# Characters are convincing when they sound "real." What Makes for Great Dialogue?



## Margaret Jean (Aug 31, 2010)

Here is my own take on the How & Why of Silver-Tongued Writers and Golden Words (after 30 yrs in the writing-teaching trenches).http://garnetsullivanreportslivefromflorida.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=552&action=edit&message=1

Who are your favorite masters of dialogue? Why does dialogue have to be convincing for us to believe in the characters in a story or novel?


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

My three favorite masters of dialogue are Rex Stout, Roger Zelazny, and Ray Bradbury (not necessarily in that order).

And I'm not sure that dialogue has to be "convincing" for us to believe characters.

Mike


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

Margaret, your link needs editing. The one you have up routes through a Wordpress admin page, which denies access unless you're the page owner.

Mike, I think you're partially correct. Dialogue has to be "convincing," but it doesn't have to be "realistic", and in most good writing examples it _is_ the former without being the latter. Here's but one example: In real-world speech, most people use a lot of what I call thought place holders. They interrupt what they're saying with "uh", "ah", "um", etc. as they mentally go over what they're about to say. But most writers leave that out of their dialogue because in many instances it detracts from both the impact and the flow of the story, unless you are perhaps trying to give the reader a since of confusion or hesitation on the part of the character. Thus, writers sacrifice realism for readability but, if you're really good at it, you can produce "unrealistic" dialogue that is both convincing and credible.

It's a difficult balancing act. Not just anyone can pull it off effectively.


----------



## Margaret Jean (Aug 31, 2010)

R. Doug said:


> Margaret, your link needs editing. The one you have up routes through a Wordpress admin page, which denies access unless you're the page owner.
> 
> Mike, I think you're partially correct. Dialog has to be "convincing," but it doesn't have to be "realistic", and in most good writing examples it _is_ the former without being the latter. Here's but one example: In real-world speech, most people use a lot of what I call thought place holders. They interrupt what they're saying with "uh", "ah", "um", etc. as they mentally go over what they're about to say. But most writers leave that out of their dialog because in many instances it detracts from both the impact and the flow of the story, unless you are perhaps trying to give the reader a since of confusion or hesitation on the part of the character. Thus, writers sacrifice realism for readability but, if you're really good at it, you can produce "unrealistic" dialog that is both convincing and credible.
> 
> It's a difficult balancing act. Not just anyone can pull it off effectively.


THANKS for the tip on the Missing Link! CORRECT LINK http://garnetsullivanlivefromflorida.com/dialogue-this/


----------



## R. Doug (Aug 14, 2010)

I rather enjoy Nelson DeMille.  Pretty witty stuff, when it doesn't go over the top.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

R. Doug said:


> Margaret, your link needs editing. The one you have up routes through a Wordpress admin page, which denies access unless you're the page owner.
> 
> Mike, I think you're partially correct. Dialog has to be "convincing," but it doesn't have to be "realistic", and in most good writing examples it _is_ the former without being the latter. Here's but one example: In real-world speech, most people use a lot of what I call thought place holders. They interrupt what they're saying with "uh", "ah", "um", etc. as they mentally go over what they're about to say. But most writers leave that out of their dialog because in many instances it detracts from both the impact and the flow of the story, unless you are perhaps trying to give the reader a since of confusion or hesitation on the part of the character. Thus, writers sacrifice realism for readability but, if you're really good at it, you can produce "unrealistic" dialog that is both convincing and credible.
> 
> It's a difficult balancing act. Not just anyone can pull it off effectively.


I think this is very true. Having realistic dialogue can be distracting, as we aren't nearly as concise as we think we are. Not to mention how much of our spoken word is about delivery and body language. This is even more true for writing dialects or accents, some people can do them, most can't. I suppose it is a balancing act between realistic and readability.

Margaret, I just wanted to add that Elmore Leonard's style of dialogue is usually what attracts me to media. The TV show Justified is a direct example, but his style is one of whit and realism that is winning over fans.


----------



## Phil Edwards (Jan 13, 2011)

I think all dialogue is artifice. For no other reason, real conversations rarely accomplish the objectives that plot requires.


----------



## Margaret Jean (Aug 31, 2010)

tim290280 said:


> I think this is very true. Having realistic dialogue can be distracting, as we aren't nearly as concise as we think we are. Not to mention how much of our spoken word is about delivery and body language. This is even more true for writing dialects or accents, some people can do them, most can't. I suppose it is a balancing act between realistic and readability.
> 
> Margaret, I just wanted to add that Elmore Leonard's style of dialogue is usually what attracts me to media. The TV show Justified is a direct example, but his style is one of whit and realism that is winning over fans.


Warning: I've lost my glasses so this may be full of typos 

Leonard has worked on this for over 30 yrs., and now is able to create almost effortlessly the sensation in the reader that he/she reader) is over-hearing an un-edited, uncut real conversation between two people, sometimes among a grup of people. It comes across as raw human speech, but he fine tunes it, tweaks it, tightens a screw here and there, and it becomes both real speech and something more, perfect pitch dialogue exactly suited to the characters and effective in advancing the story. His big thing is rendering the real way such people (his characters) would talk without their English teacher, minister or wife's mother standing next to them. He also is very big on revealing and advancing the plot/story line through dialogue. The old Shakespeare, "by their words you shall know them." He believes (as did Aristotle BTW) that a story should start in the middle of things (en medias res--Latin), as if the reader is a bystander who just happened to walk up on an interesting incident and conversation on the street, became curious and tried to figure out what is going on, what happened and what will happen next. Most movies use this approach routinely today, but they didn't always. Backstory is revealed piecemeal as the narrative progresses. This adds to the supense and mystery of the story, and I mysef think it is very **cool**! Definitely not an ABC approach, but for me much more intriguing and realistic. I love listening to his characters talk! Speech, tone, all of it so right on! My 2 cnts. worth, anyway.


----------



## Tom Schreck (Dec 12, 2010)

Robert B. Parker's dialogue does it for me...

Dialogue that is obviously place to info-dump annoys the hell out of me.


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

Dialogue is the hardest part of writing a story. It has to convey information, move the story forward, and entertain. And it has to seem real, while not being exactly real. Realistic conversations are choppy and filled with annoying phrases such as "well" and  "I don't know" and "hmm." Novice writers think they need to include all that to make dialogue seem real, but it's a mistake. I'm still working to perfect my own craft. 
L.J.


----------



## RDaybell (Jan 31, 2011)

I'd opt for natural, appropriate, or convincing rather than realistic.  Dialogue can be very unrealistic and yet work.  I'd also hazard that the "greats" usually had great dialogue.  "You can say that again," he added.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

RDaybell said:


> I'd opt for natural, appropriate, or convincing rather than realistic. Dialogue can be very unrealistic and yet work. I'd also hazard that the "greats" usually had great dialogue. "You can say that again," he added.


Absolutely.

My own pet peeve is "he said/she said" when it comes to dialogue. There are nuances to our speech, from our body language to our changing tone of voice, and these ought to be addressed. Flat affect is a sign of mental illness, a side effect of some medications, or indicative of brain damage.

Another thing that some writers do well and some...don't...is paying attention to the setting. If it's historical fiction, anachronistic word choice and phrasing completely ruin it.



Tom Schreck said:


> Dialogue that is obviously place to info-dump annoys the hell out of me.


Agreed. You figure if we can "read between the lines" in real life, then it ought to work in dialogue as well.

:steps down from soapbox:


----------



## Margaret Jean (Aug 31, 2010)

Bleekness said:


> I was reading a fantasy work a few months ago and the author ruined it for me with his modern day colloquialisms.
> 
> And then there is the pet peeve of supposedly simple/uneducated characters who sound like lawyers.
> 
> Bad Karma.


Bad Karma maybe, but certainly bad writing. In a nutshell you captured the reader's rejection of a book becuz the dialogue just doesn't "sound right" for the characters in a book. Total failure, story flushed.


----------



## Margaret Jean (Aug 31, 2010)

L.J. Sellers said:


> Dialogue is the hardest part of writing a story. It has to convey information, move the story forward, and entertain. And it has to seem real, while not being exactly real. Realistic conversations are choppy and filled with annoying phrases such as "well" and "I don't know" and "hmm." Novice writers think they need to include all that to make dialogue seem real, but it's a mistake. I'm still working to perfect my own craft.
> L.J.
> 
> Listen to real people talk, how they talk, the body language they use. Once you can hear your characters talking to one another and themselves, you're on the right track. You're right, you edit out distracting duhs, uhs etc. After so many years at this, writing a book is to me like watching a movie unreel in my mind. I don't know where it's going or how it's going to end, but once I've got the characters fully imagined and placed in a situation, they come alive and simply do what's "characteristic" for them in that situation and one thing leads to another. Revisions are for surgically removing the boring uninteresting stretches ha ha. Many times you have to "write yourself into knowing your character," he/she emerges as you do. Then you ditch your writing search for the character, and have a "real" character to move forward with and write the book. Takes time.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

I've always been told that I write great dialog. Personally, I think it is because I tended bar for many years and listened to people talking all the time. The best way to write good dialog is to learn to listen. One of my favorite masters of dialog is James Lee Burke -- he can write anything from society to street rap.


----------



## RDaybell (Jan 31, 2011)

Tending bar has to be great training for a lot of things.  And good dialogue does come from listening.  Maybe all writing does.


----------



## Iwritelotsofbooks (Nov 17, 2010)

An aspect of it is having characters who dialogue overlaps.  In normal conversations, people interrupt each other all the time.  But in books a lot, everyone's allowed to spout on with complete thoughts.  Just my opinion.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

RDaybell said:


> Tending bar has to be great training for a lot of things. And good dialogue does come from listening. Maybe all writing does.


It certainly is. Just learning to pay attention is important if you want to write well.... a lot of people are so busy waiting to get their turn to talk that they miss what is being said. Not good for a writer.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

When we listen to people, we tune out the "ums" and the "ahs", and don't really notice them unless the person is really having a tough time of it. In reading, we notice every single "um" and "ah". I don't want to get into politics, but I remember a political flier where they quoted a politician, and put in every um and ah, it made it look like he could barely speak. But if you listened to him, you barely noticed them.

If dialog should not be exactly as people speak, it should not be as people do not speak. Really stiff, overly formal dialog gets grating, unless it is how that character speaks.

One thing that annoys me with dialog is losing track of who is speaking. Often writers won't add "blah, blah, blah," Joe said, they will just write "blah, blah, blah." figuring that you will know that it was Joe speaking, as he was replying to the other character. But if this goes on for a while, you can lose track of who is saying what, and then you have to carefully parse through it, which breaks you out of the story.


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

Whenever I want a refresher on great dialogue, I read Hemingway. He has a minimalist approach where the characters convey a lot with little verbiage...almost as if you could read their body language.
Stephen King and Ray Bradbury also have good dialogue.  Terry Pratchett is pretty good at it too.


----------



## johnmedler (Feb 1, 2011)

Never use the salutation "M'Lady."  Makes me want to barf.  I think they used it twenty times in Star Wars II.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

D. Nathan Hilliard said:


> Whenever I want a refresher on great dialogue, I read Hemingway. He has a minimalist approach where the characters convey a lot with little verbiage...almost as if you could read their body language.


Totally agree.


----------



## John Hartness (Aug 3, 2009)

Mamet, Miller, Shepard. For really great dialogue, look to the great writers for the stage. They understand that for things to sound right in the mind's ear, it needs to be actually _said_ once in a while.


----------



## CJArcher (Jan 22, 2011)

Ooh, a dialogue (or dialog) thread  

Hands down my 2 favourites are Janet Evanovich and Jennifer Crusie.  I love the witty back and forth banter between their characters.  Oh and Julia Quinn does a great job too.

I actually find dialogue easy to write.  If I could write an entire novel of just people talking, I would.  Unfortunately some readers like setting, introspection and all that other stuff


----------



## peter darbyshire (Jan 22, 2011)

John Hartness said:


> Mamet, Miller, Shepard. For really great dialogue, look to the great writers for the stage. They understand that for things to sound right in the mind's ear, it needs to be actually _said_ once in a while.


To me, it's more important that dialogue sound interesting than real or convincing. I tend to be influenced by stage writers because they're forced to tell the story in nothing but dialogue, so there's often a lot of tension and subtext and conflict loaded in their conversations.


----------



## joanhallhovey (Nov 7, 2010)

Dialogue works when you don't have to make it up.  I just 'listen' to what they're saying and write it down.

Joan


----------



## Ray Rhamey author (Jan 6, 2011)

Another key to dialogue that really works to bring a character and scene alive is the use of "action beats" in dialogue to expand its meaning, characterize, and advance the story. I cover this a lot on my blog and in my book on writing--beats are often action (what a character does physically) but can be internal monologue as well, which can nuance what a character says. For example, a character might say, "I like your style." But if that statement is accompanied by this--Marcy struggled to keep from laughing at Jenny's godawful mismatch of colors.--the dialogue has a very different meaning.

By the way, the artful use of beats can eliminate dialogue tags such as "said" in a string and still keep the reader oriented as to who is speaking.

I agree with Leonard and King as two terrific writers of dialogue.


----------



## KerylR (Dec 28, 2010)

I'd write an all dialog novel, too.  Alas, it doesn't really work much past experimental short story mode.  However, if you do it right, first person POV lets you pretty much "tell" the story.  

John has a very good point about reading plays/scripts because they have to be spoken.  (John also writes very good dialog.)  While going out and listening to people talk may be useful, I usually watch TV for dialog.  The main reason for that is TV has already gone through a filter, the umms, ahhs, and stupid bits have been taken out.  It's been distilled, allowing you to get a better feel for how dialog works in the context of the plot than by listening to the people around you.


----------



## Iwritelotsofbooks (Nov 17, 2010)

There are people that buy and read plays though still.  Like if there isn't a local production of Death Of A Salesman in your neighborhood.  

I actually find writers like Mamet to be kind of off putting because he's so stylized.


----------



## Ciareader (Feb 3, 2011)

Consistency.  The characters must always sound like themselves.  Otherwise, dialogue seemes contrived.  And anything too didactic seems unauthentic.


----------



## Margaret Jean (Aug 31, 2010)

joanhallhovey said:


> Dialogue works when you don't have to make it up. I just 'listen' to what they're saying and write it down.
> 
> Joan


You got it! That's the secret IMHO!


----------

