Hi fellow writers
If there are two things which bring immediacy to a story and get the ball rolling to chase after Indiana Jones, its action and dialogue.
Of those two, dialogue is incredibly useful in conveying information about the context of a story as well as developing characters into rounded humans (unless their mute then action away)
However dialogue is incredibly difficult to pull off, and more frequently than perfect pull offs characters will sound like embarrassed actors, just spewing out the lines like they had just swallowed paste. Reread your dialogue. If the way your characters speak has the same humanity as cardboard cut outs with funny bits blued onto them to make them 3-D, then your dialogue needs work. So here are some mistakes in dialogue that I have found in my own writing. Remember as a writer you can’t run to the director for help. The director’s chair is your chair. You’re the producer, director, cameraman and writer in this show.
The Information Spewer – so the man finds out that the script is a radio broadcast and he’s got to inform the listener the setting is a coffee shop patio under the shadow of the Eiffel tower and its 1940. So he says fuck it, let’s get it out of the way.
“So Muriel, isn’t it pleasant sitting here, drinking coffee in this coffee shop patio, in the shadow of the Eiffel tower over us and its 1940 right now, isn’t it? A shame it’s going to be our last.”
“….. I can see why they call you “la Tightlips” France’s greatest spy”
CUT!
This was not meant to be a screwball. Not only has the character added Captain obvious to his title, he has utterly failed in developing his character as “la Tightlips”. If you need to get this information out, either let the narrator tell us or parse it out over the dialogue giving out only the most necessary details for the reader to get the message. Let’s try this again.
“I think it should be a very long time before we meet under the Eiffel tower again. Muriel”
“Oh ‘la Tightlips’ must you leave?”
“The Germans are only 10 kilometers away from the Capital. And I must depart for England. Another day waiting and we shall never meet again. Here are some francs if you wish for that one last coffee. But now I must bid Adieu ma petit Cauliflower.”
The gate of the patio door swung open without a sound, and Muriel watched her eyes never breaking from “la Tightlips” receding back, as if trying to burn him into her memories before he turned the corner and disappeared from view.
CUT! That was Perfect.
Now, not only do we know when in 1940 this story is taking place along with the prerequisite information, we know that “la Tightlips” carries his character straight despite his wonky name, that meeting in a café near the Eiffel tower means something significant between the two of them, something which we would have never gotten from the talking teleprompter in the earlier take.
The pretentious douche – This is the guy who wears his beret at a tilt, drinks expensive coffee, and scoffs into Macbook screens. He thinks that sounding eclectic and edgy makes for a more complex character and scoffs again at those who speak plainly. His script calls for telling another character where Mrs. Pewter’s greenhouse is.
“Hi I’m looking for Mrs. Pewter’s greenhouse. Do you know where it is?”
“Oh, just off their somesuch and somewhere, if your understanding the dialectics from my throat.
“Huh?”
“You know it’s on the beaten track from Fairytales, if you will take on a smattering of steps heading just on a right tilt off the glow, pinked and blued by the sun squatting on the horizon.”
“Okay.. I’ll ask someone else then.”
CUT! What the @$##@ was that?
The new and exciting phrases you’ve just thought up and shove through a characters mouth, does not make them interesting. Just nonsensical douchebags. Like accents, one doesn’t want to go overboard with it. Instead, any eclectic phrases you wish to use to define a character trait are also there to support the information provided, not the other way around. Let’s try that again.
“Hi I’m looking for Mrs. Pewter’s greenhouse. Do you know where it is?”
“Oh well its somewhere about here under this gorgeous sunset.”
“Huh?”
“Well if you keep heading toward the setting sun, after a bit you’ll see a beaten track that sort of cuts into a forest to your left. You take that track for a smattering of steps and you’ll find Mrs. Pewter’s greenhouse.”
“Okay thanks interesting character.”
CUT! Yes Yess YESSS
Now, not only have we established that this character is a bit scattered (which could be explained later if he’s that important) but we also know where Mrs. Pewter’s greenhouse is.
Mr. inconsistency – This guy can’t focus. His dialogue bounds around whatever character he’s feeling at the moment, forgetting he was established as a cynical character 10 pages ago when he’s now talking gaily of flowers, leaving him devoid of any sort of character. Right now he’s on your stage asking for change during a funeral.
“Hi I’m James Watterson. Hey uh any of you got any bit of change. I just, just need enough for a bus fare is all I’m asking, that’s it. A couple dollars. Please, really pretty pleasing around here.”
“Piss off you freeloader. Can’t you see people are grieving here?”
“Yes, it is quite a shame, isn’t it? All this dowdy, all this sadness, and me bugging you people for change. I should go now. Ta ta”
Cut. Oh shoot me, shoot me now.
So who is he? Is he an outspoken guy, is he a hesitant man, an insensitive smart aleck, or maybe the prideful philosopher who’s aware of his own shame. Hell if I know. This character is often one whom no one knows about; even he isn’t aware who he’s supposed to be when he was thrust on stage. Take some time to establish who he is, if he’s a major character, knowing how he likes his eggs will go miles in knowing how he speaks. So second take.
“Hi I’m, I’m James, hey uh, does anyone have a couple dollars anyone can lend me? I just need enough for a bus fare to go home, that’s all I’hm asking”
“Piss off you freeloader. Can’t you see people are grieving here?”
“Oh uh I’m sorry, I just thought, I-I needed, um… nevermind I’ll just ask someone else.”
Cut. That was great people, that was great.
Now we know he’s a hesitant man whose well aware of social etiquette but desperate enough to break them. Oh and he likes scrambled eggs, usually but not always two eggs at a time.
The Dude who could only talk – This chaps the ultimate Method Actor. He has observing how people talk, refined to an art form. So filled with every enunciation and slang he has now devoted himself to the art of talking as realistic as possible. So now he’s trying to talk to a pretty girl next to him at a hockey game who’s also a talkie character.
“Hey uh Hi. I’m John.”
“Yeah hi.”
“So what do you do?”
“I’m a professional swimmer. I swim a lot, and everything, nothing that special.”
“Well that’s pretty cool, I’m a cook. So couldn’t find anyone else to watch the game with you eh?”
“yeah I guess so.”
Cut! Oh. Boy…
Anyone can talk. You can grab two chumps off the street and they will waste words like they were Smarties and talk of nothing in particular. You hire characters to speak dialogue, and only dialogue. Dialogue is supposed to efficient. Every word, every phrase, every sentence has to in some way advance the plot and/or develop a character. Just like a magician doesn’t buy body bags in bulk to do the Saw-a-person-in-half trick, you don’t use real talking when you can create the illusion that your dialogue sounds like talking.
“Hey you here alone as well huh?”
“yeah won two tickets at a raffle, and had to sell the other one on Ebay. You know why? It’s because none of my friends, none of them, wanted to buy a ticket and watch a hockey game with me. Dicks”
“Yeah well I found a single ticket for sale on Ebay, sales price. But know when you know you’re alone with all these people, kinda sucks now.”
“Ebay? Are you Don Matel?”
“Nice to meet you. IngridThird1245 I presume?”
Cut! Oh yeah that was good.
Well with the same amount of space, we know Don Matel is a nervous sort of guy, IngridThird1245 is a tad aggressive and really loves hockey. And there is a seed of a potential relationship planted between them.
The We-are-one syndrome: This is not just an individual character thing. This can happen to all your characters chiming in to the vibe of the one character. Where it’s not one character talking to another but could be just one character talking to himself. They could all be the pretentious douchebag, or the information spewer, but are usually boiled down to the lowest denominator. Staid. So here’s an exchange between characters about finding a zombie cure, who are all suffering We-are-one syndrome.
“We have got out, to find that cure, its mankind’s only hope.”
“Are you crazy? There are zombies everywhere out there.”
“We have to though, without that cure we’ll die anyways.”
“There isn’t much ammunition left though, maybe 40 rounds left.”
Cut! Okay what, where’s the acting?”
Now here’s a question for you? How many characters are there? If you don’t know, you’re right. The way in which a character says dialogue should be distinct about them as a character. Normal Stansfield from “León: The Professional” is psychotic, and spiels out whole reels of dialogue talking about classical music. Bugs Bunny has copyright on “Eh What’s up Doc?” and all other smart aleck language. The way in which people speak, how they use words, the correctness of their grammer, their range of vocabulary, defines their character.
“Guys, there is only one thing we can do now. The cure. We have to find it. Because, we are mankind’s only hope. It’s all up to us to do this. You all ready?”
“Dude are you nuts! Seriously, are you aware of how many of them Z’s are between us and this, Cure?”
“But, what will we do without it? There’s nothing left, nothing, nothing, nothing left but death. Oh Gods oh gods, we are all gonna, die, die, die, die.”
“Well if we should venture out, I don’t give good odds for survival. We only have 40 rounds of ammunition between us, which makes the option of shooting our way out, impossible, and running, highly unlikely.”
Cut! That’s a wrap.
Okay now how many characters are in this exchange? If you guessed anything but four, you’d best be writing a very stern letter to your doctor for giving you that lobotomy. We have the fearless leader, the more self-preservative Lancer, the one whose already lost their marbles and the educated chap. A good enough band who are more than enough to shoot up zombies, and save the day.
Now go fix them up. You’re their creator after all.
p.s. For those who want a dialogue exercise, here you go.
Between three characters, have dialogue that contains these motivations.
- One of them wants to have an abortion.
- One of them is in need of a lot of money
- One of them wants to sit down and eat something.
The dialogue should also contain these facts.
- One of them is wearing a very nice suit
- One of them has a scar over their cheek
- One of them liked to shove paper into their mouth
- They are in a laundry room and it’s raining outside
- There is a burning smell.
To test for distinctive characters: Remove any tags you might have used so the only words left are dialogue. Then give it to someone to read, and ask them if they know how many characters are in the story and any distinctive traits about them. If the reply is I don’t know. Then back to the writing board.
To test for consistent character: Take one of the characters and put him/her/it into another conversation with a new fourth character with a different setting and different motivations. Highlight the dialogue that the character has, and compare both exchanges to check for consistency.
To test for information spewer: Highlight all the required information in the dialogue. If the information is concentrated in one place or if the information is stated too directly, then you got information spew and it’s time to do a rework.
To test for the Talking Dude: Beside each line of dialogue, write down its purpose, either advance the character or for the plot. If you are at a loss, then the line is likely redundant.
To test for pretentious douchebag: Ask someone or yourself what the suspected douchebag is saying in layman’s terms. If there is only confusion and the next question is why he is such a flowery douchebag then ask yourself why?
