Dialogues in VN

[tigerrenko]

Hi,

Im a teacher of creative writing and published author of insignificant relevance. However, I decided to write this in order to help all those who write for VN. What made me write this post was cringeworthy dialogues I often encounter.

Dialogue is of the main tools of VN narration. There is big temptation to make dialogues real. It is supposed to make them authentic, believable and flowing. This method, sadly, makes very long, boring and uninformative text.

Dialogues are supposed to be realistic, not real. To give impression of real speech, not transcripts of real talk.

Why is that? Because VNs are art. Art-ificial. In drama, novel or any other writing, dialogues are part of art, part of invented story. Their goal is to let the characters speak, but as part of art piece dialogues have role of narration. They need to be part of the story, part of the story's dynamic. They need to be believable AND informative. They push the story forward. Real dialogues tend to be too long, filled with "static" and "noise". This imperative for dialogue to be both authentic AND artificial makes dialogue writing tough job indeed.

Next time you get desire to write pages and pages of dialogue for a single scene, think of the meaning you want to convey. Usually, this little effort can make your dialogues more compact while keeping the flow and natural tone. Beware of dialogues becoming a banter, becuase without clear idea what information a dialogue is passing on to reader, banter can kill a story, stunt it's growth and slow it's dynamic. You get "natural" talk but tradeoff is bad story, bad pacing, not much excitement for the player...

cheers
TR

[Caveat Lector]

I might know what you're referring to, but I can't be entirely certain. Can you please gives us an example of what kind of dialogue is realistic vs. real? Not necessarily specific examples from specific VN's, but I mean, like, in general. You refer to banter, but what else is there?

[Mad Harlequin]

I might know what you're referring to, but I can't be entirely certain. Can you please gives us an example of what kind of dialogue is realistic vs. real? Not necessarily specific examples from specific VN's, but I mean, like, in general. You refer to banter, but what else is there?

Obviously I'm not the OP, so I can't say I know what is meant here, but I think I have an idea. "Real" dialogue is long winded and full of pauses, while "realistic" dialogue is not. Yes? No?

In any case, this conception of dialogue isn't accurate at all.

[tigerrenko]

Sure thing... I can provide small examples...

BAD DIALOGUE: REAL VS REALISTIC

R: Umm... Let's see... ahem
N: So? C'mon, speak up!
R: Let me think... umm...
N: Oh, crap, and you call yourself a writing teacher!

CONTRA: So, in order to become real and authentic, poor writers often resort to copying mannerism of the way we talk. Note the 'umm...'s and 'ahem' and 'let me think...' Also poor writers overuse curses and slang words.

PRO: Sometimes in order to give specific way of speaking to a character one will need to employ peculiar words. Sometimes pacing of dialogue needs to be slowed down... but this technique should be used as spice, not as main course...

BAD DIALOGUE: REAL VS ARTISTIC

R: Hi.
N: Hallo.
R: How are you?
N: Fine, thanks and you?
R: Very well, thank you. How is your mom?
N: Oh, she is also fine. She sent regards. Also you should visit her this week.
R: Oh.
N: Yes?
R: Didn't think a week has already passed...
N: Time flies by.
R: Yea, true.
N: So?
R: So... oh yes.. I wanted to talk to you.
N: to me?
R: Yes, to you.
N: So... talk...
R: Alright... what I wanted to tell you
N: Yes?
R: So... the thing is... the main thing, what I want to say is...
N: Yes?
R: The dialogues which are bad, that is... poorly written... usually are dragged out with a lot of unimportant information...
N: Like... there was lot of useless chatter before conversation even started.
R: The usual, polite stuff people actually DO talk about...
N: Yes, bu it is quite pointless and unnecessary in dialouge...
R: You mean, dialogue should be short and to the point
N: I didn't say that, but do cut to the chase, like... let's do a take two..
(take 2)
R: Hi, I wanted to tell you about dialogue
N: Shoot.
R: Cut off the 'static' and 'chatter' keep it straight and to the point... dialogue moves story forward or fleshes out character via their opinions and actions...
N: Will not make the dialogue too robotic?
R: No, just watch the gorramn movies, you never see someone say 'bye' or 'see ya' or 'have a nice day' unless its a romance movie and we need that extra seconds of young lovers-to-be smiling at each other, lingering...
N: What you mean to say is, dialogue should be like the rest of our writing... tight and well constructed so that nothing could be added or deleted withoug breaking the whole..
R: Bingo!

CONTRA: As you see, a lot of VNs I read has this 'chatter' problem. Of course people do say 'hi' and 'umm' but don't copy live talk, cut to the chase. Dialogue is a narrative element, not a recorded conversation of imaginary characters...

PRO: As with 'bye's and 'fare well's of romance novels, real talk could be used in specific circumstances so rare that its safest to avoid it altogether. (hint if you dont know which those circumstances are, don't even try to use this as a method).

BAD DIALOGUE: BANTER

R:Did you see the game on sunday?
N: Oh, man. I missed it.
R: Shame it was awesome. McMiller took three strikes and one dozen score.
N: I had to go visit my girlfriend, she is in the hospital.
R: Old Mac really nailed it, at his first strike he whacked no less than four scores at once, with inverted offside flip. Man! You simply had to be there to believe it!
N: Damn, four scores, that's even better than Gook O'Riley's tally from last season!
R: Exactly!

CONTRA: In order to keep the conversation authentic, poor writer will drown important info with some colorful banter. Like, audience couldnt care less about McMiller's score in the sunday's game of Whack-a-Mole, they are interested to know about drama, about sick gf, etc...

PRO: As hinted here, drowning improtant stuff in banter is only plausible when it is used for comedic purposes or if author wants to cleverly disguise some important notions as banter. Cleverly is the key word here...

Hope this sheds more light to MY banter, and I will try to post some more explanantions and examples later....

[trooper6]

BAD DIALOGUE: REAL VS ARTISTIC

On the other hand, Harold Pinter is a master of using mundane dialogue that is repetitive and "content free" to build a wonderfully menacing air of danger and dread. I loved the way he handled dialogue in The Room.

I tend to think an author can do anything if what they do, they do for a purpose and with intention.

[tigerrenko]

I tend to think an author can do anything if what they do, they do for a purpose and with intention.

Exactly! Sometimes authors try to copy style of masters such is Pinter. No shame to try, but arm yourselv with knowledge and skill!

Cheers
TR

[YossarianIII]

Hi,

Dialogues are supposed to be realistic, not real. To give impression of real speech, not transcripts of real talk.

I am not a teacher and I am an unpublished author of insignificant relevance, but I completely agree with the OP. This approach to dialogue is common advice, but it's common because it's so good. (Or at least, it's helped me as a writer, FWIW.)

You could argue that this advice about dialogue is really just a variation on one of the most famous pieces of writing advice of all-time, from Strunk & White: "Omit needless words."

[Mad Harlequin]

BAD DIALOGUE: REAL VS ARTISTIC

This is merely a question of bad writing versus good writing, not whether dialogue is more or less "real." (That's what my earlier statement means, for the record.) A properly written dialogue will have pauses where required. Banter is sometimes necessary, as is swearing.

In fact, listening to people actually speaking is essential to writing good dialogue.

You could argue that this advice about dialogue is really just a variation on one of the most famous pieces of writing advice of all-time, from Strunk & White: "Omit needless words."

It's not so much a variation as it is a misnomer.

[Caveat Lector]

Also poor writers overuse curses and slang words.

What exactly is wrong with having characters use swear words and slang words? Depending on the setting, I don't think it would be "bad dialogue" to have a character swear or use slang. Like, say, in a high school setting (which many VN's are set in anyway). Or in a very relaxed, casual, informal setting. Or in a stressful situation. Etc.

[CupCakeComedy]

Also poor writers overuse curses and slang words.

What exactly is wrong with having characters use swear words and slang words? Depending on the setting, I don't think it would be "bad dialogue" to have a character swear or use slang. Like, say, in a high school setting (which many VN's are set in anyway). Or in a very relaxed, casual, informal setting. Or in a stressful situation. Etc.

Is not a problem, if done for a pourpose, and not as a writer vice. The goal mean everything. If you do some slang because is YOUR fault, is an issue. If you use slang to picture a kind of character, you are correct.
I was reading a series of thriller wrote in the pidgin of a single european island. It was good. But the novelist did that on a pourpose, not 'cause he can't write in a different language.


I want to contribute a little, as I'm an insignificant published guy too (as you can guess, not in an english context XD), and it's an interesting topic.
The main point is really correct. Is not real, but realistic!

This is how I can translate this advice into more manageable points.
AVOID SMALLTALK
People already know themselves, or start with a conflict of deeds, without ceremonies. If your dialogue need premises, the scene is blank.
DIALOGUE IS A CONFLICT
as much as a battle. Someone want to know or obtain something or having a reaction. They didn't talk just 'cause they're here. As battles, they have consequences, maybe in the long terms. If a dialogue don't have consequences, is not worthing reading it at all.
USE INTERNAL DIALOGUE
to have the main character think of what to reply and judge the situation. One error is having people state always the right thing. Have them think and suppose, contradict and evaluate.
PEOPLE TALK WITHOUT WORDS TOO
So you can have a character reply with a gesture, and the other one think of the meaning (secret or explicit).
DIGRESS IS LEGIT.
The girl start to look up above and talk about clouds. She do a metaphora and then continue with the main topic. Japanese writers are very good at that. With digressions you can spice up almost any dialogue, as dialogues are not linear information exchanges.
PEOPLE CREATE PIDGINS
usually, when characters meets more than once, they start to use references, names and a shared lingo. This is a trick japanese novelists use very often. So people can debate about their own reference and enrich a blank dialogue (you surely do that with your friends!).
AVOID GOODBYES.
As dialogues doesn't start with "hello", they doesn't end with "bye". Figure out how the scene can end without ceremonies.

With those tricks you can turn a simple meeting into something fun to read (and fun to write).

[YossarianIII]

@Caveat Lector & Mad Harlequin:

Again, I can't speak for the OP, but I think the key word is "overuse." Swears are great. Good Scorsese-style profanity is, like, the best type of writing.

But you know how sometimes profanity just feels forced? Maybe it doesn't fit the character or maybe it's just a little bit too self-consciously "cool"? That was my interpretation of "overuse," and in my (admittedly limited) experience, what the OP said about realistic vs. real has been a helpful tool for evaluating dialogue to avoid forced-sounding exchanges.

To be clear, I wouldn't follow any of this as a strict, unbreakable rule. It's just another rubric for evaluating your writing that some writers will find helpful.

(For the record, I really enjoy things like, say, mumblecore films in which using tons of "umm.."s and "uh..."s is arguably part of the charm. Also, I like Joss Whedon TV shows, so I definitely can't throw any stones in my glass house when it comes to using lots of slang...)

I think we might be more in agreement than it sounds... it's just a matter of knowing what you want to do and executing it in the best way possible. I agree: listening to people naturally speaking can be a really excellent way to improve your ear for dialogue, and yes, that can include carefully using banter and swears in informal or stressful situations. You just have to make everything count, you know?

[Cith]

Yeah, the OP's nailed a critical point.

Real dialogue is full of bloat and pointless meanderings, whereas scenes have purpose and direction.

Real dialogue have terrible words stuck in for no reason "Like" "I mean" "yeah" "I know" "soooooo" "um" "er" "you know" etc

Real dialogue is terribly mundane and boring, with the same words, imagery, and phrases used over and over ad nauseum.

Dialogue is part of a story, it's in there to serve the story, real dialogue has no such purpose. The aims are different and therefore you should know which bits to replicate and which bits to not. If the purpose of your story is to entertain, then you can cut out all the boring and ugly bits of normal conversation, including the habit of not speaking proper, the dropped words, and the half-finished sentences because "eh, can't be bothered. But I'll add that profanity at the end and completely screw up my sentence because, well... ***** the idea of making sense."

You listen to real dialogue to better understand people and humanity, but I wouldn't carbon-copy an average person's speech mannerisms in most stories. HOWEVER, I think I remember an author writing a piece of literature where they sought to emulate real dialogue in their work for artistic reasons, but do remember that literature as a genre doesn't really sell well (compared with genre fiction.)

I suppose it depends on what the purpose of your story is *shrugs.*

[trooper6]

To add more positivity to the OP.

I would like to point out that not all people use lots of filler words...overuse "umms..." and "Likes..." and so it is not necessarily realistic to throw all those things into a dialogue. I think if often doesn't work...because it doesn't ring true.

If you overheard my best friend and I talking...it would be to the point and sleek. Indeed, some things might be less bloated because we know each other well and have a history with each other, so we can cut out extraneous words.

Anyway, what I mean to say is that sloppy writing is often not only sloppy, but also often not even realistic.

[Cith]

Indeed, some things might be less bloated because we know each other well and have a history with each other, so we can cut out extraneous words.

That's an interesting point I'd like to expand on. There was a study conducted (I'd like to say in the "in the US", but I'll settle for "somewhere") which linked the use of discourse markers (like, I mean etc but NOT um or ah) to conscientious people desiring to rephrase opinions to listeners. I’m pointing it out because if this is true, then people would most likely drop those when talking to their besties

The other filler words... don't know much about.

[Mad Harlequin]

@Caveat Lector & Mad Harlequin:

Again, I can't speak for the OP, but I think the key word is "overuse." Swears are great. Good Scorsese-style profanity is, like, the best type of writing.

I know. I'm not disputing that. I just think the advice here is being expressed as a false paradigm.

Dialogue is a narrative element, not a recorded conversation of imaginary characters.

Actually, it's both.

I think we might be more in agreement than it sounds... it's just a matter of knowing what you want to do and executing it in the best way possible. I agree: listening to people naturally speaking can be a really excellent way to improve your ear for dialogue, and yes, that can include carefully using banter and swears in informal or stressful situations. You just have to make everything count, you know?

We are. I'm just of the opinion that labeling these instructions for dialogue as a matter of "real versus realistic" is more arbitrary than helpful. One reason good dialogue is considered good dialogue is because it's real to the ear. It'll probably have fewer pauses than real-life speech does, but that's not something that makes it less or more real---the characters just have the benefit of speaking words that fit a certain pace, as designated by the playwright). Most natural pauses---"er"s, "um"s, and the like---will, of course, be removed, as time can't be wasted on stage.

And yet there are many examples of great plays in which the characters pause often or seem to ramble too much.

Would Walter's speech to his son in Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun be nearly as effective, or as memorable, if it didn't include as much dreaming? No. Sure, you could probably remove some of it, to cut to the chase, but that would be a disservice to Walter's character.

As hinted here, drowning important stuff in banter is only plausible when it is used for comedic purposes or if the author wants to cleverly disguise some important notions as banter.

Including lots of banter or discussion between characters doesn't necessarily torpedo a scene. If you have any doubts about that, I urge you to watch, or read, Robert Harling's Steel Magnolias. The characters' exchanges are often funny, but they aren't there just for comedy's sake or to push the plot forward---they establish what the characters are like, and make them into real people.

Good dialogue will be real to the audience if it helps the characters speaking it seem real, no matter what the particulars are within the script.