# Rules for Dialogue



## kitreshawn (Dec 10, 2009)

Some pet peeves of mine with written dialogue.  I understand dialogue can be hard to write, but if you follow these guidelines I can assure you it will almost certainly be improved.




1) With very few exceptions use the verb "Said"

First rule because it is the one I have seen violated most often.  DO NOT strive for variety when writing dialogue.  New writers just starting out like to throw in all kinds of verbs to convey what is being said.  You have doubtless seen all kinds of pages with "100 alternatives for the word Said". 

Very bad idea.  Pick up any book from a book store.  Flip to the dialogue.  Tally how many times a word other than said was used, and how many times.  Almost without exception a professional writer will use the word "said."  This is for two reasons.  First, it is much better to convey things like "shouted" or "seethed" through actions and what is being said than to say that the dialogue was shouted.  Second, it is lazy crutch that removes reader engagement by dictating exactly what happened instead of trusting them to be smart enough to figure it out on their own.  Finally, the word "said" is favored above all others because it doesn't draw attention to itself, allowing the work to flow and the story to continue smoothly, keeping the focus on the dialogue (words other than said draw attention to themselves).


2) Pick a name to call the character and stick to it for the whole scene

If you have been calling the character Richard than be consistent and always use "Richard said" when tagging dialogue.  Don't suddenly start to use Mr. Robinson or the young man or something else.

This gets confusing for the reader very quickly.  You can use different names in later scenes (or chapters).  There are exceptions to this rule, as always, but it is a good rule of thumb.


3) Don't use -ly

Another thing I see that really annoys me is that people have their characters say something and then tag on a modifier with -ly.  This is rather lazy and removes reader engagement, explaining things and sounding rather condescending.  Often it also repeats information the reader probably already gleaned on their own.

For example, instead of:

"I don't know what to do," he said worriedly.

Try:

"I don't know what to do," he said with a sigh and looked at his hands.

As a more general rule it is a good idea to take a close look at any use of -ly words.  Suddenly should probably be completely eradicated from your stories.


4) Mix in actions with dialogue

One clear sign of a new writer is that they have not figured out how to merge character actions with dialogue properly.  For example they might write:

"How would you like to go out?" she asked.  She set down the book.
"That is a great idea," he said.  He stood up and went to get his keys.

Granted this is an overtly horrible mangling but it should get the point across.  By doing this you create a very halting story that is extremely distracting to the reader.  Much better would be:

"How would you like to go out?" she asked and practically flung her book onto the table.
"That is a great idea," he said, already looking for his keys.


5) Use dashes (--) not ellipses (...) to indicate interruption

This comes down to what different punctuation implies.  Dashes imply a sudden end to the reader while ellipses give more of a trailing off feeling.  If you use ellipses then it makes it seem like the person trailed off instead of being interrupted.


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 10, 2009)

"More like guidelines than actual rules" 

I'm looking through my 2007 Nano right now on a wordhunt for "said". 50,000 words and only about a dozen results, most of which were part of the actual dialogue and not annotation.

The word "asked", on the other hand.... over 100 times.  Ditto for the word "answered".

Not only do I have something of an aversion to the word "said" (my 2007 Nano utilized implicit Translator Convention for dialogue), but apparently my characters ask a LOT of questions.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 10, 2009)

Yeah, I don't use 'said' much, either, I don't think.

I think most of mine are:

"Don't move," he told her.
His voice was cold as he snarled at her, "Don't move."
She didn't even flinch when she heard him, "Don't move."
The voice came from behind her, "Don't move." It was a male voice, so harsh that it sent ice through her veins.
or even; "Don't move." The harsh male voice had come from behind her.

Although sometimes it might be:

"Don't move," he said, his voice filled with a frigid rage.


I don't really like to have a lot of "he said," and then "she said" events in my writing. I'd rather leave that off entirely for a good portion of it:

"Don't move," he told her in a tone so cold it turned her blood to ice.

"What do you want from me?"

"You already know that."

"You want the Tiger's Eye, like all the rest."

"No. It's useless. The power all comes from you."

"So what do you want from me, then?" A slow frisson of fear snaked down her spine. Would he demand that she go with him and wield the Tiger's Eye against her own people?

__________

Now, it doesn't have the 'he said/ she said' business in there, but the conversation's easy as hell to follow. If you ask me. Which you didn't.

So... yeah.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 10, 2009)

These are more like rules for dialogue tags.
Punctuation is also important.  I can't tell you how many people don't know how to punctuate dialogue properly.  _If comma, no capital.  If period, capital.  Use period before start new sentence._  I mean, it's not that hard, but I'll be damned if 1 out of every 15 people does it right.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 11, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> I mean, it's not that hard, but I'll be damned if 1 out of every 15 people does it right.


 
This is one that editor grammar check doesn't even seem to be quite sure about I've noticed.


----------



## Atrak (Dec 11, 2009)

kitreshawn said:


> 2) Pick a name to call the character and stick to it for the whole scene
> 
> If you have been calling the character Richard than be consistent and always use "Richard said" when tagging dialogue.  Don't suddenly start to use Mr. Robinson or the young man or something else.
> 
> This gets confusing for the reader very quickly.  You can use different names in later scenes (or chapters).  There are exceptions to this rule, as always, but it is a good rule of thumb.



Yeah, if I'm writing a story from multiple points of view, I'll use name shifts to show this, but I'm consistent with the names one person calls another.


----------



## ScottyDM (Dec 12, 2009)

kitreshawn said:


> 1) With very few exceptions use the verb "Said"


Excellent.



kitreshawn said:


> 2) Pick a name to call the character and stick to it for the whole scene


Good idea, mostly. What works depends on the context.

If you have a conversation between one male and one female then "he" and "she" are super. Given the choice between personal pronouns ("he", "she", and their variants), proper nouns (including nicknames), and descriptive phrases (such as "the young wolf"), personal pronouns are the least obtrusive. Readers skim right over them without pause. Names, if they are short, are almost as invisible. Descriptive phrases are the most noticeable. Now if you have two (or more) guys or gals in a conversation, then "he" and "she" fail because they don't do squat for the reader. In this case you pretty much have to use names or nicknames.

Sometimes you can use a name in multiple forms without confusion. If a character's given name is "Millicent" you could introduce the scene using "Millicent" then switch to "Milli" for the remainder of the scene (or "she", whenever possible). When used as a form of address nicknames can also identify _who_ is speaking. For example a brother and sister who have the given names "Paris" and "Brigett" can address each other as "Pari" and "Brig" even though the narrator and the other characters never do. So if a character says, "Pari, I can't believe you said that!" the reader will know Brigett said it and no speech tag is needed. Likewise the narrator can refer to a character as "Mr. McDonnell" while the teenage protagonist who is dating his daughter might refer to him as "Mr. McD" or "your father" while his girlfriend will refer to him as "Dad". In this case you'll need to make it clear within the context of the scene that these four references all point to the same person.

As far as speech tags, a general rule is to use _only_ as many as necessary to make it clear who said what. When writing fiction one of the goals of the author should be to make the mechanics of the story (such as speech tags) vanish from the reader's mind so he is free to play out the action in his imagination. You can do this through speech patterns, or special nicknames (as suggested above) or the context of the conversation. For this last example if your guy wants to see a horror movie and your gal wants to see a romantic comedy, what they say is a massive clue as to who said it. "But I want to see zombie decapitations!" can only belong to your guy. One could go on for a couple of pages of movie negotiations with no speech tags, and it'd still be clear who said what. Of course you must start by establishing this conversational context.



kitreshawn said:


> 3) Don't use -ly


These are known as "Tom Swiftlies" (after a character from a series of old-time juvenile sci-fi books). By today's standards some of the writing conventions used in those old books are now considered utter crap. My favorite example of a Tom Swiftly is: "Radiation is the future!" Tom said glowingly. :roll:



kitreshawn said:


> 4) Mix in actions with dialogue


These are called "beats" and they can be used as a substitute for speech tags. Thus, I would change your upgraded examples.

"How would you like to go out?" she asked and practically flung her book onto the table.

"That is a great idea," he said, already looking for his keys.

"How would you like to go out?" She flung her book onto the table.

"That's a great idea." He started looking for his keys.

That last sentence is a bit awkward. Here are your original bad examples.

"How would you like to go out?" she asked.  She set down the book.

"That is a great idea," he said.  He stood up and went to get his keys.

"How would you like to go out?" She set down the book.

"That is a great idea," He stood and went to get his keys.

Flinging a book onto a table gives a very different feel to the sentence than setting it down, so which is better depends on the context. Also, the beat of him looking for, or going to get, his keys seems awkward no matter what. I might opt for a different second sentence, but again it depends on the context

"That's a great idea." He patted his pants pockets then looked around the room. "Umm, keys?"



kitreshawn said:


> 5) Use dashes (--) not ellipses (...) to indicate interruption


Now we're getting into the soft edges of grammar and punctuation. You will never find this in _The Chicago Manual of Style_ or other popular grammar books because those books don't address the special needs of fiction. In this case you can invent "house rules", and you can bet many publishers have their own set of house rules. The key is to be consistent.

General purpose style books state there is only one legal use for the ellipsis: To show missing text from a quote. My favorite example is to shorten William Shakespeare's: "Brevity is the soul of wit." To: "Brevity is...wit."

That's terrific if you're a newspaper reporter, but if you're a fiction author you have other needs. Consider the following:
To show hesitation in speech. "I... I'm sorry but you caught me off guard."
To show trailing speech. That is at the end of the character's dialog the volume drops and the character might mutter or mumble, or the character doesn't complete the sentence, perhaps because they can't think of the next thing to say. "Well, Iâ€™m not really..."
And yes, to show interrupted dialog is also a legal use of the ellipsis for fiction writers. "And we didnâ€™t ask for..." She averted her eyes. (here the character is interrupting herself)
One can also use em-dashes (or double hyphens) to show all three.

Or one can follow Browne and King's suggestion and use ellipses for hesitation and trailing speech and the em-dash for interruption. BTW, that is an awesome book! I recommend it.

So pick one--Ellipses, em-dashes, or the combination that Browne and King favor--and then stick to that. Browne and King's method is less confusing to the reader.

The ellipsis is three dots and three dots only. Not two dots for a "mini-ellipsis" or six for a really long pause. Use three, or you'll be recognized as a clueless noob. Also, do _not_ use hyphens for this stuff. Hyphens are for creating compound words. The en-dash is for showing ranges, but you may substitute a hyphen surrounded by spaces. And the em-dash has a variety of applications, and as Kitreshaw said you may substitute doubled hyphens for the em-dash.

Now when showing trailing speech you can combine the ellipsis or em-dash with other punctuation, such as a question mark or a period. I can't imagine a bang (exclamation mark) in trailing speech because they oppose each other. When I see a bang I imagine the volume goes up and sometimes the pitch. But trailing speech drops in volume and can end with a mumble. And hesitation or interrupted speech doesn't normally use additional punctuation because by design it's an incomplete sentence.


*Additional Thoughts on the Science of Dialog*

There is both and art and a science to writing dialog. The art is what the characters say and the science is what the author does with what the characters say.

The basics of the science of dialog are simple. Dialog needs to be punctuated like any other sentence, but with quotes around it. It doesn't matter if you follow American English or the Queen's English, the punctuation goes _inside_ the quotes. If you have a speech tag it's part of the dialog sentence. So if the sentence ends with a period change it to a comma and don't capitalize the first word of the speech tag, unless it's a proper noun. Here's a little example of a three-way dialog. I'll number the paragraphs.





> 1) "You were going to walk through the woods in the dark?" Katrin asked.
> 
> 2: "I could see," he said. "We vulpines have good night vision and our acute hearing can alert us to danger."
> 
> ...



Has a speech tag with the character's name because there are two females and one male in this exchange, so "she said" would fail. Also, since the dialog is a question it's punctuated with a question mark. This first paragraph is a single sentence, but "Katrin" is capitalized because that's her name. I've broken Kitreshawn's rule here just because it feels better to me. Yes, the "?" and the "asked" are redundant, but then it's a stronger question than Penny's. Penny is mildly interested, Katrin is shocked and feels she must know.
The first sentence of this paragraph contains the speech tag "he said". The dialog sentence is, "I could see." But since it and the speech tag are part of the same sentence the period is changed to a comma. This is the only time you'll change the punctuation like this (questions always end in "?" and exclamations in "!"). This speech tag also provides a pause in the character's dialog. I'll sometimes do this in place of an ellipsis. To me it seems like a longer pause when done this way.
Is a single sentence with a simple speech tag.
And 5 don't need speech tags because the context tells the reader who said them. Some beginners put speech tags on every paragraph, then come to the conclusion that all those "he saids/she saids" disrupt the story. True, but the answer is _not_ to think up a bunch of weird verbs to replace "said". Rather, get rid of the unneeded speech tags.


What is not a speech tag? "He laughed" is not. So the following is a failure: "You're a nut," she laughed. Try saying that line of dialog and laugh at the same time. Can't be done. By necessity the character will say the dialog, then laugh (or the other way around). Here's the fix: "You're a nut." She laughed.

What about giggling? I'd try the dialog and see if it can be giggled.

As for a character hissing their dialog, does the dialog contain any sibilant sounds? "You're a dead man," she hissed. Fails. Try to hiss that line of dialog. But, "You're a corpse. I'm gonna stick my shiv in ya and twist it," she hissed. See, it works.

Can a character scream out a line of dialog? I say yes. The pitch rises by an octave or two and the volume goes up. But some readers see screaming only as an inarticulate shriek. "Eeee! I win!" she screamed. Well, it works for me. However, I suspect this tag is unnecessary because in most contests there's only one winner. This is a better example of the reader knowing who said it by what was said and the context in which it was said. So no speech tag needed. Oh well... it's only an example.

Speech tags almost always follow at least a bit of dialog, as in the second paragraph of my longer example, above. That is, don't open a paragraph with a speech tag. However, you may open a paragraph with a bit of action and attribute that action to a character. She smirked and walked toward me. "It was so sweet of you to buy a pizza for our first date."

If you have a couple of lines of dialog, or more, and you feel you need a speech tag or action beat to clarify who said it, then the end of the dialog is the _wrong_ place to put it. Have the character say a bit, put in the tag or beat, then finish the dialog. Here's an example with the beat: "Aww.â€ She tilted her head. "You like boys?" And the same with a speech tag: "Aww,â€ she said. "You like boys?" Okay, that is quite a bit shorter example of dialog than I was thinking. The point is that if the reader has to go through three or four sentences of dialog from a single character, and he is unsure who is speaking, then the end of that dialog is the wrong place to clue him into who it was. Put it near the front. But you gotta admit, that beat/tag puts a nice pause in the dialog.


*A critical concept is that of ownership.* Who "owns" that line of dialog? Who "owns" that action beat? Excluding the rare exception, _always_ lump all the stuff owned by one character into a single paragraph, and _always_ put different characters' stuff into separate paragraphs.

When writing fictional prose, only a clueless noob would combine different characters' lines of dialog into a single paragraph. Okay, maybe you or I might do this by accident, but only a clueless noob would think it's okay to combine dialog this way.

The same is true for action. And it's doubly critical for a fight scene, or a love scene.

Remember, I said you can use action beats in place of speech tags. However, this only works if the action beat is in the same paragraph as the dialog. Most readers assume that a new paragraph means you've switched, and now the other character will say or do something.

The rare exceptions:


One character is alone and 100% of that scene is their stuff. Break it up into logical pieces. This won't confuse the reader because they'll understand the character is alone.
The character is blabbing on and on about something or the other and won't let any other character speak. A page-long paragraph is a turn off for most readers. The solution is to either break it up (and there are special rules how your set your quotes), or to have other characters interrupt the talkative character, even if it's only an action beat, such as when she yawns or checks her watch.
You want to smack the reader in the face with bit of action or a line of dialog and the best way to do that is to set it in a paragraph by itself. Here you must be careful so the reader understands the new paragraph does _not_ mean you've switched to the other character. This technique is best used sparingly, such as no more than once or twice per chapter.
Two or more characters are acting in concert. It's easier to both read and write when you put the group's stuff into a single paragraph.
Here's an example of the third exception in action. In an earlier draft I had this in a single paragraph, but several in my critique group suggested I break it up to heighten the impact of what's now the middle paragraph.





> Penny stepped out of the smaller dining room and headed toward the hostess station.
> 
> She froze.
> 
> Over the top of the other diners she saw a red fox in business attire standing upright near the hostesses station. A taller man and woman stood behind him. She touched her hand just below her breastbone and felt her heart racing.



Oh sheesh. Below in red is a semi-crappy example that might almost be justified by the fourth exception.

"Mrs. Dai, weâ€™ll need this booth bussed if weâ€™re going to keep our kitsune happy." She turned toward the front of the restaurant while her boss headed to the back of the house, yelling for Billy.

That one character addresses the other as "Mrs. Dai" tells you who is speaking (there are only two in the conversation) and so it can be assumed the "she" is the speaker and not Mrs. Dai. But then I combine their actions because they are acting toward a common goal. Unfortunately it might confuse some as to who was yelling for Billy.

I should fix this. Perhaps:

"Mrs. Dai, weâ€™ll need this booth bussed if weâ€™re going to keep our kitsune happy." She turned toward the front of the restaurant.

Mrs. Dai headed to the back of the house, yelling for Billy.

Or perhaps:

"Mrs. Dai, weâ€™ll need this booth bussed if weâ€™re going to keep our kitsune happy."

Penny turned toward the front of the restaurant while her boss headed to the back of the house, yelling for Billy.

Here's a longer example of ownership in action. I'll number the paragraphs.





> 1: In the great room Cassie draped herself across the couch and ate while I caressed her feet, which sheâ€™d placed in my lap. She offered me pizza but Iâ€™d had my fill earlier and anticipating the evening I didnâ€™t want to stuff myself. She ate nearly half the pizza and when she finished only five slices remained.
> 
> 2: "Oh look,â€ Cassie said. "There are leftovers. A pity to throw them away."
> 
> ...


This is in first person, so the narrator is the POV character. Thus all that happens is interpreted through the lens of the POV character.

Is a narrative summary of about 10 minutes of action. It belongs to the narrator and not any one character (this would also be true in a third person narrative).
Belongs to Cassie.
Belongs to the three younger vixens who are acting in concert. At this point in the story their individual identities are irrelevant.
Belongs to Cassie. Also note the nonstandard speech tag.
Belongs to the POV character.
Belongs to Cassie, although there's interpretation of her actions through the narrator's POV, but it's still 100% Cassie's dialog and action.
Belongs to the POV character. Note there's no dialog, but that doesn't matter. It still needs its own paragraph.
Belongs to the three younger vixens, but some of their actions are being interpreted through the narrator's POV.


I could probably go on, but this is waaay too long as it is. Perhaps some could post examples--either of what they feel is awesome, or something they'd like some help with.

Scotty


----------



## Murphy Z (Dec 13, 2009)

Some things about the dialogue itself. They're not rules, more like strong suggestions, but they help improve the story.

Give characters different dialogue. Making them all talk the same makes the story confusing and boring. If you have a story in which all the characters walk and talk alike, you may have some redundant characters. 

Make sure what they say goes along with the time period they're in, their surroundings, etc. A medieval damsel is not going to say "Awesome!" (well, not in the way we do), a 21st century cyber-terrorist is not going to say "Oh Gosh!" One exception is characters in medieval times, etc. I don't want to translate Old English into new.

Avoid excessive exposition (exposition in this case is providing background story information via dialogue). I understand some is needed because the reader "jumped into" the story, but excessive amounts makes the story dialogue artificial.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 14, 2009)

Murphy Z said:


> Give characters different dialogue. Making them all talk the same makes the story confusing and boring. If you have a story in which all the characters walk and talk alike, you may have some redundant characters.



Agreed, but don't go too far with this. 

Reading dialect is infuriating and painful.  

"Yussir, I be g'ttin thuh werk dun, suh!"

Ugh.  

Painful.


----------



## Poetigress (Dec 14, 2009)

If you have characters that are all talking the same way, you likely have more of a character problem than a dialogue one. Characters who all talk the same way generally do so because they're all thinking and acting (and reacting) the same way. If they don't think and act the same way, you should try to show that in the dialogue. If they do think and act the same, then you have redundant characters who should be combined or cut.

Regarding ellipses versus dashes for interruption: This is more my own opinion than anything else, but to me they're really not the same thing in terms of effect. A dash is a true interruption, a character butting in before the other one is finished. An ellipsis indicates that a character has trailed off, and _then_ the other character speaks. 

The only exception that comes to mind is if a character stops speaking abruptly because of something they've seen or are about to do (in other words, not because they've been interrupted by another speaker). In that situation, you might be able to use them interchangeably with similar effect, although a dash might still feel more appropriate than an ellipsis if they've stopped speaking because something is happening suddenly.


----------



## Scarborough (Dec 14, 2009)

Poetigress said:


> If you have characters that are all talking the same way, you likely have more of a character problem than a dialogue one. Characters who all talk the same way generally do so because they're all thinking and acting (and reacting) the same way. If they don't think and act the same way, you should try to show that in the dialogue. If they do think and act the same, then you have redundant characters who should be combined or cut.



How do you make dialogue different, though?

Because one of my friends has a set of six characters who are supposed to be military personnel, and they're supposed to be very alike, but he's differentiated each of them somehow. Yet, they all sound the same.

I mean, they don't all say the same things, but their voices are all similar.

I guess what I'm asking is, what makes a voice unique? I used to think it had to do with larger words (as in, how many three-syllable words does the person use, and what kind of jargon?), but I read an article recently (that I conveniently lost) that says that voice actually has more to do with the smaller words than the larger ones. Is it a combination of the two, or does it have to do with something else?

I guess I could try experimenting with dialogue, but you guys might have more experience with this.


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 14, 2009)

A character's voice has more to do with their inflections and choice of word _structure_, and indeed it is no easy thing to accomplish.  Maybe one character tends to use "yeah" or "nah" instead of "yes" and "no" when answering questions.  What do they say when they greet someone?  Do they start (or end) a sentence with a noise word, maybe?  Does their speech... have James Kirk Rhythm?  Are they the type to frequently split their infinitives?

I could list many kinds of trivial examples, at the risk of presenting a 1-2-3 how-to approach which would be Completely Missing The Point.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 14, 2009)

The newly found grammar nerd in me loves that you split your infinitive to identify characters that split infinitives. 

I just had to point that out 

My main complaint echoes Strunk And White's complaint regarding intentional misspelling of words in dialogue.   If the differentiation between your characters is that you write their dialogue using different misspellings, you've not created effective characters.    You can use language tags to indicate how something is said.  

Even when the person comes up to me and says, in nearly broken english, "Mister, money give me please?" He's still using those words.   Even if it phonetically sounds like :

"Misser, mooney gives m'please?"

The second sentence is harder to read from the first, and only punishes the reader.  

I feel it could be rewritten as:

The sun-bleached man approached me with his hand held out and shaking.  His voice cracked and his words slurred together as he spoke, making him hard to understand.

"Mister, money, give please?"


Both get the same point across.  One does it in a way that is readable.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 14, 2009)

I couldn't disagree with Strunk and White any more if I tried to. 

When I write, "She said, 'Gimme the bloddy fork," it's because I want them to hear her the way I hear her. I don't want them to hear, "Give me the bloody fork." I want them to mentally HEAR her as saying, "Gimme the bloddy fork."

Nor do I want to write out every time she speaks, that she has broken English. I don't want to have to write out every time that she speaks, "In her oddly British, yet also Southern American dialect, 'Give me the bloody fork'." Then later on, "Her accent was odd as she told him, 'Where are we going? I want to go to the atrium in on the South side'." 

That has no character, in my personal opinion. It reduces her fascinating accent to a footnote. It reduces her personal eccentricity to the level of vaguely interesting subcontext at best.

To me, "Misser, mooney gives m'please" helps me give the accent breadth and depth in my mind. When I read, "Mister, money, give m'please," I read it as, "Mister, money, give m'please." That's it, I don't read slurred, cracked voice. A tiny bit of accent, but not much.

While I think the sound-correct way is harder to decipher and should definitely not be used for a main character or a long discussion (it should get easier and easier to read until the discussion is over-- slightly cheating, yes, but it IS beneficial to give a nod to keeping things flowing)... I also think that it's tremendously helpful towards fully establishing someone's accent in the reader's mind.

I would not use the "She said in a [whatever kind of] accent, 'Give me the bloody fork'." It lacks depth, in my opinion. It takes away the distinctiveness of the character's actual voice.

Versus, of course, the underlying personality voice, which is different from their speaking voice.


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 14, 2009)

I don't mind if someone uses phonetic dialogue as long as it is light. If it becomes heavy, it starts to get confusing which will override any personality the character has, because I have to stop and reread the passage to try to make sense of what they wrote which breaks the flow of the story and frustrates me (except when the story expects me not to know what this character said, often by have a character share the same confusion).


Though, I do dislike the "He said in a _____ accent" style. I often forget a character has a certain accent by about the fifth sentence which makes further references to their speech style a bit distant and impersonal.


----------



## GraemeLion (Dec 14, 2009)

PheonixStar said:


> I couldn't disagree with Strunk and White any more if I tried to.



I can see your argument, and even understand it.  In a short story, perhaps that is something that can be done with one or two characters.

But now, imagine you have ten or twelve characters in a multiple viewpoint novel.    Three main characters, and nine secondary characters, and a whole bevy of support characters. (I'm looking at you, Harry Turtledove).   

Imagine you have twenty different ways of saying "What's going on?" spread out among all the characters of a novel.

It gets old quick.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 14, 2009)

Well, yeah. I wouldn't use it extensively, nor with more than one, two chars max.

My stories are all very, very long, except one. The shortest one that's not a super short story (and that one's longer than a normal short story), is novella length. I have only one in which accent-speech is used to any real extensive degree. It's only used at all in two, I think.

And as I say, in the area where the one accent-speaking person ended up talking more than a short few sentences, the accent became rapidly and noticeably lighter and lighter with time. 

Because I do agree that extensive degrees of it really becomes very tedious and becomes an active distraction.

And I would never use two or more together at the same time. Most people can handle mentally 'talking' in, say a Southern accent, only so long as they don't have another one thrown into the mix. A strange mingling begins to happen that generally vexes people.


----------



## PheonixStar (Dec 14, 2009)

On voice: I think it can be either subtle, or very obvious. And it does, if you ask me, spread across more than just how they talk.

Take two different women. One [Susanna] is a single mother, uneducated, grew up in a bad area. Despite this, she tends towards compassion and friendliness. Then take the woman [Theresa] with the degree, who's without children, and who prides herself on having a career. She tends to be defensive and cautious.

The following statement is made to them, let's look at their response:

"What's a pretty girl like you doin' in this bar?" The man was old, his hair and clothes wrinkled as if he'd been sleeping in them; without any sort of cleaning having been applied to either for weeks. When he grinned, a gap showed in his teeth. Perhaps a tooth might once have been there. Or maybe it had once held the same black squares that dominated the rest of his mouth. "Care to buy an old man a drink?"

________________________________

Susanna: 

"I'd love ta buy ya a drink. But I barely got enough to git the kids some diapies for this week. I'm real sorry." Susanna reached out and patted old Charlie on the hand. "I'm only in 'ere cause I want to find out if Emma can sit the kids on Friday."

______________________

Theresa:

Her eyes flickered with a cool disdain as she looked the old man up and down. "Perhaps you'd do better to get a job, and buy your own drink. That would surely be more likely to get you a drink than pestering people." The coldness of her gaze was made nearly warm by the tone of her voice, and she pushed away from the counter and moved to another seat. Charlie turned back to the bartender, and the two shared a moment as Charlie made an exaggeratedlly prudish face.


________________________________


Note that I took care to prevent using any real long words there. But the dialogue, along with the supporting comments, establishes a personality for each woman. It goes beyond just what they said. It's very clear that one woman is warm, affectionate, and tolerant. The other woman's personality is clearly cold, haughty, and superior. 

This is their 'voice' as well as what they said and how they said it. And it's good to try to keep consistency between their words and their tone and their personality. The second woman MIGHT have an accent in real life. But because it's a book, it would be smarter to keep her from having any sort of soft, slow accent. Her personality comes off hard and snappish-- so should her words or any accent she has.

In a few things in writing, you can't be overly realistic. You COULD give her a soft, drawling accent. But then you would have to push extra hard to create the concept of her as a sharp, haughty businesswoman. This is in part because of the basic, underlying prejudices people have.

We might not want them to exist. We might want them to go away. We might not want to talk about them. But people DO have prejudices, and they do bring them with them into a reading of a story.

So if you're going to have a slow, drawling, soft accent; I recommend that you put it with someone who 'fits' with it, in the over-arching prejudice that lives in our culture. Even if you don't share the prejudice, you must be aware of it as dominating our culture. So write accordingly.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 14, 2009)

The rule of thumb for writing accents and dialects and the like is to keep is realistic without ruining the immersion.  Basically, when the reader has to sit there and translate the words being said into plain English in order to understand what's going on, you're too heavy.  The reason I'm not a fan of purposeful misspellings is that the people who use them tend to use them way too much.  Basically, if you want a tasteful example of how to do it right, read _The Poisonwood Bible_ (Barbara Kingsolver).
As for getting characters to sound different from one another... the best thing to do is think about habits, diction, rhythm, and to include physical actions alongside.  
If you're having trouble with it, I'd suggest going to visit an old folk's home and engaging the residents in conversation.  You'll pick up a lot of cool sayings and similes.  My grandpa, for example, once expressed his discomfort with the temperature of our house by saying, "I'm sitting here shivering like a dog shitting tacks."


----------



## Altamont (Dec 14, 2009)

kitreshawn said:


> Some pet peeves of mine with written dialogue. I understand dialogue can be hard to write, but if you follow these guidelines I can assure you it will almost certainly be improved.
> 
> 3) Don't use -ly
> 
> ...


 
As Stephen King wrote in his marvelous "On Writing", "The road to hell is paved with adverbs..."

Adverbs have to me seemed like a crutch, often being used to replace the better (but more difficult to write) descriptions an author _could_ have used.

And, as always, not a strict rule, merely a very useful guideline.

Accents have always been a difficult thing to draw a hard and fast rule for, in my experiences. There are some instances where the phonetics of the dialogue is entirely appropriate (See:_ Their Eyes Are Watching God_). They can be useful for describing anything from inherent cultural characteristics to a state of inebriation. Still, if overused it can get really, really irritating.

For example:
(A drunken man)
"Hey! Whaddahell're you up to?"

This is a short and sweet demonstration of the characters state that is effectively punctuated by the way the dialogue is written. However, if this were to go on for, I don't know, three pages (as I have read in some ameteur fiction), then it stops acting as a flavor-enhancer to the scene itself and becomes a distraction, which is never good.


----------



## Stratelier (Dec 15, 2009)

GraemeLion said:


> The newly found grammar nerd in me loves that you split your infinitive to identify characters that split infinitives.


...yeah that was deliberate on my part 



ScottyDM said:


> My favorite example of a Tom Swiftly is: "Radiation is the future!" Tom said glowingly.


"What do you mean nobody's scored a touchdown yet?"  Tom griped pointlessly.



M. Le Renard said:


> If you're having trouble with [diction], I'd suggest going to visit an old folk's home and engaging the residents in conversation.  You'll pick up a lot of cool sayings and similes.  My grandpa, for example, once expressed his discomfort with the temperature of our house by saying, "I'm sitting here shivering like a dog shitting tacks."


And idioms.  Oh joy, idioms... I never heard that particular one before, but I can certainly attest to my mom's usage of the phrase "dead in the water".  It's kind of annoying, actually.

As for diction, even the way a character says "okay" can communicate a lot to the reader.  For example, I tend to say "yup" when I agree with someone speaking.

Ack... I have no serious points to add here.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 15, 2009)

Oh, one thing that I want to reiterate from my old thread on this subject, because I think it's the single most useful advice I ever got on dialogue: Make it interesting.
I like to have people respond to things in unexpected ways.  Boring conversations are boring, but if you keep throwing out strange seemingly out of place lines, you WILL keep the reader's attention.  Just make sure you tie them up at the end so they make sense in context.
Examples;
Boring: "Hi, John.  How are you today?"
"I'm doing okay."
Exciting: "Hi, John.  How are you today?"
"You know, I was just thinking about how hot your wife is."

See?  You do a double-take on that second example, and that's a good thing.  It just begs the question, "Why on Earth did he say that?"


----------



## Scarborough (Dec 16, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> Oh, one thing that I want to reiterate from my old thread on this subject, because I think it's the single most useful advice I ever got on dialogue: Make it interesting.
> I like to have people respond to things in unexpected ways.  Boring conversations are boring, but if you keep throwing out strange seemingly out of place lines, you WILL keep the reader's attention.  Just make sure you tie them up at the end so they make sense in context.
> Examples;
> Boring: "Hi, John.  How are you today?"
> ...


Or also

"Hi, John. How are you today?"
Thinking of banging your wife. "I'm fine."

- - -

"Hi, John. How are you today?"
It was blood and not brown paint on his shirt. "I'm fine." (I dunno, I tried. :l )

I think it's another thing I picked up from Burroway is that dialogue is interesting when it contradicts a thought or an action.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 16, 2009)

Yeah.  That too.  Anything that creates surprise or tension is good for dialogue.


----------



## ScottyDM (Dec 16, 2009)

Scarborough said:


> "Hi, John. How are you today?"
> Thinking of banging your wife. "I'm fine."


Is the start of that second line the character's internal monologue, or the narrator's present-tense telling of the character's thoughts?


This thread started off with the science of writing dialog, then veered off into the art of dialog--two very different things. I'm just sayin'.


Speaking of the art, a trick I've used in the past is to Hi-Lite each character's dialog and internal monologue in a unique color. Then go back and quickly read through only one color at a time, and _only_ that color. Does this character sound like this character is supposed to sound all the time?

For one story I wrote I had a Hispanic boy who was a huge sci-fi fan and liked to role-play various parts. His part du jour was his own spin on Trelane from the original _Star Trek_ series--a Q-like alien child who was role-playing the part of an 18th century English aristocrat. Which is fun if you think about it: A Hispanic kid, role-playing an alien, role-playing an 18th century English dude. So my character would be himself for awhile, then slip into his role, then slip back into himself, etc. For him I used two different shades of green.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 16, 2009)

ScottyDM said:


> This thread started off with the science of writing dialog, then veered off into the art of dialog--two very different things. I'm just sayin'.


But you have to admit that "Make it interesting" should be the number one rule for dialogue.  The art only comes in how you pull that off.


----------



## Hyasinth (Dec 16, 2009)

Thanks for all these points! I can always use more information to keep the writing going XD


----------



## ScottyDM (Dec 21, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> But you have to admit that "Make it interesting" should be the number one rule for dialogue.  The art only comes in how you pull that off.


One could simplify that further and say, "Write good."

But then the advice becomes meaningless.


----------



## Raska (Dec 21, 2009)

kitreshawn said:


> Some pet peeves of mine with written dialogue. I understand dialogue can be hard to write, but if you follow these guidelines I can assure you it will almost certainly be improved.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
But doesn't _just_ using 'said' get repetitive and boring? As an example:

*"I'm pregnant, Joey," Tina said, causing him to spray coffee all over the kitchen table. 

"How did that happen?" he asked.

"Oh, the normal way," Tina said, rolling her eyes.

"B-b-but...we used protection," Joey said. 

"I know," Tina said, "This is my way of telling you that I'm breaking up with you and going off to marry my no-longer-clandestine lover." *

Isn't it better to have this read:

"I'm pregnant, Joey," Tina said, causing him to spray coffee all over the kitchen table. 

"How did _that_ happen?" he asked.

"Oh, the normal way," Tina replied, rolling her eyes. 

"B-b-but...we used protection," Joey stammered.

"I know," Tina said, "This is my way of telling you that I'm breaking up with you and going off to marry my no-longer-clandestine lover."


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 21, 2009)

Raska said:


> But doesn't _just_ using 'said' get repetitive and boring? As an example:
> 
> *"I'm pregnant, Joey," Tina said, causing him to spray coffee all over the kitchen table.
> 
> ...




The only reason that seems repetitive to me is because the dialogue tags are rather boring, independent of the use of "said". As it was said (oh-ho!), you can spice it up more effectively by using action to convey tones and whatnot.


"I'm pregnant, Joey." Tina said. This comment caused Joey, who at the time happened to be leaning back in his chair and enjoying a lovely sip of his double shot of espresso, to lurch forward and spray his mouthful of coffee over a good portion of the table.

"How did _that_ happen?" he asked utterly bemused.

"Oh, the normal way." Tina said shrugging like it was common knowledge, which in fact it was.

"B-b-but...we used protection." Joey said bringing up his palms in a futile effort to grasp the situation.

"I know." Tina said. "This is my way of telling you that I'm breaking up with you and going off to marry my no-longer-clandestine lover."



In that little bit, I only used the word 'said' for four of four lines of dialogue (not counting the question), yet it shouldn't appear boring at all and to top it off should be much more lively than using alternatives to said alone. However, here's what happens if you mix them:


"I'm pregnant, Joey." Tina declared. This comment caused Joey, who at the time happened to be leaning back in his chair and enjoying a lovely sip of his double shot of espresso, to lurch forward and spray a mouthful of coffee over a good portion of the table.

"How did _that_ happen?" he asked utterly bemused.

"Oh, the normal way." Tina stated shrugging like it was common knowledge, which in fact it was.

"B-b-but...we used protection." Joey reasoned bringing up his palms in a futile effort to grasp the situation.

"I know." Tina said. "This is my way of telling you that I'm breaking up with you and going off to marry my no-longer-clandestine lover."


I tried to use the best alternatives I could, but now it seems a bit superfluous. The actual words in the dialogue, the tag, and the action all seem to hint at different tones and emotions which lead the reader in a number of different directions without any real transition. This makes for a jerky and uncomfortable read. Instead of simply reading along happily seeing the scene play out in your head, you suddenly remember you're just sitting in a chair reading some text on a page. It breaks the immersion.



Now, that's not to say you should never use alternatives to said, just... use them sparingly. Maybe sprinkle a few here and there to change things up.


----------



## Raska (Dec 21, 2009)

Xipoid said:


> The only reason that seems repetitive to me is because the dialogue tags are rather boring, independent of the use of "said". As it was said (oh-ho!), you can spice it up more effectively by using action to convey tones and whatnot.
> 
> 
> "I'm pregnant, Joey." Tina said. This comment caused Joey, who at the time happened to be leaning back in his chair and enjoying a lovely sip of his double shot of espresso, to lurch forward and spray his mouthful of coffee over a good portion of the table.
> ...


 
I see what you're saying, but it's still a matter of personal opinion. I don't like the way you include action in the dialogue tag. To _me_ it seems superflous and sounds over-written, but you and others might have different opinions. It's all about one's personal style and preferences. And what you say at the end is what I was trying to get at in the first place. Basically, don't over-use 'said', but don't fill your writing with unnecessary alternatives for it, either.


----------



## ScottyDM (Dec 21, 2009)

Raska wrote:





> But doesn't _just_ using 'said' get repetitive and boring? As an example:
> 
> *"I'm pregnant, Joey," Tina said, causing him to spray coffee all over the kitchen table.
> 
> ...


 Right you are. But your offered solution is the wrong approach, which is what kitreshawn tried to say.

Other issues: (1) Don't ever combine different characters' dialog, thoughts, or actions into a single paragraph unless they are acting in concert. Here Tiny and Joey are acting in opposition. (2) Period after "Tina said" in the last paragraph. The dialog that follows is separate from your first sentence.

Raska wrote:





> Isn't it better to have this read...


Flinging a variety of speech tags at your story does not fix the problem, it muddies things up. The problem is too many speech tags.

*First: If it's clear to the reader by the context of the dialog who said what, then you don't need any speech tag.* However, you probably need speech tags at the start to clue the reader in as to who is taking which position in the dialog (e.g. it's Tina who is pregnant and Joey who is surprised).

*Second: If you have beats (attributed character actions) then you don't need speech tags in the same paragraph.*

*Third: When you have a two-way conversation between a male and female character, you don't need to use their names after you introduce them.* "He" and "she" works and is less obtrusive than names. However, it might be nice to drop in a name every couple of pages or so, for a touch of variety.

Let's try your original, but fixed up a bit.

*"I'm pregnant, Joey," Tina said.

He sprayed coffee all over the kitchen table, coughed, and wiped his mouth with the back of his hand. "How did that happen?"

"Oh, the normal way." She rolled her eyes.

"B-b-but...we used protection."

"I know," she said. "This is my way of telling you that I'm breaking up with you and going off to marry my no-longer-clandestine lover."*

(p1) Simple and straightforward.

(p2) In p1 Tina speaks to Joey, so who else could this be but him? No speech tag. I've also beefed up his actions a touch. I thought of what I might do right after spraying out a mouthful of coffee.

(p3) With the eye roll (the beat) her speech tag is unnecessary. However, I'm not sure I like an eye roll here, but that's me. Note, because of context neither a speech tag or a beat is needed. The reason to use a beat is because it adds something.

(p4) No speech tag. See the first suggestion, above.

(p5) This is an interesting paragraph and there are two good ways to handle it. Here I've simplified your speech tag. Tina is a nice two-syllable name and is somewhat invisible to the reader, but "she" is even less visible than "Tina".

The dialog for this paragraph might sound something like this: *"I know. *_<pause>_* This is my way of telling you that I'm breaking up with you and going off to marry my no-longer-clandestine lover."* You can achieve this by either using a beat, or a speech tag.

I imagine Tina might be pleased with the way she's fooled Joey, so here's my suggestion for a beat: *"I know." The corner of her mouth curled up in a half smirk. "This is my way of telling you that I'm breaking up with you and going off to marry my no-longer-clandestine lover."*

By way of example, let's say the last paragraph contains another beat by Tina and her final word to Joey. In this case I'd use the speech tag for the pause--unless I felt I had to have that first beat too. He's what it might look like: *"I know," she said. "This is my way of telling you that I'm breaking up with you and going off to marry my no-longer-clandestine lover." She turned and walked to the door, then glanced back over her shoulder. "See ya."*


*Xipoid*, your attempt to fix this reeked. You kept _all_ the speech tags, then piled on a heap of ill-fitting character actions. Larding a story with more words seldom improves it. Specifically:

(1) You should have fixed Raska's first paragraph.

(2) Your two Joey paragraphs don't fit each other. First he's bemused then he's stammering out of shock and confusion. In this situation the shock and confusion is good so trash the bemused.

(3) Tina's middle paragraph insults the reader with your statement of common knowledge. Then you compound the insult by reinforcing your statement of common knowledge.

(4) By similar token the end of Joey's second paragraph insults the reader.

(5) Two "ly" adverbs, and the second jangles the ear.

In general there are too many words, too many beats, and too much description. I feel they get in the way of the story. Now there is a genre where a plurality of words is valued--modern literary--but I avoid those sorts of novels. With modern literary you've got to be a wordsmith ranked in the top 5% of the professionally published wordsmiths to pull it off. In other words the readers who gravitate to modern literary do so because the writing is fantastic, and never mind about the story or characters.


*Too many interruptions to the flow of the story is not always easy to avoid. I've got my own icky paragraph, but I'm not sure what to do with it.* This is it (from a work in progress):

*Tedd opened the small purse tied to his sash and removed a necklace. He held it up. A gold coin dangled from a matching chain.

"Oh, pretty! Put it on.â€ She turned around.

"Itâ€™s a Spanish doubloon.â€ He draped the necklace around her and fastened it at the back of her neck. This was supposed to be a goodbye gift. Then kissed her just below her right ear. But how can I tell her goodbye? His hands slid down to her waist and he kissed her again, where her shoulder met her neck. I love her so. Then again at the back of her neck. Iâ€™m a fool.*

Italics are the internal monologue (the direct thoughts) of the character.

Well, I guess it doesn't suck too hard, but I don't like the way that third paragraph feels: Too busy. I'm not sure how to fix it other than toss out parts of it.


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 21, 2009)

ScottyDM said:


> *Xipoid*, your attempt to fix this reeked. You kept _all_ the speech tags, then piled on a heap of ill-fitting character actions. Larding a story with more words seldom improves it. Specifically:
> 
> (1) You should have fixed Raska's first paragraph.
> 
> ...



Well, perhaps I should have just rewritten it instead of trying to keep it as close to the original as possible. I thought that might have detracted from my point. I wasn't sure redoing the scene would really highlight the changes in the usage of "said" as much as it may have been a rather offhand way of saying "try this" without reinforcing any particular idea. I suppose that wasn't the best idea.

(And to be honest, I essentially agree with you on your points)


----------



## M. LeRenard (Dec 22, 2009)

ScottyDM said:


> One could simplify that further and say, "Write good."
> 
> But then the advice becomes meaningless.


And yet, many people still fail to realize the importance of interesting dialogue.


----------



## Poetigress (Dec 22, 2009)

ScottyDM said:


> *First: If it's clear to the reader by the context of the dialog who said what, then you don't need any speech tag.* However, you probably need speech tags at the start to clue the reader in as to who is taking which position in the dialog (e.g. it's Tina who is pregnant and Joey who is surprised).
> 
> *"I'm pregnant, Joey," Tina said.*



Assuming the reader already knows at this point that there are only two characters in this scene, you either don't need "Joey" or you don't need "Tina said" here. I would drop "Joey," personally. One pet peeve of mine is how often characters say each other's names. Maybe it's just me, but if I'm having a conversation with someone, I'm not likely to say their name at any point, unless I'm saying it to get their attention at the very start (which would be the equivalent of: "Joey," she said. "I'm pregnant."), or unless it's leading in to something very important and I want to make sure I have their attention before I say it. Tacking it on at the end here feels unrealistic.

I'll come back to your paragraph, Scotty, but have to get ready for work at the moment...


----------



## AshleyAshes (Dec 22, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> And yet, many people still fail to realize the importance of interesting dialogue.


 
I like to think that if anything, I accomplish great and realistic dialogue.  ...If only I could say the rest of my prose follows suit. :/


----------



## Poetigress (Dec 22, 2009)

Okay, back to Scotty's WIP excerpt:



> *I've got my own icky paragraph, but I'm not sure what to do with it.* This is it (from a work in progress):



*Tedd opened the small purse tied to his sash and removed a necklace. He held it up. A gold coin dangled from a matching chain.*

I'm not overly crazy about the flow here. For one thing, it's not clear what "it" in the second sentence refers to. We assume the necklace, of course, but it could also be the purse. Maybe something like

*Tedd opened the small purse at his sash and took out the necklace. A gold coin dangled from a matching chain.*

which is not really all that great, because there's still a weird abrupt-stop feeling between the two sentences, but I can't come up with anything better at the moment.

*"Oh, pretty! Put it on.â€ She turned around.*

A simple change would help this scan better:

*"Oh, pretty!" She turned around. "Put it on."*

*"Itâ€™s a Spanish doubloon.â€ He draped the necklace around her and fastened it at the back of her neck. This was supposed to be a goodbye gift. Then kissed her just below her right ear. But how can I tell her goodbye? His hands slid down to her waist and he kissed her again, where her shoulder met her neck. I love her so. Then again at the back of her neck. Iâ€™m a fool.*

For starters, it feels too step-by-step, and the back-and-forth between the italicized thoughts and his actions makes the rhythm feel plodding. I don't know what viewpoint you're working in for this story, but I'm going to assume third-person limited from Tedd's POV, and I think it might work better if you dropped the italics almost entirely and added a paragraph break, as below.

*"It's a Spanish doubloon." He fastened it at the back of her neck, then kissed her just below her right ear. It was supposed to be a goodbye gift, but... 

He kissed her again at the nape of her neck, his hands sliding down to her waist. I'm a fool.*

I dropped the "how can I [he] tell her goodbye" because it felt too telly to me; I think it's clear enough from the context and the "but..." that he's not going to be saying goodbye anytime soon.

Of course, this is just how I would write it; YMMV.


----------



## ScottyDM (Dec 28, 2009)

Been gone a few days. Will be gone a few more.

----

Xipoid wrote:





> Well, perhaps I should have just rewritten it instead of trying to keep it as close to the original as possible. ...


If the only thing you'd done was to delete all the "saids" and added your beats (as bad as some of them were), that would have made a powerful point.

The last few days I've been editing a cluster of chapters. Essentially, I've got four characters sitting on a porch and playing a grownup version of truth or dare--without the dare part. The problem is I've got a lot of "saids" and not much opportunity for beats. Ahh well, I'll think of something.

Poetigress wrote:





> ... I'm not likely to say their name at any point, unless I'm saying it to get their attention at the very start (which would be the equivalent of: "Joey," she said. "I'm pregnant."), or unless it's leading in to something very important and I want to make sure I have their attention before I say it.


Nice! Much better.

Poetigress wrote:





> *Tedd opened the small purse tied to his sash and removed a necklace. He held it up. A gold coin dangled from a matching chain.*
> 
> I'm not overly crazy about the flow here. For one thing, it's not clear what "it" in the second sentence refers to. We assume the necklace, of course, but it could also be the purse. Maybe something like
> 
> *Tedd opened the small purse at his sash and took out the necklace. A gold coin dangled from a matching chain.*


I hadn't even thought of that. I suspect I'm too close to my own work. Your rewrite is an improvement, but maybe "a necklace" rather than "the necklace".

Poetigress wrote:





> *"Oh, pretty! Put it on.â€ She turned around.*
> 
> A simple change would help this scan better:
> 
> *"Oh, pretty!" She turned around. "Put it on."*


I agree.

Poetigress wrote:





> *"Itâ€™s a Spanish doubloon.â€ He draped the necklace around her and fastened it at the back of her neck. This was supposed to be a goodbye gift. Then kissed her just below her right ear. But how can I tell her goodbye? His hands slid down to her waist and he kissed her again, where her shoulder met her neck. I love her so. Then again at the back of her neck. Iâ€™m a fool.*
> 
> For starters, it feels too step-by-step, and the back-and-forth between the italicized thoughts and his actions makes the rhythm feel plodding. I don't know what viewpoint you're working in for this story, but I'm going to assume third-person limited from Tedd's POV, and I think it might work better if you dropped the italics almost entirely and added a paragraph break, as below.
> 
> ...


Ah ha! Now this was the paragraph I felt sucked and for the same reason you pointed out--it plods.

I pretty much beat the reader up in this chapter with the idea that Tedd must leave his fiancÃ©e, whom he's outgrown, but that he doesn't want to. No matter how this paragraph ends up, I could keep the initial thought (direct or indirect) about the goodbye gift, and the final thought of his foolishness, and drop the rest of the internal monologue. Maybe simplify the action as well.

Thanks, P.T. Awesome suggestions.

Scotty


----------



## Murphy Z (Dec 28, 2009)

ScottyDM said:


> *Tedd opened the small purse tied to his sash and removed a necklace. He held it up. A gold coin dangled from a matching chain. *


 
As a suggestion, can he "pull out" the coin instead of the necklace?

*Tedd opened the small purse tied to his sash, then removed and held up a gold coin from which a matching chain necklace dangled.*

(I made it one sentence, maybe make it two?)

Maybe then he can say:

*"Itâ€™s a Spanish doubloon.â€ *

*"Oh, pretty!" She turned around. "Put it on.â€ *

(as per Poettigress)

*He draped the necklace around her and fastened it at the back of her neck. This was supposed to be a goodbye gift. Then kissed her just below her right ear. But how can I tell her goodbye? His hands slid down to her waist and he kissed her again, where her shoulder met her neck. I love her so. Then again at the back of her neck. Iâ€™m a fool.*

 I'd have less italicized thoughts and, if not cut out completely, incorporate them into the paragraph. Something like:

*He draped the necklace, a supposed goodbye gift, around her ...*

Maybe have one or two italicized thoughts. Personally, I try to keep them to a minimum and put them at the end of the paragraph for potency.


----------



## Murphy Z (Jan 20, 2010)

Here's some things about the dialogue itself. They're guidelines, because they're your characters, but if done "wrong" they won't sound realistic. here's some "bad" examples:

"She probably has bipolar disorder," said the recently orphaned fox.

Orphans usually don't have access to the DSM IV, so it's unlikely they would say that. They would have to say it their own way ("Sometimes she's really sad, and sometimes she's really happy) or the writer should get the college professor to say it. 
In some stories, I "identify" with the writer more than the reader because the characters sound more like the author than the characters themselves. Everyone in their stories seem to be middle class and have some college education.

"There are some edibles in the refrigerator," said John Ordinarywolf.

While John, an ordinary speaking character, would know what "edible" is, most people don't use it that way.  It's weird, but it can sometimes be hard to write natural sounding dialogue. 
Words have contexts and some words just aren't spoken that much.
In many cases it's best to avoid the thesaurus or try to "spice it up" or do semantic acrobatics. 

"Hi, John"
"Hi, Mary"
"What are you doing later, John?"
"I'm not sure, Mary"

Excessive "naming" is irritating. We know you don't want the reader to get confused, but don't insult their intelligence.

"That's swell," said the cyberpunk chihuahua.

Many interjections are closely tied to a time period, age group, etc. "Groovy" and "golly" and "23 skidoo" should evoke different time periods in your mind.

"So tell me again why we're going on this quest to get the Sword of Zanthir."

Sometimes it can't be helped, but try and avoid dialogue that is there only there to advance the plot.


----------



## VÃ¶lf (Jan 31, 2010)

Murphy Z said:


> "She probably has bipolar disorder," said the recently orphaned fox.
> 
> Orphans usually don't have access to the DSM IV, so it's unlikely they would say that. They would have to say it their own way ("Sometimes she's really sad, and sometimes she's really happy) or the writer should get the college professor to say it.
> In some stories, I "identify" with the writer more than the reader because the characters sound more like the author than the characters themselves. Everyone in their stories seem to be middle class and have some college education.



THAT IS A REALLY GOOD POINT! Sadly I just noticed this now that you said it. I'll have to watch for that in my work.



> "There are some edibles in the refrigerator," said John Ordinarywolf.
> 
> While John, an ordinary speaking character, would know what "edible" is, most people don't use it that way.  It's weird, but it can sometimes be hard to write natural sounding dialogue.



Of course someone may want to do that for comedic effect, or they may do it to make the character sound intelligent? I'm not sure, since I've never encountered it or written anything too similar.



> "That's swell," said the cyberpunk chihuahua.



Lol XD


----------



## HidesHisFace (Feb 1, 2010)

And how about describing a a voice? It may be quite important.
I think it may be a good and... natural thing to tell something about it during one of the first statements of a character:

*"Yes Gahir, as always. Whats bothering you? You are behaving strangely." Dulameel asked, her voice was quiet, clean and gentle.*

When it comes to the word "said" - it is important not to overuse it. Yes, it is effective and simple way, but can quickly become redundant. Synonyms are here to prevent such situations. You can't overuse synonyms either, because it will make everything a little too confusing for the reader. Everything is a matter of balance.

And how about longer dialogs and monologues? Personally I really like when characters speak more than one or two lines at a time. It is climatic in many situations but it is hard to keep such dialog interesting.

*"So why do not you ask for their revival right now?" said Leilen and squinted her eyes.
"Please, darling, no such questions, that's so obvious. We can defeat them, and the involvement of such measures without the real need is simple cowardice, even blasphemy."
"You have passed this test" Sukurfalano looked at Gahir with eyes full of tenderness.
"Do you remember the days when we were young and carefree, and our souls have not carried the burden of thousands years of experience? Then the fun was our prayer and careless chatting a meditation. Once, you asked me a similar question. I don't know, looking at everything through the prism of your wisdom you can say, my dear, that I have become reckless in my faith, that I senselessly risk our elites. Tell me, please, how can I prove my loyalty in other way? Who needs a guard, who has no-one to defend from? Why are there soldiers, when there are no enemies? When you show up outside the walls of the temple, the eye of every creature is focused on you. It is just like they saw the reflection of the Goddess herself in you and waited for every single glance, trying to catch it and keep as the holiest relic. With the utmost attention, they listen to every word, look for even a nod. It seems to me that for the sound of smallest request, everyone of them would comply it with reverence worthy of the masters. A single praise would cause exaltation of spirit beyond borders of the body, and every word of contempt would equate with miserable worms, useful in their atrocity, but trampled under the holy feet. Am I right? And now compare us, Surfalane. Beautiful armor, dresses, and prestige are only a cover for sharp doctrines and murderous training. None of us awakes even a hundredth part of the admiration, with which you are gifted. We are but a useless guards, having only one prize - serving you and advice, sometimes with reciprocity. That's why, my love, these barbarians must die by our hands. We have to prove our value to the Empress and our people, that we are the shield which will deflect enemy's attacks. If we are to die, we will become martyrs in Her name. I consecrate every drop of spilled blood, our or our enemy's, every life, which will end in this battle to the Empress."
*

And thats only a very small part of a larger dialogue. I tried to keep it interesting, but I don't really know if I succeeded. I wanted it to have very... hm... personal feel, to show personality of a characters. It is very important, maybe even more than giving simple information. It helps to relate to the character, at least I hope so. The problem is, it can be hard to read, and thats not what I want.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Feb 1, 2010)

Maybe try to think of dialogue more as the time for your characters to show what good actors they are.  Generally, good actors don't just stand in one spot and recite line after line after line without moving their faces or bodies at all (except for Keanu Reeves).  So my advice would be, to avoid massive expositions like what you posted here, intersperse it with actions.  Someone rubs his forehead, turns away in disgust, claps his hands together, raises an eyebrow.  Whatever.  That makes it much, much easier to read.

You're also demonstrating a complaint I have in general with writing of this type; why is it that ancient people never have personalities?  When you get to a certain age, do you just lose it?  When you undergo the anti-aging ritual, does it sap it out of you?  It's like every time there's an ancient wise character in a fantasy novel, or whatever, that character always speaks in the exact same pseudo-Shakespearean way, making them instantly devoid of any defining characteristics.  I don't see any reason for it.  Actually, I should think ancient people would be a million times more interesting than regular people.
Kind of goes back to what Murphy was saying.  Don't let the name in the dialogue tag be the only way to tell who's speaking.


----------



## HidesHisFace (Feb 1, 2010)

Thanks for advice - especially the one about characters actions during dialog. So simple but I never thought about it 

When it comes to personalities - these two characters were designed to behave like that. Leilen is very old (for human standards) high priestess and kind of matriarch - very busy person with no time for fun. Her live-partner Gahir on the other hand is typical military-man and zealot. So here is the pair - priestess and fanatic. 
Other characters - and many of them are also very old - are not the same. They have much more varied personalities but unfortunately I haven't translated the other stories yet.  I can translate some dialogs if you want, but it will take me some time.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Feb 1, 2010)

HidesHisFace said:
			
		

> When it comes to personalities - these two characters were designed to behave like that.


But that's my complaint.  Why can't you make them... you know, interesting?  I read through their discussion you posted here, and I get absolutely no feeling from it.  I can't tell that one is a priestess and the other is a military guy.  I can't tell anything about either of them.  They read like robots programmed to act like King Theodin from the Lord of the Rings.
I should think two people who've led vastly different lives and have 1000 years of experiences behind them would speak and act in vastly different ways.  Maybe the priestess has learned to always look for the good in people, and so speaks with patience and understanding, while the army guy has been hardened by his battles and so only sees other people as figurines on a strategy board, screaming at them and constantly threatening physical violence.  Or maybe she looks down at people for not being as holy as she is and so speaks in a snobbish tone, and he says everything like he's barking orders.  She might talk to everyone like to a child and he might cuss their brains out.  Or whatever.  But right now these two just seem like... dolls,  really.  Tools for exposition and nothing more.  Which does nothing to keep my interest.

I don't know.  Maybe I'm just bitter because I've only ever read two decent fantasy series, and I wish people would do more with the genre than try to copy the classics.  I'm afraid to read any other fantasy novels now, because they all seem to be gigantic and pointless.


----------



## HidesHisFace (Feb 1, 2010)

Well - the problem is that these two characters are live-partners, like husband and wife and even with such close relationship they behave quite formal, maybe too formal. Thats the main reason I am not fully satisfied. The fact the the story itself is quite old doesn't help too, but thats no excuse.

When it comes to aggression and fanaticism - there is a fragment showing that. It's hard to show personality of a character in part of a single dialog, you know. 
Here is an example:
*"Are you mad? The Goddess does not support stupid risk and counting on luck!"
Gahir grabbed Surmailen for a throat and shouted, "There are no such things as luck, fate and risk, young boy! There is only the Goddess! Everything I do, I will do for her glory!" Master released Surmailen and added quietly, "Never again, I say, dare to call me mad unless you take my devotion and loyalty for madness. But then... You'd better not be in range of my sight because for such heresy..." He straightened, "You know what I mean, my friend?*
And yes - these characters are friends - the last statement is not an irony. It is clear in the rest of the story.

I must admit, these characters are not the most interesting ones I have. Well, at least Leilen becomes far more interesting when she falls almost insane later on, but as a side character. Other, not translated stories have better developed characters (a least I hope so).


----------



## M. LeRenard (Feb 1, 2010)

That's 900 times better.  Because now you're showing how this character acts, kind of flipping between politeness and murderous rage... that builds the character so much more clearly.
So now the trick is to make *every piece of dialogue* work as well as that one does.  Even in pleasant, boring conversation, there should be a hint of the forces at work inside this guy that makes him flip out like he does in that scene.  Make us constantly worried whether or not he's going to explode again.
And then, like, with your priestess; I don't know why she goes insane, but you need to subtly hint that she's going to.  That way, she can remain polite and boring, but not so much so that it deters the reader; you want to keep saying, "Hey, reader.  I'm playing a game right now with this character.  Can you tell what it is?"


----------



## HidesHisFace (Feb 2, 2010)

I do not want to put spoilers, but Leilen goes insane after 



Spoiler



death of Gahir. Than she receives two never healing wounds and becomes a living saint.


 After this, she is a main character no more, only a side character appearing occasionally, or mentioned by other characters. So, as you can see developing these two characters further may be a little bit difficult without giving very ridiculous reasons.
Fortunately, as I already said, other characters are better developed, much more unique like Illaila - who is priestess, but also sadistic and overambitious beast playing on feelings of others and using them as tools/puppets - and she ironically is a positive character. I just have to add some more information about how the characters act while talking, nothing too hard.


----------

