Art of Revision – Part 4
Dialogue is an often abused story element. It can be a powerful tool for developing the plot, characters and for showing glimpses of background information. As mentioned in the last post, balance is essential. Good dialogue is dynamic. Bad dialogue is as boring as sitting and listening to someone drone on and on about a subject in which you have no interest.
When using dialogue to put in relevant background information, make certain to keep it sparse and, if at all possible, make it a story within the story that will capture the imagination of the character hearing it. If the character, within the story, has a reason to be interested in hearing something, the reader is more likely to follow along. Avoid lecture mode at all costs. If you need to put in a lengthy explanation of some technical detail, switch to either the character’s observations or a bit of narrative. Better yet, break the details into bits you can harmlessly scatter in the story without damaging the dynamics of the plot.
Why is this so important? Have you ever watched a soap opera? The characters are constantly telling each other what happened in yesterday’s/last week’s episode you are sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for them to say something new. No, that is not something I find entertaining, though my grandmother did. If you are not careful, using dialogue to fill in background information will sound like a soap opera.
Dialogue tags are another thing that new writers often use inappropriately. ‘She snickered’ is not a dialogue tag, it is a gestural pause. You cannot snicker and talk at the same time, not coherently anyway. There is nothing wrong with he said/she said. I would highly recommend interspersing gestural pauses and character observations in the dialogue. It not only breaks up the straight dialogue, it gives the scene substance and aids in identifying the speaker in a natural way. Just don’t overdo it. Digressions into unnecessary descriptions of scenery will make the reader forget what the characters were even talking about. As in the last post, it is all about balance in your writing.
Take a look at the following short scene.
“Mrs. Martin, Tommy is failing math. His work is unsatisfactory,” Mrs. Hanson complained. “Look at this test paper.”
“You haven’t been teaching anything they didn’t already cover last year, Mrs. Hanson. He’s bored. Try giving him something new,” Mrs. Martin growled.
“He’s lazy and inattentive,” the teacher declared.
“Tommy is bored of the repetition that seems to be the only way you know how to teach. If you’d give him some challenges you’d find an amazing change in his work, I’m sure,” Mrs. Martin accused.
“I can’t do that when he can’t even keep up!” Mrs. Hanson screamed.
Like this, it reads like a ping pong game. It’s two talking heads trading words. Now, lets try it again.
“Mrs. Martin, Tommy is failing math. His work is unsatisfactory.” Mrs. Hanson shoved a paper in her face. “Look at this test paper.”
Mrs Martin scanned the paper and looked up, eyes narrowed. “You haven’t been teaching anything they didn’t already cover last year, Mrs. Hanson. He’s bored. Try giving him something new.”
“He’s lazy and inattentive.” The teacher’s expression hardened, lips pressed into a prim line.
“Tommy is bored of the repetition that seems to be the only way you know how to teach. If you’d give him some challenges you’d find an amazing change in his work, I’m sure.” Mrs. Martin struggled to remain civil.
She snatched the test paper back, shoving the crumpled, torn test into the pile on her desk. “I can’t do that when he can’t even keep up!”
Where the first is words being batted back an forth, now we see movement, expression and a tiny bit of interaction with the setting. Instead of being flat, it starts to come alive. An occasional ‘she complained’ is fine, sometimes it’s the best way to get across your intent, but when you ground a dialogue scene with bits of action, it takes on life.
