Hi, I am making a late entry into this debate. I have read through looking almost in vain for what I have always thought of as the difference between conversation and dialogue. I found only one reference—by Dee.

There is no way that dialogue on the page can work as conversation does, because words are inefficient carriers of speech. Conversation is 3D and the major proportion of the meaning is in the voice tone, the body language and the context, the words are sometimes nonsensical (ever had to transcribe tapes of normal conversation?) and sometimes informative, but always support the other signals.

If you show volunteers films of people looking angry and saying pleasant things, the message they receive is anger. The same with any other contradictory combination. The tone, the expression and the visual situation win over the words every time.

The trick—one I struggle with endlessly—is to convey in 2D dialogue this whole pattern of behaviour. Spoken words are not enough (except for plays and filmscripts, obviously). Written dialogue uses conventions to overcome the problem, but knitting these lightly and seamlessly into the text and maintaining a natural feel as you do it...there's the challenge!
Cheers, Hilary

Hilary

You're right. This thread/conversation (call it what you will) has been all over the place. I think you flatter it by calling it a debate!

Thanks for trying to put some sense back into it!!

By the way, I agree with you about the 3D/2D transformation. But how do you confirm to yourself that what you have writen actually encompasses all of those elements that would normally sit outside of the 2D representation?

Is there some acid test? Or do you just know?

Regards

John

Yes, we were drifting off there, weren't we.
I heard a tip recently - which I haven't had the opportunity to try out yet but I will soon - is to ask someone else to read your work aloud. Whether it's dialogue or narrative, when we read it ourselves we know what mood and emotions we intended to convey. We automatically phrase it the way we intended, with all the drama and tones in the right places. When someone else, who has never seen it before, reads it, all they can convey is what they see on the paper.
Is that an acid test or what?
Dee.

yes I think that is an excellent tip Dee - to get someone else to read out what one has written aloud. Sometimes it can add nuances that one hadn't thought of and it can be quite funny - especially if they start reading it in accents.

Also another tip is about knowing and trusting one's characters, then they start to take over the story.

Once they start talking and you no longer have to put words in their mouths - when it's the character talking, they come up with better jokes that way too!

(Then you just have to know when to shut them up)

Andrew )

Hi John, I wish I did have a test. I give stuff to my daughter and upload it on Writewords. People are very helpful, but I would give a lot to be able to assess it objectively myself. I only know it is a weak area for me.
Dee, the idea of reading out loud is a great test, but only does half the job. It will tell you a lot about whether the language appears natural and conveys the meanings you intended, and whether it would work as a film script. But 'appears' natural is what you are aiming for. In order to include all the body language etc and to be grammatical and sequential, it is never going to be 'real life natural'. So it has to be really most unlike normal speech yet give the illusion that this is how we really talk.

Sorry, I'm struggling here, I don't know if anyone else can explain this more clearly. Cheers, Hilary

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head there, Hilary, saying dialogue has to give the 'illusion' of real speech. We have to leave a lot to the imagination of the reader. Unless it's vital to the plot, does it matter if the reader thinks the speaking character is leaning across the table or staring out of the window. If the dialogue and the beats conveys the message of what the scene is about, and moves the plot along, and reads comfortably, then it has achieved its end.
Sorry if I'm preaching to experts here but maybe I should explain that by 'beats' I mean the little hints we drop in between dialogue. As in: 'she jumped to her feet' 'he brushed her shoulder'and so on.
In addition, you have to give each character their own individual voice.
A film script isn't 'real life natural' and neither is a novel. But they both have to convince their audience that they are... you're right, Hilary... it's not easy, is it.
Dee.

Help!
I;ve just plucked up courage and posted one of my short stories. I wrote it a couple of years ago but have never tried to get it published.

The plea for help is - call me a dozo but - I can't work out how to start a new thread...
Dee.

Dee

Go to the Forums tab at the top of the page and click on that. On the right hand side of the screen you'll see a Forum section called something like Introduce your Work or Introduce yor Own Work.

Click on that and then click on the New Topic tab and just fill in the box with the info about your work.

Hope this works for you.

I look forward to reading your work.

Regards

John

Sorted!
Thanks, John.
Dee.

Conversation and Dialogue are two different languages. A writer who attempts to echo precisely the spoken word is doomed to bore his readers to death or, at best, to confuse, meander and so lose their interest and attention.

Dialogue I see as a translation of the spoken word, almost a description of its relevence to plot, pace and characterisation.

The English language is constantly changing; these changes come about mostly through conversation. Therefore in terms of communication, conversation will always 'lead the way' with dialogue running (in some cases) a poor second!

However a good writer will aim to convey to the readere that the words on the page are conversation. The reasons why this often fails to hit the mark is in structure. The dialogue of is often 'split up' too much, with very short 'sentences' - some of them being only one word.

This will generally work much better when there are two or more people passing the conversation one to another. However a number of writers use this technique with a single character - in most cases it doesn't work.

Sure, the staccato technique can convey speed, anxiety, fear and other emotions but it can also get in the way of a good read. This can be a very effective tool but it needs skill to use really well.

'Structure' also applies to a single dialogue that becomes too long. Here it certainly does NOT reflect normal conversation.

I think that writers should regard themselves as 'Interpreters'.

Trust Becca to hit on this!

I use double speech marks for dialogue and singles if the character speaking is quoting someone else, as in:-
"I love your poem about Ingleborough, you crotchety old git."
"What do you mean? 'crotchety old git'. I'm a warm and caring person."

Having said that, I can't remember the last time I saw doubles used in a published novel.
(I have a feeling I might get a long list from you all now)

Cheers
Dee.

I do, Frankie, I do.
Dee

I hope you all don't mine me adding my two cents to an old discussion....

Conversation incorporates a lot of what linguists call "fadic" dialogue, i.e.

"Hello!"
"Hi!"
"Nice to see you."
"You, too."
"So, how are the kids?"
"Good, John won his football game last week." etc. etc. etc.

All of that polite stuff that we pepper our speech with is deadly dull on the page. The only possibly interesting thing in that bit of dialogue is the fact that John won his game, although I can't imagine that that is information best conveyed in this way. (If it's crucial to the story, I'd rather see the game and John make the winning goal. If we've already seen that scene, then saying it again is redundant.)

Cheers,
Lessa

Conversation is fuelled by breath and the moment, dialogue by ink and thought..........I think.

Mike

P>S> But. good dialogue seems to be conversation.

Lessa

Yes, I can see where you are coming from, but I think it's important to say that some of the words you quote are useful in adding layers and depth to the characters. If we lay down hard and fast rules that some words are forbiddedn, that they are deadly dull on the page, then we may possibly rob ourselves of the possibility of describing personal interaction, interactions that help us see the characters behind the words. If two old war comrades meet, you can't get away from the fact that the first words they utter will probably be 'Hello' or 'How are you.','How've you been.'

To do otherwise is to describe the character as something the reader may perceive as unrealistic or unbelievable, and therefore, not worthy of their emotional support. They may just close the bok at that point.

Perhaps I'm taking you too literally, or is this just another rule that we need to learn, and then need to learn how to break!!

Sorry for going on!

Regards

John