# The Horrifying Terror That Is The First Sentence



## ziodice (Nov 21, 2014)

Disregarding any sort of prologue, what in the world is one to use as a first sentence? The real question here, I feel, is the goal of your first sentence - is the first sentence to hook the reader, or to set the pacing, or are you simply going to jump right in to what's happening? Are there rules for your first sentence? Must you start with a monologue, a dialogue, a statement, an action, etc? The first sentence of my latest writing is as follows:

"You're an idiot," she says with an angry look and a pouted lip.

I'm not sure if I actually like it. It seemed nice writing it, but rereading it something feels off.
One of my earlier attempts had begun with:

I knew the conversation was beginning to go downhill when my girlfriend called me an idiot for the third time in as many sentences.

Is this better? It establishes two characters, the narrative style, the mood of the scene. I keep switching back and forth between them and trying to figure out which one feels better, and it brings me to wonder how you're supposed to start a story. I have a similar dilemma almost every time I begin an attempt at writing. Is the first sentence far less important than I believe it is? Am I tricking myself, thinking too hard?
Thoughts?


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Nov 21, 2014)

Of course you are thinking too much. We all do it from time to time.

Here's the thing...the only way to find out which _first_ sentence works best is to write the *second *and third and fourth (and so on and so forth) sentences. Writing a bit more will give you a better idea of which narrative voice the story wants to use. Whether it will be dialogue heavy or more descriptive. Any number of things that simply cannot be determined by one single sentence.

The first sentence in my novel (not including the prologue) is "Brian Radik was having the best day of his life." 

That's it. I didn't use it as a way to "hook" the reader. I'm not really sure how it would since they know nothing about him at that point. All I knew when I started was that it was a good a way to start the book as any.


----------



## J Anfinson (Nov 21, 2014)

While the opening hook may be important, it's not necessary that you get it right on the first try. Start writing wherever you feel it's natural for the story to start and you can change the opening to whatever it needs to be later. It's very rare that the first words I write end up being that opening. I have to play around a lot to find the right spot and the right words.


----------



## Deafmute (Nov 21, 2014)

I think these opening sentences are fine for the most part. I might change the first one to be a little more succinct though. 

"You're an idiot." she said. 

That is a great opening sentence. Then in your second sentence describe how she said it, what her expression was and so on and so forth. The one you have posted feels too long. First off Angry is a rather bland descriptive word, I would try to avoid using it unless your trying to move quickly and more and better descriptive words would take away from the pacing. Here you are just starting and using bland descriptive words especially in the first sentence just is not how you want to start things. 

The second example is great until the last four words. Its decent writing, but its a bit to disjointed and confusing for an opening sentence. its unneeded complexity.


----------



## John Galt (Nov 22, 2014)

I usually go with something that establishes the tone of the book. 
I think it's best to write the book first, then edit the first paragraph during the editing process.


----------



## popsprocket (Nov 22, 2014)

You'll know a good first sentence when you write it. If your instinct says "Damn that's good." then run with it.

And there are plenty of ways to make a good first sentence. It doesn't _have_ to be a hook, but it really should be. You have one sentence to get me to read the first paragraph, one paragraph to get me to read the whole page, and one page to get me to read the whole chapter.


----------



## InspektorF (Nov 22, 2014)

Sometimes it's best to just write and not worry if that first sentence or paragraph the big hook everyone says you have to have right away.  I think most folks will read beyond the first few lines to see if something interests them.  If you get stuck trying to get that "perfect" first line or paragraph, you may well not get anything else done.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 22, 2014)

The purpose of the first sentence, primarily, is to make the reader read the second. So Bowman is correct; you won't know how to follow on to the rest of your novel until you've written the rest of your novel. A good hook that's out of place won't work; you need to get the reader interested in what they need to be interested in for the story to be successful.


----------



## Nemesis (Nov 22, 2014)

When I was in high school, my english teacher gave of this list of ways you "should NEVER start the first sentence".

I don't recall any of it except that one way to not start is "It", which she then added "unless you are Charles Dickens, which none of you are".

XDXDXD


----------



## Sam (Nov 22, 2014)

Horrifying terror? 

Do you not imagine that's rather hyperbolic? 

I've heard of people tearing their hair out over opening sentences, but I've never heard of someone being reduced to a whimpering mess over one. They're not even that hard, all things being equal, because all you're doing is making a reader want to know what happens next. If you can't make a reader want to know what happens next, you've got more problems than an opening sentence. 

What you need is a hook. A hook, contrary to what some people believe, does not have to involve any kind of action, conflict, or danger. The opening line of my current horror novel begins: "Valentine McKay would later come to realise that he picked the worst day in history to sleep in". That's a hook. No conflict, no action, no danger, just a line that makes a reader wonder why it was the worst day in history. 

What you have above is a hook. That being said, I prefer the prose over the dialogue, but both work equally well to hook the reader. I'd lose the "angry look and pouted lip" part. When you call someone an idiot, chances are you're angry and glaring at them. Don't hold your reader's hand. 

And stop convincing yourself that opening lines are things to be terrified of. That's not going to help your cause either.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Nov 22, 2014)

I love first sentences as a hook myself. You certainly want your first paragraph as a hook in general. I do agree with the others though in that it has to make sense in the context of the story


----------



## popsprocket (Nov 22, 2014)

I also want to say don't try too hard. I've seen (even in published books - Malazan comes to mind) books where the first sentence/starting bits are way overworked. That's obviously a symptom of them being written first and getting more attention than other areas of the book. A first sentence should be a hook and it should be witty/scary/funny/intense/whatever the tone of your book is but it shouldn't read like it was contrived to be the _exact_ words needed solely to get a reader to look at the next line. It needs to fit, in other words.


----------



## bazz cargo (Nov 22, 2014)

Okay, I have had a trawl through my memory.
1/ Don't start with weather
2/ Don't start with a name
3/ Don't start with dialogue
4/ (My own rule) Bugger the rules

Some-things I have found useful in first paragraphs: Irony, sarcasm, mockery and brevity.

I recommend not spending good productive time on worrying, it will come to you partway through the editing process.

Good luck
BC


----------



## Nemesis (Nov 22, 2014)

bazz cargo said:


> Okay, I have had a trawl through my memory.
> 1/ Don't start with weather
> 2/ Don't start with a name
> 3/ Don't start with dialogue
> 4/ (My own rule) Bugger the rules



Everytime I start a sentence with "It" I smile to myself and hope she can feel it, wherever she is XD


----------



## dale (Nov 22, 2014)

i find the 1st sentence easy. really, i find the 1st few paragraphs easy. i like my beginnings and i like my endings. they come fast, natural
and creative. it's the inbetweens i have more of a problem with.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 22, 2014)

I wouldn't say I sweat bullets over the first sentence (though it's sometimes close), but I generally spend more time on the first paragraph than I do any other individual part of the story. I can't move forward until that first sentence/paragraph are 'right' (note - that doesn't mean 'perfect'). The first sentence/paragraph sets up the tone for the rest of the story and gets me in the frame of mind needed for that kind of story (and yes, I think it does the same for readers); without that, I may spend hours meandering, knowing that something is off but not knowing what. I could no more write the whole story and _then _fix the opening than I could take a road trip and then get a steering wheel.


----------



## bazz cargo (Nov 22, 2014)

Hi Shads, I find my first  and best lines turn up during that stage between sleep and getting my first cuppa.:coffee:


----------



## InstituteMan (Nov 22, 2014)

We have a rather entertaining hook writing thread here.

I have found that great hooks can make for bad stories, and vice versa. My usual practice is to finish the story and, if it is good, come back and write the opening again (a point on which we have near unanimity).


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 22, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> (a point on which we have near unanimity).



Which is kind of meaningless in one thread on one forum.  (See outliner/pantser, edit-as-you-go/edit when finished, etc etc etc)


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 22, 2014)

I like opening lines that either:



*demonstrate an engaging narrative **voice*;
*show a character in action*; or
*promise compelling conflict to come*.

Examples of each:

*"Engaging Narrative Voice" Opener*: If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. — _The Catcher in the Rye_ by J.D. Salinger

*"Character in Action" Opener*: The boy with fair hair lowered himself down the last few feet of rock and began to pick his way towards the lagoon. — _Lord of the Flies_ by William Golding

*"Promise of Conflict to Come" Opener*: The terror, which would not end for another 28 years—if it ever did end—began, so far as I know or can tell, with a boat made from a sheet of newspaper floating down a gutter swollen with rain. — _It_ by Stephen King

:encouragement:


----------



## Riis Marshall (Nov 22, 2014)

Hello Ziodice

Ditto everything that's been said here and thanks for starting a great - and helpful - thread.

In my judgement one of the great openings ever is the first two paragraphs of Robert Penn Warren's _All the King's Men_. In those two paragraphs he creates a metaphor that encapsulates his entire story. If you're not familiar with this work you can check it out on Amazon and read the first few pages with 'Look Inside' without having to buy it (I must warn you, if you haven't read it, it was published in 1946 and the language he uses is likely to be offensive - not politically correct in the extreme, certainly by any reasonable standards).

When I start a novel I spend a great deal of time, perhaps as much as two weeks trying to come up with the first couple of paragraphs that will do for me what Warren did in this work - maybe someday I'll succeed. Two weeks might seem like a long time but if you plan to spend nine to fifteen months or more on a major work, a couple more weeks won't make that much difference.

In answer to your post, I don't think so much about the first sentence as I do these first few paragraphs.

Later, as the work progresses, as several here have suggested, that first sentence will come to you.

And certainly, as I have mentioned in other of my posts, this new-fangled 'cut and paste' thingy is really useful. Set yourself up a 'Notes' file and keep it open while you're working on your project. Maybe a dozen potential opening sentences - or even entire opening paragraphs - will come to you over time. Stick them in your 'Notes' file and get on with it. Sooner or later you'll come up with one you're happy with.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## bookmasta (Nov 22, 2014)

Openings have never been much of a problem for me. Most of the time the strongest parts of my novels are the first chapters.


----------



## InstituteMan (Nov 22, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Which is kind of meaningless in one thread on one forum.  (See outliner/pantser, edit-as-you-go/edit when finished, etc etc etc)



Wait! You mean there are pantsers among us? Noooooooo . . .

I kid. Some are my best friends pants. I've even been known to pants once or twice myself, but I didn't inhale.

On the topic of the near unanimity about openings being ripe for re-writing after finishing a story, given the pages of totally *not* argumentative but still rather spirited discussions we have had on topics like pantsing vs outlining, I think anything we all agree on is probably correct.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 22, 2014)

You have a choice of two beginnings, one which feels off and one which "establishes two characters, the narrative style, the mood of the scene." Tough choice?

Since you thought the second one had a problem, you might want to combine the two. Start with one of the actual three sentences as dialog, then do your narrative.

And like everyone said, you can write the book first. (We are all worried that you are obsessing over your first sentence _instead_ of writing your book.)


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 22, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> I think anything we all agree on is probably correct.



Just pointing out that we _didn't _all agree on this waiting until the end and then rewriting the beginning. I never have and probably never will.


----------



## InstituteMan (Nov 22, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Just pointing out that we _didn't _all agree on this waiting until the end and then rewriting the beginning. I never have and probably never will.



Fair enough! Still, I vote for deferring a nonurgent problem. Not that there's a vote. We all get to be dictators for our own work.


----------



## Apex (Nov 22, 2014)

popsprocket said:


> You'll know a good first sentence when you write it. If your instinct says "Damn that's good." then run with it.
> 
> And there are plenty of ways to make a good first sentence. It doesn't _have_ to be a hook, but it really should be. You have one sentence to get me to read the first paragraph, one paragraph to get me to read the whole page, and one page to get me to read the whole chapter.



DITTO.


----------



## K.S. Crooks (Nov 22, 2014)

I don't put a lot of stock into making a big deal over the opening sentence. In all the books I have read there are only two that I remember, "Once there were four children whose names were Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy." and "Call me Ishmael." I think you need a paragraph to begin to set the scene. I like your first version of your opening sentence better. It tells me the relationship of the two people and better sets the tone for the beginning of your story. I totally want to know what he did or said to irritate his girlfriend.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 22, 2014)

ziodice said:


> Disregarding any sort of prologue, what in the world is one to use as a first sentence?



The best sentence.



> The real question here, I feel, is the goal of your first sentence - is the first sentence to hook the reader, or to set the pacing, or are you simply going to jump right in to what's happening? Are there rules for your first sentence? Must you start with a monologue, a dialogue, a statement, an action, etc? The first sentence of my latest writing is as follows:



The goal of the first sentence is always to "hook" your Reader. In fact, the goal of every sentence you write is to keep your Reader reading. You can not keep your Reader reading if you ignore this goal.

But, that doesn't mean you can't use the first few sentences to accomplish that instead of only the first one. 



> "You're an idiot," she says with an angry look and a pouted lip.
> 
> I'm not sure if I actually like it. It seemed nice writing it, but rereading it something feels off.



What's wrong with that?

It's a point of conflict, obviously, and that's attractive. Conflict immediately demands attention. There's absolutely nothing wrong with telegraphing an on-going conflict in your first sentence. In fact, you have the benefit of "conflict" and "in medias res" going for you, there.



> One of my earlier attempts had begun with:
> 
> I knew the conversation was beginning to go downhill when my girlfriend called me an idiot for the third time in as many sentences.



That's not bad, either. But, remember the "Golden Rule?" You know, the "Show, don't Tell" rule? Isn't it better to put the Reader right into the middle of the action instead of just telling them about it?



> Is this better? It establishes two characters, the narrative style, the mood of the scene. I keep switching back and forth between them and trying to figure out which one feels better, and it brings me to wonder how you're supposed to start a story. I have a similar dilemma almost every time I begin an attempt at writing. Is the first sentence far less important than I believe it is? Am I tricking myself, thinking too hard?
> Thoughts?



All it does differently is to start with building up your narrator/character. There is really no other benefit for using it. If you want the focus to be on the narrator/perspective character, then start with that sentence. If you'd rather the focus start on the "Action" in the scene, then use the former sentence.

Yes, you are "tricking yourself." The first choice was the better choice. While the latter only offers to build up a sort of snarky main character. With it, you can only judge its value after you've written the rest of the passage. It's possible that it could actually be the better choice. However, I can not judge that solely from you have written, here. If I am forced to judge, I would have to say that, given what you have presented, the first opening was the better opening.

Keep this rule in mind - Keep the Reader reading. That is what you must do. That is your sole reason for writing. If nobody reads what you wrote or you don't wish them to, you don't have to bother with agonizing over such choices. But, if you want people to read your work long enough to experience what you want them to experience, you _must_ keep them Reading. Write with that goal in mind, from your first sentence to the last.


----------



## TKent (Nov 22, 2014)

Is this for a short story or a novel?  If for a novel, where are you at in the 1st draft?  I ask this because, I just finished a 6 week novel writing class at Emory Writing Studio, and the instructor said that so many first-time novel writers never get past the 1st chapter. But they write some of the most amazing first chapters because they spend years tweaking it to death. She strongly suggests that you don't pick your 1st draft to death. Get it out there because you don't completely know your story until it is written. If you spend weeks or even months agonizing over that first sentence, first scene, first chapter, you may never get the story out. She'd written several novels and said that they changed a great deal from 1st draft to final product and the first sentence she wrote initally didn't always make sense on the final product. But obviously, there is no one right way to do it, different writers will have different approaches. But I do NOT want to be a one-chapter wonder personally. So I've forced myself to move on. When I finish, I'll go back and agonize over perfecting the work.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 23, 2014)

I think we need to put some boundaries on this. Are we talking about a few hours to a few days, or are we talking about weeks and months? If the former, it might be wise to remember that writing is not a race - nothing wrong in taking some time to get things the way you want them. If we're talking the latter, then yeah, one needs to break free of anality and get to the rest of the story. No story, no chapter, no paragraph, no sentence will ever be perfect. If editing/revising of any part of the story is not allowing you to progress _at a reasonable pace_, it's a problem. If the story is proceeding, even if more slowly than for some other writer, not a problem.


----------



## voltigeur (Nov 23, 2014)

I read an explanation of this in a book from James Thayer. He described the role of the first sentence is to cause immediate discomfort on the part of the reader. 

His example and (I use this visualization): Picture someone just before bed on a winter’s night. They are in their flannel pajamas, wrapped a soft fleece blanket around them. Take a sip of their hot chocolate and open your book.  As an author at this point is your job is _to yank that person out of that comfort zone. _

Your first example does just that. It creates tension immediately.  Based on how you follow that up you can continue to build that discomfort and suck your reader into the lives of your characters. 

The other thing that I like about the first line is you are showing the relations ship and the problem that characters need to solve not telling us. 

I try to remember this anytime I start a scene for my WIP.  I don’t worry too much about a first sentence (I still make them as strong as I can.) I worry more about getting the reader feeling like they are inside the story.  I don’t’ claim to always do that well but that is always my goal. 

Anyway I am learning to, I hope this helps.


----------



## Apex (Nov 23, 2014)

Most new writers are learning as they write. Does anybody think it might be better to learn how to write before they spend month, or years on a book?


----------



## TKent (Nov 23, 2014)

The learning process for me is in writing and practicing the stuff I'm reading about. So might as well write a book as anything else. I expect by the end I'll be a much better writer so I can take that and use it in the revision process. Or maybe it will be so bad, I'll move on and write another book altogether.


----------



## Pluralized (Nov 23, 2014)

I think there are many people who'll spend their entire lives preparing in hopes they'll one day actually do the thing (whether writing or whatever pastime) and then keel over with nothing to show for all that preparatory effort. 

Sometimes the solution really is, just get over yourself and write some stuff. The first sentence, as I see it, is a placeholder until I've completed something and can spend time thinking about it in the editing stage. It's like never building a house because you have to scrape the earth clear of rocks. Get to scrapin' because you only go around once and it's short and there's rain coming.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Nov 23, 2014)

I started two books while trying to figure it out out. I did figure it out when I started on my third book. As they say, third time is a charm. It's the first book I've completed. And, yes it is a very good feeling. :sunny:

I guess what I'm saying is you learn as you write


----------



## Apex (Nov 23, 2014)

TKent said:


> The learning process for me is in writing and practicing the stuff I'm reading about. So might as well write a book as anything else. I expect by the end I'll be a much better writer so I can take that and use it in the revision process. Or maybe it will be so bad, I'll move on and write another book altogether.



There is a diference in learning as you go, verses learning first. One big point is the time spent. 

Your quote has a 63 word count. 

If you spent the time learning first, you would be able to cut the WC of your quote to 23 words...better for the reader. Don't you think?


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Nov 23, 2014)

Apex said:


> There is a diference in learning as you go, verses learning first. One big point is the time spent.
> 
> Your quote has a 63 word count.
> 
> If you spent the time learning first, you would be able to cut the WC of your quate to 23 words...better for the reader. Don't you think?




Er, so we're now supposed to edit our posts?

EDIT: Your post is 53 words. Does that mean you have a lot to learn too?


----------



## Apex (Nov 23, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> Er, so we're now supposed to edit our posts?
> 
> EDIT: Your post is 53 words. Does that mean you have a lot to learn too?



I have found (for me) to edit my post helps my writing. It gets to be second nature. I do it with all I write…even a letter to a friend.


----------



## TKent (Nov 23, 2014)

I admire that. I am sure it would be a good exercise for me as well, but I haven't made that leap as yet. 



Apex said:


> I have found (for me) to edit my post helps my writing. It gets to be second nature. I do it with all I write…even a letter to a friend.


----------



## Apex (Nov 23, 2014)

TKent said:


> I admire that. I am sure it would be a good exercise for me as well, but I haven't made that leap as yet.



I read a best seller from page one to the end. I then go through the book and edit. It is like playing chess. Play with the best, and you become better. Play a weaker player, and you become weak. 
I take all parts of writing apart...even the title. I spent one month on what makes a good title? I started listing the titles of best selling books...here is what I found; Most are metaphors.
I had five books written, edited, and ready to submit to an agent...not one of my titles was a metaphor!  I used to think editing was work...finding a good metaphor is new ball game.


----------



## TKent (Nov 23, 2014)

Smart thinking. I enjoy going back to books I loved before I became interested in writing and analyzing the heck out of them. Some of them hold up because they are crafted really well, and others I realize I am still impressed with the story but the writing itself doesn't quite hold up. So I love that you have analyzed the titles as well. I will have to give that thought if I ever get to the point I need more than a working title. *fingers crossed*



Apex said:


> I read a best seller from page one to the end. I then go through the book and edit. It is like playing chess. Play with the best, and you become better. Play a weaker player, and you become weak.
> I take all parts of writing apart...even the title. I spent one month on what makes a good title? I started listing the titles of best selling books...here is what I found; Most are metaphors.
> I had five books written, edited, and ready to submit to an agent...not one of my titles was a metaphor!  I used to think editing was work...finding a good metaphor is new ball game.


----------



## hvysmker (Nov 23, 2014)

My most memorable first line was:


*"Gladys gave a last mighty grunt, depositing a glob of mucous out of her butt."
*
Gladys was a wasp laying eggs, he-he-gigglesnort.

Charlie.


----------



## Apex (Nov 23, 2014)

TKent said:


> Smart thinking. I enjoy going back to books I loved before I became interested in writing and analyzing the heck out of them. Some of them hold up because they are crafted really well, and others I realize I am still impressed with the story but the writing itself doesn't quite hold up. So I love that you have analyzed the titles as well. I will have to give that thought if I ever get to the point I need more than a working title. *fingers crossed*



Hemingway came up with several names for a book. Here are two:
"Italian Chronicle," and "They who got shot." His wife came up with a better name (she was not a writer.)  _A Farewell to Arms. _It seems even the best writers have problems.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 23, 2014)

I don't sit down and analyze any books I read. Mainly because each book will have something unique that makes it a best-seller or just a damn good read. It could be as capricious as coming out at the beginning of a new 'phenomena' (ie, zombies). Sometimes they succeed despite problems. There is no formula for success. You just have to write and write and try to put out the best story you can. I definitely wouldn't try to learn how to write from how-to books, or even books about writing from successful authors - you won't know which of the contradictory advice will work for you until you've done some writing of your own. Everything you need to start writing you'll learn in high school. JMO, of course. 

Note: Cutting a post from 63 words to 23 words doesn't mean the post is better - just shorter.


----------



## bazz cargo (Nov 23, 2014)

I love 'How To Books,' sadly they don't do my blood pressure any good.

Enny way, there is enough answers here to keep even the most dedicated pedant spinning. It is nice to know I'm not the only anally retentive mug having a go at writing.:lone:


----------



## Apex (Nov 23, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> I don't sit down and analyze any books I read. Mainly because each book will have something unique that makes it a best-seller or just a damn good read. It could be as capricious as coming out at the beginning of a new 'phenomena' (ie, zombies). Sometimes they succeed despite problems. There is no formula for success. You just have to write and write and try to put out the best story you can. I definitely wouldn't try to learn how to write from how-to books, or even books about writing from successful authors - you won't know which of the contradictory advice will work for you until you've done some writing of your own. Everything you need to start writing you'll learn in high school. JMO, of course.
> 
> Note: Cutting a post from 63 words to 23 words doesn't mean the post is better - just shorter.



There are many paths to becoming a good writer. As for me, I'm not one to re-invent the wheel. Number two spot is always safe.
There was a time when BMW was number two. They stayed in that position for many years. Their reason being: "Number one was always replaced." When BMW moved to number one, the fell way behind. They are now back on track as number two.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Nov 23, 2014)

Apex said:


> Most new writers are learning as they write. Does anybody think it might be better to learn how to write before they spend month, or years on a book?



I can read a hundred books on the art of hitting a golf ball. I can read thousands of tips from the pros.

Exactly NONE of that will do me a doggone bit of good until I actually go to the driving range and try to hit the ball.

Writing may not be exactly the same, but it is in at least one respect.

You have to DO it to get better at it.


----------



## ziodice (Nov 23, 2014)

Thank you all for your advice, it was pretty helpful. In case anyone was curious, I actually turned what was initially going to be the beginning of my first chapter into a prologue of sorts, and I wrote the rest of it. Repeatedly, in fact. I'm falling into a similar such trap with...well, the entire prologue. It started out pretentious, and I've been spending the last period of time trying to recraft it into sounding like a monologue of an actual person in their late teens, if a particularly intelligent one. I've decided though, that if I'm not done with it by tomorrow night I'm simply going to move on to a different chapter/scene/whatever. I mean I can't very well make a novel out of a single well crafted page now can I?


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 23, 2014)

Apex said:


> There are many paths to becoming a good writer. As for me, I'm not one to re-invent the wheel. Number two spot is always safe.



I've rarely done anything the 'safe' way. Life's too short for that.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 23, 2014)

I like to complete the machine—and see how it functions—before I begin tinkering with the parts. :encouragement:


----------



## Sam (Nov 23, 2014)

Apex said:


> Most new writers are learning as they write. Does anybody think it might be better to learn how to write before they spend month, or years on a book?



I'll take the guy who's spent years actually writing, over the one who's spent years with their nose in a book.


----------



## Plasticweld (Nov 23, 2014)

Personally I would rather learn to fly at the controls than be a passenger in a plane.  It is one thing to observe a mistake verses making it yourself.  I consider myself an expert at making mistakes as a writer... it doesn't hurt...really!


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 23, 2014)

Just a note:

While "practice" is often the best instructor, learning from those who are good instructors and who have written books with that purpose in mind isn't inherently "wrong." The purposeful application of knowledge teaches skill, but simple purposeful "application" of _any_ knowledge, whatsoever, or even with a lack of knowledge, doesn't necessarily teach anything.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 24, 2014)

I believe the path to excellence in any craft has three distinct steps:

1. Study the craft.
2. Practice the craft.
3. Teach the craft.

I don't view it as a linear path, either. To me, it's a circular one. 

Always be studying. Always be practicing. Always be teaching what you've learned. :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 24, 2014)

The problem with studying the craft - other than basic writing skills - is that there is soooo much conflicting advice out there. And it really is just advice. There is no book, no blog, no article, no author, no teacher, who can tell another writer how to write their book. They can teach the basics of composition, sure. How to write a basic, grammatically correct sentence, how to spell words, how to use a dictionary and a thesaurus. If they're decent, they can even teach you how to do accurate research. But once the basics are learned, only writing is going to tell you what advice, methods, or suggestions _could _work for you, and how to tweak that advice so it _does _work for you. Only by writing will you discover what you're good at, what you have trouble with, what sort of writer you are. I've been working at a lot of jobs for the last 45 years, and it's always the same: Someone teaches you the basics, and then you listen to how this one and that one does it, and you choose the things that sound good, and adapt those things to fit your individual work methods. A writer has to learn who they _are _as a writer before they know who they _want _to be. 

Writers (and not always new ones) keep thinking there's some magic formula that, if they follow it, will lead to success. There isn't. There's opening oneself up to experimenting and trying new ideas, but in the end, YOU are the only one who can figure out how to write your book the best way it can be written. When people say writing is a solitary experience, they're not kidding. They really aren't.


----------



## Sam (Nov 24, 2014)

I teach creative writing classes every week, and one of the first things I tell my students is that everything I say to them is opinion and not fact. They are the ultimate arbiters. No matter how much advice I give them, they are the ones who will have to go and either put it into work or discard it because it doesn't work [for them]. 

This, in and of itself, is the main problem -- as I see it -- with how-to books. When it's all said and done, the person reading is the one who has to go and write a story or novel based on what works for _someone else_. There is no guarantee it will work for you. That's why I think spending two hours writing is ten times more useful than spending two hours reading about how to write. Only you can tell yourself how to write. No one else can -- not in a way that will guarantee success _for you. _


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 24, 2014)

Studying, in my opinion, isn't something that has to be limited to instructional books or advice. To me, it's much more than that. It's about immersing oneself in the craft itself, not just physically, but mentally as well. 

Analyzing successful stories, recognizing what makes them work, figuring out how to apply what you've learned to your own writing, creating your own definitions of good writing and bad.

Bruce Lee didn't create _Jeet Kune Do_ from practice alone. He studied fencing, he studied boxing, he studied wrestling. He took notes. He made diagrams. He saw the value of knowledge and mined it like a precious resource.

In my opinion, the best way to excel is to not just be a participant of the craft—but to be a student of it, as well.

Writers have been crafting dramatic fiction for thousands of years. Over the centuries, they've discovered a lot about the art of storytelling. Some of these insights may have even taken whole lifetimes to achieve. Many of the writers who stood out along the way (Shakespeare, for instance, just to name a single one) did so by learning from the insights of the past, by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Is practice important? Absolutely. I totally agree with everyone here who emphasizes the importance of learning through doing. Writing is a necessity if you want to be a writer.

But don't undervalue the benefits of study, either. In my opinion, fiction wouldn't be where it is today without it. :encouragement:


----------



## Apex (Nov 24, 2014)

I have read some very good writing on this forum, Could it be better? Maybe.  Is the key to good writing to just start writing, or study?
Lets examine dialogue: You sit and listen to people talking. Is that the type dialogue that is good? Is that how you should write it? Or is the dialogue used by writers different?
Are there key points to writing good dialogue, or perhaps if a new writer just starts writing, some how they will stumble across key points that will make their dialogue sound real?
Is there good, and not so good dialogue? What do Agents, and Publishers look for?


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Nov 24, 2014)

Couldn't you just both write and study?


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 24, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> But don't undervalue the benefits of study, either. In my opinion, fiction wouldn't be where it is today without it. :encouragement:



I'm not saying one shouldn't study writing, or even read some of these how-to books - the problem for me is _when _to do it. How many times have we heard the [supposed] advice of Steinbeck about that first draft, and how many new writers are actually surprised and skeptical to learn that it doesn't have to be shit, that one is not doing something wrong if they edit as they go? How many new writers think this is some sort of rule and end up with a hot mess that they eventually just toss, overwhelmed at the editing/revising? Studying certainly didn't help those writers, because they didn't know enough about themselves to know what to discard.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 24, 2014)

Apex said:


> I have read some very good writing on this forum, Could it be better? Maybe.  Is the key to good writing to just start writing, or study?
> Lets examine dialogue: You sit and listen to people talking. Is that the type dialogue that is good? Is that how you should write it? Or is the dialogue used by writers different?
> Are there key points to writing good dialogue, or perhaps if a new writer just starts writing, some how they will stumble across key points that will make their dialogue sound real?
> Is there good, and not so good dialogue? What do Agents, and Publishers look for?



I try to be the character and then say what the character would say. Then I reread it and fix it if it sounds wrong. There is more to writing dialogue than that? Is there any other way to write dialogue?

Yes, I read advice to mix in narrative with dialogue, and I like that advice and even occasionally follow it.

Do agents and publishers look for anything more than whether or not the dialogue is good? That is a most serious question.

Apex, I come here to learn, and I have lost track of how many times I have been told I overthink things. I just strongly feel that studying comes second.

I am checking out "Writing Dialogue: How to create memorable voices and fictional conversations that crackle with wit, tension and nuance." I will tell you how it goes. Except the first chapter seems to be saying that I can't write dialogue like people talk and then goes on to urge me to listen to people talk. Argh, Chapter 2 begins: "Writing Dialogue is so much about the energy and direction of the story at hand that many of the things a writer does are intuitive." Do those two thoughts really connect together? From Chapter 3, "Dialogue feeds through, and grows from, character." Is that the kind of advice you were imagining?


----------



## Sam (Nov 24, 2014)

Apex said:


> I have read some very good writing on this forum, Could it be better? Maybe.  Is the key to good writing to just start writing, or study?
> Lets examine dialogue: You sit and listen to people talking. Is that the type dialogue that is good? Is that how you should write it?



No. 

Listening to how people talk will not teach you how to write good dialogue, because people stumble, stammer, stutter, and hesitate way too much for it to ever translate into solid dialogue. Most people also rush when they speak, or mumble, or speak incoherently, none of which lends itself to good dialogue. 

Good dialogue is sharp, to-the-point, and meaningful. It has a poeticism to it. It rolls off the tongue. It drives a story. Two people talking on the street don't drive _anything. _They're engaging in small-talk, or gossip, or complaining. Their conversations are often pointless. Direct me to a conversation, in any novel you've read, that was pointless. Maybe one or two?


----------



## dale (Nov 24, 2014)

dialogue completely depends upon genre, place and time period for me. i wrote a story in the 1890s in the "old south". the dialogue was
congruent with what I FELT fit that. and a fantasy writer's dialogue can be really melodramatic. i mean does anyone really talk like gandalf
in real life? probably not. but it fit him. i really don't mind a bit of melodrama in dialogue, regardless. i don't push it TOO far, but i do like my
characters to come off as "bigger than life". both the ones i read and the ones i write.


----------



## Apex (Nov 24, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> I try to be the character and then say what the character would say. Then I reread it and fix it if it sounds wrong. There is more to writing dialogue than that? Is there any other way to write dialogue?
> 
> Yes, I read advice to mix in narrative with dialogue, and I like that advice and even occasionally follow it.
> 
> ...



Good questions, and good thinking.
My teacher on dialogue was Sol Stein. Here is what he said:

“Dialogue, contrary to popular view, is not a recording of actual speech.”
Overheard conversation” (actual speech.)This would bore a reader.

She: “How are you?”
He:  “How am I? Oh I’m fine, how are you?”
She: “And the family?”
He: The family is great. Everybody’s well.”

Invented dialogue:

She: “How are you?”
He: I suppose I’m okay.”
She: “Is anything wrong?”
He: “I guess you haven’t heard.”

We have left the reader wanting to know what is wrong. The invented dialogue sounds real…the real dialogue does not.
Is dialogue is a part of writing one can learn without study? A new writer can not be expected to write a good story without first learning the many features of the craft.  Many think good spelling, and grammar are the key.  Good spelling, and grammar does not make a good story teller.
It takes time to learn how to write well. Without spending time doing so, may turn a very good story into something poorly written.
Two people write a story with the same plot. Both will be different. One will be better than the other. 
There is one writer on this forum who’s work I have read. He first spent time learning how to write. He is as good, if not better than most who have had a best seller. He is un-published. Why? Because he does not want to deal with the publishing rat race…I don’t blame him. It is a dirty world. He had me reading the type of story I hate…but I could not stop reading because it was so well written.
It is okay not o be published, and have a best seller…but run the race, not against others…against yourself…to me, that is a story teller.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 24, 2014)

Apex said:


> I have read some very good writing on this forum, Could it be better? Maybe.  Is the key to good writing to just start writing, or study?
> Lets examine dialogue: You sit and listen to people talking. Is that the type dialogue that is good? Is that how you should write it? Or is the dialogue used by writers different?
> Are there key points to writing good dialogue, or perhaps if a new writer just starts writing, some how they will stumble across key points that will make their dialogue sound real?
> Is there good, and not so good dialogue? What do Agents, and Publishers look for?



Dialogue in a book or story is a _simulation_ of people speaking, not a transcription. Listening to the way people really talk is helpful in finding the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies used in 'real' speech so you can use small bits and pieces of it to give your dialogue an impression of reality. Like Sam said, real people add 'uh', 'like', 'er' and many other place holders more times than you realize in any given conversation. But, you don't want your dialogue to read like your narrative voice, or like a persnickety English teacher (unless your are writing a persnickety English teacher), so you add samples of the idiosyncrasies which would fit your character. It might be using contractions, or geographically related word choices (ya'll get it?), or using sentence fragments, or run-ons. It is always done, however, with a plan.

Agents and publishers, like readers, look for dialogue that doesn't draw attention to itself by being overly colloquial, or unrealistically stiff. There is no formula for writing dialogue. It is a matter of having an ear for it. As Emma said above, read it back and listen to the sound of the dialogue. If it sounds right, then you are on the right track. 

Learning to write is a combination of studying what works for writers you admire (by reading), learning the tools of the craft (creative writing classes, workshops, how-to books [for some]), and by writing. The last is by far the most important. Carpenters don't learn to carpent* by reading books alone, sculptors don't learn to sculpt by watching sculpt-TV, and musicians don't learn to play music without picking up an instrument.

*It's a joke, folks.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 24, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Studying certainly didn't help those writers, because they didn't know enough about themselves to know what to discard.



I believe there is always something to learn. There will always be people that can teach us.

Yes, like you pointed out, there will be dead ends and poor teachers along the way—just as there will be with anything in life. But that's not a valid excuse to stop seeking knowledge, in my opinion.

There will always be people who know the craft better than you.

I was a 1300-level chess player for a long time. My approach to getting better was simple and one-dimensional: play, play, play. That, I believed, was the best path to mastery. I floundered in the 1300's for years. I learned tricks and combinations, but I also developed bad habits that, at the time, I wasn't aware of.

Then I met a National Master and began taking one-on-one lessons with him. My rating skyrocketed to 2000+ in a few short months. He pointed out flaws in my thinking that were invisible to me, but obvious to him. He gave me exercises to practice the skills he believed I needed to hone the most. He gave me games to study so I could recognize the strategies we discussed. 

I defeated my first International Master during this time—a feat I don't think I could have accomplished on my own, at least not in such short a time.

That experience, for me, solidified my belief in the value of learning, studying, and coaching. It made me appreciate that, hey, even though I thought I could do it all on my own, there are people in the world who know the craft better than I do, and it'd be foolish of me to ignore them simply because I thought I knew better.

I had a very similar experience with guitar. Teaching myself yielded great results, but it wasn't until I took lessons that my playing really took a leap forward.

I can point to a few amateur writers whom I know personally who don't take the time to learn about writing (either from laziness, apathy, or from a lack of guidance), and their writing visibly suffers because of it. They aren't members of any online forums for writers, they don't read books on writing, they don't consciously think about the fiction they read.

Is there anything wrong with that? Not at all! Some people simply write for the joy of writing, and have no desire to improve. I think that's okay, too. Writers should not feel obligated to learn, to study, or to seek improvement.

But if you _do_ want to improve? If you want to be better than the average hobbyist? I believe seeking knowledge is an excellent idea, a valuable supplement to go along with your daily writing quota.

Learn all you can. Take what works for you and discard what doesn't. You'll improve faster (in my opinion) than the individuals who simply write and refuse to look outside themselves for additional sources of knowledge.

But that's just my own perspective. I'm sure people will disagree with it, and that's okay too. That's part of the learning process as well—finding philosophies you agree with, and finding ones that you believe are best to be discarded. Either way, you're learning. :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Nov 24, 2014)

ziodice said:


> Disregarding any sort of prologue, what in the world is one to use as a first sentence? The real question here, I feel, is the goal of your first sentence - is the first sentence to hook the reader, or to set the pacing, or are you simply going to jump right in to what's happening? Are there rules for your first sentence? Must you start with a monologue, a dialogue, a statement, an action, etc? The first sentence of my latest writing is as follows:
> 
> "You're an idiot," she says with an angry look and a pouted lip.
> 
> ...



You shouldn't disregard a prologue. If you are going to use one: 1 it should be integral to your story, and: 2 the first sentence in it, is the first sentence of your book. You can't look at the prologue as something less important than the rest of your book. If a reader doesn't like the first section of your work -- whatever you choose to call it -- how can you expect them to want to read anything further?

My first sentences are promises to my readers. They say, "Pssstt! Come on over here. I've got something to tell you that you're going to like... a lot." Here's a couple of first sentences from stories I've written:

It was banana o'clock on May thirty-seventh when Brian Bruce Tutus Summerland's new and best friend spoke for the very first time.   --  _O'Goody_

"You don't go in the water, do you?"  -- _The Water's Edge_

I hope you can read this okay.  --  _Deena, Boogers, and Me

_The girl checked in the bitch's bedroom first.  --  _Rose Hunter

_It doesn't have to be overly dramatic (although I would like to have been the one to write, 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.') it just has to make the reader want to read the next sentence.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 24, 2014)

Sam said:


> No.
> 
> Listening to how people talk will not teach you how to write good dialogue, because people stumble, stammer, stutter, and hesitate way too much for it to ever translate into solid dialogue. Most people also rush when they speak, or mumble, or speak incoherently, none of which lends itself to good dialogue.
> 
> Good dialogue is sharp, to-the-point, and meaningful. It has a poeticism to it. It rolls off the tongue. It drives a story. Two people talking on the street don't drive _anything. _They're engaging in small-talk, or gossip, or complaining. Their conversations are often pointless. Direct me to a conversation, in any novel you've read, that was pointless. Maybe one or two?



I was under the assumption that you _want_ to write your dialogue as real as possible. People talk with stammers and stutters sometimes, so why wouldn't I want my character to sound as lifelike as possible? 

For example, my parents talk with some kind of country twang. My mom loves to start a sentence with, "So, I says to the guy..." It's not proper english and her grammar is not the best most of the time. But, that's her, and that's what makes her dialogue distinct to me. Her unique way of speaking distinguishes her from someone else in my mind. I hear her own quirks and her personality shining through from the way she talks. Why wouldn't I want that to come across in my book?

Good, sharp and to the point dialogue is good for some characters, but do I really want all of my characters to be defined by something so rigid? 

The way people talk, the way they communicate is part of what makes everyone an individual. I think dialogue is a place to be free and have your characters talk as everyone does on the street. As we do in real life. 

I don't think most conversations are pointless in life. Maybe they don't matter to a passerby, but they matter to the people that are discussing those details, the gossip, the small-talk or complaints. That's how a lot of us interact. Why should my book be any different? Don't I want it to feel real and genuine?

I don't think dialogue should be pointless, but I think it should be genuine to the character, and if they talk with stutters or stammers or ramble on incoherently, then that's what I'm going to write!  As a reader it's one of the things I love most about books.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 24, 2014)

> I was under the assumption that you _want to write your dialogue as real as possible. People talk with stammers and stutters sometimes, so why wouldn't I want my character to sound as lifelike as possible? _



It's the classic issue of realism. Take it down to the basics; when you read 'horse', you see a horse in your head (hopefully), but you aren't actually seeing one on paper. This exemplifies the fact that what's on paper is just a _representation_ of what you come up with in your head. You do some of the work yourself; the same applies for dialogue.

I think writers try to make their dialogue 'clean-cut' because that helps the reader make it more lifelike. Make what's on paper more complex and the reader will have a harder time fitting a natural voice to the words their eyes are running over. But make it smooth and they'll naturally give it a realistic rhythm and tone, especially if your smoothness encourages one.

This is, at least, what I've found from my own reading. Writers vary, and some present a more specific rhythm or tone by complicating the way dialogue is written, which works as long as they complicate it in a way that is easy for the reader to access. What that is will vary from writer's ear to writer's ear.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 24, 2014)

Sunny said:


> I was under the assumption that you _want_ to write your dialogue as real as possible. People talk with stammers and stutters sometimes, so why wouldn't I want my character to sound as lifelike as possible?
> 
> For example, my parents talk with some kind of country twang. My mom loves to start a sentence with, "So, I says to the guy..." It's not proper english and her grammar is not the best most of the time. But, that's her, and that's what makes her dialogue distinct to me. Her unique way of speaking distinguishes her from someone else in my mind. I hear her own quirks and her personality shining through from the way she talks. Why wouldn't I want that to come across in my book?
> 
> ...



Because if you were to record a conversation with your mother and then transcribe it verbatim, it would make lousy dialogue for a story. People don't get to the point very quickly in real life, they get side tracked, they repeat themselves, and use lots and lots of place-holding sounds and words like 'er' and 'uh', and 'you know'. If you capture all of that in dialogue it would not be a good read. That's why I said before that dialogue is a simulation of real speech, like a Da Vinci portrait is a simulation of a real face. Some flaws and quirks are included for verisimilitude, most are discarded for the sake of clarity and brevity.


----------



## Sam (Nov 24, 2014)

Watch a TV show. Read a book. Watch a film. 

Now read or listen to the dialogue. Notice how people speak differently? Different accents. Different vocabulary. Different tone to their voice. Cursing. Non-cursing. It's not rigid at all. But what is it? It's direct. It's to-the-point. It does something. Drives the story. Reveals character. It doesn't involve two people sitting around talking about the weather, or the latest gossip, or how much a pound a butter is, does it? Why? Because that is pointless to a story.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 24, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Because if you were to record a conversation with your mother and then transcribe it verbatim, it would make lousy dialogue for a story. People don't get to the point very quickly in real life, they get side tracked, they repeat themselves, and use lots and lots of place-holding sounds and words like 'er' and 'uh', and 'you know'. If you capture all of that in dialogue it would not be a good read. That's why I said before that dialogue is a simulation of real speech, like a Da Vinci portrait is a simulation of a real face. Some flaws and quirks are included for verisimilitude, most are discarded for the sake of clarity and brevity.



I think that's what makes a character unique. If my character talks with "er"s and "um"s, and I cut that away from my character's dialogue, then they wouldn't be that character anymore.

If I took out my Mom's "So, I says to the guy," and replaced it with, "So, I told the guy," then she wouldn't sound like her anymore. 

I don't think you need to fill your dialogue with pointless mumbo jumbo, but if they have a specific way of speaking, then I like to use it.

I also love it when authors do it well. Some of the books on my shelf are full of characters with very unique ways of talking, and it's one of the things that draws me into a story really well! 

It's what helps make those characters so memorable to me! It's part of what makes them who they are.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Nov 24, 2014)

Steinbeck's dialogues are sometimes hard to read for me as much of it are from less educated characters in some cases, not to mention the southern dialects. It isn't in your standard English, but it works for him. So yes, I would want to write dialogue the way the character would say it. It, to me, would be disingenuous not to.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 24, 2014)

My wife and I are talking about the purpose of dialogue, because of this thread, and I think it's been a great discussion so far. :encouragement:

I felt like writing down something she said (in the way she said it) because I think it expresses her point rather well:

"I think when you have characters interacting with each other, that's a great way for the reader to see their personalities and get to know how they interact with each other. 

And, well... I don't think you always have to have dialogue that moves the plot forward. Plot, plot, plot! Plot isn't the only thing in a story!

I think character development matters, too! And... And getting to know the characters, you know? Some stories aren't about plot—they're about falling in love with the characters.

And maybe the girl _does_ sit around having coffee and talking about the stock market or something with her dad. Maybe that conversation doesn't have anything to do with the plot exactly, but it _does _give the reader a glimpse of how she interacts with her father and shows what their relationship is like."


----------



## dale (Nov 24, 2014)

yeah. 1 time an editor went through and changed a lot of my dialogue..like he changed all my "gonna" to "going to". you know...
like.."i'm gonna get that" was changed to "i'm going to get that" and it really just irked the shit out of me because the character
wouldn't have talked like that.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 24, 2014)

Sunny said:


> I think that's what makes a character unique. If my character talks with "er"s and "um"s, and I cut that away from my character's dialogue, then they wouldn't be that character anymore.
> 
> If I took out my Mom's "So, I says to the guy," and replaced it with, "So, I told the guy," then she wouldn't sound like her anymore.
> 
> ...



I'm not, in any way, suggesting that you remove what makes a character's speech unique. I'm just pointing out that you wouldn't -- and I am willing to bet that you don't -- use those unique phrases, and place-holders nearly as often as they are used in real life.

Real people talk like this:

At  the scene of an automobile accident: The cop walked over to the fazzled-looking little man looking at the crumpled fender of his Camry and asked, "Sir, can you tell me what happened?"*

"Oh... hey. Hi, officer. Uh... well... I was commin' home from... uh... Oh, shit, you know... uh... the True Value. Hell, she came outta nowhere... shit, look at my car! You know, the True Value up by... the one up on... uh... Cherry, by the bar there... you know the one, the... uh... The Sportsman? I was... you know... just commin' home... an she came outta nowhere. My wife's gonna shit... you know... just shit... uh... I couldn't do nothin'... nothin'... uh... I didn't see 'er 'till she hit me, you know?"

Nobody wants to read that. Nobody should want to write that. What the writer does is create an impression of that same conversation:

"Sir, can you tell me what happened?"*

"Oh, shit, officer. My wife's gonna kill me." He paused and wiped a hand over his sweaty face. "I was comin' home from the True Value up on Cherry," he said, his voice shaking. "You know the one next to that bar up there... The Sportsman? Well I was headin' home when this gal came outta nowhere and hit me. Outta nowhere! I didn't see shit."

The second version is never going to take place in real life, but it is just as authentic, as honest, as the first.

* This line by the cop is already heavily fictionalized. In real life the cop would spend several minutes gathering personal info from the guy, before he ever asked what happened. That's all stuff we don't need to put our readers through.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 24, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I'm not, in any way, suggesting that you remove what makes a character's speech unique. I'm just pointing out that you wouldn't -- and I am willing to bet that you don't -- use those unique phrases, and place-holders nearly as often as they are used in real life.
> 
> Real people talk like this:
> 
> ...



Terry? 

I actually thought the first example was good. It made me feel like maybe they were scared a little more, and on edge. They seemed completely terrified of getting into trouble. 

I think I was a complete bumbling idiot the first time I got pulled over for speeding. I cried like a blubbering fool and could hardly talk. I locked my purse in the trunk and then locked the keys in it after that. The cop helped me get into the trunk to get my keys and purse, then ended up giving me a break and told me to slow down in the future!  

If I were to write how I actually reacted to being pulled over, and kept it true to myself, then I would have been stumbling and blubbering!   

I liked the second example too, but I thought the first one showed who that character was. If that's how they would react, then I think that's how I would write it! Maybe add some description and actions, too. If the dialogue were broken up in the first example you gave with some actions and some emotional narration, then I think it would have been perfect to that character. 

I guess it's personal taste, coming down to what we read and how we write. Maybe genres have something to do with it too.


----------



## voltigeur (Nov 24, 2014)

dale said:


> yeah. 1 time an editor went through and changed a lot of my dialogue..like he changed all my "gonna" to "going to". you know...
> like.."i'm gonna get that" was changed to "i'm going to get that" and it really just irked the shit out of me because the character
> wouldn't have talked like that.



My online editor does the same thing. I have presented scenes that were "cleaned up" like that and my readers told me everyone sounded alike and very generic. One of the guys looked at me and said in dialog take the editor with a grain of salt. 

I also see Terry D's point. In real life when we get together we tend to mak small talk to set everyone at ease. Everyone engages in badinage. In fictiion is is a good idea to limit it to only what shows the character and or moves the story forward.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 24, 2014)

Sunny said:


> Terry?
> 
> I actually thought the first example was good. It made me feel like maybe they were scared a little more, and on edge. They seemed completely terrified of getting into trouble.
> 
> ...



Sure, I suppose you could pull off a rambling bit of dialogue like that once, or twice in a story if it had a purpose. But people talk like that all the time in real life. They stop, start over, go back and correct themselves, say 'uh', and use all their pet phrases way too much -- like you know what I mean? I've read your stuff, Sunny and you don't write verbatim dialogue. You are editing out all the waste without even realizing it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 25, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> I believe there is always something to learn. There will always be people that can teach us.
> 
> Yes, like you pointed out, there will be dead ends and poor teachers along the way—just as there will be with anything in life. But that's not a valid excuse to stop seeking knowledge, in my opinion.
> 
> There will always be people who know the craft better than you.



Somehow you missed my main point:

"I'm not saying one shouldn't study writing, or even read some of these how-to books - the problem for me is when to do it."

Now, re-read the rest of my post with that sentence in mind.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 25, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> I'm not saying one shouldn't study writing, or even read some of these how-to books - the problem for me is when to do it.



When the writer wants to do it! :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Nov 25, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> When the writer wants to do it! :encouragement:



Well, obviously. But there are a lot of things people do when they want to - that doesn't mean it's actually the best time for it.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 25, 2014)

It's never too early to start learning, in my opinion.

Education is a good thing, something that should be embraced and encouraged, not feared or delayed. 

Just my perspective on it. :encouragement:


----------

