I just saw this video, and it got me thinking about the dialog we write for our characters.
I don't really have much to add at the moment, I just wanted to share and get a discussion going.
As somebody who had to spend way too many semesters in university studying dialogue, I have to agree with quite a bit there.
One thing I'd like to add though: Since this was intended as a look at what screenwriters do there's an added layer there that we don't have. I think that the way an actor delivers the previously written dialogue can add a lot to how it's perceived compared to only written dialogue in a novel. Starting from things like accents that are notoriously difficult to convey in novels without getting annoying to pronunciation, breaks, speeding up or talking slower ... Sure, we can use tag lines to add to that but not as easily as it is possible in movies.
Dialogue is a strange beast. It has to sound real, but real speech often sounds fake. It is the most fake form of speech in the world. Yet, through that artificiality there is harmony. Dialogue is a song set to a hidden score. Even the most naturalistic dialogue is fine tuned. Composition, from the way we speak to what we speak the syllables punctuation or even lack of. All of which leads to influencing the flavor.
In this way it is expressed, that different voices can be heard when people speak to a different beat. How expression can have a role where words alone are not enough.
I really wonder what things we can apply, as authors. Obviously being limited to writing, and having little control over tone, pitch, speed, etc. Is an issue. Though I assume there must be some ways to simulate those to a certain degree.
I think I ended up doing some hints of "Natual Speech" from the Main character in my story without realizing it, just because, I was imagining and pointing out, stutters, pauses, unfinished thoughts, etc. Though I'm sure I am inconsistent at best.
Different speech can be achieved by arranging the composition of words. It is by manipulating the internal voice people use when reading.
"Bring it over. Yes yes, over there. By the crate I said the crate!"
"Oh! You got it! How wonderful— hmm? Tut tut be a dear and place it by the crate will you?"
"Crate."
Each one gives a hint as to whom the voice belongs. Word choice, punctuation, rhythm. Punctuation and syllables are your drums and flute, and the readers internal voice is the orchestra.
Normal is usually not the best way to put it but I'd say there's definitely some rules that apply to the average conversation and that most people will adhere to. And that afaik even holds true across different languages.
Like, yes, the average human being will make a pause or insert a filler when they need time to think. They will wait (unless it's an argument) until the other person shows they've finished their point before they talk themselves (or stop themselves if they realize they misjudged). They'll react in a certain way to a certain thing that was said before (e.g., somebody greets you so you greet back unless you wanna tell them you dislike or don't respect them or there are other circumstances that don't allow you to do so).
Actually (wanted to say this yesterday but it was kinda late over here), in terms of written dialogue, what I find much more interesting is the question: How much is too much?
I don't think anyone believes they actually write conversations in novels how people in real life would talk. (Btw, if anybody believes they do, please look up transcripts of actual human dialogue and compare. You'll very, very likely see that you're not even close.) We at most try to mimic some things.
Personally, I like to include things like filler words or sounds, broken parts of speech, or pauses toward the beginning of the sentences. I avoid them (maybe not pauses but the rest) toward the end of sentences and almost never insert them in the middle. This is likely because as a reader, I absolutely fucking hate to have to read through different accents (that are written as such and not just mentioned in tag lines) or stutters or stuff like that. To me, it's alright if it's indicated in the beginning of a story/paragraph/sentence (and then an occasional reminder maybe) but then I'd like it to go on reading it like I read the rest of the book. Everything else just slows down my reading speed and I'll either skip or just throw the book away and read something else. I don't mind it as much in movies but I find it really grating in novels.
Other than that, I include some grammatical inaccuracies for a hint of colloquialism and sometimes some slang words but I don't overdo it. On the other hand, I will have some characters where I make sure that I posh it up a bit for status or personality. There is a point where I would feel like that becomes too much too though. Where that point is ... good question.
Sorry -- but this topic is a bit confusing to me. Is it talking about dialogue as in "two (maybe more) people talking" or just "any time a character talks"? Because one (actual dialogue) depends on the chemistry between the characters in question. The other (strong character voice) -- on the archetype and fleshing-out of ONE character at a time.
For the 1st part (Two or more people talking).
I did a little pattern analysis! When I looked up some good examples of dialogue in movies, TONS of stuffs come up. Yet they mainly depend on acting and delivery. Same dialogue in another actor's mouth doesn't work as well (case in point, Psycho remake). We, as book authors, do not have access to these techniques, therefore looking at movie dialogues is moot...
When I looked up the best examples of dialogue in books, only very few came up. And most that did were:
-- plays (so written like movie scripts and entirely depending on delivery, once again);
-- banter/bickering in romance novels (works not because the dialogue is so good, but mainly because of the romantic tension where almost everything will work as long as it increases the tension);
-- essentially prolonged "pseudo-dialogue" jokes with a punchline.
The first point (plays) is further worsened by the fact that it's usually monologue that's most often cited and viewed as the focal point of the so-called-dialogue. Similar to it are profound dialogues -- like almost all of Dostoyevsky's famed "dialogues", which are masked monologues where the other participant in the conversation asks guided questions.
In short, if we analyze the "best examples" of book dialogue (two or more people talking) -- it's either you have something super profound/meaningful to say and you mask one character's monologue with adding a second participant, OR it's a punchline joke.
For the 2nd point (character voice).
I agree with everyone else in this thread. Injecting personality is crucial to making characters shine. But there is also this one hurdle:
The examples of good dialogue (character voice-wise) becomes kind of a complicated topic when the characters do not belong to strong archetypes.
Like, a silent character will obviously have smaller dialogue. The one who is mocking will have a lot of innuendos and stuff. The tsundere one will tsun as they should, and the yanderes will yan. Nature of life.
But what about "normal people" or characters who are hard to put down into the categories of: shy/brash, seductive/indifferent, silent/talkative, bubbly/sulky, etc?
I mean, it's kind of easy to write dialogue if the characters belong to archetypes, but what if not? I see a lot of criticisms aimed at characters who are just... normal people with multiple facets and who can get cranky one moment but be perfectly calm another, angry and pissed one one day and suddenly inspired and talkative tomorrow. Such characters get a lot of flak for being "bland" and boring and without a "strong voice". Now, how do we write those through dialogue? Or is interesting dialogue literally mainly applying to "quirky" archetypes?
Let's look at the examples of Harry Potter (since almost everyone read it):
Harry (the normal one, has the blandest voice in terms of dialogue)
Hermione hermionies(info-dumps with haughty attitude, is a know-it-all, her speech is strong with condescending overtones)
Ron rons(mumbles, insecure, usually has very poor EQ, says stupid or jokey stuff)
Hagrid is just ARGHHHHHHH (heavy accent, some mumbo-jumbo about animals, almost impossible to read through! But hey -- at least we all know when he's talking)
Dumbledore is quirky-mystical
Luna is quirky-random
McGonagall -- I Strict!
Snape -- I Cranky!
Umbridge -- I Dystopian Nice Lady!
Ginny Weasley... (another normal one, also has the blandest dialogue ever)
In Short, unless your character belongs to an archetype, your chances of writing a good dialogue (strong voice) for them are going to be very low.
Also, I read a lot of reviews for books (my hobby ^^) and many people shit on Harry when his personality changes in the 5th book due to his anger issues. There, he does at last get his own strong voice, but the readers dislike that even though it's completely justified psychologically. It's as if actual complexity is not advisable in characters because once a character gets labeled with "bland personality" it'll be very hard to push him out of there. Likely, people will take it the wrong way because "bland" IS his archetype now (in our readers' heads, at least). Changing it will invariably feel a bit like OOC.
Therefore, adding more "realism" in character voice can become more of a disadvantage because it breaks away from archetypes on which we, as book writers, depend more heavily then movie script writers. For us, archetypes = both actors and delivery. We have to incorporate them to some degree and leaning away from them might negatively affect the way we write.
Like @yansusustories said -- how much realism is enough? How much is too much?
Depends on the genre, probably. Obviously, a literary book about a small family and the father's issues with erectile dysfunction will go heavier into realism and multi-faceted, layered characters and their voices. It has to, otherwise its target audience will hate it.
A fantasy with so many questionable elements that it's hard to keep track of all of them? Better settle for archetypes to imbue character voice with personality. All the complex psychology facets would be lost anyway and people would consider such characters bland instead because they do not fit archetypes that ease the reading of something so otherwise-outlandish.
Also, I think, with time, most characters become so fleshed-out, the author might not even need to think how to write their dialogues. They "write themselves", kind of?
______________
Also, I am a bit cranky about that video because it shits on Diablo Cody's cult classic -- Jennifer's Body. (HOW DARE IT???)
So here's a small rant about Diablo Coby
The author of the video dismisses entirely the fact that Jennifer's Body was panned for different reasons than writing. Please, someone watch this video that discusses why Jennifer's Body was considered badly-written (due to marketing to wrong audience, not because the writer has suddenly became bad for no reason).
In short, I don't trust people who don't do their research well and the entire video talking about good dialogue is... therefore, weird to me. I think the author of the video really just faps on the "slick" dialogue. Which works, sure. But to claim that other types do not work? (He did say that JB did not work, so I assume he means its dialogue writing is bad).
How did he get from here to there...?
Slick dialogue is 90% editing, directing, delivery, and also MAINSTREAM target audience. Jennifer's Body was not for the mainstream audience, and so are many other movies. There is a good reason why this video doesn't pick EARLY movies by all these directors. Yes, even Tarantino had amateur movies where his writing style was exactly the same as in his most popular movies. But they're not so easy to watch because they're shot on cheap cameras and have almost no "slickness" to them.
The guy essentially dismisses mumblecore, French New Wave, Woody Allen dialogue, Charlie Kaufman (which is weird because he does mention Spike Jonze who worked with Kaufman a lot), Dogma-95, etc...
The video is nice, though. Just a bit incomplete and very opinionated ^^ without trying to look hard enough to the sources of the opinions it holds. (Not analytical enough).
Sorry -- but this topic is a bit confusing to me. Is it talking about dialogue as in "two (maybe more) people talking" or just "any time a character talks"? Because one (actual dialogue) depends on the chemistry between the characters in question. The other (strong character voice) -- on the archetype and fleshing-out of ONE character at a time.
For the 1st part (Two or more people talking).
I did a little pattern analysis! When I looked up some good examples of dialogue in movies, TONS of stuffs come up. Yet they mainly depend on acting and delivery. Same dialogue in another actor's mouth doesn't work as well (case in point, Psycho remake). We, as book authors, do not have access to these techniques, therefore looking at movie dialogues is moot...
When I looked up the best examples of dialogue in books, only very few came up. And most that did were:
-- plays (so written like movie scripts and entirely depending on delivery, once again);
-- banter/bickering in romance novels (works not because the dialogue is so good, but mainly because of the romantic tension where almost everything will work as long as it increases the tension);
-- essentially prolonged "pseudo-dialogue" jokes with a punchline.
The first point (plays) is further worsened by the fact that it's usually monologue that's most often cited and viewed as the focal point of the so-called-dialogue. Similar to it are profound dialogues -- like almost all of Dostoyevsky's famed "dialogues", which are masked monologues where the other participant in the conversation asks guided questions.
In short, if we analyze the "best examples" of book dialogue (two or more people talking) -- it's either you have something super profound/meaningful to say and you mask one character's monologue with adding a second participant, OR it's a punchline joke.
For the 2nd point (character voice).
I agree with everyone else in this thread. Injecting personality is crucial to making characters shine. But there is also this one hurdle:
The examples of good dialogue (character voice-wise) becomes kind of a complicated topic when the characters do not belong to strong archetypes.
Like, a silent character will obviously have smaller dialogue. The one who is mocking will have a lot of innuendos and stuff. The tsundere one will tsun as they should, and the yanderes will yan. Nature of life.
But what about "normal people" or characters who are hard to put down into the categories of: shy/brash, seductive/indifferent, silent/talkative, bubbly/sulky, etc?
I mean, it's kind of easy to write dialogue if the characters belong to archetypes, but what if not? I see a lot of criticisms aimed at characters who are just... normal people with multiple facets and who can get cranky one moment but be perfectly calm another, angry and pissed one one day and suddenly inspired and talkative tomorrow. Such characters get a lot of flak for being "bland" and boring and without a "strong voice". Now, how do we write those through dialogue? Or is interesting dialogue literally mainly applying to "quirky" archetypes?
Let's look at the examples of Harry Potter (since almost everyone read it):
Harry (the normal one, has the blandest voice in terms of dialogue)
Hermione hermionies(info-dumps with haughty attitude, is a know-it-all, her speech is strong with condescending overtones)
Ron rons(mumbles, insecure, usually has very poor EQ, says stupid or jokey stuff)
Hagrid is just ARGHHHHHHH (heavy accent, some mumbo-jumbo about animals, almost impossible to read through! But hey -- at least we all know when he's talking)
Dumbledore is quirky-mystical
Luna is quirky-random
McGonagall -- I Strict!
Snape -- I Cranky!
Umbridge -- I Dystopian Nice Lady!
Ginny Weasley... (another normal one, also has the blandest dialogue ever)
In Short, unless your character belongs to an archetype, your chances of writing a good dialogue (strong voice) for them are going to be very low.
Also, I read a lot of reviews for books (my hobby ^^) and many people shit on Harry when his personality changes in the 5th book due to his anger issues. There, he does at last get his own strong voice, but the readers dislike that even though it's completely justified psychologically. It's as if actual complexity is not advisable in characters because once a character gets labeled with "bland personality" it'll be very hard to push him out of there. Likely, people will take it the wrong way because "bland" IS his archetype now (in our readers' heads, at least). Changing it will invariably feel a bit like OOC.
Therefore, adding more "realism" in character voice can become more of a disadvantage because it breaks away from archetypes on which we, as book writers, depend more heavily then movie script writers. For us, archetypes = both actors and delivery. We have to incorporate them to some degree and leaning away from them might negatively affect the way we write.
Like @yansusustories said -- how much realism is enough? How much is too much?
Depends on the genre, probably. Obviously, a literary book about a small family and the father's issues with erectile dysfunction will go heavier into realism and multi-faceted, layered characters and their voices. It has to, otherwise its target audience will hate it.
A fantasy with so many questionable elements that it's hard to keep track of all of them? Better settle for archetypes to imbue character voice with personality. All the complex psychology facets would be lost anyway and people would consider such characters bland instead because they do not fit archetypes that ease the reading of something so otherwise-outlandish.
Also, I think, with time, most characters become so fleshed-out, the author might not even need to think how to write their dialogues. They "write themselves", kind of?
______________
Also, I am a bit cranky about that video because it shits on Diablo Cody's cult classic -- Jennifer's Body. (HOW DARE IT???)
So here's a small rant about Diablo Coby
The author of the video dismisses entirely the fact that Jennifer's Body was panned for different reasons than writing. Please, someone watch this video that discusses why Jennifer's Body was considered badly-written (due to marketing to wrong audience, not because the writer has suddenly became bad for no reason).
In short, I don't trust people who don't do their research well and the entire video talking about good dialogue is... therefore, weird to me. I think the author of the video really just faps on the "slick" dialogue. Which works, sure. But to claim that other types do not work? (He did say that JB did not work, so I assume he means its dialogue writing is bad).
How did he get from here to there...?
Slick dialogue is 90% editing, directing, delivery, and also MAINSTREAM target audience. Jennifer's Body was not for the mainstream audience, and so are many other movies. There is a good reason why this video doesn't pick EARLY movies by all these directors. Yes, even Tarantino had amateur movies where his writing style was exactly the same as in his most popular movies. But they're not so easy to watch because they're shot on cheap cameras and have almost no "slickness" to them.
The guy essentially dismisses mumblecore, French New Wave, Woody Allen dialogue, Charlie Kaufman (which is weird because he does mention Spike Jonze who worked with Kaufman a lot), Dogma-95, etc...
The video is nice, though. Just a bit incomplete and very opinionated ^^ without trying to look hard enough to the sources of the opinions it holds. (Not analytical enough).
Archetypes are broad general concepts about character. Like the base of a tree it branches out into a myriad of combinations, derivations and subversions. Do not fear archetypes, and do not fear referring to known characters in media. No one has seen a Choji-Aizen-Hagrid-Nami-Vicky all mixed into one character. But if you are familiar with all of the above I bet you already have a general idea on what that would be like.
And I assure you that every single person here has different conclusions. This means that for every person who imagines the character, it creates n+1 variants. The benefit of this approach is that there is ready made material to craft a voice unique to the character, instead of relying on a vague generic archetype. Which due to your own biases will default to a character you know regardless. Hence all the Gandalfs.
