any words, 'swear words' or otherwise.


 That is why we allow within the confines of creative writing, a warning, and a degree of appropriateness. We also ban fan fiction (Because of the potential legal problems) and pornography, there are other sites where anything goes and a total freedom policy is pursued, so no-one is totally barred from exhibiting their 'masterpiece', but, strangely, they don't do as well.


> i have never known an institution of any kind that allows forums but restricts ones that have profanity in their content.


 It certainly has come up, remember we are world wide so various standards are applied. I think we are still regarded by some institutions as "The Devil's spawn", you will never please everybody and it would be foolish to try. Personally I simply try to remember there may be children present and say what I might in my living room with company there.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 19, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> i see your logic, but actually i don't find it makes much of a difference whether the action is before the dialogue or after. even if there is a difference in effect, both types of use may be equally useful in different ways. in my opinion whether one should begin with the dialogue or action depends on which has more impact, so the stronger should come first. so while 'Jake snarled, slamming his fist on the table, at the injustice of it all. "You've got to be joking, we went all this way for that f***ing thing?"' could be more powerful, in that a 'slamming' action probably has greater impact than the question that follows, what about a line such as ''Prepare to die,' said the Captain as he rubbed his hands together hungrily'. don't you think that order is more powerful than the one you advocate? 'The Captain rubbed his hands together hungrily. "Prepare to die," he said.'
> 
> 
> 
> Why?



A brief excerpt from Dwight Swain's _Techniques of the Selling Writer:
_


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 19, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> - What aspects of a character are best expressed through dialogue, as opposed to through standard narrative? How might we express these aspects?


This is really dependent on your writing style.

My personal approach is if it can be dealt with in the narrative, I'll do so. If something the character says is unique, then I'll quote her. As a result I have mostly narrative, punctuated by fragments of dialogue.

I think it's important to remember that _dialogue_ is not the same as _conversation_. Conversation is real-life talking, dialogue is fiction writing. Dialogue should always serve a purpose, and if you can remove the dialogue without affecting the story, then, in my opinion, it's probably conversation that you've removed. If you can't remove it, then it's probably dialogue.



			
				luckyscars said:
			
		

> - What is the best way to illustrate emotion, volume and/or suspense in dialogue? For example, is the only way to give the impression of anger to write '...Jim said, angrily'? What are the functions of different verbs in dialogue attribution? Are '...Jim snarled', '...growled Jim', etc better than adverb use? What kinds of words/phrases could one use within the speech to portray a certain emotion, such as anger, without actually bearing it out in the rest of the writing?


My belief: show the actions, let the reader come to his own conclusions on the emotions.

Just like in a movie, if someone is angry, you don't see a big thought-bubble pop up that reads "This character is angry!" The audience understands the emotion through the behavior of the actor. Replace "actor" with "character" in this example, and "audience" with "reader". : )



			
				luckyscars said:
			
		

> - Is it possible for certain words and phrases to 'lose power' by heavy usage? Does a character who uses the F-Bomb every other word have the same impact as the same basic character who uses is just once or twice, or even never at all?


I'd imagine so, yes. Nowdays I try to avoid profanity unless there's no better word that would apply.



			
				luckyscars said:
			
		

> - Can you write a short-story using ONLY dialogue? I recommend trying it, it's great practice!


I can probably write a _scene_ using only dialogue.. but writing a full story? I don't think I'm competent enough to do so.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jan 19, 2012)

justbishop said:


> "I suck at writing dialogue," she said with a sideways glance, as if hoping to be ignored.



"I suck at writing dialogue," she said with a sideways glance, as if hoping to be contradicted.


----------



## justbishop (Jan 20, 2012)

No, really...I just posted as a creative way to subscribe so that I would remember to come back and read the thread as people posted. I can use all of the help I can get since realizing that i have all but completely overlooked dialogue in the first 7 chapters of what I'm working on, lol!


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 20, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> This is really dependent on your writing style.
> 
> My personal approach is if it can be dealt with in the narrative, I'll do so. If something the character says is unique, then I'll quote her. As a result I have mostly narrative, punctuated by fragments of dialogue.
> 
> ...



without seeing your work it is difficult to say, however i don't know if i necessarily agree with your assertion that action is far more effective at telling a story that conversation. for one thing, it depends on the character and situation, since dialogue is less effective in a scene where there would be less verbal interaction between characters (such as some kind of harrowing disaster) than in a scene where verbal interaction would be an essential part of the environment (such as a coffee shop). in my view, it would be very difficult to write dialogue between two well-understood and defined characters that did not serve any purpose, even if it just made the characters that little bit more lifelike and human. think about real life, how much of what you say actually 'serves a purpose'? often we talk because we're uncomfortable or upset or happy and often yes it is unnecessary and what we actually say is not 'unique', but i dont agree it should be overlooked on account of that. for instance, i am completely confident i could write a whole scene portraying unrequited love between two characters, in which the dialogue contains virtually nothing except discussing the price of oranges. in other words, it's not what you say, it's the way it's said.

again, without reading your work it is difficult to judge and it is absolutely possible that your narrative-with-fragmented-dialogue works very well. it really depends on your style and subject matter. however i use a LOT of dialogue in my work, mainly because i find it a more readable and interesting way to illustrate a character. to me, action AND dialogue are the best two ways to tell a story, and they are of equal importance. sometimes action is more important, sometimes dialogue is more important, but on balance they are both of equal weight. description, on the other hand, i find a generally tiresome and dated aspect of writing. if i'm going to take a lot of time to describe something, it better 1) be damn important to evoking time and place and 2) you better be describing it well. that's not to say i don't think such things are important, and there are some things in a story i think should always be described. the weather, for instance. you should always talk about the damn weather. but action and dialogue to me are the keys to a reader being drawn into a story and understanding a character


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 20, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> My belief: show the actions, let the reader come to his own conclusions on the emotions.
> 
> Just like in a movie, if someone is angry, you don't see a big thought-bubble pop up that reads "This character is angry!" The audience understands the emotion through the behavior of the actor. Replace "actor" with "character" in this example, and "audience" with "reader". : )



The major, major, major problem with this comparison is that film intrinsically uses the dialogue tags that so many writers hate.  It's NOT actions and situations that convey the emotion; it's the characters' voices! If someone is angry, they might say something as simple as "My name is Bob" in an angry tone.  And yet, if you put in your book, "'My name is Bob,' the man said angrily," you get told you're an atrocious writer.

The truth is, dialogue tags are crucial because without them, there's too much ambiguity.  Movies don't have this problem, but with books, everything is in the mind of the reader.  If you don't know a character's voice, what was intended to be angry could come off as annoyed or shocked or even excited.  The situation narrows it down somewhat, but different people react to things in different ways.  It's not at all uncommon for me to see a movie after reading a book and be surprised at the way the characters are acting and talking.  Dialogue tags, if used properly, can avoid this problem.


----------



## Jeko (Jan 20, 2012)

> My belief: show the actions, let the reader come to his own conclusions on the emotions.



I try to employ a balance of both 'show' and 'tell', but I often fail and use too much 'tell'. It might be because I talk a lot in real life. Does your actual style in life affect the way you write dialogue? I think it does, especially for me.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 20, 2012)

my view on writing that does not use, or under-uses, dialogue is not that they lack character but that they lack characters that the reader can care about. if i picture a story which is made up entirely of action and description (narrative) that's all very well but i think it would lack dimension if we don't know what they said as well as what they did. of course, you can have verbal interaction in a story through straight narrative, without actual dialogue. for instance, in the following example:

when john came back from the river he told ma that he'd caught something huge, but it had gotten away. ma told him angrily that would never have happened if his father had been there.

^ that works and there are some books that use it. one example i can think of of a great book that has very little dialogue is angela's ashes by mccourt. most of that book is sort of told through hearsay, and it works, mainly because it's a memoir. but in terms of general fiction i (and i think most readers) much prefer if the bulk of interaction between characters is brought to life in a less monotone fashion.

john came back from the river. 'ma,' he sobbed, 'it got away, the fish got away.' ma shook her head. in a low voice, she muttered, 'if only your father had been there.' she paused and shook her head again in despair. 'if only he had, john, it would never have happened that way.'


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 20, 2012)

I think telling is an important balancing point of writing, as it's just not prudent to show everything.  For example, I often use "Bob greeted Bill," instead of writing out the exchange.  You know why? Because the story is better for it.  Someone mentioned the distinction between conversation and dialogue, and greetings are conversation.  A lot of talking is conversation.  In those cases, it's better to summarize and leave literal exchanges for the dialogue.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 20, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> it really depends on your style and subject matter.


I agree! Every author has a unique writing style. If it accomplishes its goals, then the writing is effective.



			
				Gamer_2k4 said:
			
		

> The major, major, major problem with this comparison is that film intrinsically uses the dialogue tags that so many writers hate.  It's NOT actions and situations that convey the emotion; it's the characters' voices! If someone is angry, they might say something as simple as "My name is Bob" in an angry tone.  And yet, if you put in your book, "'My name is Bob,' the man said angrily," you get told you're an atrocious writer.


True! But in that situation, the more effective tags (in my opinion) would be to describe the character's voice and behavior, but not to explain that he's angry.

*"My name is Bob" in an angry tone
or
"My name is Bob," he said angrily.
*
Both, I agree, are not the best writing. I might write it like this:

*The man stood and pushed his chest forward. His face was flush with blood, and the muscles in his arms strained against his shirt sleeves. "My name," he said through his gritted teeth, "is Bob." He emphasized his name with a guttural rasp. The others in the room stepped back instinctively, aware that the conversation had suddenly taken a visceral turn.

*It's a whole lot more writing, that's for sure! But it avoids "telling" the reader how to interpret the actions, which is what I meant by my movie analogy.. You show it without explaining. I'm sure others could write better, but that's how I would do it.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 20, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I agree! Every author has a unique writing style. If it accomplishes its goals, then the writing is effective.
> 
> ...
> 
> It's a whole lot more writing, that's for sure! But it avoids "telling" the reader how to interpret the actions, which is what I meant by my movie analogy.. You show it without explaining. I'm sure others could write better, but that's how I would do it.



And here is where your first paragraph rings true.  Your example very definitely shows, but it's also very slow to read.  My own preference, and part of the reason why I support simply telling, is concise writing.  Give me character development and give me a decent plot; I don't need to know every single detail.  (Incidentally, that's also the reason I prefer movies to books; you can present all the information in your example in the blink of an eye.)

Showing and telling are simply tools for the author to use.  Lean too far in either direction and you'll ruin your story.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 20, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Your example very definitely shows, but it's also very slow to read.  My own preference, and part of the reason why I support simply telling, is concise writing.  Give me character development and give me a decent plot; I don't need to know every single detail.  (Incidentally, that's also the reason I prefer movies to books; you can present all the information in your example in the blink of an eye.)



I'm glad you brought this up.. It's an interesting segue.

One distinction I make: I feel concise writing is most appropriate in action sequences, and "slow showing" is appropriate when tension is required.

Personally, I try not to follow a "one size fits all" consistency of writing style. I instead try to tailor the writing to fit the specific needs of the scene.

If it's exciting, and intense, I'll use terse prose. If it's suspenseful and full of drama, I'll slow the pace with more detailed narration and/or description.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 20, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Personally, I try not to follow a "one size fits all" consistency of writing style. I instead try to tailor the writing to fit the specific needs of the scene.



I think that's the key with any facet of writing - make it fit whatever you're trying to achieve. Getting stuck in a rut, or taking advice to mean 'always do this' can kill even the best story.


----------



## Artdecovampire (Jan 22, 2012)

I find that dialogue works best when its not interrupted.  Steven King has some interesting things to say about it, in both his and almost all the how to books I have read, the general recommendation is to use as little as possible to enhance it, just the odd 'he said'.  Dialogue should stand alone and if its not needed to progress the story, leave it out.  Lots of writers make the mistake of trying to enhance it by imposing regional accents by clipping up the words. With English accents the use of regional specific words and sayings work, but shortening words just irritates the reader and misses the point. I particularly have a problem with southern middle class writers trying to create northern working class accents.  Its a bit like Russel Crowe trying to do a northern Nottinghamshire accent in Robin Hood.  I did laugh!


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 22, 2012)

Artdecovampire said:


> Lots of writers make the mistake of trying to enhance it by imposing regional accents by clipping up the words. With English accents the use of regional specific words and sayings work, but shortening words just irritates the reader and misses the point. I particularly have a problem with southern middle class writers trying to create northern working class accents.  Its a bit like Russel Crowe trying to do a northern Nottinghamshire accent in Robin Hood.  I did laugh!



yeah, 'accent enhancement' is one of my biggest pet-peeves when it comes to most pieces where its used. it's a difficult issue, because i do understand why writers attempt it - it's usually with the well-meant intention of making the dialogue 'seem realistic'. in fairness, it can work but ONLY when its done well. the problem is if it isn't done well it pretty well destroys the piece. a good example of a writer who could do it well was Mark Twain in Huckleberry Finn, etc. the main reason in works in that case was that twain understood the 'language' well enough to use it confidently. same goes for the way 'trainspotting' is written, but even that is bordering on the ridiculous at times. i'd say most writers should avoid it, unless 1) they know the language well enough and 2) they then take accent into consideration with ALL characters. one of the pieces i critiqued on recently on here broke the second rule by having one character's dialogue being accented while not doing the same for any of the other characters. that's plain lazy. everyone has SOME kind of accent or affectation on their speech and often a character will actually speak in several different registers depending on who they're talking to. that's important and if it is not taken into consideration than it affects the dialogue in a bad way. 

a good compromise i find is, rather than clipping the words to 'create' an accent, simply leave the format of the dialogue alone and instead look at expressing regional/class/language differences through the vocabulary used. for instance, part of my novel involves spanish speaking characters. i don't know much spanish at all, and i'm not about to do a cheech & chong impression by clipping the words, so instead i simply write their dialogue mostly in english, in 'better english' in fact than the english-speaking characters (to reflect the fact that they're speaking in spanish but its obviously translated for the purposes of the english-speaking reader's understanding), then occasionally using a spanish word that is easily understood through context to essentially remind the reader that these characters are conversing in spanish.

so, for example, a conversation between a french and an english character in english could be written as:

_"Well?" Joe asked, handing the bottle over. "What do you think? Think the body could be the catacombs west of the hotel?" The Inspector shrugged. 
"It could be," he said, nodding slowly. "Oui, Monsieur Deschamps, I think the body may well be there."_

^ in that example, the english is written in a very standard, non-regional manner and the french is sparing and easily understood by even the most novice of french speakers (like me). okay it's not victor hugo, but i find that kind of approach much more easily digestible than attempts to make the character 'sound' real. such an attempt could be written like this:

_"Well," Joe asked, handing the bottle over. "What'cha reckon mate? Yer reckon 'er body's been stashed 'neath the catacombs west of the 'otel, or what?" The inspector shrugged.
"Yees, I zink zo," he said, nodding slowly. "Oui, Monsieur Deschamps, I am thinking zer body eez there."_

the difference is, the first paragraph is subtle and easy to read while still informing the reader of the characters' respective backgrounds enough for the story to work. whereas the latter approach, 'real' as it may sound, would make me want to either laugh or tear my eyeballs out after a couple of paragraphs.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 22, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> the difference is, the first paragraph is subtle and easy to read while still informing the reader of the characters' respective backgrounds enough for the story to work. whereas the latter approach, 'real' as it may sound, would make me want to either laugh or tear my eyeballs out after a couple of paragraphs.




Obviously you passed on reading "Trainspotting", which was long-listed for the Booker Prize 

An actual quote from the novel:



			
				Trainspotting said:
			
		

> "That meant ah'd git hit fir f**kin back charges fi the shoap oan a video ah hudnae even goat a deek at."


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 22, 2012)

i did read it once, but its definitely not my thing. i can see why it got long-listed though, as an example of phonetic prose it isn't bad. mainly because Welsh was scottish and as such the language was virtually native to him. also it's an important work as a revival of scottish literature, for a long time the scots language had been pretty neglected (the only other scotch literature that i can think of before welsh was all the way back in robert burns' time). also it was, i believe, one of the first books to achieve mainstream success featuring heroin use as a major plot-theme. which is somewhat surprising considering it was only published in the 90's and how common drugs are in present-day writing. but i digress. the problem with trying to emulate dialogue employed by writers like Welsh is that you really have to know 'the language' first-hand to write it convincingly. i'm sure Welsh would not have been able to write Trainspotting in any other dialect and as such it's a limiting factor. also, as much as i hate to say it, it's 'been done'. i think writing using dialects to be more or less a fad, and a cyclical one, that was particularly popular in the latter half of the 20th century with the rise of post-modern, post-colonial literature, with writers like Benjamin Zephaniah (west indian/urban english),  Anthony Burgess (god knows how you'd categorize him) and others. again, it works if it's done well but is hardly much of a novelty these days. the only 'new' way i can imagine a novel being written in a 'dialect' would be if one was written entirely in text speak or something. i've yet to read one of those, and frankly i wouldn't want to.


----------



## kennyc (Jan 22, 2012)

And there is always "Riddley Walker" - Amazon.com: Riddley Walker, Expanded Edition (9780253212344): Russell Hoban: Books


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 22, 2012)

There's also Mark Twain. I love "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer" - but no way I would ever subject a reader to the dialects he did. There was a reason for it (I read why so long ago I've now forgotten :shame but I often think if he hadn't been such a great story-teller, dialects would've killed his chances LOL


----------



## Jon M (Jan 22, 2012)

luckyscars said:


> my view on writing that does not use, or under-uses, dialogue is not that they lack character but that they lack characters that the reader can care about. if i picture a story which is made up entirely of action and description (narrative) that's all very well but i think it would lack dimension if we don't know what they said as well as what they did. of course, you can have verbal interaction in a story through straight narrative, without actual dialogue. for instance, in the following example:
> 
> when john came back from the river he told ma that he'd caught something huge, but it had gotten away. ma told him angrily that would never have happened if his father had been there.
> 
> ...


Regarding summarized, or 'narrative dialogue', I've developed a preference for it lately. Not that either of the approaches you mention are right or wrong, it's just that the first example _sounds_ more pleasant to my ear. 

The second one stops, starts, stops, starts, and it's all very jarring to this gentle reader. Like a bunch of loud random noises.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 23, 2012)

johnM said:


> Regarding summarized, or 'narrative dialogue', I've developed a preference for it lately. Not that either of the approaches you mention are right or wrong, it's just that the first example _sounds_ more pleasant to my ear. .



haha, fair enough john. i like to think my point still stands and that i'm just incapable of actually creating a bad example though! seriously though, i guess it does very much depend on preference. the more i've chewed this debate over the more i've began to think that perhaps summarized dialogue isn't actually all that bad afterall. it's definitely smoother. i think a lot of what determines the correct use of summarized vs 'noisy' dialogue is probably what you're using it for. if the details contained within the piece of dialogue in question is not important enough to actually vocalize OR you intend for it to be intentionally understated i would say summarized dialogue is the place to go. for instance, there's no reason to write the following...

_She opened the door and the detective stepped in. "Hello, Mrs Andrews," said the detective. "My name is Banning, Kurt Banning. From the Skunk City Police Department." Mrs Andrews smiled. "Hello, Mr Banning" she replied, "could I get you a coffee?" The detective shook his head. "No, thank you ma'am," he replied. "I don't have very long here." Mrs Andrews frowned. "Are you sure?" She said. The detective nodded. "Quite sure," he replied. "if you don't mind, Mrs Andrews, I just need to use the bathroom. And then ask you a few questions."
_
such an interaction, if written at all, would indeed probably be better written as:
_
Mrs Andrews opened the door and the detective stepped in. He told her his name was Kurt Banning and he was from the Skunk City Police Department. She offered him a cup of coffee, but Banning declined. "If you don't mind, Mrs Andrews," he said, "I just need to use the bathroom. And then ask you a few questions."


_also, as i mentioned, summarized dialogue can be a good way to utilize the power of understatement. for instance, instead of writing about a divorce in the conventional, highly emotive way, as in below:

_"You never loved me, did you?" cried Peter as a tear ran down his cheek only to be lost in the cascade of the rain. Jackie hung his head mournfully. "That's not true, baby," she muttered, smearing the water from her forehead. "I did love you once. But things changed. You changed. You started drinkin', and then I met Harold. And he ain't like that." Peter shook his head angrily. "I didn't change!" He screeched, his hand striking the air in front of his face in rage. "Please," he sobbed, "don't leave." She sighed and picked up her bag. "I've got to go," she told him. "He'll be home very soon. Good-bye." She walked away, leaving him there with tears running down his face._

One could try writing the same scene this way.

_Peter asked her if she'd ever loved him. Jackie said she did love him, once, but that he'd changed when he'd started drinking and that then she'd met Harold, who never drank. Peter began to cry. He begged her not to leave. Jackie sighed. She told him she had to. She told him Harold would be home soon. Picking up her bag, she said good-bye. Peter sobbed to himself while he watched her leave, standing alone in the rain._

so yes, i stand somewhat corrected. my main point is not that narrative dialogue is bad at all, but that often it makes some writers a little lazy. if given the choice i'd rather have too much dialogue than too little because if there isn't enough then you get wooden, unsympathetic and underdeveloped characters. a happy median is the key, where the essentials (dialogue or otherwise) are kept in but the unnecessary stripped away.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 23, 2012)

Concerning dialects, I just solve the problem by simply mentioning the accent.  A literal quote from my book is, "...and he spoke to them with a thick Slavic accent."  I don't know how accents go.  I'd recognize them, but I sure can't imitate them, so why bother?

I do something similar when someone speaks a different language.  It only happened once in my book, so I just stuck a translator in there, implied that foreigner was speaking, and had the translator say what actually needed to be said.  I personally don't care for the "speak English but with native words thrown in" approach, so I avoid the issue altogether.


----------

