Writing Discussion 2

[kriadydragon]

Including descriptions of characters' actions in dialogue scenes - how much is too much, and how much is not enough? You don't want it to just be a long string of "he said/she said", but you don't want to describe every eyebrow twitch, either ...

Comments

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

I had someone tell me that you should always use he/she said and nothing else. No "He said, raising an eyebrow." I find that to be a load of crap because personally I hate it when the dialog is a string of he/she said. After a while you totally blank out the He said, she said part so what's the point?

Anyway, enough venting about that. I always have issues with action in dialog, because describing facial expressions between each line of dialog also gets tiresome (espeically when it's the same description each time).

I think this, too, comes down to characterization and having well-enough established characters to give your readers an idea of the character's expressions/actions without having to describe them every time. I'm basing this on books I've read that had an excellent balance of dialog and action. It seems like they'll start long strings of dialog with some action, then after a while focus on dialog only, without describing the actions. So they establish for the readers what actions should be expected by including action, then move into dialog only and let the readers fill in the action blanks themselves based on the actions previously described.

And I really hope that makes sense. I guess you could compare it to establishing mood, but instead establishing the character's actions either before or when they first start speaking. For example, if your character is the kind of person to fold their arms when frustrated (or pace, or rub their face), by establishing this before hand - say at the start of the dialog or the first couple of chapters - then after a while you wouldn't have to describe it each time the person gets frustrated, because the reader will know to expect it and see it in their mind without being prompted.

I would also say that unless the action is significant in some way then you don't need a lot of it, just enough to establish what actions would be (frowning, glaring, pacing, tapping feet, sipping from a glass, eating, etc.).

[black-raven135.livejournal.com]

"....you should always use he/she said and nothing else. No "He said, raising an eyebrow."

Really? Well, I guess my latest ficlet at SGA_Saturday would be unacceptable then.......
Finally, I find prescriptions e.g. 'should' and others like it, to be often annoying.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

I'm wondering if it may have been a matter of personal taste for that person and not a rule of thumb. Because, really, I can't see how you can not have something to interrupt the monotony of he said/she said.

[swanpride.livejournal.com]

I agree with you...the "he said" is not needed in this case, because clarifying who raises the eyebrow (or doing whatever) already established who is the one talking.

[black-raven135.livejournal.com]

I don't care for all description but I don't care for nothing but dialog either. It tends to leave too much of what is happening to the reader's imagination.
A bit of that is fine, but not where I am forced to try to figure out what
a character is seeing and feeling about the situation....
BTW, I am struggling to develop more dialog, because I realize my writing has been largely POV and narrative driven......
Thanks so much for posting this dilemma.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

My own rule of thumb when I don't know when to work in dialog is two things - when I need to emphasize something of importance and to bring narrative that's covering the passage of a certain amount of time into the present (Ex. they swam, they ate, they got back into the car. "So, have a good time?")

[swanpride.livejournal.com]

I admit I'm not really good in including description in the dialogue. I tend to write just the dialogue first, that's my first instinct. And then I add the other stuff. Because, although I believe that less is more, there should be enough description that the reader is still in the situation, not in some sort of bubble.

He said/she said - that's a habit I don't have, for the simple reason that the German "er/sie sagte" doesn't slip as easily into a text than the english variant. It's more or less the first thing we get drilled in us when we start to do writing assignements: use alternative words. There is a little bit more choice in German than in englisch, but it's ingrained in me to look for alternatives "he questioned, answered, whispered, shouted, assumed, suspected, quoted, injected, opted, voiced aso.

Otherwise it depends on the narration. If the scene is written from the pov of one person, said person can watch the reactions of the other persons and trying to read them. (it's also fun to switch pov and it turns out that the reading was totally wrong). But in general, it always helps to let the people do something. Drinking or eating, having something in the hand they play with, whatever fits the situation.

But I think, you can easily get away with keeping at least part of the dialogue just dialogue between two persons, you just have to pay attention that it's obvious who said what and that the passage isn't too long.

[sholio]

Heh, I suggested this topic in the hopes of getting some ideas/tips, because I am really struggling with this particular issue lately. I feel like I'm in danger of becoming very repetitive with my descriptions. I find myself describing the characters' small facial movements (raising an eyebrow, smiling, frowning) or little actions ("He sipped his coffee...") a lot more than really seems to benefit the scene, but otherwise I don't have much else to describe or to break up the back-and-forth of the dialogue ... I end up with nothing but a series of he said/she said attribution tags.

Possibly this is a sign that I need more going on in my dialogue scenes than just dialogue. I've been ending up lately with a lot of scenes in which characters sit around and talk. *muses* I wonder if I could have the same dialogue exchanges take place while they're doing something more active.

[swanpride.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with "just" dialogue, as long as it doesn't throw the reader out of the situation. But you could add more thoughts of the characters, how they see the actions of the others and how they see the situation. You can also do a lot with gestures, like tapping the fingers, playing with a wedding ring...if you write about Neal in the office, he can always play with the rubber string ball (for fanfictions it's always a good idea to keep attention to the habits already there...Peter is frowning a lot, so I like to use the word for him although its very much a standart-word, but it wouldn't fit Neal or Diana).

[sholio]

I think it's easier for me in fanfic, because I have a mental catalog of the quirks and mannerisms of the actor/character to draw upon. It's the original novel where I'm really getting stuck, because I need a similar catalog for each of my characters and I'm having to build it. Even in those cases where I know my characters' body language really well, it's hard not to be repetitive (for example, I have one character who is very understated, subtle and quiet in all that she does, but constantly referring to her "little smiles" and "tiny nods" is probably going to be quite wearing for the reader, I think).

Looking back over dialogue scenes I've written, though, there's way less uninterrupted dialogue than I actually thought I was writing at the time. I think I can probably get away with knocking off some of the descriptors and just going for the dialogue in some of my iffy cases.

[swanpride.livejournal.com]

Depends - perhaps you should think up a gesture which is less generetic. Like tilting the head in a special way, or moving the hair out of her face, or playing with her hair in a special way - she could compulsive bite/suck on her lip. The possibilities are endless.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

I pretty much have the same problem which is why I chose this topic next - both when to break up dialog and when not to. I have this one part in my original fic in which the characters are eating lunch while talking and that scene has been bugging me to no end. I know it's said you should have action to break up the dialog but there's something about them sipping and taking a bite and chewing that kept getting on my nerves, even though it reveals some about the character's personalities (one is a neat eater, the other a messy eater).

I think it helps to make the action (non facial actions, I mean) significant or interesting. And to also use those actions to convey the character's emotions and personality. For example, using WC as an example, a relaxed Neal is portrayed in the casual way he tosses the rubber-band ball back and forth in his hands. A stressed Peter is portrayed in the way he snatches the ball out of the air and keeps squeezing it like it's one of those stress dolls. An annoyed Neal snatches it back the moment Peter tosses it in the air.

And - though this may be stating the obvious to most, here - it also helps to mix it up, to not have dialog, action, dialog, action. Instead do something like dialog, dialog, action, dialog, action, dialog, dialog, dialog. One thing I seem to do is have that mix of dialog and action then, when the conversation starts to near the pinnacle - the meat of the topic, I guess you could say, or the heart of the matter - I go into straight dialog, without action and without even any he said/she said. Not for every scene of dialog; I mostly seem to do this when the topic is something serious or some kind of turning point.

[sholio]

And to also use those actions to convey the character's emotions and personality.

Oh, actually, this is REALLY USEFUL to me! :D I think I do this already, to some extent at least, by instinct. But perhaps it would be useful for me to make it more of a foreground thing in my head when I'm writing or editing dialogue scenes -- trying to make the scene description do double duty as much as possible, so that it's not just a random description of what they're doing, but more pertinent to plot or characterization. *makes mental note*

[parmalokwen.livejournal.com]

I learned this in a college fiction writing class-- the word "said" is practically an invisible one. It is the only dialogue marker that is. So "said" should be the verb of choice. Do not dive for the thesaurus. The teacher left it there- we have to learn the rules before we can break them- but I think there are times when the character's expression clearly calls for other verbs. When a character says something in a completely different manner than the rest of the conversation, it may call for a different dialogue marker. Sarcastic muttering, for instance, is often a break from the conversational tone. "Yeah, right," he muttered. But don't add "sarcastically" to that-- adverbs are almost never necessary, and make the dialogue clunky. And again, if you find yourself reaching for a thesaurus because you think you need variations on "said" to be interesting...don't.

The chief importance of dialogue markers, I think, is to provide pauses and to make sure the reader does not lose track of who is saying what. So although you don't need to mark every sentence, it is seldom appropriate to leave an entire conversation unmarked.

There are also times when facial (or other) expression can take the place of a line of dialogue entirely, and if it is appropriate to a character it can add variety to the exchange. A raised eyebrow, for instance, can mean "I don't believe you" without any support from spoken words, prompting the other character to babble on "no really, it's true, it looked like an enormous slime mold, and it won't let us cross its bridge until we bring it an immersion blender!" But it should generally be used sparingly, except for a character well known for his or her lack of verbal expression. Oz from Buffy fandom, for instance, is famously not much of a talker.

[kriadydragon.livejournal.com]

Very true to all of this. I've read stories that completely snub he/she said altogether but then it's line after line of he muttered, he yelled, he interjected and that gets just as tiresome as line after line of he/she said.

The stories I've read that I felt had the best execution of dialog were those stories that did a little of everything. This includes lines of dialog with no dialog markers. ("What did you say?" "I said." Or "What did you say?" He turned to face his accuser...).