3+ dialog

[msstice]

Dialog between two people can be snappy and effective. I find myself with 3+ people in most scenes and I am finding dialog hard. The most elementary problem is tagging. I have to use a lot of A said and B said. There just so much action tagging I can do. Should I strive to have all but two people actually talking at a time? Should I have two people speaking as a block (a series of back and forths) and then the third person comes in while one of the original speakers goes quiet?

I think what would be useful to me would be examples you all know of where 3+ speakers are handled well, so I can study them.

Thanks!

 

[HareBrain]

Should I have two people speaking as a block (a series of back and forths) and then the third person comes in while one of the original speakers goes quiet?

This is what I tend to do. If it's clear from what's being said that it's two people responding to each other, you can leave the tags out in that bit.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I think that you have to set the right scenario and circumstances. For example the dining scene at the beginning of the movie 'Reservoir Dogs' would be difficult to replicate in writing as characters talk in no particular order, interrupt each other and sometimes speak over each other - as happens in real life with a group of people.

Another situation where n a book a reader has to suspend their disbelief and accept that other characters will usually sit patiently listening to the person speaking before eliciting their response.

A good example of a multi-character discussion is the chapter 'The Council of Elrond' in LOTR. Lots of characters speak, and Tolkien simply uses 'said' most of the time, rather than coming up with lots of different verbs. I think what helps is that each bit of speech is at least a couple of lines long with some descriptive text, so that you don't just get a lot of 'he said, she said'.

 

[The Judge]

Should I have two people speaking as a block (a series of back and forths) and then the third person comes in while one of the original speakers goes quiet?

I'm with HB in that this is what I try and do if they're talking for any length of time, so as to avoid the continual dialogue tags.

Another option, if it works for the character and setting, is to have the 3rd interrupt 1&2 but continue something like:

Brenda ignored him. "So, what do you think, Jennifer?"​

"I totally agree."​

So that gives B & J's voices without having a specific tag, and if it happens again you can just "B continued to ignore Clive and his stupid interruptions." Alternatively, if he's making sensible suggestions it could be "Brenda agreed with him." and again you've solved the "said Brenda/said Jennifer" issue.

Of course, we're meant to be able to write dialogue so it's clear who is speaking without giving any tags, but I can't recall reading anything that actually achieves that! Certainly not done at any great length. In one of my SFs in order to push the pace along, I've actually experimented with scenes that are simply dialogue without any narrative or tags at all, as if we've overhearing conversations, but save for one incident when it doesn't matter who is who as we've never met them before, those scenes are mostly very brief. For a couple of scenes with three characters it comes well into the story and I'm relying on the fact that each of the men addresses the others differently (S calls D by his surname, and vice versa; T is addressed as "Sir" by S and by his rank by D; T uses the rank/title for both S and D) something we've seen a lot before, plus S in particular has a verbal tic, but even then they only have one or two lines/paras of dialogue each to avoid it becoming confusing.

 

[AnRoinnUltra]

I sort of do the same with the characters addressing each other by names more than real life ('what do you reckon Martina?'). It's tricky, I've a few scenes with five or more folk in my current book, so it helps to throw in two to three lines of this type of thing: Morchador glanced back into the shed 'do you mean the Taingeoughan was never here?') and so on. It's hard to say if that works.
More than two voices is always going to be tricky -I suppose the other side is if each character has an agenda that you've established, then the reader (or in my case listener) will hopefully naturally join the dots and pick up on who is talking.
Good luck -am no expert but I think no matter what ya do clarity is king (possibly one for critiques?)

 

[paranoid marvin]

You could use the idiosyncrasies of the speakers (lisp, stutter, accent etc) although this would perhaps be unrealistic and perhaps appear contrived. But I think that if you are telling your story well, and the reader knows your characters, there isn't a huge leap to be made in knowing who is speaking.



As they entered the inner sanctum, the old man looked up.

"What do you want here?"

"A heart."

"A brain."

"C.... c.... courage."

"To go back home."

"And what makes you think that I can help you achieve all of these things?"

"Because you're a wizard," they answered in unison.

 

[HareBrain]

Of course, we're meant to be able to write dialogue so it's clear who is speaking without giving any tags

Yes, the existence of this advice occurred to me when I was replying. I actually think it's pretty unhelpful, because either writers can't achieve it, in which case they feel they've failed, or they can only achieve it by the kind of overdone verbal tics that make the dialogue feel like it's between ham actors. Many of le Carre's characters for example are Oxbridge-educated middle- or upper-class Englishmen talking about the same profession using specialist jargon. Of course two or three of those together are going to sound indistinguishable.

Having said that, I have sometimes given lines written with one character in mind to someone else, and it has no longer sounded quite right and I've had to tweak it. But I wouldn't expect someone reading at reasonable speed for pleasure to notice the difference, and it would be very risky to leave out dialogue tags expecting that they would.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I also think that it's important to remind ourselves from time to time that it's writing for entertainment and not to pass a literature exam. The reader needs to be kept interested and informed (unless deliberate misdirection is the intention).

The passage I mentioned above from Tolkien's novel may be marked down by an examination board for its repetition of 'said, but what is being discussed is oso enthralling that the reader neither realises nor cares. If I hadn't specifically been looking for that particular reason I doubt that I would ever have realised.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Should I have two people speaking as a block (a series of back and forths) and then the third person comes in while one of the original speakers goes quiet?

As noted by @HareBrain, I feel this is the most effective solution. It is a challenge, as one would like to think that all of the characters in a scene are necessary, but it is distracting to the reader to always looking for a tag or beat to determine who is saying what. It also seems difficult to convey any emotional content when switching between multiple characters. Avoid trying to parcel out lines so that each character gets face time. Always consider whether a line of dialogue must be spoken by this character at this time. Can the line be given by another character or be given at a later time?

I have to use a lot of A said and B said. There just so much action tagging I can do.

I tend to use more saids than action beats. I find it distracting when speakers are repeatedly moving and doing things. I prefer to use action beats when I want a break in the flow of dialogue. Said feels less disruptive, while an action beat is a way to replace, "Al paused." or ellipses breaks. It is also useful when a character enters or leaves the conversation or simply does not reply.

Tolkien's novel may be marked down by an examination board for its repetition of 'said

Most of the advice I have seen says to primarily use said over more colorful synonyms.

I can't cite any examples of three character dialogue, but if it is necessary for the scene, then I believe the reader will accept it, even with a lot of dialogue tags.

 

[Yozh]

Another good example from Tolkein is in the very beginning of FOTR where he uses tavern gossip to give background on the circumstances and reputations of Bilbo and Frodo. It’s conversation between five people and interjections from the general crowd.

One gets the feeling that the author wrote out everything he wanted to be said, then divided it among the number of speakers that made for good flow, then invented a character for each speaker— these are major characters in the book, just townsfolk and tavern guests.

I think it works because each speaker is giving a different perspective, and because it is the conversation that predominate the text, such descriptions as there are of the characters tell the reader about speakers relations to each other, no physical descriptions or action tags. This might be harder to pull off in close third.

 

[HareBrain]

I tend to use more saids than action beats. I find it distracting when speakers are repeatedly moving and doing things. I prefer to use action beats when I want a break in the flow of dialogue. Said feels less disruptive, while an action beat is a way to replace, "Al paused." or ellipses breaks. It is also useful when a character enters or leaves the conversation or simply does not reply.

It's especially useful to use an action beat rather than a tag when a character speaks who is not the one the reader expects.

For example, characters A and B exchange a few lines and then C says something. If A had been the previous speaker, the reader might well assume this line is from B. If they read it as B, and then get to a dialogue tag revealing it's C instead, this will jar. Better to preface C speaking with an action beat from them.

(Now I've typed that out, maybe that's included in what you mean by a character entering a conversation.)

 

[ColGray]

My goto with any dialogue questions are Mamet and Sorkin and how to solve the problem has a lot to do with the structure of the scene. Assuming dialogue needs to sound natural, declare stakes (Characters are speaking because one wants X from another character) and use subtext (via reference and foreshadowing), then I'd break it down into structures:

1v1v1
Each character is there for their own reasons and they're trying to get something out of another character with no character seeking information from the same person as another character (1 wants something from 2, 2 wants something from 3, 3 wants something from 1).

Lots of tags, but ideally you can use pronouns to your benefit (2 men, 1 woman, etc).

Power dynamics are super important in this style and can and should shift as short term alliances/overlapping wants form and break.

Oftentimes these scenes work as like 1v1 with 1 on the sideline for a bit, then the active 1v1 shifts, then again, then again. Dialogue tags work, but emoting and motions can do some heavy lifting.

"blah blah," he said.
X rolled her eyes.
"Blah? No, blah blah."
"But blah--"
"No, you blah!" she hissed, her eyes flashing dangerously.
"Woah, blah blah," z rose, arms outstretched in gesture of placation. "We all want blah blah."
"I don't want blah."
"If you knew what was good for you, X, you'd want blah!

1v2
Two characters want something from the third character. They may or may not be working together explicitly but they, roughly, want the same thing. Think, good cop, bad cop v suspect

Fewer tags as one speaker on the duo can take the lead, with the other person emoting a lot-- X said, and Y grimaced/nodded/threw a ball at the wall. This can swap around.

Power dynamics are interesting -- leader+follower vs opponent or something else?

1v1v1 / 1v2 and changes to 2v1 / 1v1v1
Starts off one way and revelations cause the nature of the conversation to shift to a different structure.

Power dynamics shift and evolve. The flow is critical.


1v1+1
Two people are having a conversation and third person is talking to someone else and we hear their side of the dialogue. Mamet is the master of this--Glen Gary Glenross has a bunch of scenes where there's a conversation in the office and someone's on the phone. Gives a ping-pong effect to the conversation, creates movement and tension in the scene -- The duo's conversation pauses for reasons and we hear the phone call, which gives us a spoonful of subtext.

3v offscreen
The heist plan. Someone is narrating the goal and the impediments to that goal and the group contributes their thoughts on how they achieve the off-screen thing. Any group narratives are probably good -- Oceans 11, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc,

 

[ColGray]

is another great example (and funny)

 

[Righmath]

Dialog between two people can be snappy and effective. I find myself with 3+ people in most scenes and I am finding dialog hard. The most elementary problem is tagging. I have to use a lot of A said and B said. There just so much action tagging I can do. Should I strive to have all but two people actually talking at a time? Should I have two people speaking as a block (a series of back and forths) and then the third person comes in while one of the original speakers goes quiet?

I think what would be useful to me would be examples you all know of where 3+ speakers are handled well, so I can study them.

Thanks!

I frequently have 3+ people interacting with one another. I usually negate who is speaking by illustrating person X's feelings, expressions or interacting with nearby objects.

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

I think scenes with multiple characters talking read better if they're not just a wall of dialogue with tags. Ann Leckie does this rather well in the "Ancillary" trilogy which I'm reading at the moment. She'll describe expressions, emotions, characters moving around within a scene, business with props and background details, all interspersed with short exchanges of dialogue. Instead of a bunch of names chattering in a void, the conversation feels grounded in solid reality. Makes the choice of dialogue tags less obtrusive, too.

(now I just need to learn to do that myself!)

 

[Luiglin]

Not everyone speaks the same. We all have our quirks in what we say and how we say it.

For example, I live an area of the Midlands called the Black Country. We have our own unique slang like anywhere else on the globe. Yet, even in my area there are variations. I can tell someone who comes from one town to the next - even if it's only a mile up the road.

Establishing this early on could help without resorting to said and continually using names - think, you don't often hear a conversation where names are continually used.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think a lot of it comes down to taking control of the scene, by which I mean having a strong idea of what everyone is doing as well as saying. Often dialogue scenes are only there to impart the information of the conversation and it's easy to forget what's happening physically and where everybody is. If there is a group of characters, some might be more involved in the discussion than others.

A description like "Clara stood back from the table, watching the others" implies that Clara won't be very active in the conversation. If she does get involved, it will have to be made clear that she's now pitching in, and because she's been quiet so far, a reader may expect that her contribution will be important or specific to her. In terms of using "said" or longer descriptions, I think once it's been established who of the group is talking, you can probably revert to "said" etc for those particular people - until someone else starts talking.

One method might be to have a general-purpose hero character leading the discussion ("Right, guys, here's the plan") with specialists chipping in appropriately ("Sure boss, I can pick police locks"). Obviously it helps if characters interject in ways that reflect their personalities or expertise.

If people are doing some kind of group action instead of just sitting about (walking to the same place, eating a meal etc, they can do character-appropriate things that will help distinguish them.

 

[Astro Pen]

Yes, three way conversations are seldom 'balanced'. It tends to be a dialogue with the third party observing and interjecting occasionally to introduce an element.
Think maybe of a fundamental two position conversation with an alternative position being thrown into the mix. Useful, sometimes, as a 'get out' to de-escalate conflict in the main dialogue.

"Hmm, a good point Jeremy, I don't think either of us had considered that."

 

[msstice]

A description like "Clara stood back from the table, watching the others" implies that Clara won't be very active in the conversation. If she does get involved, it will have to be made clear that she's now pitching in, and because she's been quiet so far, a reader may expect that her contribution will be important or specific to her

That is actually quite elegant: a bit like "the character exits the room" but only for the purposes of conversation - they could be hearing everything, or not, if they are not paying attention.

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

A three-way conversation can also evolve from one that's mainly between A and B to one that's mainly between A and C (or B and C). Often with some stage business / fiddling with props to seperate the different phases.

...
"Hmm, a good point Jeremy, I don't think either of us had considered that."

Come to think of it, that's quite a good way of indicating the speaker: have someone address them in the next or previous line of dialogue.