Dialog (Part 2)


Rules-headerA notebook for fiction writers and aspiring novelists. One editor’s perspective.

Previous post • Index

Writing Great Dialog (Part 2)
Oh, yeah—just one more thing.

As previously suggested, great dialog should accomplish one of three specific goals. Whenever characters speak, we use dialog specifically to: 1) Set a scene; 2) Develop or define a character or characters, or; 3) Forward the plot.

There exists another important, yet somewhat nebulous, element that infuses itself within the dialog you write. This isn’t a goal per se, but rather an overarching stylistic approach that balances “real-life dialog” with “on-the-page” dialog—two wholly different beasts. Meaning that realistic-sounding dialog might require some effort. A bit of forethought. Of practiced nuance and self-editing. (And then a few rounds of re-editing.)

A writer must walk a fine line between the typically inarticulate, often incomplete and sometimes rambling real-world conversational style (that our brains somehow manage to interpret) and a stylistically vapid, often boring, just-the-facts-ma’am sort of dialog that some writers employ, intent on steadfastly moving the plot forward, and largely at the expense of a fully developed character. Somewhere in the middle is the sweetspot—that perfect blend of casually informal yet subtly informative dialog that readers will consume like buttered popcorn.

Blending useful information (plot-building) with witty banter (character-building) isn’t essential, but more often than not, it’s quite useful. Dialog can seamlessly marry a character’s personality and purpose (reason for being) in each particular scene. Even if your intent is simply to flesh out a character’s persona, you’re also subliminally, unobtrusively, maybe even manipulatively, pushing the plot forward. Conversely, if you’re actively advancing the plot, you’re also subliminally, unobtrusively (etc.) defining your character(s). (See Writing realistic dialog in Great Dialog Part 3.)

Let’s say, for instance, that our just-started thriller (“The Giant Meteor”) is about a…well, a giant meteor. This humongous space rock will very likely strike Earth a year or two hence. (Original idea, right?) So our principle characters are intrepid yet unsuspecting scientists, with maybe an astronaut or two thrown in for razzle-dazzle. The below dialog takes place early in Act 1—maybe slightly before, or perhaps at the exact moment, the distant meteor is discovered. In the dozen or so preceding pages, we learn a bit about an astronomer named Charlie, his best friend Doug, an astrophysicist, and the mysterious Andrea, who’s just arrived at The Kennedy Space Center aboard a private corporate helicopter. Our dialog begins innocuously enough with some friendly banter, and then continues:

…..“Say, I heard you and Andrea attended MIT together,” Doug said. “Quite a coincidence, huh? Crazy, working together again after all these years.”
…..“Yes, and quite a pleasant surprise.” Charlie’s smile radiated a surprising warmth. “I had no idea she’d pursued a career in observational astronomy. Andrea was always more of a people person, not a star-gazer. I thought she’d end up in Washington, maybe lobbying for NASA, hobnobbing at exclusive cocktail parties, Andrea the quintessential social spider intent on trapping some unsuspecting freshmen senator, then draining his wallet in a single gulp. For a good cause, of course.”
…..Doug laughed. “She told me that you two summered together in Hawai’i?”
…..“Yes, at the observatory. Both of us going for our Ph.D’s at the time. We were—for a while we were close,” Charlie said, staring past Doug’s shoulder for a long moment, reliving some silent memory.
…..“She said you spent more than a few evenings at Dr. Smith’s cottage in Waikui, pouring over Hertzsprung–Russell diagrams and sipping Mai Tais.”
…..“Dr. Smith?” Charlie’s eyebrow dipped. “No, no, Diana Smith died the previous year, several months before we arrived on the Big Island. Dr. Jones was our C.O.A. liaison at the time.”
…..“Really? I must have got my wires crossed. No matter. Dr. Jones, huh? Yeah, I heard he was a real ball buster before he retired. Frugal with his accolades. As I recall, the good doctor believes there’s an alien space ship buried somewhere in eastern Siberia. Well, I gotta run, get this photo array off to the digital enhancement guys. Hey, you remember that NQ3 hot-spot you found last week, the one we thought might be a dust speck? Apparently not. McKenzie’s taking another look. She swears it’s in motion. Oh, by the way, how about tennis this Saturday? Don’t say no, Chuck—I’ve already reserved us a court…”
All of which means…. what to a reader? A half-page of friendly banter that may be nothing more than hinting of a potential love interest for Charlie—or something else? And what about the Dr. Smith/Dr. Jones confusion? A simple lapse in memory—or something else? Is there really an alien spaceship buried in Siberia—or something else? And that casually mentioned hot-spot? Most readers will interpret that particular significance easily enough. Some won’t! But what other subtle goodies lurk among these few paragraphs? Yes, we’re teasing the reader, but a competent writer is continually looking for areas or elements from which to subtly evolve or twist a story, to constantly keep readers on their toes.

And, wait…Charlie plays tennis? That, friends, is character development. Most likely a snippet that has no direct bearing with the meteor, but at least we know he gets out of the office. Charlie is well-rounded. Maybe athletic. Most readers will subliminally remember that factoid…so when Charlie’s running after some little green alien 200 pages hence, we know he’s got the stamina.

What else might these few paragraphs reveal? Maybe Charlie’s good friend, Doug, falls in love with Andrea. Or perhaps Charlie comes to believe that she’s secretly working for the Russians (for some as-of-yet unknown, nefarious purpose). Maybe readers won’t be conscious of these potential sub-plots—but the seeds have been subliminally sewn. A reader will patiently wait to see which ones sprout.

Why is scene-setting and character development important before discovery of the meteor? Despite how easy (plot-wise) it would be to depict Charlie sitting down at a computer console on page 1, tapping in a few cosmic coordinates and discovering an unexpected celestial body speeding toward us, where’s the sufficient undulating tension leading up to that moment? Who is Charlie, anyway—and why should we care about him? Maybe he’s a good person—goes to church, saves the whales, helps old grannies across the street—but until Charlie’s sufficiently developed as a character (that I’ll either love or hate) any substantial plot-building can wait.*

As the writer, you already know what readers do not—that the approaching meteor is actually a billion-ton, Denver-sized space diamond in the rough. Andrea’s insanely wealthy corporate bosses have also discovered that fact and have decided to capture the meteor, ease it in a stable orbit around Earth and mine it—and what could possibly go wrong with that scenario? So despite Charlie’s best attempts to destroy or divert the rock, his effort is continually thwarted by unknown agents. Why? Because we’re stacking additional dramatic obstacles at every turn. And dialog is going to be instrumental in creating or continuing that drama—a direct (yet typically subtle) information-highway between Charlie and Andrea, between Charlie and Doug and (possibly) between Andrea and the mysterious Dr. Jones. When poor Doug ends up suddenly dead late in Act II, who’s to blame? And why? Questions anew that a competent writer will answer at the appropriate time. And when Andrea’s brother Sergei shows up on page 178… hmm, possibly more complications.

Ah yes, timing! Great dialog isn’t only about concocting dramatic, informative, and oh-so-witty conversations—but also appearing at just the right moment and in a logical sequence with past and future conversations. When you ask a question in dialog (“Who would have killed Doug! He didn’t have an enemy in the world!”) allow your reader sufficing time to ponder the answer. You’re not obliged to immediately solve the mystery. Sure, you know—but string along the reader, perhaps waiting for the appropriate, exquisitely unexpected, moment for the necessary reveal. My advice is to never (or rather rarely) reveal too much too fast. In fact, that’s probably a rule. Rule #39: Never reveal too much relevant information too quickly to the reader… Whether you’re writing drama, comedy, a thriller or love story, sci-fi, horror or fantasy, continued suspense of one sort or another is imperative. Within each conversation, it’s okay to create a little more confusion or distraction or confrontation. With each provided answer, feel free to ask another two or three questions. And then, late in Act III (typically your final act) begin to collect whatever loose threads that remain and resolve any unanswered questions.

Oh, and now Rule #39A: ….But relevant or not, always keep dialog witty and interesting.

– – – – – – –

* As always, no writing rule or suggestion of mine is iron clad. If your story demands an immediate burst of plot-essential material, by all means follow your instincts. Crayon outside the lines if it feels right. Define your own rules. All I ask is that you know the rules before attempting to break them.

…I mean, have you ever put a raw egg (shell intact) in the microwave and turn it on HIGH for 2 minutes, unaware of the rules regarding eggs and microwaved? Try it and get back to me. Writing a novel without knowing the rules—well, the outcome is kinda like that.


Previous post • Index

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *