I present to you a scenario.
Mary walked over to Richard. "What are you doing?" She asked.
He sighed and said, "Failing, that's what."
What is the problem with this short scenario? It is the misuse of what fiction writers call "dialogue tags," those little additions to dialogue that detail who is speaking and what they're doing. Dialogue tags, or DTs, are like any other piece of writing in that they have a certain way they should be used. Most writers use them incorrectly, or at the very least, too much.
I am not saying that DTs are obsolete or should not be used. They have their place just like any other tool, and that is what they are, a tool. Many writers use them too much and they become horribly redundant. DTs should not be used to say what is already assumed or told by either dialogue or narration. If the character asks a question, there is no reason to add the DT "he asked." The question mark says it itself. The same is true for exclamation points. They imply what DTs should not be used to say again. This is the tragedy I call "explaining dialogue."
Writers have come to believe they must supply everything, and when I say everything, I mean it. As we all know, readers are idiots. They cannot possibly read between the lines or logically assume through some information further information. It is not enough to use a question mark. The writer must explain what a question mark means.
See how arrogant that is? Writers must come to understand the implications behind things and the reason for their existence. DTs have to exist, but they should not be used to pull readers along by the nose.
Let's first talk about how to avoid explaining dialogue. First, kill the words "said" and "asked" from your vocabulary. They are the worst offenders. They are also so simple as to be among the dullest of words. If you must use DTs, and sometimes you must, you might as well use a good verb. Secondly, write so that you tell the reader who is speaking before the character talks. This can be accomplished through DTs companion, the Action Beat (AB). Basically, have the character do something before talking. Since dialogue usually accompanies action, this is an easy fix. The problem lies in doing it every time someone speaks. It can quickly become repetitive if you use lots of short sentences in succession. Balance the DTs and ABs so that you are clear without always repeating what was already done.
If your character has a voice unique enough to be recognized on its own, the AB can come after or not at all. The key lies in not repeating yourself. If your character leans down to another character's ear in a dark corner, it may be unnecessary to say they're whispering. Their actions imply secrecy. You can add things to the narrative to enrich the scene and make DTs largely obsolete. There is a saying I think is partly, but not completely, true. "If your dialogue is good enough, the reader will hear it." In some cases, dialogue is too short or normal to carry itself alone. Things must be added.
I would say it like this. "If your character's actions are clear enough, the reader will be able to hear the words spoken except in special circumstances." If a man balls his fists, the veins on his forehead pop, and his ears start turning red, you might expect a certain tension or anger to his voice. Actions can imply a great deal of information when it comes to how characters speak dialogue. Now, if this angry man starts talking sweetly for some reason, writers must provide that information. That is the proper domain of DTs. DTs explain what cannot possibly be known. When used in this way, DTs can bring special insight to a character's thoughts and how they react to situations. People have quirks and so do characters. DTs are a great way to show a character's quirky ways.
A writer should add spice to dialogue, not toss sludge at it. It takes practice to determine when it is best to use DTs, ABs, or nothing at all, but such refinement brings a new level of clarity and sophistication to your writing. The reader may not know why they prefer your writing over others, but you do. Just always be sure you don't stumble into using these tools too little, because then the reader just doesn't know who is talking and gets confused. You don't want that either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you explain dialogue instead of enhancing it? What methods do you use to keep yourself from bogging down your dialogue?
Mary walked over to Richard. "What are you doing?" She asked.
He sighed and said, "Failing, that's what."
What is the problem with this short scenario? It is the misuse of what fiction writers call "dialogue tags," those little additions to dialogue that detail who is speaking and what they're doing. Dialogue tags, or DTs, are like any other piece of writing in that they have a certain way they should be used. Most writers use them incorrectly, or at the very least, too much.
I am not saying that DTs are obsolete or should not be used. They have their place just like any other tool, and that is what they are, a tool. Many writers use them too much and they become horribly redundant. DTs should not be used to say what is already assumed or told by either dialogue or narration. If the character asks a question, there is no reason to add the DT "he asked." The question mark says it itself. The same is true for exclamation points. They imply what DTs should not be used to say again. This is the tragedy I call "explaining dialogue."
Writers have come to believe they must supply everything, and when I say everything, I mean it. As we all know, readers are idiots. They cannot possibly read between the lines or logically assume through some information further information. It is not enough to use a question mark. The writer must explain what a question mark means.
See how arrogant that is? Writers must come to understand the implications behind things and the reason for their existence. DTs have to exist, but they should not be used to pull readers along by the nose.
Let's first talk about how to avoid explaining dialogue. First, kill the words "said" and "asked" from your vocabulary. They are the worst offenders. They are also so simple as to be among the dullest of words. If you must use DTs, and sometimes you must, you might as well use a good verb. Secondly, write so that you tell the reader who is speaking before the character talks. This can be accomplished through DTs companion, the Action Beat (AB). Basically, have the character do something before talking. Since dialogue usually accompanies action, this is an easy fix. The problem lies in doing it every time someone speaks. It can quickly become repetitive if you use lots of short sentences in succession. Balance the DTs and ABs so that you are clear without always repeating what was already done.
If your character has a voice unique enough to be recognized on its own, the AB can come after or not at all. The key lies in not repeating yourself. If your character leans down to another character's ear in a dark corner, it may be unnecessary to say they're whispering. Their actions imply secrecy. You can add things to the narrative to enrich the scene and make DTs largely obsolete. There is a saying I think is partly, but not completely, true. "If your dialogue is good enough, the reader will hear it." In some cases, dialogue is too short or normal to carry itself alone. Things must be added.
I would say it like this. "If your character's actions are clear enough, the reader will be able to hear the words spoken except in special circumstances." If a man balls his fists, the veins on his forehead pop, and his ears start turning red, you might expect a certain tension or anger to his voice. Actions can imply a great deal of information when it comes to how characters speak dialogue. Now, if this angry man starts talking sweetly for some reason, writers must provide that information. That is the proper domain of DTs. DTs explain what cannot possibly be known. When used in this way, DTs can bring special insight to a character's thoughts and how they react to situations. People have quirks and so do characters. DTs are a great way to show a character's quirky ways.
A writer should add spice to dialogue, not toss sludge at it. It takes practice to determine when it is best to use DTs, ABs, or nothing at all, but such refinement brings a new level of clarity and sophistication to your writing. The reader may not know why they prefer your writing over others, but you do. Just always be sure you don't stumble into using these tools too little, because then the reader just doesn't know who is talking and gets confused. You don't want that either.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you explain dialogue instead of enhancing it? What methods do you use to keep yourself from bogging down your dialogue?