This came out of a different discussion. Short of watching YouTube tutorials, or something of that sort, what helped you write better dialogue.
If you had a favorite author, please include them (especially if they post on here).
Thank you all for your comments.
Know your character inside and out. Write it the way that character would say it. If it's a stuffy professor, write the dialogue in formal English. Maybe use big words if he is the kind who wants to impress people with his knowledge. If it's a tough, uneducated, streetwise kid, write the way that character would speak. If a character uses a lot of slang, well, have him talk with slang. Or maybe a character speaks in cliches. If a character lacks confidence, put in pauses.
The dialogue can give the character, well, character. In "The Last Boy Scout," one of the characters always called people by their formal name even if they didn't go by it. So he would call the main character Joe, Joseph. That had an impact on me. I remember it to this day.
Other than that stuffy professor, people don't speak in complete sentences. But don't go overboard with that, just like don't go overboard with pauses (e.g., um, uh). You still want it readable.
I'm sure if you Google "How to write dialogue in fiction" you'll get a lot of opinions, some good, some not so good. Choose the ones that help you.
As I heard when I started writing, "Know what you write, and write what you know..." Most of my first story was a reflection of my personal life.
Private school because my mother was a teacher there? Yep. Was I an EMT and a paramedic? Yep. Was I on most of the calls my main character went on? Yep. Was my MC's reaction to those calls based on my reactions? Yep.
It doesn't work for everyone, or every story, but it did for me... (My stuff is over on StoryRoom...)
what helped you write better dialogue.
My English 101 prof. He took pains to point out that most people, for example, use contractions all the time. Dialog without them feels horribly stilted to me. He told us he wanted us to listen to ourselves and realize that we didn't necessarily use 'proper' English when we spoke, so why would characters in a story?
As Switch Blayde pointed out, though, different characters speak differently. As long as it doesn't make the dialog too difficult to understand for others, giving them their own voices helps the reader immerse themselves in the story.
At one point an author mentioned that he goes back and 'dirties' up his characters' dialog to make theirs instead of his. I've found it a useful exercise — using "Mindy and I" as an object instead of the correct "Mindy and me", for example.
For an example on this website, see oyster50. In particular check out Cindy, and notice how Cindy's language changes over the course of the story.
I've found it a useful exercise — using "Mindy and I" as an object instead of the correct "Mindy and me", for example.
In the UK, that affectation is a symptom of upper class twittery. So it might show different things to different readers.
AJ
Listen to how people talk, and read stories with good dialogue, especially in the genres you're interested in. Sound things out if you need to, and see if you think it sounds realistic. Knowing the characters is very important, but you have to execute on what you know they would say and how they would say it or it still won't work.
Also, if dialogue is a problem for you, enlist editors who have a good ear for dialogue and will flag problems (if you can, of course). Good editors are important!
Listen to how people talk, and read stories with good dialogue
I don't think that the way people talk and good dialog in a story have much in common.The written word misses the non-verbal interaction, an actor would call it "business," which often conveys much more than the actual words spoken. Authors try to cover that missing element with descriptions and modifiers. Good authors do that well, most can't.
What I see happening most often is that the dialog is usually narration with quotation marks around it rather than actual conversation.
I don't think that the way people talk and good dialog in a story have much in common.The written word misses the non-verbal interaction,
Eh, the telephone has been around for a while now, so we've had some practice at dialog without the visual cues. It's not as rich in meaning as when it's face-to-face, but it's still dialog.
don't think that the way people talk and good dialog in a story have much in common.
The meaning of 'Good dialog' includes the way your characters talk. Actual people talk differently for a variety of reasons. In good dialog, your character's dialog needs to reflect actual people's speech patterns.
I agree but I think it requires real talent to do that. It also requires fleshing out the character of the speaker enough to allow the reader to fill in the blanks in his mind.
Instead, what we normally get are long recaps of the story or endless discussions that accomplish nothing.
That may be, but writing 'Good Dialog' takes skill and knowledge.
I know what you mean by long recaps and endless discussions. I don't like those either, but I am guilty of writing some of those. I typically do so as a reminder to my readers about what happened in earlier chapters.
Instead, what we normally get are long recaps of the story
Dialogue is a recognised 'showing' method for exposition. It shouldn't involve recaps unless the POV requires it to keep the characters informed.
AJ
They did this in the CSI crime shows. One of the techs would explain what they did to a colleague, but using for-dummies explanations. Drove me up the wall, and I gave up on them and 'Horatio Kane's' pseudo-ominous one-liners. Horrible dialogues!
using for-dummies explanations
They knew I was watching!
Sometimes I appreciated the dumbing-down. On the other hand, when they broached my area of expertise and got it completely wrong, it made me feel rather smug.
AJ
Dialogue is a recognised 'showing' method for exposition. It shouldn't involve recaps unless the POV requires it to keep the characters informed.
Sure it is but "normal" conversations doesn't involve two minute monologues telling someone about what happened or what they intend to do.
Sure it is but "normal" conversations doesn't involve two minute monologues telling someone about what happened or what they intend to do.
Much of what I write is Military Fiction.
Often, early in a short story, or at key times in a longer story, an Operations Order will be issued.
A Five-Paragraph OPERATIONS ORDER Consists of:
I: SITUATION: the Enemy Location(s) and probable course(s) of action. Friendly Locations, and actions that may effect your Mission. Terrain and Weather; in particular how such may effect the Mission.
II: MISSION What is to be done, When, Who will do it.
"Commander's Intent" a sentence or a brief paragraph to give context to the Mission.
For example: Mission: The Parachute Regiment will Seize the Bridge over the Nedjer Rhein in the town of Arnhem, NLT 0600 17 Sept 1944. The Commander's Intent is for the Paras to facilitate the advance of the Guards Armored Division to seize the industrial area of the Ruhr.
III EXECUTION How the Mission should be accomplished. This may be very detailed, or left up to the subordinate leader(s).
IV Command and Signal Organization of the Unit(s) to accomplish the Mission, including Attachments and Detachments, and specifying who is in Charge, and who takes over if someone becomes a casualty or is otherwise unable to perform their duties. Signal is how to Communicate with other units.
V: Service and Support amount of ammunition, food, and other material necessary to conduct the Mission.
In my stories I present an extremely truncated version of an actual Op Order, however, such a format allows me to present a general background for a person who may not be aware of the history of the events. Typically, I am aware of what information each side had Before the combat begins, so there may well be surprises for the reader, as there were for the people who lived through those events.
Other types of stories, such as Detective stories, or other investigations, or stories of Exploration, would plausibly have dialog, or a monolog, explaining the basics of the situation.
Other types of stories, such as Detective stories
How about legal stories, such as the opening and closing arguments by the attorney. Or the defendant explaining to his attorney what happened.
This comment is actually something of a digression, but an appropriate one (I think).
That's a challenge ('to keep the characters informed'). It is very common that the POV character has a conversation with someone. Someone else needs to know about it. One can repeat the conversation, or one can say, 'I filled in so-and-so about my conversation with the other guy' (there are likely other possibilities, too).
The first is very much 'show.' It's also boring and repetitive.
The second is closer to 'tell,' but moves things along. However, it also risks the reader thinking 'so-and-so' knows every little detail of the conversation, when something might have been missed during the filling-in (depending on how good the character is at recounting conversations).
What I've tried to do is recap some earlier conversations, then move to 'tell' with the occasional 'show.' Since we've seen how conversations get retold, we have some idea of where the gaps might turn up (if they do).
The first is very much 'show.' It's also boring and repetitive.
Unless the other character's reactions are important as he's being told. Also, the character may tell the other character something wrong, either on purpose or mistakenly.
That's part of my point in 'how good the character is at recounting conversations.' Showing some, telling the rest, works if you assume the character recounts the same way in general. If they intentionally misstate things, they should tell the reader they're doing so. If it's accidental, you have to show it, most likely.
Partly agree, partly disagree. I agree that simply recounting an actual conversation word-for-word will often miss the mark, and that you need descriptions and modifiers. But, if you don't have an ear for 'the way people talk,' you'll get that 'narration with quotation marks' effect, your characters will come off as pedantic and formal, or other unwanted (probably) outcomes.
Partly what I'm saying is that, if you can't read 'narration with quotation marks' and realize it's not dialogue, you won't be able to write dialogue very well. And one way to develop that skill is to listen to how people actually talk.
Switch Blayde pointed out a TV show in another thread, that has really good interpersonal dialogue.
'The Pitt'
It's a medical drama, but the spoken interactions between the characters is both really well done and believable.
How much of the dialog would lose meaning if you didn't have the visual element surrounding it?
I had a writing professor who gave us an assignment to go somewhere public and try to eavesdrop a conversation between two people, transcribing it as it went. The purpose was to get a feel for the natural ebb and flow of conversation, breaking free from stilted, artificial-sounding dialogue. I don't know if it was effective. I rebelled and just made up own.
I was always impressed with the dialogue written by the author Gregory McDonald, the author of the Fletch books. I remember it as very snappy, with wit.
I had a writing professor who gave us an assignment to go somewhere public and try to eavesdrop a conversation between two people, transcribing it as it went.
Crikey Carruthers, how old was he? 100? :-)
AJ
Nah, I'd say in his 40s. He wrote literary fiction and looked down his nose on genre fiction. It was a disappointing class in a lot of ways.
This was 35 years ago, for what it's worth.
That's actually how I first started writing. I first started as an artist, who'd created incredibly lifelike sketches and then "record the 'found conversations'" as a way of placing the sketch in a broader context.
It sounds odd, yet it gives you a better idea of how people actually talk, less introductory jibber-jabber and more how true friends actually tease and playfully taunt one another.
Lee Strasberg who was the the founder of the Actors Studio used that technique to help break actors out of slilted speech and mannerisms.
Often, language, between characters, also evolves over time. So when first meeting, their phrasing will be a bit strained, terrified of saying the wrong thing, and if things go well, they'll begin opening up, mainly hinting at things indirectly, to see how the other responds, particularly about previous relationships or, in a job setting, about their responsibilities in that previous job, as everyone begins working towards their new promotion shortly after getting each new one (self-promotion).
Likewise, relationships should begin slowly, building as the relationship progresses. Yet if someone has experience, they'll often sweep the other off their feet, and help move the relationship along, saving your romances from beginning so stiflingly slow.
Yet, save any major revelations for later, so they'll have more of an impact, so treat them as just that, 'revelations', where they recall those events in their early life which affected their attitudes going forward, predicating who they hope to become in the future.
Since fiction IS conflict, make such revelations dramatic, starting first with silence and avoidance, dancing around the topic, before getting them alone, softening them up, and giving them the old 'We need to talk' line that everyone fears. Only here, they use it to initially distract and then reward, as they lead into their innermost secrets (potential open relationship, running off to get married rather than a big expensive wedding, or just reveling a wilder, more impulsive tendency).
Also, as I've always advised, no one wants to read "how people ordinarily speak". That has its uses, yet just as reports cut the first three introductory paragraphs of a story, to get to 'good stuff', first, then backing up to reveal the specific details. Treat your dialogue the same way.
Skip that whole "Hey, how're the wife and kids", boring crap and start mid-dialogue, when someone reveals what they were waiting to announce to everyone. THEN, as everyone starts shouting questions, they too back up, supplying the precise details.
That way, you set the stage for the information, before they lay it out, setting the readers' expectations, rather than treating it like a 'regular', boring competition.
Because, in fiction, a dialogue is never just a dialogue, it's an introductory transition, either summarizing what transpired between scenes, OR it's introducing a new start of upcoming affairs. So treat it dramatically OR briefly summarize it to gracefully move beyond it.
But that's my $12 and 23¢.