What is the purpose of dialogue?

[Brian G Turner]

I've been called up on my dialogue before now - I thought I was writing great dialogue, that was natural and realistic, and showed character relationships flowering.

It was pointed out that I was simply killing the pace, and that anything said should be essential to the character and story, not superflous to it.

Simply put, if you can remove a line of dialogue without affecting the story, then it's not needed. Additionally, if you can summarise a half a page of dialogue in a couple of sentences, better to do that.

It was more about being aware of the reader and presuming they would patiently read through lots of chattering by the characters about what they were doing.

Also, our job is not to write natural dialogue, but instead a concise version of it, to ensure clarity and pace.

Now, the really important part is that everyone has their own style and flaws, and what may work or not work is going to be individual to a piece. However, with crits people will simply try and share their own experiences. It's entirely up to the individual to determine how valid any feedback is - or not, as the case may be.

 

[allmywires]

I thinking writing dialogue exactly as a person would say something doesn't usually read right.

As a transcriber you get to notice how people talk. People make no sense almost all the time. Starting sentences and never finishing them, repeating themselves ENDLESSLY, um-ing and ah-ing all over the shop, interrupting and finishing sentences for each other...I would say probably about 50% of the stuff most people say is useful. And I'm being generous there probably.

If dialogue in books were actually like that we'd all be bored, confused, and annoyed.

 

[Gumboot]

As a transcriber you get to notice how people talk. People make no sense almost all the time. Starting sentences and never finishing them, repeating themselves ENDLESSLY, um-ing and ah-ing all over the shop, interrupting and finishing sentences for each other...I would say probably about 50% of the stuff most people say is useful. And I'm being generous there probably.

If dialogue in books were actually like that we'd all be bored, confused, and annoyed.

Yeah, any writer who talks about writing dialogue the way people speak has obviously never actually listened to a real conversation.

The other thing, apart from the things listed above, is that real conversation is absolutely full of info-dumping.

 

[Christopher Lee]

I consider myself a pretty accomplished dialogue writer, mostly because I've spent the most time on it. I think any amount is good as long as it is moving the story forward. I've read too many books where people used dialogue improperly, actually halting the story's progress to let a few characters spew some philosophical bullcrap that usually is written poorly in the first place. You must have an eye and an ear for it, and if you do, you can make it work in your favor, no matter how much of it you use.

American writer Elmore Leonard's books were dialogue driven, and they're excellent reads.

 

[hopewrites]

Dialog in and of itself is a dieing art form. (in my experience anyway) since we have so much to entertain ourselves with people rarely have conversations that are a point in and of themselves. with parents needing to work harder longer hours just to keep up with the rising prices, less time is spent in conversation with one's own family where it would be easiest to practice the art of speaking with a variety of speakers who could aid and shape one's speech.
speaking in general terms of course. I am well aware that there are people who do speak with their families on a regular basis. and a few of those who encourage speaking as an art form. Just not in the numbers that would do so before the advent of other mediums of entertainment.

Does that mean there are people out there who prefer dialog? sure. Debate teams wouldn't still be a thing if there weren't.

I am just as happy with character conversation as I am with monologing. I am odd. Pretty much so long as the character(s) is(are) revealing themselves and/or growing, I'm happy to keep reading.


as to my own personal mode of speech... I tend to ramble around a point, (much like I do in my posts) occasionally loose it entirely, then find it again and be succinct, or move on.

 

[Bowler1]

People rarely have conversations that are a point in and of themselves.

You need to get yourself over to Ireland, and bring a couple of donkies with you that have hind legs, you'll need 'em.

Written dialogue as others have said is not real, or it would be painfully boring. It's contrived, yet it has to feel real - so it's hard to pull off. But that's the fun, acheiving something difficult.

 

[BetaWolf]

I'm working on dialogue. But the stuff that hangs around it is what usually is hard for me. Getting different speech patterns down with out resorting to dialect is kind of tough, too. Yesterday I was typing like a madman then I stopped dead. Would this backwoods farmer say 'ain't'? How do I make it realistic that he's a smart but uneducated man talking to a doctor who's a total idiot.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I've been called up on my dialogue before now - I thought I was writing great dialogue, that was natural and realistic, and showed character relationships flowering.

It was pointed out that I was simply killing the pace, and that anything said should be essential to the character and story, not superflous to it.

Simply put, if you can remove a line of dialogue without affecting the story, then it's not needed. Additionally, if you can summarise a half a page of dialogue in a couple of sentences, better to do that.

It was more about being aware of the reader and presuming they would patiently read through lots of chattering by the characters about what they were doing.

Also, our job is not to write natural dialogue, but instead a concise version of it, to ensure clarity and pace.

I think, regardless how much or little we use, this is good advice. But, I think it's advice that applies equally to exposition, too. Bascically, the tighter we write it, the more engaging it should be.

Now, the really important part is that everyone has their own style and flaws, and what may work or not work is going to be individual to a piece. However, with crits people will simply try and share their own experiences. It's entirely up to the individual to determine how valid any feedback is - or not, as the case may be.

Ah, sorry, it's not about particular crits, but a myriad of different comments which I've seen, some here, some on Twitter, and also in a couple of crits elsewhere, which made me wonder a little if the market was changing its taste a little. I'm generally pretty happy that some people will find mine a little on the dialogue-heavy side, but that's part of the way I write. Since i don't do description well, I need to get something in to fill the pages!

 

[HareBrain]

which made me wonder a little if the market was changing its taste a little.

This provoked in me the scared middle-aged reactionary thought that people (especially younger ones) might be going off dialogue because they no longer do it themselves -- everything is electronic.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Ah, sorry, it's not about particular crits, but a myriad of different comments which I've seen, some here, some on Twitter, and also in a couple of crits elsewhere, which made me wonder a little if the market was changing its taste a little. I'm generally pretty happy that some people will find mine a little on the dialogue-heavy side, but that's part of the way I write. Since i don't do description well, I need to get something in to fill the pages!

Reading Eye of the World from Wheel of Time, dialogue is used very succintly in there. I think it's a good template for a number of things to work from.

Simply put: tighter, leaner, better.

I am not naturally good at those things.

 

[Hex]

Which is interesting -- even in these electronic days, little kids talk all the time. It's almost impossible to get them to be quiet.

Perhaps it's something that happens to teenagers?

 

[Montero]

As a transcriber you get to notice how people talk. People make no sense almost all the time. Starting sentences and never finishing them, repeating themselves ENDLESSLY, um-ing and ah-ing all over the shop, interrupting and finishing sentences for each other...I would say probably about 50% of the stuff most people say is useful. And I'm being generous there probably.

I seem to recall hearing something recently about "flocking noises" - its all the noise that people make to make other people aware they are there. Tried a quick google but just got bird and sheep flocks.

 

[Boneman]

Sorry to contradict Brian, but the excessive dialogue is what made me give up WOT, at about book 3 or 4 there was pages and pages of it, and I used to flick onwards, looking for the next action, because they seemed to spend sooo much time using dialogue to tell,tell,tell.

Finding the balance is difficult, because it can be an excellent vehicle for telling, if used judiciously, but boring if used too much. I have to admit, I find it really hard to have 'long' dialogue in my writing - you know, the character who talks for three or four paragraphs, even though I know it works so well when others do it!

 

[prizzley]

I use it when the characters have something interesting or important to say to each other . . . I can't really imagine that any dialogue used in this way would be seen as "too much".

I can! I've skipped a whole chapter of dialogue, which was probably important - a wartime tactics session - but it introduced loads of characters and places I'd never heard of and was just plain boring.

IMO a wodge of dialogue is like a huge info dump. I'd break it up.

 

[Erin99]

I hope I'm gonna make a lot of sense here. I've got a bad head cold that's had me laid up for a couple of days, but I thougt I'd nip on here since I'm fed up of feeling lousy and wading through drowsy thoughts.

Sorry to contradict Brian, but the excessive dialogue is what made me give up WOT, at about book 3 or 4 there was pages and pages of it, and I used to flick onwards, looking for the next action, because they seemed to spend sooo much time using dialogue to tell,tell,tell.

I never understand it when people say this. It scares me, in all honesty. As writers we should be flexible, able to write whatever the scene requires, whether that be pages and pages of dialogue or pages of narrative (as long as the narrative isn't static and is moving the plot forwards).

It makes me wonder if it's actually a division between readers and reader-writers. the reader-only people I've known read everything, every sentence - and they love it. Yet writers read and analyse, and it breaks the immersion of the story and leads them to spot errors and wonder about parts they would change.

For me, my reaction to WoT is the same as I, Brian's. I've learned such a lot from the series, and I found no parts of dialogue excessive. I can't even remember what parts could have had pages and pages of dialogue, to be honest - and I'm at the end of book seven. I just find it wow(!!!) for what it's taught me. Jordan is so skilled at wordsmithery and plotting and world-building. I've learned things all the way, in every book. I can't recommend them enough, even if book one is nothing like the rest of the series.

 

[HoopyFrood]

I did get a bit bored whenever someone -- usually Moiraine -- starting retelling parts of history. Mostly because I don't like dialogue that throws names at you, most of which you probably won't hear again, in one big chunk. It's impossible to keep up with who's who doing what.

 

[Erin99]

Ah! But you will hear the historical names again, and they play a biiiiig, exciting part in the series. I rmember some of Moraine's speeches in book one, and I did find them very info-dumpy, but that's why I always say book one is the exception to the rest. Things improved so much afterward.

And yes, I found it hard to keep up in book one. The names start meaning something to you eventually, though, especially after book two. Book two - without me giving much away - really brings home the people in the legends.

 

[Hex]

I think readers have their own preferences -- I don't think it's a writer thing, though writers might be more conscious of what's bothering them (because they'd analyse, perhaps).

For years I didn't write fiction but when I was reading I'd skip anything that bored me -- huge chunks of description, great infodumps in dialogue, lots of myths and backstory -- because that's not the sort of thing I'm interested in and most stories stand up fine without them.

I know lots of other people who skip like crazy too -- I was astonished when I met my husband and he told me he read every word in books (including the intro bits and the historical stuff at the end). I never understood it.

That's one of the things I love about books -- if you go to see a film you just sit through all of it. If you're reading a book, you get to control the bits you spend time on (re-reading that perfect paragraph six or seven times -- skipping the page-long description of the sweating horse) and so people who like different things might love the same book. I really like Dickens and Dumas but I skip like crazy when I'm reading them.

I've read the WoT -- though I can't remember how far I got -- and I don't remember any of it (maybe it's time to read it again).

 

[allmywires]

This provoked in me the scared middle-aged reactionary thought that people (especially younger ones) might be going off dialogue because they no longer do it themselves -- everything is electronic.

I don't think this is true. I talk to my friends/family all the time, through both media. Even if we're sometimes on our phones when we're in each other's company we can still hold a conversation! Besides the fact most of the time me and my friends are just cracking jokes/mocking each other. I don't think conversation is dying out, I just think it's constant. I can reach any of my friends through a click of a few buttons and it's awesome (except when they're annoying you, but you know.)

For years I didn't write fiction but when I was reading I'd skip anything that bored me -- huge chunks of description, great infodumps in dialogue, lots of myths and backstory -- because that's not the sort of thing I'm interested in and most stories stand up fine without them.

I know lots of other people who skip like crazy too -- I was astonished when I met my husband and he told me he read every word in books (including the intro bits and the historical stuff at the end). I never understood it.

That's one of the things I love about books -- if you go to see a film you just sit through all of it. If you're reading a book, you get to control the bits you spend time on (re-reading that perfect paragraph six or seven times -- skipping the page-long description of the sweating horse) and so people who like different things might love the same book. I really like Dickens and Dumas but I skip like crazy when I'm reading them.

I skip all the time. I do it with film and TV too. It has to be something really special to hold my attention, which is quite depressing really. That's what I think is more of a problem of modern society - I'm always so distracted, there's always something else I can be doing, so if I'm watching a film online or reading, if I'm bored I'll just open up a new tab and go on Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr for a bit.

 

[Erin99]

Urgh. My throat feels like razors. Grrr. Anyway...

I think readers have their own preferences -- I don't think it's a writer thing, though writers might be more conscious of what's bothering them (because they'd analyse, perhaps).

For years I didn't write fiction but when I was reading I'd skip anything that bored me -- huge chunks of description, great infodumps in dialogue, lots of myths and backstory -- because that's not the sort of thing I'm interested in and most stories stand up fine without them.

I know lots of other people who skip like crazy too -- I was astonished when I met my husband and he told me he read every word in books (including the intro bits and the historical stuff at the end). I never understood it.

That's one of the things I love about books -- if you go to see a film you just sit through all of it. If you're reading a book, you get to control the bits you spend time on (re-reading that perfect paragraph six or seven times -- skipping the page-long description of the sweating horse) and so people who like different things might love the same book. I really like Dickens and Dumas but I skip like crazy when I'm reading them.

I've read the WoT -- though I can't remember how far I got -- and I don't remember any of it (maybe it's time to read it again).

And yet... in those stories where there's very little history and depth, and everything's action, action, action with only the barest dialogue, I find them lacking. Sure, I've enjoyed what's gone on, and (if the author's done their jopb) loved the characters, but the place/setting doesn't feel real. There's no life to it beyond the places the character(s) goes.

I remember I, Brian saying he loved that Jordan had written a throwaya line along the lines of "this named road became the Old Road for no reason anyone can remember". Yet... isn't that a line of superfluous narration in the days of "everything must be relevant"? Yet it adds something, makes the word 3D and alive - with history. I found it cosy, too.

It's the difference between creating something real and just skimming with only what's relevant. That's what I feel stories should be about (well, the best ones, anyway). Making something that could be real somewhere. Exploring the adventures of characters whose stories would otherwise go unnoticed.

That's why I read whatever a writer's got in his book if I fit well with his style. If he's thought it important enough to include, that it makes his world richer, assuming I love the characters and story, I'll read it all. And it immerses me to a greater extent and leaves me feeling ilke the place exists somewhere out there if only I could find it.