I've read and edited my fair share of manuscripts to be published, and I've read my share of books (and edited some in my mind while reading them). One thing I come across in all of them is that either the dialogue works or it doesn't.
It's so awesome when it's done right!
And it's so painful when it's not.
My family is a quick-witted bunch. They are beyond smart and hilariously funny. The come backs fly at every family reunion. My dad calls it "verbal jousting." An art-form sports event of sorts. I love dialogue that darts back and forth and has rich meat like that! And I expect nothing less of the characters I read.
In other words, I'm picky and have high expectations. Isn't that the definition of an editor? (Note: if you are an editor, please don't hate me for that comment or any grammatical errors I may have committed.)
You can tell a lot about a writer by the dialogue he chooses to include in his stories. How much is there? How thorough is it? Does it reflect feeling? Is it.... interesting?
Stephen King tells us in On Writing to stay away from adverbs when telling readers how a character said something... as in, she said sheepishly. King says that the dialogue and situation should be evidence enough of how something was said. Give the reader some credit! They like to read -- so let them imagine it a little. Stick with she said and you'll be fine (works in journalism, too).
The biggest thing that always jumps out at me when I read a story -- is the dialogue interesting? Do I care about what they are saying? Could it be better said in a paraphrase?
Paraphrase! Ok, you got me. I have a background in print journalism. But I believe the techniques behind good dialogue in fiction novels work the same as in quoting real people for a news story. Let me show you what I mean both ways.
News and Quotes
Quoting people is a reporter's life, but in order to grab the public's attention, a reporter can't simply run the interview verbatim (even Barbara Walters uses b-roll and cuts out the mundane stuff). You gotta hype it up! You weed out stuff. You gotta make it interesting.
When I have a news story assignment, and I am finished collecting all the interviews, the first thing I do is sit down with my notes and highlight the most interesting quotes. It doesn't mean those will lead the story; it means those will be used somewhere in the story. The rest of it-- the important but less interesting stuff like dates and facts and locations and so on -- I can find better ways to say it. I can paraphrase it.
That's what they teach you in journalism school. If you can say it better yourself, then paraphrase it. Case in point below. Which story would you rather read?
--------
Robber Still At Large After Morning Break In
Version 1: Police are still looking for a six-foot-tall man wearing a white bandanna who robbed the corner store sometime after 4 this morning.
"The man took a variety of items not consistent with most robberies we see," said Sgt. Officer. "It doesn't add up."
-------
Version 2: Police are still looking for a man who robbed the corner store sometime after 4 this morning.
"He was wearing a white bandanna. He was about six-feet tall," said Sgt. Officer. He also said that the man stole odd items.
---------
See the difference? How boring is reading about a description in a quote? A description IS important, and that's why it's in the lead paragraph. But it's not particularly interesting. In short, the only words I put in between quote marks have to earn their place.
Book Authors and Dialogue
The same should go for authors of fiction novels. Dialogue should serve a purpose. Perhaps it establishes a character, sets the scene, reveals the plot.... never should it be dull or lifeless. Never should it be used if paraphrasing could better share the information.
To move a story along, there will be a little of the "business" to take care of like traveling to different locations or talking on the phone or putting the kids to bed. This business stuff is important and helps the story work. BUT if these are just minor details to move the story along to the important stuff that comes later.... don't slow the story down or make the reader pay attention to the wrong things by adding too much extra dialogue.
---------
Highway 1 Mystery
Version 1: Peter and Sarah jumped in the car, barely escaping the grasp of the man who remained a mystery to everyone in the town of Hilly Valley.
"We'd better call police," Sarah said, fiddling with the phone in her pocket.
"Wait, I have a better idea," Peter said. He swerved off the road and slowed down just enough so the impact of the tree wouldn't cause injury.
"What did you do that for?!" Sarah yelled.
------
Version 2: Peter and Sarah jumped in the car.
"Oh my gosh, we barely got away!" Peter said, panting. "That guy is crazy! Who is he?"
"We'd better call police," Sarah said. "I need to find my phone!"
"Wait, I have a better idea," Peter said. He swerved off the road and slowed down just enough so the impact of the tree wouldn't cause injury.
"What did you do that for?!" Sarah yelled.
----------
The difference is slight, but see what an impact it makes? The crucial parts of the story are left intact, but only the most interesting dialogue is included. Sarah finding her phone is trivial and shouldn't be over-emphasized by dialogue. And things like "he's crazy" aren't really that interesting. It would be better to describe him via paraphrase as a "man who remained a mystery to everyone in the town of Hilly Valley."
Remember-- if it's not interesting, leave it out.
No comments:
Post a Comment