How would you like your dialogue -- with or without the garnish?

[Teresa Edgerton]

When it comes to dialogue, do you prefer it to be absolutely realistic?

Realistic except for being less rambling and repetitive (and with all the "ums" and "do you know what I means" taken out)?

More eloquent, flexible, and colorful than it could ever be in real life?

 

[Green]

As long as it feels realistic and it's interesting to read, that's all that counts.

 

[Aliena]

I think it depends on the character, the story, and the setting. Different types of dialogue are appropriate for different things. More formal, larger than life, etc., may be perfect for a certain setting while more casual dialogue may be fitting for another. It's just one small part of a story that makes it good and believable, in my mind.

On that note, though, I was trying to read this one story and the dialogue was full of so much of the culture's slang that it just got really tiresome to me and I had to put the book down. I couldn't get through it. Native expressions here and there to lend to the credibility of the culture is one thing, but I do believe it can be overused!

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'd say dialogue has to pretty much be an expression of character - realistic in terms of grammar use, contractions, slang, cultural reference points, etc.

However, I don't believe there is a chance in hell any non-modernist author can suitably capture the realism of speech without distracting immensely from the construction and flow of any particular scene.

Art as knowing not simply what to put in a work, but also what to leave out.

2c.

 

[GOLLUM]

Like others are saying I think it depends on the character and situation in terms of what dialogue to use. I think I probably prefer a mix of both realism and some level of descriptive or flowery language in the use of dialogue....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I agree with everything that has been said so far -- but I still would vote for a little extra eloquence.

For instance, I doubt that even in the nineteenth century people were able to speak as vividly and expressively as some of Dickens' characters do, but there is no way that I would willingly forfeit some of those fabulous speeches for the sake of a little extra realism. (Although if you offered me a little cash into the bargain ... no, I take that back. Not even then.)

 

[GOLLUM]

I agree with everything that has been said so far -- but I still would vote for a little extra eloquence.

Couldn't agree more although I would argue you can have realism in terms of the "sharpness"" or "astuteness" or "social observation" associated with a comment as well as it being eloquent or well expressed at the same time.... That to me
is superior dialogue.

I think you're referring more to realism in terms of the language used rather than the content as such Kelpie? but the above example is what I define as good dialogue.

 

[Green]

I suppose I should say what I meant by realistic. I guess I really meant believability. As long as I can believe the character would say something like that (in terms of context and setting as well as anything else), then I'll swallow it. If it's a huge speech about their favourite aunty, then I'm not gonna like it, no matter how eloquent they are. But eloquence does add to the interest factor.

 

[Brys]

Generally realistic - not over the top, with ums, because ironically Pratchett probably has some of the most realistic dialogue, but I wouldn't say it's the best. It has to be believable, in the setting. Sometimes making speeches is just about alright - it makes sense for example with Aragorn talking to the Men of Gondor and Rohan trying to psych them for battle, but if it was just in a more or less ordinary situation, it'd just be really annoying. Eloquence only makes sense for certain characters. I think you can't put too much flowery language into dialogue and still make it believable, because most people, even the best writers, don't use the same range of vocabulary offhand when speaking as they do when writing, and their character most likely isn't going to be a writer, either.

 

[ravenus]

Generally I think humor and flamboyance go well together in dialog i.e. an extravagant style of dialog sounds more acceptable when in a humorous vein...Dickens, Wodehouse etc. made great use of this in their good works.

 

[Culhwch]

I'd agree with most of what's been said here. It comes down to context, as with most things. The writer has to sell it, garnish or no, and the way to do that is to be true to the character, the setting, the situation and so on.

 

[nixie]

I like little extra eloquence,there is something very irrating about a book where all characters seem to use the same mode of speech,ie commoner speaks like noble or vice versa or when people of different regions meet and theres no variant in lanuage or dialouge.Some characters you expect a formality in their speech others you would expect to use slang,Hope this make sense.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, yes, I am talking about things that a character would have said, given the time to gather his or her thoughts and edit them a bit -- as opposed to things they would never have said in a million years. I do hate it when characters are just a mouthpiece for the writer -- either to express his or her opinions or just to show off.

So when I say a little extra eloquence, I mean the heightened reality factor that has to go into fiction to compensate for all the things that have to be condensed or left out.

On the other hand, that's partly just my way of rationalizing my own personal preference, because I am obsessed with language and love to read about characters who use it well. Ravenus mentions P. G. Wodehouse. As far as I'm concerned, the main reason to read Wodehouse (and I'm a big fan) is the dialogue rather than the rambling and rather contrived plots.

But I also wonder whether the modern trend toward rapid-fire dialogue limited to short pithy sentences and lots of back-and-forth is any more realistic, any more representative of how actual people speak to each other most of the time? I do recognize the art in writing such dialogue and admire those who can do it, but I wonder if it's not as much a literary convention (one that we're all so familiar with that we don't question it) as, say, a Shakespearean soliloquy?

 

[Foxbat]

I'm a sucker for Shakespeare so I suppose that's the literary equivelant of smothering your french fries in ketchup. Garnish? Yes please (as long as the information doesn't get lost along the way)

 

[Princess Ivy]

This is an issue which came to a head for me a few years ago, working with recorded calls, we were sometimes asked for transcipts. the first transcript of one of my own calls was horrific, all the ums, ah's and half cut off words. I found it very difficult to read, and i personaly clean up my own characters dialogue (although this isn't one of my own strong suites). I also find it very difficult to read dialogue written in regional accents. As a reader i'm prepared to suspend belief over things like that, for the sake of the ease of reading.

 

[kyektulu]

I like my dialouge in my books to be extravogant and meaningful as possible.
I do like the odd bit of humour and do try to be as accurate as possible in my work (which usually means quite a bit of reasearch on aincent cultures).
Yet im aiming for a wide audience so I keep the ramblings, repetativeness and slang out.
I am a fantasy writer so keeping it realistic dosent come into my work really!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

As phrased, that's a pretty sweeping statement, kyektulu.

I'm a fantasy writer, too, and a concern for certain kinds of realism does come into my work. I could reel off a whole list of fantasy writers who would (who have, actually) said the same.

Perhaps you meant "AND keeping it realistic doesn't come into my work"?

 

[ajdecon]

But I also wonder whether the modern trend toward rapid-fire dialogue limited to short pithy sentences and lots of back-and-forth is any more realistic, any more representative of how actual people speak to each other most of the time? I do recognize the art in writing such dialogue and admire those who can do it, but I wonder if it's not as much a literary convention (one that we're all so familiar with that we don't question it) as, say, a Shakespearean soliloquy?

What's even more interesting (though slightly OT) is how manners of speech in the media transition into normal people's speech. I'm not just talking about well-known phrases being quoted, like "Beam me up, Scotty!", but about the way people talk. I notice a lot of people trying to be more witty, for example, when a comedy is the top movie in the country. Being terse comes into fashion for tough guys on the street when Arnold makes a movie.

God help us, I even noticed people trying to talk like Buffy at the height of the show's popularity...

 

[Carolyn Hill]

God help us, I even noticed people trying to talk like Buffy at the height of the show's popularity...

Although I know that this thread is about dialogue in novels, I must admit that I love the dialogue in Buffy and Joss Whedon's other shows (and, for that matter, on the nonSFF Gilmore Girls)--snappy, witty, word play. When I read that sort of dialogue in an urban fantasy novel or science fiction work set in contemporary times, I enjoy it nearly as much.

And yes, I agree with Teresa's comment about such dialogue being as much a matter of convention as a Shakespeare soliloquy.

 

[fungi from Yuggoth]

Mostly, I don't really care so long as it's clear to me that the author has taken a conscious and deliberate choice to lay out his dialogue in a specific style. I do find the more flowery dialogue to work best in a humorous or light-hearted setting; Ernest Bramah is a good example.