In my last article, I used the paraphrased saying, "If your dialogue is good enough, the reader will hear it." I'll be explaining the pros and cons of this rather common writing philosophy.
It is unrealistic for a reader to be able to draw all meaning and situational specifics of a scene from dialogue and basic character action alone. In fact, it's impossible. A writer should not expect it. Readers and their overactive imaginations can be a great help to a writer and that's shouldn't be ignored or underestimated, but they must have something to work with. It is not so much a matter of good dialogue being heard as it is well supported dialogue. It doesn't take much for a reader to imagine facial expressions or emotion in a voice, but dialogue isn't always enough. Sometimes it doesn't matter how well written the dialogue is if the reader has no clue as to the character's emotions.
Characters portray emotion through dialogue AND action. One cannot exist without the other. They support each other. They are the married couple of the writing world. Action must support dialogue just as much as dialogue supports action. Of course, they must be balanced. Tyranny does not go over well in a novel.
However, the saying does place a great importance on character voice. None of your characters should sound the same. If push came to shove, you should be able to roughly tell them apart by their speech patterns alone. I say roughly because some people sound quite similar sometimes, like a married couple or children sounding like their parents. This quality gives the writer the opportunity to toss in truly unique features. Cursing phrases are popular for this. Who needs a d-word or some such when you can say, "Blood and bloody buttered onions!" Such swearing can give insight to a character's background without actually going into it.
Really, no one swears quite so well as Matrim Cauthon. You know when he's talking.
At its core, the emphasis is on dialogue quality. It shouldn't be worse than the narration or boring. People are interesting. What they say should also be interesting. Often a writer can't achieve this without letting the character run wild. This is dangerous. Characters tend to be unruly little idjits. Be prepared for the consequences. I once had a completely unrelated character suddenly announce he's somebody's father. To two different people in the same room. And it was true. Characters are insane.
Readers should be able to hear dialogue. It should bear about 75% of the responsibility. However, the other chunk is where narration comes in. That's what I mean when I say "hearing dialogue in narration." Narration should introduce the dialogue, provide the necessary information for the emotion the reader should hear when the character talks. Without this necessary spice, a writer severely hinders dialogue. For example:
Ex. 1: Mary stomped to Richard's table. "I despise you."
Ex. 2: Mary stomped to Richard's table and glowered down at him. Hot tears ran down her face. "I despise you."
Apparently, Mary and Richard's relationship through these articles isn't going well, but I digress. Though a reader can probably glean a good deal from the first example, they can get a lot more from the second with only a small addition. She's crying and angry. We all know what a woman sounds like when she's crying and angry. Now, if she suddenly starts talking with a high pitched voice reminiscent of a Japanese schoolgirl, that must be supplied before she opens her mouth. Otherwise, the reader won't have any idea. It isn't wise to say such things after the fact. Readers don't like having to read something twice just to understand what's going on.
Hear the dialogue through the narration first. Narration provides the stage, lights, and costumes for the main actor, Dialogue. First-rate actors can work without additions, but let's face it, not all of our characters are Catherine Zeta-Jones or Harrison Ford.
It is unrealistic for a reader to be able to draw all meaning and situational specifics of a scene from dialogue and basic character action alone. In fact, it's impossible. A writer should not expect it. Readers and their overactive imaginations can be a great help to a writer and that's shouldn't be ignored or underestimated, but they must have something to work with. It is not so much a matter of good dialogue being heard as it is well supported dialogue. It doesn't take much for a reader to imagine facial expressions or emotion in a voice, but dialogue isn't always enough. Sometimes it doesn't matter how well written the dialogue is if the reader has no clue as to the character's emotions.
Characters portray emotion through dialogue AND action. One cannot exist without the other. They support each other. They are the married couple of the writing world. Action must support dialogue just as much as dialogue supports action. Of course, they must be balanced. Tyranny does not go over well in a novel.
However, the saying does place a great importance on character voice. None of your characters should sound the same. If push came to shove, you should be able to roughly tell them apart by their speech patterns alone. I say roughly because some people sound quite similar sometimes, like a married couple or children sounding like their parents. This quality gives the writer the opportunity to toss in truly unique features. Cursing phrases are popular for this. Who needs a d-word or some such when you can say, "Blood and bloody buttered onions!" Such swearing can give insight to a character's background without actually going into it.
Really, no one swears quite so well as Matrim Cauthon. You know when he's talking.
At its core, the emphasis is on dialogue quality. It shouldn't be worse than the narration or boring. People are interesting. What they say should also be interesting. Often a writer can't achieve this without letting the character run wild. This is dangerous. Characters tend to be unruly little idjits. Be prepared for the consequences. I once had a completely unrelated character suddenly announce he's somebody's father. To two different people in the same room. And it was true. Characters are insane.
Readers should be able to hear dialogue. It should bear about 75% of the responsibility. However, the other chunk is where narration comes in. That's what I mean when I say "hearing dialogue in narration." Narration should introduce the dialogue, provide the necessary information for the emotion the reader should hear when the character talks. Without this necessary spice, a writer severely hinders dialogue. For example:
Ex. 1: Mary stomped to Richard's table. "I despise you."
Ex. 2: Mary stomped to Richard's table and glowered down at him. Hot tears ran down her face. "I despise you."
Apparently, Mary and Richard's relationship through these articles isn't going well, but I digress. Though a reader can probably glean a good deal from the first example, they can get a lot more from the second with only a small addition. She's crying and angry. We all know what a woman sounds like when she's crying and angry. Now, if she suddenly starts talking with a high pitched voice reminiscent of a Japanese schoolgirl, that must be supplied before she opens her mouth. Otherwise, the reader won't have any idea. It isn't wise to say such things after the fact. Readers don't like having to read something twice just to understand what's going on.
Hear the dialogue through the narration first. Narration provides the stage, lights, and costumes for the main actor, Dialogue. First-rate actors can work without additions, but let's face it, not all of our characters are Catherine Zeta-Jones or Harrison Ford.