Writing Narrative vs Writing Dialogue Copyright 2001, Michael LaRocca http://free_reads.tripod.comOne of
nice things about being an author is that we can break any rule we want. (I just did.) It’s part of our job description. Language changes through usage -- definitions, spelling, grammar -- and authors can help it do this. But on
other hand, we have to have some sort of agreement on
language or we won’t be able to talk to each other.
When we as authors break a rule or two, it’s not because we’re ignorant. It’s because we have reasons to break them. That’s one of
joys of writing.
Having said that, now I’m going to explain some rules. There are two types of writing in your novel. There is your narrative and there is your dialogue. The rules for
two are not
same.
For example, comma use. In dialogue, it’s not so difficult. Put in a comma wherever your speaker pauses in his/her speaking. In narrative, you have to consult
style guides and hope that you and your editor, working as a team, can sort it all out.
NARRATIVE
A cop thriller like my Vigilante Justice has a simple set of rules for
narrative portion. Third-person, straightforward writing, light on adjectives and adverbs, easy to read and grammatically correct. Sentence fragments are acceptable if communication is achieved, and you’ll note that I use them often in this article. Why? Simply because it’s more effective that way.
To a degree
genre will help you identify what’s appropriate. For a cop drama, write in
dry style of a journalist. For horror, a bit of hyperbole may be acceptable in
most dramatic sections. For romance (not my genre), you can probably use lots more adjectives (swollen, heaving, throbbing, etc.) than you’d normally dare.
When I wrote Rising From The Ashes,
true story of Mom raising my brother and I alone, I tried to adopt a “childlike voice” early in
narrative. As
character of Michael
storyteller grew older, I abandoned that childlike quality. (An entire book of that would get old fast anyway.)
When I wrote An American Redneck In Hong Kong,
humorous sequel, I once again used first person narrative. But
narrative of Rising is first person only in that it uses “I” instead of “Michael.” It still follows all
rules of “conventional” narrative. In Redneck, I threw most of
rules out
window.
I used what one author referred to my as “conversational” tone to maximum effect in Redneck. This fellow author felt like he wasn’t so much reading my book as just listening to me tell some stories over a few beers. That’s exactly what I wanted.
In Rising, while I was
“first person” character, I wasn’t really
book’s focus. In Redneck, I am. Center stage, in
spotlight. Using more of a “dialogue” style in what should have been “narrative” allowed me to focus
reader’s attention on
first person to a greater degree than simply describing him ever could. You may love me or you may hate me, but you’ll know me and you’ll laugh at me.
If you want to see such a technique used to maximum effect, I recommend A Monk Swimming by Malachy McCourt. (I read it after writing Redneck, by
way.) It’s about an actor who gets drunk and does very bad things to himself and his family, and it’s amazing just how much I laughed out loud reading about it. Doesn’t sound like a funny subject, does it? It’s not, and yet it is, thanks to his unconventional narrative style.
To tell you
truth, I don’t even think McCourt “wrote” that book. I think he just said it all into a tape recorder and transcribed it later. It reads that much like “a guy at
pub telling a tale.” If he used
grammar checking function in MSWord, I bet it underlined every sentence. And, bright fellow that he is, he ignored them all and didn’t change a word.
If you’re going to use a more conversational tone in your narrative, don’t think that means you just write something down and don’t have to edit it. You still have to organize your thoughts, and that means rewriting. While your style may be unconventional, you have to make
ideas easy for
reader to follow.
(I’m not entirely serious when I say McCourt just spoke into a tape recorder, and even if he did that doesn’t mean
rest of us can get away with it.)
I originally wrote Redneck in chronological order. It worked for Rising, and it works for memoirs and novels in general, right? Well, in
case of Redneck, it was a disaster. Way too much “remember what I said before about…” and so forth. So while it was accurate, and while it was conversational, it stunk. I changed everything to more of a “theme-based” approach and that did
trick. Still conversational and accurate, but organized. The ideas are as easy to follow as
writing style, and that’s always
goal. Ease of reading.
In
case of narrative, you have
choice. If you want to spotlight
storyteller to maximum effect, you can go with first person and let
storyteller’s narrative and his dialogue read
same. If you’d prefer to “move
camera” back a bit, make
narrative conventional in contrast to
dialogue. As a rule, this reader likes contrast, because he gets bored reading
same thing over and over again unless
style is really special. Or perhaps you can find a point somewhere between
two.
Every story has a way that it should be told for maximum effect. Maximum effect in
author’s eyes, of course, as it’s a subjective thing. Keep it in mind as you write. Make
call, stick to it, change it if it’s not working. It might even be okay to be inconsistent, but only if you do so deliberately. Just keep stuff like “ease of reading” and “maximum effect” in mind and go be creative.
DIALOGUE
Have you ever read a book where
narrative and
dialogue read
same? I hope you haven’t. But as an editor I’ve seen such things, and they’re very ugly.
Do you know why they’re so ugly? Because they remind
reader of
one thing an author does not want to remind
reader of. Namely, that every character on
page is a puppet under
author’s control.
As readers, we put that thought aside so we can enjoy reading. “Willing suspension of disbelief,” to quote
phrase an English teacher used when describing
performance of Shakespeare’s plays. If
author ensures that
reader can’t suspend disbelief,
book will not be read. Stilted dialogue is one of
quickest ways to make that happen.
I’ve decided that writing dialogue is
hardest thing we do. It’s certainly not
something we can go look up in a style manual like Strunk or Turabian.
What are
rules? “Make it sound real.” But with
corollary, “not too real because people always say um and er and crap like that.” Oh yeah. That explains everything! End of my article, right?
Nope. I’m still writing it.