"The First Five Pages," by Noah Lukeman.
The next section was about dialogue. Dialogue reveals the skill of the writer instantaneously. He points out the fact that an editor can dismiss dialogue by its appearance without even reading it. Dialogue that has repetitive identifiers, is spitfire with no pauses or description, or is frequently interrupted is immediately identifiable.
The exercise at the end of the chapter that has the writer adding description to the dialogue is good for me, because I tend to be minimal in my descriptions.
I knew that commonplace "Hi, how are you" dialogue was bad, but he brought out another point, that you must never include one word not absolutely essential to the book.
He discusses informative dialogue. "There are many ways in which dialogue can be 'fake.' The most common example is informative dialogue." He points out that most dialogue is enigmatic, fragmented and filled with unknown personal references. It should not usually further a story, rather it should provide a glimpse of the characters at a moment in time. By using dialogue to convey information, you stop yourself from getting to the core of who the characters really are. Informative dialogue leaves the reader with a feeling of noninvolvement with the characters. The reader never becomes engaged by the story. Dialogue should be the outcome of the characters' needs, desires and relationships. "Dialogue should not be used to state things both characters already know."
I objectively know this, but I think I'm still guilty of trying to work some information into my dialogue. Don't talk about it, show it, he says.
Backstory malady can make the dialogue seem forced. Here is a question: Is it OK to place these bits of info in between dialogue? I know that I do that a lot.
One of the ending exercises is, "Take a section of dialogue and rewrite it, this time assuming the reader already knows everything he needs to about the story. Then write it assuming the characters know everything about what's happened, what's happening and what will happen. This forces the writer to let go of the need to have an agenda. Lukeman believes that in doing this, relationships will blossom and truths and secrets will arise. But then I wonder, how DO you convey the information.
Next was don't have melodramatic dialogue. Don't make put the burden on your dialogue to convey all of the drama in the story. He says that in real life you can tell how a person is feeling through body language or a feeling expressed which is beneath the surface, not through dialogue.
Hard to follow dialogue was the next faux pas. Here I found a contradiction of sorts. He says to make sure all the dialogue is clear and well-explained, when in the last section he said to not explain anything. "Don't use cryptic and personal references." I guess, like everything else, it is a balance you must find for yourself.
The next section was about dialogue. Dialogue reveals the skill of the writer instantaneously. He points out the fact that an editor can dismiss dialogue by its appearance without even reading it. Dialogue that has repetitive identifiers, is spitfire with no pauses or description, or is frequently interrupted is immediately identifiable.
The exercise at the end of the chapter that has the writer adding description to the dialogue is good for me, because I tend to be minimal in my descriptions.
I knew that commonplace "Hi, how are you" dialogue was bad, but he brought out another point, that you must never include one word not absolutely essential to the book.
He discusses informative dialogue. "There are many ways in which dialogue can be 'fake.' The most common example is informative dialogue." He points out that most dialogue is enigmatic, fragmented and filled with unknown personal references. It should not usually further a story, rather it should provide a glimpse of the characters at a moment in time. By using dialogue to convey information, you stop yourself from getting to the core of who the characters really are. Informative dialogue leaves the reader with a feeling of noninvolvement with the characters. The reader never becomes engaged by the story. Dialogue should be the outcome of the characters' needs, desires and relationships. "Dialogue should not be used to state things both characters already know."
I objectively know this, but I think I'm still guilty of trying to work some information into my dialogue. Don't talk about it, show it, he says.
Backstory malady can make the dialogue seem forced. Here is a question: Is it OK to place these bits of info in between dialogue? I know that I do that a lot.
One of the ending exercises is, "Take a section of dialogue and rewrite it, this time assuming the reader already knows everything he needs to about the story. Then write it assuming the characters know everything about what's happened, what's happening and what will happen. This forces the writer to let go of the need to have an agenda. Lukeman believes that in doing this, relationships will blossom and truths and secrets will arise. But then I wonder, how DO you convey the information.
Next was don't have melodramatic dialogue. Don't make put the burden on your dialogue to convey all of the drama in the story. He says that in real life you can tell how a person is feeling through body language or a feeling expressed which is beneath the surface, not through dialogue.
Hard to follow dialogue was the next faux pas. Here I found a contradiction of sorts. He says to make sure all the dialogue is clear and well-explained, when in the last section he said to not explain anything. "Don't use cryptic and personal references." I guess, like everything else, it is a balance you must find for yourself.
posted by Sally Bosco at
11:07 PM
