by Steve Liskow
In the summer of 2004, I attended the Wesleyan Writers Converence. I'd written five unpublished novels in the 70s and thought one of them could still sell--if I could figure out how to fix a few problems. I began a completely new novel in the fall of 2003--actually a sequel to that long-buried MS--and sent the first two chapters to the conference for a critique. I was lucky because Chris Offutt looked at them. He turned out to be a terrific critic and mentor, and his fiction-writing class was packed.
We met over coffee and a Danish, and he held up my chapters.
"You write good dialogue," he said. "And you probably know it. That's both good and bad."
"I did a lot of theater," I told him. "Maybe that has something to do with it. Why is it bad?"
"Well," he said, "you know you write good dialogue, so you try to use it too much as if you're writing a play instead of a novel. But it can't carry the whole load in fiction. You need narration and description and exposition, too."
In theater, that usually means stage directions, set description, and lights or sound for mood.
I remembered that conversation a few days ago while I pumped away on an elliptical trainer in front of a TV at my health club. A soap opera was on, and I don't follow soaps, so I don't know what it was. Eight or ten men and women were in the scene, all well-dressed, and ranging from early 20s to about 50. From reading the subtitles, I figured out that one attractive young couple was going to marry soon, and the groom's mother, the older woman in the tasteful ensemble, had a history including enough dysfunction to serve in the Former Guy's cabinet. She arrived unbidden (like the wicked fairy in Sleeping Beauty) and threw the meeting into a quandary. I couldn't decide if she was violating a restraining order or not.
The conversation among these people consisted of seven or eight sentences that they repeated over and over with a few variations. The older woman had some culpability in the deaths of two other people. Everyone else loathed her. I could tell by the gritted teeth and tight expressions in all the close-ups (Soaps love close-ups). The gist was "We don't want you here," and "I don't care. I had to come." There were vague references to past misdeeds, and if there had been any real content, I would have accused the writer of using "As you know, Bob," dialogue. Since no real information was passed, I guess it was OK. Except for one issue.
Even dialogue needs conflict |
I was on that elliptical trainer for twenty minutes, and that conversation was in progress when I started. It lasted through two commercial breaks and finally concluded with the older man putting his arm around the mother's shoulders and firmly escorting her out. The exit happened thirty seconds before I finished my workout.
Nothing was settled, nothing new was introduced or revealed, we got no characterization or backstory, but they filled most of a half-hour program. The dialogue was so artificial and unbelievable that none of the actors could do more than grimace or look stern, what my director buddies and I used to call "Actors' Studio Angst." The story may have to move slowly because the writers are only a few episodes ahead, but this was excruciating.
Sometimes, actions say enough |
In real life, the woman would have appeared, been told she was unwelcome, and either left or refused to do so. If she refused, a security guard would have removed her or someone would have dialed 911 and police would come to do the same. The dialogue would have used more vernacular, too.
This is the lesson Chris Offutt gave me. Sometimes, dialogue is the wrong choice, and when it is, you can't make it work. The scene would have been more effective with about 90% less talk and some mild physical action. That would also eliminate the talking head problem.
"Clytemnestra tried to crash the pre-wedding supper, but Orestes kicked her out."
See how easy that is?
Dialogue is like everything else in your story. If it doesn't matter, it doesn't belong there.
An epilogue: The chapters I showed in 2004 went through dozens of revisions and several title changes. The book appeared in 2013 as Blood on the Tracks, with little except the basic premise and onc character name intact. The book I wanted to salvage also changed title three times, emerging as Postcards of the Hanging in 2014. Between them, the books received 162 rejections.
Thanks, Chris.
I remember reading about the early (1960s) days of Doctor Who when they didn't have much budget for special effects. The characters used to spend a lot of time arguing because, as the producer explained, "talk is cheap."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOops, here’s the correct version.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, Alecto, Tisiphone, and Megaera, I was just a baby when my mother was murdered. My sister killed her, so why are you chasing me?
You furious thing, you!
DeleteGreat post. I especially agree with the point about dialogue only carrying so much load. Dialogue has punch and emotion and is character gold. Dialogue also freezes out everything else if left on its own.
ReplyDeleteLove it, Liz!
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, almost the entire canon of fiction (except in Japan) before Renaissance was all dialog - plays came first.
Interesting points, Steve. I, too, had a theater background, so when I challenged myself to write my third novel, "Devlin Sub Rosa," entirely in dialogue (other than the proloque, which I'd written for the second one, but forgot to put in), it was a lot of fun and seemed to work fairly well. The gunfights were tricky, though.
ReplyDeleteSteve, it's amazing the actors slogged through that. I have heard women say they could not catch their soaps for a week and return, finding nothing much happened. Good points, man.
ReplyDelete