Dennis, the constitutional peasant

[SciFrac]

Most here should recognize this piece immediatley. It's presented word-for-word, without any intrusion by me. I'd like to discuss how it works (or doesn't) as purely written text. The reason being is that I'd love to achieve this effect in a novel, but it remains ellusive. All comments are appreciated.

======================

“Old woman!”
“Man.”
“Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?”
“I’m 37.”
“What?”
“I’m 37. I’m not old.”
“Well, I can’t just call you man.”
“You could say Dennis.”
“I didn’t know you were called Dennis.”
“Well, you didn’t bother to find out did you?”
“I said sorry about the old woman, but from behind, you looked—“
“What I object to is that you automaticlly treat me like an inferior.”
“Well, I am king.”
“Oh, king, eh? Well, very nice. And how’d you get that, eh?... By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated, imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there’s ever going to be any progress—“
“Dennis! There’s some lovely filth down here. Oh… How’d you do?”
“How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Who’s castle is that?”
“King of the who?”
“The Britons.”
“Who are the Britons?”
“Well, we all are. We are all Britons. And I am your king.”
“I didn’t know we had a king. I thought we’re an autonomous collective.”
“You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes—“
“Oh, there you go, bringing class into it again.”
“Well, that’s what it’s all about! If only people would realize—”
“Please, please, good people! I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?”
“No one lives there.”
“Then who is your lord?”
“We don’t have an lord.”
“What?”
“I told you- we’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.”
“Yes…”
“But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting—“
“Yes, I see…”
“by a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs—“
“Be quiet!”
“But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more—“
“Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!”

 

[HareBrain]

I've moved this to general writing discussion, since it's not a request for a critique of work written by a member.

Could you expand on what the precise effect is you see here that you'd like to achieve?

 

[Zoe Mackay]

The answer is, in my opinion, that it's very hard. What this is, interestingly, is stichomythia used for comic effect, and that's an essentially dramatic technique. It falls rather flat on the page, because you're left with an unpalatable choice - either you pare down the dialogue tagging and description to the absolute minimum:

“Old woman!” Arthur called.
“Man,” he said.
“Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?”
“I’m 37.”
“What?”
“I’m 37. I’m not old.”

And the danger of that is that the reader loses track of who's speaking. The other alternative is that you add the other stuff in:

“Old woman!” Arthur called, approaching
The woman turned to face him. “Man,” he said.
Arthur felt his face redden. “Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?”
“I’m 37,” the old man said, contrarily.
“What?” How was that an answer to his question?
“I’m 37. I’m not old.”

And the danger of that is that you lose pace. In general, you can only get away with rapid-fire exchanges for short sections, so, were I novelising this, I'd be tempted to cut out a lot of the lines, but even then it won't be quite as funny.

 

[Abernovo]

I can't read it without laughing!
Taken out of context though, it doesn't work as text, unless you're able to support it with Joycean brilliance. There are just not enough supporting sentences: no dialogue tags, no descriptions (how is this woman entering the scene, what are the relative physical positions of Arthur and Dennis (horse and ditch, if I remember right), and so on.

The other problem is that the dialogue becomes chaotic. Monty Python were great at these crazy dialogue scenes, but also cut them off - usually in time. That's a great tool for audio-visual comedy, but on the page, the chaos can become easily confusing. Again, with description, showing the relative states of the two actors (dirty, stooped, clutching an old spade in calloused hands vs clean, tall, and mounted on a groomed (hobby) horse, holding aloft a gleaming sword) makes it so much easier, and shows the inequality rather than tells it through a speech. It probably wouldn't take much detail to show a complex world. Then, you go for the killer lines of humour, rather than all the lines. Timing and accuracy is everything, I believe, in comedy. I wouldn't know: humour bypass years ago.

I say Joycean brilliance, as he could get away without proper punctuation and sentence structure so, if a writer were equally brilliant, it might be possible to write a scene or a chapter with pure dialogue - but a merely good writer...? Anyway, all just my slightly suspect opinion.

And I never once mentioned a group of bushes!

 

[SciFrac]

HB, thanks for the move. Wasn't sure if that was the correct forum. I'm looking for the comedy they achieved.

Robert, you're absolutley correct. I only posted the dialogue because of what you pointed out, the tags and pace diminish, if not kill entirely, the comedic effect. Perhaps the translation from real life to written word is impossible because of the time loss. I'd be tempted to cut a lot, and would never advise anyone leave such a long string of dialogue without identifiers.

Should I presume this is not an achievable goal in novel form? And if so, are there any books approaching this tone that you can recommend?

 

[HareBrain]

I wonder, though, how funny that passage would be to someone who's never encountered it before? I can see and hear it as I read, but if I try hard to rid myself of the visuals and the aurals(?), it loses quite a lot.

As Robert says, I think you could get this effect in a novel only for much shorter sections.

 

[SciFrac]

Hmm, shorter sections... Maybe that's the trick. I'll play with little paragraphs and see how that goes. Seems a novel may hold more humor in one-liners than long, drawn-out scenes. Brevity is a necessary ingredient.

And Robert, thanks for the term! I knew that technique was called something. I also think their ignoring his question of "who lives in the castle" sparks the whole tone, and then they keep returning to the issue of governance which he cares nothing about.

Thanks guys.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Should I presume this is not an achievable goal in novel form?

What you also need to realise is that there's also a massive gulf between words in a play or screenplay, and how the actors bring them out. The words, by themselves, can read as very flat - until acted out, with inflection, tone, posture, timing, delivery, etc.

If a scene like that were written specifically for a novel, I very much expect that some of the best lines would occur as an exposition, rather than as a dialogue exchange. Terry Pratchett immediately comes to mind as someone who would - very successfully - deliver that sort of information in that manner.

 

[J Riff]

One picture, of Arthur and Dennis in the muck, would bring it all into focus. The Python book(s) All The Words - are very funny, and lack only the animated bits. *

 

[SciFrac]

Brian, I agree. Obviously the method of delivery colors the text, that's why I tried to preserve only the words, to examine them on equal footing within the medium we work.

One picture, of Arthur and Dennis in the muck, would bring it all into focus.

That would help, very true. But I wouldn't count on pictures while writing a manuscript, a publisher may not see eye-to-eye on that.

Also, this entire exchange is pure humor. There is really no story included, and that would be a lot of words for not advancing the plot. Doubt you would hold many readers' attention in that case.

Again, brevity prevails.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I could keep track of who was speaking with no trouble, which made me think it had all been quite cleverly done—until about halfway through, where I think you may have left a sentence out which altered the order of who was speaking, because suddenly each character seemed to be speaking what should have been the other's lines.

Or maybe I just got muddled.

 

[Venusian Broon]

The actual script for the scene (I found an earlier version of it on the internet) has very few directions in it outside the dialogue and perhaps might warrant a look. Essentially a lot is set up before the dialogue starts.

The main issue with it, as TE and others have pointed out above, is that there ends up being three people talking - easy enough to show on a script - but more difficult to portray in a novel. I actually found quite a few examples of this quick-fire dialogue or stichomythia - there's my greek history lesson of the day! - in a number of novels from different authors in my collection, some much longer than the above example. But they all just had two people.

 

[thaddeus6th]

SciFrac, I think a small section of something I wrote would be considered very comparable. It was a back and forth between a bounder of a knight and a morally upright elven sorceress, both of whom were telling a third party what a notice said but giving very different takes on the same information. The third party was completely silent for the exchange.

I'd agree with those who say that it's difficult to do in a lengthy way, and the constitutional peasant skit is probably too long for a book.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Advice from Gene Wolfe: when writing prose, have a speech identifier at least every four speeches.

 

[SciFrac]

Theresa, its gets muddled because a third person enters the conversation, and I opted not to add a tag that didn't exist in the original form. But I agree, I think this demonstrates rather well how the language used by a character can quickly identify them on paper.

Agreed VB. Like every payoff (humorous or dramatic), the setup is the most important part. Context is so very important.

Thad, sounds great. Would love to read that. Very good idea about keeping the third party silent. And yeah, that scene is definitely too long for a book, but I'll play with that technique of humor to see how far I can take it.

Stephen, thanks. I imagine there is something that feels very natural about that fourth line. I'll pay attention to that in my reading.

 

[Dan Jones]

SciFrac, a good way of achieving a comedic effect is to have a conversation between two (or three) essentially quite stupid people, but where both of them believe one of them to be inherently intellectually superior than the other. This often happened in Alan Partridge as well, especially in scenes between Alan and Michael the barman / petrol station attendant. I think this could be applied here, although acknowledging Python's King Arthur wasn't completely stupid, just a bit dim.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I don't see any issue with a third person, as they speak with the same voice (that of the peasant). I can follow it, but I would imagine that is partly due to the fact that I know the scene so well. The only person who can truly answer this question is someone who hasn't seen the (very funny) movie.

Oh, and if you're wanting to know how to write like a comedy genius, good luck! Let me know if you find out!

 

[Stephen Palmer]

SciFrac, a good way of achieving a comedic effect is to have a conversation between two (or three) essentially quite stupid people, but where both of them believe one of them to be inherently intellectually superior than the other. This often happened in Alan Partridge as well, especially in scenes between Alan and Michael the barman / petrol station attendant. I think this could be applied here, although acknowledging Python's King Arthur wasn't completely stupid, just a bit dim.

Also applies in spades to Blackadder/Baldrick.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

someone who hasn't seen the (very funny) movie.

I haven't
The written dialogue nearly worked, it gets a bit hard to follow so needs occasional 'tag'. Sometimes you can use alternate styles and fonts, such as SMALL CAPITALS for DEATH speaking instead of speech tags. Perhaps regular style/font for ordinary person, a Serif, Splendid or Ornate for Noble and Courier for a clerk. Regular BOLD CAPS FOR SOMEONE SHOUTING REPLIES. Or Italic for someone rushing about? The Asterisk books do this to an extent. Probably hard to get a publisher other than of a graphic novel to agree, and it would only work in limited situations.

 

[tinkerdan]

I could only catch the sense of it and not much sense after a certain point when a third voice arrived unannounced.(And no I'm not acquainted with this.)
Once I found this with some identifiers it made much more sense.

Arthur: Old woman!
Dennis: MAN!
Arthur: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
Dennis: I'm 37.
Arthur: What?
Dennis: I'm 37! I'm not old!
Arthur: Well, I can't just call you "man".
Dennis: You could say "Dennis".
Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis.
Dennis: Well you didn't bother to find out, did you?
Arthur: I did say I'm sorry about the "old woman", but from behind you looked...
Dennis: What I object to is you automatically treatin' me like an inferior.
Arthur: Well, I am king.
Dennis: Oh, king, eh - very nice. And how'd you get that, then? By exploiting the
workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the
economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going to be any
progress...
Dennis' Mother: Dennis, Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here. Oh, how'd
you do?
Arthur: How'd you do good lady? I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose castle
is that?
Dennis' Mother: King of the who?
Arthur: The Britons.
Dennis' Mother: Who are the Britons?
Arthur: We all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king.
Dennis' Mother: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous
collective.
Dennis: You're foolin' yourself. We're living in a dictatorship! A self-perpetuating
autocracy in which the working class...
Dennis' Mother: Oh there you go bringing class into it again!
Dennis: But that's what it's all about! If only people would realise...
Arthur: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
Dennis' Mother: No one lives there.
Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Dennis' Mother: We don't have a lord.
Arthur: What?!
Dennis: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to
act as sort of supreme executive officer for the week.
Arthur: Yes.
Dennis: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special
biweekly meeting...
Arthur: Yes, I see.
Dennis:...by a simple majority. In the case of purely internal affairs...
Arthur: Be quiet. Dennis:...require two thirds majority. In the case of old ladys...
Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Dennis' Mother: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?
Arthur: I am your king!
Dennis' Mother: Well, I didn't vote for you.
Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Dennis' Mother: Well, how'd you become King, then?
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake,... [Angel chorus begins singing in background]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the
bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry
Excalibur. [Angel chorus ends] That is why I am your king!
Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for
a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from
the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: But you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some
watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: Shut up, will you? Shut up! [Grabs Dennis and shakes him]
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm
being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's
what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?