• Café Life is the Colony's main hangout, watering hole and meeting point.

    This is a place where you'll meet and make writing friends, and indulge in stratospherically-elevated wit or barometrically low humour.

    Some Colonists pop in religiously every day before or after work. Others we see here less regularly, but all are equally welcome. Two important grounds rules…

    • Don't give offence
    • Don't take offence

    We now allow political discussion, but strongly suggest it takes place in the Steam Room, which is a private sub-forum within Café Life. It’s only accessible to Full Members.

    You can dismiss this notice by clicking the "x" box

Craft Chat CRAFT CHAT: Dialogue - Part Two

Status
Not open for further replies.

Carol Rose

Basic
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Location
Indiana, USA
LitCoin
0
DIALOGUE – PART TWO

Please see DIALOGUE – PART ONE for a basic overview of how to punctuate dialogue, and for a discussion of how to write dialogue that isn’t chit chat, and that accomplishes the Big Three: moves the story forward, gives the reader new/important information, and shows characterization.

Today, we’ll expand on both those points.

First, the punctuation…

I’m concentrating on what will help you prepare your manuscript for submission to a US or UK market, since those are the two regions where the majority of publishers exist.

Below are the links I posted in DIALOGUE – PART ONE. They will answer 99% of your questions on how to punctuate dialogue with one exception.

8 Essential Rules for Punctuating Dialogue - article
7 Rules of Punctuating Dialogue: How to Punctuate Dialogue Easily
Punctuation in Dialogue
How to Punctuate Dialogue

In the UK, single quotes are used around the main bodies of dialogue. If you’re using quotes within the quotes, those are double quotes. The rest of the punctuation rules remain the same. THIS LINK provides examples.

Now let’s talk about dialogue tags…

I know. I’d rather not either, but this is an important point so stick with me. Awkward tags, or tags used to do the work of show are two of the things that trip me up most when reading a story where the author hasn't mastered this concept.

What is a dialogue tag? It identifies the speaker to the reader. She said. He said. Sally said. John said.

Said
is invisible to our brains. Meaning, we are so used to seeing it, our brains skip it. However, any overused tag becomes so repetitive as we read that it will no longer be invisible, if we aren’t careful.

Consider the following exchange…

“Hi Sally,” said John. “How are you today?”

“Oh, I’m fine,” said Sally. “How are you?”

“I’m having a bad day, “ said John. “I think my dog is going to die soon.”

“Oh no!” said Sally. “I’m so sorry to hear that.”


While the dialogue itself moves the story forward and gives the reader new and likely important information, do we really need those tags after every single line of dialogue? No. It’s overkill, and it gives the story an echo quality we aren’t trying to produce.

Let’s rewrite that…

John slid into the seat across from Sally. “Hi. How are you today?”

“Oh, I’m fine.” Sally took a sip of coffee. “How are you?”

“Not great. I think my dog is going to die soon.”

“Oh no! I’m so sorry to hear that.”


Not a dialogue tag in sight. Instead, we’ve used action – sometimes called action tags – to establish who is speaking. Because there are only two people in this conversation, we don’t need additional cues to let the reader know who is saying what. They can easily follow it from the action around that dialogue. It’s cleaner, and there isn’t an echo with said being repeated in every line.

What about other tags, such as asked, demanded, etc.?

I’m not a fan of anything other than said and asked. Why? Because you run the risk of letting the tags do your showing for you. You also can easily slip into giving dialogue powers it can’t possibly have. First, let’s talk about letting those tags do the work of showing…

Below is an example of using action tags to do the work of showing. We can usually identify these by the use of adverbs that define how the dialogue is spoken…

“Hi, Sally,” said John gloomily, sliding into the seat across from her. “How are you today?”

“Oh, I’m fine.” Sally took a sip of coffee. “How are you?” she asked cautiously.

“Not great,” he mumbled. “I think my dog is going to die soon.”

“Oh no!” she said excitedly. “I’m so sorry to hear that.”


Even without the highlighted adverbs, can you see how awkward this exchange is compared to the same lines of dialogue above, under Let’s rewrite that…where we used no tags or adverbs? We can clean this up and still show the emotion without the awkward phrasing. I purposefully didn’t do that earlier so we could work through the progression here…

John slid into the seat across from Sally. “Hi. How are you today?”

“Oh, I’m fine.” Sally took a sip of coffee, frowning at the look on John’s face. “But how are you?”

John clasped his hands together on the table. “Not great. I think my dog is going to die soon.”

“Oh no!” Sally put down her cup. “I’m so sorry to hear that.”


No adverbs, no awkward tags, and now we’ve layered in some emotion. But we’ve done it through action that shows instead of tells.

Resist the urge to let adverbs in dialogue tags do the work for you. When you read about the evils of adverbs, this is usually what the person is talking about. Using adverbs this way coupled with dialogue ends up telling the reader what emotion you want them to feel, instead of showing them through the characters’ words and actions.

Putting just enough action in and around the dialogue gives the scene character and perspective. It gives your readers something to see in their minds, as well as listen to. This in turn allows you to explore deeper meanings in the conversation. Remember, dialogue should do three things: move the story forward, give new or important information, and show characterization.

The second point I want to make about dialogue tags goes along with the point above. Just as you want to avoid using adverbs to do the work of showing for you, you also want to avoid using a dialogue tag that gives speech a character it can’t possess in a human.

I’m talking about all the chortling, chuckling, laughing, snorting, and smiling speech tags I see. UGH. Think about it. Yes, we may make all those sounds in conversation, but not at the same time we speak. We make them afterward. We make them beforehand. We make them instead of a spoken response. But humans beings can’t literally laugh a word. They can’t chortle a word. They can’t snort a word. They SPEAK words. Those other sounds are separate, so don’t be afraid to write them that way. It will give your dialogue better clarity.

Consider this…

“You know I don’t like your friends!” he snorted.

Really? He snorted the words? Must have been terribly uncomfortable. :) No. He likely expressed them in a snide or angry way, but you don’t even need one of those tags because of the words themselves and the exclamation point. If that snotty alpha man must speak in that tone to the unfortunate person at the receiving end of this exchange, and if you really want him to make a snorting sound to show his displeasure or anger, consider writing it this way instead…

“You know I don’t like your friends!”

She frowned as he shook his head and snorted. This was an old conversation, and she was tired of it.

This gives your exchange a lot more character, not to mention authenticity. You don’t need to tell your readers what an ass he’s being, or that she’s ready to dump his sorry ass right now. You’ve shown it. You have also avoided using a dialogue tag describing a sound that literally cannot happen in a human being – snorting and speaking at the same time.

All of the above points, and the points in Dialogue Part One, start with one important concept: Dialogue starts with your characters.

I know some of you are about as fond of outlining or character profiling as you are of root canal work. I resisted the outlining part for years, and my writing suffered for it. But I’ve always been behind the character profiling, likely because I write character driven stories. Even if you aren’t writing in a genre that’s character driven, you might want to consider doing a character profile, at least for your main characters.

One of the huge benefits is that you will not have to worry about all your characters sounding the same. Let’s be honest. We don’t all sound the same when we speak. We don’t use the same phrasing and syntax. Spend time listening to people talk in real life. Not TV shows or movies. That’s manufactured dialogue and won’t give you a true example of what I’m talking about. People in real life have their own unique way of speaking. It might be subtle, but it’s there if you really listen.

You want your characters to be that unique. At least the main ones in your story. You want your readers to know who’s speaking from the way they speak. You want them so unique that in reality, you don’t need tags at all.

So it stands to reason that if you want that kind of uniqueness, you need to know your characters as people first. Because otherwise, how can you know what they will say in any given situation, or how they will say it? You don’t. That’s why it’s important to spend time getting to know them.

This is for you. Your readers may never know all the background information you’ve given a character, but it will come out in the way they speak and interact with other characters. It will come out subtly, without you having to hit readers over the head with telling and backstory. And that’s the best way to learn about it, from a reader’s point of view.

All right! Your turn. Let’s discuss…
 
I'm also not a big fan of adverbs in dialogue. I think one of the biggest weaknesses of an adverb is that it usually comes after the dialogue i.e. after you've read it and formed an opinion of how the character has said their dialogue an adverb comes along and tries to redefine how the character has said it; it's jarring.

Terry Pratchett uses a lot of adverbs and I always find his dialogue irritating (although his worlds are amazing).

If your dialogue is well written and your characters are well formed it should always be clear how your characters speak.
 
A caveat with action tags - action isn't a facial expression on its own. Action is movement, something the reader can picture.
A frown or grin or leer or raised eyebrows can be effective if used sparingly as a dialogue tag, but overdone it becomes somewhat melodramatic. Action, real action, is better, especially if it also signifies subtext.

"I have to go," Isi slid the key into her bag.
"Don't, please don't." Brad's throat dried his words to a croak.
Her footsteps hushed across the carpet, clicked on the tiles at the front door, clattered down the stairs, thumped onto the tarmac.
Thumped? Brad frowned, listened. Thumped?

That's what I think, anyway. Action tags, with facial expressions, are best when rare and spare. Defining the internal emotion with action tags is hard to do, but they need more than a facial element to give full impact with the least words.
 
Fascinating as always! :)

I agree with the idea of said and asked being the invisible attribution tags that do the job in almost all cases, and I'm also a fan of minimising the use of those. But I think there are instances when other tags work, when they can show and not simply tell. In the first part of this chat, Kate said:
Using indirect speech in passages of dialogue can also have a comic effect.
And then demonstrated the idea by quoting from My Family And Other Animals by Gerald Durrell, a brilliant example. I think reported speech can create many effects if handled with precision, as in the following passage from John le Carré's A Legacy of Spies. The characters Bunny and Laura are British Secret Service, and they're interrogating Peter, a long-retired spy suspected of having been involved in illegal practices. We're deep inside Peter's POV (it's first-person after all), and le Carré uses reported speech to show Peter's mental state – reported speech when he's brushing his interrogators aside, direct when he must mind his answers. And the dialogue tags are showing all the way through; they're showing us how Peter is interpreting all of this, how he's experiencing it. And finally, the repeated use of italics in Bunny's dialogue, it's comic – which is exactly how Peter sees him.
'I'm Bunny, by the by,' he announces. 'Bloody silly name, but it's followed me around since infancy and I can't get rid of it. Probably the reason I ended up in this place, come to think of it. You can't very well strut your stuff in the High Court of Justice with everyone running after you yelling "Bunny, Bunny", can you?'
Is this his usual patter? Is this how your average middle-aged Secret Service lawyer speaks these days? Now racy, now one foot in the past? My ear for contemporary English is shaky, but judging by Laura's expression as she takes her place next to him, yes, it is. Seated, she is feral, ready to pounce. Signet ring on middle finger of right hand. Her daddy's? Or a coded signal about sexual preference? I'd been out of England too long.
Meaningless small talk, led by Bunny. His children adore Brittany, both are girls. Laura has been to Normandy, but not Brittany. She doesn't say who with.
'But you're Brittany born, Peter!' Bunny protests suddenly, out of nowhere. 'We should be calling you Pierre!'
'Peter's fine,' I say.
'So what we have, Peter, bluntly, is a bit of a serious legal porridge to sort out,' Bunny resumes at a slower, louder pace, having spotted my new hearing aids peeking out of my white locks. 'Not a crisis yet, but active, and I'm afraid, rather volatile. And we very much need your help.'
To which I reply that I'm only too happy to oblige in any way I can, Bunny, and it's nice to think one can still be of use after all these years.
'Obviously I'm here to protect the Service. That's my job,' Bunny goes on, as if I haven't spoken. 'And you're here as a private individual, an ex-member admittedly, long and happily retired, I am sure, but what I can't guarantee is that your interests and our interests are going to coincide at every turn.' Eyes to slits. Rictal grin. 'So what I'm saying to you is, Peter: for all that we respect you enormously for all the splendid things you have done for the Office in days of yore, this is the Office. And you are you, and I am a lethal lawyer. How's Catherine?'
'Fine, thank you. Why do you ask?'
Because I haven't listed her. To put the wind up me. To tell me the gloves are off. And what big eyes the Service has.
'We wondered whether she should be added to the rather long list of your significant others,' Bunny explains. 'Service regulations and so forth.'
'Catherine is my tenant. She's the daughter and granddaughter of previous tenants. I choose to live on the premises, and insofar as it's your business, I've never slept with her and I don't intend to. Does that cover it?'
'Admirably, thank you.'
My first lie, ably told. Now go for the swift deflection: 'Sounds to me as if I need a lawyer of my own,' I suggest.
'Premature, and you can't afford one. Not at today's prices. We have you down as married, then unmarried. Are both correct?'
'They are.'
'All within the one calender year. I'm impressed.'
'Thank you.
Are we joking? Or provoking? I'm suspecting the second.

Suffice to say, I love this style of writing, though I've never tried it in my own work (I usually write in third person, and don't know if this approach would have the same impact in that POV). I don't know. What do you think?
 
Thanks for sharing that! :)

Suffice to say, I love this style of writing, though I've never tried it in my own work (I usually write in third person, and don't know if this approach would have the same impact in that POV). I don't know. What do you think?

I don't see why it couldn't have the same impact. When you're writing in deep third, it can have the same intimacy as writing in first if you do it carefully. Maybe try it for a few hundred words, and see how you like it?
 
Fascinating as always! :)

I agree with the idea of said and asked being the invisible attribution tags that do the job in almost all cases, and I'm also a fan of minimising the use of those. But I think there are instances when other tags work, when they can show and not simply tell. In the first part of this chat, Kate said:

And then demonstrated the idea by quoting from My Family And Other Animals by Gerald Durrell, a brilliant example. I think reported speech can create many effects if handled with precision, as in the following passage from John le Carré's A Legacy of Spies. The characters Bunny and Laura are British Secret Service, and they're interrogating Peter, a long-retired spy suspected of having been involved in illegal practices. We're deep inside Peter's POV (it's first-person after all), and le Carré uses reported speech to show Peter's mental state – reported speech when he's brushing his interrogators aside, direct when he must mind his answers. And the dialogue tags are showing all the way through; they're showing us how Peter is interpreting all of this, how he's experiencing it. And finally, the repeated use of italics in Bunny's dialogue, it's comic – which is exactly how Peter sees him.
'I'm Bunny, by the by,' he announces. 'Bloody silly name, but it's followed me around since infancy and I can't get rid of it. Probably the reason I ended up in this place, come to think of it. You can't very well strut your stuff in the High Court of Justice with everyone running after you yelling "Bunny, Bunny", can you?'
Is this his usual patter? Is this how your average middle-aged Secret Service lawyer speaks these days? Now racy, now one foot in the past? My ear for contemporary English is shaky, but judging by Laura's expression as she takes her place next to him, yes, it is. Seated, she is feral, ready to pounce. Signet ring on middle finger of right hand. Her daddy's? Or a coded signal about sexual preference? I'd been out of England too long.
Meaningless small talk, led by Bunny. His children adore Brittany, both are girls. Laura has been to Normandy, but not Brittany. She doesn't say who with.
'But you're Brittany born, Peter!' Bunny protests suddenly, out of nowhere. 'We should be calling you Pierre!'
'Peter's fine,' I say.
'So what we have, Peter, bluntly, is a bit of a serious legal porridge to sort out,' Bunny resumes at a slower, louder pace, having spotted my new hearing aids peeking out of my white locks. 'Not a crisis yet, but active, and I'm afraid, rather volatile. And we very much need your help.'
To which I reply that I'm only too happy to oblige in any way I can, Bunny, and it's nice to think one can still be of use after all these years.
'Obviously I'm here to protect the Service. That's my job,' Bunny goes on, as if I haven't spoken. 'And you're here as a private individual, an ex-member admittedly, long and happily retired, I am sure, but what I can't guarantee is that your interests and our interests are going to coincide at every turn.' Eyes to slits. Rictal grin. 'So what I'm saying to you is, Peter: for all that we respect you enormously for all the splendid things you have done for the Office in days of yore, this is the Office. And you are you, and I am a lethal lawyer. How's Catherine?'
'Fine, thank you. Why do you ask?'
Because I haven't listed her. To put the wind up me. To tell me the gloves are off. And what big eyes the Service has.
'We wondered whether she should be added to the rather long list of your significant others,' Bunny explains. 'Service regulations and so forth.'
'Catherine is my tenant. She's the daughter and granddaughter of previous tenants. I choose to live on the premises, and insofar as it's your business, I've never slept with her and I don't intend to. Does that cover it?'
'Admirably, thank you.'
My first lie, ably told. Now go for the swift deflection: 'Sounds to me as if I need a lawyer of my own,' I suggest.
'Premature, and you can't afford one. Not at today's prices. We have you down as married, then unmarried. Are both correct?'
'They are.'
'All within the one calender year. I'm impressed.'
'Thank you.
Are we joking? Or provoking? I'm suspecting the second.

Suffice to say, I love this style of writing, though I've never tried it in my own work (I usually write in third person, and don't know if this approach would have the same impact in that POV). I don't know. What do you think?

It's difficult to appreciate this properly because I'm reading it out of context, but if I dare to criticize le Carre, I'd say that this section isn't sharp enough for me.

This section particularly:

'But you're Brittany born, Peter!' Bunny protests suddenly, out of nowhere. 'We should be calling you Pierre!'

He uses 'protests', 'suddenly' and 'out of nowhere' in the same sentence when in this context they all mean the same thing. I could even argue that you don't need any of them because it's clear that it's been said suddenly, out of nowhere because it has no link to the previous dialogue.
 
I don't see why it couldn't have the same impact. When you're writing in deep third, it can have the same intimacy as writing in first if you do it carefully. Maybe try it for a few hundred words, and see how you like it?
I think I might. :)

He uses 'protests', 'suddenly' and 'out of nowhere' in the same sentence when in this context they all mean the same thing. I could even argue that you don't need any of them because it's clear that it's been said suddenly, out of nowhere because it has no link to the previous dialogue.
Yes, I agree – thinking in writerly terms. But thinking as Peter, whose thoughts these are, for me it rings true. I'd argue that the repetition shows character – one of the dialogue Holy Trinity. It shows us how Peter's mind works.

But... that's only my take on it. :)
 
Yes, I agree – thinking in writerly terms. But thinking as Peter, whose thoughts these are, for me it rings true. I'd argue that the repetition shows character – one of the dialogue Holy Trinity. It shows us how Peter's mind works.

But... that's only my take on it. :)

That makes sense. If I was reading the book, I probably wouldn't have picked up on it, but like this out of context, I can get a bit picky!
 
Good example, @Rich.

And interestingly, as well as "protests" le Carré also uses "resumes" "goes on" "explains" and "suggest", yet it didn't feel too jarring to me (although I concur with @Robert M Derry about the line he picked up on (sorry John!)

It just goes to show, that technique is like the Pirate Code: more guidelines, really. But I think you need to know the rules (and the reasons for them) before you can break them and get away with it.
 
He uses 'protests', 'suddenly' and 'out of nowhere' in the same sentence when in this context they all mean the same thing. I could even argue that you don't need any of them because it's clear that it's been said suddenly, out of nowhere because it has no link to the previous dialogue.

Good spotting :)

thinking as Peter, whose thoughts these are, for me it rings true. I'd argue that the repetition shows character – one of the dialogue Holy Trinity. It shows us how Peter's mind works.

But knowing LeCarre's rep, I think it's probably deliberate, like @Rich. says. Just an example of breaking the rules (but sadly, we ain't Lecarre, no rule breaking for us! lol!), so in that respect, an example of what not to do for newer authors :)
 
I was going to leave it, but... dog with bone... sorry. :) The offending line:

'But you're Brittany born, Peter!' Bunny protests suddenly, out of nowhere. 'We should be calling you Pierre!'

I can't disagree – suddenly, out of nowhere, the whole tag – it goes against received wisdom. I wouldn't have the nerve to write it. But the character Peter is telling us this story. He's an old man, with the sensibilities of another time. He despises the bureaucrat, Bunny, and he's incredulous at this pathetic theatre, as he see it, that he's being asked to act in. So, Bunny makes his remark, and Peter is aghast...
This man, Bunny, does his facetiousness know no bounds? His lack of respect? His blood-curdling ignorance of how it was when I served this country? What we were up against? How dare he bring me here! How dare he ask me these fatuous questions! Listen to him! Out of bloody nowhere, suddenly, like he's having his own bloody conversation of which I'm not part, he blurts out banalities like that! Lord, spare me. How much more of this trite must I endure?

Those are my words, my interpretation of what Peter is thinking and feeling at this moment, and I get all that from the tag (and, admittedly, the greater context of the whole scene, and not just extract I originally posted). But the tag – I can hear an old man saying those words as he tells me the story. I can hear his offended tone.

The defence rests, m'lud. :)
 
He's written a lot. If you only read one, I'd suggest The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1963). And if you only read two, make the second one A Legacy of Spies (2017), which I've quoted above. It's both a prequel and a sequel to The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. ´Tis geeeee-niiiii-ussssss!

I'm a bit of a le Carré fanboy if truth be told. :)
 
I think I just tried too young. My Nan had The Spy Who Came in from the Cold. She died 25 years ago, so I would've tried before that. I would've been a teen reading things like The Thorn Birds and Sidney Sheldon. Polar opposite stuff.

I'd appreciate LeCarre now.
 
It just goes to show, that technique is like the Pirate Code: more guidelines, really. But I think you need to know the rules (and the reasons for them) before you can break them and get away with it.

Pirate Code... love it!! :D But seriously, I totally agree. He does it so seamlessly you don't even notice. :)
 
Another thing I'd like to comment about regarding dialogue is pausing.

In every conversation we pause and take a moment to think about what we might say next. A character might do this because they're suppressing anger, feeling awkward, analysing their options etc, either way pauses are necessary in dialogue to break up the flow and add tension.

In scripts pauses are easy. You just have to write the word 'pause' and the actor does the rest.

Story writers often write the word 'pause' too (he/she paused) but to me this is where story writers go horribly wrong. For two reasons:

a) 'Pause' is like the word 'said' the brain tends to ignore it. When you read the word pause you don't stop and take a moment of reflection, you carry on reading. Therefore the pause hasn't worked; the reader has just immediately read the next piece of dialogue and the break for tension is lost.

b) When actors pause on stage or screen the viewer doesn't reach out for the remote and press the pause button and all the actors freeze. The actors may not say anything, but they still do something. It might be a subtle face movement or look but they continue acting.

Story writers should emulate what actors/directors do in these pauses and insert simple action or movement. Maybe your character raises an eyebrow, rubs their chin, takes a drink, twitches etc. Alternatively maybe the wind blows the leaves, the lights flicker, a police car drives past etc.

Fundamentally in the quiet when nothing is said something happens. Life doesn't pause!
 
Another great discussion, thank you @Carol Rose !

As an aside (something I find interesting), is how the considered "rules" and conventions have changed through different time periods in regards to many aspects of the craft of writing, but especially adverbs. I'm reading Pollyanna to my kids and most dialogue has a tag (cried, chuckled, demanded, gasped, chuckled). A little disconcerting to find that someone has "ejaculated" on every other page. ("Pollyanna!" her aunt ejaculated). The littering of adverbs was similar in Anne of Green Gables, Little Women, and The Secret Garden.
I find it fascinating reading these Craft Chats and to consider the craft of writing and how to make my writing better, and then read "classics" which break all the rules of what we strive for :) (I spend my time mentally editing as I read).
 
Another thing I'd like to comment about regarding dialogue is pausing. [...] Story writers should emulate what actors/directors do in these pauses and insert simple action or movement.
I agree wholeheartedly with this, and I'd also add that pauses can be internal. Written fiction gives us that unique opportunity to go inside the minds of characters.

So, something like this would work fine:

Freya's eyes flicked up. "Jack, do you want to make this announcement?"
"Umm. Not sure." Jack twirled the pen across the back of his fingers. It kept getting stuck on his pinky. He took a breath and met Freya’s gaze. "Nah, you do it. This one's got your name on it."

But so would this:

Freya's eyes flicked up. "Jack, do you want to make this announcement?"
"Umm. Not sure." Jack knew that'd be the one. The contents were in Spanish. He’d known with certainty that Freya would offer it. Cursed luck, that's what it was. No malice from Freya. How could she know? He’d faked his level at the interview. That was the problem. There was no way Freya could know the fear that language stirred. He couldn't do it, couldn't contain the vowels, couldn't cope with the infernally rolled r. At best he'd sound like he was chewing a marble. And on top of that he'd heard Freya’s Spanish. There was no touching that. "Nah, you do it. This one's got your name on it."


Or a mixture of thoughts and action. That'd work as well. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top