A guest post by Jessi Rita Hoffman
Does your dialog writing sound natural or off-kilter? Does it read like real people talk, or like grade school children stumbling over their parts in a play? If you have patches of dialog in your novel that just don’t ring true, it may be because your exposition is showing.
Exposition is the insertion of backstory. Backstory is background information—incidents that happened in the past that readers need to know about to understand what’s happening in the present. For exposition to work, it has to be subtle.
One way to insert backstory is to put it into the mouths of your characters. If this is done artfully, it works. If it forces the character to say things he or she would not naturally say, it backfires.
Here’s an example of exposition dialog that backfires—intentionally exaggerated to make a point:
A husband comes into the kitchen for breakfast and says to his wife, “Good morning, my wife of twenty-five years, who has borne me three children. I hope you are standing there at the stove making pancakes for breakfast, because that is what I like best to eat in the morning.”
This sounds unnatural—to the extent that it’s laughable—because, of course, the wife already knows she’s been married for twenty-five years, has three children, and that her partner likes pancakes. In real life, a husband would never say those things to his wife. No author would write something this ludicrous unless it was intended as satire, but amateur authors—in less exaggerated ways—do this all the time. They spoil their characters’ dialog, weighing it down with forced exposition. Afterwards, they know something is wrong, but can’t quite put a finger on what it is.
Here is a real-life example, from a real-life aspiring author. The context: Jonathan has invited Jenny, his girlfriend, over for a home-cooked meal. This is part of their dinner conversation …
“So when is your interview coming up for your promotion?” Jenny asked.
“It is scheduled for the end of January, but I don’t have the date yet,” Jonathan replied.
“What is your prospect of getting promoted?” she asked again.
“I think I told you that this woman who is the manager in another branch is trying hard for this position. Her academic credentials are better than mine. And I heard that she will stop short at nothing to get what she wants. But I am much more experienced in management. The statistics in my branch have improved monumentally since I took over three years ago. Business accounts have almost doubled, and personal checking and savings accounts have gone up 150%. She is very aggressive, but I will be damned if I am going to let that broad take this away from me,” he said.
One problem with the conversation is that real people don’t normally speak to each other in long speeches like this. Natural conversation goes back and forth, usually in small snippets. It’s full of broken sentences and interruptions.
Let’s revise that dialog, to make the exposition less obvious while allowing the characters to talk as they would if they were real people.
For starters, let’s put some of Jonathan’s words in Jenny’s mouth. (I’m presuming if she’s his girlfriend, she already knows a lot of what Jonathan is saying.) Let’s have her interrupt with comments that more naturally bring out the backstory.
Let’s also add in some gestures (actions) to make the discussion more interesting and to convey the emotion I’m guessing the characters are feeling. And let’s allow them to speak in the casual style boyfriends and girlfriends typically use with one another, rather in formal “grammar-speak.” (Dialog writing is one place where grammar should not be a consideration. Real-life speech is not very grammatical!)
Here is how I would edit that conversation:
“So when’s the job interview?” Jenny asked.
“End of the month.” Jonathan rubbed his hands across his knees.
“I’ll bet you get it.”
“Another manager’s trying to beat me out. She’s got her MBA.”
“Book smarts aren’t everything.”
“Exactly.” He thumped the table. “I’m way more experienced. Business accounts doubled when I took over. Personal accounts tripled, for god’s sake.”
“And all in less than three years.” Jenny said admiringly.
“She’s ruthless. She’ll walk over anybody.”
He pushed his plate away and leaned back from the table.
“I can tell you this much. Damned if I’ll let that broad take this away from me.”
The dialog can be polished further, but if you compare the original version with the revised one, it’s easy to see the improvement. No more forced backstory.
To develop your ear for natural dialog and to learn to write it convincingly…
… I recommend studying Rib Davis’ Writing Dialog for Scripts. His advice is addressed to screenwriters, but authors can learn volumes from this little book. Screenwriters must be masters of dialog, because the only tools they have with which to tell their story are dialog, actions, and images. So screenwriting tips about dialog can be surprisingly helpful for novelists.
If you’re reading a patch of dialog that somehow doesn’t ring true, look to see if you’re making the characters tell each other things they already know. If so, find another way to convey the information to the reader.
You wouldn’t have much respect for a dramatic performance where the backdrop curtains stand open, revealing the stage manager and prop techs running around behind the scenes while the play is going on. And readers don’t respect a novel where they can see the author’s machinations, distracting their attention from the story itself. Naturalness of speech is the first rule of dialog writing. If you interfere with that, it’s not only cheating, but cheating you will get caught at.
****
Jessi Rita Hoffman is a book editor, optioned screenwriter, and former publishing house editor in chief. She helps accomplished authors polish their manuscripts, and helps new authors elevate their books from good to great. For her unique insights on writing and publishing, visit her blog at www.JessiRitaHoffman.com/blog. For information on her book-editing services, go to www.JessiRitaHoffman.com.
****
Larry is currently away on a three week anniversary vacation with his wife. Until then Storyfix.com will feature several much appreciated guest posts, and a couple of surprise pre-scheduled visits by Larry, as well.
Larry’s new writing book, “Story Fix: Transform Your Novel From Broken To Brilliant,” has just been released and is available on all online venues, as well as most bookstores. If they don’t have it in stock yet, ask them to reserve a copy for you.
14 Responses
Also, never forget that the strongest tool in your writing arsenal is … the eraser.
For instance, in the sample revised-dialog, we can easily cut two lines: “All in less than three years,” and “she’s ruthless.”
Those two lines are “for the benefit of the reader.” Ergo, a husband-and-wife would not actually say them. And, look how their omission TIGHTENS the exchange!
First, the husband says what he’d say to his boss: “The numbers are so much better.” But then, AFTER JUST ‘A BEAT’, he gets personal: “Damned if I’m gonna let that b*tch (ahh, go ahead and say it …) take this from me.”
Bang! As readers, WE’RE “IN.” All of us understand what it means to, first, “say the ‘right’ thing,” “say the ‘business’ thing,” and then – IF we dare – to say what actually turns this confrontation into “OUR Personal(!) fight.”
The last statement – which reads bluntly and candidly and therefore honestly, after being edited – is the protagonist’s Declaration of War. And we, readers, “get it.”
The editor’s eraser is your greatest tool … and your word-processor also(!) has the ability to make that eraser “non-destructive.” If you turn-on the feature that preserves edits, the deleted phrases will be retained but “struck out.” Revisions to a particular bit of dialogue will be kept. Take full advantage of these features as you strive to achieve “Less Is More.”
Wanted to thank Jessi for contributing to Storyfix while I”m away, and for all who have commented and engaged. I appreciate you all.
Meanwhile, while ya’ll were holding down the fort, Laura and I spent the better part of the day touring and hanging out on the Eiffel Tower, including the after-dark light show. Loving the trip, keeping a log of all the posts that have come to mind while I’m supposed to be relaxing.
Also, I have a guest post up on the Writers Digest site, if you want to check it out:
http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/the-upside-and-the-downside-of-the-so-called-best-writing-tip-ever
The author of that book on writing dialog is actually Rib Davis — if you check him out on Amazon, you’ll find the book.
Yes — correction made.
Great post!
If I may add my two bucks worth, I detest grammatically correct character thoughts and dialogue. Nobody talks or thinks like that, and it’s hard to follow. Grammar is for non-fiction.
An expert example of the king of dialogue is Elmore Leonard. Additionally, when a character is thinking to themselves, they’re really talking to themselves. With ideas. And pictures. Things. Feelings.
Observe how you think to yourself and try to write it down verbatim, not the way your English teacher wanted it. Observe how others talk to themselves.
NEXT: Make it all more INTERESTING. Vanilla people are your everyday BORING people. It’s the wack jobs we love to read about. Even the loving ones.
***A question I have for dialogue is what word to use after the dialogue? Jenny asks a question and then after the quotes, it’s Jenny asked. As a reader I know she asked. Should it be Jenny said? Then there’s the use of adverbs where Jenny asked angrily. Ideally the scene should show she is angry. Another thought is how most people ask questions when they’re angry? Aren’t they sarcastic? Can the dialogue be sarcastic without Bob asked angrily? Elmore Leonard is down for just use “said”.
**Another pet peeve of mine is when authors get lazy and have long runs of back and forth dialogue without a said or anything at all. In other words, you have to keep track of who is talking. Some of us have short term memory problems. I can’t tell you how many books I’ve read where I, my wife as well, have to count backwards in the dialogue to see who is doing the talking! Do you WANT your reader to be taken out of your story to be doing this? All because you thought it was cool-whatever to skip a key “Bob said” here and there?
**Momentum is increased when you have fast back and forth tension. The more you add some narrative description to what the character is doing AS they talk–that will slow things down. Some published authors out there can KILL their momentum as if that is their goal. Especially with their thoughts (self-talk). Decide what you are after for in the scene. Behavior shows emotional context.
Here’s the Flintstones in the kitchen.
Boring version:
“Wilma, tell me now. Are we cool or not?” Fred said.
“Me? No, I’m totally fine with being married to you,” Wilma fidgets with the cooking knife.
OR
“Wilma. Look at me. Where we at?” Fred said.
Wilma stops cutting the carrot. Looks at Fred. Doesn’t move, like a statue. Picking up a tomato, Wilma said, “We at?”
“Yeah where are we at?”
“WE…are solid. YOU…need to get a grip”.
“Me? You kidding me? I AM the grip.” Fred said.
“Exactly. And what happens when you squeeze too tight?” Wilma held out the tomato, in her left fist.
“Wilma…”
“You know the laws of physics? As in structural integrity?” Wilma walked toward Fred, armed with the tomato and the knife.
Backing his chair up to the wall, Fred stood up. “I am the one with integrity, here.”
Stopping in front of Fred, Wilma pointed the tomato at him. “I’m sure Betty would vouch for that. Now pay attention. It’s physics lesson time.”
“What the f–”
“Shut up and listen, Freddy boy! You asked and I’m trying to tell ya. Or you don’t want to know?”
“Fine. My lips are sealed. Like your underwear.” Fred said.
Wilma turns into the statue for a moment. “Perfect. I am holding two objects. One of them is me and the other is us. Today’s physic lesson is about gripping objects. Too light a grip and you will lose–what you are trying to hold on to. Too hard a grip…” Wilma squeezes the tomato in front of Fred’s face, popping red juice all over him.
Fred grabs Wilma’s tomato wrist, but stops cold.
“You FEEL me?” Wilma has the kitchen knife pointing into Fred’s crotch. Now Fred is the statue. “WE are the tomato, Freddy boy. I am the knife. Unless you want Betty to lose her fantasy ball privileges, you better let the frack go of my hand.”
Fred drops her hand, grins. “You know Betty doesn’t mean anything to me, right?”
Wilma still holding the knife, gives it a little push. Fred standing on his toes now. “Sure Freddy boy. I know what she is to you. And what I am to you. Which is why you’re gonna do a little job for me.”
Fred grunts. Puts on his best smile. “Sure baby. Name it.”
I am way afraid of Wilma now. I also think all my books just got 20% longer.
I use “said” or no tag. (And in those long back-and-forths I work very hard to inject indications of who’s saying what. Except in those instances where reader confusion plays into my evil plot.)
Kerry, thanks for commenting. I agree that when we have to count backwards to figure out who said what, which takes us out of the story, a dialog tag or other indicator was definitely called for!
As to your question about using “she asked” versus “she said” … When there’s a question mark, clearly someone is asking, but it’s fine to say “she asked” if that helps clarify who’s speaking. In the same way that it’s okay to write “he said” after a declarative sentence, even though we know it’s someone “saying.” But the rule of thumb applies to both: only use dialog tags when necessary for clarification.
I agree with your point about the adverbs. They should be used to a minimum. It’s better to show, through a character’s gesture or speech, what their mood is while speaking, than to stick in an adverb identifying the emotion.
I do love clever ways to insert exposition without breaking the vicarious experience of the story.
In the movie A Knight’s Tale viewers needed some background on jousting rules. Rufus Sewell, whose character Count Adhemar was supposed to deliver this long batch of exposition to the beautiful Jocelyn, objected.
Director Brian Helgeland told him “It’s not EXposition, it’s SEXposition. Adhemar is coming on to her.”
Watching the conversation after that, Adhemar’s ribald overtones become obvious. He’s posing and preening for the lady by showing how much he knows and how good he is. And the viewer learns what they need to learn because the exposition is built into the story as exposition. Loved it.
Interesting comment, Joel. “Game of Thrones” tries to do something similar by sticking exposition into explicit sex scenes. The way it’s handled there, it’s way too obvious — just a lazy way of conveying information. I appreciate the show, but not those scenes.
James Scott Bell’s How To Write Dazzling Dialogue is fabulous too.
Do you have the correct title for Rib’s book? Can’t find it on Amazon.
Writing Dialogue for Scripts is here: http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Dialogue-Scripts-Effective-Handbooks/dp/1408101343
Sheryl, try it again, using the link Joel provided below, and you’ll find it.
Rather, the link he provided above!