Susie Helme
The biggest mistake I see is sentences that begin with ‘You know…’ It is not natural for people to say things the other person already knows.
Ask yourself—which bits of the speaker’s conversation are new news to the other person, the interlocutor?
- What’s new?
Example 1: a woman and her daughter are making soap.
Mother: ‘We’ll leave these soap molds out to cool. Once they’ve cooled we’ll take them inside to cure and add that lavender we’ve been drying. I hope you’ve waxed the inside of the wooden molds so they won’t stick like last time. You forgot to wax the sides and the bottoms, and we had to break a few of the boxes to get the soap out.’
This is unnatural. The daughter is quite familiar with the soap-making process. She knows they’ve been drying the lavender for just this purpose. She is well aware that the last time they made soap she messed up by neglecting to wax the molds. She knows the molds are made of wood and that they are filled with soap.
In this example, Mother seems to give Daughter an instruction about the lavender, but then goes into a big recounting of the past. This, also, is not natural. In Mother’s head is: ‘OK, we’ve done soap-making Step 1; now what’s Step2?’ The reminiscing about Daughter’s past mistake is secondary, something she thinks about as a side issue from the main issue.
More natural would be:
Mother: ‘Don’t touch, Rachel. They’re still too hot to bring inside. While we’re waiting, we can get that lavender ready. You waxed them?’
Rachel: ‘Yes, Mother, both sides and bottoms. I learned my lesson last time.’
Mother: ‘Good, we don’t want to have to break any of these molds.’
The conversation should move from speaker to interlocutor seamlessly. There should be some element in Dialogue line 1 that directly connects to some element in Dialogue line 2. Dialogue line 2 adds an element which connects to an element in Dialogue line 3.
As much as possible, the information should be given through the mouths and through the eyes of the conversants. How did that bit of information affect them? How did they feel about it? What action is taking place? Here, we can picture Rachel reaching her hand out to begin carrying the molds inside, and we can picture her mother grabbing her sleeve to stop her. This way, instead of concentrating on telling the story of the previous time when they had to break the boxes, we can concentrate on how Rachel felt about the incident. We can give the reader information on how soap was made without info-dumping.
If you need the rest of the information, you can add some exposition, but Tell it through the eyes of your character:
The last time they’d made soap, Rachel had forgotten to wax the molds, and she was so embarrassed. They’d had to break a few boxes to get the soap out, and Father had to make new ones.
If you need some info-dump, you can place your characters in the driver’s seat:
Once the mixture cooled, they would add the lavender Mother had been drying for the past x weeks, then they would carry the molds inside and leave them for x days to cure before pulling the soap out of the boxes.
- Action order
Example 2: A customer is taking delivery of something from a horse-drawn wagon.
‘Come on, Nate, let’s get those horses into the paddock. Supper’s nearly ready.’
Nate unhitched his wagon, and Bill helped him take the harnesses off. Then Nate led the horses into the paddock and gave them each an apple he took from a shelf where bill had left them.
The line of dialogue here is quite naturalistic, but it misses the opportunity to see the action in its proper order and it misses the comradely interaction between Nate and his customer.
More action- and relationship-oriented:
‘Come on, Nate, supper’s nearly ready. Let’s get these horses into the paddock. I’ll start lifting those harnesses off.’
‘They’ll be hungry, Bill…’ said Nate as he unhitched the wagon.
‘I’ve got some apples for them on the shelf, there.’
This way we picture the action in its proper order. 1. They need to hurry as supper’s nearly ready; 2. Bill will help Nate; 3. Nate will unhitch the wagon; 4. Bill and Nate will lift the harnesses off; 5. Bill and Nate will lead the horses into the paddock; 6. The horses are hungry; 7. Bill has left some apples on the shelf; 8. Nate will give the horses the apples.
This way, we don’t need any exposition at all, yet we’ve learned what we need to know about the process of unhitching wagons, and furthermore, we get a picture of the interaction between the two men.
Example 3: Rachel and her twin sister have a homework assignment.
‘Come on, Rachel, let’s go play outside,’ my sister said. She looked at me, waiting for my response.
‘I can’t, Cathy. You know I have to finish that big homework assignment Mr Elliot gave us,’ I said.
‘It’s Saturday. Nobody does homework on Saturday, Rachel. I already finished mine,’ she boasted. Cathy was better than me at everything, even homework.
‘It’s due in Monday, so I only have two days to finish it. And you’re wrong; people who haven’t finished their homework on Friday have to do it on Saturday, Cathy. Mother won’t let me skip church tomorrow,’ I said.
‘Well, if you can’t go out, Rachel, I guess I’ll just have to go play with Belinda,’ said Cathy.
That was a dig. She knew I was jealous of Belinda.
This feels stilted for a number of reasons.
The first line of dialogue is too static. Cathy is speaking, but nothing else is going on.
When we know whom we are speaking to, it’s unnatural to keep addressing them by name. Rachel knows Cathy is speaking to her.
There’s no Setting. Where are the girls in relation to each other?
‘Come on, let’s go play outside,’ my sister said from the doorway into our bedroom.
This is better, but there’s still no emotion here. What is Cathy’s motivation? Why does she want Rachel to come play outside?
‘Come on, let’s go play outside.’ My sister burst through the doorway into our bedroom, without taking her hand off the knob.
I looked up from my desk, ‘I can’t…’
Here, we Show Cathy’s feelings. She is so excited (she bursts) about going out to play that she keeps her hand on the doorknob ready to go. We have a sense of where the girls are in relation to each other and what activities they are involved in—Cathy is at the door ready to go, Rachel is at her desk working on homework. The action has a logical progression. 1. Cathy bursts in; 2. Her hand is still on the knob; 3. Rachel looks up; 4. She responds.
You know I have to finish that big homework assignment Mr Elliot gave us is TMI. Rachel knows this perfectly well, as she has had the same assignment. She knows which assignment Rachel is talking about because Mr Elliot is her teacher, too. What’s new is—Rachel hasn’t finished, and she’s stressed about it. She would more naturally say, ‘I haven’t finished the assignment, yet.’
Avoid fluff. Don’t tell us she walked in the door and then she looked at him and said… Just say she said. We do not need she looked at me, waiting for my response. People usually look at people when they are speaking to them, and usually after they have spoken, they wait for a response. So, don’t waste our time with it.
As I often say, we don’t want to know that Cromwell woke up and then he got a message from the king and then he got dressed and had some breakfast and then he got on his horse and rode… What we want to know is—what are he and Anne Boleyn talking about in the garden?
‘Dog bites man’ is not news. Only tell us if something you’re saying is news to us, when there’s a reason you’re doing it.
Don’t tell us about people getting dressed, eating breakfast, nodding hello to the milkman, getting on the train, looking at people they are speaking to, saying hello to people they are speaking to, doing their shopping, laundry or dishes, using the toilet (personally, I’d rather not hear about people having sex, either, but I might be in a minority) unless there’s a reason you’re telling us that.
- Dialogue tags
We can eliminate some of the dialogue tags—she said, I said—especially as we only have two people talking here, so we know who’s speaking. Some of the tags can be placed inside the quote for better scansion and emphasis.
The action is in the wrong logical order, here. 1. It’s Saturday; 2. Cathy says nobody does homework on Saturday; 3. Cathy boasts; 4. Cathy is better at everything; 5. It’s due Monday; 6. There are 2 days between Saturday and Monday; 7. Rachel pontificates about people finishing homework on Friday; 8. Mother won’t let her skip church.
The connection between Cathy’s line of dialogue and Rachel’s response is the bit about Saturday, so we need to place that in the second half. Cathy raises the issue of her perceived superiority in the homework department, but some questions remain unanswered and just fester away. Rachel doesn’t rise to Cathy’s boast. Her annoyance is just implied, working up to her emotional response to the jibe about Belinda. Cathy’s use of Rachel’s name is appropriate, here, as it makes Cathy sound like a bossyboots.
Some questions are deliberately ignored. So, Show us why the interlocutor is avoiding the question.
Rachel’s sense of urgency could better be expressed by: ‘It’s due on Monday, Cathy.’ Cathy knows the assignment is due on Monday. Everybody knows there are only two days between Saturday and Monday, so we don’t need to say that.What’s new is Rachel’s feelings of urgency about the deadline. Here, it’s appropriate for her to say Cathy’s name, as it conveys a tone of sarcasm and responds to Cathy’s bossing by bossing her back. People who haven’t finished their homework on Friday… sounds like something Mother would say, not Rachel.
- Topics and issues
The goal of dialogue is not just to get the information across and to do that by Showing not Telling. It is also to weave an interplay of emotional beats. Each emotion should lead into a responding emotion. Cathy makes a friendly invitation. Rachel is stressed. Cathy boasts and bosses. Rachel feels inferior. She bosses her back. Feelings about Mother come in. Cathy plays the passive aggressive card. Rachel feels jealous.
Cathy is also probably aware that Mother won’t allow Rachel to skip church; the news is Rachel’s frustration at that, so she could say, ‘Mother won’t let me skip church, no matter what I say.’
Well, if you can’t go out gives us the information, but it’s too dry; it doesn’t quite Show Cathy’s feelings. Well, if you’re too busy better conveys Cathy’s snooty attitude.
The information about Rachel’s jealousy of Belinda should have already been established earlier, and she could have expressed her feelings about this with some sensory information or internal monologue, body language or facial expression, like:
Rachel frowned. That was a dig.
According to the rule of Chekhov’s Gun, once we mention the doorknob, the doorknob has to play a role in the subsequent story, so:
Cathy flung the door shut, the palm of her hand squeaking against the doorknob.
This brings the doorknob back in, and uses it as a Prop to Show Cathy’s behaviour (she’s hurrying out, disregarding Rachel’s feelings).
People sometimes interrupt people and use incomplete sentences.
‘It’s Saturday. Nobody does homework…’
‘It’s due Monday, Cathy.’
This sounds quite natural. Rachel knows what the rest of that sentence is going to be, and she disagrees with it. In the next sentence Rachel is going to say why working on Sunday isn’t an option. Interrupting introduces a bit of due impoliteness to her response.
Ask yourself first what is the issue? As Dr Phil says, people usually argue about topics, when what they’re really arguing about is issues. They’re arguing about why she forgot to bring an umbrella when she could see it’s raining. The issue they’re really arguing about is why she didn’t do something when she could see her stepfather was sexually abusing her. That’s why she’s so angry about the darned umbrella.
You need to Show us both topic and issue.
It’s not naturalistic dialogue to use more than three sentences in one utterance. I know we’re not necessarily aiming at realism, but too long a dialogue line is exhausting to read. You can break it up by interspersing it with the interlocutor’s reactions.
Use contractions and vary the length of your sentences. This also helps with varying the Pace.
- Make it easy
What is the easiest way for your character to express what they are trying to say? Does the easiest expression express what you want to say?
Example 4:
‘How could you do that to me?’ Rachel looked at the canula in her arm. Nobody had told her anything about this new medication.
‘Don’t look so shocked. You signed the consent form,’ Nathaniel scoffed.
‘Yeah, but that was last week. I didn’t know, then that consent meant they could do anything they want to me, anything you want,’ said Rachel.
‘I didn’t want this, Rachel. You didn’t know how bad it would be, how rapidly your condition would worsen,’ he replied.
‘Still, you could have asked me. I’d like to have made the decision myself about my own health treatment,’ Rachel said.
‘Look, I was only looking out for you, Rachel. Maybe I saved your life. You should be thanking me. If you want to go ahead and die, go ahead, then.’
‘You’re an a**hole,’ she said, starting to cry.
People say you shouldn’t use anything other than said as a dialogue tag, but I disagree. I like Nathaniel scoffed. I just don’t think that emotion is appropriate, here.
It seems to me that Rachel and Nathaniel are having an unnecessary fight. They could perfectly well have had this discussion amicably. Yet that is often the case with couples.
How bad it would be, how rapidly your condition would worsen sounds a bit clinical. He would probably more simply say, how bad it would be, how quickly it would get worse.
However, the order is logical. 1. How could he? 2. This is how; 3. But she didn’t know what consent form implied; 4. It meant he could make decisions for her; 5. But he never wanted her to be ill; 6. she didn’t know how bad her condition would get; 7. this is why she’s upset; 8. This is why he doesn’t care if she’s upset 9. She’s upset that he doesn’t care.
What I like about this dialogue is the I didn’t know, you didn’t know back and forth. They are using the same phrase, but talking about two different things. Yet that doesn’t quite come across because we’re given too much information. I didn’t know, then…, ending in an ellipsis would be simpler. We can infer that she’s thinking about the consent form. It’s too big a jump from there to blaming it on Nathaniel. Blaming it on Nathaniel could come into it in the a**hole line. As it stands, there’s not enough of a connection between anything you want and You didn’t know. They’re arguing about what he wants; they need to be arguing about what he knew about what she didn’t know. Leaving out the want argument and concentrating on the didn’t know argument would be simpler and would flow better.
You’re an a**hole is not enough. What exactly is she upset about? That she might die? That he authorised an injection without asking her? That he’s miffed that she isn’t thanking him? That he says she should go ahead and die?
If Rachel is going to cry, at what point would she start? I think it would be after the reference to her condition rapidly worsening. She has feelings about Nathaniel authorising the new medication without consulting her, but her fear of dying would probably trump that. Feeling that Nathaniel was being so insensitive to that would probably make her angry rather than sad.
You want your dialogue to sound naturalistic, but writing fictional dialogue is not like real life (that would be too boring). Dialogue is not conversation, says William Noble, ‘it’s a conversation with drama.’[1]
Pay attention to character development. Does she have an accent? Does he have some mannerism or favourite phrase? How would your character say this? The reader should be able to tell who is speaking by the unique pattern of their speech without the he said, she said tag.
Also pay attention to Plot development. Is the dialogue just filling space? Or is it helping us get from Point A to Point B in the plotline. Is it moving the story along?
Finally, read it out loud to yourself. If it’s not good, you’ll just hear it. Stephen King says, ‘when it’s wrong… it jags on the ear like a badly tuned instrument.’[2]
Sum up
To sum up, here are some general rules about writing natural-sounding dialogue:
- What’s new to the interlocutor? Don’t tell them what they already know.
- Don’t Tell us things that everybody knows
- Why is the speaker saying this? Is that what you’ve written?
- Each speaker’s line and its response should have a connecting element. Does it flow?
- Make the order of action logical
- Are you Telling information (and is it news to the interlocutor)? Or Showing something about the character?
- Place your character in the driver’s seat
- Make it action-oriented
- Make it relationship oriented
- Establish emotional beats and make them connect
- Avoid too many dialogue tags
- Avoid too many dialogue tags other than said (debatable). But in general use action, sensory clues, emotive verbs or more dialogue rather that Telling us how they felt.
- Avoid fluff. Don’t tell us she walked in the door and then she looked at him and said… Just say she said.
- Avoid addressing interlocutors by their name unless you’re Showing something (sarcasm, brattiness, etc)
- People interrupt people, and sometimes use incomplete sentences. Use contractions and vary the length of your sentences.
- Include visual Setting clues and Props, body language and facial expressions
- Don’t use more than three sentences in one line of dialogue
- Make it easy. What is the simplest way to say what you’re trying to say?
- Tell us about the topic. Show us about the issue. What is the issue they are arguing about? Show that.
- Some questions remain unanswered and just fester away. Some questions are ignored; some are deliberately ignored (for some issue-related reason)
- Identify the precise emotion and Show that
- Pay attention to character development; make your character’s pattern of speech unique. Would your character talk like that?
- Pay attention to plot development. Is the dialogue moving the Plot along?
- Read it out loud to yourself. Does it sound good?
[1] William Noble, Conflict, Action & Suspense (Elements of Fiction Writing).
[2] Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft.
Bounds Green Book Writers 