The Pitfalls of Dialogue (and story telling) and How to Fix Them.
I want to start by saying, I am difficult to please when it comes to written art. I never used to be; my favourite movie was the Age of Adeline, and my favourite show, Grey’s Anatomy…not exactly the pinnacle of great writing. Sorry, Shonda. In the same breath, what the masses consider some of the best-written works of all time, like poetry by Emily Dickinson, I can sometimes barely focus on for more than 10 minutes.
These pitfalls were presented to me multiple times throughout my English degree and have proven to be true in my life when I am reading, writing or watching. They are not being presented to convince you to agree with me; everyone has a preference, and writing is art, so it is genuinely all about preference. You might enjoy long, drawn-out dialogue, deeply descriptive signifiers or coincidences placed in plots to help create a particular outcome. But, consider the other side of the coin for me.
I caution you that my pickiness does not make it any easier to immerse yourself into a writing habit or finish a project and may cause you to consume writing in an entirely new light, a dim one at that. So, as any good writer, I won’t solely focus on why I don’t like certain re-occurring writing traps; I will also tell you what I want instead. Doesn’t that seem more useful?
Reason 1:
The learned fear shared by all writers is to not repeat a signifier. Let me give you an example:
Andrei didn’t flinch at all when Naomi said, “you’re a cruel bastard.” without any inflection of guilt in her voice. Instead, he smiled smoothly and sauntered to where the female stood in the foyer. “I know that,” he said, and his ex-girlfriend didn’t seem to rejoice in his self-awareness. She released a knowing sigh, one the male heard many times, and the exasperated woman left without a word.
Now, I’m not going to identify specifically, who I was mimicking that short dialogue bit from, but do you see how Naomi is referred to as the female, ex-girlfriend and exasperated woman? Maybe with a completely attentive reader, that shift in signifier would work fine. Still, for the average person, this is too much change, and we lose the energy of the conversation, the essence of the argument, which is to show Andrezei’s smugness, and Naomi’s disdain. Sometimes it’s ok to just repeat the character’s name if it will, which brings me to my next point, move the dialogue forward faster and more clearly.
Try this:
Andrei didn’t flinch at all when Naomi said, “you’re a cruel bastard.” without any inflection of guilt in her voice. Instead, he smiled smoothly and sauntered to where she stood in the foyer. “I know that,” he said, and she didn’t seem to rejoice in his self-awareness. She released a knowing sigh, one Andrezei heard many times, and then left without a word.
Better? Maybe you don’t see it now, but you will next time you pick up a book, and your eyes start bleeding at the constant flip-flop.
Reason 2:
Too much explanation of vocal inflection or feeling behind the dialogue. Creating convincing, feeling dialogue is likely the most challenging part of writing. There are many rules which you can find books to describe to you. But, continuing the momentum and keeping the reader rooted in whatever it is the characters are trying to convey should be the primary focus. When every line is followed by some emotional signifier or explanation of movement, that momentum is lost.
For example:
“You’re a cruel bastard.” Naomi said dryly, careful not to let her bored tone shake.
Andrei only smiled at the declaration, “I know that.” He said smoothly, with a hint of pride on his tongue as he sauntered over and closed the space between them.
Naomi stood in the open foyer, ready at the door. She tried to find the words to refute his smugness but instead released an exasperated sigh and left without saying anything else.
Now, that isn’t that bad (maybe because I wrote it and I am biased), but it could be cleaner if I only trusted my readers enough to find the tension without guiding them toward it. Assuming this is also happening alongside a grander narrative, some details about their relationship would be revealed throughout. Let’s edit.
“You’re a cruel bastard.” Naomi said.
Andrei smirked cooly, unbothered and said, “I know that.”
She met his gaze, his proud grin and left without a word.
It’s hard to reduce your writing to something that seems primitive. But, it is a wonderful exercise for writing dialogue. One of the most magical things about reading a book is how unique the setting and its characters manifest in each mind. Regardless of every effort you make to control those images through long-winded explanations of setting and tone, your reader will likely come up with whatever they want in their head. Let them.
Reason 3:
One of the most common tropes in all writing is contrived coincidence; tvtropes.com describes this as “a highly improbable occurrence in a story which is required by the plot, but which has absolutely no outward justification.”
How often have you been reading a book or watching a movie (ahem, the last 3 seasons of GOT) where things are just happening? Often, these things conveniently push the plot towards a decided fate by the author, but if the events were real, this one occurrence would be an absolute one-off. If the culmination of your story, its end, relies entirely on an improbable occurrence, you may be better off adjusting your story as a whole.
For example, in season 7, episode 6 of GOT “Beyond the Wall,” John Snow and his unruly mates are stuck in the middle of icy nothingness surrounded by thousands of living dead white walkers without a shot in hell of getting out of there alive. It would and does take a miracle (a contrived coincidence), and it takes several. First, the fact that Daenerys Targaryen was able to receive word of their demise and locate them before they froze, starved or just faced the reality of their situation with the white walkers is insane. But, ok, sure. Look at the actual battle scene itself; the eight or however many humans can fend off the thousands of zombies with their fire swords (and if we’re talking contrived coincidence, one need look no further than the “lord of light”) without any casualties? Then, to top it all off, when John Snow is unfortunately abandoned by his saviour and the rest of his team and falls through the ice, which somehow doesn’t instantly freeze over or put him into hypothermic shock, his uncle, who we haven’t seen in seasons comes riding through the hoard of zombies on a horse and kills himself to save John.
You don’t need me to tell you why GOT failed miserably. Seriously, look it up on YouTube. But, I hope that helped explain how damaging this lazy writing technique can be to the story’s integrity. Readers will always be suspended in disbelief; no story can be 100% accurate; otherwise, we would just be writing and writing. Stories have to culminate in an end, but the journey should never be so unbelievable that it leaves your reader saying, “wait, what?”
If you made it to the end of this article, I hope you took something away; either slight rage and perhaps an upsetting unveiling of the flaws in some of your favourite movies and books, or at least a helpful outlook on what and how to avoid these mistakes in your own writing.
Until tomorrow.
Resources:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContrivedCoincidence
