Dialogue with more than two people

[Dragonlady]

Any tips anyone? It always ends up feeling a big clunky - he said, she said etc.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think a lot of the time readers don't pick up on "said" very much - not as much as "shouted," "whispered" or some other dramatic word, so I wouldn't worry too much about over-using it. Generally, I would assume that conversation is between two named people until a third one is said to be intervening, so something like this:

"Hello," A said.
"Hello," B replied. "How are you?"
"Fine."
"So am I."
"I too am fine," C put in. He was sitting in the shadows, and A had not noticed him before.
"Oh really?" B said.

The "Fine" and "So am I" don't need any descriptions, as they're "said" by default and we know who's saying them. So you could get away with that. But when C shows up, we need some kind of tag to explain who it is (and what their situation is). Small pieces of description can help to break things up, especially if they're physical responses to what's being said (someone looks away, smiles, looks out the window, etc). Or the characters could be in some interesting place where something's going on in the background, provided that it doesn't detract from the conversation too much.

 

[Star-child]

Opinion: Conversations only really happen between two people at a time, so a third will be "interjecting" and can be denoted as such until you have the two primary speakers change, at which point you can note that with "Elaine went back to eating".In between treat it like there are only two speakers.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Just off the top of my head, I'd say it depends on what you want to convey. (And what you mean by clunky! I sort of assumed you meant that it just becomes a monolithic text of various characters direct speech ) Do you want us to hear exactly every single word said by all the characters? Also the level of PoV are you using might be relevant.

I'm reading Jeff Vandermeer's Southern Reach trilogy at the moment and he has quite a few scenes with multiple numbers of characters. Usually in conference or meetings.

So he is using a pretty close third person PoV, so that we are usually deep in the protagonist's head. Thus in a meeting we could have blocks of direct speech, being broke up with a paragraph or two (or more) of the protagonists thoughts, mulling over something that had been said, or him noticing a reaction from another or all of the characters, then some parts of the conversation indirectly noted but not recorded - even speech that the protagonist says can be handled this way. Essentially just focus on all the interesting things that need to be said, focus on the PoV's thoughts and ignore the rest!

EDIT: I disagree that conversations only happen between two people, that definitely doesn't happen in real life. But it can be hard, when writing, to ensure that you don't confuse the reader with multiple characters with who is saying what, so you have to be careful, and having one 'drop out' for a moment is useful in places. Mind you going too far the other way, where you have a big slab of two characters talking, then one steps down and then you have the next slab of discussion with the new 'primary' couple can be really irritating to read too.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Any tips anyone? It always ends up feeling a big clunky - he said, she said etc.

I remember getting stuck on this - in the end, I found it best to focus on just a couple of characters to carry the main dialogue, with other characters chipping in as required. If using multiple third person limited POVs, your POV character for that scene is ideally the one with the most conflict.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

This is perhaps less difficult than it appears.
"Said" is an invisible word. Use it roughly every fourth conversational line to keep the reader on track. All readers mentally ignore it after a short while.
A better alternative is to use snippets of description, (i) to keep the reader on track and (ii) to give visual cues.

 

[Steve Harrison]

If I have a scene like that I just write the conversation almost in dot point form

"xxx," said #1
"yyy," said #2
"zzz," said #3
etc

until everything is said (& done).

Then I edit the hell out of it. In this way I can establish the structure and content of the scene before worrying about how it should read and what the characters are actually doing.

It's a bit like the difference between actors doing a script read-through and performing the scene.

 

[-K2-]

Be aware, I'm simply a novice writer, so my opinion is simply preference.

I have a number of scenes where numerous individuals are speaking at the same time. Typically, to a single individual (much like a crowd all voicing their opinions, upset, or making jokes at the same time). I found some additional indentation helped a LOT, but, didn't add a space between each line. In other words:

"Hey, I'm mad!" Bob yelled.
____"I'm really mad," another added.
_________"I think she's right," voiced an old man.

In some cases when it was inconsequential as to who said what (like a mob scene), I even went so far as to eliminate the 'who said what' descriptives. That worked out even better.

In the past, I had a few scenes in a novel taking place around a cowboy's bunkhouse dinner table. Eighteen men stepping over each other with what they were saying, yet it was important that we knew who said what. In the initial draft, I used typical methods, but, it lost the fast & loud, all at the same time, feel I wanted. So, I tried a 'script-like' method of Bob: "I don't think--" Jim: "You never think--" Tom: "Wut's think?"... deal. It worked well, but, I'd never use it again and would bet dollars to doughnuts no publisher would allow it. But that's all just a guess.

K2

 

[Star-child]

I disagree that conversations only happen between two people, that definitely doesn't happen in real life.

There are of course all sorts of exceptions - especially when the conversation isn't very interactive (people calling out suggestions or sharing memories). But the basic interrogative structure of most conversation causes us to focus on one person at time for at least brief periods. And why I'm pointing this out is that we can use the disruptions to that structure to create the 'action' of the conversation. The fact of a third character's interruption draws focus to what is being said and the differing perspectives and personalities of those conversing. It is also an opportunity to keep the conversation grounded in a time and place as the author notes how people enter and leave the conversation.

Another example of what I'm talking about is the awkwardness of any third person joining an already active conversation between two people, like at a party. The third person is often seen to be 'interrupting' if they add to the interaction without invitation. If dialogue wasn't so centered on one-to-one interaction, joining in wouldn't feel so rude.

The best example of what I'm talking about is any scene on Seinfeld where all four characters come together. Generally, it will be a series of one-on-ones (usually between Jerry and one of the other three), that derives much of its humor for the way one of the other two interject into what was being talked about. And then a stream will end as Kramer bursts in and becomes the new conversationalist. In the meantime the other characters will become either passive observers or go to some other task, both of which are set-ups for future interjections. It is both a format that makes the scene more lively and a structure that allows the writers to use mostly simply punctuated back and forth and be able to bring in other characters to change the course of the dialogue.

The bridge on Star Trek functions similarly, with characters waiting their turn or being called into the discussion by whatever character is "in charge" of the dialogue, or bursting in with some timely information about shields and phasers. So it isn't just a comedy thing.

 

[Dragonlady]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone. One example I was working on this morning was a family meal time with at least four people. Some conversation the protagonist is involved in, some she is listening to and her thoughts are reported. In that sort of situation you can use peoples' actions to draw attention to the speaker. Two other situations are where character 1 introduces the protagonist to character 2, so the protagonist talks to character 2, but character 1 is involved in the discussion too. I seem to find it more natural to introduce the speaker at the start of their speech, rather than '.....' she said, what to others think?

 

[Stephen Palmer]

You can do that anyway, for variety - also swap the name with 'said' every now and again.
Sometimes if a piece of dialogue is going to be "definite" (in mood/tone) I'll start the sentence, She said, "...

 

[Juliana]

Also, remember you can alternate with actions instead.

"I'm hungry," A said.
"Well, we should order food," B replied.
C jumped up from the sofa. "I'll get the take out menus."

 

[Vareor]

Just adding one more alternative to Juliana's suggestion, you can also use voice descriptors.
Here's an article which you might find useful:

https://www.katiegoldingbooks.com/single-post/2018/03/12/Dialogue-Tags-Actions-Beats-Voice-Descriptors-Oh-my

 

[tegeus-Cromis]

I have a few such scenes in my recently finished novel, scenes in which I worked hard to keep the dialogue flowing smoothly while using as few "x said" as possible. I prefer to have, if possible, internal evidence in the line of dialogue identify the speaker, or else to have them identified in the following line by the next speaker. ("You don't mean that, Hortensia." And yes, this is a made-up example. I don't actually have a character named Hortensia. Though maybe I should...)

 

[Margaret Note Spelling]

I think some of the technique might have to do with keeping track of what the conversation, as a whole, actually is about. The Star Trek bridge scenes, with characters waiting their turn with information, works well because the conversation is about advancing the plot, and we never leave that even with the addition of new speakers. I think my question would be, between all these people you have--four, right?--how many conversations are actually going on? It's been said that three people actually triple the potential for conflict from two, because instead of one relationship to think about, you have three--A/B, A/C, B/C. Four makes it even more complicated.

I had to write a scene awhile back, with six individual characters all having a confrontation. Half the characters were strangers to the other half, which technically made it one argument, with three people on each side. But the lines of conversation became really complicated because, while the first person was arguing with the three strangers, the second was giving him casual support but mostly arguing with him whenever a particular grievance came up. The third was more or less on the side of the first but answering the second, while basically ignoring the three strangers. The three strangers themselves were all trying to make the same argument, but they weren't working together--one of them was trying to make the point more belligerently, and the other two were more-or-less allied in peaceful negotiation but only one of them resented the first's interference.

I'm not sure I actually succeeded in making the scene flow right--but I learned a few ways of thinking about conversations from that. There was one main conversation going on, primarily between two people with occasional support when a couple of the others had a relevant thought. That was carrying all the rest. All the rest, when they happened, had the feel almost of parenthetical dialogue, and they weren't technically what the scene was about--they broke in, briefly, and then we returned to the main conversation. The question was, how long could I spend on a side conversation before returning to the main one--and could I go from the main conversation, interject a side conversation, and then interject another side conversation into that one, before returning to the main one? A simplified example might be:

Robbie swung around to face the Swordmaster. "You're very brave with a sword in your hand," he said. "But what about face to face with another blade?"

"Blades don't have faces," said Bailey, under his breath.

"Should I regard that as a challenge?" asked the Swordmaster.

"Robbie...." said Nellie and Bailey together.

Robbie grinned at his two companions. "Hey, I'll be fine. I'm not totally incompetent, you know."

They stared at him. Nellie couldn't tell if he was serious or not.

The Swordmaster smiled, glancing over his shoulder. "Sophie, give me our son's sword."

"So that's where it went," Maxie muttered.

"You left it by the lake," said Sophie, tossing the blade to her husband....

And so forth. I think that was five characters speaking in total, or six if you count the combined dialogue at the beginning (I know, cheating!), and the perspective is Nellie's. It's an extremely abridged version of part of the actual conversation I wrote. Everyone's got a different agenda, and they're pursuing it subordinate to who is actually doing the action--I suppose, if the situation is social, it would be whoever's doing most of the talking. It's different if there's only one conversation, and the entire six people trying to take part. I've typically found that real-life conversations between that many people either split up into multiple individual and simultaneous conversations, or everyone (primarily) listens to one or two people--or possibly a third--who are having one single conversation, and they interject from time to time when they feel they have something relevant to say. There's a social hierarchy involved in who gets to speak, and when. It all depends on how strong everyone's separate agendas are. And what the conversation is about.

This might be the longest post I've written so far. Six-person conversations are complicated things!

 

[tinkerdan]

I think a a rule of thumb, keep dialogue separated by new paragraphs for new speakers and then the only rule from there is that it is clear who the speaker is. I wouldn't call said invisible; however it is one of the least intrusive words to use for a dialogue tag. Using too many said-s in a row is like using too many instances of any word--so I'd try to switch it up by using some other means of narrative to pinpoint the speaker.

Where there are two speakers unattributed dialogue might be used although I'd intersperse an occasional said to throw the reader a lifeline now and then through the mess.

That much said; the bottom line is clarity in identifying the speaker.

Nothing worse than having to stop and say who the heck said that?

Sometimes it might be clear because only one person in the scene would have said it that way. That's when you know you have defined your character well.

 

[Plucky Novice]

Much has been said already that I agree with. Particularly the need to be break up dialogue with thoughts or actions.

Similarly, I think dialogue tags have a useful purpose in pacing the dialogue. Without tags the dialogue is fast and that is not necessarily the desired effect. Tags slow the reader down.

Equally if you want a fast dialogue, like a heated argument with little thought, get rid of those tags if you can.