Dialogue - realistic or snappy?

pickarooney

Just wondering what people's preferred approach to dialogue (reading and writing) is in novels, or if it entirely depends on the book or the characters.

Would you rather read the hums and haws and badly-phrased jokes or should characters speak like they're auditioning for an Aaron Sorkin show?

Personally, I prefer the former, although obviously too much noise and unfinished thoughts becomes boring pretty quickly. I hate it when every character is witty and pithy.

it depends on the book & characters
i was always told i wrote too much dialogue though
it needs to be going somewhere and adding something, whether it's to their relationship or to the storyline, but without them making speeches or being too obvious

characters who make speeches at or talk at each other really wind me up though

alchemist33

When you said "snappy" I immediately thought of The West Wing. No group of people could always be that witty.

In books, a whole load of witty dialogue is often at the expense of the story.

Jaafa

Realistic always, I mean it doesn't have to to be excessive just enough to make the character seem like a real person. It always make me cringe when people say things in novels you know no-one would say in real life.

That said you can always have that one guy/girl that is just witty by nature, and that's fine as long as everyone else isn't like that.

damselnat

I much prefer um's and uh's and interruptions and thoughts trailing off. Can say so much about the characters and situations. It does just get annoying if every character sounds scripted and polished, obviously when you're writing, every little er and hmm is scripted and polished, the hard bit is making it seem like it isn't. Like Jaffa said, one character who is sharp and witty works, you get to throw in some snappiness and not always at the expense of realism, I have one friend who could be a comedian he's so sharp, some people just have it, but most don't and it's much easier for the reader to relate to I think, or at least that's how I feel when I read. It drives me mad when I read something and I'm like, nobody talks like that!!!! (Penny Vincenzi I'm looking at you. And whoever writes CSI)

Kinski

Depends on the book. Though too many ums and uhs gets annoying.

It should also be noted that some people are remarkably eloquent speakers, so having one or two characters like that isn't unrealistic in itself.

echo beach

I prefer realistic but you can overdo the realism. Listen to some conversations. Most of them are of the 'do we need more milk?' variety. Not exactly riveting. Put it down the way people actually speak then cut out all the boring bits and it will be pretty snappy in the end, that is if there is anything left.:)

EileenG

Jasus, I can barely tolerate realistic dialogue in real life, never mind reading it in novels. As it is, there is far too much "Howareya?"
"Fine, yourself?"
"Grand. How's the wife?"
"Away on a yoga weekend."
"Fancy that. Never tried yoga myself."
"Me neither. Did you get another text from the blackmailer?"

In real life, because I try to be polite (no sniggering down the back there), I put up with er and um, but I really don't want to do it in a book. I always assume that any character who can't talk without um and er is lying.

PurpleBee

EileenG wrote: »

Jasus, I can barely tolerate realistic dialogue in real life, never mind reading it in novels. As it is, there is far too much "Howareya?"
"Fine, yourself?"
"Grand. How's the wife?"
"Away on a yoga weekend."
"Fancy that. Never tried yoga myself."
"Me neither. Did you get another text from the blackmailer?"

You have inadvertently interested me, I want to know more about the blackmailer!

Kinski

EileenG wrote: »

"Howareya?"
"Fine, yourself?"
"Grand. How's the wife?"
"Away on a yoga weekend."
"Fancy that. Never tried yoga myself."
"Me neither. Did you get another text from the blackmailer?"

Ironically, you have just demonstrated how a writer can use banal, "realistic" dialogue effectively - in this case, for a humorous effect that plays with the reader's expectations!;)

Anyhow, I don't think the OP is referring to the inclusion of redundant dialogue; I think the debate is about the relative merits of dialogue that is self-consciously contrived and that which strives to sound "believable."

Agree with you about the ums though; they should probably be avoided if they don't serve a specific purpose.

pickarooney

EileenG wrote: »

I always assume that any character who can't talk without um and er is lying.

I think it's pretty much the opposite - no hesitation in speech is a sign of it being rehearsed and likely fabricated.

Antilles

Dialogue that mirrors "realistic" speech is bad dialogue.

Speech and dialogue are different things, and if you try to make one like the other you'll end up with stilted speech or unreadable dialogue. Everything in writing should be polished. If you go for "realistic" writing over readable, then make sure you enjoy the artistic purity of your work because nobody else ever will.

Toasterspark

Realistic conversation is boring. It just is. If you actually recorded a regular meeting between two people, it's likely full of ums and ahs and yeahs and repetitive stuff. When you're reading a book, you either want to be advancing the character or advancing the plot. Those mundane bits of conversation will do neither (unless your main character is trying to prise some information from an introverted/boring character, or you have a character that gets tongue-tied with a love interest, or some motivating reason).

I almost always prefer to-the-point dialogue. That doesn't mean snappy either, as that implies always having a quick-witted response in any situation (for example, a protagonist and his love interest clinging from a cliff and the protagonist saying 'I'm glad we've finally got time to hang out together'). Snappy makes me think of the Gilmore Girls too (dialogue-heavy snappy), so it's not limited to short-sentence dialogue.

Polished dialogue is really what you want - cutting out the ums and ahs of regular chat and just getting to the point quickly. As a reader I like to be able to flow through a conversation easily and I'm not interested in that stuff. Mind you, the dialogue still has to be realistic. Just trim the fat.

Arfan

I'd prefer to distinguish it as between real dialogue and stylised as opposed to realistic vs polished.

Very few fiction pieces use real dialogue, for the simple fact that real dialogue tends to be full of redundant information and nonsensical asides. Also I don't know about anyone else but I tend to suffer from pauses where my mouth starts running through a sentence before my brain has fully constructed. Imagine trying to portray that.

In stylised dialogue all those human speech problems are flensed away and we get a realistic conversation between two people discussing their blackmail woes that is both polsihed and probably nothing like what those two people would talk like in real life..

Daleno

I voted realistic but I think a mix between the two is a better option. We spend a lot of our lives in pointless conversation; small talk, and it can get on your nerves. It's talking for the sake of talking just to fill these uncomfortable silences we simply cannot bear.
I usually write dialogue in a snappy yet realistic way. I dont type the ums and awhs; they're implied. It's tiring to read pauses in sentances that really don't need to be there. We have commas for a reason. You can also describe the way someone is speaking first and then we know how it should sound, without writing the imperfections.

e.g.

He spoke very slowly now, each word carefully chosen. "I'm not sure if I want to do this."

damselnat

Well, there's a difference between realistic and banal. Dialogue, like anything, should only be there if it contributes to the story. No one wants to read a conversation debating how characters like their tea (unless of course tea is central to the plot of the novel )

Kinski

damselnat wrote: »

(unless of course tea is central to the plot of the novel )

Or if the way in which a character likes to drink tea tells you something about her. For example, an adult who drinks it with copious amounts of milk and sugar could appear somewhat child-like.

Actually, George Orwell wrote a little essay on the "correct" way to drink tea!

iguana

IMO: A mix of both, but all of the ums and ahs of normal conversation should be left out unless you are putting them in for a reason, like to convey hesitancy. Normal polished dialogue, with occasional memorable exchanges are my favourite to read.

tabstheatre

I agree with the poster who said dialogue is not everyday speech. Everything that is said in a book or play is there for a reason. Any 'ums' and 'ehs' should be calculated. And they define a character. If everyone spoke like that in a piece of writing it would be dull!
In real life people have defining characteristics in speech and we don't all use ums and ehs all the time. Usually when we are sure of what we want to say we have a more fluid speech pattern. So it's actually unrealistic to fill every piece of dialogue with inane 'realism' which by it's definition isn't actually mirroring true life but is 'where people move and talk in a manner similar to that of our everyday behaviour'.
Similar being the operative word!