Beats / Description in dialogue

[Coragem]

Hi everyone:

So, something I struggle with. "Beats" and description in dialogue.

By "beats" I mean the attributions we use instead of he said / she said, often including some description. Instead of Bill said, 'Let's go.' we may say Bill jerked to his feet. 'Let's go'

I am told most new writers use too many beats. I think I probably do and I think I may also incorporate too much description (e.g., of the speaking character) during dialogue. I find it tricky because for me a primary aim is to make my characters seem lifelike and often real people do move, gesture, frown, wince (etc) during speech. On the other hand, I know well that too many beats, too much description, clutters and slows dialogue.

Anyway, one typical-ish for me example below. Thoughts?

‘And out there.’ The vice-president pointed. ‘That’s just the frontal assault. The media, they’re running with the line that this is 2153 again, pundits on Cabrera, Wakeup Wright, the fora bands, probably Gimenez by now, all shaking their stupid heads, saying, Hm, you know, Maritza, if anything numbers at the Mariinsky flashpoint in 2153 were down on the numbers we’re seeing this time around.’ Itching, exasperated, impotent hands leapt to his temples, slapped against thighs. ‘Worse, any of you guys catch the Counter Group vue-cast half an hour ago?’

Cheers,

Coragem.

 

[Coragem]

Two more examples. Bits that I plan to take out are in colour.

‘Every fifteen minutes.’ Nick again, those three words said with undulating cadence, with the blade edge of his right hand marking syllables against the palm of his left. ‘Every fifteen another company of protesters arrives, a company larger than the last by a mean factor of one point seven-five.’ Hands up. ‘We anticipated confused protest across the UUP, we traced chaotic movement across the UUP. Instead this, this …’ Head shaking. ‘Every last operative and contractor and cordon and even still Principal Souza will require a prayer to Mary.’

‘Wait.’ The vice-president, palm intruding out and down towards Julia. ‘Just … Let’s work with this.’ He swept a glance face-to-face, maybe gauging whether he had the others’ sympathy, maybe thinking fast. ‘What if we move Rania to Whitehorse? I can, gee, I can visit my folks down in Hamilton, go MIA in Euro-Fed, whatever. Roberto diverts his ops.’

 

[BetaWolf]

Stephen King has a small book on writing that I looked over some time ago. One of his points was the utility of 'he/she said' over any other indicator in dialogue.

I'm rather new to fiction, but I try to keep things simple. I find that I add a lot of adverbs, well maybe one time in eight, e.g., "I always thought your green skin was beautiful," he said with a wink.

Or:

"Oh, we didn't mind waiting an extra hour," she replied sarcastically.

 

[Chel]

I'm struggling a bit with this, too. In real life, when I'm talking to friends face to face, we're usually all sitting down, fairly still. Someone might take a gulp of water occasionally, or wave a hand, or push hair out of his/her eyes, but that's pretty much it (apart from the one friend who relaxes so much on the couch that he slides onto the floor).

In my writing, my characters want to get up and move around a lot, just to do something more than just talk. In the following passage, I almost had to duct-tape my characters to their chairs, and I have a strong urge to release them and let them bounce around the room.


“I'd like to hear your thoughts, yes,” Auric said, voice sounding strained.
“It's always been the three of us.” Valmarian chose his words carefully. “You and her in everything except for the bond Narthos created between her and me.”
Auric didn't reply, just looked at Valmarian, nodding for him to continue.
“When I sang for Amilia, there was something – a connection beyond anything else I have ever felt.” Valmarian pretended not to notice Auric's pained expression. “It started when Prince Aurion was born. Narthos granted me his power to make it easier for Amilia to give birth. Before that I was never anything more to her than a possible second choice after you. Surely you know this?”
“Knowing and understanding are two different things,” Auric replied. “I always knew there was something special between you two. But I never had reason to doubt or suspect either one of you. I just want to understand what happened, and more importantly, what has changed.”
“I can't explain it. Yes, I loved Amilia.” It hurt Valmarian to say it. “And I knew I could never have her. She was never meant for me.”
“So you started looking elsewhere,” Auric said.
“Not too proud of it, either,” Valmarian confirmed. “I never found anyone I felt as strongly for as Amilia. Until Sorellia.”
Auric considered his words. “So you're saying Amilia is jealous?”
“It's not quite as simple as that. Narthos broke the bond between Amilia and me.”
“What does that mean?” Auric asked, a note of worry evident in his voice.
“Hopefully that she is free to love you completely now, without you having to put up with a love-struck singer-friend always trying to find excuses to steal a moment of her devotion. And that I'm free to commit myself to Sorellia, wholeheartedly.”

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Coragem, I like the use of beats/action tags in dialogue and the curent vogue is for them as well as I saids in my understanding. But, imho, they need to be simpler than the first you have used here, particularly since the dialogue around them was relatively complex. In the first example it was like I was having to concentrate on two levels -- the instructions, and then the movement -- which meant that neither was clear to me. The splice leading to slapped his thighs stopped me, too, as it seemed so fragmentary amongst a dialogue that was quite long winded. I'm sure, knowing you, it has been placed there deliberately, partly maybe as a contrast (?) but it pulled me right out.

The second one, without the blue, works well for me.

The third one didn't work for me and i think it's because "the vice president, palms out and down towards Julia" doesn't read like an action, but more like a dialogue tag that has just had said taken out, which isn't the same thing, imo. If you put a thrust his in place of the comma or showed his palms...then it would have worked fine for me because it becomes an action. I hope this all make sense, I'm not terribly good at explaining grammar things.

Chel, your dialogue worked fine for me, but I had a problem with the third sentence. Since you used nodding it implies a continous action through the sentence, and that made the actions seem a little ungainly.

 

[HareBrain]

I agree with Springs, Coragem. Your beats need too much making sense of to go with such dialogue. And I don't think you need them all. What does "hands up"/"head shaking" actually tell us? You don't need to break up dialogue for the sake of it. If readers are interested in what's being said, they'll happily read long paragraphs of nothing else (or at least I will). And if they're not already interested, having the speaker wave his hands about won't make them so. If you feel you need to insert a pause, you could try a paragraph break (in long chunks of dialogue, this can work well) or have him do something a bit more revealing of character.

The example beats would also be clearer if you specified who was doing the actions. In your first example, we're almost invited to ask whose hands are leaping to temples and slapping against thighs. It risks painting a very comical image, which I'm sure isn't what you want.

I'd also say that your dialogue itself could do with being clearer. Again in the first example, the line beginning "The media" has far too many commas for my liking, making it too "slippery". I think it would work better broken into smaller sentences.

 

[Bowler1]

I think - The writer needs to work hard at clarity using as few words as possible. Carefully picking one or two words to express meaning, and let the plot/storyline carry on without distracting the reader too much. This takes a lot of work to achieve, but if done right, this brings a great deal of satisfaction to you the writer. Reading Coragem's examples above, I found them too dense, and if I'm frank, a little long winded. What I did like and what you have some skill at, is word choice and description - but I think you need to focus on clarity, and narrowing down your word selection to fewer words with greater meaning. Sorry, buddy.

I think - you have to work harder so the reader doesn't have to, less really is more.

Bearing in mind of course I'm not published either, and I'm just trying to be helpful. So all the above is just what I think.

 

[Coragem]

I think - you have to work harder so the reader doesn't have to, less really is more.

Thanks to everyone. I agree with you all … or I see that you all agree with me.

I think my writing will always be a bit dense for some people's taste. If I have something complex or tricky to say, I never shy from it. Yet, absolutely, saying more with less, making the complex simple – that's the way to go.

I recently read The Dervish House by Ian McDonald. He is brilliant at making characters lifelike, but he hardly ever mixes description into dialogue.

Thanks again.

Coragem.

 

[Bowler1]

I recently read The Dervish House by Ian McDonald. He is brilliant at making characters lifelike, but he hardly ever mixes description into dialogue.

I've no idea who the author is, but I agree with the concept. Think about your own conversations in day to day life, how often do you describe things? We all talk with an assumed knowledge, example below.

'Hello, good morning.'

or

'Hello, I see the weather is mildly warm today with sunny spells that is expected to last into the afternoon.'

Heehee, cheeky of me, but I couldn't resist. Author narration can fill in the weather details, your dialogue has to reflect the characters your developing. I spend ages on dialogue, trimming words off all the time, wondering if this is how I'd say stuff/or how the character would say stuff.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I was under the impression that "beats" means something else, relating to the rhythm of a piece?

Speaking strictly about attributions for dialogue, though - the lesson I'm learning is that less is more. "Saidisms" are to be avoided - I once posted a list here of many different ways of saying 'said', but the received wisdom of writing is that readers will quickly pass over 'said' as invisible, but other attributions can jerk their attention.

Additionally, I have tried to use actions or descriptions of emotions to underline dialogue, but it's been pointed out that my dialogue is doing these things anyway, so the description repeats and dilutes the impact.

As for your original example - you have someone nervously touching their temples then slapping their thighs during a section of dialogue, which seems too detailed. Instead of focusing on the words being spoken, we are asked to imagine his exact and exaggerated body actions, which distracts. If you have to include something, simply state that he stood nervously (we can therefore presume nervous hand twitching).

Overall, though, the argument is "keep it simple".

I know what you want to provide lots of detail, but you must remember that you need to allow the reader to imagine plenty themselves, because no matter how exacting you are with your descriptions, the reader will never picture in their minds the exact same thing you have in yours.

2c.

 

[Hex]

I struggle with these too, Coragem. One of the most helpful things Peter Graham told me back in the mistiness of times long past was that I overused them like a crazy person and I should let my dialogue stand for itself.

I still overuse them like a crazy person but, just like you're doing, I try to edit them down on the second or third pass. Having said that, I still like them.

I have no idea why -- or if anyone else agrees -- but I think they work OK in the chunk below. They're not all beats -- they're all mixed up with other stuff -- but there are several here:



"Yes, Mr Cobley," I say. I need to get this right -- no, I need to get it perfect. "Just... you know."

He frowns a little, but he's used to talking to kids. "Yes...?"

I look back down at my trainers and try to remember the sort of thing that would have bothered me two months ago. Teenage girl crisis. "Josh stole my diary." I scuff one toe over the other. Frown. "It's private."

He laughs, just a little. "I'm sorry to hear that. Big brothers can be thoughtless. What does your mum say?"

I shrug. "She says we need to work it out ourselves."

He's standing up now. Relieved, I bet, that it's just another kid thing and he doesn't have to call Social Services or write a letter to Mum.

"Well. That must be difficult for you."

There we go. He's slipped into meaningless adult blah. Crisis over.

"Yeah. Can I go now?"

 

[EricWard]

When people say beats in writing, I always took that as a physical action between dialogue as a way to create a certain rhythm (re: I, Brian). And I usually do that when there's some long monologue that needs to be read slower or to have a character do an action to reinforce what they've said.

Actions speak louder than words! Unless, of course, those actions are in a book. In which case they're words. Which are not as loud as actions in real life. But then...words...of action are not as...

Now I've gone and lost my concentration.

 

[BetaWolf]

I avoid too much description in dialogue. I usually give my characters something to do--they walk, they share a pot of tea, they go fishing--to keep something of a pace going.

To slow down my dialogue, I give my chatty characters a nice stack of sweets. My MC nibbles contemplatively. Her mentor smokes cigars, and her servant plays cards with a minor character.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

"Beats" in writing refers to a clipped word or phrase that describes a segment of action in regards to plot or characterization, not actual dialogue, dialogue tags, or description, ie not prose for the reader but notes for the writer.

So a beat would be "MC disarms the bomb, makes smartass comment." It's a part of plotting a story and setting a broad structure or outline to work from, as a means to write the full prose without getting lost in the weeds as it were. "What comes next? Let's look at the beats."

What the OP is referring to are saidisms, dialogue tags, and description between dialogue. Most of the advice given is spot on, I'm just leery of muddling terms.

 

[Hex]

It's clearly become a widespread misuse of the term, because there are many references to beats being descriptive snippets like "He shrugged."

e.g.: here and here and Writers' Digest

so it is a confusing area.

 

[Ursa major]

I've seen the word, beat**, used the way Brian said, but in a script (one by GRRM), i.e. not the kind of writing we're talking about here. The word was meant to be an indication to the actor (or director or both) as to how the writer wanted a silence in the dialogue to be paced.


As to the issue Coragem brought up, I tend to use 'said' (with the occasional 'asked') some of the time and action the rest of the time. But if anything, I find myself writing big blocks of dialogue with little else, which can also be a problem, I believe. (Getting this right seems to be like trying to walk two tightropes simultaneously.)


** - By the way, I'm convinced we've already mentioned the use of Beat in scripts elsewhere on the Chrons.

 

[Coragem]

… but the received wisdom of writing is that readers will quickly pass over 'said' as invisible, but other attributions can jerk their attention.

Additionally, I have tried to use actions or descriptions of emotions to underline dialogue, but it's been pointed out that my dialogue is doing these things anyway, so the description repeats and dilutes the impact.

I know what you want to provide lots of detail, but you must remember that you need to allow the reader to imagine plenty themselves …

Thanks Brian. You've hit a few nails on their heads. I do want to provide detail (preferably small, concise details that unlock lots of images) but it's very true that dialogue needs to stand on its own merits.

Sadly, although he/she saids are supposed to be invisible, I don't find that myself! I find they yank me out of story a little, into a consciousness that I'm reading fiction. Something I have to get over.

… Peter Graham told me back in the mistiness of times long past was that I overused them like a crazy person and I should let my dialogue stand for itself.

Having said that, I still like them.

Thanks Hex. I think I like them because I as my characters are speaking I tend to see lifelike motions in my head. I can see them, there, so real!!! How could it be wrong to write what's really happening??

At the same time, I've known for a long time that the dialogue I enjoy the most (both reading and writing) is the punchy back 'n forth that has few or no description / attribution.

Ah dear. I've been writing almost two years and I've come far, very far, in a short time, but there's always something else to learn!!!!

Coragem.