# I think I have a problem with writing dialogue, can I get advice?



## retrowire (Apr 30, 2016)

Hello all,

So I've found a scene from my on the shelf Sci Fi epic that I wanted to share with you because for some reason, it feels awkward to me and unnatural. Problem is, I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with it. If anyone could take a moment to read this, and tell me what you think would help it flow, or be more realistic, let me know.

This is not what I'm currently working on, which is a young adult "twilight zone" novel. This is something that I put on the shelf after getting way too confused by it's complexities. I intend to visit it again someday.



> A knocking was heard at Christopher’s door. Christopher was putting on his clothes as he looked to the door. “Who is it?” he called.
> 
> “It’s me, stupid!” a male answered.
> 
> ...



Any and all feedback is appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## Caragula (Apr 30, 2016)

It doesn't read badly to me.  I'd only perhaps add a name in the '10 minutes' or the 'Yuck' lines as it dissolves a little as to who is speaking.
The only other quirks for me were uneconomical prose:
'A male answered'.  Given he knew him, I'd instead write: "It's me stupid!".  "Hey Oscar, come on in!".  Far fewer words.  It's odd that he identifies a male and not his friend's voice.
The paragraph 'Christopher strapped on' takes forever:  Christopher grabbed some tools from the shelf by his bed.  As he turned to Oscar he saw him draining the glass of water he'd left on the counter. "Did you really just drink that?" he asked, smirking....
The way I approach prose is to ensure every word can justify itself on the page.


----------



## Annoying kid (Apr 30, 2016)

Don't use numericals. Say "ten" not "10" Save the latter for maths class. 

Stay away from "a male" if you can. Say "a man". "Male" is too sterile and academic for a novel. 

Don't say "loooong" or any other word like "coooool" or "niiiiice". Such things have no role in publishable writing.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 30, 2016)

I agree that it's a little awkward. Though I disagree about "loooong" and the like being used in dialog.

Think of time as a river -- flowing in one direction. Currently it swirls around. For example, he hears a knock, then he was putting on clothes before the knock. Switch the order. Have him dressing before the knock.

The word selection (Christopher and male) does seem a little formal, which doesn't fit the dialog. 

And make sure the reader knows what they're talking about. I get the feeling this is not an opening, so a certain amount of cluelessness is expected.


----------



## retrowire (Apr 30, 2016)

Caragula said:


> It doesn't read badly to me.  I'd only perhaps add a name in the '10 minutes' or the 'Yuck' lines as it dissolves a little as to who is speaking.
> The only other quirks for me were uneconomical prose:
> 'A male answered'.  Given he knew him, I'd instead write: "It's me stupid!".  "Hey Oscar, come on in!".  Far fewer words.  It's odd that he identifies a male and not his friend's voice.
> The paragraph 'Christopher strapped on' takes forever:  Christopher grabbed some tools from the shelf by his bed.  As he turned to Oscar he saw him draining the glass of water he'd left on the counter. "Did you really just drink that?" he asked, smirking....
> The way I approach prose is to ensure every word can justify itself on the page.


I see what you mean about the paragraph "Christopher strapped on" taking forever, and I can identify why I write this way.

I have a background in filmmaking, and I wrote screenplays all the time. Because of this, I tend to write each and every action as a sequence rather than letting a reader paint in any negative space. Because I'm used to writing for a film, I feel I have to mention as many aspects of the scene as necessary. This seems to be a bad habit that needs breaking.


----------



## Sam (Apr 30, 2016)

I can tell you what's wrong with it: 

There's nothing there. It's the sort of conversation you'd hear down the pub at five o'clock on a Friday evening. There's no conflict, there's no moving the story forward, and at the moment it's dialogue without a purpose. 

Dialogue is supposed to resonate off the page. It's supposed to grab your attention and tell you something you didn't already know. Great dialogue bristles with conflict and immediacy and purpose. The best way to learn how to do it is to read more dialogue. 

Then write it how you read it.


----------



## retrowire (Apr 30, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> Don't use numericals. Say "ten" not "10" Save the latter for maths class.
> 
> Stay away from "a male" if you can. Say "a man". "Male" is too sterile and academic for a novel.
> 
> Don't say "loooong" or any other word like "coooool" or "niiiiice". Such things have no role in publishable writing.


Okay, let's explore the "loooong" word and why it's faulty.

I thought these kinds of mannerisms were fine as long as it was spoken dialogue. I can understand it being bad if I wrote something like: "And Gerald waited a loooong time for the bell to ring. Class was getting on his nerves." Because as a narrative structure, it's possibly too personable?

But shouldn't it be okay as long as it's spoken dialogue? I want to accentuate the character's mannerisms and speaking type. I mean, it's permissible when writing a southern character to say something like, "You tryin'ta pull one over on me?" because that's accent and a speaking mannerism.

So wouldn't a character saying a word in a drawn out way be alright when saying, "He had it a looooong time coming."? If not, what's a better way to show that?


----------



## retrowire (Apr 30, 2016)

Sam said:


> I can tell you what's wrong with it:
> 
> There's nothing there. It's the sort of conversation you'd hear down the pub at five o'clock on a Friday evening. There's no conflict, there's no moving the story forward, and at the moment it's dialogue without a purpose.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... I disagree on this.

There's such thing as dialogue that seems so mundane but actually serves the purpose to show your characters. Take the opening of Reservoir Dogs for example. (Or most of Quentin Tarantino's dialogues) They're only talking about a song they heard on the radio and tipping waiters/waitresses, it had nothing to do with the movie or the plot. It didn't move it along. But it did serve the purpose of showing what kind of characters they are. They all had different opinions on the matter and it developed their characters within one short scene.

My dialogue example here, could perhaps use the context before it in order to help it stand, but I only gave an excerpt. That said, the purpose here is to show Christopher as a "takes things seriously" type who has a friend, Oscar whom, is more affable and laid back.

There's a really good amount of writers and screenwriters who insert dialogue that does nothing to move the story forward, but does serve to build characters, or just to give the reader or viewer a bit of a rest. If an entire story was filled with dialogue that did nothing but push the plot forward, it could end up too intense and it would leave a reader like myself a bit dizzy. I'm certain that type of writing would work great for thrillers or action though.


----------



## Sam (Apr 30, 2016)

There's a prominent difference. 

You're not Quentin Tarantino. You're not writing a script for a movie. You're writing a novel. 

It's comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## retrowire (Apr 30, 2016)

Sam said:


> There's a prominent difference.
> 
> You're not Quentin Tarantino. You're not writing a script for a movie. You're writing a novel.
> 
> It's comparing apples to oranges.


Quentin Tarantino and films being disregarded, there are still writers that will write "pub talk" to develop characters. How is one supposed to understand the depth of inside jokes or friendship without seeing the intimate details of those character's relationships?

If I were to have 2 characters who were set in a scenario and then were introduced to a great catastrophe and one of them died, how would I make the price of that death more emotionally heavy to the reader?

I have to develop those characters, give them tiny details and small back stories. Give them memorable moments.

Dialogue that only serves to push, push, push the story forward will come off as trying too hard and pretentious. It's too fast. But again, it could work for thrillers or action novels.


----------



## Aquilo (Apr 30, 2016)

I'm going to leave discussion on whether it's relevant or not and just look at ways at tightening it up to give it a more natural feel.

 I do think there's too much emphasis put on drinking the water,. That could do with softening. Even if it's relevant to plot, you don't want it to stick out too much. And there's a distinct author voice for the narrative that takes away from the natural flow of the story.

To make the dialogue more natural, you're mostly looking at using filtering. That's just cutting any unnecessary words and allowing the action to carry elements like dialogue, or cutting out unnecessary guiders like 'he heard, felt', etc.




> A  knocking was heard  rattled Christopher’s close repetition of Christopher: recommend deleting and building the scene to show this is Christopher's home. door. Christopher was putting on his  clothes try and be more relaxed here with description, e.g.,: pulled on his jeans as he and glanced over looked to the door. “Who is it?” he called. Speech is joined up to Chris's action, no speech tag required here.
> 
> “It’s me, stupid!” a male answered.
> 
> ...





And with the suggestions (softened again to ease reader flow):

A knock rattled the door, and Christopher glanced over as he tugged on his jeans. "Who is it?"

"It's me, stupid."

Chris grinned. That rough [insert accent here] could only belong to one person. "Come on in."

“Top o’ the morning to ya, dumbass!” Oscar [peered in through the door [expand on description here: thick work clothes hanging of his scrappy body etc, also bring in how they'd been friends from kids etc]]

"What are you here for, man?” (Expand on Chris getting dressed]

“Nothin’. Just bored. We got work in ten. Thought I’d come here and bug ya.”

“Ten minutes be damned. I’ve got to catch up on that control panel down in the second layer. I’m going now.” He tugged on his boots.

“You take all this too seriously, mate. It’ll all get done eventually.  Take it easy, it’s not like the planet's getting any hotter.”

“Speak for yourself.” Christopher   strapped on his tool vest and started grabbing a few tools from a  shelf  by his bed. From over by the counter, Oscar took hold of a half full glass of water and chugged it down.

Christopher flicked a look at the empty glass. "Did you really just do that?" Oscar sniffed, then put the glass down as Chris hid a smile. "Dude, you just drank waste water. I put that out last night to catch a condenser leak."

"Yeah?" Oscar rubbed his stomach. "Guess I'll do some of my own filtering later, then!"

Chris shook his head as he headed for the door. "C'mon. What're you working on today?"


----------



## Patrick (Apr 30, 2016)

retrowire said:


> *A knocking was heard at Christopher’s door. Christopher was putting on his clothes as he looked to the door. “Who is it?” he called. (Eliminate passive voice. Christopher pulled up his trousers as somebody knocked at the door.*
> 
> _“It’s me, stupid!” *a male answered. *_*(just cut the stuff in bold.)*
> 
> ...



An example of how it could be tightened. The problem is that it's a bit vacuous. There's no sense that anything is at stake, and that's because there's no atmosphere. You need to make it clear this is something significant right from the start.


----------



## retrowire (Apr 30, 2016)

Aquilo said:


> I'm going to leave discussion on whether it's relevant or not and just look at ways at tightening it up to give it a more natural feel.
> 
> I do think there's too much emphasis put on drinking the water,. That could do with softening. Even if it's relevant to plot, you don't want it to stick out too much. And there's a distinct author voice for the narrative that takes away from the natural flow of the story.
> 
> ...


Fantastic feedback here wow!

And don't worry about the details of the job, that was all covered in the previous chapter. Other than that, this is all great advice for me to meditate on.


----------



## retrowire (Apr 30, 2016)

Patrick said:


> An example of how it could be tightened. The problem is that it's a bit vacuous. There's no sense that anything is at stake, and that's because there's no atmosphere. You need to make it clear this is something significant right from the start.


Very good advice. I could give more action to each line. Again, I'm used to writing screenplays. lol

But this is super helpful, I'm loving all the constructive criticism I'm getting here.


----------



## Annoying kid (Apr 30, 2016)

> So wouldn't a character saying a word in a drawn out way be alright when  saying, "He had it a looooong time coming."? If not, what's a better  way to show that?



Use italics. Don't break words just for emphasis. "He had it a _long_ time coming."


----------



## retrowire (Apr 30, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> Use italics. Don't break words just for emphasis. "He had it a _long_ time coming."


Hmm. Okay, I like this suggestion. This works well for elongating the pronunciation of a word. Thank you!


----------



## Bishop (May 2, 2016)

retrowire said:


> Quentin Tarantino and films being disregarded, there are still writers that will write "pub talk" to develop characters. How is one supposed to understand the depth of inside jokes or friendship without seeing the intimate details of those character's relationships?
> 
> If I were to have 2 characters who were set in a scenario and then were introduced to a great catastrophe and one of them died, how would I make the price of that death more emotionally heavy to the reader?
> 
> ...



Another thing to remember is that even the best Tarantino movies have awful, awful writing in them because the characters do not shut up. The masterful tension of many of these scenes hits its peak, then peters out before any tense payoff, making him just short of the genius everyone seems to think he is. He's a great film director, for sure, but with a better editor, he could be a legendary writer as well.

What you must bear in mind about character development is that it must have something to serve interest to the reader and as well to drive the character forward. Bickering about the ten minutes before work tells us little--only that one prioritizes work and the other doesn't. It's something we can pick up in less obvious, more plot-driven ways.

Similarly, character development is not a stagnant process. It is done parallel to the plot, not separate from it. If you find yourself inserting scenes and justifying them as character development, they're not. They are, in fact, stagnant scenes. Do they exist in writing? Oooh, yeah, especially after a writer gets a hit book and his editors relax and say "yeah, whatever you write is gold, go ahead". See late Stephen King and Mr. R.R. Martin.

Take Starship Troopers for an example. In the novel, the main character goes from a below-average teenager with no direction to a commanding man with purpose and civic independence. Often in the book, we get Rico's attitudes on women--something that is completely inconsequential to the plot of the story, but acts as a paralleled barometer for his growth. So those conversations and interactions where we see his view of them change from objects of desire to objects of adoration to (more often than not) commanding officers, it's showing how he as a character changes. They're not moments of character development either, as each interaction has a direct relation to continuity of the story.

And before someone says so: no. Starship Troopers the novel is NOT an action story like the film is. Specifically, it has really only two scenes that could even be construed as such, and the bulk of the novel is a story about personal growth and civic duty.


----------



## Tettsuo (May 2, 2016)

Bishop said:


> Take Starship Troopers for an example. In the novel, the main character goes from a below-average teenager with no direction to a commanding man with purpose and civic independence. Often in the book, we get Rico's attitudes on women--*something that is completely inconsequential to the plot of the story, but acts as a paralleled barometer for his growth. So those conversations and interactions where we see his view of them change from objects of desire to objects of adoration to (more often than not) commanding officers, it's showing how he as a character changes.* They're not moments of character development either, as each interaction has a direct relation to continuity of the story.



Dialogue should be functional in some way.  Just pointless dialogue that does absolutely nothing should be cut as the reader would quickly tire of it (imo).


----------



## Patrick (May 2, 2016)

I have no idea what people are talking about when they mention plot-driven this, and character-development that. I do know that good dialogue is all about insight and style. All writers do it differently, but the interest comes from what is being revealed, what is being suggested by the subtext, and perhaps what is being hidden. It just requires that you're able to inhabit your fictional world.

Good dialogue is full of the wit you came up with later that night when you'd left the party.  Good dialogue is the way the conversations should have gone for the pleasure of the participants. You make your characters perform for the reader, and if you know your characters, they'll start to lead you. If you fill your head with all this functionality stuff, you'll only touch the surface in your scenes.


----------



## Blue (May 3, 2016)

Dialogue can get tricky, I suppose, but I do agree with Patrick. Sure, dialogue should serve as a way to drive the plot forward, but not everything said would be of huge importance all the time. I know if I did that, dialogue in my writing would become scarcer as I tried to find something of relevance for characters to add, to move the plot forwards. 

Pay attention to conversations in real life, not just how its written in other works. People speak differently to how they would write, and it isn't always grammatically correct. People shorten words and drop words to avoid speaking for too long, and factor in colloquial language and slang.


----------



## Bishop (May 5, 2016)

Patrick said:


> If you fill your head with all this functionality stuff, you'll only touch the surface in your scenes.



The functionality stuff must come up in the editing section, otherwise you'll have a bloated hog of a story that serves no function other than to waste a reader's time.

To amend my earlier statements, not every conversation needs to move the plot forward, but every conversation should hold some weight on the plot or subplots(s).


----------



## Sam (May 5, 2016)

Bishop said:


> The functionality stuff must come up in the editing section, otherwise you'll have a bloated hog of a story that serves no function other than to waste a reader's time.
> 
> To amend my earlier statements, not every conversation needs to move the plot forward, but every conversation should hold some weight on the plot or subplots(s).



Without a shadow of a doubt. 

Dialogue that has no relevance to anything in the story should be cut. It's pointless. It doesn't do anything.


----------



## Patrick (May 5, 2016)

It's an oxymoron to speak of dialogue without function; Dialogue has inherent function. How bloated or unnecessary it is is another issue.

The overriding concern of good dialogue is how well it captures character, and it needs to be explained what is meant by dialogue that has absolutely no relevance to the story. It's almost impossible to imagine dialogue that has no relevance. If done well, the dialogue could have what the characters ate for breakfast as the subject. It could be funny; it could be sad; it could be any number of things that would justify its inclusion. 

But it's unlikely you'll ever find an opportunity in a novel for the sort of dialogue Tarantino uses in Pulp Fiction. It's not straight forward what makes good dialogue; it's just an ear that some writers have for character, if I were to boil it down to one thing.


----------



## Bishop (May 5, 2016)

Dialogue has function, yes. But it's whether the dialogue's function serves the greater function(s) of the story. Talking about the weather might be funny, but it's a diversion away from the plot if it has no relevance to it.


----------



## Sam (May 5, 2016)

The point in all of this is simple: too many people make the mistake of thinking that dialogue is the same thing as conversation. It isn't, never has been, nor never will be. 

Dialogue serves four functions: the building of character, the revealing of heretofore unknown information, the advancement of plot, and the setting of tone.  

If a conversation about what someone had for breakfast does any of those four things, fine. If it doesn't, _get rid of it. _


----------



## Patrick (May 5, 2016)

Sam said:


> The point in all of this is simple: too many people make the mistake of thinking that dialogue is the same thing as conversation. It isn't, never has been, nor never will be.
> 
> *Dialogue serves four functions: the building of character, the revealing of heretofore unknown information, the advancement of plot, and the setting of tone. *
> 
> If a conversation about what someone had for breakfast does any of those four things, fine. If it doesn't, _get rid of it. _



Which is quite a large umbrella. I agree with you; I am just careful to avoid giving people the impression that dialogue has to be robotic and purely focused on plot progression.


----------



## Bishop (May 5, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Which is quite a large umbrella. I agree with you; I am just careful to avoid giving people the impression that dialogue has to be robotic and purely focused on plot progression.



Well said, but my greater fear is giving inexperienced writers the idea that anything can work, no matter how unnecessarily verbose.


----------



## Sam (May 5, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Which is quite a large umbrella. I agree with you; I am just careful to avoid giving people the impression that dialogue has to be robotic and purely focused on plot progression.



I equally careful to avoid giving people the impression that everyday conversation passes for novel dialogue. Leave the small-talk about the weather until you run into John down the shops, where you can engage in triviality as much as your heart desires. 

For creative writing, relevance and purpose is key.


----------



## Tettsuo (May 5, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Which is quite a large umbrella. I agree with you; I am just careful to avoid giving people the impression that dialogue has to be robotic and purely focused on plot progression.



It doesn't have to be purely for plot progression, but it does have to serve the story in some way.

I love to put in dialogue that tells the reader about the characters.  This serves the plot indirectly by allowing the reader to understand the motivations and behaviors of the characters involved, even if the characters are not always discussing the specifics of the plot.

So characters having a discussion about breakfast can have a purpose without being directly related to the plot.  *But, it must have a purpose.*


----------



## Patrick (May 5, 2016)

Sam said:


> *I equally careful to avoid giving people the impression that everyday conversation passes for novel dialogue.* Leave the small-talk about the weather until you run into John down the shops, where you can engage in triviality as much as your heart desires.
> 
> For creative writing, relevance and purpose is key.



If you read my previous posts you'll see I've already said it doesn't. 

I don't prohibit subjects. I have a character comment on the weather in the first chapter of the novel I am currently writing, for the sake of characterisation and authenticity. A human being couldn't but lament it in the particular instance I am referring to. I am at the point where I basically do whatever I want with my writing, so long as it aids my own objectives as a writer. Advice on these subjects usually amounts to platitudes.

The only real good answer is: read a variety of books by a variety of authors so you pick up pacing, atmosphere, characterisation, exposition, subtext, etc, at a subconscious level.


----------



## Sam (May 5, 2016)

Patrick said:


> If you read my previous posts you'll see I've already said it doesn't.
> 
> I don't prohibit subjects. I have a character comment on the weather in the first chapter of the novel I am currently writing, for the sake of characterisation and authenticity. A human being couldn't but lament it in the particular instance I am referring to. I am at the point where I basically do whatever I want with my writing, so long as it aids my own objectives as a writer. Advice on these subjects usually amounts to platitudes.
> 
> The only real good answer is: read a variety of books by a variety of authors so you pick up pacing, atmosphere, characterisation, exposition, subtext, etc, at a subconscious level.



Agreed. 

But again, for the benefit of the OP, what I'm talking about is that dialogue is not a means of delivering any ol' tidbit of information. Too often, beginning writers use dialogue as a means of filling in another character about what happened in a past scene, or they have the characters sitting in a restaurant discussing the menu, or some other such example of real-life conversation. 

Dialogue is not real conversation. It mimics it, but eschews all of the extra weight and pointless repetition that real conversations are replete with. It is pared down, tightened, and bereft of many of the characteristics of conversation. To learn how to write good dialogue, you need to read good dialogue. 

Listening to people talking on the street will not help a writer write dialogue.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 5, 2016)

Sam said:


> Agreed.
> 
> But again, for the benefit of the OP, what I'm talking about is that dialogue is not a means of delivering any ol' tidbit of information. Too often, beginning writers use dialogue as a means of filling in another character about what happened in a past scene, or they have the characters sitting in a restaurant discussing the menu, or some other such example of real-life conversation.
> 
> ...



I agree and add it should be more interesting than polite conversation. One of the difficult things for me to learn was that I didn't have to show the end of the conversations when people were saying good-bye, I could just stop when it wasn't relevant.

I assume you don't want to rule out disfluencies that help show character or do something useful. (It's okay if Billy Bibbit stutters.)

I assume you are including the narration about what people are saying. The actual conversation could be unimportant if the surrounding narration was useful.


----------



## Kyle R (May 6, 2016)

I agree with the others—ideally, you want your dialogue to move the story forward in some way. But that's pretty much up to the discretion of the writer, so it's really your call as to whether or not this section does. Seems to me that you feel satisfied it develops your characters, which is good enough reasoning for me!



retrowire said:


> “Top o’ the morning to ya dumbass!” Oscar exclaimed.
> 
> “Shut up man, what are you here for?” Christopher replied.
> 
> ...



^ This part, though, didn't work too well for me. Fun characterization, but there's no action, no narration, no connection to the POV in any way. The dialogue seems to be just floating in empty space—one disconnected voice speaking to another.

It's the dreaded "Talking Head Syndrome"! Do all you can to avoid it. Here's a brief article about its symptoms and treatments: http://www.helpingwritersbecomeauthors.com/are-your-characters-talking-heads/.

Other than that, good work! :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (May 6, 2016)

One point to keep in mind is that "moving the *story* forward" doesn't necessarily mean 'moving the _*plot*_ forward'. Plot and story are not the same thing. Plot is the action/activities which take place in you tale over time. Story is the entirety of your work; plot, characterization, setting (in time and place), theme, etc. While dialogue can be used to advance the plot, it doesn't have to, but it should serve to develop some other aspect of story. Most importantly, IMO, the writer needs to know what any given bit of dialogue is going to accomplish. Leave the pointless talk to politicians and salesmen.


----------



## Pixelated Porn (May 12, 2016)

The thing with dialogue that i think about is "what is the agenda of each person in the conversation". Once you know that it helps writing the dialogue.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (May 12, 2016)

A couple things to keep in mind:

1. If the writing isn't more interesting than what the reader could be doing, instead, they stop reading. This excerpt is 300 words. Were this a standard manuscript submission, page one—because the writing doesn't begin till two-thirds of the way down the page—would be 80 words. Page two is 250. So we've read pretty much the first two pages, and what's happened? You've described the first fifteen seconds of the film version of your story. That took roughly three times as long to read as to see, or live. And at the end we've had no character development, no plot movement, and no meaningful scene setting.

I wish there were a more gentle way of saying this, but I've not found one, except to say that none of what I'm saying in this has to do with your, your talent and potential, or the story. It's all correctable. But before you begin to fix the problems you need, first, to understand why what you have won't work.

2. Story is _not_ in the linear progression of events—which is what you're focused on at the moment. That's the plot, and it's as interesting as any other history book or report. Story, the thing readers come for, lies in the heart and mind of the protagonist, and in their struggle to control their environment. At its most basic story is: your character desperately needs something, be it to save the world or get a date for the prom. But for unexpected reasons, they cannot have it, in spite of everything they try, as scene leads to scene. And as it does, failures mount, risk increases, and eventually, it's all or nothing—the black moment—when everything seems lost. Then comes the climax, where the protagonist calls on their secret weapon, dumb luck, and prevails. Add a section where the protagonist learns what their prize is, and type. The End. This article might help clarify.

3. We did not learn to write prose that entertains in our school days, though we all assume we did. The style of writing we learned is fact-based, author-centric, and meant to inform. Great for reports and essays, but pretty well useless for fiction because it's designed for business, and is what's commonly called nonfiction writing. Fiction's goal is to entertain the reader with an emotional _experience_. A narrator explaining the story stands squarely between the reader and that experience, if for no other reason than that we can't hear their emotion in the voice talking to us, or see the storyteller's expression, gesture, and body-language.

4. We don't report conversation, we report the _essence_ of it. And in line with that, while we talk we hesitate, rephrase, stop to think, and even to look out the window.

5. Telling the reader what they would see were they watching a film is _not_ the same as making them see it. In the film, for example, the dress of the character tells the reader about their society, and their place in it. The setting provides ambiance and more about them and their society. The actor playing your protagonist would have worked for years to learn how to show the nuance of  emotion though tiny things like how long they meet someone's eyes, and fleeting expressions. And the viewer learns all that in an eyeblink—a single frame—refreshed twenty-four times per second. No way in hell can a list of what happens and what's said compare to that.

6. Telling the reader what _can _be heard, as in, "A knocking was heard at Christopher’s door," is passive writing. It's a report that tells the read who owns the door, but doesn't say who head it, if anyone, and, if they give a damn.

But suppose you started, with, "The door's open," Chris called, as he buttoned his shirt. "I'm in the bedroom. Do that and we assume he knows who he's talking to, and the original, "who's there?" is unneeded, tightening the prose. We know he's getting dressed, and in the bedroom which sets the scene, and incidentally tells the reader he's in a house or apartment. Any time we can use fewer words to say the same thing, without losing our distinctive voice, the story moves faster., and so has more punch. We also assume that someone knocked, rang, or called. Does it matter which? No. What does matter is that instead of me telling the reader what happens, as a dispassionate outside reporter, it happens, and the character removes need for the explaining, by making it inherent to his response.  It's the art and craft of the writer to make that happen and seem natural. 

It's also worth mentioning that though we see that technique in operation as we read fiction, we never notice, because as they say, art conceals art. So while our reading teaches us to enjoy, and recognize competent writing, it does _not_ teach us to write because we see the product, but need the process.

And that, as it so often is, is my point. It's a series of tricks, every bit as necessary as knowing the structure of a report, if our goal is to write one. And with those tools at your command, practiced into perfection, the job becomes a whole lot easier, because as Mark Twain so wisely observed, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

So that's the long version of your your dialog isn't working. The short version: Show, don't tell.

And to that end, it will help to devour a few books on the subject to get a variety of opinions. Hearing what a publisher has to say is good since it's them we're trying to impress. The words of a professor of commercial fiction writing is always a good idea. And the viewpoint of an agent, someone who makes a living by finding writing worth passing to the publisher, is always a good idea. 

Three suggestions.

The professor: Dwight Swain's, Techniques of the Selling Writer. The man was a genius, and a look at the more than 150 Amazon reviews will show that it's not just my opinion,
The publishing professional: Sol Stein on writing. Stein was a success on the page, the stage, and in film. He was a successful editor and publisher. He's the one to look at for stylistic advice after you have the nuts-and-bolts issues taken care of.
The agent: Donald Maass, The Fire in Fiction. Don is a top NYC agent, for good reason. He'll help get you to the next level.

Reading them won't make you a published writer. That's your job. But they will—if you read them slowly, thoughtfully, and with time to practice and make each technique your own—give you the tools with which to get there if it's in you. They'll help you dump that sturdy cart-hose we're issued in school and mount you on Pegasus. And on a winged beast, who knows where you'll fly to?

Hang in there, and keep on writing.


----------



## afk4life (May 12, 2016)

If you're going to talk about dialogue, read some Elmore Leonard. I don't think it gets any better at doing both character development and plot development. And it's always good. Miraculously it managed to survive into several films and a TV show. So I'd say either watch Justified or read some of his books, if dialogue is what you're worried about but I'm not entirely sure that's the problem. Overthinking things could well be.


----------



## Patrick (May 13, 2016)

Jay Greenstein said:


> A couple things to keep in mind:
> 
> 1. If the writing isn't more interesting than what the reader could be doing, instead, they stop reading. This excerpt is 300 words. Were this a standard manuscript submission, page one—because the writing doesn't begin till two-thirds of the way down the page—would be 80 words. Page two is 250. So we've read pretty much the first two pages, and what's happened? You've described the first fifteen seconds of the film version of your story. That took roughly three times as long to read as to see, or live. And at the end we've had no character development, no plot movement, and no meaningful scene setting.




What's your point? That reading requires more concentration than watching television? In the excerpt posted, we do actually get some character development and scene setting. What we don't get is any sense of something being at stake. 



> *2. Story is not in the linear progression of events—which is what you're focused on at the moment. That's the plot, and it's as interesting as any other history book or report. Story, the thing readers come for, lies in the heart and mind of the protagonist, and in their struggle to control their environment.* At its most basic story is: your character desperately needs something, be it to save the world or get a date for the prom. But for unexpected reasons, they cannot have it, in spite of everything they try, as scene leads to scene. And as it does, failures mount, risk increases, and eventually, it's all or nothing—the black moment—when everything seems lost. Then comes the climax, where the protagonist calls on their secret weapon, dumb luck, and prevails. Add a section where the protagonist learns what their prize is, and type. The End. This article might help clarify.



It's actually called a linear narrative, and most fiction is written (though there are certainly lots of viable alternatives) with a linear narrative. How linear a narrative is has nothing to do with characterisation; these are two incommensurate things.




> 3. We did not learn to write prose that entertains in our school days, though we all assume we did. The style of writing we learned is fact-based, author-centric, and meant to inform. Great for reports and essays, but pretty well useless for fiction because it's designed for business, and is what's commonly called nonfiction writing. Fiction's goal is to entertain the reader with an emotional _experience_. A narrator explaining the story stands squarely between the reader and that experience, if for no other reason than that we can't hear their emotion in the voice talking to us, or see the storyteller's expression, gesture, and body-language



All fiction is autobiographical to some degree, and fiction is as much a window to the author's thoughts and feelings as it is his/her characters. Narration is absolutely not the issue here, however. A plain reporting of events, unfiltered by the protagonist, is actually more immersive than action filtered through the protagonist's senses, which places the character between the reader and the world you're trying to surround them with. 



> 5. Telling the reader what they would see were they watching a film is _not_ the same as making them see it. In the film, for example, the dress of the character tells the reader about their society, and their place in it. The setting provides ambiance and more about them and their society. The actor playing your protagonist would have worked for years to learn how to show the nuance of  emotion though tiny things like how long they meet someone's eyes, and fleeting expressions. And the viewer learns all that in an eyeblink—a single frame—refreshed twenty-four times per second. No way in hell can a list of what happens and what's said compare to that.



So television is more powerful than the reader's imagination?



> 6. Telling the reader what _can _be heard, as in, "A knocking was heard at Christopher’s door," is passive writing. It's a report that tells the read who owns the door, but doesn't say who head it, if anyone, and, if they give a damn.




You're correct about the passive voice, but you're wrong about pov, as I pointed out above. Writing through the senses of your protagonist all the time filters too much of the story. Once we know who the protagonist is and whose perspective we're seeing the story from, we as readers don't need to have that character placed between us and the action all the time. "Chris heard" is not more effective than, "somebody knocked on the door."



> But suppose you started, with,





> "The door's open," Chris called, as he buttoned his shirt. "I'm in the bedroom. Do that and we assume he knows who he's talking to, and the original, "who's there?" is unneeded, tightening the prose. We know he's getting dressed, and in the bedroom which sets the scene, and incidentally tells the reader he's in a house or apartment. Any time we can use fewer words to say the same thing, without losing our distinctive voice, the story moves faster., and so has more punch. We also assume that someone knocked, rang, or called. Does it matter which? No. What does matter is that instead of me telling the reader what happens, as a dispassionate outside reporter, it happens, and the character removes need for the explaining, by making it inherent to his response.  It's the art and craft of the writer to make that happen and seem natural.



Unless there's a very special way his friend knocks on the door, the protagonist shouldn't know who is knocking.



> It's also worth mentioning that though we see that technique in operation as we read fiction, we never notice, because as they say, art conceals art. So while our reading teaches us to enjoy, and recognize competent writing, it does _not_ teach us to write because we see the product, but need the process.



An aspiring writer will do just fine by reading a wide sample of fiction. Reading good fiction will do infinitely more to help you write it than reading a self-help book/article.



> So that's the long version of your your dialog isn't working. The short version: Show, don't tell.



You haven't told him anything about why his dialogue isn't working; you've simply bombarded him with advice on pov that is plagued by unclear thinking.



> And to that end, it will help to devour a few books on the subject to get a variety of opinions. Hearing what a publisher has to say is good since it's them we're trying to impress. The words of a professor of commercial fiction writing is always a good idea. And the viewpoint of an agent, someone who makes a living by finding writing worth passing to the publisher, is always a good idea.
> 
> Three suggestions.
> 
> ...





> The Fire in Fiction. Don is a top NYC agent, for good reason. He'll help get you to the next level.
> 
> Reading them won't make you a published writer. That's your job. But they will—if you read them slowly, thoughtfully, and with time to practice and make each technique your own—give you the tools with which to get there if it's in you. They'll help you dump that sturdy cart-hose we're issued in school and mount you on Pegasus. And on a winged beast, who knows where you'll fly to?
> 
> ...



I can promise any aspiring writer not one of these men will turn you into a writer, but reading lots of fiction and writing lots of fiction will. Read contemporary fiction and read the classics. Two very different writers, Charles Portis and James Joyce, both write brilliant dialogue in totally contrasting styles. What matters with dialogue is how "real" it is while not suffering the drawbacks of real conversation.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (May 14, 2016)

> What's your point? That reading requires more concentration than watching television?


My point is that if it takes fifteen seconds to live, or view the even,t and two minutes to read the same thing, the reader will be bored. The narrative must move as quickly as the events. 





> It's actually called a  linear narrative, and most fiction is written (though there are  certainly lots of viable alternatives) with a linear narrative. How  linear a narrative is has nothing to do with characterisation; these are  two incommensurate things.


You're talking about plot. Our goal is to make the reader live the story, not learn the details of the plot. One entertains the other only informs.





> Narration is absolutely not the issue here, however.


It is, because it's 100% narration. I'll let the great Sol Stein address that: “In sum, if you want to improve your chances of publication, keep your story visible on stage and yourself mum.”

The moment you, as the author, stap on stage and talk to the reader you stop the scene clock and kill any momentum the scene may have developed, because you are neither in the story nor on the scene. And, as an external observer, your voice can only be dispassionate.





> So television is more powerful than the reader's imagination?


You misunderstand. The printed word cannot reproduce either sound or picture, so you cannot use the same techniques on the page as on the stage or screen. We must work within the constraints of the medium, no matter the medium. It's why the book and the film are so different.





> You're correct about the passive voice, but you're wrong about pov, as I pointed out above.


POV and viewpoint are two very different things. One refers to which personal pronouns, the other refers to making the reader know the scene as the protagonist does, in-real-time, and from within the fleeting moment the protagonist calls, "now." Another word for presenting the protagonist's viewpoint is showing. An external narrator, because we cannot know how they would speak the line, is inherently dispassionate. We can tell the reader how any character in the story speaks, but we cannot tag our on lines, and so narration is emotion free. And to quite Sol Stein again:

“Each Friday afternoon at three, while other students decamped for their homes, the lights were on in the _Magpie _tower high above the rectangle of the school. There Wilmer Stone met with Richard Avedon, then a poet, who became one of the most famous photographers in the world, the editor Emile Capouya, Jimmy Baldwin, myself, and a few others whose names hide behind the scrim of time. What went on in that tower was excruciatingly painful. Wilmer Stone read our stories to us in a monotone as if he were reading from the pages of a phone directory. What we learned with each stab of pain was that the words themselves and not the inflections supplied by the reader had to carry the emotion of the story.

Today I still hear the metronome of Wilmer Stone’s voice, and counsel my students to have their drafts read to them by the friend who has the least talent for acting and is capable of reading words as if they had no meaning.”


> Unless there's a very special way his friend knocks on the door, the protagonist shouldn't know who is knocking.


Again, you miss the point. Alfred Hitchcock claimed that “_Drama is life with the dull_ bits cut out.” And the dull, and unnecessary bits, are things like saying, "Hello," when answering the phone, or learning that someone knocked rather than ringing the doorbell or shouting. If it doesn't move the plot, develop character, or set the scene, it's unnecessary. And in this case, calling out that the door is open implies that something happened to make the protagonist know that someone was there. Calling that it's open implies that the one speaking either knows who it is or doesn't care. If the action shows that, the detail is part of the "dull bits."





> An aspiring writer will  do just fine by reading a wide sample of fiction. Reading good fiction  will do infinitely more to help you write it than reading a self-help  book/article.


Were that true they would not offer four year majors in commercial fiction writing, and the rejection rate would not be 99.9%. We see only the product when we read, but we need the process if we're to create the product. Did all the film we watch make us script writers or directors? No. _Every_ profession is filled with specialized knowledge that's not obvious to those outside the profession. Not one in ten hopeful writers even realize that there is a scene goal, let alone know what purpose it serves. Talent untrained is potential, only, and contributes little.

To demonstrate how much we learn about writing by reading, ask ten friends what, about the first paragraph of more than 50% of the fiction on the bookshelves, is different. It's simple, obvious, and we see it over and over again. Yet damn few can tell you without looking. I've had people who couldn't see it even when they were looking at the page. And if we miss something that easy to see, how much of the nuance of handling charactertization will we miss? How many new writers begin recording their stories with even a cursory knowledge of how a scene on the page differs from one onstage or screen? But that's critical knowledge. How many know that a scene usually ends in disaster for the protagonist, and why it should? As someone who owned a manuscript critiquing service, I can tell you from experience, damn few.





> You haven't told him  anything about why his dialogue isn't working; you've simply bombarded  him with advice on pov that is plagued by unclear thinking.


So we've come to the point where the forum moderator is bellittling views differing from their own, and calling what they say "Unclear thinking?" Seems less than the most effective way to encourage literary debate. Asking for clarification or discussing the issues—even asking for my source—might have been a more productive approach.





> I can promise any aspiring writer not one of these men will turn you into a writer,


You can *promise* that reading a book by one of the most famous and respected professors of fiction, a book dedicated to teaching the reader the skills of professional writing won't give them useful skills? Seriously?

But forget that. If James Joyce was submitting his work today, as it was written then, he would be rejected before the end of the first paragraph. Look at the opening to Dubliners:

THERE was no hope for him this time: it was the third stroke. Night after       night I had passed the house (it was vacation time) and studied the       lighted square of window: and night after night I had found it lighted in       the same way, faintly and evenly. If he was dead, I thought, I would see       the reflection of candles on the darkened blind for I knew that two       candles must be set at the head of a corpse. He had often said to me: "I       am not long for this world," and I had thought his words idle. Now I knew       they were true. Every night as I gazed up at the window I said softly to       myself the word paralysis. It had always sounded strangely in my ears,       like the word gnomon in the Euclid and the word simony in the Catechism.       But now it sounded to me like the name of some maleficent and sinful       being. It filled me with fear, and yet I longed to be nearer to it and to       look upon its deadly work.

 An acquiring editor, or a reader would probably stop at: 
1. The lack of a character name to make the protagonist real.
2. Parenthesis in the opening paragraph.
3. The length of the sentence that talks about the kind of light in the window of someone we know nothing about.
4. The fact that an unidentified "he" is talking about another unidentified, "he," as if the reader knew them both.

There are more, but those are the most obvious. My point isn't that the writing is in some way bad, it's that we are not writing for a 1914 publisher and reader. So modeling our writing to that market would not seem to be the best way to impress a publisher. Joyce was a giant. That's not in question. But were the man writing today he would be addressing today's readers, and what they seek in entertainment.


----------



## Patrick (May 14, 2016)

This topic is about dialogue, and you're rehashing the same points you've made elsewhere on a specific writing formula. Why not quote some of Sol Stein's writing that deals with dialogue, if you must?

I am not going to continue a discussion which leads away from the op's stated intentions, which, once again, concern dialogue. If you want to debate other aspects of literature with me, you can start a thread or send me a pm, or you can even do me a favour and pick a fight with my own fiction, and I might respond.


----------

