Forum: Author Hangout

Sequence of action and dialogue

Switch Blayde 🚫
Updated:

When we had our contentious adverb discussion, I used an example of the adverb "angrily" attached to a dialogue tag and said if the author had shown the anger before the dialogue he wouldn't have needed the adverb. And by showing the anger beforehand, the reader heard the anger in the words (dialogue) rather than be told afterward that he said it angrily.

I was reading a story last night with another — What comes first, the action or the dialogue? I'm too lazy to go back and find the exact quote so I'll paraphrase. The author wrote something like:

"Silence!" the captain yelled, pounding his fist on the table.

Personally, I believe the action of him pounding his fist on the table would make the dialogue more powerful if it preceded the dialogue with something like:

The captain pounded his fist on the table. "Silence!"

or

The captain pounded his fist on the table. "Silence!" he yelled.

…just my opinion.

Replies: Dominions Son Reluctant_Sir Quasirandom Grey Wolf JoeBobMack

Dominions Son 🚫

@Switch Blayde

Personally, I believe the action of him pounding his fist on the table would make is dialogue more powerful if it preceded the dialogue with something like:

Personally, I think the impact is highest if the action and the dialog are simultaneous. I'm not sure how to format that in a story.

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Dominions Son

Personally, I think the impact is highest if the action and the dialog are simultaneous.

I think that's what he was after, writing that the captain said "Silence!" while pounding his fist on the table. But words are read in sequence and even though that was his attention (I'm assuming), the reader first hears the dialogue and then finds out he's pounding his fist (even though they are happening at the same time).

I guess he could have written:

Pounding his fist on the table, the captain yelled, "Silence!"

Replies: Lumpy

Lumpy 🚫
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

Pounding his fist on the table, the captain yelled, "Silence!"

I would have written it closer to that. I agree the pounding the table first makes it more impactful. I might have done:

The Captain pounded his fist on the table and yelled, "Silence!"

(although I see nothing wrong with the way it was written in the original post example either, with silence being first. Both look fine to me)

Reluctant_Sir 🚫

@Switch Blayde

It seems like it is character and situation specific.

If a character is a plodding sort, hard to anger, then pounding his fist first, then yelling for silence would be better than the reverse.

If the character is more excitable, then yelling for silence and pounding on the table simultaneously (or after, for effect) would make more sense.

When dealing with action, the sequence would affect the outcome (or the perception of the observer/reader).

Quasirandom 🚫

@Switch Blayde

I'd go with just

The captain pounded his fist on the table. "Silence!"

Don't even need the yelling.

Replies: awnlee jawking Switch Blayde Paladin_HGWT

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Quasirandom

The captain pounded his fist on the table. "Silence!"

Don't even need the yelling.

The captain pounded his fist on the table. "SILENCE!"

Damned cellphone, now they'll think I was shouting.

;-)

AJ

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Quasirandom

The captain pounded his fist on the table. "Silence!"

Don't even need the yelling.

I agree. But since the author had that dialogue tag I offered it as an option.

Paladin_HGWT 🚫

@Quasirandom

Context matters. To me ! indicates intensity, but not necessarily volume.

I have known some people who the more intense they become, the softer they speak (as a generalization; situation depending).

Because much of my writing is about military personnel, who tend to yell more than ordinary people, I tend to use descriptors more than would be common in most stories.

Partly this is because in battle, or training exercises, people are trying to communicate over other loud noises, distances of several hundred yards/meters, possibly trying to get the attention of distracted people.

It is my intent, but perhaps not noted by some, or even most readers, that I differentiated between "Yell" "Shout" "Barked" or "Screamed" particular emotional states.

I might use a descriptor such as "angrily" or "panicky" if a Character is acting different than their established manner, or if it is a one time character; or if it is a situation where the Point of View character cannot see, but only hear another character.

Instead of angrily, I would instead describe the character as "red-faced" or "spittle flying" etc.

In the situation we are using as a reference, I would specify "shouted" or "with a quiet intensity" or some other descriptor, rather than just "said"

Grey Wolf 🚫

@Switch Blayde

Thinking about this, I can see 'angrily' being worthwhile in limited cases. Consider a character who is both very slow to anger and who is good at not showing it even when angry. I know people like that. It takes a lot to get them going, then they silently seethe until something makes it erupt.

So, there may be no prior way to see them as angry. From anyone else's perspective, they're calm and restrained, and then yelling emerges. Perhaps not healthy, but it's not at all the same as a volcanic personality who's easy to get riled up.

So, if the first thing said in anger is: "Get out. Now. Just go. Anywhere." I could see that warranting 'angrily' (because one could've said that in the same dead calm that's preceded it).

Rare case, but interesting, and there won't be any action to show, because the character doesn't react that way. They're not going to pound the table or throw something or even change facial expression (unless you're an expert at microexpressions, anyway).

And, of course, the writing-guide problem is that, for every example where that makes sense, there are dozens where one should know, from context, that the speaker is angry.

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Grey Wolf

Thinking about this, I can see 'angrily' being worthwhile

Actually, in this case the captain wasn't angry. He just wanted everyone to shut up. "Angrily" was used in another thread.

JoeBobMack 🚫
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

This comment basically addresses the whole thread.

Writing is challenging, and both approaches - "showing" emotions through actions or "telling" them through labels like "angrily" - have particular challenges.

Emotions are driven by thoughts, and for any given situation, different people will have different thoughts and, therefore, different emotions. We have all seen this happen. A group goes through an experience together - a rough day in basic training, listening to an announcement that the company is closing, watching planes crash into the Twin Towers - and yet people experience VERY different emotions because they have VERY different thoughts.

Thus, writers have to get readers inside their characters' heads in order for the reader to truly understand the emotion. Or, they have to do a very good job of building up the character and situation. Why did the captain pound the table? Let me count the ways... uh, possibilities. To get attention? As a calculated maneuver to distract or accomplish some other result? Because he pounds the table a lot and so no one paid much attention and he had to yell? Because he never pounds the table but this time demands it (in his opinion)?

On the other hand, naming the emotion gives clarity, whether in labeling an action as "angrily" or describing a character as being "angry", but it also distances the reader from the story and opens an opportunity for the reader to start to doubt the author. "He is angry," is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion. It can also raise questions as to the insight or reliability of the narrator. (See, for example, "Republicans pounce" as headline material - the use of the term raises issues of reliability and objectivity.)

If an author ever writes that a character experienced an emotion and that emotion doesn't make sense to me given what the story says (or hasn't said) about the character's thoughts, it throws me out of the story almost immediately. This is part of the problem with "insta-love" stories.

So, the best choice - show the emotion or tell the emotion - seems to be just that, an author's choice. But I would suggest that authors have to earn the right to tell, and it's a permission, a trust, that can be easily lost. However, once earned, it can make a story flow more smoothly if emotions can occasionally just be named.

Just thinking with my fingers. Not really arguing or disagreeing with anyone. Thanks for the opportunity, Switch Blayde!

Reply to topic

Forum: Author Hangout

Sequence of action and dialogue

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...